So, why if instead to chop them (and having each house slurping energy like an entire city), we just search a way to reduce the fire hazard in the trees, and include them in the mix?
The absence of safe areas or escape roads seems a fixable problem.
In the western part of the country we have Jeffrey Pines [1].
They have branches that start really high up and their bark is super thick so they are considered fire resistant trees - highly fire resistant as adults.
"Jeffrey pine's ability to shed burning bark scales as a means to reduce fire damage has received mention in the literature, and firefighters have reported observing fires extinguished by shedding bark scales" [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_jeffreyi
[2] https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/pinjef/all.h...
This is what louvers and (eave) overhangs are for. You'd only need some trees for westerly windows once the sun gets closer to the horizon.
As an added benefit you can get some solar gain during the winter months if desired if you get the overhand length right (plenty of online calculators).
Houses next trees instead are shadowed some hours a day, they are more fresh inside and heat less, so are much cheaper to keep at habitable temperatures in hot areas.
Trees are also great blocking street noise and removing contamination.
We just can not remove plants from cities without suffering negative collateral effects
Radiant barriers are a thing, especially in the Sun Belt. Plenty of products that have foil lining, but it can also be done as a stand-alone product: just add a small (rainscreen) air gap between the foil and the cladding.
From the about 1875 to 1930 there was a major burn every few years. There has now not been on since the 1930s, a few grassfires excepted.
Houses extend far up the mountain. Streets are narrow, steep, and twisted. Trees grow two, and sometimes within structures. Wood and cedar construction are common.
Yes, the fog helps. But it won't protect forever.