Planning and Development Issues

The Curry County Natural Hazard Plan identifies growth and development in the Wildland Ur-ban Interface as an issue: “This mix provides a recipe for disaster with the varying housing structures, the age of these structures and applicable building codes limited developmental pat-terns outside of incorporated cities, and the natural vegetations providing fuels.” Fire protection resources in rural areas are limited leaving it up to the landowner to take responsibility for pro-tective measures. City and County planning efforts can mitigate risk by guiding development in the wildland-urban interface. One of the major challenges to these planning efforts is that the wildland-urban interface does not conveniently follow the political boundaries that are used in writing comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and municipal codes.

Senate Bill 360: The Oregon Forestland-Urban Fire Protection act seeks to address this challenge in support of Oregon’s land use Goal 7.

Oregon Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 7

Goal 7 directs local governments to protect communities from natural hazards by incorporating inventories, policies and implementation measures into their comprehensive plans. Goal 7 states that local governments are required to respond to new information as notified by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Goal 7 provides a list of guidelines for local governments to consider in their planning efforts. In regards to wildfire hazard, Senate Bill 360 establishes a process for identifying high-risk areas, which may require local governments to ad-dress the provisions of Goal 7.⁷¹

Senate Bill 360: Oregon Forestland-Urban Fire Protection Act

The Oregon Forestland-Urban Fire Protection Act of 1997 (SB 360) establishes a process to identify WUI areas through the state, provide standards for landowners to manage fire hazard and risk, and create a process to track compliance. Senate Bill 360 requires property owners in identified forestland-urban interface areas to create a buffer clear of flammable vegetation around their homes and driveways.

71 Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Website.

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal7.pdf. (April 22, 2007).

The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Protection from Fire Program Review recommended full implementation of Senate Bill 360 by 2011⁷². A committee composed of state and county officials use a standard process to identify forestland-urban interface areas throughout the county. The identification criteria include:

• Lands within the county that are also inside an Oregon Department of Forestry protection district.

• Lands that meet the state’s definition of “forestland.”

• Lands that meet the definition of “suburban” or “urban”; in some cases, “rural” lands may be included within a forestland-urban interface area for the purpose of maintaining meaningful, contiguous boundaries.

• Lots that are developed, that are 10 acres in size or smaller, and which are grouped with other lots with similar characteristics in a minimum density of four structures per 40 acres.

The identified forestland-urban interface areas are rated from “low” to “extreme," and

the classification is used by the landowner to determine the size of a fuel break that needs to be established around structures on their property. The public has an opportunity to comment on the findings of the committee before the maps are finalized and filed with the county clerk and the Oregon Board of Forestry. Then the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) notifies landowners in the forestland-urban interface of their responsibility after which the property owner has two years to comply. Landowners who have documented their compliance with the ODF are relieved from the act’s cost-recovery liability. Non-compliant landowners may be liable for suppression costs if a fire originates on the owner's property, the fuel reduction standards have not been met, and ODF incurs extraordinary suppression costs. The cost-recovery liability is capped at

$100,000. Every five years the committee reconvenes to review and update the forestland-urban interface classifications. As of 2007, Curry County has not implemented SB 360, but may do so in the coming years.

Comprehensive Plans

Curry County and the three incorporated cities within the county all have adopted comprehensive plans. With the exception of Brookings, each of those comprehensive plans was adopted in the 1980’s and is due for revision. Each of these plans addresses state Goal #7 by adopting policies that call for limitations to development in areas of recognized risk. The Brookings comprehen-sive plan goes one step further by stating that the developer will be required to “show that prop-erty development will not be endangered by the hazard and that appropriate safeguards will be taken”.⁷³

Ordinances and Codes

A review of zoning ordinances and municipal codes in Curry County reveals that there are few specific regulations relating to reducing wildfire risk. The County does have a zoning ordinance

72 ODF Website. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/FIRE/docs/PREV/WSFMODFFuelsStrategyGuidance.pdf. (April 17, 2007).

73 City of Brookings Comprehensive Plan, revised December, 2000.

that establishes standards for reducing structural vulnerability in the Timber Zone and Timber Grazing Zone, but these standards to not apply to other zones that may be at risk for wildfire.

The City of Brookings has municipal codes that require new developments to have adequate ac-cess to a water source for fire protection.

Curry County Fire-Related Zoning Ordinance

http://www.co.curry.or.us/publicservices/ZoneOrd/Zoning%20Ordinance.htm

These standards describe defensible space around homes and roads, access to water, access to structural fire protection services, and some structural vulnerability criteria; however, there is no standard for address signage.⁷⁴ Following list is a summary of the provisions of the ordinance.⁷⁵

1. Access to fire projection services or approved alternative means of fire protection (e.g.

on-site equipment and water source.

2. Dwellings may not be sited on a slope greater than 40%.

3. Primary Safety Area – 30 ft. around all structures cleared of vegetation except for low shrubs (less than 2 ft.) and downed material trees spaced a min. of 15 ft. apart and pruned to a min. of 8 ft.

4. Secondary Safety Area – 100 ft. in width from the primary safety area that meets the same standards except it does not need to be cleared of accumulated needles and other dead vegetation.

5. Dwellings shall have a fire retardant roof and chimneys shall have a spark arrestor.

6. Roads and Driveways shall have a drivable width of 16 ft., vertical clearance of 12 ft. and an all weather surface of gravel or rock.

7. The average grade of the driveway shall not exceed 13.5% for any 1 mile of road length 8. Driveways shall have adequate turnaround surface for fire fighting vehicles

9. Culverts and Bridges shall support a minimum gross weight of 50,000 lbs.

Note: As part of our research for the fire plan, we compared the Curry County fire ordinance with other fire-related codes in Oregon and California. Results from this assessment can be found in the online appendices of the plan at:

http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/curry.html.

Findings and Recommendations - Planning and Development

The implementation of Senate Bill 360 will decrease structural vulnerability by spurring property owners to take an active role in reducing vegetative fuels on their lots. Whereas zoning ordi-nances and municipal codes are limited to specific jurisdiction Senate Bill 360 will apply to any area of identified risk. However, Senate Bill 360 does not decrease or direct development in the wildland-urban interface. Continued development in at-risk areas is an issue that will need to be addressed in future comprehensive plans.

74 Curry County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. (3.1.24).

75 Curry County Website. http://www.co.curry.or.us/publicservices/ZoneOrd/Zoning%20Ordinance.htm. (April 17, 2007).

1. The Curry County CWPP should include recommendations to planners and the public to update comprehensive plans, ordinances and codes to reduce development and structural vulnerability in the wildland-urban interface.

2. The Curry County CWPP should investigate best practices that have been applied by counties that have implemented Senate Bill 360.