HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix I - Fire Protection Plan
Fire Protection Plan
Nakano
Prepared for:
TRI POINT HOMES
13400 Sabre Springs Parkway, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92128
Contact: Jimmy Ayala
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
__________________________
Michael Huff
Discipline Director, Urban Forestry + Fire Protection
__________________________
Lisa Maier
Fire Protection Planner, Urban Forestry + Fire Protection
JUNE 2022 -
Revised May 2023
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
14107 i JUNE 2022
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Applicable Codes and Existing Regulations .......................................................................................... 4
1.2 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Location ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.3 Current Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 5
2 Project Site Risk Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment ................................................................................... 12
2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment ........................................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.4 Vegetative Fuel Dynamics ..................................................................................................... 14
2.2.5 Fire History ............................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.6 Analysis of Wildfire Risk from Adding New Residents ......................................................... 16
2.2.7 Fire Protection Features’ Beneficial Effect on Wildfire Ignition Risk Reduction ................ 19
3 Anticipated Fire Behavior ................................................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Fire Behavior Modeling ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Fire Behavior Modeling Analysis ......................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Fire Behavior Modeling Results .......................................................................................................... 23
3.3.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................................................. 24
3.3.2 Post-Development Conditions ............................................................................................... 26
3.4 Project Area Fire Risk Assessment ..................................................................................................... 28
4 Emergency Response Service .......................................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Emergency Response Fire Facilities ................................................................................................... 32
4.1.1 Emergency Response Travel Time Coverage ....................................................................... 33
4.2 Estimated Calls and Demand for Service .......................................................................................... 34
Response Capability Impact Assessment .......................................................................................... 35
5 Buildings, Infrastructure and Defensible Space ............................................................................................. 38
5.1 Site Access ........................................................................................................................................... 38
5.1.1 Access Roads ......................................................................................................................... 38
5.1.2 Gates ...................................................................................................................................... 39
5.1.3 Dead-End Roads .................................................................................................................... 39
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 ii JUNE 2022
5.1.4 Grade ...................................................................................................................................... 40
5.1.5 Surface ................................................................................................................................... 40
5.1.6 Vertical Clearance .................................................................................................................. 40
5.1.7 Premise Identification ............................................................................................................ 40
5.2 Ignition Resistant Construction and Fire Protection.......................................................................... 40
5.3 Infrastructure and Fire Protection Systems Requirements .............................................................. 42
5.3.1 Water Supply .......................................................................................................................... 42
5.3.2 Fire Hydrants .......................................................................................................................... 42
5.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems ......................................................................................... 42
5.3.4 Residential Hazard Detectors ............................................................................................... 42
5.4 Ongoing Building Infrastructure Maintenance ................................................................................... 43
5.4 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management ............................................................................... 43
5.4.1 Defensible Space and Fuel Management Zone Requirements .......................................... 43
5.4.2 FMZ Vegetation Management ............................................................................................... 46
5.4.3 Annual FMZ Compliance Inspection ..................................................................................... 47
5.4.4 Construction Phase Vegetation Management ..................................................................... 48
5.5 Pre-Construction Requirements ......................................................................................................... 51
5.6 Construction Activities in High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ................................................................ 51
6 Alternative Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................. 52
6.1 Additional Structural Protection Measures ........................................................................................ 53
7 Wildfire Education Program .............................................................................................................................. 54
8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 55
9 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................................ 57
10 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 58
APPENDICES
A Photograph Log
B Fire History
C Fire Behavior Analysis
D-1 Suggested Plant Reference Guide
D-2 Undesirable Plant List
FIGURE(S)
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Fire Hazard Severity Zone .................................................................................................................................... 9
3 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................ 11
4 Example Higher Density Development ............................................................................................................ 18
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 iii JUNE 2022
5 Example Moderate Density Development ....................................................................................................... 19
6 Example Lower Density Development ............................................................................................................. 19
7 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis Map .......................................................................................................... 31
8 Battalions and Stations Map ............................................................................................................................ 37
9 Brush Management Zones Map ....................................................................................................................... 49
TABLE(S)
1 Existing on Post-Development Fuel Model Characteristics ............................................................................ 22
2 Variables Used for Fire Behavior Modeling ..................................................................................................... 22
3 RAWS BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results – Existing Conditions .................................................... 26
4 RAWS BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling Results – Post-Project Conditions............................................. 27
5 Fire Suppression Interpretation ....................................................................................................................... 28
6 Closest Responding Station Summary ............................................................................................................ 33
7 Project Emergency Response Analysis Using Speed Limit Formula .............................................................. 34
8 Project Emergency Response Analysis Using ISO Formula ............................................................................ 35
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 iv JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14107 v JUNE 2022
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BMZ Brush Management Zone
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CBC California Building Code
CC&Rs Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
CFC California Fire Code
CFPP Construction Fire Prevention Plan
CMU Construction Masonry Unit
CVFD Chula Vista Fire Department
FAHJ Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction
FMZ Fuel Modification Zone
FPP Fire Protection Plan
FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HOA Homeowner’s Association
I-805 Interstate 805
ISO Insurance Service Office
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MPH miles per hour
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
Project Nakano Project
SDFRD San Diego Fire-Rescue Department
SIAM Structure Ignition Assessment Model
SRA State Responsibility Area
USGS United States Geological Survey
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 vi JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14107 1 JUNE 2022
Executive Summary
This Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the Nakano Project (Project), which proposes a residential
development on the 23.77-acre Project site located along the southern border of the City of Chula Vista, San Diego
County, California, adjacent to the City of San Diego. As part of the Project, the Project site would be annexed to the
City of San Diego prior to construction. The Project proposes the development of a total of 215 residential units,
recreational amenities, water quality basins, and internal private driveways. Residential units will be a mix of
detached condominiums, duplexes and multi-family townhomes.
The Project site’s current designated land use is Open Space and is zoned as A-8 “Agricultural” and has been
historically used for agricultural purposes. The Project is located immediately west of Interstate 805 (I-805),
immediately south of the Otay River and is regionally located within the Otay Mesa area of San Diego County. The
proposed development will be situated on Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 624-071-0200. Primary access to the
Project site is via Dennery Road.
The Project site lies within an area considered a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by
the Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD), the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department (SDFRD) and California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and
weather, amongst other factors. VHFHSZ designation does not indicate that an area is not safe for development. It
does indicate that specific fire protection features that minimize structure vulnerability will be required, including
Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC) and provisions for maintained fuel modification zones, amongst
others described in the FPP.
The Project site was formerly used for agricultural purposes, which ceased in 2010. The Project site is primarily
vegetated by moderate-load grass-shrubs, moderate- to- high-load shrubs and chaparrals. Additionally, a small
eucalyptus/riparian forest area is adjacent to the proposed Project development site. The Project area, like all of
Southern California and San Diego County, is subject to seasonal weather conditions that can heighten the
likelihood of fire ignition.
The FPP evaluates and identifies the potential fire risk associated with the Project’s land uses and identifies
requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance,
and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The purpose of this FPP is to generate
and memorialize the fire safety requirements and standards of the CVFD along with Project-specific measures
based on the Project site, its intended use, and its fire environment.
While the Project site is currently within the service area of the CVFD, once annexed to the City of San Diego, SDFRD
would be the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ). SDFRD Station 6 would typically be the unit selected for
response to the Project site. The second closest station to the Project site is CVFD Station 3. The Project’s population
and number of calculated emergency calls were evaluated for their potential to impact SDFRD and CVFD’s response
capabilities from its nearest existing stations. The addition of approximately 82 calls per year to SDFRD Station 6’s
2,252 call volume is considered insignificant. The closest existing fire station’s response times conforms to SDFRD
internal response time standards for all structures within the Project site.
As determined during the analysis of the Project site and its fire environment in its current condition, may include
characteristics that, under favorable weather conditions, could have the potential to facilitate fire spread. Once the
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 2 JUNE 2022
Project community is built, the on-site fire potential will be lower than its current condition due to fire safety
requirements that will be implemented on-site. The proposed residential structures would be built using ignition-
resistant materials pursuant to the most recent City Fire Codes and Building Codes (Chapter 7-A – focusing on
structure ignition resistance from flame impingement and flying embers in areas designated as high fire hazard
areas), which are the amended 2019 California Fire Code and 2019 California Building Code. This would be
complemented by:
• Site-wide ignition resistant landscapes,
• Perimeter fuel modification zone,
• Improved water availability, capacity, and delivery system,
• Project area firefighting resources,
• Fire department access throughout the developed areas,
• Monitored defensible space/fuel modification,
• Interior, automatic fire sprinkler systems in all structures,
• Monitored interior sprinklers in applicable structures,
• Fire response travel times based on City of San Diego response guidelines, and
• Other components that would provide properly equipped and maintained structures with a high level of
fire ignition resistance.
Post wildfire save and loss assessments have revealed specifics of how structures and landscapes can be
constructed and maintained to minimize their vulnerability to wildfire. Among the findings were: how construction
materials and methods protect homes, how fire and embers contributed to ignition of structures, what effects fuel
modification had on structure ignition, the benefits of fast firefighter response, and how much (and how reliable)
water was available, were critically important to structure survivability. Following these findings over the last 20
years and continuing on an ongoing basis, the Fire and Building codes are revised, appropriately. San Diego County
now contains some of the most restrictive codes for building within Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas that focus
on preventing structure ignition from heat, flame, and burning embers.
Fire risk analysis conducted for the Project resulted in the determination that wildfire has occurred and will likely
occur near the Project area again, but the Project would provide ignition-resistant landscapes (drought-tolerant and
low-fuel-volume plants) and ignition-resistant structures, and defensible space with the implementation of specified
fire safety measures. Based on modeling and analysis of the Project area to assess its unique fire risk and fire
behavior, it was determined that the standard of 100-foot-wide brush management zones (BMZs)/fuel modification
zones (FMZs) would help considerably to set the Project’s structures back from off-site fuels. The BMZs for the
Project would be maintained in perpetuity by a funded Homeowner’s Association (HOA), or similarly funded entity.
This FPP provides a detailed analysis of the Project, the potential risk from wildfire, and potential impacts on the
SDFRD and CVFD, as well as analysis on meeting or exceeding the requirements of the City of San Diego and City
of Chula Vista. Further, this FPP provides requirements, recommendations, and measures to reduce the risk and
potential impacts to acceptable levels, as determined by SDFRD and CVFD.
14107 3 JUNE 2022
1 Introduction
The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the proposed Nakano Project (Project) in Chula Vista, San
Diego County, California. The purpose of the FPP is to evaluate the potential impacts resulting from wildland fire
hazards and identify the measures necessary to adequately mitigate those risks to a level consistent with City of
San Diego and City of Chula Vista thresholds. Additionally, this FPP establishes and memorialize the fire safety
requirements of the Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ), which is currently the Chula Vista Fire Department
(CVFD). However, the Project proposes the annexation of the Project site to the City of San Diego, and if approved
the San Diego Fire Department would be the FAHJ. Requirements and recommendations detailed in the FPP are
based on Project site-specific characteristics, applicable code requirements, and input from the Project’s applicant,
planners, engineers, and architects, as well as the current and future FAHJ.
As part of the assessment, the FPP has considered the fire risk presented by the Project site including the property
location and its topography, geology, surrounding combustible vegetation (fuel types), climatic conditions, fire
history, and the proposed land use. The FPP addresses water supply, access, structural ignitability, and ignition
resistive building features, fire protection systems, and equipment, impacts to existing emergency services,
defensible space, and vegetation management. The FPP also identifies fuel modification zones and recommends
the types and methods of treatment that, when implemented and maintained, are designed to protect the Project’s
assets. The FPP also recommends measures that developer/builders, property owners, and the Homeowner’s
Association will take to reduce the probability of structural and vegetation ignition.
The Project is located within the boundaries of the CVFD; however, once annexed will be within the boundaries of
the SDFRD; therefore, the FPP addresses SDFRDD’s response capabilities and response travel time within the
Project area, along with projected funding for facility improvements and fire service maintenance.
The following tasks were performed toward completion of this FPP:
• Gather site-specific climate, terrain, and fuel data;
• Collect site photographs1;
• Process and analyze the data using the latest geographic information system (GIS) technology ;
• Predict fire behavior using scientifically based fire behavior models, comparisons with actual wildfires in
similar terrain and fuels, and experienced judgment;
• Analyze and guide the design of proposed infrastructure;
• Analyze the existing emergency response capabilities;
• Assess the risk associated with the Project site;
• Evaluate nearby firefighting and emergency medical response resources; and
• Prepare the FPP detailing how fire risk will be mitigated through a system of brush management,
structural ignition resistance enhancements, and fire protection delivery system upgrades.
1 Field observations were used to augment existing digital site data in generating the fire behavior models and formulating the
recommendations presented in the FPP. Refer to Appendix A, Representative Site Photographs, for site photographs of existing
site conditions.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 4 JUNE 2022
1.1 Applicable Codes and Existing Regulations
The FPP demonstrates that the Project would comply with applicable portions of Chapter 15.36, Fire Code, of the
City of Chula Vista’s municipal code, as amended, and adopted by reference the 2019 edition of the California Fire
Code (CFC) (or current edition at the time of Project approval). Chapter 15.36 is hereafter referred to as the Chula
Vista Fire Code. Additionally, the Project would comply with applicable portions of Chapter 5, Article 5: Fire Protection
and Prevention, of the City of San Diego’s Municipal Code. Chapter 5, Article 5 is hereafter referred to as the San
Diego Fire Code. It should be noted that the San Diego Fire Code adopts the 2016 California Fire Code, as amended;
whereas, the Chula Vista Fire Code adopts the 2019 California Fire Code, as amended. For the purpose of this FPP,
where the Chula Vista Fire Code and San Diego Fire Code differ, the Project will implement the most restrictive
requirements. Further, the Project will comply with Chapter 7A of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC); the 2019
California Residential Code, Section 327; and the 2018 Edition of the International Fire Code as adopted by the
County. The Project would also be subject to the provisions of Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code; Chapter
12-7A of the CA Reference Standards Code, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subsection 2, Articles 1-5 and Title
14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subsection 3, Section 1299 of the CA Code of Regulations; Title 19, Division 1, Chapter
7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07 of the CA Code of Regulations; and Sections 51175-511829 of the CA Government
Code.
Chapter 7A of the CBC addresses structural ignition resistance and reducing ember penetration into homes, a
leading cause of structure loss from wildfires (California Building Standards Commission 2019). Thus, code
compliance is an important component of the requirements of the FPP, given the Project’s wildland-urban interface
(WUI) location that is within an area statutorily designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) within
a Local Responsibility Zone (LRA) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) (FRAP
2007). Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, among other factors with more
hazardous sites, including steep terrain, unmaintained fuels/vegetation, and WUI locations. Projects situated in
VHFHSZ require fire hazard analysis and the application of fire protection measures to create ignition -resistant
structures and defensible communities within these WUI locations. VHFHSZ designations do not, in and of
themselves, indicate that it is unsafe to build in these areas. As described in the FPP, the Project would meet
applicable code requirements for building in these higher fire hazard areas. These codes have been developed
through decades of wildfire structure save and loss evaluations to determine th e causes of building losses and
saves during wildfires. The resulting fire codes now focus on mitigating former structural vulnerabilities through
construction techniques and materials so that the buildings are resistant to ignitions from direct flames, heat, and
embers, as indicated in the 2019 California Building Code (Chapter 7-A, Section 701A Scope, Purpose, and
Application) (California Building Standards Commission 2019).
1.2 Project Summary
1.2.1 Location
The Project site is located along the southern border of the City of Chula Vista, adjacent to the City of San Diego ;
however, the Project does propose the annexation of the Project site to City of San Diego. More specifically, the site
is located within the Otay Mesa area, south of the Otay River, east of I -805, and northwest of Dennery Road.
Surrounding land uses include the I-805 freeway directly west, vacant land and the Otay River Valley Regional Park
to the north, residential to the east (Edge Terrace) and southeast, and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Cente r to
the south. The site is located at approximately 90 to 180 feet above mean sea level, with a downward slope
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 5 JUNE 2022
towards the north to the Otay River. The approximate centroid of the project area is within Sections 19 and 24 of
Township 18 South, Range 1 and 2 West, of the Imperial Beach, California U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute
topographic quadrangle. The Project will be situated on APN 624-071-0200 (Figure 1. Project Location). Primary
access to the site is via Dennery Road.
The entirety of the proposed property lies within a VHFHSZ in a LRA, as statutorily designated by CAL FIRE (2007)
the SDFRD and the CVFD (Figure 2, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map).
1.2.2 Project Description
The Project consists of development of 215 residential dwellings units consisting of 61 detached condominiums,
84 duplexes and 70 multi-family dwelling units on 23.8 acres with approximately 5 acres of hardscaped/paved
roadway area. However, to represent a conservative analysis of potential unit mix, the environmental analysis
assumes a maximum of 221 residential units. Development of up to 221 residential units could be supported on -
site depending on the ultimate unit mix, but the Project footprint would remain the same. Recreational amenities
would include a local-serving park, a regional overlook park associated with the Otay Valley Regional Park, and trail
connections to the Otay Valley Regional Park.
Primary site access would be provided via an off-site connection to Dennery Road, and secondary emergency access
would be provided via a connection to Golden Sky Way in the River Edge Terrace residential development. Off -site
remedial grading would be required to the north of the site within the City of Chula Vista. The Project includes two
scenarios. Under the No Annexation Scenario, the project would remain within the City of Chula Vista. Under the
Annexation Scenario, the Project would be annexed into the City of San Diego. While the physical improvements
proposed would be the same under either project scenario, the discretionary actions would differ. To facilitate
analysis of each development option, this report addresses consistency with the standards and thresholds of both
the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista.
1.2.3 Current Land Use
The Project site has been historically used for agricultural purposes. It is unknown the exact year when agricultural
uses were initiated, but it dates back to at least 1928 (Converse Consultants 2000). Agricultural operations ceased
circa 2010 as it was no longer economically viable. The Project site is currently designated by the City of Chula Vista
General Plan as Open Space (OS) and is zoned as A-8 for agricultural use (City of Chula Vista 2005). Due to its
location and access from only the City of San Diego via Dennery Road, the Project site has long been contemplated
for annexation into the City of San Diego. For this reason, the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego have engaged in
several city-to-city discussions, public hearings and Letters of Intent to explore reorganization scenarios that would
allow the detachment of Nakano from Chula Vista and annexation to San Diego.
Surrounding land uses include the I-805 freeway directly west, vacant land and the Otay River Valley Regional Park
to the north, residential to the east (Edge Terrace) and southeast, and the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center to
the south.
The Project site is primarily vegetated by moderate-load grass-shrubs, moderate- to- high-load shrubs and
chaparrals. Additionally, a small eucalyptus/riparian forest area is adjacent to the proposed Project development
site. Elevations within the Project site range from 90 feet AMSL in the northern portion of the Project site to 180
feet AMSL southern portion of the Project site.
Date: 11/12/2021 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1410700\MA
PDOC\DOCUM
ENT\FPP
\FIG1_P
rojectLocation.mxd
905
805
Project Location
Fire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Imperial Beach Quadrangle
0 2,0 001,0 00 Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 1
Chula Vista
Solana BeachEncinitas
SanDiego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
LaMesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San Marcos Escondido
Vista
ImperialBeach
Del Mar
Coronado
R i v e r s i d eCounty
S a n D i e g oCounty
905
52
163
188
195
54
125
274
74
56
86
67
76
94
79
78
8
15
805
5Pacific Ocean Project Site
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 7 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 11/12/2021 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1410700\MA
PDOC\DOCUM
ENT\FPP
\FIG2_FHSZ.mxd
C I T Y O FCITY O FCHULA V I S T ACHULA V I S T A
C I T Y O FCITY O FSAN D I E G OSAN D I E G O
C O U N T Y O FCOUNTY O FSAN D I E G OSAN D I E G O
805
RAMP
I-805NB
O LYMPI C
RAMP
I-805SB
MAIN
BRANDYWINE
O R A N G E
PALM
I-805 NB
I-805SB
RAMPI-805SB
R
A
M
P
SR-905
WB
SOURCE:
0 1,6 00800Feet
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map
Fire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 9 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Propose Site Plan
Fire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
FIGURE 3SOURCE: CIVIL SENSE INC. 2023
A
P1.1P2.1P1.1P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1P2.1P1.1P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1P2.1P3.1
C
P2.2
P1.1P3.1
B
A
P1.1P2.1
P1.1P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1P2.1
P3.1
C
P2.2
P3.1
C
P2.2
P1.1 P3.1
B
A
P1.1P2.1
A
P1.1 P2.1 P1.1 P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1 P2.1 P1.1 P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1 P2.1 P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1P2.1P1.1P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1P2.1P1.1P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1P2.1
A
P1.1 P2.1
P1.1 P3.1
B
P3.1
C
P2.2
A
P1.1 P2.1
P3.1
C
P2.2
P4A P3 P2 P1 P4BRP3RP2RP1RP3RP3P4AP3P2P1P4BRP3RP2RP1RP3RP3
P4AP2P1
P4BR P3R P2R P1R
P4AP3
P2P1
P4BR P3R P2R P1R
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 11 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 12 JUNE 2022
2 Project Site Risk Analysis
2.1 Environmental Setting and Field Assessment
After review of available digital Study Area information, including topography, vegetation types, fire history, and the
Project’s Development Footprint, a Dudek Fire Protection Planner conducted a Project site evaluation on November
9, 2021, in order to confirm/acquire site information, document existing site conditions, and to determine potential
actions for addressing the protection of the Project’s structures. While on -site, Dudek’s Fire Planner assessed the
area’s topography, natural vegetation, and fuel loading, surrounding land use, and general susceptibility to wildfire.
Among the field tasks that were completed included:
• Topography evaluation;
• Vegetation/fuel assessments;
• Photograph documentation of the existing condition;
• Confirmation/verification of hazard assumptions;
• Off-site, adjacent property fuel and topography conditions;
• Surrounding land use confirmations;
• Necessary fire behavior modeling data collection;
• Ingress/egress documentation;
• Nearby Fire Station reconnaissance.
Study Area photographs were collected (refer to Appendix A, Photograph Log), and fuel conditions were mapped
using aerial images. Field observations were utilized to augment existing site data in generating the fire behavior
models and formulating the requirements and recommendations detailed in the FPP.
2.2 Site Characteristics and Fire Environment
Fire environments are dynamic systems and include many types of environmental factors and site characteristics.
