DRAFT Response to Community Member Questions
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
1 The Richmond Kids First program was funded by ballot measures E & K.
Since Jan 1, 2017, these ballot measures guaranteed Richmond taxpayer dollars be set aside for 10 years, irrespective of the City’s financial status:
•$950K from Jan 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018
•1% of City revenues from GF in FY 2018-19 (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) •2% of City revenues from GF in FY 2019-20 (July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020) •3% of City revenues from GF in FY 2020-21 through FY 2026-27 (July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2027).
As a good example, for the Chevron Polluters Tax Measure Settlement Year 1 payment of $50M in FY 2025-26, the Kids First program received $1.5M (3%).
Before the end of the initial ten-year period, the Fund’s outcomes are also to be evaluated for renewal or revision.
The City will presumably put a new measure on the ballot to renew this endeavor, but it’s unclear when this will happen — i.e., Nov 2026 or June 2028 primary when fewer people vote.
While many believe this funding & program is valuable for Richmond’s youth, that does not mean the program should not have been properly audited in real time from the outset or that outcomes shouldn’t be evaluated before the 10-year period ended.
Measures E and K legally require the City to allocate Kids First funding for ten years beginning in 2017, including the 3% set-aside that applies to major revenue sources such as the Chevron settlement. These allocations have been made in accordance with the Charter Article 15-Kids First.
Article 15 Section 7.d.5 establishes and outlines in detail the Oversight Board's responsibility for reviewing financial reports and audits. To support this oversight, RDCY enforces rigorous fiscal controls. Grantees must submit receipts and full backup documentation for all expenditures. RDCY does not reimburse any cost that is inconsistent with approved budgets or program activities. Staff conduct detailed verification of payroll records, timesheets, receipts, bank statements, invoices, and cancelled checks, ensuring documentation is reconciled with precision before any payment is released.
RDCY also initiated external program evaluation in 2023—well before the end of the 10-year period—resulting in the first public evaluation report following the formal acceptance of the Report by the City Council. WestEd will publish additional annual evaluations in 2026, 2027, and 2028, along with a comprehensive 10-year impact report.
The City already upholds strong fiscal oversight practices, including independent annual audits of the General Fund. Building on this foundation, and to reinforce accountability under Article XV, the City will direct Badawi & Associates—or another qualified auditing firm—to conduct a dedicated audit of RFCY funds. This additional verification layer will supplement existing internal controls and help inform future decisions regarding renewal of the Kids First program.
2 Discrepancy between the city website map and the maps in the evaluation report.
Since 2021, the report states on page 1 that over $9.1M of Richmond taxpayer money has been granted to 46 organizations.
On the City’s website, they have a map of grant awardees.
Article 15 of the City Charter requires that funded organizations be based in Richmond or in close proximity to Richmond. The Charter does not define “close proximity,” and no formal guidance was established when the program was created. To ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness in implementation, staff developed an operational definition of within 15-mile radius of the City of Richmond, City Hall Building. This standard has been applied uniformly since the start of regular grantmaking. 881
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
•The map is incomplete.
•One program is in Oakland.
•A previous version of this map showed awardees on the SF Peninsula as well as in Antioch or Concord, if I remember correctly.
Since these locations are no longer shown on the map, I can no longer tell you what those programs were or their exact location.
It is important to note that while some organizations have administrative offices located in nearby cities such as Oakland or other parts of the region, they deliver services directly to Richmond children, youth, and families, often at school sites, community centers, or partner facilities within city limits. Many regional service providers operate from a centralized administrative hub yet maintain active programming in Richmond. This model is common in the youth-serving nonprofit sector and aligns with both Article XV and the program’s strategic goals.
With regard to the provider map posted on the City’s website:
• City staff acknowledge that the current map does not display every funded provider and is in the process of being updated for accuracy and completeness. • Past versions may have included organizations whose administrative addresses are outside Richmond, consistent with the 15-mile proximity definition and the Charter’s requirements.
