Role of Building Officials in Managing the Urban-Wildland Interface

1. Role of Building Officials in Managing the Urban-Wildland Interface

2. California Building Officials (CALBO) • 42 years in California • Representing approx 470 cities and counties • State mandates regulations to be enforced by Local Building Official • Organization acts as liaison between local jurisdictions and State

3. California Building Officials (CALBO) • Local Building Departments perform approx. 95% of inspections • State-wide mutual aid program to assist in post disaster safety assessments • The Local Building Official will be a key player in the rebuilding effort for many years after the fire

4. Benefits of Building Code Based Requirements • Components are in place at all times (24/7/365) • Generally one-time expenditure by builder/homeowner • Generally Not dependant upon outside influences • Wind direction or speed • Temperature and drought conditions • State and local budget climate • Lack of mutual aid resources

5. Building Code Requirements • Class C or better roof assemblies (Class B in Severe Fire Hazard Areas) • Double paned windows • Screened ventilation openings • Chimney spark arrestors • Visible Addresses

6. Available Resources • International Urban-Wildland Interface Code – ICC • Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire - NFPA 1144 • Public Resources Code Sec 4290-91 for state responsibility areas (SRA) • Government Code Sec 51175-89

7. Graduated Scale Based on Hazard Severity (IUWIC Table 502) • Fuel Load (light, medium, heavy) • Frequency of critical fire weather (Santa Ana Winds) • Slope

8. Graduated Scale Based on Hazard Severity OR (IUWIC Appendix C) • Fire access roads (number, width, grade, turnarounds, street signage) • Fuel Types (light, medium, heavy) • Defensible Space & topography

9. Defensible Space YES NO

10. Graduated Scale Based on Hazard Severity (IUWIC Appendix C) cont. • Roofing material • Water Supply • Exterior Construction Material • Underground vs. Aboveground Utilities

11. Ignition-Resistant Construction • Based on Hazard Severity Score (Moderate, High, Extreme) • Modified based on Defensible Space (Nonconforming, Conforming, 1.5 X Conforming) and Water Supply • Result determines need for Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 Ignition-Resistant Construction

12. Class 3 Ignition-Resistant Construction -Least Restrictive • Class C roof covering or assembly • Enclosed underfloor areas or 1 hr. construction • Vents maximum 144 sq. in. and covered with ¼” mesh • Reroofs must meet new code specs if > 25% replacement

13. Class 2 Ignition-Resistant Construction • Class B roof covering or assembly • Enclosed soffits and eaves (min ¾” solid material) • Noncombustible raingutters and downspouts • Noncombustible, 1hr. Fire Resistant or heavy timber Exterior walls • Enclosed underfloor areas or 1 hr./heavy timber construction

14. Class 2 Ignition-Resistant Construction (cont.) • Attached Decks – 1 hr., heavy timber or noncombustible • Exterior doors – solid core, 20 min F.R., or noncombustible (except vehicle access doors) • Vents maximum 144 sq. in. and covered with ¼” mesh • Detached accessory structures (<50’ away) – 1 hr., heavy timber, or noncombustible on exterior side

15. Class 1 Ignition-Resistant Construction – Most Restrictive • Class A roof covering or assembly • Enclosed soffits and eaves (min ¾” solid material) • Noncombustible raingutters and downspouts • Noncombustible, 1hr. Fire Resistant or heavy timber Exterior walls • Enclosed underfloor areas or 1 hr./heavy timber construction

16. Class 1 Ignition-Resistant Construction (cont.) • Attached Decks – 1 hr., heavy timber or noncombustible • Exterior doors – solid core, 20 min F.R., or noncombustible (except vehicle access doors) • Vents maximum 144 sq. in. and covered with ¼” mesh • Detached accessory structures (<50’ away) – 1 hr., heavy timber, or noncombustible on exterior side • Automatic Fire Sprinkler System

17. Implementation Challenges • Jurisdiction’s level of acceptable risk • Willingness to enforce new code requirements for post-fire rebuilding • Threshold of justification for increased requirements (burden of proof) • Lack of knowledge of techniques for mapping high fire hazard areas

18. Implementation Challenges (cont.) • Ability to maintain defensible space over time • Balancing Environmental protection and brush management policies • Establishing stable funding sources; assessment districts, general fund, grants

19. Implementation Challenges (cont.) • Lack of wildfire based fire testing on building materials • Balancing prescriptive requirements against maintaining architectural freedom • Coordination between fire officials, building officials and planners

20. Recommendations • Building Official’s involvement in solution – representation on committees • Utilize International Urban-Wildland Interface Code as framework • Recognize the need for flexibility in enforcement at the local level • Provide training for local building and fire authorities

21. Recommendations (cont.) • Establish long-term financial commitment to implementation • Reconcile conflicts between environmental and brush management agendas before the next major event • Stress performance criteria over prescriptive requirements where possible to allow for architectural freedom

22. Recommendations (cont.) • Promote strong working relationships between Fire, Building, Planning and Environmental groups to enhance communication • Support State Fire Marshal’s fire testing efforts (FEMA grant) • Develop model plan for post-disaster rebuilding

23. Questions?