DOCSLIB.ORG

Butte Camp Fire Lawsuit Complaint (Download)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

www.norcalfirelawyers.com ) 1 PG&E CORPORATION, a California ) ) 2 Corporation, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation and ) ) 3 DOES 1-50, inclusive, ) ) 4 Defendant(s). ) )_ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT www.norcalfirelawyers.com 1 CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................................ 2 4 III. THE PARTIES....................................................................................................................... 3 5 A. Plaintiffs ..................................................................................................................... 3 6 B. Defendants ................................................................................................................. 4 7 IV. THE FACTS .......................................................................................................................... 7 8 A. PG&E IS REQUIRED TO SAFELY DESIGN, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN 9 ITS ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 7 10 B. PG&E’S INEXCUSABLE HISTORY OF SAFETY FAILURES ............................ 8 11 C. PG&E’S INEXCUSABLE BEHAVIOR CONTRIBUTED TO THE CAUSE OF 12 THE CAMP FIRE .................................................................................................... 12 13 1. The 2013 Liberty Report Found that PG&E’s Distribution System 14 Presented “Significant Safety Issues” .......................................................... 12 15 2. PG&E’s Failure to Treat the Conditions of Its Aging Electrical Assets 16 as an Enterprise-Level Risk ......................................................................... 13 17 3. PG&E’s Failure to Inspect, Maintain, Repair, or Replace Its Equipment ... 13 18 4. PG&E’s “Run to Failure” Approach to Maintenance .................................. 15 19 5. PG&E’s Purchase of Insurance Coverage for Punitive Damages ............... 16 20 D. PG&E’S CORPORATE CULTURE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE CAMP 21 FIRE ......................................................................................................................... 1 6 22 E. THE CAMP FIRE .................................................................................................... 19 23 V. CAUSES OF ACTION ........................................................................................................ 21 24 A. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION AGAINST 25 PG&E ....................................................................................................................... 21 26 B. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ALL 27 DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 22 28 -i- COMPLAINT www.norcalfirelawyers.com 1 C. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS FOR 2 DAMAGES PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE § 2106 ...................... 24 3 D. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST ALL 4 DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 26 5 E. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR TRESPASS AGAINST ALL 6 DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 27 7 F. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AGAINST ALL 8 DEFENDANTS ....................................................................................................... 28 9 G. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE AGAINST 10 ALL DEFENDANTS............................................................................................... 31 11 H. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF HEALTH & SAFETY 12 CODE § 13007 AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS .................................................. 32 13 VI. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A JURY TRIAL ......................................................................... 32 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -ii- COMPLAINT www.norcalfirelawyers.com 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 1. Plaintiffs bring this action for damages against Defendants PG&E CORPORATION, a 3 California Corporation, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California Corporation 4 (collectively, “PG&E” or the “PG&E Defendants”) and DOES 1-50, inclusive, for damages they 5 suffered arising out of a fire ignited on the early morning of November 8, 2018, at Camp Creek Road 6 in the town of Paradise, Butte County. This fire has since been named the “Camp Fire.” 7 2. The Camp Fire torched the towns of Paradise, Magalia, Pulga, Mineral Slide, Irish 8 Town, Centerville, Parkhill, and Concow, and terrorized several neighboring towns including 9 Oroville, Gridley and Chico. To date, it has killed 42 people, making it the deadliest fire in California 10 history. The Camp Fire tore through and burned 117,000 acres, threatened 15,500 structures and 11 destroyed 7,102 structures. Over 150,000 residents have been displaced from their homes as a result 12 of the Camp Fire; over 200 people are unaccounted for. Particularly hard hit was the town of Paradise 13 where 80 to 90 percent of the homes were destroyed. 14 3. The map below shows the current fire perimeter of the Camp Fire: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4. The photo below provides a glimpse of the devastation awaiting the residents of 28 Paradise. This photo depicts an aerial view of the intersection of Skyway and Pearson Road, Paradise: -1- COMPLAINT www.norcalfirelawyers.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5. The Camp Fire started when a high voltage transmission line failed igniting a 16 vegetation fire. 17 6. Plaintiffs are among those damaged by the Camp Fire. Each Plaintiff individually 18 seeks just compensation and damages as more particularly described below. 19 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 21 395(a) and 410.10 because both PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company were 22 incorporated in California, have their headquarters in San Francisco, California, engage in the bulk of 23 their corporate activities in California, and maintain the bulk of their corporate assets in California. 24 8. Venue is proper in San Francisco County pursuant to California Code of Civil 25 Procedure § 395.5 because both PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company perform 26 business in San Francisco County, have a principal place of business in San Francisco County, and a 27 substantial part of the events, acts, omissions, and transactions complained occurred in San Francisco 28 County. -2- COMPLAINT www.norcalfirelawyers.com 1 9. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court. 2 III. THE PARTIES 3 A. PLAINTIFFS 4 10. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff SHERRI QUAMMEN was an owner and/or 5 occupant of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 6 11. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff LAURA SMITH was an owner and/or occupant 7 of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 8 12. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff RITA BELL was an owner and/or occupant of 9 real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 10 13. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs BRIAN BELL and LESLIE BELL were owners 11 and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 12 14. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs EDITH PARKERSON, RANDALL 13 PARKERSON, and CYNTHIA SPENCE were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners 14 of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 15 15. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs STEVE CHERMS and CHARLES F. 16 BALDWIN, TRUSTEE OF THE FTF TRUST, were owners and/or occupants of real property and 17 owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 18 16. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs TANYA JENKINS and JOHN JENKINS were 19 owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 20 17. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs BRIAN HILL and RACHEL BRANCH were 21 owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. 22 Their children, PABLO SANCHEZ and K’LANIE HILL, are minors for whom guardians ad litem 23 will be appointed and the names of those guardians will be added to a complaint at the first opportunity. 24 18. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs ADAM HARGRAVE and STEPHANIE 25 HARGRAVE were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property 26 damaged by the Camp Fire. 27 19. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs BRIAN HILL and RACHEL BRANCH were 28 owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp Fire. -3- COMPLAINT www.norcalfirelawyers.com 1 20. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs TERESE BELLAMY and KERRY BELLAMY 2 were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp 3 Fire. 4 21. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs PAUL KEMBLOWSKI and SANDRA HOFF 5 were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property damaged by the Camp 6 Fire. 7 22. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs ROBERTO SANCHEZ QUINTERO and 8 MAYRA ACOSTA were owners and/or occupants of real property and owners of personal property
Recommended publications
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007