Fires can occur in any environment where conditions are conducive to ignition and fire movement. Areas of naturally
vegetated open space are typically comprised of conditions that may be favorable to wildfire spread. The three
major components of the fire environment are topography, vegetation (fuels), and climate. The state of each of
these components and their interactions with each other determines the potential characteristics and behavior of
a fire at any given moment. It is important to note that wildland fire may transition to urban fire if structures are
receptive to ignition. Structure ignition depends on a variety of factors and can be pr evented through a layered
system of protective features including fire-resistive landscapes directly adjacent to the structure(s), application of
known ignition resistive materials and methods, and suitable infrastructure for firefighting purposes. Understanding
the existing wildland vegetation and urban fuel conditions on and adjacent to the site is necessary to understand
the potential for fire within and around the Project site.
The following sections discuss the characteristics of the Project area and the surrounding region. The intent of
evaluating conditions at a macro-scale provides a better understanding of the regional fire environment, which is
not constrained by property boundary delineations.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 13 JUNE 2022
2.2.1 Topography
Topography influences fire risk by affecting fire spread rates. Typically, steep terrain results in faster fire spread up-
slope and slower spread down-slope. Terrain that forms a funneling effect, such as chimneys, chutes, or saddles
on the landscape can result in especially intense fire behavior. Conversely, flat terrain tends to have little effect on
fire spread, resulting in fires that are driven by vegetation and wind.
The Project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 90 feet AMSL in the northern portion of the Project site
to 180 feet AMSL southern portion of the Project site.
2.2.2 Climate
The Project site, like much of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and a seasonal, migratory
subtropical high-pressure cell known as the “Pacific High.” Wet winters and dry summers with mild seasonal
changes characterize the Southern California climate. This climate pattern is occasionally interrupted by extreme
periods of hot weather, winter storms, or dry, easterly Santa Ana winds. The average high temperature for the
Project area is approximately 73.4°F, with an average temperature in the summer and early fall months (June–
October) of 78.6°F. August and September are typically considered the hottest months of the year. The area is
considered to be a semi-arid climate. Annual precipitation typically averages approximately 11.5 inches annually
with the wettest months being January and December (Western Regional Climate Center, 2022).
From a regional perspective, the fire risk in southern California can be divided into three distinct “seasons” (Nichols
et al. 2011, Baltar et al 2014). The first season, the most active season and covering the summer months, extends
from late May to late September. This is followed by an intense fall season characterized by fewer but larger fires.
This season begins in late September and continues until early November. The remaining months, November to
late May cover the mostly dormant, winter season. Mensing et al. (1999) and Keeley and Zedler (2009) found that
large fires in the region consistently occur at the end of wet periods and the beginning of droughts. Typically, the
highest fire danger in southern California coincides with Santa Ana winds. The Sa nta Ana wind conditions are a
reversal of the prevailing southwesterly winds that usually occur on a region-wide basis near the end of fire season
during late summer and early fall. They are dry, warm winds that flow from the higher desert elevations in the east
through the mountain passes and canyons. As they converge through the canyons, their velocities increase.
Localized wind patterns on the Project site are strongly affected by both regional and local topography.
The prevailing wind pattern is from the west (on-shore), but the presence of the Pacific Ocean causes a diurnal wind
pattern known as the land/sea breeze system. During the day, winds are from the west–southwest (sea), and at
night winds are from the northeast (land). The highest wind velocities are associated with downslope, canyon, and
Santa Ana winds. The Nakano Project area includes topography and vegetation that under the right weather
conditions increase fire risk within and adjacent to the Project site.
2.2.3 Vegetation
The Project property and surrounding areas primarily support chaparral, riparian woodlands, and non-native
grassland plant communities. The adjacent lands have similar vegetation types, with chaparral and eucalyptus
woodlands, as well. The vegetation cover types were assigned a corresponding fuel model for use during site fire
behavior modeling. Section 3.0 describes the fire modeling conducted for the Project area.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 14 JUNE 2022
Extensive vegetation type mapping is useful for fire planning because it enables each vegetation community to be
assigned a fuel model, which is used in a software program to predict fire behavior characteristics, as discussed in
Section 3.1, Fire Behavior Modeling. Vegetative fuels on-site are characteristic of the area and are primarily mixed
chaparral and eucalyptus woodland habitats and more concentrated trees within the property riparian forest
habitat. The area proposed for development and within the Project grading limits will be converted to ignition
resistant landscapes, roads, structures, and landscaped vegetation following Project completion. Vegetative fuels
within proposed fuel modification zones will be removed or structurally modified as a result of development, altering
their current structure and species composition, irrigation and maintenance levels, resulting in a perimeter wildfire
buffer.
Post-development vegetation composition proximate to the Project footprint is expected to be significantly different
than current conditions. Following build-out, irrigated and thinned landscape vegetation associated with brush
management zones (BMZs) would be located in the immediate area surrounding the Project site, extending up to
100 horizontal feet from each of the structures. Typical BMZ is 100 feet wide across the Project site; however,
where the BMZ is less than 100 feet, this FPP proposes enhanced ignition resistant constructions, as described in
Section 6. Consistent with requirements, native and naturalized vegetation occurring within BMZ Zone 2 is not
expected to be irrigated, although overall fuel volumes will be reduced by removing dead and dying plants, non -
natives, highly flammable species, and thinning the remaining plants so they would not readily facilitate the spread
of fire on an ongoing basis. The provided BMZ areas will be maintained on an ongoing basis in order to comply with
SDFRD’s and CVFD’s respective brush management/fuel modification guidelines.
2.2.4 Vegetative Fuel Dynamics
The vegetation characteristics described above are used to model fire behavior, discussed in Section 3.0 of this
FPP. Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. Some plant
communities and their associated plant species have increased flammability based on plant physiology (resin
content), biological function (flowering, retention of dead plant material), physical structure (bark thickness, leaf
size, branching patterns), and overall fuel loading. For example, non-native grass-dominated plant communities
become seasonally prone to ignition and produce lower intensity, higher spread rate fires. In comparison, sage
scrub can produce higher heat intensity and higher flame lengths under strong, dry wind patterns, but does not
typically ignite or spread as quickly as light, flashy grass fuels.
As described, vegetation plays a significant role in fire behavior, and is an important component of fire behavior
models discussed in the report. A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire
presence and absence at varying cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an
earlier state where less fuel is present for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again. In
summary, high-frequency fires tend to convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, while fire exclusion
tends to convert grasslands to shrublands, over time. In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase
over time, assuming that disturbance (fire, or grading) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented. It is
possible to alter successional pathways for varying plant communities through manual alteration. This concept is a
key component in the overall establishment and maintenance of the proposed fuel modification zones on-site. The
Project’s BMZs will consist of irrigated and maintained landscapes as well as thinned native fuel zones that will be
subject to regular “disturbance” in the form of maintenance and will not be allowed to accumulate exces sive
biomass over time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and intensity. Conditions adjacent to the
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 15 JUNE 2022
Project’s footprint (outside the fuel modification zones), where the wildfire threat will exist post -development, are
classified as moderate to high fuel loads due to the dominance of sparse chaparral and sage scrub-grass fuels.
The vegetation described above translates to fuel models used for fire behavior modeling, discussed in Chapter 3
of this FPP. Variations in vegetative cover type and species composition have a direct effect on fire behavior. For
example, California sagebrush scrub can produce higher heat intensity and higher flame lengths under strong, dry
wind patterns, but does not typically ignite or spread as quickly as light, flashy grass fuels. The corresponding fuel
models for each of these vegetation types are designed to capture these differences. Vegetation distribution
throughout the Project site varies by location and topography. Areas, where the Project’s Development Footprint is
located, are primarily sparse chaparral or coastal sage scrub cover.
As described, vegetation plays a significant role in fire behavior, and is an important component of the fire behavior
models discussed in the report. A critical factor to consider is the dynamic nature of vegetation communities. Fire
presence and absence at varying cycles or regimes disrupts plant succession, setting plant communities to an
earlier state where less fuel is present for a period of time as the plant community begins its succession again.
In summary, high-frequency fires tend to convert shrublands to grasslands or maintain grasslands, and fire
exclusion tends to convert grasslands to shrublands over time as shrubs sprout back or establish and are not
disturbed by repeated fires. In general, biomass and associated fuel loading will increase over time, assuming that
disturbance (e.g., fire) or fuel reduction efforts are not diligently implemented. It is possible to alter successional
pathways for varying plant communities through manual alteration. This concept is a key component in the overall
establishment and maintenance of the proposed BMZs for the Project site. The BMZs will consist of irrigated and
maintained landscapes that will be subject to regular “disturbance” in the form of maintenance and will not be
allowed to accumulate excessive biomass over time, which results in reduced fire ignition, spread rates, and
intensity.
2.2.5 Fire History
Fire history is an important component of a site-specific FPP. Fire history data provides valuable information
regarding fire spread, fire frequency, ignition sources, and vegetation/fuel mosaics across a given landscape. One
important use for this information is as a tool for pre-planning. It is advantageous to know which areas may have
burned recently and therefore may provide a tactical defense position, what type of fire burned on the Project site,
and how a fire may spread.
Fire history represented in the FPP uses the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire
and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) database. FRAP summarizes fire perimeter data dating to the late
1800s, but which is incomplete due to the fact that it only includes fires over 10 acres in size and has incomplete
perimeter data, especially for the first half of the 20th century (Syphard and Keeley 2016). However, th e data does
provide a summary of recorded fires and can be used to show whether large fires have occurred in the Project area,
which indicates whether they may be possible in the future.
According to available data from the CAL FIRE in the FRAP database, thirteen (13) fires have burned within 5 miles
of the Project site since the beginning of the historical fire data record. Recorded wildfires within 5 miles range from
38.7 acres to 10,394 acres (1911 Unnamed Fire) and the average fire size is approximately 1,247.9. When
considering only fires greater than 10 acres and less than 10,000, the average fire size is approximately 485.7
acres. The 1994 Otay #4 Fire (approximately 2,983.4 acres) is the most recent fire within 5 miles of the Project
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 16 JUNE 2022
site. No fires have burned on the Project site. CVFD and/ SDFRD may have data regarding smaller fires (less than
10 acres) that have occurred on-site that have not been included herein. Fire history for the general vicinity of the
Project site is illustrated in Appendix B, Fire History Map.
Based on an analysis of the fire history data set, specifically, the years in which the fires burned, the average interval
between wildfires within 5 miles of the Project site was calculated to be 8.3 with intervals ranging between 0
(multiple fires in the same year) to 30 years. Based on the analysis, it is expected that there will be wildland fires
within 5 miles of the Project site at least every 30 years and on average, eight years, as observed in the fire history
record. Based on fire history, wildfire risk for the Project site is associated primarily with a Santa Ana wind-driven
wildfire burning or spotting on-site from the east/northeast, although a fire approaching from the west during more
typical on-shore weather patterns is possible. The proximity of the Project to the open space associated with the
Otay River Valley Regional Park to the north has the potential to increase wildfire hazard in the Project vicinity.
2.2.6 Analysis of Wildfire Risk from Adding New Residents
Humans (i.e., human related activities or human created features, services, or processes) are responsible for the
majority of California wildfires (Syphard et al. 2007, 2008; Romero-Calcerrada et al. 2008). Certain human activities
result in sparks, flames, or heat that may ignite vegetative fuels without proper prevention measures in place. These
ignitions predominantly occur as accidents, but may also be purposeful, such as in the case of arson. Roadways
are a particularly high source for wildfire ignitions due to high usage and vehicle caused fires (catalytic converter
failure, overheated brakes, dragging chains, tossed cigarette, and others). In Southern California, and San Diego
County, the population living at, working in, or traveling through the wildland urban interface is vast and provides a
significant opportunity for ignitions every day. However, it is a relatively rare event when a wildfire occurs, and an
even rarer event when a wildfire escapes initial containment efforts. Approximately 90 to 95 percent of wildfires
are controlled below 10 acres (CAL FIRE 2019).
Research indicates that the type of dense, master planned developments, like Nakano, are not associated with
increased vegetation ignitions. Syphard and Keeley (2015) summarize all wildfire ignitions included in the CAL FIRE
FRAP database – dating back over 100 years. They found, in the case of one Southern California county (San Diego
County), equipment-caused fires were by far the most numerous, and these also accounted for most of the area
burned, followed closely by the area burned by power line fires. Ignitions classified as equipment caused frequently
resulted from exhaust or sparks from power saws or other equipment with gas or electrical motors, such as lawn
mowers, trimmers or tractors and associated with lower density housing. In San Diego County, and in areas like
Chula Vista, ignitions were more likely to occur close to roads and structures, and at intermediate structure
densities.
As figures 4 through 6 illustrate, housing density directly influences susceptibility to fire because in higher density
developments, there is one interface (the community perimeter) with the wildlands whereas lower density
development creates more structural exposure to wildlands, less or no ongoing landscape maintenance (an intermix
rather than interface), and consequently more difficulty for limited fire resources to protect well-spaced homes. The
intermix includes housing amongst the unmaintained fuels whereas the proposed project converts all fuels within
the footprint and provides a wide, managed fuel modification zone separating homes from unmaintained fuel and
creating a condition that makes defense easier. Syphard and Keeley go on to state that “The WUI, where housing
density is low to intermediate is an apparent influence in most ignition maps ”further enforcing the conclusion that
lower density housing poses a higher ignition risk than higher density communities. They also state that
“Development of low-density, exurban housing may also lead to more homes being destroyed by fire” (Syphard et
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 17 JUNE 2022
al. 2013). A vast wildland urban interface already exists in the area adjacent to Nakano, with older, more fire-
vulnerable structures, constructed before stringent fire code requirem ents were imposed on residential
development, with varying levels of maintained fuel modification buffers in the area. As discussed in detail
throughout this FPP, Nakano is a planned ignition resistant community designed to include professionally managed
and maintained fire protection components, modern fire code compliant safety features and specific measures
provided where ignitions are most likely to occur (such as roadways). Therefore, the development of the Nakano
Project would not be expected to materially increase the risk of vegetation ignitions.
Figure 4. Example higher density development. Homes are ignition resistant and excludes readily ignitable vegetative fuels throughout
and provides a perimeter fuel modification zone. This type of new development requires fewer fire resources to defend and can
minimize the likelihood of on-site fires spreading off-site.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 18 JUNE 2022
Figure 5. Example of “moderate density” development. Homes are located on larger properties and include varying levels of ignition
resistance and landscape / fuel modification provision and maintenance. This type of development results in a higher wildland
exposure level for all homes and does not provide the same buffers from wildfire encroaching onto the site, or starting at a structure
and moving into the wildlands as a higher density project.
Figure 6. Example of “lower density” development. Homes are interspersed amongst wildland fuels, are of varying ages, and include
varying levels of fuel modification zone setbacks. Homes are exposed on most or all sides by flammable vegetation and properties
rely solely on owners for maintenance, are often far distances from the nearest fire station, and have minimal buffer from on-site fire
spreading to wildlands.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 19 JUNE 2022
Moreover, frequent fires and lower density housing growth may lead to the expansion of highly flammable exotic
grasses that can further increase the probability of ignitions (Keeley 2006). This is not the case with the Project as
the landscapes are managed and maintained to remove exotic fuels that may establish over time.
As discussed above, research indicates that it is less likely for higher density developments to be impacted by
wildfires than lower density developments. The same protections that starve wildfire of fuels and minimize or
prevent wildfire from transitioning into a higher density community or moderate density with high maintenance
levels, such as Nakano’s also serve to minimize or prevent on-site fires from transitioning into the wildlands. Further,
the requirement that all structures will include interior fire sprinklers significantly reduces the likelihood that a
building fire spreads to the point of flashover, where a structure will burn beyond control and produce embers.
Interior sprinklers are very efficient, keeping fires to the room of origin, or extinguishing the fire before the
responding firefighters arrive. Similarly, the irrigated fuel modification zones are positioned throughout the
development areas as well as the first zones on the perimeter of the project. Irrigated zones include plants with
high internal moisture and spacing between plants and plant groups that 1) make it difficult to ignite and 2) make
it difficult for fire to spread plant to plant. Lastly, the on-site fire station and additional humans on the site result in
fast detection of fires and fast firefighter response, a key in limiting the growth of fires beyond the incipient stage.
Various recreational opportunities, both legal and illegal exist today. If a wildfire were to ignite from human activity
today, fire detection and response could be delayed due to the remoteness of the area not directly visible from
populated areas. Delayed detection would contribute to delayed response to the scene due to the lack of site
access. Fire size up (determining the needed firefighting resources) and requests for additional resources, including
aerial support, also are delayed in comparison to post-construction of the Nakano Project. With the Project,
motorized activities on the trails would be prohibited and enforced. If a hiker or mountain biker was to start a fire,
detection and response would be anticipated on a fast timeline due to the residents that would be living within the
community with the ability to detect fires throughout the property. The quick detection and call to 911 would result
in faster response from the on-site fire stations, which can reach anywhere within the project quickly. If a fire is
detected and cannot be accessed by a responding fire engine, it can be sized up and additional aerial and other
support requested quickly.
2.2.7 Fire Protection Features’ Beneficial Effect on Wildfire
Ignition Risk Reduction
Each of the fire protection features provided as part of the code requirements or customized for this Project are based
on the FPP’s evaluation work to protect the Project site, its structures and their occupants from wildfires. These features
also have a similar positive impact on the potential for wildfire ignitions caused by the Project and its inhabitants.
As mentioned previously, the ignition resistant landscapes and structures and the numerous specific requirements
would minimize the ability for an on-site fire to spread to off-site fuels, as follows:
1. Ignition resistant, planned and maintained landscape – all site landscaping of common areas and fuel
modification zones will be subject to strict plant types that are lower ignition plants with those closest to
structures requiring irrigation to maintain high plant moistures which equates to difficult ignition. These
areas are closest to structures, where ignitions would be expected to be highest, but will be prevented
through these ongoing maintenance efforts.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 20 JUNE 2022
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Fuel Modification Zone – the up to 100-foot FMZ includes specifically selected plant species, low fuel
densities, and ongoing HOA funded and applied maintenance, resulting in a buffer between the developed
areas and the off-site native fuels.
Annual FMZ inspections – the Nakano HOA will have a contracted, 3rd party, CVFD-approved or SDFRD-
approved FMZ inspector perform two inspections per year to ensure that FMZs are maintained in a
condition that is consistent to the City of Chula Vista’s or City of San Diego’s standards and FPP’s
requirements.
Ignition resistant structures – all structures will be built to the Chapter 7A (CBC) ignition resistant
requirements that have been developed and codified as a direct result of after fire save and loss
assessments. These measures result in homes that are designed, built and maintained to withstand fire
and embers associated with wildfires. It must be noted that the wide FMZs would not result in wildfire
directly next to these structures. Homes and buildings can be built in the VHFHSZs and WUI areas when
they are part of an overall approach that contemplates wildfire and provides design features that address
the related risk. A structure within a VHFHSZ that is built to these specifications can be at lower risk than
an older structure in a non-fire hazard severity zone. The ignition resistance of on-site structures would
result in a low incidence of structural fires, further minimizing potential for project-related wildfires.
Interior fire sprinklers – sprinklers in residences are designed to provide additional time for occupants to
escape the home. Sprinklers in multi-family and commercial structures are designed to provide structural
protection. The common benefit of fire sprinklers is that they are very successful at assisting responding
firefighters by either extinguishing a structural fire or at least, containing the fire to the room of origin and
delaying flash over. This benefit also reduces the potential for an open space vegetation ignition by
minimizing the possibility for structure fires to grow large and uncontrollable, resulting in embers that are
blown into wildland areas. This is not the case with older existing homes in the area that do not include
interior sprinklers.
Heat Deflecting Wall – At the top of the slope along the northern, eastern, and western Project site
boundaries a 6-foot heat deflecting wall will be constructed of ignition resistant materials.
Fire access roads – roads provide access for firefighting apparatus. Project roads provide code-consistent
access throughout the community. Better access to wildland areas may result in faster wildfire response
and continuation of the fire agencies’ successful control of wildfires at small sizes.
Water – providing firefighting water throughout the Project with hundreds of fire hydrants accessible by fire
engines is a critical component of both structural and vegetation fires. The Project provides firefighting
water volume, availability and sustained pressures to the satisfaction of CVFD. Water accessibility helps
firefighters control structural fires and helps protect structures from and extinguish wildfires.
14107 21 JUNE 2022
3 Anticipated Fire Behavior
3.1 Fire Behavior Modeling
Following field data collection efforts and available data analysis, fire behavior modeling was conducted to
document the type and intensity of the fire that would be expected adjacent to the Project site given characteristic
features such as topography, vegetation, and weather. Dudek utilized BehavePlus software package version 6
(Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2008) to analyze potential fire behavior2.
3.2 Fire Behavior Modeling Analysis
An analysis was conducted to evaluate fire behavior variables and to objectively predict flame lengths, intensities,
and spread rates for four modeling scenarios, including one summer, onshore weather condition (northwest of the
Project site) and three extreme fall, offshore weather condition (northwest, northeast and south of the Project site).
These fire scenarios incorporated observed fuel types representing the dominant vegetation representative of the
site and adjacent land, in addition to slope gradients, wind, and fuel moisture values. Modeling scenario locations
were selected to better understand different fire behavior that may be experienced on or adjacent to the site.
Vegetation types, which were derived from the field assessment for the Project site, were classified into a fuel
model. Fuel models are selected by their vegetation type, fuel stratum most likely to carry the fire, and depth and
compactness of the fuels. Fire behavior modeling was conducted for vegetative types that are both on and adjacent
to the proposed development. Fuel models were also assigned to illustrate post-Project fire behavior changes. Fuel
models were selected from Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: a Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s
Surface Fire Spread Model (Scott and Burgan 2005).
Based on the anticipated pre- and post- Project vegetation conditions, four different fuel models were used in the
current conditions of the fire behavior modeling effort and three additional fuel models were used to depict a fire
post construction, as present herein. Modeled areas include moderate load grass-shrub and moderate- to- high-
load shrub ground fuels (Fuel Models: FM4, Gs2, Sh2, and Sh5) found throughout the adjacent areas surrounding
the Project site, and eucalyptus woodland forest/riparian habitat (Fuel Models: FM9 and Sh4), see Table 1 for fuel
model characteristics. A total of four fire modeling scenarios were completed for the Project area. These sites were
selected based on the strong likelihood of fire approaching from these directions during a Santa Ana wind -driven
fire event (fire scenarios 1a, 2, and 3) and an on -shore weather pattern (fire scenario 1b). Dudek also conducted
modeling of the site for post-Brush Management Zones’ (BMZ) recommendations for this Proposed Project (Refer
to Table 1 for post-BMZ fuel model descriptions). Fuel modification includes establishment of irrigated and thinned
zones on the periphery of the development as well as interior landscape requirements. For modeling the post-BMZ
treatment condition, fuel model assignments were re-classified for the BMZs 1 (Fuel Model 8) and BMZ 2 (Fuel
Model Gr1).