• As updates were made to the map and website, some entries may have been removed or reformatted, and staff is reviewing these changes to ensure all active grantees are correctly represented.
Regardless of the administrative address shown on a map (Appendix D), all funded organizations meet the City Charter’s Article XV requirement of being located in Richmond or in close proximity, and all provide documented services to Richmond youth. Staff remains committed to improving the clarity and transparency of the online tools, including ensuring that the map will be revised to accurately reflect all organizations funded since the program began.
3 Trusting the data reported by funded organizations
Someone affiliated with the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board shared the following with me:
Accuracy and accountability in participant data and financial reporting are crucial for program and contract compliance, evaluation, resource allocation, and building and maintaining trust among all stakeholders.
Regarding the referenced statements, City staff have received no formal or informal feedback of this type, nor is there a record of RCYF staff making statements in this vein. It is difficult to respond to claims that are not attributed to a specific 882
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
They aren't sure how City Staff is auditing the data & money to ensure that the information reported by the funded organizations is correct regarding whether the participants are Richmond residents or not.
Someone affiliated with the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board shared the following with me:
City Staff was asked how they were verifying the numbers that the organizations were reporting, and they said that they were taking the numbers at face value because there was no way to verify them at this point. Once they have the new computer system which will allegedly start with the new grant cycle in January they “should" be able to do a better job of verifying numbers.
individual, and the description provided does not reflect our actual practices or legal constraints.
Due to legal and ethical constraints, the City cannot access client tracking systems. • Many RFCY grantees provide mental health, educational, and supportive services that involve information covered under HIPAA, FERPA, and privacy laws protecting minors. • City staff cannot and should not access client-level information or identifiable participant records. This is standard practice across youth-serving funding models statewide.
RFCY, WestEd, and our grantees follow widely accepted nonprofit evaluation and grant administration standards, which do not include direct review of identifiable personal data.
While RDCY cannot legally access confidential client databases, City staff do require extensive documentation and cross-checking for financial and programmatic accuracy. • Grantees submit receipts, payroll records, timesheets, bank statements, invoices, and canceled checks, all of which are reviewed with exact accuracy before reimbursements are issued.
• Program performance is evaluated by comparing proposed numbers served with actual reported numbers, as part of quarterly reporting and annual evaluations. • Grantees have consistently been transparent in reporting recruitment challenges or fluctuations in enrollment.
WestEd, RFCY’s external evaluator, began supporting RFCY in 2023. Their contract includes technical assistance to improve data quality across all funded organizations. • WestEd has developed standardized templates and guidance to help grantees track participant data more accurately and consistently.
883
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
• Neither WestEd nor the City collects identifiable personal information; instead, organizations track that information internally using the templates. • This is a best practice in youth evaluation, balancing accuracy with privacy protections.
The new grants management software will improve efficiency, consistency, and the structure of reporting, but it will not override legal restrictions on collecting confidential participant data. Instead, it will help standardize data entry and documentation across all grantees, reducing errors and increasing transparency.
RFCY uses industry-standard verification processes, detailed fiscal reviews, and external evaluation to ensure data accuracy and compliance The totality of these rigorous practices are consistent with the established professional procedures and ways of working of RDCY, WestEd, and the Oversight Board.
4 Concern about funding programs not for Richmond Residents.
Can City Staff provide audited numbers ensuring how Richmond taxpayer dollars were spent on Richmond youth for program awardees both inside and outside Richmond.
And just because a program has a Richmond address, that does not mean that program does not also provide services to non-Richmond residents.
How do Richmond taxpayers know that their funds were directed to Richmond participants? Are we just supposed to take someone’s word for it? The public is aware that some Richmond kids go to schools outside of Richmond.
However, those programs should be audited and have to account for how Richmond taxpayer dollars from RFCY were spent towards Richmond youth and said program.
