91视频

Since the devastating 2020 Labor Day wildfires, the Oregon Legislature has passed a range of laws to create fire-adapted communities. Among these laws is SB 762, adopted in 2021, which required the state to develop a statewide Wildfire Risk Map and directed the State Fire Marshal to establish defensible space standards for the map鈥檚 five classifications (e.g., extreme, high, moderate, low, or no risk). These classifications will determine where additional wildfire-resistant building standards, required by Section聽R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, will apply. In 2023, the legislature also enacted SB 80, which revised SB 762 to reduce the classification categories to only three: high, moderate, and low.

The Wildfire Risk Map and wildfire-resistant building code requirements have been hotly criticized. While enacted with the best intentions, many argue they create onerous and unfair mandates that ignore wildfire-resistant improvements and work already done by individuals and property owners to reduce wildfire risk. The map鈥檚 failure to recognize local fire-mitigation efforts resulted in insurance cancellations and denials, loss of property sales, and reduced property values for owners across the state.

Fast-forward to 2025: the legislature heard the criticism and reversed course by adopting SB聽83, giving the wildfire mitigation regulatory power back to local jurisdictions. SB聽83 not only repeals the statewide Wildfire Risk Map and the associated building requirements, defensible-space requirements and property disclosures, but it also voids Oregon Department of Forestry orders designating property as a wildfire hazard, revises Section聽R327 of the Oregon Residential Specialty Code, and removes the requirement that the Department of Forestry and State Fire Marshal adopt rules establishing baseline wildfire protection level for lands outside forest protection districts. SB聽83 became effective when Gov. Tina Kotek signed it on July 24, 2025.

So where does that leave Oregonians? In the absence of the Wildfire Risk Map, SB聽83 directs the Oregon State Fire Marshal to develop a model code for 鈥渄efensible space鈥� around structures that local jurisdictions may adopt. 鈥淒efensible space鈥� means a natural or human-made space preserved for fire suppression operations. Because state law no longer mandates the creation of defensible space around structures, local jurisdictions now have discretion to define hazard zones and to adopt, or decline to adopt, their own defensible-space or ignition-resistant construction standards.

SB聽83 also requires the Department of Consumer and Business Services to adopt the wildfire hazard mitigation code standards of Section聽R327 and create a rule for municipalities to adopt by ordinance for local implementation, if they desire. Thus, SB聽83 removed the automatic, statewide mandatory Wildfire Map and mandatory construction standards, and granted local jurisdictions the authority to adopt those standards, or not, and to apply them to properties based on local knowledge, norms, and information.

SB聽83 also exempts certain new dwellings, such as ADUs and accessory structures, from the R327 wildfire hazard mitigation standards statewide if the structures comply with the pre-July 2021 codes. Prior to this change, all ADUs on rural-residential land were required to comply with Section聽R327.

SB聽83 further directs that Section聽R327 standards, when adopted by local jurisdictions, may apply only to new construction. Thus, existing construction, existing wildfire-resistant improvements, and work already done by individuals and property owners are exempt from the latest requirements and should not experience any negative insurance impacts from a municipality鈥檚 adoption of the R327 standards.

Under SB聽83, therefore, a local jurisdiction may tailor and 鈥渞ight-size鈥� the application of the R327 standards as the community sees fit. Consequently, under SB聽83, the applicable defensible space and building codes may vary from county to county, or even city to city.

The abolishment of a uniform classification system is not without its own hurdles. Because properties across the state will not be uniformly designated as 鈥渉igh鈥� or 鈥渆xtreme鈥� hazard, sellers, brokers, and developers lose a clear statewide reference point. This may complicate disclosure obligations and due diligence standards 鈥� especially in transactions where fire risk could influence insurability, property value, or financing. Prudent developers, brokers, and sellers will want to carefully review what wildfire hazard mitigation standards local 鈥巎urisdictions adopt, partially adopt, or do not adopt.

Those in the housing fabrication and construction industries will also need to adopt a process of reviewing and complying with the local regulations. Suppose a jurisdiction has adopted the Section聽R327 standards. In that case, new construction must incorporate features such as ignition-resistant materials, specific roofing materials, ember-resistant vents, non-combustible gutters, window glazing, and noncombustible wall materials. If the structure is an addition to or replacement of a pre-existing structure鈥檚 exterior, a local jurisdiction may adopt regulations requiring the new elements to be brought into compliance with Section聽R327, even though SB聽83 does not mandate those upgrades at the local level.

In addition to ensuring building code compliance, parties should consider a local jurisdiction鈥檚 adoption of Section聽R327 standards (or not) in the risk allocation provisions in any design, build, or construction contract. If the jurisdiction has adopted Section聽R327 standards, failure to incorporate those standards, such as fire-mitigation materials or defensible-space/work site requirements, may create liability that contractors, developers, and subcontractors may want to ensure is placed on the appropriate party. Contractors may also want to consider including in their contracts a mechanism to adjust the scope of work and project price in the event a jurisdiction amends its codes mid-project to require compliance with some or all of the Section聽R327 standards. Parties should also consider builder鈥檚 risk and general liability insurance coverage for code compliance, as well as an indemnity clause for failure to meet the wildfire-resistance standards.

While statewide mandatory map-based compliance is gone, SB聽83 empowers municipalities to adopt and enforce the R327 fire mitigation standards as needed, locally, ensuring builders and developers do not get a free pass on fire-resiliency design. As wildfire risk continues to escalate, clients will likely demand, and insurers will likely push, municipalities to adopt fire-mitigation standards. Preemptive design and contracting for variable fire-resilience standards is wise.

Mackenzie Schmitt is a Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt associate. Contact her at 360-905-1108 or [email protected].

Maren Calvert is a Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt shareholder. Contact her at 360-597-0804 or [email protected].

This column is intended to provide readers with general information and not legal advice. Consult professional counsel for help regarding specific situations.

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither author nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.