An act to amend Section 65302 of, and to add Sections 65040.18 and 65302.11 to, the Government Code, relating to land use.
SB 815 would expand California’s general plan requirements for cities and counties located in very high fire risk hazard areas. The bill requires local governments, when they next revise their housing element on or after January 1, 2026, to update the safety element to include a comprehensive retrofit strategy for residential development and infrastructure to reduce wildfire-related property loss and damage. That strategy must identify needed retrofits, inventory at-risk structures and infrastructure, set goals and milestones, and identify potential funding sources. Local agencies must also submit adopted retrofit strategies to the state clearinghouse for climate adaptation information.
The bill also requires cities and counties with residential structures in very high fire risk hazard areas to amend the land use element of their general plans to incorporate the goals of the most recent Strategic Fire Plan for California, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation’s fire hazard planning guidance, and relevant local hazard mitigation, community wildfire protection, and climate adaptation plans. These revised land use elements must identify the locations of very high fire risk areas, establish goals, objectives, and policies to protect lives and property from wildfire, and include feasible implementation measures. In addition, local governments must periodically review and make written findings on the designation of very high fire hazard severity zones.
SB 815 also directs the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to compile and publish local ordinances, policies, and best practices related to land use planning, wildfire risk reduction, and wildfire preparedness by January 1, 2027. The bill would therefore add new planning, mapping, reporting, and update obligations to the state’s existing general plan framework, and it expressly creates a state-mandated local program. The bill states that no state reimbursement is required.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears supportive but cautious. The bill advanced out of committee on a 5-1 vote and was later placed on the suspense file unanimously, suggesting broad acknowledgment of the wildfire-planning goal but also concern about cost, workload, or implementation complexity. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate stronger opposition or support beyond the votes.
The main point of contention is likely the added burden on local governments. SB 815 imposes detailed new duties on cities and counties to map fire-risk areas, revise general plans, prepare retrofit strategies, and make recurring findings, all of which could require technical expertise and administrative resources. The bill attempts to address fiscal concerns by declaring that no reimbursement is required, but that position may be disputed because the measure clearly expands local responsibilities in wildfire-prone areas.
SB 815 would amend Government Code Section 65302 and add Sections 65040.18 and 65302.11, expanding the required contents of city and county general plans, especially the safety and land use elements, for jurisdictions with residential structures in very high fire risk hazard areas. It would create new duties to identify fire-risk areas, incorporate wildfire planning guidance and state fire plan goals, develop comprehensive retrofit strategies, and periodically review hazard zone designations with written findings. It also requires the state planning office to publish wildfire planning best practices and include local retrofit strategies in the climate adaptation clearinghouse. The bill explicitly declares these requirements to be a state-mandated local program, while also stating that no reimbursement is required.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was generally received favorably, at least enough to move through committee, but with some caution about implementation. It passed the relevant committee with a 5-1 vote and later was placed on the suspense file 7-0, indicating broad procedural support but likely recognition of fiscal or administrative impacts. Because no committee transcripts were provided, there is no direct record of detailed debate, but the vote pattern suggests the concept of stronger wildfire planning was acceptable even if the cost and workload implications remained under review.
The likely area of contention is the scope of the new local planning mandates. Cities and counties in high-fire-risk areas would have to do more detailed mapping, planning, reporting, and periodic review, which could be viewed as expensive and technically demanding. Another possible dispute is the bill’s no-reimbursement clause, since it imposes new duties on local agencies but says the state need not pay for them. Supporters would likely emphasize wildfire resilience and better land-use planning, while opponents or fiscal skeptics would focus on implementation costs, staffing, and the burden on local planning departments.