2 A discussion of fire behavior modeling is presented in Appendix C, Fire Behavior Modeling.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 22 JUNE 2022
Table 1. Existing and Post-Development Fuel Model Characteristics
Fuel Model
Assignment
Vegetation
Description Location
Fuel Bed Depth
(Feet)
Existing Conditions
FM4 Chaparral Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
>4.0 ft.
FM9 Eucalyptus woodland
and riparian forest
habitat
Represents the eucalyptus woodland/riparian
habitat that exists northwest of the Project site
>8.0 ft.
Gs2 Moderate load, dry
climate grass-shrub
Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
<2.0 ft.
Sh2 Moderate load, dry
climate shrubs
Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
<2.0 ft.
Sh4 Eucalyptus woodland
and riparian forest
habitat
Represents the eucalyptus woodland/riparian
habitat that exists northwest of the Project site
>8.0 ft.
Sh5 High load, dry climate
shrubs
Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
>3.0 ft.
Post-Development
FM8 Compact litter Fuel Modification Zone 1 and 2: irrigated
landscape
<1.0 ft.
Gs1 Sparse, Sparse Load,
Dry Climate Grass
Fuel Modification Zone 3: 50% thinning of
grasses
>1.0 ft.
Table 2 summarizes the weather and wind input variables used in the BehavePlus modeling process.
Table 2: Variables Used for Fire Behavior Modeling
Model Variable Summer Weather (50th Percentile) Peak Weather (97th Percentile)
Fuel Models FM4, FM9, Sh4, and Sh5 FM4, FM9, Gs2, Sh2, and Sh5
1 h fuel moisture 8% 2%
10 h fuel moisture 9% 3%
100 h fuel moisture 15% 8%
Live herbaceous moisture 59% 30%
Live woody moisture 118% 60%
20 ft. wind speed 14 mph (sustained winds) 18 mph (sustained winds); wind
gusts of 50 mph
Wind Directions from north (degrees) 300 45, 200, and 300
Wind adjustment factor 0.4 0.4
Slope (uphill) 3% 2 to 10%
14107 23 JUNE 2022
3.3 Fire Behavior Modeling Results
The results of fire behavior modeling analysis for pre- and post-Project conditions are presented in Table 3 and
Table 4, respectively. Identification of modeling run (fire scenarios) locations is presented graphically in Figure 7,
BehavePlus Fire Behavior Analysis.
As presented, in the Fire Behavior Analysis (Appendix C), wildfire behavior on the Project site is expected to be
primarily of moderate to high intensity throughout the non -maintained surface shrub and chaparral dominated fuels
within the Otay River area and small hillside along the southern boundary adjacent to the Project site, as well as
within the eucalyptus woodland area/eucalyptus trees along I-805.
As mentioned, the BehavePlus fire behavior modeling software package was utilized in evaluating anticipated fire
behavior adjacent to the Proposed Project site. Four focused analyses were completed, each assuming worst-case
fire weather conditions for a fire approaching the Project site from the northwest, northeast, and south. The results
of the modeling effort included anticipated values for surface fires (flame length (feet), rate of spread (mph), and
fireline intensity (Btu/ft/s)) and crown fires (critical surface intensity (Btu/ft/s), critical surface flame length (feet),
transition ratio (ratio: surface fireline intensity divided by critical surface intensity), transition to crown fire (yes or
no), crown fire rate of spread (mph), critical crown rate of spread (mph), active ratio (ratio: crown fire rate of spread
divided by critical crown fire rate of spread), active crown fire (yes or no), and fire type (surface, torching, conditional
crown, or crowning)). The aforementioned fire behavior variables are an important component in understanding fire
risk and fire agency response capabilities. Flame length, the length of the flame of a spreading surface fire within
the flaming front, is measured from midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames
(Andrews, Bevins, and Seli 2008). Fireline intensity is a measure of heat output from the flaming front, and also
affects the potential for a surface fire to transition to a crown fire. Fire spread rate represents the speed at which
the fire progresses through surface fuels and is another important variable in initial attack and fire suppression
efforts (Rothermel and Rinehart 1983). Spotting distance is the distance a firebrand or ember can travel down wind
and ignite receptive fuel beds. Four fire modeling scenario locations were selected to better understand the
different fire behavior that may be experienced on or adjacent the site based on slope and fuel conditions; these
four fire scenarios are explained in more detail below:
▪ Scenarios 1a: This scenario modeled both a fall, off-shore fire (97 th percentile weather condition) and a
summer, on-shore fire (50th percentile weather condition) burning through the approximately 25-foot tall
eucalyptus tree woodland and riparian habitat area within the Otay River on the west side of I-805 and
northwest of the Proposed Project site. The terrain is flat (approximately 3% slope) with tall eucalyptus trees
and potential ignition sources from a structure fire in the adjacent single-family community to the north, a
vehicle fire from traffic along I-805, or embers from a wildland fire from the west of east/northeast of the
proposed development. This type of fire would typically spread by jumping from tree to tree before possibly
transitioning under I-805 before reaching the developed portion of the Project site.
▪ Scenario 1b: A summer, on-shore fire (50th percentile weather condition) burning in moderate- to- high-
load shrub and chaparral dominated vegetation with a small intermix of non-native grassland located
northwest of the Project site (east side of I-805 and within the riparian area of the Otay River. Additionally,
this scenario models the possibility of a eucalyptus crown fire that are located along the west side of the
development and east side of the I-805. The terrain is flat (between 2% and 3% slope) with potential ignition
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 24 JUNE 2022
sources from a vehicle fire from traffic along I-805 or embers from a wildland fire from the west of
east/northeast of the proposed development. This type of fire would typically spread moderately fast before
reaching the developed portion of the Project site.
▪ Scenario 2: A fall, off -shore fire (97 th percentile weather condition) burning in moderate- to- high-load
shrub and chaparral dominated vegetation with a small intermix of non-native grassland located
north/northeast of the Project development. The terrain is flat (approximately 2% slope) with potential
ignition sources from a structure fire in the adjacent single-family community to the east, a vehicle fire from
the parking lot to the north, or from a wildland fire from the east/northeast of the proposed development.
This type of fire would typically spread moderately fast before reaching the northern portion of the
developed area of the Project site.
▪ Scenario 3: A fall, off -shore fire (97 th percentile weather condition) burning in moderate- to- high-load
shrub and chaparral dominated vegetation with a small intermix of non-native grassland located south of
the Project development. The terrain is relatively flat (approximately 10% slope) with potential ignition
sources from a structure fire from the adjacent hospital to the south, a vehicle fire from the hospital parking
lot to the south or traffic along the I-805, or from embers of a wildland fire from the east/northeast of the
proposed development. This type of fire would typically spread moderately fast before reaching the
southern portion of the developed Project site.
The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software and are not
intended to capture changing fire behavior as it moves across a landscape. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets
of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis. For planning purposes, the averaged worst-case fire
behavior is the most useful information for conservative fuel modification design. Model results should be used as
a basis for planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given lo cation will be affected by many factors, including
unique weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns.
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
Based on the BehavePlus analysis result presented below and in Table 3, worst-case fire behavior from the
eucalyptus tree woodland is expected under peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 1a –
Fall), while worst-case surface fire behavior is expected under peak weather conditions within the non-maintained
shrubs and chaparrals vegetated areas (represented by Scenario 2). The fire is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire
from the north/northeast during the fall. Under such conditions, expected surface flame length could potentially
reach approximately 41 feet with wind speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 18,348
BTU/feet/second with moderate spread rates of 6.2 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 2.3 miles away.
Because embers could spot within 2.3 miles of the Project site, a crown fire could potentially occur within the small
eucalyptus woodland area within the riparian Otay River, located approximately 550 feet northwest of the developed
portion of the Project site. Potential crown fire flame lengths could reach 58 feet with sustained winds of 18 mph
or 147 feet with wind gusts of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, crown fireline intensities reach 20,083
BTU/feet/second with moderately slow crown spread rates of 4.1 mph.
Wildfire behavior in non-maintained shrubs and chaparral within the Otay River west/northwest of the Project site,
modeled as FM4 and Sh5 being fanned by 14 mph sustained, on-shore winds. Fires burning from the
west/northwest and pushed by ocean breezes typically exhibit less severe fire behavior due to lower wind speeds
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 25 JUNE 2022
and higher humidity. Under typical onshore weather conditions, a moderate- to- high-load shrub/chaparral
vegetation fire could have flame lengths between approximately 12 feet and 19 feet in height and spread rates
between 0.6 and 0.9 mph. Spotting distances, where airborne embers can ignite new fires downwind or within the
small eucalyptus woodland area within the riparian Otay River, located approximately 550 feet northwest of the
developed portion of the Project site, range from 0.4 to 0.6 miles. A crown fire could potentially reach 38 feet under
these conditions.
Table 3: RAWS BehavePlus Fire Behavior Model Results – Existing Conditions
Note:
1. Wind-driven surface fire.
2. Riparian overstory torching increases fire intensity. Modeling included canopy fuel over Sh4, which represents surface fuels beneath the tree
canopies.
Fire Scenario
Flame
Length1
(feet)
Spread
Rate1
(mph5)
Fireline
Intensity1
(Btu/ft/s)
Spot
Fire1
(miles)
Surface Fire to
Tree Crown
Fire
Tree Crown
Fire Rate of
Spread (mph)
Crown Fire
Flame Length
(feet)
Scenario 1a: 3% slope; Fall Off-shore Extreme Wind (97th percentile) - (Northwest of Project site)
Eucalyptus
woodland/Riparian Habitat
(FM9)
5.3
(11.7’)6 0.3 (1.7) 215
(1,193) 0.3 (1.0) No 1.0 (4.1) 52.9 (136.1)6
Riparian Habitat - Timber
Shrub (Sh4)
12.1
(23.2)6 1.0 (4.1) 1,293
(5,261) 0.6 (1.5) No 1.0 (4.1) 57.5 (137.8)6
Scrub and Chaparral (Sh5) 23.7
(41.2)6 1.9 (6.2) 5,546
(18,348) 0.9 (2.3) Crowning 4 1.0 (4.1) 69.9 (179.7)6
Scenario 1a: 3% slope; Summer on-shore Wind (50th percentile) - (Northwest of Project site)
Eucalyptus
woodland/Riparian Habitat
(FM9)
2.9 0.1 57 0.2 No 0.3 38.1
Riparian Habitat - Timber
Shrub (Sh4) 2.3 0.1 34 0.1 No 0.3 37.5
Scrub and Chaparral (Sh5) 12.5 0.6 1,379 0.4 Crowning 4 0.3 43.5
Scenario 1b: 2% slope; Summer on-shore Wind (50th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (Northwest of Project site)
Chaparral (FM4) 18.9 0.9 3,375 0.6 Crowning 4 0.3 36.5
Riparian Habitat - Timber
Shrub (Sh4) 2.3 0.1 34 0.1 No 0.3 24.3
Scrub and Chaparral (Sh5) 12.5 0.6 1,379 0.4 Crowning 4 0.3 31.5
Scenario 2: 2% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (North/northwest of Project site)
Grass/Shrub (Gs2) 9.6
(18.8’)6 0.9 (3.8) 774
(3,358) 0.4 (1.3) N/A N/A N/A
Moderate load shrubs
(Sh2)
8.0
(15.1)6 0.2 (0.9) 522
(2,074) 0.4 (1.1) N/A N/A N/A
High load Scrub (Sh5) 23.6
(41.1)6 1.9 (6.2) 5,545
(18,348) 0.8 (2.3) N/A N/A N/A
Scenario 3: 10% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (South of Project site)
Grass/Shrub (Gs2) 9.6
(18.8’)6 0.9 (3.8) 767
(3,351) 0.4 (1.3) N/A N/A N/A
Moderate load shrubs
(Sh2)
8.0
(15.1)6 0.2 (0.9) 517
(2,069) 0.4 (1.1) N/A N/A N/A
High load Scrub (Sh5) 23.7
(41.2)6 1.9 (6.2) 5,500
(18,303) 0.8 (2.3) N/A N/A N/A
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 26 JUNE 2022
3. A surface fire in the mixed sycamore riparian forest would transition into the tree canopies generating flame lengths higher than the average tree
height (25 feet). Viable airborne embers could be carried downwind for approximately 1.0 mile and ignite receptive fuels.
4. Crowning= fire is spreading through the overstory crowns.
5. MPH=miles per hour
6. Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire; it should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph.
3.3.2 Post-Development Conditions
As previously mentioned, Dudek conducte d modeling of the Project site for post -development conditions .
Typical brush management for the City of San Diego includes establishment of minimum 35-foot wide irrigated
Zones A and a minimum 65-foot wide thinning Zone B on the periphery of the Project site, beginning at the
structure. For modeling the post -BMZ treatment condition, the fuel model assignment for eucalyptus
woodland/riparian habitat (FM9), riparian habitat - timber shrub (Sh4) and scrub and chaparral (Sh5) were re-
classified according to the specific fuels management (e.g., irrigated, fire resistive landscaping and 50%
thinning) treatment.
Based on the BehavePlus analysis, post-development fire behavior expected in the irrigated and replanted with
plants that are acceptable with the San Diego Fire and Rescue Department (SDFRD) (BMZ Zones 1 – Gr1), as well
as in an area with thinning of the existing shrubs (BMZ Zone 2 – Sh1/Sh2) under peak weather conditions
(represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 2) is presented in Table 4. Under such conditions, expected surface flame
length is expected to be significantly lower, with flames lengths reaching approximately 10 feet with wind speeds
of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 760 BTU/feet/second with relatively slow spread rates
of 1.3 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 0.8 miles away. Therefore, the modified BMZ proposed for the
Nakano Residential Development Project are approximately 2.5-times the flame length of the worst case fire
scenario under peak weather conditions and would provide adequate defensible space to augment a wildfire
approaching the perimeter of the Project site.
Table 4: RAWS BehavePlus Fire Behavior Model Results – Post-Development
Conditions
Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet)
Spread Rate
(mph)3
Fireline Intensity
(Btu/ft./sec)
Spot Fire (Miles) 4
Scenario 1b: 2% slope; Summer on-shore Wind (50th percentile) – Post-BMZ (Northwest of Project site)
BMZ Zone 1 (Gr1) 1.7 0.2 18 0.1
BMZ Zone 2 (Sh1) 0.6 0.0 2 0.0
Scenario 2: 2% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Post-BMZ (North/northwest of Project site)
BMZ Zone 1 (Gr1) 3.1 (3.1) 0.5 (0.5) 67 (67) 0.2 (0.4)
BMZ Zone 2 (Sh1) 5.3 (9.5) 0.3 (1.3) 210 (760) 0.3 (0.8)
Scenario 3: 10% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (South of Project site)
BMZ Zone 1 (Gr1) 3.1 (3.1) 0.5 (0.5) 67 (67) 0.2 (0.4)
BMZ Zone 2 (Sh1) 5.2 (9.5) 0.3 (1.3) 208 (760) 0.3 (0.8)
3 mph = miles per hour
4 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire; it should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts o f 45
mph.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 27 JUNE 2022
Surface Fire:
▪ Flame Length (feet): The flame length of a spreading surface fire within the flaming front is measured from
midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames.
▪ Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft/s): Fireline intensity is the heat energy release per unit time from a one-foot wide
section of the fuel bed extending from the front to the rear of the flaming zone. Fireline intensity is a function
of rate of spread and heat per unit area, and is directly related to flame length. Fireline intensity and the
flame length are related to the heat felt by a person standing next to the flames.
▪ Surface Rate of Spread (mph): Surface rate of spread is the "speed" the fire travels through the surface
fuels. Surface fuels include the litter, grass, brush and other dead and live vegetation within about 6 feet
of the ground.
Crown Fire:
▪ Transition to Crown Fire: Indicates whether conditions for transition from surface to crown fire are likely.
Calculation depends on the transition ratio. If the transition ratio is greater than or equal to 1, then
transition to crown fire is Yes. If the transition ratio is less than 1, then transition to crown fire is No.
▪ Crown Fire Rate of Spread (mph): The forward spread rate of a crown fire. It is the overall spread for a
sustained run over several hours. The spread rate includes the effects of spotting. It is calculated from 20-
ft wind speed and surface fuel moisture values. It does not consider a description of the overstory.
Fire Type:
Fire type is one of the following four types: surface (understory fire), torching (passive crown fire; surface fire with
occasional torching trees), conditional crown (active crown fire possible if the fire transitions to the overstory), and
crowning (active crown fire; fire spreading through the overstory crowns). Dependent on the variables: transition to
crown fire and active crown fire.
The information in Table 5 presents an interpretation of the outputs for five fire behavior variables as related to fire
suppression efforts. The results of fire behavior modeling efforts are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Identification of
modeling run locations is presented graphically in Figure 7 of this FPP.
Table 5: Fire Suppression Interpretation
Flame Length
(ft)
Fireline Intensity
(Btu/ft/s)
Interpretations
Under 4 feet Under 100 BTU/ft/s Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by
persons using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire.
4 to 8 feet 100-500 BTU/ft/s Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons
using hand tools. Hand line cannot be relied on to hold the
fire. Equipment such as dozers, pumpers, and retardant
aircraft can be effective.
8 to 11 feet 500-1000 BTU/ft/s Fires may present serious control problems -- torching out,
crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head will
probably be ineffective.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 28 JUNE 2022
Table 5: Fire Suppression Interpretation
Flame Length
(ft)
Fireline Intensity
(Btu/ft/s)
Interpretations
Over 11 feet Over 1000 BTU/ft/s Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control
efforts at head of fire are ineffective.
3.4 Project Area Fire Risk Assessment
Wildland fires are a common natural hazard in most of southern California with a long and extensive history.
Southern California landscapes include a diverse range of plant communities, including vast tracts of chaparral and
eucalyptus woodland, like those found on and adjacent to the Nakano Project site. Wildfire in this Mediterranean-
type ecosystem ultimately affects the structure and functions of vegetation communities (Keeley 1984) and will
continue to have a substantial and recurring role (Keeley and Fotheringham 200 1). Supporting this are the facts
that 1) native landscapes, from forest to grasslands, become highly flammable each fall and 2) the climate of
southern California has been characterized by fire climatologists as the worst fire climate in the United States
(Keeley 2005) with high winds (Santa Ana) occurring during autumn after a six-month drought period each year.
Based on this research, the anticipated growing population expanding into WUI areas, and the regions’ fire history,
it can be anticipated that periodic wildfires may start on, burn onto, or spot on-site. The most common type of fire
anticipated in the vicinity of the Project Area is a wind-driven fire from the north/northeast, moving through the
chaparral, eucalyptus woodland and riparian habitat on the adjacent lands.
With the conversion of the landscape to ignition-resistant development, wildfires may still encroach upon and drop
embers on the site but would not be expected to burn through the site or produce sustainable spot fires due to the
lack of available fuels. Studies indicate that even with older developments that lacked the fire protections provided
in the Project, wildfires declined steadily over time (Syphard, et. al., 2007 and 2013) and further, the acreage
burned remained relatively constant, even though the number of ignitions temporarily increased. This is due to the
conversion of landscapes to ignition resistant, maintained areas, more humans monitoring areas resulting in early
fire detection and discouragement of arson, and fast response from the fire suppression resources that are located
within these developing areas.
Therefore, it will be important that the latest fire protection technologies, developed through intensive research and
real-world wildfire observations and findings by fire professionals, for both ignition resistant construction and for
creating defensible space in the ever-expanding WUI areas, are implemented and enforced. The Project, once
developed, would not facilitate wildfire spread and would reduce projected flame lengths to levels that would be
manageable by firefighting resources for protecting the site’s structures, especially given the ignition resistance of
the structures and the planned ongoing maintenance of the entire site landscape. The Project will implement the
latest fire protection measures, including fuel modification along the perimeter edges of the development. In
addition, the 100-foot BMZ for the Project site would be approximately 10 times wider than the longest calculated
flame length conditions for portions of the proposed developed area that abut the BMZ (reference Table 4).
Given the climatic, vegetative, topographic characteristics, and local fire history of the area, the Project site, once
developed, is determined to be subject to periodic wildfires that may start on, burn toward, or spot on-site. The
potential for off-site wildfire encroaching on, or showering embers on the site is considered moderate to high, but
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 29 JUNE 2022
the risk of ignition from such encroachments or ember showers is considered low based on the type of ignition
resistant landscapes and construction and fire protection features that will be provided for the structures.
While it is true that humans are the cause of most fires in California, there is no data available that links increases
in wildfires with the development of ignition-resistant communities. The Project will include a robust fire protection
system, as detailed in the Project’s FPP. This same robust fire protection system provides protections from on-site
fire spreading to off-site vegetation. Accidental fires within the landscape or structures in the Project will have
limited ability to spread. The landscape throughout the Project and on its perimeter will be highly maintained and
much of it irrigated, which further reduces its ignition potential. Structures will be highly ignition resistant on the
exterior and the interiors will be protected with automatic sprinkler systems, which have a ver y high success rate
for confining fires or extinguishing them. The Project will be a fire-adapted community with a strong resident
outreach program that raises fire awareness among its residents.
Pa
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1
4
1
0
7
0
0
\
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
F
P
P
\
F
I
G
4
B
e
h
a
v
e
P
l
u
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Project Boundary
Land Use
Development
Roadway
WQ Basin
Manufactured Slope
SOURCE: AERIAL-BING MAPPING SERVICE
0 500250Feet
Model Run: Summer and Fall Fire
Slope: 3%
Fuel Model: FM9, FM4, Sh4, Sh5
Wind: 14 mph sustained winds
Maximum Flame Length: 18.9 Ft.
Crown Fire Flame Length: 43.5-FT
Fireline Intensity: 3,375 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 0.6 mph
Spot distance: 0.6 mi
Wind: 50mph gusts
Maximum Flame Length: 41.2-Ft
Crown Fire Flame Length: 137.8-FT
Fireline Intensity: 18, 348 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 6.2 mph
Spot Distance: 2.3 mi
Scenario Run #1
1
Scenario Run #2
Model Run: Extreme Fall Fire
Slope: 2%
Fuel Model: Gs2, Sh2, Sh5
Wind: 19 mph sustained winds
Maximum Flame Length: 23.6 Ft.
Fireline Intensity: 5,545 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 1.9 mph
Spot distance: 0.8 mi
Wind: 50mph gusts
Maximum Flame Length: 41.1-Ft
Fireline Intensity: 18,348 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 6.2 mph
Spot Distance: 2.3 mi
2
Model Run: Extreme Fall Fire
Slope: 10%
Fuel Model: Gs2, Sh2, Sh5
Wind: 19 mph sustained winds
Maximum Flame Length: 23.7 Ft.
