Council pauses adoption of state fire‑hazard zones after public concern; hearing continued

Calistoga staff presented draft ordinances to adopt the California State Fire Marshal’s updated fire hazard severity zone maps and related local code language, telling the City Council the maps are required by state law and will impose building and defensible‑space standards in affected areas. The council opened public comment and then voted to continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting to allow additional outreach and review.

In the staff presentation, the city’s fire‑safety staff said the updated maps — produced using state data on fuels, topography, weather and ember cast — designate “moderate,” “high” and “very high” fire hazard severity zones and will affect roughly 51% of the city by acreage. Staff said adopting the maps will trigger implementation of Building Code Chapter 7A (Wildland‑Urban Interface Code) for new construction, add defensible‑space enforcement for existing structures over a three‑year period, and require natural‑hazard real‑estate disclosures on sales. Staff noted the city must adopt the state’s zones under the cited Government Code provision and explained a recommended local change: when a parcel includes more than one zone, the parcel would be treated as entirely in the higher‑severity zone to simplify planning and building review.

Several residents urged delay or rejection. Dan Herndon said insurance access and property values could be harmed and that the 5‑foot “zone 0” requirement could force removal of fruit trees and fences. Dom Talarico asked the city to resist automatic elevation of split‑zone parcels to the higher classification and to allow more homeowner discretion. Tim Riley asked for a comparison showing how the updated map differs from the prior map in acreage and designations.

Council members expressed frustration at the state mandate. Vice Mayor Iris Lopez Ortega and other councilmembers pressed staff for cost estimates to implement defensible‑space inspections and said the city has no state funding to help homeowners. Staff replied that state funds were not available for local implementation and that the city has 120 days from the update to pass the ordinance; existing‑structure defensible‑space enforcement will roll in over three years with inspections. The chief said there is no clear estimate for staff costs but acknowledged inspections and enforcement will require additional staff time.

After public comment and council discussion, the council formally reopened the public hearing and voted to continue it to the next regular meeting to allow further public outreach and additional information. The council took a voice vote on the motion to continue; the hearing will return on a date certain at the next regular meeting.

Ending: Staff will prepare additional outreach materials and cost estimates for inspection/enforcement, and the council will hear the ordinance again at the next meeting.