    California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007

    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
  • The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity

    The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity

    fire The 2007 Southern California Wildfires: Lessons in Complexity s is evidenced year after year, the na- ture of the “fire problem” in south- Jon E. Keeley, Hugh Safford, C.J. Fotheringham, A ern California differs from most of Janet Franklin, and Max Moritz the rest of the United States, both by nature and degree. Nationally, the highest losses in ϳ The 2007 wildfire season in southern California burned over 1,000,000 ac ( 400,000 ha) and property and life caused by wildfire occur in included several megafires. We use the 2007 fires as a case study to draw three major lessons about southern California, but, at the same time, wildfires and wildfire complexity in southern California. First, the great majority of large fires in expansion of housing into these fire-prone southern California occur in the autumn under the influence of Santa Ana windstorms. These fires also wildlands continues at an enormous pace cost the most to contain and cause the most damage to life and property, and the October 2007 fires (Safford 2007). Although modest areas of were no exception because thousands of homes were lost and seven people were killed. Being pushed conifer forest in the southern California by wind gusts over 100 kph, young fuels presented little barrier to their spread as the 2007 fires mountains experience the same negative ef- reburned considerable portions of the area burned in the historic 2003 fire season. Adding to the size fects of long-term fire suppression that are of these fires was the historic 2006–2007 drought that contributed to high dead fuel loads and long evident in other western forests (e.g., high distance spotting.
  • News Headlines 11/9/2016