For example, if a school program has 20 unique participants, but only 1 is from Richmond, then the program’s funding from RFCY should similarly reflect that % participation.
How has this been audited? Where is the data?
City staff cannot “audit” participant addresses in the way suggested due to privacy and legal reasons.
• Many grantees provide mental health, educational, and case management services that involve data protected under HIPAA, FERPA, and privacy laws governing minors. • The City cannot legally access or store participant addresses or other personally identifiable information.
• This is not unique to RFCY—it is standard practice for youth-serving funds across California.
Grantees are contractually required to report only participants who are Richmond residents when submitting performance numbers to RFCY.
• Organizations serving youth in nearby cities (e.g., San Pablo, El Cerrito, Oakland, or unincorporated areas) must exclude non-Richmond participants from RFCY reporting and reimbursement.
884
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
---
City of residence (not just zip code) of each unique participant:
o For example, if there were 10 participants, how many reside in Richmond, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, El Cerrito, etc.
o The home zip code map of participants on page 8 is very misleading. Many zip codes (e.g., 94803, 94805 and 94806) include not only Richmond but San Pablo and El Sobrante.
The map on page 8 (screenshot attached) also shows participants residing in what appears to be Pinole and El Cerrito.
---
How many participants in each funded program, and each year, were not actually from Richmond?
It’s a great thing if Richmond youth are participating in more than one program. What is important to track and understand is how many non-Richmond youth are being supported by Richmond taxpayer dollars as opposed to their own city, county and/or WCCUSD funds.
---
How are RFCY-funded programs audited and accounted for based on city of residence of each participating youth?
• This requirement is reinforced in contracts, technical assistance, quarterly reporting, and staff monitoring.
The suggestion that services provided outside Richmond automatically mean funds are misallocated is inaccurate. Richmond youth routinely receive services across jurisdictional boundaries — especially in East Bay communities where families live, work, and attend school across city lines.
While we cannot legally access personal client databases, we do audit how funds are used:
• Every reimbursement request is supported by receipts, payroll records, timesheets, bank statements, invoices, and cancelled checks.
• Documentation is reviewed and reconciled to the penny. • Costs that do not align with approved budgets, program scopes, or the requirement to serve Richmond youth are not reimbursed.
RFCY recognizes that Richmond youth and their families access services both within the city and in nearby communities, and that Richmond-based organizations often serve young people from Richmond and adjacent areas. However, our guidelines, meetings, and contracts clearly state—and grantees acknowledge—that RFCY funds may be used only to support Richmond youth, regardless of where services are delivered or accessed.
To ensure equitable access and reduce administrative burden on community partners, RFCY permits multiple forms of youth residency verification for grant-funded programs. Agencies are not required to collect client-level documentation or invest in new software systems.
Acceptable verification methods include self-attestation; confirmation of local school enrollment; referral from a community partner; reliance on program location for neighborhood-based services; non-sensitive geographic indicators; or staff-verified notes based on participant conversation. These methods are considered equally valid, and programs may choose whichever approach aligns with their capacity and the needs of the populations they serve.
885
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
5 Can City Staff provide audited numbers from each grant recipient/awardee as to how dollars were spent each year?
It is also my understanding that this $9.1M has not been appropriately audited.
Yes. City staff conduct line-item reviews of how every grant recipient spends RFCY funds each year. Grantees must submit full financial documentation—including payroll records, timesheets, receipts, invoices, bank statements, and cancelled checks—and reimbursements are only issued after staff verify that every cost aligns with the approved budget and directly supports Richmond youth. All expenditures are reconciled with precision and costs that do not comply with program requirements or Article XV are not reimbursed. This process provides an audited accounting of how RFCY dollars are spent annually. 6 The report states on page 6, “Each subsequent year, RDCY [sic] renewed grant agreements with existing grantees and awarded new grants to additional programs. Annual grantee awards ranged from $15,000 to $150,000.” • What was the basis for renewal?
