Property Development in High Fire Hazard Zones The safety of the

Observations 4

• OB1 Page 9
  The specific allegations of new developments on roads that appear to be deficient according to The complaint was well worth investigating, but we ultimately concluded: the State FSR are correct, but we found no evidence that any of these developments would add material danger to inherently dangerous circumstances.
• OB2 Page 9
  The statutory requirements defined by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding ingress and egress are clear to both fire safety officials and the Grand Jury, but none of the fire safety officials we interviewed said they believed that strict adherence to these regulations would materially benefit first responders or the public.
• OB3 Page 9
  There is enough ambiguity in the language of the State FSR to make it arguable that local permitting officials (and their Supervisors) have the authority to allow mitigating efforts. could The County simultaneously improve public awareness of development in dangerous circumstances while increasing first responder input into permitted development on roads that don’t meet the State standards. Specifically, the Grand Jury believes that Permit Sonoma can achieve both goals by requiring public notice and authoritative review of any development that occurs on a substandard road within the State Responsibility Area. Permit Sonoma has a variety of tools it can apply towards this end, ranging from simply requiring permit applicants to confirm that access roads meet FSR requirements (and propose a mitigation plan if they don’t) to adding FSR non-compliance to the list of conditions that trigger formal Design Review requirements. Permit Sonoma also can formally engage and inform fire safety officials in development of specific mitigation plans and, more importantly, include them in publications that inform the public about these dangerous conditions. Finally, we believe the public interest would be very well served by informing property owners about the inherent dangers of development on roads that will be problematic during wildfires. The County is well equipped to employ GIS technologies (now used to create parcel maps, and also to describe active wildfire boundaries) to map every road in the SRA that doesn’t meet State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations. The public should see for themselves—with graphic depiction—where the risks are, and the improvement in first responder safety will make these recommendations a win for everyone.
• OB4 Page 7
  roads is precluded by law. All Road length limits were a feature of our discussions with fire safety officials, none of whom expressed any additional concern about new development on dead end roads. housing on roads like this (and there are many in the county) is a problem for first responders; however, none of the chiefs we spoke with said restricting new development would materially Issue 4. Exceptions are being granted for minimum road width: improve first responder safety. The FSR language is clear: two-way roads need to be at least 20 feet wide, and one-way roads need to be at least 12 feet wide (and cannot be longer than ½ mile); either way, shoulders are also

Agency Responses 1

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.