Executive Summary
- L.A. County Fire officials state Topanga residents must shelter in place if evacuation routes are compromised during rapid wildfires.
- Assistant Chief Drew Smith cited the inability to evacuate 8,000 residents quickly on winding canyon roads as the primary driver for the policy.
- Safety experts and a NIST report warn that sheltering in place is dangerous without modern “home hardening” and defensible space.
- Approximately 98% of Topanga homes were built before 2008 fire safety codes, increasing vulnerability during burn-over events.
- Former designated community refuge sites were deemed unsafe by the department due to insufficient acreage required to mitigate radiant heat.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department has announced that residents of Topanga Canyon may be ordered to shelter in their homes during extreme wildfire events, a strategic shift necessitated by the logistical challenges of evacuating the isolated community’s winding mountain roads. Assistant Fire Chief Drew Smith, speaking at a local preparedness event, stated that in scenarios where a fire expands rapidly, attempting a mass evacuation for the town’s 8,000 residents could prove fatal due to traffic congestion and limited egress routes.
According to Smith, the department’s analysis indicates that if a fire threatens homes within minutes, there is insufficient time to clear the area safely. In such cases, Smith told residents that remaining indoors constitutes their “safest option,” acknowledging the terrifying nature of the experience but emphasizing it as a survival necessity when escape routes are compromised. He clarified to reporters that this protocol applies specifically to situations deemed “infeasible” for evacuation, noting, “If we have time to evacuate, we will evacuate you.”
The policy has drawn scrutiny from emergency management experts who point to historical precedents, specifically Australia’s “Black Saturday” fires in 2009. Following that disaster, which killed 173 people—many of whom were sheltering in homes—Australia significantly revised its “stay or go” policy to prioritize early evacuation. A report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding California’s Camp Fire also concluded that most communities are unsuitable for sheltering in place due to the density of combustible structures.
Concerns regarding the structural integrity of Topanga’s housing stock complicate the shelter-in-place plan. An analysis of property records reveals that approximately 98% of residential properties in Topanga were constructed before the implementation of California’s 2008 home-hardening building codes. David Shew, a former Cal Fire official, warned that without significant retrofitting and defensible space, the strategy carries severe risks. “It’s not really safe for people to just think, ‘OK, I’ve done nothing but they told me to just jump in my house,’” Shew stated.
Previously, the community relied on a “Disaster Survival Guide” that directed residents to public refuge areas, such as baseball fields, if they could not flee. However, the Fire Department has since determined these spaces are insufficient. Smith explained that to protect 30 to 100 people from the radiant heat of a major firestorm, a clearing of roughly 14 acres is required. Most local sites, including the public works facilities formerly designated as safe zones, cover barely one acre, leading officials to pivot to the shelter-in-place directive.
Public Safety & Policy Implications
The reliance on a shelter-in-place protocol for Topanga Canyon underscores a critical infrastructure deficit within the wildland-urban interface. While the decision reflects a pragmatic calculation regarding road capacity and evacuation timelines, it exposes a dangerous gap between emergency procedure and structural resilience. With the vast majority of local housing lacking modern fire-resistant features, the policy places the burden of survival on buildings that may not withstand extreme heat or ember intrusion. This situation highlights the urgent necessity for comprehensive home-hardening initiatives and potentially aggressive vegetation management to mitigate the risks inherent in isolating a population during a catastrophic fire event.