• How was the data audited for renewal?
• What were the metrics used for success and failure?
Per the attached screenshot of Page 3 from the report outlining the six goals of RFCY, do you agree with any metrics used to determine success and failure? Renewal decisions were based on formal criteria established in the Charter (Article XV, adopted by Richmond voters in June 2018), which sets forth program goals and the overarching standards for RFCY-funded services. Grantees eligible for renewal were required to meet all contractual obligations related to service delivery, quarterly reporting, and financial compliance; remain in good standing with the California Department of Justice, Secretary of State, and U.S. Treasury; and submit documentation that allowed staff to review performance metrics, budget execution, and alignment with the Charter goals.
Staff conducted detailed fiscal and programmatic reviews, including verification of expenditures and comparison of proposed versus actual outputs, and forwarded renewal recommendations to the Oversight Board. The Oversight Board evaluated these materials and issued formal recommendations to City Council through Resolution Nos. 149-22 and 57-
23. 7 Youth Encounters vs. Unique Numbers Served
City Staff has not been tracking the actual number of unique youth participants per program per year but rather “youth encounters”.
Per page 3 of the Agenda Report, Youth Encounters are defined as: "“Encounters” represent the number of youth served per quarter and may include duplicate counts for participants engaged in multiple programs or across multiple quarters. With approximately 46,000 Richmond residents ages 0–24, these figures reflect repeat participation rather than unique individuals served."
A robust system would be required to track individual participants across the city. This would require the collection of personally identifiable information from all program participants to be able to count individual encounters across sites.
There are also concerns with collecting this information from grantees who are working with schools and in healthcare spaces, as policies such as HIPAA and FERPA provide barriers to collecting and storing this information particularly from schools and healthcare organizations (as would be mental health services funded by the organizations).
Beginning in 2025, evaluation methods will transition to unduplicated participant counts per grantee across the full program year. While this approach will not eliminate the possibility of 886
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
---
Someone affiliated with the Richmond Fund for Children and Youth Oversight Board shared the following with me:
Originally City Staff were calling them participants. However, based on the data they had received, City Staff was informed that the number of supposed participants was far more than the number of actual youth in Richmond. So City Staff realized that some of the supposed participants are probably participating in more than one program and decided to call them youth encounters instead of participants.
My questions and comments in response to this:
Does this truly justify this type of accounting? If so, why? double counting individuals who participate in multiple programs, it will provide a more accurate representation of the number of Richmond youth served by each organization. 8 Appendix D represents the sum of total funding received instead of on a yearly basis. Can City Staff provide an audited breakdown of:
• Funds awarded per year per grant awardee program;
• Location (city & zip code) of each grant awarded program; • Number of unique youth participants per year per grant program, not just “youth encounters”; and
• City of residence for each unique youth participant per year per grant awardee program?
Appendix D has been edited to add funds per grant year and list sites represented on maps.
See response(s) above regarding limitations providing unique youth participants. Collecting City of residence would require the City to collect and maintain the address of participants.
See above comment that grantees are only asked to report only for participants who are Richmond residents.
9 List of School sites
Moreover, several schools listed on page 12 of the report (screenshot attached) are not in Richmond or have a significant % of students who don’t reside in Richmond:
• WCCUSD map of all school locations
• San Pablo: Dover, Downer, Helms, Lake, Montalvin Manor, Riverside & Tara Hills Elementary Schools — 7 schools in San Pablo, not Richmond.
One point of clarification is that no funds go directly to schools. Grantees partner with schools, and all grantees are required to submit official documentation of school partnerships prior to receiving funding. Regardless of the number of participating Richmond children and youth at each site, these sites are represented on the map, including schools not located within the Richmond boundary (see language above regarding location requirements for grantees).
