How to resolve AdBlock issue? CLEARLAKE, Calif. — The Clearlake City Council has voted unanimously to advance a state-mandated fire hazard zone map that significantly expands the city’s highest hazard acreage.
The map, approved in its initial hearing on May 15, will return for a second hearing — also the final one — at the next council meeting on June 5.
If adopted then, the map will take effect 30 days later on July 6 for Clearlake, according to City Manager Alan Flora.
City officials say they have no authority to change or reject the map.
In 2024, Cal Fire adopted the fire hazard severity zone map under the “state responsibility area,” which classified 366,812 acres in Lake County as the highest severity, despite local opposition.
Flora noted that those acreages were “largely outside of city jurisdictions.”
This new map released in February, however, designated “local responsibility areas,” or LRA — areas managed by city and county governments — into “very high,” “high” and “moderate” fire hazard severity zones.
The new map marks the first update to the LRA designations since 2011 and adds 14,000 acres in Lake County to the “very high” zone — an 878% expansion in acreage classified as the most hazardous.
In Clearlake, the “very high” acreage increases from 1,583 to 4,054 acres, by 156%.
During the meeting, several council members and Flora expressed frustration at the map’s rigid, state-mandated rating, which can’t be lowered even with local mitigation work.
Despite the reluctance expressed throughout, the council voted unanimously to move forward with adoption.
A recurring theme at the meeting was the lack of genuine local discretion. By state law, cities and counties “must” adopt the map as it is.
“None of the designations can be decreased,” Flora said of the state law that only permits increasing the severity rating.
The map, once adopted, will introduce stricter building codes to the higher severity zones, including requirements for property development standards, road width and water supply, according to Flora. The city will also implement new defensible space regulations and mandatory fire hazard zone disclosure in real estate.
“And this is going to impact insurance rates for folks in the zone,” he added.
Flora said property owners may request a free inspection from the local fire marshal and learn what needs to be done to meet the zone requirements and get a certification that can be forwarded to the insurance company.
“But it’s going to be a real challenge in these ‘very high’ zones in particular,” he added.
Additionally, Flora said that “split zoned parcels” — where a property straddles more than one severity zone — are required to adopt the higher severity zone classification for the entire parcel.
Based on that rule, staff generated a modified version of the map using the GIS mapping system to only reflect the higher designation for parcels that have crossed multiple severity zones, for better clarity, Flora said.
It is also the version that the council voted to adopt.
Concerns of the public and the next step
All members of the public who spoke up or sent a letter in during public comment expressed frustration or opposition to the map, among them, District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier and former City Council member Joyce Overton.
Plants in the yard or plants in a pot — “you can’t have any of that stuff,” Overton said of the strict standards on the higher severity zones, referring to her previous conversations with state officials.
Mayor Russ Cremer pointed out that what Overton described reflects the state’s new “Zone Zero” policy — a statewide regulation requiring all structures in “very high” fire hazard zones to maintain an “ember-resistant zone” within the immediate 5-feet of structures.
“How many people are going to really live in a community that has none of that?” Overton continued. “I don't think any of us want that — we like our roses or our plants or our vegetables. I mean, think about it. You can't really grow your vegetables in your own yard and be a fire safe property.”
Supervisor Sabatier raised doubts on the 50-year projection model the map is based on and the setbacks on development.
“I think their methodology is not realistic. I think they are making things that much more difficult for us,” he said. “Development will become close, if not completely impossible.”
“I think if we all approve and adopt these quietly, we're not doing it correctly,” Sabatier said. “You don’t have a choice; you have to adopt this. But you do have a choice whether or not you send a message back to the state saying, ‘this is not correct the way you’re doing this.’”
“It seems to me that we don't have a whole lot of choice — either we make it more stringent, which we really don't want to do,” said Vice Mayor Dirk Slooten during the council’s discussion. He backed Sabatier’s proposal to urge their state representative to explore “other possibilities to help with still getting some housing built in some of the more stringent zones.”
“It's very frustrating for all of us. We can't do anything about it, but we basically need to pass it,” said Mayor Cremer, who also said he supported sending a letter to let the state know “how much hardship this is going to put on all of us.”
The remaining three council members — Tara Downey, Jessica Hooten and Mary Wilson — did not comment.
Still, the council voted unanimously to move the ordinance forward.
At the end of the meeting, Cremer reiterated that he wanted a letter drafted for discussion at the second hearing.
The city of Clearlake is the first among three local governments to hold a public hearing on adopting the map.
The Board of Supervisors will consider the map on June 3 at 11:15 a.m., according to County Community Development Director Mireya Turner.
Lakeport City Council will hold a public hearing in one of their June meetings too, City Manager Kevin Ingram said.
All jurisdictions are required to adopt the map by ordinance by July 1.
When a mandate meets a vote
A mandatory adoption is inherently in tension, if not outright contradiction, with a decision made by majority vote.
“They gave us a fake decision," Sabatier said during public comment.
In a February Lakeport City Council meeting, Lakeport Fire Chief Patrick Reitz said, “They give us a public hearing process that's lip service only.”
Even with a unanimous Clearlake City Council vote, one question lingers: If the map adoption is required by state law, is a vote by elected officials a meaningful or even necessary part of the process? Does the option to vote “no” actually, legally exist?
And what would happen if three or more council members or county supervisors vote against adoption?
“It is my belief that up to two council members could vote against it as long as it passed,” Flora said in an email to Lake County News. “I am not clear that there are any penalties for not adopting the maps, although I am sure some repercussions would be forthcoming if a jurisdiction refused to do so.”
Flora provided a similar example about the state’s regional housing needs allocation program, where “some jurisdictions decided to ignore the mandate.”
The program began in 1969, but penalties for noncompliance were only introduced recently, which included “no access to funding, financial penalties, other measures crafted by the Attorney General's Office of Housing Accountability,” Flora wrote. “It's hard to envision where it may go.”
“When the map comes before the board, I see no other step to take than to approve the maps as provided by the state,” said Supervisor Sabatier in an email.
Local jurisdictions can technically vote against the map, but such noncompliance could create problems and obstacles for future development projects, according to him.
“If a project was appealed, it's possible that the lack of compliance of our maps could be used to argue against approved projects that go through the process,” he said.
No matter if local jurisdictions adopt it, the state’s map designation always takes precedence when in conflict, said Sabatier, who called such conflict “not needed.”
“It is best for us to approve what the state has handed us, even if we don't like it as it is a document that the state controls, not us,” he said. “Yes we can vote against approving the maps, but it doesn't help anyone for us to do so.”
Email staff reporter Lingzi Chen at
