The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection normally
reviews all major fire incidents. An incident review team is in the
process of reviewing this fire, and a full report will be available later
this year.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection also sent a
damage assessment team into the fire area to examine damages in detail.
This team started work on June 1 and consisted of six people. They looked
at physical fire damage such as charring or burning of structures, other
improvements, and wildland vegetation. Their damage survey included for
each dwelling its type of exterior siding, roofing, windows, PRC 4291
compliance, and primary vegetation.
The summary indicates that of the 31 homes totally destroyed, 22 had
shake roofs, four had wood shingle roofs, three had formed steel over shake
with no insulation between, and two had composition roofs. For exterior
siding, 11 of the destroyed homes had wood siding, 16 had stucco siding,
three had redwood and stucco, and one was adobe. For windows, 25 of the
homes had single pane windows while five had double pane windows and one
had a combination. The PRC 4291 compliance (clearance of brush) was listed
as follows: in compliance, four; not in compliance, 27.
The assessment team noted that no structure was lost that had a
combination of composition roofing, double pane windows, PRC 4291
compliance, and landscaping.4 In one composition roof structure which was
destroyed, fire ingress was from a deck through a single pane window on the
side of the home. At 4051 Los Altos Drive, a single pane window imploded
at the rear of the structure with only spot fires in the rear of the yard
at the time. The house at 4011 Los Altos Drive withstood fire on its own,
with only a small deck fire being controlled by a California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection engine.5 It should be also noted that it had
no eaves and that the exterior glass of its double pane windows had cracked
but the interior glass held.
Information obtained from the assessment team seems to indicate that
three major factors contributed to the loss of the homes: roofing
material, the type of windows, and PRC compliance. In particular, the
house located at 4011 Los Altos Drive was a prime example of fire resistive
construction. It was located almost directly in the top of a chimney or
canyon on the northwest side of Huckleberry Hill. The structure laid
directly in the path of the head of the fire. It had composition shingle
roof, double pane windows, no eaves, and was in compliance with the PRC
4291. It also had a 3-4 foot high masonry wall constructed across its
front which may also have helped to divert heat away from it. Some damage
did occur to fencing around the structure and some roof damage occurred
from burning of pine needle debris on the roof. However, the structure
basically withstood the entire force of the fire on its own.
Another structure located at 4059 Los Altos Drive was also near the
top of a canyon or chimney. This structure had a shake roof, single pane
windows, and was not in compliance with PRC 4291. The structure had stucco
exterior and survived with only roof damage. However, an engine stayed
with this structure during the fire. In addition, a driveway located in
front of the fire may have helped create additional distance between the
structure and the main heat from the fire.
Another house located at 4048 Sunset Lane also survived the fire
though it had a shake roof. This structure had double pane windows but was
not in compliance with PRC 4291. The structure did sustain minor fence
damage and smoke damage. However, there was a large space behind the house
separating it from the forested area. This probably helped reduce the heat
exposure.
The History of the House at 4011 Los Altos Drive -- The property at
4011 Los Altos Drive, discussed in part above, was purchased approximately
one year prior to the fire by Robert and Marie Whittington. The
Whittingtons indicated that they sustained damage to a wooden fence and
deck and also some minor roof damage from falling embers. There was some
exterior damage such as cracking of the outside pane of the double pane
windows and distortion of the plastic light fixtures. There was also
damage to shrubs and landscape around the structure and some minor smoke
damage. Other than that it survived.
The Whittingtons indicated that the structure had a composition
shingle roof and a stucco exterior. The house was constructed approximately
nine years prior to the fire. The original builder wanted a
composition roof due to his concerns about mold or fungus buildup on wood
shingle roofs which might aggravate allergies of his wife. The undergrowth
in and around the house had been removed and cleaned up only a few months
prior to the fire primarily to control poison ivy in and around the
house. The Whittingtons indicated that prior to the fire, no one had
contacted them discussing fire prevention or fuels management around the
house. They stated that the fire preventive aspects of the construction of
the house were not considered in the original purchase.
The Whittingtons said they left the area prior to any organized
evacuation. Mrs. Whittington spotted the fire. earlier in the afternoon and
called 911. She was informed that it had already been reported. Later in
the afternoon, their son, Mark, called the Carmel Hill Fire Station and was
informed to wet down vegetation, walls, and the roof of the house. The
Whittingtons, their son Mark, and his family, who live in the house
permanently, then went to a local motel to get a room. The first
information they received about the destruction of the fire came from the
local radio approximately two hours after they left the area.
The Whittingtons feel that the removal of undergrowth around their
house played a major role in the safety of the house during the fire. They
also felt that the composition roof played a factor along with the double
pane windows. Additionally, Mr. Whittington felt that the wall which was
located in front of the house may also have helped contribute to the safety
of the home.
Next » Historical and Environmental Considerations
Save to del.icio.us
