# Laguna Niguel council rejects fire zone



## mark handler (Mar 2, 2012)

Laguna Niguel council rejects fire zone ordinance

Unfunded but state-mandated plan would have put new building code in place in targeted 'fire hazard' area of the city.

Joanna Clay

http://www.coastlinepilot.com/news/tn-cpt-0302-fire-20120301,0,3283514.story

March 2, 2012

The Laguna Niguel City Council on Feb. 21 did not approve implementation of a state-mandated ordinance that would allow the adoption of "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones" in the city.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is required by the state to identify fire-prone areas in cities. The pinpointed area in Laguna Niguel is in the western part of the city, near the Aliso & Wood Canyons Wilderness Park, South Laguna Beach and Dana Point.

The city had 120 days, with a February deadline, to pass the ordinance and adopt the zone. The ordinance would put a new building code in place that would have homeowners adhere to ignition-resistant building standards.

The standards would only apply to new buildings, so it would affect 37 vacant residential parcels in the zone. According to the staff report, the additional costs based on a 2,500-square-foot home could be $2,900 to $8,410.

Council members Linda Lindholm, Joe Brown and Gary Capata all live in the area and recused themselves from the vote. However, Brown was selected to help constitute a quorum so the item could be considered, City Manager Tim Casey said.

Initially, Casey wondered if the council would be able to get the 3-0 majority needed to pass it. But the Feb. 7 council meeting proved that only one member, Joe Brown, was in favor of adopting the ordinance.

Brown said he supported ignition-resistant building and maintaining defensible space. However, he said he did not know if a mandate was required in order to explore those options.

Mayor Paul Glaab, who served on the California Mandate Commission, said he made a "180-degree change" on the issue, due to the fact that it was an unfunded mandate.

Councilman Robert Ming, who has been vocal about his opposition in the past, maintained his stance.

However, Ming said he does think it would be wise to provide homeowners with the necessary information so they can form their own opinions as to how they'd like to build a home in that area.

The law says the ordinance should be adopted in 120 days, however, Casey said there is no written repercussion for a lack of adoption. He called Cal FIRE, but they similarly could not find consequences for not adopting the mandate.

According to the State Controller's Office, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones is listed as a suspended mandate for this fiscal year, halting its required implementation.

Casey concluded that the ordinance would not be passed and devised a motion that stated that the ordinance would come back to the council when the state legislature provided funding or a new council was seated with members who do not live in the zone.

Casey said the city plans to monitor applications for building permits and will provide information on the building code and the fire resistant construction standards, strongly encouraging them to be followed voluntarily.

joanna.clay@latimes.com


----------



## permitguy (Mar 2, 2012)

I thought they had a state-wide building code.  Why wouldn't they just amend the code for these zones instead of forcing all local municipalities to pass special ordinances about building materials in the zones?


----------



## permitguy (Mar 2, 2012)

. . . and how is this an unfunded mandate?  Is the state supposed to pay the extra cost of the building materials because these people want to build in a fire zone?  Last time I checked, the state of FL doesn't kick in the extra cost of all that hurricane strapping.


----------



## beach (Mar 7, 2012)

The CBC requires homes built in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) to comply with CBC chapter 7A (basically, hardened construction to resist wildfires). The SFM is required to provide maps of local responsibility areas (Cities) showing where the VHFHSZ is located, Government Code Section 51175 mandates that all affected cities shall adopt the map within 120 days of receiving the maps from the state. The public is not receiving the news well because they feel the insurance companies will use the maps to raise the homeowners insurance rates, which supposedly, the insurance companies use their own method of calculating risk and the maps were calculated by the state as hazard, not risk.

The "unfunded" opinion stems from the fact that GCS 51175 not only deals with construction of the home, but vegetation management is also included and requires a certain amount of clearing 100 feet around the perimeter of the structure, this will require a lot of enforcement on a yearly basis, not to mention the enforcement of the initial clearing of the property.

The question is, if you don't adopt the map and enforce the requirements as required by the state, and a wildland incident occurs, will the state provide funding?


----------

