Should development be disallowed in CA's most fire prone hills? (Santa Rosa: insurance, houses)

[MtnSurfer]

There are really two critical questions since so many homes already exist in these areas throughout the state:

1. Should more development be allowed in these highest fire risk areas?

2. Should developers and home owners be allowed to rebuild after total losses to fire in these areas?

This is something some fought against after Santa Rosa's last Tubbs fire. It's also something which PG&E argued in their defense. Specifically, that poor urban planning decisions contributed to the devastation associated with such fires. While PG&E may indeed be at fault in starting the fires, it's hard to deny such decisions were poorly made by city planning commissions and thus contributed to the problems.

In spite of the dangers and 20/20 hindsight after two large historic fires devastating the same area, Santa Rosa decided to allow rebuilding up into their hills again. Here's an interesting article discussing that decision making process: Should development be extinguished on California’s fire-prone hills?

Is there some lesson to be learned from building homes in such high fire prone areas? Will more retardant materials really be enough the next time fire comes raging through?




Source: Reveal News

Derek

[Pure Natural Lifter]

No, the market should remain buy at your own risk.

[Californiaguy2007]

I agree...Because it really is no different from anyone buying or building a home in an area that has Earthquakes,Tsunami's,Floods,Mudslides,Hurricanes, Tornadoes,Etc.

But to be honest if homes are to be built in Fire Risk Areas,they need to start building with Concrete or Brick,and that includes the Roof too.

Originally Posted by Pure Natural Lifter

No,the market should remain buy at your own risk.

[saibot]

Originally Posted by Californiaguy2007

I agree...Because it really is no different from anyone buying or building a home in an area that has Earthquakes,Tsunamis,Floods,Mudslides,Hurricanes,T ornadoes,Etc.

But to be honest if homes are to be built in Fire Risk Areas,they need to start building with Concrete or Brick,and that includes the Roof too.

There is not only justification but precedent for disallowing building in areas that are at extremely high risk for certain natural disasters.

For example, in the Holy fire in September (which was directly behind my house and an area I am very familiar with), a number of old, historical cabins were destroyed. Since those cabins were built many years ago, the area had been designated a flood zone. The existing buildings had been "grandfathered" in, but now the owners of structures that burned down are not being allowed to rebuild because of the high potential for flooding in the area.

[Finper]

Originally Posted by saibot

There is not only justification but precedent for disallowing building in areas that are at extremely high risk for certain natural disasters.

For example, in the Holy fire in September (which was directly behind my house and an area I am very familiar with), a number of old, historical cabins were destroyed. Since those cabins were built many years ago, the area had been designated a flood zone. The existing buildings had been "grandfathered" in, but now the owners of structures that burned down are not being allowed to rebuild because of the high potential for flooding in the area.

I can see where houses burned along the toll road last year. Not one house has been rebuilt it's just empty lots. I don't know why but maybe too dangerous.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

1. Should more development be allowed in these highest fire risk areas?

Yes.

2. Should developers and home owners be allowed to rebuild after total losses to fire in these areas?

Yes.

However:

- None of the rebuilding should be done with state or federal funds.

OR

- If rebuilt with state/federal funds, a city should be required to maintain a defensible space around low/medium density housing (lots of less than 1 acre with no open land between them) of 1/4 mile of cleared land (nothing standing over 4" tall, all trees culled except those under 30', and at least 100' radially around each tree. This must be completed yearly (by manual means or by scheduled back-burns) by June.

That is similar to the requirements on private homeowners in the current system, just with a broader defensible space, but people are not following the rules and fire cities are not/not able to enforce the rules quickly enough when there are violators.

I know, I left my property buried in scrub during the Thomas Fire. The only reason it didn't burn was because of favorable winds that allowed a strike team to back-burn the top of my hill.

I've since cleared my land, but my uphill neighbor has allowed massive tumbleweed regrowth, putting the entire neighborhood below her at risk.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

There are really two critical questions since so many homes already exist in these areas throughout the state:

1. Should more development be allowed in these highest fire risk areas?

2. Should developers and home owners be allowed to rebuild after total losses to fire in these areas?

This is something some fought against after Santa Rosa's last Tubbs fire. It's also something which PG&E argued in their defense. Specifically, that poor urban planning decisions contributed to the devastation associated with such fires. While PG&E may indeed be at fault in starting the fires, it's hard to deny such decisions were poorly made by city planning commissions and thus contributed to the problems.

In spite of the dangers and 20/20 hindsight after two large historic fires devastating the same area, Santa Rosa decided to allow rebuilding up into their hills again. Here's an interesting article discussing that decision making process: Should development be extinguished on California’s fire-prone hills?

Is there some lesson to be learned from building homes in such high fire prone areas? Will more retardant materials really be enough the next time fire comes raging through?




Source: Reveal News

Derek

Should New Orleans have been allowed to rebuild? Knowing that sea level rise is occurring, should people be allowed to build on ocean beachfront? IOW, to state your question more broadly, should people be allowed to build, or rebuild, in the path of known hazards? And if so, why?

Sounds like a nutty thing to allow people to do, to me. If we have city building codes for people's safety, why wouldn't we take the public-safety principle further, to avoid massive destruction and loss of life? What is government's responsibility toward its citizens, that's the crux of the question.

Should logging companies be allowed to clear cut in areas where a landslide could bury a town, as occurred in WA State some years ago? Why are they allowed to clear cut at all?

Is there something wrong with government exercising some foresight to protect citizens? Is it ok for developers to build homes in known floodplains? Should utilities be required to maintain their equipment in good condition, to avoid fires? What is government for, exactly?

[nightlysparrow]

The older houses in the hills may not be able to be rebuilt.

I remember reading a lot of articles after the Malibu fires in 11/2/1993, called the "Old Topanga Fire," when 16,800 acres burned, and 369 homes (268 in Malibu) were destroyed. They said many of the homes could never be rebuilt on the properties where they stood, because of updated building codes including codes against septic tanks, propane usage, fireplaces, foundations, electrical, etc., as well as issues with the land itself having poor access for firefighters or police, unstable ground, risk for landslide, and more..

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Should New Orleans have been allowed to rebuild? Knowing that sea level rise is occurring, should people be allowed to build on ocean beachfront? IOW, to state your question more broadly, should people be allowed to build, or rebuild, in the path of known hazards? And if so, why?

Sounds like a nutty thing to allow people to do, to me. If we have city building codes for people's safety, why wouldn't we take the public-safety principle further, to avoid massive destruction and loss of life? What is government's responsibility toward its citizens, that's the crux of the question.

Should logging companies be allowed to clear cut in areas where a landslide could bury a town, as occurred in WA State some years ago? Why are they allowed to clear cut at all?

Is there something wrong with government exercising some foresight to protect citizens? Is it ok for developers to build homes in known floodplains? Should utilities be required to maintain their equipment in good condition, to avoid fires? What is government for, exactly?

The only real solution is for the Govt to buy all the private property and keep it unoccupied. Can't pass laws to hurt existing property owners in that way.

[eureka1]

The insurance companies will take care of this.