Michael Smolens: Could push to change fire ratings spur development in hazardous areas?

For years, California policies have sought to limit or at least discourage new construction in areas designated as high fire hazard zones.

When that hasn’t worked, the courts have stepped in. In San Diego, legal action and county reversals have stopped thousands of previously approved homes targeted for the region’s rural areas characterized by highly flammable chaparral and grasslands.

Just last week, a court again blocked the 3,000-home Fanita Ranch project in Santee. The judge concluded the city didn’t follow the proper procedure in greenlighting the proposal. But the larger context of whether the development would threaten habitat and put residents in the path of wildfires was motivation for the lawsuit.

When a bill to revamp fire-hazard designations surfaced in Sacramento this summer, critics said it could increase development in fire-prone areas, according to Hayley Smith of the Los Angeles Times.

Senate Bill 610 initially was an unrelated measure regarding the California Energy Commission that passed the state Senate and then was gutted and amended in June to become the fire-zone bill in the Assembly. Eventually, the bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which means it’s dead for this year. However, advocates suggest the measure or a version of it will be back next year.

The main thrust of SB 610 is to do away with state rules that classify areas as “moderate,” “high” and “very high” fire-risk zones. That can influence development patterns and building safety standards.

Those categories would be replaced by a single “wildfire mitigation area” designation, which advocates say would lead to a uniform set of precautions rather than various levels that match the severity of threat under the current classifications.

The legislation also would shift responsibilities for maintaining fire safety standards from the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to the California fire marshal. The fire marshal would be required to review fire safety laws and update fire hazard and safety standards every five years.

State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant said the legislation will make communities safer and the process more clear, and that the single state designation would likely result in more areas falling under a fire hazard designation, not fewer, according to the Times.

Opponents disagreed.

SB 610 “will fundamentally reshape California fire and housing policy and make Californians more vulnerable to wildfire,” dozens of environmental and housing groups and local governments said in a July 25 letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders.

Among other things, they contend the measure would shift authority away from local governments and give it to the state — a common criticism of past state legislation aimed at boosting housing development.

While some supporters of the bill said it’s about fire safety, not expanding development, the short list of supporters on the bill analysis seems telling: California Building Industry Association, Housing Action Coalition and the pro-housing group YIMBY (“Yes, In My Backyard”) Action.

Environmental groups, the California Farm Bureau and city and county associations are among the 19 opponents listed.

The amended SB 610 was authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who has carried some of the state’s most aggressive housing development bills in recent years.

The bill has become emblematic of the push-pull over development in Sacramento. Legislation also was introduced this year to limit housing construction in fire- and flood-prone areas.

Meanwhile, bills aimed at allowing more dense development along the coast — including bills by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-San Diego, and Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas — did not succeed this year.

Restricting development at the coast and on the urban fringe builds pressure to increase density in communities in between, where many planning experts say growth should be targeted to cut down on vehicle congestion and tailpipe emissions that contribute to global-warming greenhouse gases.

But in reality, residents in those less-restricted areas typically don’t want more development, and building enough housing to meet demand has proved difficult throughout the state.

Officials in some communities, particularly along the coast, welcome development limits. But others, like those in Santee, say restrictions make it more difficult to meet state housing goals.

Legislation to spur development comes amid an affordable housing crisis in California and skyrocketing prices of market-rate homes. In 2022, Matthew Adams, then-vice president of the Building Industry Association of San Diego County, gave his take on the consequences of actions that blocked developments in East County.

“Let me be clear,” Adams told The San Diego Union-Tribune. “This is going to have a devastating impact on our ability to produce middle-income or market-rate housing in vast portions of the unincorporated area.”

Some pro-development groups say advances in planning, evacuation strategies, fire-retardant building materials, landscaping and buffer zones have made some higher fire-risk areas safer for development.

Nevertheless, the increasing intensity of wildfires and the human and property destruction they have caused resulted in discussions going in the other direction. Should development be limited? Should homes be allowed to be rebuilt? Should a methodical retreat of existing communities from high-risk fire areas be considered?

In the end, what can be built and where increasingly may depend on whether state policies align with practices acceptable to insurance companies, which have been leaving California, in part because of increased wildfire risk.