Fireline Intensity: 5,500 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 1.9 mph
Spot distance: 0.8 mi
Wind: 50mph gusts
Maximum Flame Length: 41.2-Ft
Fireline Intensity: 18,303 Btu/ft/s
Spread Rate: 6.2 mph
Spot Distance: 2.3 mi
Scenario Run #3
3
FIGURE 7BehavePlus Analysis MapFire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 31 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14107 32 JUNE 2022
4 Emergency Response Service
The following sections analyze the Project in terms of current CVFD and SDFRD fire service capabilities and
resources to provide Fire Protection and Emergency Services. The analysis that follows examines the ability of the
existing CVFD and SDFRD fire stations to adequately serve the Project site. Response times were evaluated using
Project build-out conditions. It was assumed that phased construction would include access roads to the newly
constructed buildings and that the shortest access route to those structures would be utilized.
4.1 Emergency Response Fire Facilities
The Project is currently located within the CVFD jurisdictional response area; however, the Project proposes
annexation of the Project site to the City of San Diego. Once annexed, San Diego Fire Department would be the
FAHJ. Regardless if annexation is approved, San Diego Fire Department Station 6 would be dispatched for first
response. However, within the area’s emergency services system, fire and emergency medical services are also
provided by other agencies. Generally, each agency is responsible for structural fire protection and wildland fire
protection within their area of responsibility. However, mutual aid agreements enable non-lead fire agencies to
respond to fire emergencies outside their district boundaries. In the Project area, fire agencies cooperate under a
statewide master mutual aid agreement for wildland fires. There are also mutual aid agreemen ts in place with
neighboring fire agencies and typically include interdependencies that exist among the region’s fire protection
agencies for structural and medical responses but are primarily associated with the peripheral “edges” of each
agency’s boundary.
CVFD provides fire, emergency medical, and rescue services from 10 stations and SDFRD provides services from
51 stations. The Chula Vista Fire Department serves approximately 269,000 residents and San Diego Fire
Department Serves 1.41 million residents. San Diego Fire Department Fire Station 6 would provide an initial
response; however, Chula Vista Fire Department Stations 9 and 5, as well as SDFRD Station 43 are available to
provide a secondary response to the Project, if needed. These four existing stations were analyzed herein due to
their proximity to the Project site. Figure 8 illustrates the station locations and Table 6 provides a summary of the
SDFRD and CVFD fire and medical delivery system for CVFD Fire Stations 9 and 5 and SDFRD Fire Stations 6 and
29.
Table 6. Closest Responding Stations Summary
Station Location Equipment Staffing
SDFRD
Station 6
693 Twining Ave.
San Diego
Engine 6 3 person Engine
CVFD
Station 9
1410 Brandywine Ave.
Chula Vista
Engine 59 3 person Engine
SDFRD
Station 29
198 W San Ysidro
Blvd, San Diego
Engine 29, Truck 29, Brush 29,
Paramedic 29
3 person Engine
CVFD
Station 5
341 Orange Ave.
Chula Vista
Engine 55 3 person Engine
Source: City of Chula Vista Fire Department 2021 and City of San Diego Fire Department 2021
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 33 JUNE 2022
The closest existing fire station to the Nakano development is SDFRD Station 6 located at 693 Twining Avenue, San
Diego, which includes a three (3)-person Engine Company 24-hours per day/seven days a week. Additionally, CVFD
Station 9 located at 1410 Brandywine Avenue, Chula Vista and would likely provide a secondary response. SDFRD
Station 29 located at 198 W San Ysidro Blvd, San Diego, and CVFD Station 5 located at 341 Orange Avenue, Chula
Vista could also provide additional response to the Nakano Project.
4.1.1 Emergency Response Travel Time Coverage
In an effort to understand fire department response capabilities, Dudek conducted an analysis of the travel-time
response coverage from the closest, existing station (SDFRD Fire Station 6). The response time analysis was
conducted using travel distances that were derived from Google road data and Project development plan data.
Travel times were calculated applying the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance
in miles, and S=speed in MPH) as well as the nationally recognized Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection
Classification Program’s Response Time Standard formula (T=0.65 + 1.7 D, where T= time and D = distance) for
comparison. The ISO response travel time formula discounts speed for intersections, vehicle deceleration, and
acceleration, and does not include turnout time. Tables 7 and 8 present tabular results of the emergency response
time analysis using the distance at speed formula and the ISO formula, respectively.
Table 7. Project Emergency Response Analysis using Speed Limit Formula
Station
Travel Distance
to Project
Entrance
Travel Time to
Project
Entrance 1
Maximum
Travel
Distance 2
Maximum
Travel Time
Total Response
Time 3
SDFRD
Station 6
1.0 mile 1 minutes
43 seconds
1.4 miles 2 minutes
24 seconds
4 minutes
24 seconds
CVFD
Station 9
2.6 miles 4 minutes
28 seconds
3.0 miles 5 minutes
8 seconds
7 minutes
8 seconds
SDFRD
Station 29
3.2 miles 5 minutes
29 seconds
3.6 miles 6 minutes
10 seconds
8 minutes
10 seconds
CVFD
Station 5
3.5 miles 6 minutes
00 seconds
3.9 miles 6 minutes
41 seconds
8 minutes
41 seconds
Notes:
1. Assumes travel distance and time to the Project entrance off Dennery Road from fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit
formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
2. Assumes travel distance and time to the furthest point within the Project site from fire station, and application of the distance at speed limit
formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
3. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time to furthest point within the Project site from fire station, and application of
the distance at speed limit formula (T=(D/S) * 60, where T=time, D=distance in miles, and S=speed in MPH) a 35 mph travel speed along
with dispatch and turnout time, which can add an additional two minutes to travel time.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 34 JUNE 2022
Table 8. Project Emergency Response Analysis using ISO Formula
Station
Travel Distance
to Projec t
Entrance
Travel Time to
Project
Entrance 1
Maximum
Travel
Distance 2
Maximum
Travel Time
Total Response
Time 3
SDFRD
Station 6
1.0 mile 2 minutes
21 seconds
1.4 miles 3 minutes
2 seconds
5 minutes
2 seconds
CVFD
Station 9
2.6 miles 5 minutes
4 seconds
3.0 miles 5 minutes
45 seconds
7 minutes
45 seconds
SDFRD
Station 29
3.2 miles 6 minutes
5 seconds
3.6 miles 6 minutes
46 seconds
8 minutes
46 seconds
CVFD
Station 5
3.5 miles 6 minutes
36 seconds
3.9 miles 7 minutes
17 seconds
9 minutes
17 seconds
Notes:
1. Assumes travel distance and time to the Project entrance off Dennery Road from fire station, and application of the ISO formula,
T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
2. Assumes travel distance and time to the furthest point within the Project site from fire station, and application of th e ISO formula,
T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed, and does not include turnout time.
3. Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time to furthest point within the Project site from fire station, and application of
the ISO formula, T=0.65+1.7(Distance), a 35 mph travel speed along with dispatch and turnout time, which can add an additional two
minutes to travel time.
Emergency response time target thresholds include travel time along with dispatch and turnout time, which can
add two minutes to travel time. SDFRD Station 6 would provide an initial response as the closest existing fire station.
As indicated in Table 7 and Table 8, the total response time from SDFRD Station 6 to the furthest residence on the
Project site conforms to the response time standard of six (6) minutes and 30 seconds of fire dispatch receiving
the 9-1-1 call, 90% of the time. Across all SDFRD Stations, this standard was met on 76% of all calls in FY2021
(City of San Diego 2022). The second engine to the Project site is estimated to arrive within approximately 7 minutes
and 8 seconds (Speed Limit Formula) or 7 minutes and 45 seconds (ISO Formula). All response calculations are
based on an average response speed of 35 mph, consistent with nationally recognized National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 1710. Based on these calculations, the Project would meet the City of San Diego’s response
time standard from existing fire stations.
4.2 Estimated Calls and Demand for Service
Emergency call volumes related to typical projects, such as new residential developments, can be reliably estimated
based on the historical per-capita call volume from a particular fire jurisdiction. The SDFRD documented 158,373
total incidents for 2020, generated by a city-wide (San Diego) service area total population of approximately
1,410,000 persons. The City of San Diego’s per capita annual call volume is approximately 112 calls per 1,000
persons. The resulting per capita call volume is 0.112.
The estimated incident call volume at buildout from the Project is based on a conservative estimate of the maximum
potential number of persons on-site at any given time (considered a “worst-case” scenario). The Project includes
215 residential units, which includes a mix detached condominiums, duplexes and multi-family townhomes. Using
City of San Diego Fire Department’s estimate per capita call volume of 0.112 (112 annual calls per 1,000
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 35 JUNE 2022
population), the Nakano Project’s estimated 729 residents5 would generate up to 82 additional calls per year (7
calls per month). The type of calls expected would primarily be medical-related.
Response Capability Impact Assessment
The available firefighting and emergency medical resources in the vicinity of the Project site include an assortment
of fire apparatus and equipment considered fully capable of responding to the type of fires and emergency medical
calls potentially occurring within the Project site. In 2020 SDFRD Station 6, the primary responding station for the
Project, responded to a total of 2,252 incidents with an approximate call volume of 6 calls a day in 2021 (SDFRD
2021).
The Nakano Project includes 215 new residential dwelling units. The Nakano development is conservatively
projected to add up to 82 calls per year (approximately 7 calls per month), mostly medical, initially within SDFRD
Station 6’s first-in response jurisdiction. The addition of 82 calls per year is not considered a significant impact
given SDFRD Station 6’s annual call volume of 2,252 calls per year. A busy suburban fire station would run 10 or
more calls per day. An average station runs about 5 calls per day. The level of service demand for the Nakano
Project site slightly raises overall call volume but is not anticipated to impact the existing fire station to a po int
that they cannot meet the demand. Station 6 would respond to an additional 82 calls per year (approximately 7
calls per month), although the number will likely be lower than that based on the conservative nature of the
population and calls per capita data used in this estimate.
5 The Nakano Project proposes the development of 215 residential units. Per SANDAG Demographic and Socioeconomic Estimates for
the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa Community Plan Area, the average persons per household is 3.39. Therefore, this FPP assumes
the Project’s population would be estimated at 729 (215 housing units x 3.39 average persons per household = 728.85 estimated
Project population).
Project Site
Date: 11/12/2021 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1410700\MA
PDOC\DOCUM
ENT\FPP
\FIG5_Fire Stations.m
xd
SOURCE: BASE-ESRI; FIRE DATA-SANGIS
0 5,0002,500 Feet
Fire Station LocationCity LimitsProject Boundary
FIGURE 8Fire Station Locations
Fire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 37 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14107 38 JUNE 2022
5 Buildings, Infrastructure and Defensible
Space
This FPP demonstrates that the Project would comply with applicable portions of the Chula Vista Fire Code (Chapter
15.36), and the San Diego Fire Code (Chapter 5, Article 5). The Project also complies with Chapter 7A of the 2019
California Building Code (CBC); the 2019 California Residential Code, Section 327; and 2018 Edition of the
International Fire Code as adopted by the CVFD. The Project would also be subject to the provisions of section 4291
of the Public Resources Code; Chapter 12-7A of the CA Reference Standards Code, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter
7, Subsection 2, Articles 1-5 and Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subsection 3, Section 1299 of the CA Code of
Regulations; Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 1, Section 3.07 of the CA Code of Regulations; and Sections
51175-511829 of the CA Government Code. The Project will meet or exceed applicable codes or will provide
alternative materials and/or methods that meet or exceed the intent of the code. While these standards will provide
a high level of protection to structures for the Project, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards
will prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases. A response map update, including roads and
fire hydrant locations, in a format compatible with current department mapping, shall be provided to both SDFRD
and CVFD.
The following summaries highlight important fire protection features. All underground utilities, hydrants, water
mains, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved prior to combustibles
being brought on site.
5.1 Site Access
Site access, including fire lane, driveway, and entrance road widths, primary and secondary access, gates,
turnarounds, dead end lengths, signage, aerial fire apparatus access, surface, and other requirements will comply
with the requirements of the 2019 California Fire Code, CVFD standards, and SDFRD standards. Fire access will be
reviewed and approved by CVFD and/or SDFRD prior to construction.
The developer will provide information illustrating the new roads, in a format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista
and City of San Diego, for updating of respective City maps.
5.1.1 Access Roads
The Project would involve the construction of new structures, roadways, and would generate new trips to and from
the Project site. Project site access, including road widths and connectivity, will be consistent with the City of Chula
Vista’s roadway standards and the 2019 CFC Section 503 . Additionally, an adequate water supply and approved
paved access roadways shall be installed prior to any combustibles being brought on-site and will include:
• The primary access to the Project is provided via Dennery Road.
• Secondary access will be provided via an accessible emergency use road located in the northeastern
portion of the project and enables travel to the east through the adjacent River Edge Terrace community
via Golden Sky Way. The road will meet fire apparatus access road code requirements.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 39 JUNE 2022
• Internal circulation is comprised of a loop roadway system. All interior circulation roads include all
roadways that are considered common or primary roadways for traffic flow through the Project site and
for fire department access serving all proposed residential lots. Any dead-end streets serving new
residential structures that are longer than 150 feet will have approved provisions for fire apparatus
turnaround.
• The road system will be developed to be consistent with the City of Chula Vista’s roadway standards
and the 2019 CFC, Section 503.2.1. All roads would comply or exceed applicable CVFD and SDFRD
requirements regarding sizing, condition, maintenance, and secured access.
• The interior residential access roads will be designed to accommodate a minimum of a 75,000-pound
(lb.) fire apparatus load.
• Private and public streets for each phase shall meet all Project approved fire code requirements and/or
mitigated exceptions for maximum allowable dead-end distance, paving, and fuel management before
combustibles being brought to the site.
• Access roads to private lots to be completed and paved prior to issuance of building permits and prior
to the occurrence of combustible construction
5.1.2 Gates
Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria:
• The minimum gate width shall be 13 feet (3964 mm).
• Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type.
• Construction of gates shall be of materials that allow manual operation by one person.
• Gate components shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and replaced or repaired when
defective.
• Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire depar tment personnel for
emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the Fire Code Official.
• Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of
being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the key(s) to the lock is installed
at the gate location.
• Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval by the Fire Code Official.
• Electric gate operators where provided shall be listed in accordance with UL 325.
• Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the
requirements of ASTM F 2200.
5.1.3 Dead-End Roads
Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be provided with an
approved area for turning around fire apparatus (2019 CFC Section 503.2.5). The Project has an internal looped
roadway and no dead-end roads are proposed.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 40 JUNE 2022
5.1.4 Grade
The Project complies with the CVFD and SDFRD requirements. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 15
percent in grade. The emergency access road may include grades up to 20%, in which case, grades over 15% and
no greater than 20% will be provided with a broomed Portland Cement finish or equivalent to the fire authority’s
satisfaction.
5.1.5 Surface
All on-site roads shall be constructed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (75,000 lbs.)
and shall be improved with asphalt paving materials. All underground utilities, hydrants, water mains, curbs, gutters
and sidewalks must be installed, and the drive surface shall be approved by CVFD and SDFRD prior to combustibles
being brought on site.
5.1.6 Vertical Clearance
Minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches will be maintained for the entire required width for all
streets, including driveways that require emergency vehicle access.
5.1.7 Premise Identification
Identification of roads and structures will comply with 2019 CFC standards, CVFD and SDFRD, as follows:
1. All structures required to be identified by street address numbers at the structure, placed in a position that
is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers to be minimum 4 inches high with 0.5-inch
stroke and contrast with background.
3. Proposed roads within the development will be named, with the proper signage installed at intersections to
satisfaction of the CVFD and/or SDFRD and the City of Chula Vista’s Department of Public Works.
4. Streets will have street names posted on non-combustible street signposts. Letters/numbers will be 4
inches high, reflective, on a 6-inch-high backing. Signage will be 7 feet above grade. There will be street
signs at the entrances to the development, all intersections, and elsewhere as needed subject to approval
of the Fire Chief.
5.2 Ignition Resistant Construction and Fire Protection
All new structures within the Proposed Project will be constructed to at least the California Fire Code standard. Each
of the proposed buildings will comply with the enhanced ignition-resistant construction standards of the 2019 CBC
(Chapter 7A) and Chapter 5 of the Urban-Wildland Interface code, except where buildings require enhanced ignition
resistance as part of an alternative material and method proposal. These requirements address roofs, eaves,
exterior walls, vents, appendages, windows, and doors and result in hardened structures that have been proven to
perform at high levels (resist ignition) during the typically short duration of exposure to burning vegetation from
wildfires.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 41 JUNE 2022
While these standards will provide a high level of protection to structures in this development and should reduce
the potential for ordering evacuations in a wildfire, there is no guarantee that compliance with these standards will
prevent damage or destruction of structures by fire in all cases.
There are two primary concerns for structure ignition: 1) radiant and/or convective heat and 2) burning embers
(NFPA 1144 2008, Ventura County Fire Protection District 2011, IBHS 2008, and others). Burning embers have
been a focus of building code updates for at least the last decade, and new structures in the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI) built to these codes have proven to be very ignition resistant. Likewise, radiant and convective heat
impacts on structures have been minimized through the Chapter 7A exterior fire ratings for walls, windows and
doors. Additionally, provisions for modified fuel areas separating wildland fuels from structures have reduced the
number of fuel-related structure losses. As such, most of the primary components of the layered fire protection
system are required by the CVFD and SDFRD but are worth listing because they have been proven effective for
minimizing structural vulnerability to wildfire and, with the inclusion of required interior sprinklers, of extinguishing
interior fires, should embers succeed in entering a structure. Even though these measures are now required by the
latest Building and Fire Codes, at one time, they were used as mitigation measures for buildings in WUI areas,
because they were known to reduce structure vulnerability to wildfire. These measures performed so well, they were
adopted into the code. The following project features are required for new development in WUI areas and form the
basis of the system of protection necessary to minimize structural ignitions as well as providing adequate access
by emergency responders:
1. The 7A Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure (CBC) chapter details the ignition
resistant requirements for the following key components of building safely in wildland urban interface and
fire hazard severity zones:
a. Roofing Assemblies (covering, valleys and gutters)
b. Vents and Openings
c. Exterior wall covering
d. Open Roof Eaves
e. Closed Roof Eaves and Soffits
f. Exterior Porch Ceilings
g. Floor projections and underfloor protection
h. Underfloor appendices
i. Windows, Skylights and Doors
j. Decking
k. Accessory structures
2. New class-A fire rated roof and associated assembly. With the proposed class-A fire rated roof, areas where
there will be attic or void spaces requiring ventilation to the outside environment, the attic spaces will
require either ember-resistant roof vents or a minimum 1/16-inch mesh (smaller sizes restrict air flow) and
shall not exceed 1/8-inch mesh for side ventilation (recommend BrandGuard, O’Hagin or similar vents). All
vents used for this Project will be approved by SDFRD.
3. Multi- pane glazing with a minimum of one tempered pane, fire-resistance rating of not less than 20 minutes
when tested according to NFPA 257 (such as SaftiFirst, SuperLite 20-minute rated glass product), or be
tested to meet the performance requirements of State Fire Marshal Standard 12-7A-2
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 42 JUNE 2022
4. Automatic, Interior Fire Sprinkler System to code by occupancy type for all habitable, residential dwellings.
5. Modern infrastructure, access roads, and water delivery system.
5.3 Infrastructure and Fire Protection Systems Requirements
The following infrastructure components are made in order to comply with the City of Chula and City of San Diego
Vista requirements, the 2019 California Fire Code, CVFP’s and SDFRD’s Fire Code standards, and nationally
accepted fire protection standards, as well as additional requirements to assist in providing reasonable on-site fire
protection.
5.3.1 Water Supply
The Project will be consistent with 2019 CFC for fire flow and fire hydrant requirements within a VHFHSZ. These
internal waterlines will also supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands for required on -site
fire hydrants and interior fire sprinkler systems for all structures. Water supply must meet a 2-hour fire flow
requirement of 2,500 gpm with 20-psi residual pressure, which must be over and above the daily maximum water
requirements for this development. Water utilities will be connected prior to any construction.
5.3.2 Fire Hydrants
Hydrants shall be located along fire access roadways and cul-de-sacs as determined by the CVFD Fire Marshal to meet
operational needs. Hydrants will be consistent with CVFD Design Standards and provided every 500 feet (on-center).
5.3.3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
All structures within the Project site will include interior sprinklers, per code requirements (Section R313.3 of the
2019 California Residential Code, Chapter 9, Section 903 of the 2019 California Fire Code, and Section 602 of the
Urban-Wildland Interface Code). Sprinklers will be specific to each occupancy type and based on the most recent
NFPA 13, 13R, or 13D, requirements.
5.3.4 Residential Hazard Detectors
All residential units shall have a fire alarm system be installed in accordance with NFPA 72, Fire Protection Signaling System
and CVFD and SDFRD requirements. The fire alarm system will be supervised by a third-party alarm company. The system
will be tested annually, or as needed, with test results provided to CVFD and/or SDFRD.
Additionally, all residences will be equipped with residential smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors and comply
with current CBC, CFC, and California Residential Code standards.
All residential dwelling units shall have electric-powered, hard-wired smoke detectors with battery backup per CVFD.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 43 JUNE 2022
5.4 Ongoing Building Infrastructure Maintenance
The Project’s HOA(s) shall be responsible for long term funding and maintenance of private roads and fire protection
systems, including fire sprinklers and fire hydrants.
5.4 Defensible Space and Vegetation Management
5.4.1 Defensible Space and Fuel Management Zone
Requirements
An important component of a fire protection system for the Project is the provision for fire-resistant landscapes and
modified vegetation buffers. Fuel Modification Zones (FMZ) or Brush Management Zones (BMZ) are designed to
provide vegetation buffers that gradually reduce fire intensity and flame lengths from advancing fire by strategically
placing thinning zones, restricted vegetation zones, and irrigated zones adjacent to each other on the perimeter of
the WUI exposed structures.