    News Headlines 11/9/2016

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ News Headlines 11/9/2016 Measure A: Town voters say yes to fire tax - overwhelmingly Family of 6 displaced in San Bernardino apartment fire Firefighters Rescue Man Pinned Under SUV These 13 states have the most homes at risk from wildfires 2016 Wildfire Season Not Likely to Top Record-Setting 2015 Season 1 Measure A: Town voters say yes to fire tax - overwhelmingly Matthew Cabe, Daily Press Posted: November 8, 2016, 12:01 AM APPLE VALLEY — Voters are saying yes to the tax measure designed to bolster emergency services in the town, according to unofficial election results posted at 10 p.m. Tuesday. With more than 34 percent of precincts reporting, Measure A has received overwhelming approval, amassing 10,364 votes, which translates to 77 percent of the vote, according to the San Bernardino County Elections Office. Measure A needed a two-thirds majority to pass. Doug Qualls — former Apple Valley Fire Protection District Chief and Measure A’s principal officer — told the Daily Press things are “going well” in the district as a result of the voting. “The threshold of reaching two-thirds of the voters is an extraordinary effort,” Qualls said. “To get two-thirds of the people to agree on something, and we far exceeded that expectation, that’s by commitment to the community.” Qualls called Tuesday’s outcome the result of a reality wherein fire stations need to be reopened; currently just three of the district’s seven fire stations are opened, and emergency-response times are below the national averages. “In 1997,” Qualls said, “the fire district promised the voters that they would deliver the best service they can deliver with the resources provided.
  • Attachment a ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary

    Attachment a ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary

    Attachment A ‐ Forest Service Wildfire, NEPA, and Salvage Summary Fiscal Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2007‐2016 Number of Fires 1 63 64 53 33 66 79 56 56 127 110 707 Total fire acres on NFS 2 1,751,118 1,326,893 549,108 211,327 1,489,029 2,411,413 1,141,353 741,465 1,587,843 1,038,686 12,248,235 High severity acres on NFS 3 842,658 368,595 268,944 76,192 619,020 809,720 513,957 265,045 489,668 397,654 4,651,453 Number of NEPA decisions identified 4 129 Acres of salvage planned in NEPA 5 218 17,255 2,134 14,010 22,761 28,937 13,809 13,264 112,388 Number of NEPA decisions litigated 6 125110332422 Litigation cases won by USFS 7 013110131112 Litigation cases lost by USFS 8 1120001011 7 Litigation cases pending 9 0000001002 3 Acres of salvage reported accomplished 10 328 2,665 8,125 3,464 8,774 6,916 11,672 19,792 16,926 21,234 99,896 1 Fires burning more than 1,000 acres on NFS land 10 Salvage harvest activity records identified as awarded in Forest Service Activity 2 Total acres inside fire perimeter on NFS land Tracking System (FACTS) by GIS analysis of fire perimeters. 3 Classified as greater than 75% mortality using Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) 4 Identified by fire salvage keyword search in PALS (Planning Appeals and Disclaimer: Only the litigation data is believed to be 100% complete and Litigation System) or reported with sale activity records in Forest Service systems accurate.
  • Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration: Conference Proceedings; 2002 16-18 April; Fort Collins, CO

    Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration: Conference Proceedings; 2002 16-18 April; Fort Collins, CO

    Fire, Fuel Treatments, and United States Ecological Restoration: Department of Agriculture Forest Service Conference Proceedings Rocky Mountain Research Station April 16-18, 2002 Proceedings RMRS-P-29 Fort Collins, CO June 2003 Omi, Philip N.; Joyce, Linda A., technical editors. 2003. Fire, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration: Conference proceedings; 2002 16-18 April; Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 475 p. Recent fires have spawned intense interest in fuel treatment and ecological restora- tion activities. Scientists and land managers have been advocating these activities for years, and the recent fires have provided incentives for federal, state, and local entities to move ahead with ambitious hazard reduction and restoration projects. Recent fires also have increased public awareness about the risks and hazards of living in wild areas. The scientific basis for ecological restoration and fuel treatment activities is growing, but remains largely unsubstantiated, with isolated exceptions. Over 300 participants from all over the United States convened in Ft. Collins, Colorado, to learn from 90 oral and poster presentations. Sponsors • USDA Forest Service • Joint Fire Sciences Program • Colorado State Forest Service • Society of American Foresters • Colorado State University • Western Forest Fire Research Center (WESTFIRE) Conference Coordinators • Dr. Phil Omi, Professor, Department of Forest Sciences, Colorado State University • Dr. Linda Joyce, Research Project Leader, Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service Editors’ Note Papers presented from the conference were subjected to peer technical review. The views expressed are those of the presenters. Cover photo: Biscuit Fire, Siskiyou National Forest, 2002.
  • CAL FIRE Border Impact Statistics

