Devastating fires keep raging in the north part of San Francisco Bay area. A problem of living on the urban / rural fringe around trees and vegetation. Could be an argument for denser "urban style" development rather than the semi urban / semi rural "country style" living that's so popular in this country. Cluster the people and development in certain areas and then protect the rural and forested areas.
Planners often try to do this. Here in Washington, we have the Growth Management Law which tries to contain development into urban growth areas. I'm sure California has similar plans, but it's hard to apply these ideals. People in this country often crave semi urban semi rural settings. The economics of housing costs push a lot of people to the urban fringe as well. Folks who can't afford urban living given the current circumstances.
If we created more areas of urban density, rather than the growing sprawl, our urban areas would be more affordable. Zone more areas for higher density; assuming population growth keeps happening. Envision lifestyles around apartments and condos, smaller footprints, shorter commutes, less wildfire hazard. I think a lot more people would like to live in urban settings if there was more of it available.
Locally, I know of people who would rather live in Bellingham than facing long commutes from county areas with no sidewalks and so forth. They just can't afford it. If more areas were built like the central city, more people could live in urban settings. Some folks do prefer rural settings, but there are others who are out there just because they can't afford the cities. We should build more areas like cities.