Perimeter structures will be located adjacent to FMZ/BMZ areas that separate the Project from naturally vegetated
open space areas that surround the Project site. Based on the modeled extreme weather flame lengths for the
Project site, wildfire flame lengths are projected to be approximately between 2.3 to 41.2 feet high in areas of
Development Footprint-adjacent chapparal and eucalyptus woodland vegetation. The fire behavior modeling system
used to predict these flame lengths was not intended to determine sufficient FMZ/BMZ widths, but it does provide
the average predicted length of the flames, which is a key element for determining “defensible space” distances
for providing firefighters with room to work and minimizing structure ignition. For the Nakano Project site the
proposed FMZ/BMZ widths between the naturally vegetated open space areas and the property lot lines are
proposed to be consistent with CVFD and SDFRD’s FMZ/BMZ guidelines which are 100 feet (where achievable),
approximately 2.5 times the modeled flame lengths based on the fuel type represented adjacent to the
Development Footprint. For the purposes of this FPP, the defensible space proposed for the Project will be referred
to as FMZ; however, the FMZ is equivalent to the BMZ, which is used by the City of San Diego to describe defensible
space.
The FMZ will be constructed from the structure outwards towards undeveloped areas. Figure 9 illustrates the FMZ
Plan proposed for the Nakano Project site, including a minimum 5-foot-wide ember-resistant Zone 0, 45-foot-wide
irrigated Zone 1, and a 50-foot-wide thinning area Zone 2. Where the FMZ width deviates from the CVFD standards,
appropriate alternative materials and methods are provided including block wall and/or upgraded window glazi ng
to include dual tempered panes. Additionally, a fire access road zone will provide a minimum of 20-feet of fuel
modification from the edge of any public or private roadway on each side and 13.6-feet of vertical clearance is
included as well.
Although FMZs are very important for setting back structures from adjacent unmaintained fuels, the highest concern
is considered to be from firebrands or embers as a principal ignition factor. To that end, the Project site, based on
its location and ember potential, is required to include the latest ignition and ember resistant construction materials
and methods for roof assemblies, walls, vents, windows, and appendages, as mandated by the CVFD and SDFRD
Fire and Building Codes (e.g., Chapter 7A).
Defensible Space Requirements
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 44 JUNE 2022
A FMZ or BMZ is a strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified and partially or
completely replaced with more adequately spaced, drought-tolerant, fire-resistant plants in order to provide a
reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland fire. The purpose of the section is to document C VFD’s
and SDFRD’s standards and make them available for reference. However, we are proposing a site-specific fuel
modification zone program with additional measures that are consistent with the intent of the standards. Chula
Vista Fire Code (Chapter 15.36) is consistent with the 2019 California Fire Code (Section 4907 — Defensible Space),
Government Code 51175 – 51189, and Public Resources Code 4291, which require that fuel modification zones
be provided around every building that is designed primarily for human habitation or use within a VHFHSZ.
City of Chula Vista
A typical landscape/fuel modification installation per the City of Chula Vista’s Fire Code consists of a 50-foot-wide
Zone 1 and a 50-foot wide Zone 2 for a total of 100 feet in width.
City of San Diego
A typical landscape/brush management installation in the City of San Diego consists of a 35-foot-wide, irrigated
Zone 1 and a 65-foot-wide, non-irrigated Zone 2. Zone 2 widths may be decreased by 1.5 feet for each 1 foot of
increased Zone 1 width.
Until the Project is annex to the City of San Diego, the CVFD is the FAHJ and will approve and enforce the
requirements of this FPP. Therefore, the Project will be consistent with the City of Chula Vista’s vegetation
management requirements (15.36.065 – Vegetation Management and Clearance). However, once the Project is
annexed into the City of San Diego, the SDFRD will be the FAHJ and will enforce the requirements of this FPP .
Although the Project’s FMZ, which meets the more restrictive requirements of the CVFD, this FPP demonstrates that
the FMZ developed for this Project meets the intent of the City of San Diego’s fire code, which include the alternative
materials and methods discussed in Section 6.
A Fuel Modification Plan shall be reviewed and approved by CVFD and/or SDFRD for consistency with defensible
space and fire safety guidelines. Figure 9 conceptually displays FMZs for the Project site. To ensure long-term
identification and maintenance, a fuel modification area shall be identified by a permanent zone marker meeting
the approval of CVFD and/or SDFRD. All markers will be located along the perimeter of the fuel modification area
at a minimum of 500 feet apart or at any direction change of the fuel modification zone boundary. FMZs will be
maintained on at least an annual basis or more often as needed to maintain the fuel modification buffer function.
An on-site inspection will be conducted by staff of the appropriate fire authority having jurisdiction upon completion
of landscape install before a certificate of occupancy being granted by the building code official.
Project Fuel Modification Zone Treatments
Zone 0, Ember-resistant– minimum 5 feet from structures
Zone 0 extends 5 feet from buildings, structures, decks, etc.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 45 JUNE 2022
The ember-resistant zone is currently not required by law, but science has proven it to be the most important of all the
defensible space zones. This zone includes the area under and around all attached decks and requires the most stringent
wildfire fuel reduction. The ember-resistant zone is designed to keep fire or embers from igniting materials that can
spread the fire to your home. The following provides guidance for this zone, which may change based on the regulation
developed by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.
• Use hardscape like gravel, pavers, concrete and other noncombustible mulch materials. No combustible bark
or mulch
• Remove all dead and dying weeds, grass, plants, shrubs, trees, branches and vegetative debris (leaves, needles,
cones,bark, etc.); Check your roofs, gutters, decks, porches, stairways, etc.
• Remove all branches within 10 feet of any chimney or stovepipe outlet
• Limit plants in this area to low growing, nonwoody, properly watered and maintained plants
• Limit combustible items (outdoor furniture, planters, etc.) on top of decks
• Relocate firewood and lumber to Zone 2
• Replace combustible fencing, gates, and arbors attach to the home with noncombustible alternatives
• Consider relocating garbage and recycling containers outside this zone
• Consider relocating boats, RVs, vehicles and other combustible items outside this zone
Zone 1, Irrigated – minimum 45 feet from Zone 0
Zone 1 extends 45 feet from the outer edge of Zone 0.
• Remove all dead plants, grass and weeds (vegetation).
• Remove dead or dry leaves and pine needles from your yard, roof and rain gutters.
• Remove branches that hang over your roof and keep dead branches 10 feet away from your chimney.
• Trim trees regularly to keep branches a minimum of 10 feet from other trees.
• Relocate wood piles to Zone 2.
• Remove or prune flammable plants and shrubs near windows.
• Remove vegetation and items that could catch fire from around and under decks, balconies and stairs.
• Create a separation between trees, shrubs and items that could catch fire, such as patio furniture, wood piles,
swing sets, etc.
Zone 2, Thinning
Zone 2 extends from 50 feet from the outer edge of Zone 1
• Cut or mow annual grass down to a maximum height of 4 inches.
• Create horizontal space between shrubs and trees. (See diagram)
• Create vertical space between grass, shrubs and trees. (See diagram)
• Remove fallen leaves, needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches. However, they may be permitted to a
depth of 3 inches.
• All exposed wood piles must have a minimum of 10 feet of clearance, down to bare mineral soil, in all directions.
Roadside Fuel Management – up to 20 feet
• Adjacent to the access road shall be 10-20 feet of fuel modification and vegetation will be thinned 50%.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 46 JUNE 2022
• Thinning will prioritize the removal of vegetation in the following order: 1) invasive-non native species 2) non-
native species 3) flammable native species 4) native species and 5) regionally sensitive species.
• Plants not removed by thinning should be cut six inches above ground without pulling out the roots.
• Certain native plants, such as those found in coastal sage scrub, should be cut back within 12 inches of the root
crown and regrowth maintained as low succulent mounds.
• Fuel loads should be further reduced by pruning remaining plants into fire-safe specimens by removing dead
and excessively twiggy growth.
• Roadside fuel modification shall be maintained by the Project’s HOA.
Specific Landscaping Requirements
The following requirements are provided for HOA-maintained fuel modification zones. All landscaping shall be
maintained by the HOA.
Plants used in the fuel modification areas or landscapes will include drought-tolerant, fire-resistive trees, shrubs,
and groundcovers. The planting list and spacing will be reviewed and approved by SDFRD and/or CVFD, included
on submitted landscape plans. The plantings will be consistent with the Suggested Plant Reference Guide (refer to
Appendix D-1). The suggested plant reference guide intends to provide examples of plants that are less prone to
ignite or spread flames to other vegetation and combustible structures during a wildfire. Additional Plants can be
added to the landscape plant material palette with approval from SDFRD and/or CVFD.
Pre-Construction Requirements
• Perimeter fuel modification areas must be implemented and approved by the SDFRD and/or CVFD
before combustible materials are brought on site.
• Existing flammable vegetation shall be reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of
construction.
• Dead fuel, ladder fuel (fuel which can spread fire from the ground to trees), and downed fuel shall be
removed, and trees/shrubs shall be properly limbed, pruned, and spaced per the plan.
Undesirable Plants
Certain plants are considered to be undesirable in the landscape due to characteristics that make them highly
flammable. These characteristics can be physical (structure promotes ignition or combustion) or chemical (volatile
chemicals increase flammability or combustion characteristics). The plants included in the Undesirable Plant List
(Appendix D-2) are unacceptable from a fire safety standpoint and will not be planted on the site or allowed to
establish opportunistically within fuel modification zones or landscaped areas. No fuel modification zones are
proposed within the MSCP areas, thus no vegetation within the MSCP will be removed.
5.4.2 FMZ Vegetation Management
All fuel modification area vegetation management within the BMZs shall be completed annually by May 1 of each
year and more often as needed for fire safety, as determined by the SDFRD.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 47 JUNE 2022
The individual homeowners shall be responsible for all fuel modification vegetation management on their lots in
compliance with this FPP and the SDFRD requirements. The Project HOA shall be responsible for all fuel modification
vegetation management for all common areas of the Project site, including roadsides clearance and fuel
modification zones. The Project HOA will assure private homeowner lots comply with the plan initially and on an
ongoing basis. Chapter 7A requirements for ongoing maintenance of fire-resistive building materials and fire
sprinkler systems will be included in the CC&R's and Deed encumbrances for each lot. Additionally, the Project HOA
shall be responsible for ensuring long-term funding and ongoing compliance with all provisions of the FPP, including
vegetation planting, fuel modification on the perimeter, and maintenance requirements on all common areas and
roadsides.
Maintenance of FMZ’s and Defensible Space is an important component for the long-term fire safety of the Project.
maintenance obligations will be as follows:
• All future plantings shall be in accordance with CVFD Vegetation Management and Clearance guidelines
and/or SDFRD Brush Management guidelines.
• All lots will be required to submit plans to the Fuel Modification prior to landscaping being installed and
must be identified in the CC&R’s.
• Changing landscaping in common areas or individual lots will be revied by the Fuel Modification Unit
and approved prior to installation.
• Walls may be required on lots based on the location of structure and proximity to slope and be
determined upon final tract submittal or individual lot review.
Project HOA:
• The Project HOA will maintain the access roads, including a minimum of 20 feet clearance on each side
of the road(s) within the Development Footprint adjacent to open space areas.
• The Project HOA will be required to annually maintain the FMZs (or as needed).
• The Project HOA will maintain all common areas, including trees planted along roadways and in other
areas throughout Project.
5.4.3 Annual FMZ Compliance Inspection
To confirm that the Project’s FMZs and landscape areas are being maintained in accordance with this FPP and the
CVFD’s and/or SDFRD’s fuel modification guidelines, the Project HOA will obtain an FMZ inspection and report from
a qualified CVFD and/or SDFRD-approved 3rd party inspector in May/June of each year certifying that vegetation
management activities throughout the Project site have been performed. If the FMZ areas are not compliant, the
Project HOA will have a specified period to correct any noted issues so that a re-inspection can occur, and
certification can be achieved. Annual inspection fees are subject to the current Fire Department Fee Schedule.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 48 JUNE 2022
5.4.4 Construction Phase Vegetation Management
Vegetation management requirements shall be implemented at commencement and throughout the construction
phase. Vegetation management for the Project area shall be performed pursuant to the FPP and CVFD requirements
on all building locations prior to the start of work and prior to any import of combustible construction materials.
Adequate fuel breaks shall be created around all grading, site work, and other construction activities in areas where
there is flammable vegetation. Combustible materials will not be brought on-site without prior fire department
approval.
In addition to the requirements outlined above, the Project will comply with the following important risk-reducing
vegetation management guidelines:
• All-new power lines shall be installed underground for fire safety purposes. Temporary construction
power lines may be allowed in areas that have been cleared of combustible vegetation.
• Caution must be used not to cause erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due
to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping, or irrigation.
Date: 12/14/2023 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1410700\MA
PDOC\DOCUM
ENT\FPP
\FIG9_Fuel Mod P
lan 20231214.m
xd
GOLDEN SKY WAY
DENNERY RD
OCEAN M I S T P L
1 7 '
1 9 '
2 5 '
33'
51'
5 4 '
6 1 '
6 3 '
65'
67'
67'
72'
73'
7
3
'
7 3 '
7
4
'
7 5 '
8 3 '
100'
100'
100'
1
0
0'
Fuel Modification Plan
Fire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
SOURCE: AERIAL- SANGIS 2020 IMAGERY; DEVELOPMENT - CIVIL SENSE 2023
0 12562.5 Feet
FIGURE 9
Project Boundary
6-foot Masonry and Glass View Fence & RadiantHeat WallCMU Masonry Wall (6-ft high or as required byreport)
FMZ Dimensions
Fuel Modification Zone
Zone 1 (0-5', non-combustible)
Zone 2 (5'-50', irrigated)
Zone 3 (50'-100', thinned)
10-Ft Roadside Zone
20-Ft Roadside Zone
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 50 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 51 JUNE 2022
5.5 Pre-Construction Requirements
An on-site inspection must be conducted by the personnel of the CVFD and/or SDFRD and final approval of the fuel
modification plan must be issued prior to a certificate of occupancy being granted by the building code official.
As an additional consultant recommendation, prior to bringing lumber or combustible materials onto the Project
site, improvements within the active development area shall be in place, including utilities, operable fire hydrants,
an approved, temporary roadway surface, and fuel modification zones established.
5.6 Construction Activities in High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
The Project will comply with all CVFD and/or SDFRD requirements for activities in FHSZs. it is recommended that a
construction fire prevention plan (CFPP) be prepared for the Project prior to commencement of construction
activities that will designate fire safety measures to reduce the possibility of fires during the construction phase.
The CFPP should include the following measures: fire watch/ fire guards during hot works and heavy machinery
activities, hose lines attached to hydrants or a water tender, Red Flag warning weather period restrictions, required
on-site fire resources, and others as determined necessary.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 52 JUNE 2022
6 Alternative Materials and Methods
As previously mentioned, due to the constraints within the Project site, the full standard FMZ is not achievable. As
such, this FPP incorporates the use of a 6-foot heat-deflecting wall that will be positioned along the exposed
northern and eastern boundaries of the Project site. This additional fire protection measure is customized for the
Project site based on the analysis results and focus on providing functional equivalency as a 100 feet wide brush
management zone adjacent to open space areas. Additionally, based on fire behavior analysis, fuels within the
open space areas are not expected to pose a significant threat to Project structures.
Research has indicated that the closer a fire is to a structure, the higher the level of heat exposure (Cohen 2000).
However, studies indicate that given certain assumptions (e.g., 10 meters of low fuel landscape, no open windows),
wildfire does not spread to homes unless the fuel and heat requirements (of the home) are sufficient for ignition
and continued combustion (Cohen 1995, Alexander et al. 1998). Construction materials and methods can prevent
or minimize ignitions. Similar case studies indicate that with nonflammable roofs and vegetation modification from
10–18 meters (roughly 32–60 feet) in southern California fires, 85–95% of the homes survived (Howard et al.
1973, Foote and Gilless 1996). Similarly, San Diego County after fire assessments indicate strongly that the
building codes are working in preventing home loss: of 15,000 structures within the 2003 fire perimeter, 17%
(1,050) were damaged or destroyed. However, of the 400 structures built to the 2001 codes (the most recent at
the time), only 4% (16) were damaged or destroyed. Further, of the 8,300 homes that were within the 2007 fire
perimeter, 17% were damaged or destroyed. A much smaller percentage (3%) of the 789 homes that were built to
2001 codes were impacted and an even smaller percentage (2%) of the 1,218 structures built to the 2004 Codes
were impacted (IBHS 2008). Damage to the structures built to the latest codes is likely from flammable landscape
plantings or objects next to structures or open windows or doors (Hunter 2008).
These results support Cohen’s (2000) findings that if a community’s homes have a sufficiently low home ignitability
(i.e., 2017 San Diego County Consolidated Code and 2016 California Building Code), the community can survive
exposure to wildfire without major fire destruction. This provides the option of mitigating the wildland fire threat to
homes/structures at the residential location without extensive wildland fuel reduction. Cohen’s (1995) studies
suggest, as a rule-of-thumb, larger flame lengths and widths require wider fuel modification zones to reduce
structure ignition. For example, valid Structure Ignition Assessment Model (SIAM) results indicate that a 20-foot
high flame has minimal radiant heat to ignite a structure (bare wood) beyond 33 feet (horizontal distance). Whereas,
a 70-foot high flame may require about 130 feet of clearance to prevent structure ignitions from radiant heat (Cohen
and Butler 1996). This study utilized bare wood, which is more combustible than the ignition resistant exterior walls
for structures built today.
Obstacles, including non-combustible walls can block or deflect all or part of the radiation and heat, thus making
narrower fuel modification distances possible. Fire behavior modeling conducted for the Project indicates that fires
in the open space area would result in roughly 10-foot flame lengths under summer conditions. Extreme conditions
may result in longer flame lengths approaching 20.5 feet.
As indicated in this report, the FMZs and additional fire protection measure proposed for the Project provides
equivalent wildfire buffer for structures adjacent to open space land where the full FMZ is not achievable. Rather,
they are based on a variety of analysis criteria including predicted flame length, fire intensity (Btu), Project site
topography and vegetation, extreme and typical weather, position of structures on pads, position of roadways,
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 53 JUNE 2022
adjacent fuels, fire history, current vs. proposed land use, neighboring communities relative to the Project, and type
of construction. The fire intensity research conducted by Cohen (1995), Cohen and Butler (1996), and Cohen and
Saveland (1997) and Tran et al. (1992) supports the fuel modification alternative proposed for the Project.
6.1 Additional Structural Protection Measures
The following additional measures will be implemented to “mitigate” potential structure fire exposure related to the
reduced FMZs in the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the Project site. These measures are
customized for the Project site, its unique topographical and vegetative conditions, and focus on providing
functional equivalency as a full brush management zone. As detailed in Section 5.4, the FMZ for the Project would
include a minimum 5-foot-wide ember-resistant area, Zone 0, a minimum 45-foot-wide irrigated area, Zone 1, and
up to 50-foot-wide thinning area, Zone 2. In order to provide compensating structural protection in the absence of
a 100-foot wide FMZ, and in addition to the residences being built to the latest ignition resistant codes, structures
in the structures on the northern and eastern boundaries of the Project site will also include the following features
for additional fire prevention, protection, and suppression:
1.Windows will be upgraded on the preserved vegetation side of the structures subject to FMZ less than 100
feet to include dual pane, both panes tempered, exceeding the code requirement.
2.Minimum 1-hour fire rated exterior walls and doors; one layer of 5/8-inch type X gypsum sheathing applied
behind the exterior covering or cladding on the exterior side of the framing, from the foundation to the roof,
for all exterior walls of each building.
3.The vents will be ember-resistant for (recommend BrandGuard, O’Hagin, or similar vents). All vents used
for this Project will be approved by CVFD.
4.A 6-foot heat deflecting wall will be constructed of concrete masonry units (CMUs) between on-site
structures and unmaintained open space.
5.Annually hire a 3rd party inspector to evaluate FMZ areas site wide to confirm they meet the requirements
of this FPP and CVFD and/or SDFRD.
Implementation of these additional fire protection features would justify a reduced FMZ. The information provided
herein supports the ability of the proposed structures and FMZs to withstand the predicted short duration, low to
moderate intensity wildfire, and ember shower that would be expected from a wildfire burning in the vicinity of the
Project site or within the Project site’s landscape.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 54 JUNE 2022
7 Wildfire Education Program
Early evacuation for any type of wildfire emergency at the Project site is the preferred method of providing for
resident safety, consistent with the CVFD and SDFRD’s current approach within San Diego County. As such, the
Project’s Homeowner’s Association would formally adopt, practice, and implement a “Ready, Set, Go!” approach to
evacuation6. The “Ready, Set, Go!” concept is widely known and encouraged by the State of California and most
fire agencies. Pre-planning for emergencies, including wildfire emergencies, focuses on being prepared, having a
well-defined plan, minimizing the potential for errors, maintaining the Project site’s fire protection systems, and
implementing a conservative (evacuate as early as possible) approach to evacuation and Project area activities
during periods of fire weather extremes.
Project residents and occupants would be provided ongoing education regarding wildfires and the FPP’s
requirements. The educational information must include maintaining the landscape and structural components
according to the appropriate standards designed for the community. Informational handouts, community website
pages, mailers, fire-safe council participation, inspections, and seasonal reminders are some methods that would
be used to disseminate wildfire and relocation awareness information. CVFD and/or SDFRD would review and
approve all wildfire educational material/programs before printing and distribution.
6 https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/fire-department/ready-set-go and
https://www.sandiego.gov/fire/safety/tips/readysetgo
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 55 JUNE 2022
8 Conclusion
The requirements and recommendations set forth in this FPP meet fire safety, building design elements,
infrastructure, fuel management/modification, and landscaping recommendations of the applicable codes. The
recommendations provided in the FPP have also been designed specifically for the proposed construction of
structures within areas designated as VHFHSZ. When properly implemented on an ongoing basis, the fire protection
strategies proposed in this FPP should significantly reduce the potential fire threat to vegetation on the community
and its structures, as well as assist CVFD and SDFRD in responding to emergencies within the Project site. The fire
protection system provided for the Project site includes a redundant layering of code-compliant, fire-resistant
construction materials and methods that have been shown through post-fire damage assessments to reduce the
risk of structural ignition. Additionally, modern infrastructure would be provided, and all structures are required to
include interior, automatic fire sprinklers consistent with City of Chula Vista’s and City of San Diego’s regulatory
standards. Further, the proposed fuel modification on perimeter edges adjacent to the open space areas would
provide a buffer between fuels in the open space and structures within the Project site.
Fire is a dynamic and somewhat unpredictable occurrence and as such, this FPP does not guarantee that a fire will
not occur or will not result in injury, loss of life, or loss of property. There are no warranties, expressed or implied,
regarding the suitability or effectiveness of the recommendations and requirements in this FPP, under all
circumstances.
