Posted on 10/26/2007 2:14:13 PM PDT by dirtboy
A disputed land-use strategy designed to protect new developments from devastation in the county's exurban, fire-prone areas appears to have passed its first and most critical test this week.
As the Witch Creek fire raced through some of San Diego County's priciest neighborhoods and crept to the edge of others north and east of Rancho Santa Fe, not a single home in the five subdivisions that have implemented the strategy was lost, fire authorities said.
The communities, which together cover hundreds of acres, are The Bridges, The Crosby, Cielo, Santa Fe Valley and 4S Ranch.
Officials with the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District credit the lack of property damage to a defensive program called “shelter in place.” It is a wildfire protection plan that imposes construction and landscaping standards intended to be so stringent – including mandatory interior fire sprinklers and broad swaths of protective landscaping – that homeowners can remain sheltered in their houses if they cannot evacuate.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Doesn't exactly sound like rocket science to me--just basic application of common sense.
“Shelter in place doesn't change the fact you're building in a danger zone,” said anti-sprawl activist Duncan McFetridge, president of Save Our Forest and Ranchlands.
The field hippies aren't known for applying common sense ... it's against their religion.
This “shelter in place” property preservation strategy should be implemented by everyone in fire-prone areas whether the standard was incorporated by the builder, or not.
Maybe leave off the INTERIOR sprinkler system; they can be a huge expense to retrofit them into existing construction, but definitely do the non-combustible roofing, and keep advancing the green landscaping out away from the house to the 100 foot mark.
Even if you’re in a modern tract home development where you can knock on your neighbor’s window by reaching out through yours, capture as much of this concept as possible by working with neighbors, and (probably) your HOA to get irrigated landscaping put in beyond your back fence (which had better not be made of wood).
Even as far back as the late 1960’s, a neighbor of mine in pre-development boom Anaheim Hills (heck, it wasn’t even known as “Anaheim Hills” back then) had installed sprinklers on top of his shake-roofed home. Any time a fire got to within a half mile, or so, he’d put them to use. You’d think such things would be normal in any new construction in such areas.
It was heartbreaking. Larry Himmel reporting from his burning home in 4S Ranch
He may have lived in 4S Ranch but the map shows part of it outside the red line indicating the safer area. Maybe he lived out side the line.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071025/news_1n25stay.html#
The cost for that system was $10,000. It still seems reasonable, but it isn’t a trivial expense for most people.
If you listen to the first few sentences, he says his house is “JUST OUTSIDE” the 4S Ranch. A little research goes a long way.
If you listen to the first few sentences, he says his house is “JUST OUTSIDE” the 4S Ranch. A little research goes a long way.
Wrong - see #12
A shake-roofed home in Anaheim Hills ? That’s crazy.
You couldn’t get a building permit for a shake roof anywhere in SoCal today. It has to be tile or asphalt shingle.
Hmmmm.... Is he a Journalist? I just don't trust journalists. God forgive me if I am wrong, because my first thought is, "How convenient for him that his house catches on fire at a time like this. And with a camera crew right nearby."
If your house burns you lose not only your house but every piece of furniture, every single piece of clothing, dishes, not to mention keep sakes and irreplaceable family pictures. Yeah, I’d pay $10,000 in a heartbeat. It might even save on your insurance premiums which wouldn’t begin to cover everything you lost anyway.
he said “outside the 4S ranch”
interesting, bmflr
I know a guy who set his neighbor's asphalt shingle roof on fire with fireworks.
Yes, but the environmentalists would probably find it to be illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.