In April, Mark Blosser closed on a parcel of land in the Village of Oak Creek with the intention of building a home for himself and his wife. Then he ran up against the Sedona Fire District and its fire codes.
“Communications were initially satisfactory, but have since taken on a dismissive tone, tinged with arrogance,” Blosser wrote to the SFD Governing Board on April 18. “We are handled as an annoyance, not a customer or partner.”
Blosser, a civil engineer with experience in regulatory work and mathematical modeling, reached out to the district to inquire about options for sprinkler systems and fire-resistant doors and windows and to determine the basis for multiple SFD policies.
Via email, Fire Marshal Dori Booth agreed with his concern that the size of the required water feed for the sprinkler system was “a bit extensive,” but reportedly declined to consider Blosser’s request for an alternative compliance plan.
SFD did not supply Blosser with manufacturers of windows and doors that would meet the district’s requirements for ignition-resistant construction, instead writing, “the expectation is that a licensed professional, architect or structural engineer, be hired to design your home and locate these materials.”
After Blosser requested contact information for the district’s legal counsel, SFD did not provide it and informed him that the district would not discuss his project further until he had submitted his plans to Yavapai County for formal review.
The dispute between Blosser and SFD primarily concerns two sets of district rules, Policy 1333 and Policy 1339.
Policy 1333
Policy 1333, adopted in May 2020, imposes numerous requirements for ignitionresistant construction on structures built within the wildland urban interface, which the policy defines as “any property continguous to U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Department of State Forestry or other managed forest lands as defined in the WUI Map.”
These requirements include mandatory sprinklers, exterior walls rated for one-hour fire resistance and doors and windows rated for 20-minute fire resistance. These requirements also apply to sheds greater than a certain size or within a certain distance of a main building.
In addition, the policy states that “the entirety of the Sedona Fire District is deemed to be high fire hazard severity per Table 502 of the 2003 International Urban-Wildland Interface Code.”
“As used in conducting fuel modeling exercises, urban/suburban areas [houses on lots, like most of Sedona] are defined as a NB risk category, ‘NB’ meaning ‘non-burnable,’” Blosser wrote in his April 18 letter, referencing modeling criteria established by the federal National Wildfire Coordinating Group. “In all NB-based fuel models, there is no fuel load — wildland fire will not spread.”
To model built-up areas of Sedona as being at high fire risk “is a basic modeling assumption/error, and it invalidates everything that flows from SFD’s assertion that ‘all of Sedona is high fire risk.’”
Blosser described the policy as “a misapplication of that tool that’s led them to impose California-style standards on Sedona.”
Blosser stated that SFD reportedly told him, “‘We can’t have a Paradise, Calif., or a Mora County, N.M., happening here,’” referring to areas with major recent wildfires. “They picked something out of a California document and said, ‘this looks good, we’ll just use this.’ Maybe it’s good there but not here. How do you know? What’s your performance standard?”
SFD did not provide the data on the flammability of urban areas that SFD used as the basis for rejecting the NWCG’s modeling standards and classifying the built-up areas of Sedona and VOC as a high fire risk rather than as non-burnable areas.
SFD Fire Chief Ed Mezulis stated that industry standards in fire protection “are based on consensus rather than scientific research” and that agencies tend to “rely on the expertise of the organizations that established the standards rather than conducting extensive research themselves.”
“These standards are typically based on practical considerations, such as cost-effectiveness and ease of implementation, rather than solely on scientific research,” Mezulis added.
Regarding Policy 1333, Mezulis cited a Federal Emergency Management Agency estimate that wildfire-resistant building codes add $2 per square foot to the cost of a house and an Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety estimate that homes built to wildfire-resistant codes can save up to 25% on insurance premiums.
Blosser’s proposed home will be about 1,800 square feet. Per FEMA estimates, Policy 1333 could add $3,600 to his cost. His plan contains 12 windows and two doors; if each costs $1,000 rather than $100, as Blosser estimated, that Policy 1333 requirement will add $12,600 to his cost.
Policy 1339
SFD adopted Policy 1339 in July 2021 to require the installation of fire sprinklers in any residence that meets any one of 10 criteria, including being more than 500 feet from a fire hydrant, being located on an access road with a speed bump or a grade greater than 12%, being located in a subdivision with a single access point or being within the wildland urban interface area.
