Siskiyou supervisors split over state fire-hazard map; no ordinance adopted

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors debated whether to adopt a state-provided Local Responsibility Area (LRA) fire hazard severity zone map and an implementing ordinance on May 6, 2025, but took no action after a motion failed for lack of a second.

The discussion centered on whether the county should adopt the state fire marshal's recommended zones — a step the board is required to complete within 120 days of receiving the map under Government Code section 51179. County legal staff warned the deadline is June 9, 2025, and said the adopted ordinance must be transmitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption.

Supporters of immediate adoption said having an adopted map preserves access to state disaster-risk and home-hardening grant funding. “I don't wanna take that risk for my community,” a supervisor said, arguing that grant eligibility and project funding depend on a recognized local map.

Opponents and several public speakers, including representatives of volunteer fire crews and property owners, said the state map is inaccurate at parcel scale and would hurt residents’ ability to obtain or afford insurance. “This map is wrong,” a public commenter said, arguing the designation does not account for decades of local fuels reduction and home-hardening work.

Cal Fire and county staff described implementation requirements tied to the designations, including defensible space and building-code certifications under Government Code section 51182 and related building-code provisions. County staff and the county counsel said adopting the map triggers responsibilities for inspections, certification, and coordination with insurers; county staff said they are working with CAL FIRE to bridge capacity gaps for inspections and certifications.

Speakers called for three main actions: 1) asking the state for more time to review and adjust maps, 2) seeking clearer crediting of local fuels-reduction work so property owners receive insurance or regulatory credit, and 3) securing funding and staffing to perform inspections and home-hardening assistance. County counsel explained that failure to adopt an ordinance when a statute uses “shall” can expose the county to a writ of mandate forcing adoption.

After extended public comment and board discussion, a motion to proceed with adoption was made but received no second; the motion died and no ordinance was adopted. Board members directed staff to pursue further engagement with the state fire marshal, explore options to refine or annotate the map where possible, and identify funding and staffing needs for inspections and homeowner assistance.

The board also discussed CEQA implications and noted any ordinance would likely require a public hearing with publication deadlines that limit the county’s calendar; staff said the earliest feasible public-notice schedule would require actions on May 20 (first reading) and June 3 (second reading) to meet the June 9 deadline, but county counsel cautioned publication timing may make that impracticable.

The debate underscored tensions between complying with a statutory deadline and addressing local concerns about map accuracy, implementation costs, and insurance market consequences. County staff said they will seek further dialog with the state fire marshal and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and will identify specific requests to pursue, including an extension of the 120-day deadline and a clearer method for crediting prior fuels-reduction work.

The board recorded no formal ordinance action on the map at the May 6 meeting; the county may still consider first-reading action at upcoming meetings if publication timing and legal requirements can be met.