887
# Comment/Questions RFCY Response
• Murphy, Olinda, Sheldon and Valley View Elementary Schools as well as De Anza High School may have a significant number of kids from El Sobrante. • What % of RFCY-funded programs in these schools are funded by WCCUSD vs.
County?
Questions about specific school names
• Betty Reid Soskin Middle School and Juan Crespi Middle School are the same school. Juan Crespi Middle School was officially renamed Betty Reid Soskin Middle School in 2021.
• Caliber Upper School
• Vista Virtual Elementary School
• Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School
• Leadership High School
WCCUSD is one school district that hosts RFCY programming at various school sites. Schools listed also include charter, private, and technical schools.
Tracking grantees’ other funding sources is outside the scope of the evaluation. However, as noted on page 37 of the report, we know that RFCY funds made up less than 10% of program budgets for the majority of grantees.
Reporting prior to WestEd’s contract did not include number of participants per site.
However, 2025 revisions to the evaluation requires grantees to report number of grantees per program site to identify how many students are served by a program for each school with which they collaborate.
Name of schools will be updated in the report to reflect California Department of Education names.
• The duplication of Juan Crespi Middle School and Betty Reid Soskin Middle School is due to grantees reporting school names interchangeably during the transition • Caliber: Beta Academy - Correct, this school is not a part of WCCUSD. It has since moved locations, but in 2021 was located 4301 Berk Ave., Richmond, CA 94804. This is where activities took place and is represented on the maps in the report. • Vista Virtual Academy is a fully online program and is not represented on maps included in the report.
• King Elementary School noted in the comment is a WCCUSD school with the address of 4022 Florida Ave. Richmond, CA 94804-3398. California Department Education (CDE) Title Name is “Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School” • Leadership Public Schools is the school referenced in the report, located at 880 Bissell Ave Richmond, CA 94801.
888
January 6, 2026
City Council
DATE: January 6, 2026
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember Soheila Bana
Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda (co-sponsor)
Subject:
Develop an Ordinance Requiring All Homeowners
Association Located in Very High, High, or Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone Areas to Adopt Architectural
Design Guidelines for Non-Combustible Fences and
Gates
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the City. Homeowners Associations will bear the cost of developing their
Architectural Design Guidelines. Technical assistance will be available at no cost from the Diablo Fire Safe Council and the West Contra Costa Fire Safe Council
(WCCFSC).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
None.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Wildfire risk is rising across California due to climate change, longer fire seasons, and increased ignition
sources. Richmond contains multiple neighborhoods
located within Very High, High, and Moderate Fire
Hazard Severity Zones, many of which are governed by
homeowners’ association (HOA) that oversee
architectural standards for property improvements—
including fences and gates.
Wooden fencing can act as a “ladder” for wildfire spread and can directly transmit flames to homes. Current fire science strongly emphasizes the importance of “Zone
Zero”, the ember-resistant zone within the first five feet of a structure. Non-combustible fencing and gates (e.g.,
AGENDA
REPORT
889
January 6, 2026
steel or aluminum) are consistent with “Zone Zero”
principles and significantly reduce ember-driven ignition risk.
However, many HOA’s currently lack guidelines that
allow or govern the installation of non-combustible fence and gate materials. Establishing City-wide requirements ensures that every HOA in wildfire-vulnerable areas
adopts clear, fire-resilient standards that homeowners
can follow.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DIRECT staff to study California Assembly Bill
3074 and Senate Bill 504 (2024) that establishes an
ember resistant "Zone Zero" and return to City Council
within 60 days with a draft ordinance for the Council to review and consider for adoption - Councilmember
Soheila Bana (510-672-3490)/Vice Mayor Cesar Zepeda
(510-620-6593).
DISCUSSION:
California is experiencing record-breaking wildfire seasons and research shows most homes that burn during wildfires ignite from wind-borne embers, not direct flame.
