Why this matters: California zoning laws which prohibit high-density infill development and instead incentivize horizontal expansion of suburbs increase the risk of loss to wildfires. The solution to mitigating future disasters is to build upward, not outward.
Zoning laws deter high density housing
California’s urban land use regulations incentivize developers to subdivide horizontally and build housing in wildfire zones, according to a 2021 study from the University of California, Berkeley and Next 10, a California nonprofit organization.
Wildfire zones are locations near wildland areas where property improvements are highly susceptible to loss by wildfires. To reduce risk of loss to wildfire, density in these wildfire zones needs to be reduced. The greater the density in wildfire areas, the more the risk of loss to wildfires is exacerbated.
However, developers are severely limited to the path given them by zoning, and it is “outward,” not “upward.” Residential zoning instructs developers to think horizontal expansion, not vertical expansion as in the subdivision of airspace, not land.
Continuing to build horizontally into wildfire zones:
- makes the houses added to inventory increasingly vulnerable to loss, more expensive to own and in turn less desirable, all multiplier effects comprising a long-term negative reaction to housing needs;
- hinders statewide goals set to control carbon emissions since Home Energy Rating System (HERS) ratings deteriorate with increased distance of homes from services the occupants use; and
- diminishes the state’s wildland habitats rather than maintaining or improving habitat conditions, which are laudable societal objectives.
Most countries learned long ago to go vertical for the massive portion of their population not prone to rural habitats. Most Americans want to live in cities, and most housing is a low-rise affair, except for eastern cities influenced by European metropolitan living and Brazilian cities.
Common stand-in-place approaches to combating wildfires in peripheral city sprawl areas in California include:
- retrofitting existing homes;
- imposing stricter building codes for new homes and any rebuilding; and
- establishing evacuation routes and shelter-in-place plans.
But these persistent themes do not eliminate the risk of loss present in wildfire locations, just makes it more resistant. Left in place is the sprawl incentive, especially for families with excessive income.
Redirecting development away from wildfire zones has not been a common approach. People come to California for its geology and its attraction for skilled and talented creative individuals.
In fact, builders find it easier to build in areas most at risk for wildfires since those areas are often less developed. Permits are readily available in wildfire areas compared to permits in city center areas for vertical residential structures of equal pricing — and profits, a necessity for builders.
More insightful ways to mitigate wildfire risk and build our way toward meeting the state’s housing and climate goals need political support — lots of it.
Strategies for rebuilding
Three rebuilding scenarios to explore for high-risk areas subject to disruption by wildfires are:
- rebuilding as usual, the use of existing recovery plans and historical growth trends to anticipate building patterns;
- retreat to urban density, incentivizing disaster victims to relocate to low-risk inner city areas concurrent with setting very permissive infill development zoning and replacement of long-standing inefficient low-density urban zoning; and
- resilience nodes to restore and protect an ecosystem by permitting limited rebuilding to decrease the number of houses in high-risk areas, say, one home per 20 acres, and establish wildfire buffer regions as natural barriers to wildfires.
Retreat to density as a concept works best in suburban and urban communities when building for density is established in a concentric pattern from the center of a community outward. Buildings located around central locations, like a metro station, city hall or large mall, are given high density zoning. Then, lesser density zoning reaches out into neighboring areas, to lowest density or no density in wildfire locations.
For rural communities within wildland areas, retreat to city centers zoned for high density is not as feasible. Instead, the restore and protect strategy, labeled resilience nodes, mitigates fire risk over the long term by permitting increased density per acre by establishing a periphery of naturally and feasibly defensible space from wildfire conditions.
In addition to the benefits of reduced fire risk, the retreat response as well as the restore and protect approach require concurrently enacted zoning as development incentives to support:
- housing goals, the adding of housing by infill such as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the demolition of SFRs and replacement with multiple units based on, say, 250 to 500 square feet of land per unit, and vertical and horizontal subdivision of parcels with single family residences (SFR);
- climate goals, by coupling high-density urban zoning and very low-density wildfire zoning to decrease human generation of greenhouse gas emissions; and
- neighborhood property values, as seen after the Great Recession when infill development retained higher home values than development in outlying areas, as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Communities generally see maximum benefit for housing and the environment from the retreat to urban density response, and stronger economic and equity gains from the restore and protect resilience nodes response. Communities are yet to wrestle with the trade-offs from each strategy and consider acquiescing to multiple community-wide approaches — less housing on the outer-edge periphery with the most housing, density permitted, at the hub of the community.
Related article:
The role of brokers and agents
No matter how hot or competitive the real estate market, agents need to bone up on risks in housing to best advise clients of the potential dangers — risks of loss — associated with ownership of a property. It’s part of the mandatory Natural Hazard Disclosures concept. Every prospective buyer is informed of the risks in a property they inquire about, ASAP before the buyer finds themselves in escrow and emotionally committed to closing.
Property located in a very high fire hazard severity zone or a state fire responsibility area provides the reasoning for risk disclosures by buyer agents on a review with their buyer of a Natural Hazard Disclosure (NHD) Statement. [See RPI Form 314]
The NHD is mandated to be delivered by the seller and the seller agent on all types of property available for sale to any type of buyer — without exception. [Calif. Civil Code §1103.1(b); See RPI e-book Real Estate Principles, Chapter 17]
Related video:
Strategic building
Although California is experiencing an inventory shortage and needs new housing units, the state needs to be strategic about where it permits building. Relaxing rules for permits in wildfire areas is illogical, just responsive to emotions to live with the birds and animals. So, take a hike up a trail as a weekly event.
Human presence and support facilities in wildland areas are a major cause of fires. The activities account for approximately 97% of all wildfires which threaten residential property, according to a 2020 University of Colorado Boulder study.
So how does California tackle its dual housing and climate crises and better manage wildfire risk?
Consider incentives not to build in hazardous wildfire zones by establishing zoning for central locations which reverses the present inability to replace existing standalone SFRs and permit:
- a far greater number of units on the same parcel;
- the merger of parcels; and
- certainty of obtaining a permit that is easier to pull than a building permit in the natural habitat which surrounds all our cities.
California needs to build up, not out; upward, not outward. Continuing to expand suburban sprawl has manifested itself, again and again, by tragic consequences. Building vertically in city centers has multiple benefits, not least of them being that high density is one of the best defenses we have against property damage from wildfires.
Related article:
Amid climate change, agents find safety in complete disclosures
This article was originally published in October 2021 and has been updated.
I am not interested in First Tuesday’s increasingly and heavily weighted progressive opinions. I am neither far left, far right, nor centrist, and I do not agree with some if not many of the strongholds NAR still maintains. I am not a Crony Capitalist, Capitalist, Anarchist, Maxist, Communist, or any other ism. They are all unsustainable economic systems with obvious and serious problems. I am for discerning what is right and true and for communities working together, as much as possible. The power and force the wealthy use to rig the system for their benefit at the expense of their neighbors is unconscionable. On the other hand, First Tuesday bundling its radical left-wing propaganda with what should be unbiased educational content is just as unconscionable. Shame on First Tuesday for exploiting people’s suffering. Whether they are rich or poor, this is a business I no longer wish to support.