ORANGE COUNTY VOICES FIRE SAFETY : Cities Must Act to Reduce Danger : Unless nonflammable roofs are required and brush-clearance programs are begun in impacted areas, we are on a countdown to catastrophe.

What do the names Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, Belleau Wood and Khe Sahn conjure up to most people? They are recalled as battlegrounds. What about Bel Air, Paseo Grande, Panorama, Sycamore Canyon and Santa Barbara? They were battlegrounds, too. They were sites of major California fires over the last 30 years.

In one case, the battle was over freedom. In the other, it is a conflict over standards for public safety. Nations want peace and liberty; human nature wants safety. There is a correlation. Just how much liberty should one person have if it endangers the lives and property of others?

In California, we have to deal with this relationship sooner or later. The clock is ticking away on a potential catastrophe. It is being measured by the policies and practices of local communities in planning their common fire defenses.

Back in the 1950s, Rexford Wilson, a fire protection consultant, visited Los Angeles. He wrote a treatise entitled “Designed for Disaster.” What Wilson described was the first definition of the “urban-wildland” interface problem. Several years later, we experienced the disaster he predicted--the Bel Air fire-- which was the beginning of many such disastrous blazes.

Over the last 30 years, we have had a legacy of fire losses that are truly tragic. Moreover, we can predict that we are going to have more--unless we change one or more elements of the formula that causes such disasters.

We cannot change the weather, basic topography, or the drought. We can, however, plan contingencies by creating physical barriers to the rampant spread of these fires.

Among the tools that are needed are non-combustible roof ordinances in impacted areas and reasonable efforts to clear the highly flammable brush in wildland areas. Once a city suggests adopting either, however, there is a hue and cry that this reduces “design freedom and destroys the environment.” One architect arguing the case against a roof ordinance earlier this year in Santa Barbara stated, “You are taking away one of the colors of my palette.” How about the color black? It replaces all colors when you destroy the property and ground cover.

The problem is, we can’t wait much longer to enact such requirements. If we do not deal with this issue effectively in the next decade, most fire professionals will agree that we may see a conflagration of epic proportions someday. Are these predictions too harsh? Are the actions requested by fire officials too Draconian?

Well, let’s look at our most recent experience last June. According to Fire Marshal Michael T. Bennett of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, they lost 43 dwellings, 10 businesses and 10 public structures within a few short hours. We didn’t even have time to send mutual aid there to help before most losses had occurred.

There was one fatality. Bennett, who was also at the Sycamore Canyon fire of July 26, 1977, indicated that the fire developed so rapidly, there was no possibility of any manned firefighting forces being able to be totally responsible for the protection of all of the structures. The fire was like an invading army that took no prisoners.

Yet, common sense had prevailed in some of the planning stages in Santa Barbara, and losses were reduced. For example, on the front lines of the fire, near the point of origin, one new tract with brush clearance and higher levels of fire retardant roofs and other code requirements, weathered the onslaught. Only five out of 20 homes were lost in this area. Farther down the canyon, older homes with combustible roofs disappeared like leaves in an incinerator.

After each and every one of these fires, we always have a critique. Usually, we talk about the lessons we learned. But these fires are not about learning. The fire is the test; and we better be prepared.

In 1988, our state fire marshal established a new criteria for fire retardant roofing. Unfortunately, this requirement does not apply to all areas and municipalities. The question remains: Will our cities take action? If our policy leaders don’t deal with the decisions, we are neglecting the future. If we allow special interests, such as the red cedar shake industry, to hold cities and counties hostage over these economic concerns, we are compromising public safety. The recent attorney general’s opinion that reportedly restricts local agencies from adopting more stringent requirements has been cited by some of these special interests as the reason this can’t be done. Are we taking the position that special interests are more important than the public interest?

In the early days of this state’s history, Richard Henry Dana reported that the Indians used to burn off ground cover to improve forage, but we can’t do that any more. Our earliest settlers used tile roofs because they recognized the tenuous relationship between man and nature.

According to Bob Burns, consultant for the Fire Safe Roofing Committee, some 283 cities have roofing ordinances more stringent than the Uniform Building Code requirements. We should have 100% if we really wish to keep California from becoming the fire loss capital of the industrialized world.