at least, those 1500 square miles can't burn again... maybe CA need to do controlled burns like FL does (if they don't already do it). IE: Burn dry brush in the forests.
I believe California does, but the scale of the problem is completely different compared to a sate like Florida. California has 2.5x as much land as Florida and a significantly higher percentage of the total land is wilderness or otherwise undeveloped.
Not just wilderness or undeveloped, but highly inaccessible to firefighting crews. The Bay Area has peaks over 4000 feet with lots of fairly sheer areas. Often firefighters have to be dropped in by helicopter.
Florida is mostly low rolling hills with the highest point in the state being ~350 feet above sea level. If Florida has a fire in an inaccessible area, it's usually inaccessible due to water, so more of a help to firefighters than a hindrance.
The federal government owns about 45% of California land. Of the forests, 57% are owned by the federal government; 39% are privately owned by individuals, corporations, or land trusts; and the state, county, or local governments control only 2%.
Also, most fires start in grassy areas. The Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise started as a grass fire on federal land before it spread to shrubs and burned through mostly private land. California has almost 8 million acres of shrubs.
The Woosley Fire that burned almost half of Malibu was started on industrial property owned by Boeing and spread through chaparral along the steep Santa Monica Mountains.
As I recall, Bureau of Land Management tried this and there was a lot of backlash from residents. It’s also quite a bit of land to do a controlled burn, so might not be that feasible.