    CAL FIRE Border Impact Statistics

    BORDER AGENCY FIRE COUNCIL The Harris Fire Year End Report 2007 1 2 What is BAFC? – The concerned citizens of the United States and Mexico formed the Border Agency Fire Council. It is a consortium of government and private entities, emergency responders, environmental specialists, law enforcement, fire protection, and elected officials. It began under emergency conditions and has proven to be an extremely successful collaboration. People are alive today because of BAFC. Threatened habitat is protected and even improved because of this program. An unprecedented bi-national mutual assistance agreement is in place and working because of this program. The members of BAFC have worked without judgment or malice toward their fellow human being. From the beginning, their motivation has been primarily to save lives and protect the sensitive habitat of the border area. Thirty-four organizations make up BAFC; a list of members is at the end of this report. The members meet quarterly during the winter and every six to eight weeks during fire season. They meet at the San Diego headquarters of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) in El Cajon, California. Through collaborative effort, they have altered the environment to allow better access into the wildland for emergency responders, while respecting the natural values of the area. They have enhanced communication among emergency responders on both sides of the U.S. - Mexico border. They have reached out to people in both countries with safety messages in Spanish and English. This report provides a brief description of the many projects the Council and agencies have accomplished this year and ongoing projects started in other years yet still active today.
  • Evaluating the Ability of FARSITE to Simulate Wildfires Influenced by Extreme, Downslope Winds in Santa Barbara, California

    Evaluating the Ability of FARSITE to Simulate Wildfires Influenced by Extreme, Downslope Winds in Santa Barbara, California

    fire Article Evaluating the Ability of FARSITE to Simulate Wildfires Influenced by Extreme, Downslope Winds in Santa Barbara, California Katelyn Zigner 1,* , Leila M. V. Carvalho 1,2 , Seth Peterson 1, Francis Fujioka 3, Gert-Jan Duine 2 , Charles Jones 1,2, Dar Roberts 1,2 and Max Moritz 1,2,4 1 Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected] (L.M.V.C.); [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (C.J.); [email protected] (D.R.); [email protected] (M.M.) 2 Earth Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected] 3 CEESMO, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866, USA; [email protected] 4 University of California Cooperative Extension, Agriculture and Natural Resources Division, Oakland, CA 94607, USA * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 12 June 2020; Accepted: 7 July 2020; Published: 10 July 2020 Abstract: Extreme, downslope mountain winds often generate dangerous wildfire conditions. We used the wildfire spread model Fire Area Simulator (FARSITE) to simulate two wildfires influenced by strong wind events in Santa Barbara, CA. High spatial-resolution imagery for fuel maps and hourly wind downscaled to 100 m were used as model inputs, and sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the effects of ignition timing and location on fire spread. Additionally, burn area rasters from FARSITE simulations were compared to minimum travel time rasters from FlamMap simulations, a wildfire model similar to FARSITE that holds environmental variables constant. Utilization of two case studies during strong winds revealed that FARSITE was able to successfully reconstruct the spread rate and size of wildfires when spotting was minimal.
  • San Diego Gas & Electric 2019 Fire Mitigation Plan Enhancements

