A legislative proposal to overhaul California’s decades-old wildfire mapping system has sparked fierce debate, with critics saying it could fundamentally reshape the state’s fire and housing policies and increase fires Development in prone areas.
Senate Bill 610 seeks to repeal the current classification of state and local lands into “moderate,” “high,” and “extreme” fire danger severity zones — a process that rates areas based on their chance of burning. Influence development patterns and building safety standards.
Instead, the legislation would authorize the state fire marshal to designate land as “wildfire mitigation areas” and eliminate graded severity areas. Residents and developers in wildfire mitigation areas will be required to follow the same enhanced fire prevention precautions that currently vary based on the assessed level of danger.
Supporters say the move would create more consistent standards and an approval process. They said it would also allow for greater public input and ensure all developments in fire-prone areas meet minimum safety requirements.
“While there are a lot of technical issues involved and a lot of thought and opinion, I firmly believe that our ability to create a single wildfire code and apply it consistently to those areas that are at risk from wildfire will make a difference,” said State Fire Marshal Daniel Bo Daniel Berlant said.
Positive and impactful reporting on climate change, environment, health and science.
Many residents are familiar with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s fire hazard severity designations, which were instituted after large, deadly fires in the 1980s.
Hazard assignments depend on factors such as vegetation, topography, climate, and the potential for wind to cause significant wildfire spread. There may be certain requirements for buying or building a property in a hazardous area, such as the need to maintain defensible space or conduct annual bush clearings. These zones also govern rules for new developments such as roofing standards, siding materials, setbacks and parking.
But opponents of SB 610 say the plan to repeal hazard ratings is a thinly veiled effort to increase housing development in high-risk areas. They said the bill would take power from local governments with jurisdiction over their own fire danger maps and consolidate it into the hands of the state fire marshal.
A worker cuts timber to clear fire debris and hazardous trees after the 2022 Caldo Fire.
(Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)
“This bill would put more people in harm’s way because it would make it easier to build in high-risk fire zones,” said JP Rose, policy director and senior staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s disappointing that Despite scientists’ warnings about further developments in these areas, our politicians have succumbed to the pressure put on industry by this short-sighted bill.”
Ross recently wrote a letter on behalf of a coalition of more than 90 environmental, housing and land use groups calling on Gov. Gavin Newsom to reconsider his support for the measure. Among other things, they say the bill is inconsistent with the governor’s own Strike Force to Address Wildfire Risk — a 2019 document urging California to begin “prioritizing new development in areas with the greatest fire risk.”
The bill was introduced in June by Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who has made headlines for his bold and sometimes controversial housing policies. (The Times once described him as the “patron saint” of California’s YIMBY (Yes, In My Backyard) housing movement.) According to an analysis of the bill in the Legislature, backers of the bill include the California Building Industry Association, Housing Action Alliance and Yimby Action.
Wiener said by phone that the current fire mapping system is “a mess,” outdated and overly complex.
Among other issues, he said, existing hazard areas are divided into state responsibility areas, which are the roughly 30 million acres the state oversees, and local responsibility areas, such as the severe fire hazard areas designated by the city of Los Angeles.
While the state last updated hazard maps in 2022, many local areas of responsibility have not been updated since 2007.
“If a city weaponizes maps by dividing low-risk areas into high-risk areas, it will absolutely become difficult or even impossible or unfeasible to build housing in that area,” he said. “That’s why we want it to be practical based on facts and science, not a political decision by the City Council.”
While opponents of the bill say it’s intended to increase development in high-risk areas, Wiener said that’s not the case. He said the proposed bill does not dictate where people can build homes, just as the existing system does not prohibit development in high-risk fire areas, but it would ensure high fire protection standards for all buildings within wildfire mitigation areas.
A fact sheet on the bill released by Weiner’s office also noted that the local drawing process lacks a public comment component and is not subject to statewide oversight or enforcement.
The city of Glendale hires goats to chew dry vegetation and potential wildfire fuel on city property.
(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)
SB 610 is endorsed by people who “risk their lives putting out fires,” Weiner said. Frank Bigelow, Cal Fire’s deputy director for community wildfire preparedness and mitigation, expressed support for the initiative at a state House hearing in July.
“We recognize this is a significant structural shift, but I want to emphasize that this bill does not reduce mitigation measures at all,” Bigelow said. “At its core, Senate Bill 610 is about making homes in fire-danger areas more Flexible.”
State Fire Marshal Berlant said he also believes the legislation will make communities safer and the process clearer. He said a single-state designation could result in more areas being classified as fire danger areas, not fewer.
“What [SB] What 610 looks to do is really change the way we use maps,” Berlant said. “The reason we are consolidating the tiers into one area is that we have been applying mitigations inconsistently across the three tiers today.”
While Wiener said the bill is not intended to address the state’s insurance crisis, which has seen companies flee the state as fires worsen, Berlant said the proposal is consistent with the insurance industry’s best practices and with California Insurance Ministry’s “Safer” program.
Critics, however, remain unmoved.
Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats Alliance, said the proposal was “truly crazy.”
Silver said the goal of accelerating fire-resistant development, as outlined in Weiner’s fact sheet, will not make communities safer.
“Research shows the opposite is true, that evacuation is a critical factor that is not even considered in this bill,” he said.
In fact, the coalition noted that an analysis of the deadly 2018 Paradise Camp fire found that 56 percent of homes built to current fire codes were destroyed. Likewise, the vast majority of buildings damaged in the 2017 Ventura Thomas Fire had fire-resistant roofs and siding.
Supporters of local government also remain concerned.
In a letter about the bill, the League of California Cities acknowledged the need to improve local mapping processes but expressed reservations about handing all authority over to the state fire marshal.
“California cities believe that local agencies must maintain existing authority to make wildfire-related designations within their jurisdictions and that new regulations must incorporate local agency expertise into new wildfire mitigation area regulations,” the letter said.
Agoura Hills Mayor Illese Buckley Weber said by phone that there is a lot of development going on in the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains and that local officials should continue to have a say in the area’s fire hazard designation. . Agoura Hills lost several structures to the 2019 Woolsey Fire.
“The city wants to retain local control — all cities do,” Buckley-Webb said. “We believe we are best positioned to assess the best areas for development in our city.”
With just three weeks left in the legislative session, Buckley-Webb said it would be “premature” to approve the bill without sufficient discussion. SB 610 may undergo some changes based on feedback from stakeholders.
“I understand and respect what Sacramento has done for the entire state,” Barkley-Webb said. “But there are a lot of problems where one size doesn’t fit all — and this is one of them.”
