For homeowners in San Diego’s most fire-prone hillsides, the concept of “defensible space” is more than a city ordinance—it is a survival strategy. But a scathing new city audit reveals that the municipal system tasked with ensuring those protections are in place is operating with a level of inconsistency that officials describe as “haphazard.”
The 48-page report, authored by City Auditor Andy Hanau, paints a picture of a brush management program plagued by inaccurate data, inefficient routing, and a startling lack of enforcement. While the city focuses its efforts on the 45,000 properties deemed highest risk within the city’s “very high fire hazard severity zone,” the audit finds that many of these parcels are effectively ignored for years at a time.
The findings suggest a systemic failure in oversight: properties are being inspected once every eight to 10 years, a pace that lags dangerously behind the national standard of once every one to three years. Perhaps more concerning is the city’s recent pivot toward “remote” inspections—checking properties from public spaces rather than entering the land—a method the audit claims is 30 times less likely to uncover actual violations.
Fire Chief Robert Logan has acknowledged the accuracy of nearly all the audit’s findings and has committed to implementing all 14 of its recommendations. However, the Chief warned that the city’s current budget crisis may hinder full compliance, noting that without additional funding for staff, the department cannot fully modernize its approach to wildfire prevention.
A System of ‘Haphazard’ Inspections
The audit highlights a breakdown in how inspectors actually spend their days. According to the report, We find currently no established productivity standards for brush inspectors, leading to wide disparities in how much work is actually completed. This lack of structure is exacerbated by bureaucratic protocols that require some inspectors to report to City Hall at the start of their shifts, wasting roughly 90 minutes of potential field time per day.
The inefficiency extends to the routes themselves. Rather than following a strategic, data-driven map, inspectors often choose their own paths. This has led to a “lottery” system of safety: some parcels receive multiple inspections in short order, while others are skipped entirely.
The audit also identifies a critical failure in follow-up. When an inspection does identify a violation, there is no guarantee the city will check to see if the owner fixed the problem. Between August 2020 and April 2025, only 82% of proactive inspections that found violations were ever re-inspected. For inspections triggered by citizen complaints, the follow-up rate plummeted to just 46%.
The Cost of Non-Compliance
One of the most glaring gaps identified by Auditor Hanau is the city’s reluctance to use the “stick” in its carrot-and-stick approach. Despite having the legal authority to impose penalties for repeated violations, the Fire-Rescue Department assessed zero penalties or re-inspection fees between August 2020 and June 2025.
Even when the city does charge, the costs are negligible compared to other high-risk California cities. San Diego’s current $50 re-inspection fee serves more as a nominal administrative charge than a deterrent for negligent property owners.
| City | Re-inspection/Non-compliance Fee |
|---|---|
| San Diego | $50 |
| Oakland | $500 |
| Beverly Hills | $555 |
| Los Angeles | $764 |
The auditors argue that this lack of financial consequence undermines the entire program. As the report notes, “When property owners and/or residents do not maintain defensible space, they can put their neighbors and the larger community at greater risk of devastating wildfires.”
Funding Gaps and ‘Zone Zero’
The current struggle is not entirely the fault of the Fire-Rescue Department. Chief Logan’s response to the audit emphasizes a recurring theme: a lack of resources from City Hall. The department currently relies on roughly $700,000 a year and seven employees to manage private property brush—a lean operation for a city with 220,000 properties in high-hazard zones.
What we have is not the first time the department has flagged a lack of manpower. A 2023 audit regarding city-owned land—including parks and canyons—similarly criticized the city’s coordination. Logan noted Wednesday that he is still waiting on funds to hire three wildfire prevention specialists needed to modernize the management of public lands.
Despite these hurdles, the city is moving toward more stringent standards. San Diego has begun implementing “Zone Zero” rules, which prohibit any flammable landscaping or materials within five feet of a home. These rules became mandatory for new homes in February and will expand to all homes in the very high fire hazard severity zone by February 2026.
The city has also introduced home-risk assessments this year to help residents identify vulnerabilities before an inspector ever arrives at their door.
The next major milestone for the city’s brush management strategy will be the February 2026 deadline, when Zone Zero compliance becomes mandatory for all existing homes in high-risk zones. Until then, the city must determine if it will provide the funding Chief Logan says is necessary to turn these “haphazard” inspections into a reliable shield against the next great fire.
Do you live in a high-fire hazard zone? Share your experience with city inspections or your thoughts on the new Zone Zero rules in the comments below.
