PERSPECTIVES ON THE FIRES : Dream House or Nightmare? : Unnecessary fire damage will keep happening until there are uniform rules for design, siting and brush clearance.

It didn’t have to happen. Not a single house need have gone up in smoke, along with precious possessions and the sense of place we call home. Politics, money and stubborn reliance on methods that don’t work burned those houses, shattered those lives.

Chaparral fire tragedies do not have to be repeated. We should demand performance. Not of our heroic firefighters; they are supremely competent. But our government leaders must respond to our needs. The policy-makers, politicians and bureaucrats must support sound prevention policies, regardless of the lobbying of manufacturers and the resistance of developers.

The U.S. Forest Service’s Western Region Fire Laboratory in Riverside has demonstrated by computer and other analyses, and by long experience and study of such fires, that the heat of convection and/or radiation from chaparral fires does not ignite structures that are more than about 30 feet away. This means that the extensive, expensive, unreliable and unenforceable brush-clearance policies need to be re-examined in the light of science.

Dick Chase, chief of the lab’s urban interface team, has pointed out that embers from chaparral and other structures and the propagation of fire by fences and other combustibles closer than about 30 feet are responsible for most of the house fires, rather than the fire front itself, despite dramatic appearances. This means a mandate for non-flammable fences or other structures next to the house or close to chaparral; no flammable exterior building materials, such as wood decks, shingles or extensive wood trim, should be permitted, and no means of entry by embers into the house, as through vents, windows or other openings.

Subdivisions need to be designed so that roads, parks and other nonflammable features abut the canyon rims, not houses. Houses hanging over canyons or right next to them are in the greatest danger, and they slow down firefighters and equipment. Good design of the neighborhood-- both lots and houses--can preserve views and the higher prices such aesthetic property commands in the market without the extreme danger to residents, homes and firefighters.

The conventional wisdom has been that safety lies in excessive brush clearance. That may be comforting in its apparent logic, but it is a fatal delusion that distracts us from the more inconvenient reality: that it is our way of building that causes the majority of losses. Compliance with adequate brush clearance requirements is much more likely, and the money and energy diverted from excessive clearance can more than pay for most modifications to structures. Clearance requirements in excess of 30 feet should have scientific justification.

If subdivision and building design are modified to meet the realistic requirements of safety in the inevitable chaparral fire, any future losses will be true accidents rather than made-to-order disasters. It’s almost that simple.

It would be simple if it weren’t for politics. But it isn’t entirely or even ultimately the fault of the politicians and bureaucrats, or even the vested interests. As the great Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and they is us!”

We buy fantasy, not reality. To sell houses in a stiffly competitive market, builders must offer, above all, a dream. Spacious wood decks, rustic wood fences, shake roofs, gingerbread. But to survive, builders must offer not only a dream that sells; it has to sell at a profit. Often, that means low-cost construction, for a cosmetically expensive “look.” To minimize costs and remain competitive, a builder can’t stay in business if the competition isn’t required to build in fire safety, too.

Builders need a level playing field, and that means consistent policies across jurisdictional boundaries. That means state legislation, not just a take-it-or-leave-it “uniform” building code. But it must be sensible--clear, strict, simple. Just enough to get the job done.

Simple as this seems, our governmental officials can’t do this without broad support--enough to counter the power of the vested interests. That means that public concern must not cool down as soon as the last fires are out.