Current fire science emphasizes that keeping the first five feet around homes free of combustible materials is one of the most effective fire-prevention strategies. Fences built of combustible materials—especially where they attach to the home—can allow fire to spread rapidly from one structure to another. The adoption of non-combustible materials—such as metal fencing—directly supports “Zone Zero” compliance.
Many Richmond Homeowners’ Association (HOA) still require or traditionally allow wooden fencing. Without updated Architectural Design Guidelines, homeowners face obstacles or delays when attempting to replace or upgrade fencing with safer, non- combustible materials. Developing an ordinance would align Richmond with State “Zone Zero” principles, improve wildfire safety across multiple neighborhoods, and clarify HOA responsibilities:
Clear allowable materials
Design and color standards
Installation specifications
Height and location requirements
Repair, replacement, and maintenance standards
The community and safety benefits of an would ordinance include:
Reduces the risk of structure-to-structure ignition
Reduces vulnerability to flying embers
Supports uniform safety standards citywide
Helps the City proactively meet future state mandates 890
January 6, 2026
The creation of an ordinance would establish administrative requirements to support wildfire prevention activities. It would encourage HOA’s to consult with the Diablo Fire Safe Council and West Contra Costa Fire Safe Council (WCCFSC), both of which are prepared to provide:
Technical guidance on fire-resistant fencing
Sample designs and manufactures referrals
Best practices for “Zone Zero”
Educational materials and presentations
Diablo Fire Safe Council and WCCFSC already provides community wildfire-mitigation outreach and the creation of this ordinance would only strengthen its support to HOA’s throughout 2025–2026.The Diablo Fire Safe Council and WCCFSC as Technical Partners, have expertise in fire-resistant materials and are prepared to assist HOA’s by providing:
Sample Non-combustible gate designs
Lists of manufacturers
Best practices for “Zone Zero” compliance
Technical presentations
The creation of this ordinance will encourage HOA’s to adopt high-quality guidelines efficiently.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – EXECUTIVE ORDER N-18-25
Attachment 2 – Diablo Fire Safe Council and West Contra Costa Fire Safe Council (WCCFSC) Collaborative Video Presentation About Non-Combustible Fences and Gates
891
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-18-25
WHEREAS on January 7, 2025, I proclaimed a State of Emergency to exist in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties due to fire and windstorm conditions that have now caused multiple fires, including the Palisades, Eaton, Hurst, Lidia, Sunset, Woodley, and Hughes Fires; and
WHEREAS these fires have devastated communities across the Greater Los Angeles Area and have collectively burned over 47,900 acres, destroying or damaging more than 16,250 structures, including homes, small businesses, and places of worship, with initial estimates placing this disaster among the most destructive in California history; and
WHEREAS since the fires began, I have issued multiple Executive Orders to provide relief to impacted communities, protect survivors and expedite and aid recovery efforts, including orders streamlining permitting requirements to enable Los Angeles to build back quickly, and safer and more resilient than before; and WHEREAS these fires were not isolated incidents, but rather the latest examples of how a changing climate creates weather extremes that can combine with wildfire-susceptible fuel loads, even during California's traditionally wet season, to cause massive conflagrations; and
WHEREAS the State's agencies responsible for fire response and resilience, including the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board of Forestry), the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CAL FIRE), the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), have already begun evaluating these fires, and should move quickly to incorporate standards, regulations, and statutes, to harden communities urgently; and WHEREAS scientific research has shown that the greatest risk of embers directly or indirectly igniting a home, as occurred in many neighborhoods in the Palisades and Eaton firestorms, stems from combustible materials built or planted within five feet of a home, including perpendicular wood fences and combustible landscaping; and
WHEREAS because of the risk presented by embers, Assembly Bill No. 3074 (Friedman, 2020) requires promulgation of regulations to establish an ember resistant "Zone Zero" within five feet of structures in certain fire severity zones, and insurance companies may factor wildfire mitigations such as Zone Zero clearance into insurance rates; and