The Project’s developers, contractors, engineers, and architects are responsible for the proper implementation of
the concepts and requirements set forth in the FPP. Homeowners and property managers are also responsible for
maintaining their structures and lots, including fuel modification and landscape, as required by th is FPP, the CVFD
and/or SDFRD, and as required by the City of Chula Vista Fire Code and/or City of San Diego Fire Code. Alternative
methods of compliance with this FPP can be submitted to the FAHJ for consideration.
It will be extremely important for all homeowners to comply with the recommendations and requirements described
and required by the FPP on their property. The responsibility to maintain the fuel modification and fire protection
features required for the Project site lies with the homeowners. The HOA or similar entity would be responsible for
ongoing education and maintenance of the common areas, and the CVFD and/or SDFRD would enforce the
vegetation management requirements detailed in this FPP. Such requirements would be made a part of deed
encumbrances and CC&Rs for each lot, as appropriate.
It is recommended that the homeowners or other occupants who may reside within the Nakano Project adopt a
conservative approach to fire safety. The approach must include maintaining the landscape and structural
components according to the appropriate standards and embracing a “Ready, Set, Go” stance on evacuation.
The Project is not to be considered a shelter-in-place development. However, the fire agencies and/or law
enforcement officials may, during an emergency, as they would for any new development providing the layers of
fire protection as the Project, determine that it is safer to temporarily refuge residents on-site. When an evacuation
is ordered, it will occur according to pre-established evacuation decision points or as soon as notice to evacuate is
received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other factors. It is important for an yone living at
the WUI to educate themselves on practices that will improve safety.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 56 JUNE 2022
The goal of the fire protection features, both required and those offered above and beyond the Codes, provided for
the Project is to provide the structures with the ability to survive a wildland fire with little intervention of firefighting
forces. Preventing ignition to structures results in a reduction of the exposure of firefighters and residents to hazards
that threaten personal safety. It will also reduce property damage and losses. Mitigating ignition hazards and fire
spread potential reduces the threat to structures and can help the fire department optimize the deployment of
personnel and apparatus during a wildfire. The analysis in th is FPP provides support and justifications for
acceptance of the proposed fuel modification zones for the proposed Nakano Project Development Footprint based
on the site-specific fire environment.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 57 JUNE 2022
9 List of Preparers
Project Manager
Michael Huff
Discipline Director
Dudek
Fire Behavior Modeling and Plan Preparer
Noah Stamm
Fire Protection Specialist
Dudek
Plan Preparer
Lisa Maier
Fire Protection Specialist
Dudek
GIS Analyst and Mapping
Lesley Terry
CADD Specialist
Dudek
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 58 JUNE 2022
10 References
Alexander, M.E. 1998. Crown fire thresholds in exotic pine plantations of Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian
National University. 228 p. Ph.D. Thesis.
Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen.
Tech. Report INT-122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf
Andrews, P.L. 1980. Testing the fire behavior model. In Proceedings 6th conference on fire and forest
meteorology. April 22–24, 1980. Seattle, WA: Society of American Foresters. Pp. 70–77.
Andrews, Patricia L.; Collin D. Bevins; and Robert C. Seli. 2008. BehavePlus fire modeling system, version 3.0:
User’s Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-106 Ogden, Utah: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station. 132p.
Baltar, M., J.E. Keeley, and F. P. Schoenberg. 2014. County-level Analysis of the Impact of Temperature and
Population Increases on California Wildfire Data. Environmetrics 25; 397-405.
Brown, J.K. 1972. Field test of a rate-of-fire-spread model in slash fuels. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. Int-116.
24 p.
Brown, J.K. 1982. Fuel and fire behavior prediction in big sagebrush. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. INT-290.
10p.
Bushey, C.L. 1985. Comparison of observed and predicted fire behavior in the sagebrush/ bunchgrass vegetation-
type. In J.N. Long (ed.), Fire management: The challenge of protection and use: Proceedings of a
symposium. Society of American Foresters. Logan, UT. April 17–19, 1985. Pp. 187–201.
California Building Standards Commission. 2019. California Building Standards Code (California Code of
Regulations, Title 24). Published July 1, 2019; effective January 1, 2020.
http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Codes.aspx.
CAL FIRE 2007. FRAP (Fire and Resource Assessment Program), Fire Hazard severity Zones in SRA. Adopted by
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection on November 7, 2007. Accessed August 2021.
https://frap.fire.ca.gov
CAL FIRE. 2019. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. California Department of Forestry and Fire. Website
access via http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/select.asp?theme=5.
City of Chula Vista 2005. City of Chula Vista General Plan Land Use Element. Approved December 13, 2005.
Available at: https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan
City of San Diego 2022. Fiscal Year 2022 Adopted Budget, Fire-Rescue. Available at:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/fy22ab_v2firerescue.pdf
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 59 JUNE 2022
Cohen, Jack D. 1995. Structure ignition assessment model (SIAM). In: Weise, D.R.; Martin, R.E., technical
coordinators. Proceedings of the Biswell symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and
wildland ecosystems. 1994 February 15¬17; Walnut Creek, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany,
California: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 85–92
Cohen, J.D. 2000. Preventing disaster: home ignitability in the wildland-urban interface. Journal of Forestry 98(3):
15–21.
Cohen, J.D. and Butler, B.W. [In press]. 1996. Modeling potential ignitions from flame radiation exposure with
implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on fire
and forest meteorology. October 27–31; Lorne, Victoria, Australia. Fairfield, Washington: International
Association of Wildland Fire.
Cohen, J.D. and Saveland, J. 1997. Structure Ignition Assessment Can Help Reduce Fire Damages in the W-UI.
Fire Management Notes 57(4): 19–23.
Foote, Ethan I.D., and J. Keith Gilless. 1996. Structural survival. In: Slaughter, Rodney, ed. California’s I-zone.
Sacramento, California: CFESTES; 112–121.
Grabner, K., J. Dwyer, and B. Cutter. 1994. “Validation of Behave Fire Behavior Predictions in Oak Savannas Using
Five Fuel Models.” Proceedings from 11th Central Hardwood Forest Conference. 14 p.
Grabner, K.W. 1996. “Validation of BEHAVE fire behavior predictions in established oak savannas.” M.S. thesis.
University of Missouri, Columbia.
Grabner, K.W., J.P. Dwyer, and B.E. Cutter. 2001. “Fuel model selection for BEHAVE in Midwestern oak savannas.”
Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 18: 74–80.
Howard, Ronald A., D. Warner North, Fred L. Offensend.; and Charles N. Smart. 1973. Decision analysis of fire
protection strategy for the Santa Monica mountains: an initial assessment. Menlo Park, California:
Stanford Research Institute. 159 p.
Hunter, Cliff. 2008. Dudek communication with Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District Fire Marshal (now
retired) following after-fire loss assessments.
Keeley, J.E. 2005. Fire history of the San Francisco East Bay region and implications for landscape patterns.
International Journal of Wildland Fire 14:285-296.
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/seki/pdfs/K2005_East%20Bay%20Fire%20History_IJWF.pdf
Keeley, J.E. 2006. Fire Management impacts on invasive plants in the Western United States. Conservation
Biology 20:375-384.
Keeley, J.E. and CJ Fotheringham. 2001. Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands. Conservation
Biology, Pages 1536-1548, Volume 15, No. 6.
Keeley, J.E., and P.H. Zedler. 2009. “Large, High-Intensity Fire Events in Southern California Shrublands:
Debunking the Fine-Grain Age Patch Model.” Ecological Applications 19:69–94.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 60 JUNE 2022
Keeley, J.E. and S.C. Keeley. 1984. Post fire recovery of California coastal sage scrub. The American Midland
Naturalist 111:105-117.
Linn, R. 2003. “Using Computer Simulations to Study Complex Fire Behavior.” Los Alamos National Laboratory,
MS D401. Los Alamos, NM.
McCreary, D.D. 2004. Fire in California’s Oak Woodlands. University of California Cooperative Extension.
Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program. 8 pp.
Mensing, S.A., J. Michaelsen, and R. Byrne. 1999. “A 560-Year Record of Santa Ana Fires Reconstructed from
Charcoal Deposited in the Santa Barbara Basin, California.” Quaternary Research 51:295 –305.
Moritz, M.A. 2003. Spatiotemporal analysis of controls on shrubland fire regimes: age dependency and fire
hazard. Ecology. 84(2):351-361. http://nature.berkeley.edu/moritzlab/docs/Moritz_2003_Ecology.pdf
Nichols, K., F.P. Schoenberg, J. Keeley, and D. Diez. 2011. “The Application of Prototype Point Processes for the
Summary and Description of California Wildfires.” Journal of Time Series Analysis 32(4): 420–429.
Pavlik, Bruce M. Muick, Pamela C. Johnson, Sharon G. and Popper Marjorie. 1991. Oaks of California. Cachuma
Press, Los Olivos, CA. Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS). 2007.
Romero-Calcerrada R, Novillo CJ, Millington JDA, Gomez-Jimenez I (2008) GIS analysis of spatial patterns of
human-caused wildfire ignition risk in the SW of Madrid (Central Spain). Landscape Ecology 23, 341–
354. doi:10.1007/S10980-008-9190-2
Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. GTR INT-143. Ogden,
Utah: USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.161.
Rothermel, R.C., and G.C. Rinehart. 1983. Field Procedures for Verification and Adjustment of Fire Behavior
Predictions. Res. Pap. INT-142. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 25 p.
Rothermel, Richard C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky Mountains.
Research Paper INT-438. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station.
San Diego Dire-Rescue Department (SDFRD) 2021. Calendar Year Station Responses, Annual Unit Statistics.
Available at: https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/cy20-station-responses.pdf
Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with
Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p.
Schroeder, M.J. and C.C. Buck. 1970. Fire weather – A guide for application of meteorological information to
forest fire control operation. USDA Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 36D.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 61 JUNE 2022
Syphard, Alexander D, Volker C Radeloff, Jon E. Keeley, Todd J. Hawbaker, Murray K. Clayton, Susan I. Stewart,
Roger B. Hammer. 2007. Human Influence on California Fire Regimes. Ecological Applications.
https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1128.1
Syphard, Alexander D, Jon E Keeley, and Teresa J. Brennan. 2011. Comparing the role of fuel breaks across
southern California national forests. Forest Ecology and Management 261 (2011) 2038–2048.
Syphard AD, Bar Massada A, Butsic V, Keeley JE (2013) Land use planning and wildfire:development policies
influence future probability of housing loss. PLoS ONE 8(8), e71708. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.
PONE.0071708Syphard AD, Keeley JE. 2016. Historical reconstructions of California wildfires vary by
data source. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 1221–1227. doi:10.1071/WF16050
Syphard, Alexandra D. and Jon E. Keeley. 2015. Location, timing and extent of wildfire vary by cause of ignition.
International Journal of Wildland Fire. 11 pp.
Tran, H.C., J.D. Cohen, and R.A. Chase. 1992. Modeling ignition of structures in wildland/urban interface fires. In:
Proceedings of the 1st international fire and materials conference; 1992 September 24–25; Arlington,
Virginia. London, UK: Inter Science Communications Limited; 253–262.
Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects
Research Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p.
WRCC, 2022. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary, Bonita, California (040968). Available at:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca0968
Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects
Research Unit, Riverside Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p.
Wright, H.E. and M.L. Heinselman. 1973. The ecological role of fire in natural conifer forests of western and
northern North America; Introduction. Quaternary Research 3:317-328.
NAKANO FIRE PROTECTION PLAN
14107 62 JUNE 2022
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
Photograph Log
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-1 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 1: Photograph looking west across the Project site, standing in the southeast corner of the Project
site, at the proposed entrance to the development off Dennery Road.
Photograph 2: Photograph looking east/southeast towards the proposed entrance into the Project site,
standing in the southeast corner of the Project site, just inside the existing driveway off Dennery Road.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-2 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 3: Photograph looking north towards the existing single- and multi-family residential community
adjacent to the eastern side of the development. Photograph taken standing in the southeast corner of the
Project site, at the proposed entrance to the development off Dennery Road.
Photograph 4: Photograph looking west/southwest along the existing access road along the southern portion of
the Project site. Photograph taken standing in the southeast corner of the Project site, at the proposed
entrance to the development off Dennery Road.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-3 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 5: Photograph looking east towards the existing single- and multi-family residential community
adjacent to the eastern side of the development.
Photograph 6: Photograph looking north along the eastern property boundary of the Project site. Note the
existing single- and multi-family residential community adjacent to the eastern side of the development.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-4 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 7: Photograph looking west across the southern portion of the Project site/southern property
boundary and the natural vegetation along the southern side of the proposed development.
Photograph 8: Photograph looking south towards the existing vegetation near the entrance of the project site
situated along Dennery Road.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-5 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 9: Photograph looking west/northwest across the southern portion of the Project site, standing in
the southeast corner of the Project site, near the proposed entrance to the development off Dennery Road.
Photograph 10: Photograph looking south towards the existing vegetation near the entrance of the project site
situated along Dennery Road. Photograph taken standing along the existing driveway in the southeast portion
of the Project site.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-6 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 11: Photograph looking west across the southern portion of Project site, standing in the southeast
corner of the Project site near the proposed entrance to the development off Dennery Road.
Photograph 12: Photograph looking southwest towards the existing Kaiser Hospital and vegetation above the
southern portion of the property. Photograph taken standing along the existing driveway in the southeast
portion of the Project site.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-7 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 13: Overview photograph looking towards the northern side of the proposed development.
Photograph taken looking north.
Photograph 14: Overview photograph looking towards the north/northwest portion of the proposed
development. Photograph taken looking northwest.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-8 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 15: Overview photograph looking towards the north/northeast portions of the proposed
development. Photograph taken looking north/northeast.
Photograph 16: Overview photograph looking towards the west/southwest portion of the proposed
development. Photograph taken looking west.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-9 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 17: Overview photograph of the existing native and non-native vegetation located above the
southern portion of the proposed development. Photograph taken looking west.
Photograph 18: Photograph looking north/northeast along the eastern property boundary of the Project site.
Note the existing single- and multi-family residential community adjacent to the eastern side of the
development.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-10 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 19: Photograph looking southeast towards the existing vegetated area southeast of the proposed
development.
Photograph 20: Photograph looking west towards the existing vegetated area above and south of the proposed
development, standing near the center portion of the southern portion of the proposed development.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-11 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 21: Photograph looking southeast towards the existing Kaiser Hospital and vegetation above the
southern portion of the property. Photograph taken standing along the existing driveway above the southwest
portion of the Project site.
Photograph 22: Photograph looking south towards the existing Kaiser Hospital and vegetation above the
southern portion of the property. Photograph taken standing along the existing driveway above the southwest
portion of the Project site.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-12 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 23: Photograph looking north along the western property boundary towards the northwest portion
of the proposed development. Note the location of existing eucalyptus trees adjacent to the western side of the
development.
Photograph 24: Photograph looking west towards the area above the southwest side of the development. Notre
I-805 and the existing eucalyptus trees along the western side of the development.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-13 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 25: Photograph looking southwest down Dennery Road, standing near the proposed entrance in
the development.
Photograph 26: Photograph looking south over the eucalyptus and riparian habitat within the Otay River,
located across the I-805 and northwest of the property.
APPENDIX A / PHOTOGRAPH LOG – NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
14107 A-14 FEBRUARY 2022
Photograph 27: Overview photograph of the proposed development, looking across the riparian habitat within
the Otay River above the northern portion of the development. Photograph taken facing south/southeast
standing in the parking lot of the commercial development north of the property.
Photograph 28: Photograph of the Otay River and the eucalyptus/riparian vegetation above the northwest
portion of the development.
Appendix B
Fire History
5-Mile Buffer
Project BoundaryQuantity ofTimes Burned
1
2
3
4
5
SOURCE: BASE MAP- ESRI MAPPING SERVICE; FIRE DATA-CALFIRE 2020
0 21 Miles
Date: 11/12/2021 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1410700\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\FPP\Appendix B Fire History 2020.mxd
Fire History Map
Fire Protection Plan for the Nakano Chula Vista Project
APPENDIX B
Appendix C
Fire Behavior Analysis
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
1 JANUARY 2022
1 BehavePlus Fire Behavior Modeling History
Fire behavior modeling has been used by researchers for approximately 50+ years to predict how a fire will move
through a given landscape (Linn 2003). The models have had varied complexities and applications throughout the
years. One model has become the most widely used as the industry standard for predicting fire behavior on a given
landscape. That model, known as “BEHAVE”, was developed by the U. S. Government (USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station) and has been in use since 1984. Since that time, it has undergone continued research,
improvements, and refinement. The current version, BehavePlus 6.0, includes the latest updates incorporating
years of research and testing. Numerous studies have been completed testing the validity of the fire behavior
models’ ability to predict fire behavior given site specific inputs. One of the most successful ways the model has
been improved has been through post-wildfire modeling (Brown 1972, Lawson 1972, Sneeuwjagt and Frandsen
1977, Andrews 1980, Brown 1982, Rothermel and Rinehart 1983, Bushey 1985, McAlpine and Xanthopoulos
1989, Grabner, et. al. 1994, Marsden-Smedley and Catchpole 1995, Grabner 1996, Alexander 1998, Grabner et
al. 2001, Arca et al. 2005). In this type of study, Behave is used to model fire behavior based on pre-fire conditions
in an area that recently burned. Real-world fire behavior, documented during the wildfire, can then be compared to
the prediction results of Behave and refinements to the fuel models incorporated, retested, and so on.
Fire behavior modeling conducted on this site includes a relatively high-level of detail and analysis which results in
reasonably accurate representations of how wildfire may move through available fuels on and adjacent the property.
Fire behavior calculations are based on site-specific fuel characteristics supported by fire science research that
analyzes heat transfer related to specific fire behavior. To objectively predict flame lengths, spread rates, and
fireline intensities, this analysis incorporated predominant fuel characteristics, slope percentages, and
representative fuel models observed on site. The BehavePlus fire behavior modeling system was used to analyze
anticipated fire behavior within and adjacent to key areas just outside of the proposed development. As Rothermel
summarized, predicting wildland fire behavior is not an exact science. As such, the movement of a fire will likely
never be fully predictable, especially considering the variations in weather and the limits of weather forecasting.
Nevertheless, practiced and experienced judgment, coupled with a validated fire behavior modeling system, results
in useful and accurate fire prevention planning information. To be used effectively, the basic assumptions and
limitations of BehavePlus must be understood.
▪ First, it must be realized that the fire model describes fire behavior only in the flaming front. The primary
driving force in the predictive calculations is dead fuels less than one-quarter inch in diameter. These are
the fine fuels that carry fire. Fuels greater than one inch have little effect while fuels greater than three
inches have no effect on fire behavior.
▪ Second, the model bases calculations and descriptions on a wildfire spreading through surface fuels that
are within six feet of the ground and contiguous to the ground. Surface fuels are often classified as grass,
brush, litter, or slash.
▪ Third, the software assumes that weather and topography are uniform. However, because wildfires almost
always burn under non-uniform conditions, length of projection period and choice of fuel model must be
carefully considered to obtain useful predictions.
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
2 JANUARY 2022
▪ Fourth, the BehavePlus fire behavior computer modeling system was not intended for determining
sufficient brush management zone/defensible space widths. However, it does provide the average length
of the flames, which is a key element for determining “defensible space” distances for minimizing structure
ignition.
Although BehavePlus has some limitations, it can still provide valuable fire behavior predictions which can be used
as a tool in the decision-making process. In order to make reliable estimates of fire behavior, one must understand
the relationship of fuels to the fire environment and be able to recognize the variations in these fuels. Natural fuels
are made up of the various components of vegetation, both live and dead, that occur on a site. The type and quantity
will depend upon the soil, climate, geographic features, and the fire history of the site. The major fuel groups of
grass, shrub, trees, and slash are defined by their constituent types and quantities of litter and duff layers, dead
woody material, grasses and forbs, shrubs, regeneration, and trees. Fire behavior can be predicted largely by
analyzing the characteristics of these fuels. Fire behavior is affected by seven principal fuel characteristics: fuel
loading, size and shape, compactness, horizontal continuity, vertical arrangement, moisture content, and chemical
properties.
The seven fuel characteristics help define the 13 standard fire behavior fuel models1 and the five custom fuel
models developed for Southern California2. According to the model classifications, fuel models used in BehavePlus
have been classified into four groups, based upon fuel loading (tons/acre), fuel height, and surface to volume ratio.
Observation of the fuels in the field (on site) determines which fuel models should be applied in BehavePlus. The
following describes the distribution of fuel models among general vegetation types for the standard 13 fuel models
and the custom Southern California fuel models (SCAL):
▪ Grasses Fuel Models 1 through 3
▪ Brush Fuel Models 4 through 7, SCAL 14 through 18
▪ Timber Fuel Models 8 through 10
▪ Logging Slash Fuel Models 11 through 13
In addition, the aforementioned fuel characteristics were utilized in the recent development of 40 new fire behavior fuel
models3 developed for use in BehavePlus modeling efforts. These new models attempt to improve the accuracy of the
standard 13 fuel models outside of severe fire season conditions, and to allow for the simulation of fuel treatment
prescriptions. The following describes the distribution of fuel models among general vegetation types for the new 40 fuel
models:
▪ Grass Models GR1 through GR9
▪ Grass-shrub Models GS1 through GS4
▪ Shrub Models SH1 through SH9
1 Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-
122. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT.
2 Weise, D.R. and J. Regelbrugge. 1997. Recent chaparral fuel modeling efforts. Prescribed Fire and Effects Research Unit, Riverside
Fire Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 5p.
3 Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Burgan. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel's
surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station. 72 p.
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
3 JANUARY 2022
▪ Timber-understory Models TU1 through TU5
▪ Timber litter Models TL1 through TL9
▪ Slash blowdown Models SB1 through SB4
BehavePlus software was used in the development of the Nakano Residential Development Project (Proposed
Project) Fire Protection Plan (FPP) in order to evaluate potential fire behavior for the Project site. Existing site
conditions were evaluated, and local weather data was incorporated into the BehavePlus modeling runs.
2 Fuel Models
Dudek utilized the BehavePlus software package to analyze fire behavior potential for the Proposed Project site in
the City of Chula Vista, California. Refer to Figure 4, Fire Behavior Modeling Map for fire modeling scenario locations
and Appendix C for the Fire Behavior Modeling Summary results As is customary for this type of analysis, four
scenarios were evaluated, including one summer, onshore weather condition (northwest of the Project Site) and
three extreme fall, offshore weather condition (northwest, northeast and south of the Project Site). The Project site
is surrounded by an existing single-family residential development to the east, a hospital to the south, a commercial
development to the north, and Interstate 805 (I-805) and open space land/the Otay River to the west (separated
by I-805) and to the north (separates the commercial development to the north). On the west side of I-805 and
northwest of the Proposed Project Site is a small eucalyptus/riparian forest. With that said, fuels and terrain within
and adjacent to the Proposed Project development area could produce flying embers that may affect the project,
but defenses will be built into the structures to prevent ember penetration and to extinguish fires that may result
from ember penetration. It is the fuels directly adjacent to and within brush management zones that would have
the potential to affect the project’s structures from a radiant and convective heat perspective as well as from direct
flame impingement. The BehavePlus software requires site-specific variables for surface fire spread analysis,
including fuel type, fuel moisture, wind speed, and slope data. The output variables used in this analysis include
flame length (feet), rate of spread (feet/minute), fireline intensity (BTU/feet/second), and spotting distance (miles).