    San Diego Gas & Electric 2019 Fire Mitigation Plan Enhancements

    soaf San Diego Gas & Electric b A ~ Sempra Energy utility 2019 Fire Mitigation Plan Enhancements © 2015 San Diego Gas & Electric Company. All copyright and trademark rights reserved. soa; SDG&E Wildfire Prevention Strategy and Programs ) A ~ Sempra [ncrgy utility .. .. .. .. .... ' . SDG&E strives for continuous improvement to its fire mitigation program taking a three- pronged approach, integrating efforts in: • Operations and Engineering • Situational Awareness and Weather Technology • Customer Outreach and Education 2 soaf Wildfire Prevention Strategy and Programs ~ Operations and Engineering A ~ Sempra [ncrgy utility ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• . Implementation of an expanded fuels management program. Establishing an enhanced Ignition Management Program. 3 sos; Wildfire Prevention Strategy and Programs ~ Operations and Engineering A ~ Sempra [ncrgy utility ... , .. , ......... Public Safety Power Shutoff Engineering Enhancements: Multi- year program to install sectionalizing devices in order to reduce the customer impact of PSPS events. Remote Sectionalizing Device 4 sos; Wildfire Prevention Strategy and Programs ~ Operations and Engineering A ~ Sempra [ncrgy utility ••••• =;;ij~~~iii .. ,. ... ........ •~·····- .................. • . Doubling the inspection rate in the High 'Vege tation Mana gement Fire Threat District (HFTD). Increase post-trim clearance where feasible within the HFTD. Collaborative data analysis with Meteorology. • Combining big data from Meteorology with big data from Vegetation Management with goal to create a ‘risk profile for every known tree.’ 5 soaf Wildfire Prevention Strategy and Programs ~ Situational Awareness and Weather Forecasting A ~ Se mpra [ ncrgy utility ... , .. , ......... The Fire Potential Index (FPI) is a seven- day planning and decision support tool, developed to communicate the wildfire potential within each of SDG&E’s 8 operating districts. 2019 enhancements include integration of artificial intelligence into the fuels modeling.
  • Estimating the Impacts of Wildfire on Ecosystem Services in Southern California

    Estimating the Impacts of Wildfire on Ecosystem Services in Southern California

    Estimating the Impacts of Wildfire on Ecosystem Services in Southern California Emma Underwood University of California, Davis, USA and Southampton University, UK Hugh Safford US Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region and University of California, Davis Mediterranean-type ecosystems • Cool moist winters, warm dry summers • Long dry season • High inter-annual variability in precipitation • Fire is a major ecological process Characterized by • High levels of biodiversity • High population densities • High levels of threats Area burned in California wildfires 2003-2018 9000 8000 7000 y = 139.82x - 277808 R² = 0.0918 6000 5000 4000 Square km 3000 2000 1000 0 Estimate of insured fire loss, the 10 worst wildfires in US history 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Insured Structures Rank Date Name, Location Deaths loss ($ d destroyed millions) 1 Nov. 8-25, 2018 Camp Fire, CA 18800 86 9000 2 Oct. 8-20, 2017 Tubbs Fire 5640 22 >4000 3 Nov. 8-12, 2018 Woolsey Fire, CA 1600 3 3000 4 Oct. 8-20, 2017 Atlas Fire, CA 780 6 >2000 5 Dec. 4-Jan. 12, 2017 Thomas Fire, CA 1070 21* 1800 6 Oct. 20-21, 1991 Oakland Hills Fire, CA 3290 25 1700 7 Jul. 23-Aug. 30, 2018 Carr Fire, CA 1605 8 1650 8 Oct. 21-24, 2007 Witch Fire, CA 1265 2 1300 9 Oct. 25-Nov. 4, 2003 Cedar Fire, CA 2820 15 1060 10 Oct. 25-Nov. 3, 2003 Old Fire, CA 975 6 975 Insurance Information institute, https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics- wildfires; Updated for 2017 & 2018 fires from preliminary online data Current fire situation in northern v.
  • California Wildfires Team 7500: Gators April 14, 2021 By: Anushka Srinivasan, Siona Tagare, and Reva Tagare Acknowledgments

    California Wildfires Team 7500: Gators April 14, 2021 By: Anushka Srinivasan, Siona Tagare, and Reva Tagare Acknowledgments