Blosser said that eight of these 10 conditions do not affect his property, that condition No. 4 is arbitrary and that condition No. 10 “is illogical because a wildland fire comes from outside, not from within a house. A fire sprinkler inside a house won’t help put out a wildland fire, nor will it be of any use if a wildland fire has engulfed a home.”
Mezulis cited National Fire Protection Association findings that sprinklers in general can reduce the risk of death by 80% and property damage by 70%.
Life Safety
Blosser proposed alternatives to SFD’s policies. “Get with the Forest Service, spend the time and money and get a 100-foot clear area all the way around the city,” Blosser said. “I know people aren’t going to love having an open space behind their lot, but it’s there for a reason … If you want to keep the fire out of my house, why don’t I just make it so fire can’t get to my house?”
He also stressed the importance of roof sprinklers.
“Roof sprinklers are very cheap. You can buy these little tripod sprinklers, mount them on your roof, hang a hose down to your hose bib and if you ever have to turn them on, just hook them up and turn it on and now your roof won’t catch fire. It prevents the embers from doing anything. For a hundred bucks you could do that. Why not do that first?”
“What can we do that’s practical and reduces the risks?” Blosser asked. “Because we can never get all the way there. Do the most cost-effective thing first … All these exotic things cost thousands and thousands of dollars with very little benefit. Spending a thousand dollars on a window that should cost you a hundred doesn’t really help.”
Blosser argued that SFD should revert to the National Fire Protection Agency 13D standard for sprinkler installations.
“They’ve taken the standards and they’ve stuck more stuff on them,” Blosser said, adding that NFPA 13D was designed “to be low-cost and practical. It’s not a property protection standard. It’s a life safety standard. It’s supposed to give you 10 minutes’ time to get out of the house.”
Blosser said 27 states have prohibited fire districts from mandating sprinkler systems “because they all get carried away.”
Ends Versus Means
“SFD’s criteria focus on prescriptive use of [often ineffective and unnecessary] tools, rather than on attaining performance standards/desired outcomes,” Blosser argued in his April 18 letter.
“SFD has employed hyperbole in its crusade to apply the highest protection levels where such are not needed, and are in fact unjustified by environmental conditions,” Blosser’s letter continued. “By doing so, SFD is susceptible to charges of exceeding its authority and acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”
“A lot of the time this stuff’s not logical,” Blosser said. “They don’t care. If it costs me a lot of money and it gives them a little bit of benefit, they’re fine with that. That’s not how it should be … They seem to have this mentality that they can ask for whatever, and you have to do it, and it doesn’t matter if it makes any sense or not.”
“If the policies are wrong, they are open to challenge,” Blosser told the SFD governing board.
The board declined to consider Blosser’s letter at its April 18 meeting on the grounds that it had arrived after the deadline for inclusion in the public record. Members of the board did receive copies of the letter and Mezulis suggested that it be agendized for discussion at the board’s next meeting on May 16.
Responding to Blosser’s Letter
The board’s consideration of Blosser’s letter on May 16 took place in executive session for legal consultation with the board’s attorney and lasted nearly an hour.
At the end of the executive session, board chairman David Soto directed Mezulis “to create a communication back to the individual citizen describing those items discussed in executive session and encouraging the citizen that we look forward to working with him and becoming — working with him and going through the process in order for him to achieve his ultimate goal of building his home where he’s selected to build it.”
Mezulis’ reply to Blosser did not address any of Blosser’s expressed concerns with the district’s policies.
Mezulis wrote “it is crucial to understand that the need for a Wildland Urban Interface Code stems from the unique challenges we face in this area” without specifying what those challenges are or explaining how the district’s responses to them are rooted in causality.
Mezulis further stated that SFD’s standards “are not arbitrary and capricious. They are based on extensive research, industry standards and best practices.” He had previously stated that the standards were based on practicality, not research.
The letter added, “I would like to extend an invitation for ongoing dialogue.”
Blosser described the district’s response as a “bureaucratic cotton candy letter” that trivialized his concerns.
“SFD needs to show me [and the community] that their fire standards are ‘right-sized’ and not hysterical,” Blosser said.