WHEREAS the State Fire Marsha l is responsible for periodically updating fire hazard severity zone maps for both the State Responsibility Area and the state's •Local Responsibility Areas, and while the State Responsibility Area maps were updated in 2024, the Local Responsibility Area maps are due to be updated; and
WHEREAS CAL FIRE and Cal OES collaborate with the federa l government and other states on operational plans for wildfire response, including mutual aid systems and sequences for dispatching resources, but the federally managed system, known as the Federal lnteragency Resource Ordering Capability (IROC), lacks the capacity to process in real-time requests to dispatch additional resources for wildfire incidents of this magnitude, resulting in ad-hoc communication and coordination around such requests and imperfect visibility to resource availability and deployment as the incident response evolves; and 892
WHEREAS my 2025-2026 Budget proposal reflects a total of $4 billion for Wild land Management, which maintains $2.5 billion in prior investments and commits another $1 .5 billion over the next several years to ramp up and implement my Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, increasing the pace of fuel reduction, prescribed fire, and forest health; and WHEREAS my Administration has invested $2 billion to support CAL FIRE operations, a 47% increase since 2018 and is committed to adding 2,400 additional firefighters to CAL FIRE's ranks over the next five years; and WHEREAS my Administration has overseen the expansion of California's aerial firefighting fleet, including the addition of more than 16 helicopters equipped for night operations, and seven C-130 air tankers, making it the largest fleet of its kind globally; and
WHEREAS California is leverag ing Al-powered tools to spot fires quicker, has deployed the Fire Integrated Real-Time Intelligence System (FIRIS) to provide real-time mapping of wildfires, and has partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense to use satellites for wildfire detection and invested in LiDAR technology to create detailed 3D maps of high-risk areas; and
WHEREAS in anticipation of severe fire weather conditions in early January 2025, Cal OES approved the prepositioning of 65 fire engines, as well as more than 120 additiona l firefighting resources and personnel throughout seven Southern California counties, and CAL FIRE moved firefighting resources to Southern California including 45 additional engines and six hand crews to the region; and
WHEREAS California was able to mobilize more than 15,000 personnel including firefighters, National Guard servicemembers, law enforcement officers and transportation teams to support the response to the Los Angeles firestorms, and more than 1,900 firefighting apparatus composed of engines, aircraft, dozers and water tenders to aid in putting out the fires.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the State Constitution and statutes, do hereby issue the following Order to become effective immediately.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the State Fire Marshal, shall require the creation of an ember-resistant zone within Oto 5 feet of a home ("Zone Oregulations"), consistent with Public Resources Code section 4291 and Government Code section 51182. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection shall post a pre-rulemaking draft regulation to its internet website and hold a public workshop to gather public input on its draft regulation within 45 days of this Order, and shall complete the formal rulemaking process no later than December 31, 2025.
2. The State Fire Marshal shall, consistent with Government Code sections 51178 and 51179, provide to local agencies, and make available to the public, its proposed Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Maps representing different regions of the State shall be provided to the public in phases starting no later than February 10.
3. To ensure that resources are ordered and dispatched efficiently and effectively, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) are directed to, in consultation with local, tribal, and federal partners and FIRESCOPE, work with the federal government to evaluate the Federal lnteragency 893
Resource Ordering Capability (IROC), including its current limitations, and identify technology and process improvements to modernize a system that can fulfill the purpose of supporting the rapid fulfillment of mutua l aid request during large-scale incidents.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given of this Order.
This Order is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have
hereunto set my hand and caused
the Great Seal of the State of
California to be affixed this 6th day
of Febru ry 2025.
GAVIN NEWSOM
Governor of California
ATTEST:
SHIRLEY WEBER, PH. D
Secretary of State
894
ATTACHMENT 2
Diablo Fire Safe Council and West Contra Costa Fire Safe Council (WCCFSC) Collaborative Video Presentation About Non-Combustible Fences and Gates
895