The following provides a description of the input variables used in processing the BehavePlus models for the
Proposed Project site. In addition, data sources are cited and any assumptions made during the modeling process
are described.
2.1 Vegetation (Fuels)
To support the fire behavior modeling efforts conducted for this FPP, the different vegetation types observed within
the project areas and adjacent to the project site were classified into the aforementioned numeric fuel models. As
is customary for this type of analysis, the terrain and fuels within and adjacent to the Proposed Project area were
used for determining flame lengths and fire spread. It is these fuels that would have the potential to affect the
Project’s structures from a radiant and convective heat perspective as well as from direct flame impingement. Fuel
beds, including moderate-load grass-shrubs, moderate- to- high-load shrubs and chaparrals, and a small
eucalyptus/riparian forest area, are adjacent or in near proximity to the proposed Project development site. These
fuel types can produce flying embers that may affect the homes within the development, but defenses will be built
into the structure(s) to prevent ember penetration. Table 1 provides a description of the six fuel models observed
in the vicinity of the site that were subsequently used in the analysis for this project. Modeled areas include
moderate load grass-shrub and moderate- to- high-load shrub ground fuels (Fuel Models: FM4, Gs2, Sh2, and Sh5)
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
4 JANUARY 2022
found throughout the adjacent areas surrounding the Project site, and eucalyptus woodland forest/riparian habitat
(Fuel Models: FM9 and Sh4). A total of four fire modeling scenarios were completed for the Project area. These
sites were selected based on the strong likelihood of fire approaching from these directions during a Santa Ana
wind-driven fire event (fire scenarios 1a, 2, and 3) and an on-shore weather pattern (fire scenario 1b). Dudek also
conducted modeling of the site for post-Brush Management Zones’ (BMZ) recommendations for this Proposed
Project (Refer to Table 2 for post-BMZ fuel model descriptions). Brush management includes establishment of
irrigated and thinned zones on the periphery of the development as well as interior landscape requirements. For
modeling the post-BMZ treatment condition, fuel model assignments were re-classified for the BMZs 1 (Fuel Model
8) and BMZ 2 (Fuel Model Gr1).
Table 1. Existing Fuel Model Characteristics
Fuel Model
Assignment
Vegetation
Description Location
Fuel Bed Depth
(Feet)
FM4 Chaparral Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
>4.0 ft.
FM9 Eucalyptus woodland
and riparian forest
habitat
Represents the eucalyptus woodland/riparian
habitat that exists northwest of the Project site
>8.0 ft.
Gs2 Moderate load, dry
climate grass-shrub
Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
<2.0 ft.
Sh2 Moderate load, dry
climate shrubs
Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
<2.0 ft.
Sh4 Eucalyptus woodland
and riparian forest
habitat
Represents the eucalyptus woodland/riparian
habitat that exists northwest of the Project site
>8.0 ft.
Sh5 High load, dry climate
shrubs
Represents the vegetation communities
located throughout the adjacent areas
surrounding the Project without maintenance
>3.0 ft.
Table 2. Post-development Fuel Model Characteristics
Fuel Model
Assignment
Vegetation
Description Location
Fuel Bed
Depth (Feet)
8 Compact litter Brush Management Zone 1: irrigated
landscape
<1.0 ft.
Gr1 Sparse, Sparse Load, Dry
Climate Grass
Brush Management Zone 2: 50% thinning of
grasses
>1.0 ft.
The results of this analysis were utilized in generating the Brush Management Zone map (Figure 9 of FPP) and Fire
Behavior Modeling Summary results. This analysis models fire behavior outside of the BMZs (off-site) as these areas
would be the influencing wildfire areas post-development of the site. The following section presents the fire weather
and fuel moisture inputs utilized for the fire behavior modeling conducted for the Proposed Project.
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
5 JANUARY 2022
2.2 Topography
Slope is a measure of angle in degrees from horizontal and can be presented in units of degrees or percent. Slope
is important in fire behavior analysis as it affects the exposure of fuel beds. Additionally, fire burning uphill spreads
faster than those burning on flat terrain or downhill as uphill vegetation is pre -heated and dried in advance of the
flaming front, resulting in faster ignition rates. Natural slope values ranging from 2% to 10% were measured around
the perimeter of the Project site from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. Slope gradients for
landscape areas are assumed to be flat (3%) or 50% (2:1 Manufactured slopes), as presented on the project’s site
plan.
2.3 Weather Analysis
Historical weather data for the Southern San Diego region was utilized in determining appropriate fire behavior
modeling inputs for the Project area. To evaluate different scenarios, data from the 50th and 97th percentile
moisture values were derived from Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) and utilized in the fire behavior
modeling efforts conducted in support of this report. Weather data sets from the San Miguel Station RAWS (ID
number 045737)4 were utilized in the fire modeling runs.
RAWS fuel moisture and wind speed data were processed utilizing the Fire Family Plus software package to
determine atypical (97 th percentile) and typical (50 th percentile) weather conditions. Data from the RAWS was
evaluated from August 1 through November 30 for each year between 2002 and 20 21 (extent of available data
record) for 97 th percentile weather conditions and from June 1 through September 30 for each year between
2002 and 2020 for 50th percentile weather conditions.
Following analysis in Fire Family Plus, fuel moisture information was incorporated into the Initial Fuel Moisture
file used as an input in BehavePlus. Wind speed data resulting from the Fire Family Plus analysis was also
determined. Initial wind direction and wind speed values for the fi ve BehavePlus runs were manually entered
during the data input phase. The input wind speed and direction is roughly an average surface wind at 20 feet
above the vegetation over the analysis area. Table 3 summarizes the wind and weather input variables used in
the Fire BehavePlus modeling efforts .
4 San Miguel RAWS Station Latitude and Longitude: 32.686321, -116.977819
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
6 JANUARY 2022
Table 3: Variables Used for Fire Behavior Modeling
Model Variable Summer Weather (50th Percentile) Peak Weather (97th Percentile)
Fuel Models FM4, FM9, Sh4, and Sh5 FM4, FM9, Gs2, Sh2, and Sh5
1 h fuel moisture 8% 2%
10 h fuel moisture 9% 3%
100 h fuel moisture 15% 8%
Live herbaceous moisture 59% 30%
Live woody moisture 118% 60%
20 ft. wind speed 14 mph (sustained winds) 18 mph (sustained winds); wind
gusts of 50 mph
Wind Directions from north (degrees) 300 45, 200, and 300
Wind adjustment factor 0.4 0.4
Slope (uphill) 3% 2 to 10%
3 Fire Behavior Modeling Efforts
As mentioned, the BehavePlus fire behavior modeling software package was utilized in evaluating anticipated fire
behavior adjacent to the Proposed Project site. Four focused analyses were completed for both the existing project
site conditions and the post project conditions, each assuming worst-case fire weather conditions for a fire
approaching the project site from the northwest, northeast, and south. The results of the modeling effort included
anticipated values for surface fires flame length (feet), rate of spread (mph), fireline intensity (Btu/ft/s), and spotting
distance (miles), as well as crown fires (critical surface intensity (Btu/ft/s), critical surface flame length (feet),
transition ratio (ratio: surface fireline intensity divided by critical s urface intensity), transition to crown fire (yes or
no), crown fire rate of spread (mph), critical crown rate of spread (mph), active ratio (ratio: crown fire rate of spread
divided by critical crown fire rate of spread), active crown fire (yes or no), and fire type (surface, torching, conditional
crown, or crowning)) for a fire going through the small eucalyptus woodland/riparian area northwest of the Project
site. The aforementioned fire behavior variables are an important component in understanding fire risk and fire
agency response capabilities. Flame length, the length of the flame of a spreading surface fire within the flaming
front, is measured from midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames (Andrews,
Bevins, and Seli 2008). Fireline intensity is a measure of heat output from the flaming front, and also affects the
potential for a surface fire to transition to a crown fire. Fire spread rate represents the speed at which the fire
progresses through surface fuels and is another important variable in initial attack and fire suppression efforts
(Rothermel and Rinehart 1983). Spotting distance is the distance a firebrand or ember can travel down wind and
ignite receptive fuel beds. Four fire modeling scenario locations were selected to better understand the different
fire behavior that may be experienced on or adjacent the site based on slope and fuel conditions; these four fire
scenarios are explained in more detail below:
Fire Scenario Locations and Descriptions:
▪ Scenarios 1a: This scenario modeled both a fall, off-shore fire (97 th percentile weather condition) and a
summer, on-shore fire (50th percentile weather condition) burning through the approximately 25-foot tall
eucalyptus tree woodland and riparian habitat area within the Otay River on the west side of I-805 and
northwest of the Proposed Project site. The terrain is flat (approximately 3% slope) with tall eucalyptus trees
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
7 JANUARY 2022
and potential ignition sources from a structure fire in the adjacent single-family community to the north, a
vehicle fire from traffic along I-805, or embers from a wildland fire from the west of east/northeast of the
proposed development. This type of fire would typically spread by jumping from tree to tree before possibly
transitioning under I-805 before reaching the developed portion of the Project site.
▪ Scenario 1b: A summer, on-shore fire (50th percentile weather condition) burning in moderate- to- high-
load shrub and chaparral dominated vegetation with a small intermix of non-native grassland located
northwest of the Project site (east side of I-805 and within the riparian area of the Otay River. Additionally,
this scenario models the possibility of a eucalyptus crown fire that are located along the west side of the
development and east side of the I-805. The terrain is flat (between 2% and 3% slope) with potential ignition
sources from a vehicle fire from traffic along I-805 or embers from a wildland fire from the west of
east/northeast of the proposed development. This type of fire would typically spread moderately fast before
reaching the developed portion of the Project site.
▪ Scenario 2: A fall, off -shore fire (97 th percentile weather condition) burning in moderate- to- high-load
shrub and chaparral dominated vegetation with a small intermix of non-native grassland located
north/northeast of the Project development. The terrain is flat (approximately 2% slope) with potential
ignition sources from a structure fire in the adjacent single-family community to the east, a vehicle fire from
the parking lot to the north, or from a wildland fire from the east/northeast of the proposed development.
This type of fire would typically spread moderately fast before reaching the northern portion of the
developed area of the Project site.
▪ Scenario 3: A fall, off -shore fire (97 th percentile weather condition) burning in moderate- to- high-load
shrub and chaparral dominated vegetation with a small intermix of non-native grassland located south of
the Project development. The terrain is relatively flat (approximately 10% slope) with potential ignition
sources from a structure fire from the adjacent hospital to the south, a vehicle fire from the hospital parking
lot to the south or traffic along the I-805, or from embers of a wildland fire from the east/northeast of the
proposed development. This type of fire would typically spread moderately fast before reaching the
southern portion of the developed Project site.
4 Fire Behavior Modeling Results
The results presented in Tables 4 and 5 depict values based on inputs to the BehavePlus software and are not
intended to capture changing fire behavior as it moves across a landscape. Changes in slope, weather, or pockets
of different fuel types are not accounted for in this analysis. For planning purposes, the averaged worst-case fire
behavior is the most useful information for conservative brush management design. Model results should be used
as a basis for planning only, as actual fire behavior for a given location will be affected by many factors, including
unique weather patterns, small-scale topographic variations, or changing vegetation patterns.
As presented in Table 4, wildfire behavior on the Project site is expected to be primarily of moderate to high intensity
throughout the non-maintained surface shrub and chaparral dominated fuels within the Otay River area and small
hillside along the southern boundary adjacent to the Project site, as well as within the eucalyptus woodland
area/eucalyptus trees along I-805. Worst-case fire behavior from the eucalyptus tree woodland is expected under
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
8 JANUARY 2022
peak weather conditions (represented by Fall Weather, Scenario 1a – Fall), while worst-case surface fire behavior
is expected under peak weather conditions within the non -maintained shrubs and chaparrals vegetated areas
(represented by Scenario 2). The fire is anticipated to be a wind-driven fire from the north/northeast during the fall.
Under such conditions, expected surface flame length could potentially reach approximately 41 feet with wind
speeds of 50+ mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 18,348 BTU/feet/second with moderate spread
rates of 6.2 mph and could have a spotting distance up to 2.3 miles away. Because embers could spot within 2.3
miles of the Project site, a crown fire could potentially occur within the small eucalyptus woodland area within the
riparian Otay River, located approximately 550 feet northwest of the developed portion of the Project site. Potential
crown fire flame lengths could reach 58 feet with sustained winds of 18 mph or 1 47 feet with wind gusts of 50+
mph. Under this scenario, crown fireline intensities reach 20,083 BTU/feet/second with moderately slow crown
spread rates of 4.1 mph
Wildfire behavior in non-maintained shrubs and chaparral within the Otay River west/northwest of the Project site,
modeled as FM4 and Sh5 being fanned by 14 mph sustained, on-shore winds. Fires burning from the
west/northwest and pushed by ocean breezes typically exhibit less severe fire behavior due to lower wind speeds
and higher humidity. Under typical onshore weather conditions, a moderate- to- high-load shrub/chaparral
vegetation fire could have flame lengths between approximately 12 feet and 19 feet in height and spread rates
between 0.6 and 0.9 mph. Spotting distances, where airborne embers can ignite new fires downwind or within the
small eucalyptus woodland area within the riparian Otay River, located approximately 550 feet northwest of the
developed portion of the Project site, range from 0.4 to 0.6 miles. A crown fire could potentially reach 38 feet under
these conditions.
Based on the BehavePlus analysis, post development fire behavior expected in the irrigated and replanted with
plants that are acceptable with the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department (SDFRD) (BMZ Zone 1 – Gr1), as well as in
an area with thinning of the existing shrubs (BMZ Zone 2 – Sh1/Sh2) under peak weather conditions (represented
by Fall Weather, Scenario 2) is presented in Table 5. Under such conditions, expected surface flame length is
expected to be significantly lower, with flames lengths reaching approximately 10 feet with wind speeds of 50+
mph. Under this scenario, fireline intensities reach 760 BTU/feet/second with relatively slow spread rates of 1.3
mph and could have a spotting distance up to 0.8 miles away. Therefore, the modified BMZ proposed for the Nakano
Residential Development Project are approximately 2.5-times the flame length of the worst case fire scenario under
peak weather conditions and would provide adequate defensible space to augment a wildfire approaching the
perimeter of the Project site.
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
9 JANUARY 2022
Table 4: RAWS BehavePlus Fire Behavior Model Results – Existing Conditions
Note:
1. Wind-driven surface fire.
2. Riparian overstory torching increases fire intensity. Modeling included canopy fuel over Sh4, which represents surface fuels beneath the tree
canopies.
3. A surface fire in the mixed sycamore riparian forest would transition into the tree canopies generating flame lengths higher than the average tree
height (25 feet). Viable airborne embers could be carried downwind for approximately 1.0 mile and ignite receptive fuels.
4. Crowning= fire is spreading through the overstory crowns.
5. MPH=miles per hour
6. Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire; it should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 50 mph.
Fire Scenario
Flame
Length1
(feet)
Spread
Rate1
(mph5)
Fireline
Intensity1
(Btu/ft/s)
Spot
Fire1
(miles)
Surface Fire to
Tree Crown
Fire
Tree Crown
Fire Rate of
Spread (mph)
Crown Fire
Flame Length
(feet)
Scenario 1a: 3% slope; Fall Off-shore Extreme Wind (97th percentile) - (Northwest of Project site)
Eucalyptus
woodland/Riparian Habitat
(FM9)
5.3
(11.7’)6 0.3 (1.7) 215
(1,193) 0.3 (1.0) No 1.0 (4.1) 52.9 (136.1)6
Riparian Habitat - Timber
Shrub (Sh4)
12.1
(23.2)6 1.0 (4.1) 1,293
(5,261) 0.6 (1.5) No 1.0 (4.1) 57.5 (137.8)6
Scrub and Chaparral (Sh5) 23.7
(41.2)6 1.9 (6.2) 5,546
(18,348) 0.9 (2.3) Crowning 4 1.0 (4.1) 69.9 (179.7)6
Scenario 1a: 3% slope; Summer on-shore Wind (50th percentile) - (Northwest of Project site)
Eucalyptus
woodland/Riparian Habitat
(FM9)
2.9 0.1 57 0.2 No 0.3 38.1
Riparian Habitat - Timber
Shrub (Sh4) 2.3 0.1 34 0.1 No 0.3 37.5
Scrub and Chaparral (Sh5) 12.5 0.6 1,379 0.4 Crowning 4 0.3 43.5
Scenario 1b: 2% slope; Summer on-shore Wind (50th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (Northwest of Project site)
Chaparral (FM4) 18.9 0.9 3,375 0.6 Crowning 4 0.3 36.5
Riparian Habitat - Timber
Shrub (Sh4) 2.3 0.1 34 0.1 No 0.3 24.3
Scrub and Chaparral (Sh5) 12.5 0.6 1,379 0.4 Crowning 4 0.3 31.5
Scenario 2: 2% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (North/northwest of Project site)
Grass/Shrub (Gs2) 9.6
(18.8’)6 0.9 (3.8) 774
(3,358) 0.4 (1.3) N/A N/A N/A
Moderate load shrubs
(Sh2)
8.0
(15.1)6 0.2 (0.9) 522
(2,074) 0.4 (1.1) N/A N/A N/A
High load Scrub (Sh5) 23.6
(41.1)6 1.9 (6.2) 5,545
(18,348) 0.8 (2.3) N/A N/A N/A
Scenario 3: 10% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (South of Project site)
Grass/Shrub (Gs2) 9.6
(18.8’)6 0.9 (3.8) 767
(3,351) 0.4 (1.3) N/A N/A N/A
Moderate load shrubs
(Sh2)
8.0
(15.1)6 0.2 (0.9) 517
(2,069) 0.4 (1.1) N/A N/A N/A
High load Scrub (Sh5) 23.7
(41.2)6 1.9 (6.2) 5,500
(18,303) 0.8 (2.3) N/A N/A N/A
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
10 JANUARY 2022
A crown fire with the modeled flame lengths listed in Table 4 would not be expected based on the BMZs being
proposed, the ongoing maintenance of the BMZs, and the high moisture levels within the riparian zone areas. An
active crown fire flame length modeled using the BehavePlus software is calculated based on the active crown fire
intensity, which assumes that the crown fire is fully active.
Table 5: RAWS BehavePlus Fire Behavior Model Results – Post Project Conditions
Fire Scenario Flame Length (feet)
Spread Rate
(mph)5
Fireline Intensity
(Btu/ft./sec)
Spot Fire (Miles) 6
Scenario 1b: 2% slope; Summer on-shore Wind (50th percentile) – Post-BMZ (Northwest of Project site)
BMZ Zone 1 (Gr1) 1.7 0.2 18 0.1
BMZ Zone 2 (Sh1) 0.6 0.0 2 0.0
Scenario 2: 2% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Post-BMZ (North/northwest of Project site)
BMZ Zone 1 (Gr1) 3.1 (3.1) 0.5 (0.5) 67 (67) 0.2 (0.4)
BMZ Zone 2 (Sh1) 5.3 (9.5) 0.3 (1.3) 210 (760) 0.3 (0.8)
Scenario 3: 10% slope; Fall Off-shore, Extreme Winds (97th percentile) – Pre-BMZ (South of Project site)
BMZ Zone 1 (Gr1) 3.1 (3.1) 0.5 (0.5) 67 (67) 0.2 (0.4)
BMZ Zone 2 (Sh1) 5.2 (9.5) 0.3 (1.3) 208 (760) 0.3 (0.8)
The following describes the fire behavior variables (Heisch and Andrews 2010) as presented in Tables 3 and 4:
Surface Fire:
▪ Flame Length (feet): The flame length of a spreading surface fire within the flaming front is measured from
midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames.
▪ Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft/s): Fireline intensity is the heat energy release per unit time from a one -foot wide
section of the fuel bed extending from the front to the rear of the flaming zone. Fireline intensity is a function
of rate of spread and heat per unit area, and is directly r elated to flame length. Fireline intensity and the
flame length are related to the heat felt by a person standing next to the flames.
▪ Surface Rate of Spread (mph): Surface rate of spread is the "speed" the fire travels through the surface
fuels. Surface fuels include the litter, grass, brush and other dead and live vegetation within about 6 feet
of the ground.
Crown Fire:
▪ Transition to Crown Fire: Indicates whether conditions for transition from surface to crown fire are likely.
Calculation depends on the transition ratio. If the transition ratio is greater than or equal to 1, then
transition to crown fire is Yes. If the transition ratio is less than 1, then transition to crown fire is No.
5 mph = miles per hour
6 Spotting distance from a wind driven surface fire; it should be noted that the wind mph in parenthesis represent peak gusts of 45
mph.
FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING SUMMARY
NAKANO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
14107
11 JANUARY 2022
▪ Crown Fire Rate of Spread (mph): The forward spread rate of a crown fire. It is the overall spread for a
sustained run over several hours. The spread rate includes the effects of spotting. It is calculated from 20-
ft wind speed and surface fuel moisture values. It does not consider a description of the overstory.
Fire Type:
Fire type is one of the following four types: surface (understory fire), torching (passive crown fire; surface fire with
occasional torching trees), conditional crown (active crown fire possible if the fire transitions to the overstory), and
crowning (active crown fire; fire spreading through the overstory crowns). Dependent on the variables: transition to
crown fire and active crown fire.
The information in Table 6 presents an interpretation of the outputs for five fire behavior variables as related to fire
suppression efforts. The results of fire behavior modeling efforts are presented in Table s 4 and 5. Identification of
modeling run locations is presented graphically in Figure 4 of the FPP.
Table 6: Fire Suppression Interpretation
Flame Length
(ft)
Fireline Intensity
(Btu/ft/s)
Interpretations
Under 4 feet Under 100 BTU/ft/s Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by
persons using hand tools. Hand line should hold the fire.
4 to 8 feet 100-500 BTU/ft/s Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons
using hand tools. Hand line cannot be relied on to hold the
fire. Equipment such as dozers, pumpers, and retardant
aircraft can be effective.
