Opposition involved many Coalition Partners
The power of Collaboration and Coalition Building
SAFRR was a part of several coalitions that played a significant role in stopping the 2024 passage of SB 610.
Per the Center of Biological Diversity, "New development in high-risk areas will obstruct existing communities’ evacuation routes and … increase medical emergencies and premature death of vulnerable community members.”
SB 610 Opposed by
100+ Non-Governmental Organizations
“On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we strongly oppose any efforts to move anti-environmental “gut and amend” legislation in the last two weeks of session.”
With only a few weeks to organize to either amend or to oppose this menacing legislation, SAFRR joined a strong coalition that met with CalFire, Senator Wiener’s office and the Governor’s office several times. Given Senator Wiener’s SB 610 gut and amend process, our Coalitions only had a few weeks to inform local jurisdictions, citizen groups, legislators and the press.
SAFRR quickly mobilized and joined a strong coalition which pivoted from amending to opposing SB 610. Our coalition opposed SB 610 for several reasons, including:
SB 610 was “gut and amend” legislation proposed to eliminate the current “Fire Hazard Severity Zone” Maps (that for decades have informed California decision-makers of Very High and High Hazard zones) … and replace these priceless hazard maps with a statewide homogeneous, and somewhat benign looking map labeled “Wildfire Mitigation Area.”
Per the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD): “Since 2016, hundreds of thousands have had to evacuate their homes and endure power outages, and millions have been exposed to unhealthy levels of smoke and air pollution.”
Attorney General Bonta’s July 17, 2023 Letter to local jurisdictions addressed the strict State law requirements for enacting “urgency ordinances” (per SB 9 and SB 2011) when using the need for housing as justification for additional development in California’s High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Our Coalition then mobilized local jurisdictions.
In addition to state-wide impacts, SB 610 also would affect local jurisdiction control, including removing local jurisdictions’ authority to identify fire hazard zones in their communities. A broad range of public officials and regional advocacy groups wrote opposition letters, while other local officials are preparing for the 2025 legislative session.
An EDITORIAL in the Press Democrat on 8.15.2024 addressed the issue that California needs clear designation of fire hazard zones. State lawmakers are considering a less-nuanced, less-accurate and less-useful system of identifying areas at risk of wildfire.
“Local governments, which often set the [fire hazard zone] designations, find them useful too. They can target their fire mitigation strategies to the most-dangerous areas and direct development into less-dangerous zones. Senate Bill 610 would burn that system to the ground by directing the state fire marshal to designate lands as either “wildfire mitigation areas” or not. The nuance of the current tiered system would disappear in favor of something less scary.”
San Diego Supervisor 3rd District: Letter to
Oppose SB 610 Wildfire Mitigation Area
San Diego Supervisor: “The overt purpose of SB 610 is to put more new development into fire-prone areas. Here in San Diego, we know that we can accommodate housing needs without putting people at risk.
Eliminating the science-based system of Fire Hazard Severity Zones will not fool the insurance companies. And it will remove a vital planning tool that my County now uses in planning for housing, as the Strike Force recommends.”
Santa Rosa Mayor:
Letter to Oppose SB 610
City of Santa Rosa Mayor: “On behalf of the City of Santa Rosa, I write in opposition to your Bill SB 610 related to wildfire designated zones and fire prevention. The City is extremely concerned with any state efforts to rollback local authority to protect our residents from wildfire danger.”
City of Rolling Hills:
Mayor: Oppose SB 610
City of Rolling Hills Mayor: “It is unconscionable and unnecessary to rush through major changes in fire policy — as SB 610 does — with a “gut and amend” bill. Why is there such urgency to eliminate the trusted FHSZ maps? There are many unanswered questions about the intentions and consequences of “Wildfire Mitigation Areas.”
League of California Cities:
SB 610 Notice of Concern
“Cal Cities believes local agencies must maintain their existing authorities to make wildfire-related designations within their jurisdictions and the new regulations must incorporate local agency expertise into the new wildfire mitigation area regulations.”
"On behalf of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), representing all 58 of California Counties, and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), representing California’s 40 rural counties, we respectfully raise concerns regarding Senate Bill 610 (Wiener)....Outreach Imperative – Counties Must Have Direct Input. As a matter of current law, before any new fire maps are released the Office of State Fire Marshall must hold a hearing in each county where fire hazard zone map amendments are proposed to be amended.”
State-Wide Citizen Groups Also Opposed SB 610
Indivisible California State Strong: Oppose SB 610
Indivisible California State Strong: “On behalf of thousands of our members and supporters in California, the undersigned organizations are writing to express our deep concern with Senate Bill 610 (Wiener) which will fundamentally reshape California fire and housing policy and make Californians more vulnerable to wildfire.
SB 610 will do nothing to address the availability or affordability of insurance. As The California Department of Insurance’s Climate Insurance Working Group observes: “Land use decisions in the past are one of the causes of insurability problems today . . .housing that burns down [] is not an affordable or equitable option . . . .
SB 610’s stated intent is to increase development in high-risk areas, and—quite shockingly—do so without existing regulations designed to protect communities. SB 610 perpetuates the false narrative that new large-scale development in fire risk areas is safe.“
Pacific Forest Trust et al: Pacific Forest Trust partnered with organizations, such as the CA Farm Bureau and Native Plant Society, who signed a letter of Opposition, unless Amended.
Pacific Forest Trust et al: Oppose SB 610 Unless Amended
“SB 610 is an extremely broad proposal that would fundamentally change the state’s approach to wildfire hazard planning and mitigation.
SB 610 is an extremely sweeping proposal that deserves the full policy deliberation of both houses of the Legislature. This is a deeply complicated subject with implications for fire safety, building standards, fire suppression costs, public safety, and public engagement.
The current Fire Hazard Severity Zones are used in a range of other statutes and state processes which will be disrupted by the sudden elimination of this system. Also, the California Department of Insurance proposed regulations addressing insurance availability in distressed areas relies in part on the Hazard Zone maps and could also be derailed by this bill.”
LEARN MORE:
RCRC (Rural Counties Representing California) and CSIC letter
Additional Press
State housing push still must respect fire hazard maps - By Marin Voice Op Ed: 8.1.2024
Four years after CZU fires, state bills show how quickly California forgets.
Commentary By Santa Cruz Sentinel Elizabeth Reid-Wainscoat 8.21.2024