    California Wildfires Team 7500: Gators April 14, 2021 By: Anushka Srinivasan, Siona Tagare, and Reva Tagare Acknowledgments We would first like to thank the Actuarial Foundation for this opportunity to participate in the 2021 Modeling the Future Challenge and for introducing us to actuarial science. We are grateful to our families, peers, and teachers who encouraged us throughout this process. We thank Ms. Laura Mitchell, our actuary mentor, for her wisdom and guidance. From cheering us on at every symposium session to offering feedback on all of our drafts, Ms. Mitchell’s support was vital to our success. Finally, we would like to extend our gratitude to our team coach and statistics teacher, Mr. Kyle Barriger, without whom this project would not have been possible. Mr. Barriger’s unwavering support and commitment to this team were truly invaluable, and we are endlessly grateful to him for teaching us all that we know about statistics. We are honored to have learned from and worked with him over the last few months. 1 Executive Summary Over the past few years, California’s fire seasons have grown in both frequency and severity: 15 of the state’s 20 most destructive wildfires1 have occurred within the last five years, destroying 19,000 structures (Top 20 Most, 2020, p. 1). This damage has taken a notable toll on our identified stakeholders: homeowners, government agencies, and insurance companies will be affected the most by wildfire damages. Homeowners sustain significant losses: they are not only hurt financially but also emotionally, as they lose all of the memories attached to their homes.
  • The Economic Impact of the October 2007 Southern California Wildfires

    The Economic Impact of the October 2007 Southern California Wildfires

    The Economic Impact of the October 2007 Southern California Wildfires Employment Development Department Labor Market Information Division December 2007 Contacts: Steve Saxton (916) 262-2160 Joel Hessing (916) 262-2241 OVERVIEW The Southern California wildfires of October 2007 affected lives and businesses in seven Southern California counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. The fires’ severity prompted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to travel to many of the fire areas and declare a state of emergency in the seven counties as firefighters from all over California traveled to the stricken area to help fight the fires. President George W. Bush declared a federal state of emergency for the affected counties. In the following days, both the president and the Governor toured declared areas. The federal emergency declaration allowed federal help with firefighting, evacuation, and emergency protection measures. The subsequent federal major disaster declaration provided funds for Individual Assistance programs, Public Assistance programs, and Disaster Unemployment Assistance programs, which provides funds to workers (including self-employed and farmers) who were placed out of work as a result of the disaster. As part of the Employment Development Department’s (EDD) response to this disaster, the Labor Market Information Division (LMID) gathered information from many sources related to the economic impact of the wildfires. On November 1, 2007 the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) reported that the fires had destroyed 2,180 residences, 922 outbuildings, and six commercial buildings. Twenty-three separate named fires burned approximately 518,021 acres (809.4 square miles). (The Labor Market Information Division based this report on those data and Appendices A and B provide detailed information on each separate fire.) The LMID identified 3,135 firms within the fire perimeters.
  • Designing Communities for Wildfire Resilience

    Designing Communities for Wildfire Resilience

    Designing Communities for Wildfire Resilience DESIGNING COMMUNITIES FOR WILDFIRE RESILIENCE Introduction: California Wildfires 4 AUGUST 2021 Chapter 1: Wildlands 21 Guideline 1.1: Inter-Agency Collaboration 24 Guideline 1.2: Update Power Lines 26 Every year in California, wildfires devastate massive sections of Guideline 1.3: Decentralize Power 27 the state’s landscape and affect the lives of countless people. Guideline 1.4: Prioritize Prescribed Burns 29 Millions of dollars are spent fighting fires, and additional billions Guideline 1.6: Mandatory Fire Upgrades 31 are spent repairing fire-related damage. Yet most wildfires Guideline 1.6: Bury Power Lines 32 are caused by human activity and exacerbated by mitigation guidelines that can vary significantly between jurisdictions. Chapter 2: Urban Areas 34 We believe the issue of wildfire must be addressed in a more Guideline 2.1: Increase City Density 38 comprehensive manner and include forest management Guideline 2.2: No Re-Build Zones 39 techniques, urban design strategies and building design criteria. Guideline 2.3: City Design Requirements 41 Guideline 2.4: Fire Resilient City Edge 43 Therefore, the purpose of this document is to present wildfire Guideline 2.5: Reform Grid Infrastructure 45 guidelines that provide mitigation measures at three scales: the region, the city, and the building. To achieve this purpose, the Chapter 3: Buildings 47 document provides: Guideline 3.1: WUI Visual Communication 49 Guideline 3.2: Design for Fire 50 ↪ An overview of wildfires in California and their causes. Guideline 3.3: Fire Conscious Design 51 ↪ Historical data and trends related to wildfires. Guideline 3.4: Fire-Resistant Upgrades 54 ↪ 18 guidelines for managing wildfire vulnerability at three Guideline 3.5: Geometry Requirements 56 scales of application: region, city, and building.