8 to 11 feet 500-1000 BTU/ft/s Fires may present serious control problems -- torching out,
crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head will
probably be ineffective.
Over 11 feet Over 1000 BTU/ft/s Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control
efforts at head of fire are ineffective.
Appendix D-1
Suggested Plant List
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 1 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
1.W Abelia x grandiflora Glossy Abelia Shrub
2. Desert CarpetAcacia redolens desert carpet Shrub
3. Acer macrophyllum Big Leaf Maple Tree
4.X Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Low shrub
5.W Achillea tomentosa Wooly Yarrow Low shrub
6.X Aeonium decorum Aeonium Ground cover
7.X Aeonium simsii ncn Ground cover
8.W Agave attenuata Century Plant Succulent
9.W Agave shawii SucculentShaw's Century Plant
10.N ncnAgave victoriae-reginae Ground cover
11.X Ajuga reptans Carpet Bugle Ground cover
12.W Alnus cordata Italian Alder Tree
13.Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Tree
14.N Aloe aborescens Tree Aloe Shrub
15.N Aloe aristata ncn Ground cover
16.N Aloe brevifolia ncn Ground cover
17.W Aloe vera Medicinal Aloe Succulent
18.W Alyogyne huegelii Blue Hibiscus Shrub
19.Ambrosia chamissonis Beach Bur-Sage Perennial
20.Amorpha fruticosa Western False
Indigobush
Shrub
21.W Anigozanthus flavidus Perennial accentKangaroo Paw
22.Antirrhinum nuttalianum ssp.
nuttalianum
ncn Subshrub
23.X Ground coverRed Apple ApteniaAptenia cordifolia x 'Red Apple'
24.W Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree Tree
25.W Ground coverPacific Mist ManzanitaArctostaphylos 'Pacific Mist'
26.W Ground coverLittle Sur ManzanitaArctostaphylos edmundsii
27.Arctostaphylos glandulosa
ssp.glandulosa
ShrubEastwood Manzanita
28.W Arctostaphylos hookeri
'Monterey Carpet'
Monterey Carpet
Manzanita
Low shrub
Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.X =
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.W =
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet=
or dry zones) in all locations.
Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuelN =
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14=.
Suggested Plant List
For Fuel Modification Projects in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange
Counties
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 2 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
29.N Arctostaphylos pungens ncn Shrub
30.N Arctostaphylos refugioensis Refugio
Manzanita
Shrub
31.W Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Bearberry Ground cover
32.W Arctostaphylos x 'Greensphere' Greensphere
Manzanita
Shrub
33.N Artemisia caucasica Caucasian
Artemisia
Ground cover
34.X Artemisia pycnocephaia Beach Sagewort Perennial
35.X Atriplex canescens Four-Wing
Saltbush
Shrub
36.X Atriplex lentiformis ssp. Breweri Brewer Saltbush Shrub
37.Baccharis emoryi Emory Baccharis Shrub
38.W Baccharis pilularis ssp.
Consanguinea
Chaparral Bloom Shrub
39.X Baccharis pilularis var. pilularis
"Twin Peaks #2'
Twin Peaks Ground cover
40.Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat Shrub
41.N Baileya multiradiata Desert Marigold Ground cover
42.W Beaucarnea recurvata Bottle Palm Shrub/Small tree
43.N Bougainvillea spectabilis Bougainvillea Shrub
44.N Brahea armata Mexican Blue
Palm, Blue
Hesper Palm
Palm
45.N Brahea brandegeei San Jose Hesper
Palm
Palm
46.N Brahea edulis Guadalupe Palm Palm
47.Brickellia californica ncn Subshrub
48.W Bromus carinatus California Brome Grass
49.Camissonia cheiranthifolia Beach Evening
Primrose
Perennial
subshrub
50.N Carissa macrocarpa Green Carpet
Natal Plum
Ground
cover/Shrub
51.X Carpobrotus chilensis Sea Fig Ice Plant Ground cover
52.W Ceanothus gloriosus 'Point Reyes' Point Reyes
Ceanothus
Shrub
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 3 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
53.W Ceanothus griseus "Louis
Edmunds'
Louis Edmunds
Ceanothus
Shrub
54.W Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Yankee Point Ground Cover
55.W Ceanothus griseus var. horizontalis Carmel Creeper
Ceanothus
Shrub
56.W Ceanothus griseus var. horizontalis
"Yankee Point"
Yankee Point
Ceanothus
Shrub
57.Ceanothus megacarpus Big Pod
Ceanothus
Shrub
58.W Ceanothus prostratus Squaw carpet
ceanothus
Shrub
59.Ceanothus spinosus Green bark
ceanothus
Shrub
60.W Ceanothus verrucosus Wart-Stem
Ceanothus
Shrub
61.W Cerastium tomentosum Snow-in-summer Ground
cover/shrub
62.W Ceratonia siliqua Carob Tree
63.W Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Tree/shrub
64.X Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Oxeye Daisy Groundcover
65.W Cistus crispus ncn Shrub
66.W Cistus hybridus White Rockrose Shrub
67.W Cistus incanus ncn Shrub
68.W Cistus incanus ssp. corsicus ncn Shrub
69.W Cistus salviifolis Sageleaf
Rockrose
Shrub
70.W Cistus x purpureus Orchid Rockrose Shrub
71.W Citrus species Citrus Tree
72.Clarkia bottae Showy Fairwell
to Spring
Annual
73.Cneoridium dumosum Bushrue Shrub
74.Collinsia heterophylla Chinese Houses Annual
75.W Comarostaphylis diversifolia Summer Holly Shrub
76.N Convolvulus cneorum Bush Morning
Glory
Shrub
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 4 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
77. W Coprosma kirkii Creeping
Coprosma
Ground
cover/Shrub
78. W Coprosma pumila Prostrate
Coprosma
Low Shrub
79. Coreopsis californica California
Coreopsis
Annual
80. W Coreopsis lanceolata Coreopsis Ground cover
81. N Correa pulchella Australian
Fuchsia
Ground cover
82. W Cotoneaster buxifolius ncn Shrub
83. W Cotoneaster congestus 'Likiang' Likiang
Cotoneaster
Ground
cover/Vine
84. W Cotoneaster parneyi ncn Shrub
85. X Crassula lactea ncn Ground cover
86. X Crassula multicava ncn Ground cover
87. X Crassula ovata Jade Tree Shrub
88. X Crassula tetragona ncn Ground cover
89. W Croton californicus California Croton Ground cover
90. X Delosperma 'alba' White Trailing
Ice Plant
Ground cover
91. Dendromecon rigida Bush Poppy Shrub
92. Dichelostemma capitatum Blue Dicks Herb
93. N Distictis buccinatoria Blood-Red
Trumpet Vine
Vine/Climbing
vine
94. N Dodonaea viscosa Hopseed Bush Shrub
95. X Drosanthemum floribundum Rosea Ice Plant Ground cover
96. X Drosanthemum hispidum ncn Ground cover
97. X Drosanthemum speciosum Dewflower Ground cover
98. Dudleya lanceolata Lance-leaved
Dudleya
Succulent
99. Dudleya pulverulenta Chalk Dudleya Succulent
100.W Elaeagnus pungens Silverberry Shrub
101 Encelia californica California
Encelia
Small shrub
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands. Acceptable on all
other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 5 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
102.Epilobium canum [Zauschneria
californica]
Hoary California
Fuchsia
Shrub
103.Eriastrum sapphirinum Mojave Wooly
Star
Annual
104.N Eriobotrya japonica Loquat Tree
105.Eriodictycon crassifolium Thick-Leaf Yerba
Santa
Shrub
106.Eriodictycon trichocalyx Yerba Santa Shrub
107.W Eriophyllum confertiflorum ncn Shrub
108.W Erythrina species Coral Tree Tree
109.N Escallonia species Several varieties Shrub
110.W Eschscholzia californica California Poppy Flower
111.X Eschscholzia mexicana Mexican Poppy Herb
112.N Euonymus fortunei Winter Creeper
Euonymus
Ground cover
113.N Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava Shrub/Tree
114.N Fragaria chiloensis Wild Strawberry/
Sand Strawberry
Ground cover
115.Frankenia salina Alkali Heath Ground cover
116.W Fremontodendron californicum California
Flannelbush
Shrub
117.X Gaillardia x grandiflora Blanketflower Ground cover
118.W Galvezia speciosa Bush
Snapdragon
Shrub
119 W Garrya ellipta Silktassel Shrub
120.X Gazania hybrids South African
Daisy
Ground cover
121.X Gazania rigens leucolaena Trailing Gazania Ground cover
122.Gilia capitata Globe Gilia Perennial
123.W Gilia lepthantha Showy Gilia Perennial
124.W Gilia tricolor Bird's Eyes Perennial
125 .W Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree Tree
126.Gnaphalium californicum California
Everlasting
Annual
127.W Grewia occidentalis Starflower Shrub
128.Grindelia stricta Gum Plant Ground cover
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 6 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
129.N Hakea suaveolens Sweet Hakea Shrub
130.W Hardenbergia comptoniana Lilac Vine Shrub
131.N Helianthemum mutabile Sunrose Ground
cover/Shrub
132.Helianthemum scoparium Rush Rose Shrub
133.Heliotropium curassavicum Salt Heliotrope Ground cover
134.X Helix canariensis English Ivy Ground cover
135.W Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Perennial
136.Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Shrub
137.X Hypericum calycinum Aaron's-Beard Shrub
138.N Iberis sempervirens Edging Caandytuft Ground cover
139.N Iberis umbellatum Globe Candytuft Ground cover
140.Isocoma menziesii Coastal
Goldenbush
Small shrub
141.Isomeris arborea Bladderpod Shrub
142.W Iva hayesiana Poverty Weed Ground cover
143.N Juglans californica California Black
Walnut
Tree
144.Juncus acutus Spiny Rush Perennial
145.Keckiella antirrhinoides Yellow Bush
Penstemon
Subshrub
146.Keckiella cordifolia Heart Leaved
Penstemon
Subshrub
147.Keckiella ternata Blue Stemmed
Bush Penstemon
Subshrub
148.W Kniphofia uvaria Red Hot Poker Perennial
149 .W Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtel Tree
150.W Lagunaria patersonii Primrose Tree Tree
151.X Lampranthus aurantiacus Bush Ice Plant Ground cover
152.X Lampranthus filicaulis Redondo Creeper Ground cover
153.X Lampranthus spectabilis Trailing Ice Plant Ground cover
154.W Lantana camara cultivars Yellow Sage Shrub
155.W Lantana montevidensis Trailing Lantana Shrub
156. Lasthenia californica Dwarf Goldfields Annual
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 7 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
157.W Lavandula dentata French Lavendar Shrub
158.W Leptospermum laevigatum Australian Tea
Tree
Shrub
159.W Leucophyllum frutescens Texas Ranger Shrub
160.Leymus condensatus Giant Wild Rye Large grass
161.N Ligustrum japonicum Texas Privet Shrub
162.X Limonium pectinatum ncn Ground cover
163.X Limonium perezii Sea Lavender Shrub
164.W Liquidambar styraciflua American Sweet
Gum
Tree
165.W Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree Tree
166.X Lonicera japonica 'Halliana' Hall's Japanese
Honeysuckle
Vining shrub
167.Lonicera subspicata Wild
Honeysuckle
Vining shrub
168.X Lotus corniculatus Bird's Foot
Trefoil
Ground cover
169.Lotus heermannii Northern Woolly
Lotus
Perennial
170.Lotus scoparius Deerweed Shrub
171.W Lupinus arizonicus Desert Lupine Annual
172.W Lupinus benthamii Spider Lupine Annual
173.Lupinus bicolor Sky Lupine Flowering annual
174.Lupinus sparsiflorus Loosely
Flowered Annual
Lupini/Coulter's
Lupine
Annual
175.W Lyonothamnus floribundus ssp.
asplenifolius
Fernleaf
Ironwood
Tree
176.W Macadamia Integrifolia Macadamia Nut Tree
177.W Mahonia aquifolium 'Golden
Abundance'
Golden
Abundance
Oregon
Grape
Shrub
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 8 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
178.W Mahonia nevinii Nevin Mahonia Shrub
179.Malacothamnus fasciculatus Chaparral
Mallow
Shrub
180.X Malephora luteola Trailing Ice Plant Ground cover
181.W Maytenus boaria Mayten Tree Tree
182.W Melaleuca nesophila Pink Melaleuca Shrub
183.N Metrosideros excelsus New Zealand
Christmas Tree
Tree
184.Mimulus species Monkeyflower Flower
185.Mirabilis californica Wishbone Bush Perennial
186.N Myoporum debile ncn Shrub
187.N Myoporum insulare Boobyalla Shrub
188.W Myoporum parvifolium ncn Ground cover
189.W Myoporum 'Pacificum' ncn Shrub
190.Nassella [stipa] lepida Foothill
needlegrass
Ground cover
191.Nassella [stipa] pulchra Purple
needlegrass
Ground cover
192.Nemophila menziesii Baby Blue Eyes Annual
193.X Nerium oleander Oleander Shrub
197.Oenothera hookeri California
Evening
Primrose
Flower
198.W Oenothera speciosa Showy Evening
Primrose
Perennial
199.X Ophiopogon japonicus Mondo Grass Ground cover
200.Opuntia littoralis Prickly Pear Cactus
201.Opuntia oricola Oracle Cactus Cactus
202.Opuntia prolifera Coast Cholla Cactus
203.W Osmanthus fragrans Sweet Olive Shrub
204.X Osteospermum fruticosum Trailing African
Daisy
Ground cover
205.X Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican Palo
Verde
Tree
206.W Pelargonium peltatum Ivy Geranium Ground cover
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 9 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
207.X Penstemon species Beard Tongue Shrub
208.W Photinia fraseri ncn Shrub
209.W Pistacia chinensis Chinese
Pistache
Tree
210.X Pittosporum undulatum Victorian Box Tree
211.Plantago erecta California
Plantain
Annual
212.Plantago insularis Woolly Plantain Annual
213.X Plantago sempervirens Evergreen
Plaintain
Ground cover
214.W Platanus racemosa California
Sycamore
Tree
215.W Plumbago auriculata Plumbago Cape Shrub
216.Populus fremontii Western
Cottonwood
Tree
217.X Portulacaria afra Elephant's Food Shrub
218.Potentilla glandulosa Sticky Cinquefoil Subshrub
219.X Potentilla tabernaemontanii Spring Cinquefoil Ground cover
220.X Prunus caroliniana Carolina Cherry
Laurel
Shrub/Tree
221.Prunus ilicifolia ssp. ilicifolia Holly Leaved
Cherry
Shrub
222.X Prunus lyonii Catalina Cherry Shrub/Tree
223.N Punica granatum Pomegranate Shrub/Tree
224.W Puya species Puya Succulent/shrub
225.W Pyracantha species Firethorn Shrub
226.Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak Shrub
227.Quercus berberdifolia California Scrub
Oak
Shrub
228.Quercus dumosa Coastal Scrub
Oak
Shrub
229.X Quercus engelmannii Engelmann Oak Tree
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 10 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
230.X Quercus suber Cork Oak Tree
231.X Rhamnus alaternus Italian Buckthorn Shrub
232.Rhamnus californica California Coffee
Berry
Shrub
233.Rhamnus crocea Redberry Shrub
234.Rhamnus crocea ssp. ilicifolia Hollyleaf
Redberry
Shrub
235.N Rhaphiolepis species Indian Hawthorn Shrub
236.Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Berry Shrub
237.N Rhus lancea African Sumac Tree
238.Rhus ovata Sugarbush Shrub
239.Ribes aureum Golden Currant Shrub
240.Ribes indecorum White Flowering
Currant
Shrub
241.Ribes speciosum Fuchsia
Flowering
Gooseberry
Shrub
242.W Ribes viburnifolium Evergreen
Currant
Shrub
243.Romneya coulteri Matilija Poppy Shrub
244.X Romneya coulteri 'White Cloud' White Cloud
Matilija Poppy
Shrub
245.W Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary Shrub
246.W Salvia greggii Autumn Sage Shrub
247.W Salvia sonomensis Creeping Sage Ground cover
248.Sambucus mexicana Mexican
Elderberry
Tree
249.W Santolina chamaecyparissus Lavender Cotton Ground cover
250.W Santolina virens Green Lavender
Cotton
Shrub
251.Satureja chandleri San Miguel
Savory
Perennial
25 2.Scirpus acutus Hard-Stem
Bulrush
Perennial
253.Scirpus californicus California
Bulrush
Perennial
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 11 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
254.X Sedum acre Goldmoss
Sedum
Ground cover
255.X Sedum album Green Stonecrop Ground cover
256.X Sedum confusum ncn Ground cover
257.X Sedum llineare ncn Ground cover
258.X Sedum x rubrotinctum Pork and Beans Ground cover
259.X Senecio serpens ncn Ground cover
260.Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-Eyed Grass Ground cover
261.Solanum douglasii Douglas
Nightshade
Shrub
262.Solanum xantii Purple
Nightshade
Perennial
263.W Stenocarpus sinuatus Firewheel Tree Tree
264.W Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of
Paradise
Perennial
265.W Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Perennial
266.Symphoricarpos mollis Creeping
Snowberry
Shrub
267.W Tecoma stans [Stenolobium
stans]
Yellow Bells Shrub/Small tree
268.X Tecomaria capensis Cape
Honeysuckle
Ground cover
269.N Teucrium chamaedrys Germander Ground cover
270.N Thymus serpyllum Lemon Thyme Ground cover
271.N Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine Shrub
272.Trichostema lanatum Woolly Blue-
Curls
Shrub
273.X Trifolium hirtum 'Hyron' Hyron Rose
Clover
Ground cover
274.X Trifolium fragiferum 'O'Connor's' O'Connor's
Legume
Ground cover
275.Umbellularia californica California Laurel Tree
276.Verbena lasiostachys Western Vervain Perennial
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 12 of 12
Code Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
277.N Verbena peruviana ncn Ground cover
278.X Verbena species Verbena Ground cover
279.X Vinca minor Dwarf Periwinkle Ground cover
280.Vitis girdiana Desert Wild
Grape
Vine
281.X Vulpia myuros 'Zorro' Zorro Annual
Fescue
Grass
282.W Westringia fruticosa ncn Shrub
283.W Xanthorrhoea species Grass Tree Perennial
accent/ Shrub
284.W Xylosma congestum Shiny Xylosma Shrub
285.X Yucca species Yucca Shrub
286.Yucca whipplei Yucca Shrub
X = Plant species prohibited in wet and dry fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable on all other fuel modification locations and zones.
W = Plant species appropriate for use in wet fuel modification zones adjacent to native open space lands.
Acceptable in all other wet and irrigated dry (manufactured slopes) fuel modification locations and zones.
= Plant species native to Riverside, Orange and San Diego Counties. Acceptable in all fuel modification (wet
or dry zones) in all locations.
N = Plant species acceptable on a limited basis (maximum 30% of the area at time of planting) in wet fuel
modification zones adjacent to native open space reserve lands. Acceptable in all other fuel modification
locations and zones.
If seed collected from local seed source.
Not native plant species but can be used in all fuel modification zones.
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis. Refer to qualification requirements starting on page 14 .
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 1 of 2
QUALIFICATION STATEMENTS FOR SELECT PLANT SPECIES
= Plant species acceptable on a limited use basis:
2. Acacia redolens desert carpet
May be used in the upper 1/2 of fuel modification zone 2 (30 to
70 feet). The plants may be planted at 8 feet on center minimum
spacing in meandering zones not to exceed a mature width of 24 feet
or a mature height of 24 feet.
43. Bougainvillea spectabilis [procumbent varities]
Procumbent to mounding varieties may be used in the mid fuel
modification zone 2 (30 to 70 feet). The plants may be planted in
clusters at 6 feet once center spacing not to exceed 8 plants per
cluster. Mature spacing between individual plants or clusters shall be
30 feet minimum.
44. Brahea armata
45. Brahea brandegeei
46. Brahea edulis
May be used in the upper and mid fuel modification zone 2 (30
to 70 feet). The plants shall be used as single specimens with
mature spacing between palms of 30 feet minimum.
129. Hakea suaveolens
May be used in the mid fuel modification zone 2 (30-70 feet).
The plants shall be used as single specimens with mature spacing
between plants of 30 feet minimum.
136. Heteromeles arbutifolia
May be used in the mid to lower fuel modification zone 2 (30 to
70 feet). The plants may be planted in clusters of up to 3 plants per
cluster. Mature spacing between individual plants or cluster shall be
30 feet minimum.
164. Liquidambar styraciflua
May be used in the mid to lower fuel modification zone 2 (30 to
70 feet). The plant shall be used as single specimens with mature
spacing between trees at 30 feet minimum.
227. Quercus berberdifolia
Fire Protection Plan Dudek Page 2 of 2
228. Quercus dumosa
May be used in the mid to lower fuel modification zone 2 (30 to
70 feet). The plants may be planted in clusters of up to 3 plants per
cluster. Mature spacing between individual plants or clusters shall be
30 feet minimum.
238. Rhus ovata
May be used in the mid to lower fuel modification zone 3 (30 to
70 feet) within inland areas only. The plants may be planted in
clusters of up to 3 plants per cluster. Mature spacing between
individual plants or clusters shall be 30 feet minimum.
245. Romarinus officinalis
246. Salvia greggii
247. Salvia sonomensis
May be used in the mid to upper fuel modification zone 2 (30 to
70 feet). The plants may be planted in clusters of up to 3 plants per
cluster. Mature spacing between individual plants or clusters shall be
15 feet minimum.
Appendix D-2
Undesirable Plant List
Page 1 of 1
Botanical Name Common Name Plant Form
1.Acacia species ·Acacia Shrub/Tree
2.ChamiseAdenostoma fasciculatum Shrub
3.Red ShankAdenostoma sparsifolium Shrub/Tree
4.Artemisia californica ShrubCalifornia Sagebrush
5.Bamboos Bamboo Shrub
6.Cedrus species Cedar Tree
7.Cupressus species Cypress Tree
8.ShrubCommon BuckwheatEriogonum fasciculatum
9.Eucalyptus species Eucalyptus Shrub/Tree
10.Juniperus species Junipers Succulent
11.Pennisetum Fountain Grass Ground cover
12.Pinus species Pines Tree
13.Rosmarinus species Rosemary Shrub
14.Salvia species · ·Sage Shrub
·Except:
Acacia redolens desert carpet (Desert Carpet ground cover)
· · Except:
Salvia colubariae (chia)
Salvia sonomensis (Creeping Sage)
Undesirable Plant List
For Fuel Modification Projects in San Diego, Riverside, and Orange
Counties