Zone zero' rule could be California's wildfire savior — or its environmental undoing
The state's proposed 'zone zero' rules are commonsense fire safety, proponents say, but opponents fear they will decimate Southern California's urban forest.
Depending on whom you talk to, the proposed new defensible space rules for “zone zero” will help save homes in very high fire hazard severity zones, or decimate much of Southern California’s urban tree canopy without really deterring the types of wildland fires that destroyed much of Altadena, Pacific Palisades and Malibu earlier this year. Either way, the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Zone 0 Advisory Committee will likely get an earful of comments during its public meeting Thursday from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Pasadena Convention Center. The committee will be presenting its proposed rules for creating “fire defensible spaces” or “ember-resistant zones” within five feet of buildings in very high fire hazard severity zones protected by city and county firefighters as well as all areas protected by state firefighters. These five-foot-wide buffers are now widely known as “zone zero.” The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection was initially tasked with creating specific zone zero regulations in 2020, after the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 3074, said Yana Valachovic, a technical adviser to the board who wears many hats as the county director and forest advisor for both the UC Cooperative Extension in Humboldt and Del Norte counties, as well as for the UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network. But on Feb. 6, in the wake of the devastating Eaton and Palisades fires, Gov. Gavin Newsom gave the board until Dec. 31 to finalize the regulations. Here are the main points in the proposed zone zero regulations, published in August and now up for public comment:“No landscaping materials that are likely to be ignited by embers are permitted within zone zero.” (That is, within five feet of a structure). “This includes, but is not limited to grass, ornamental or native plants, shrubs, fallen leaves and tree needles, weeds, and combustible mulches including bark and wood chips.”Trees within zone zero can be maintained, according to the proposed rules, as long as dead or dying branches are removed and all live tree branches are five feet above the roof and away from sides of the structure, and 10 feet away from any chimneys or stovepipes. Two exemptions are listed. The first allows potted plants under 18 inches in height in noncombustible containers no larger than five gallons, and “not directly situated beneath, above or in front of a window, glass door, or vent.” The second exemption is less clear: “Single specimens of trees that are well-pruned and maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and fuel ladders.” The committee is still working to define this exemption more specifically, Tony Andersen, the board’s executive officer, said. For instance, he said, the committee could clarify the exemption to read that well-pruned trees (i.e. trees whose branches are five feet away from roofs or walls) are permitted as long as they don’t have overlapping canopies that act as fuel ladders, permitting the fire to spread.Roofs and rain gutters must be kept clear of needles and leaves and “the areas under decks, balconies and stairs must be kept free of vegetative material and combustible items.”Other proposed zone zero rules would forbid “combustible items that are likely to be ignited by embers,” including outbuildings not meant for habitation. Combustible gates cannot be directly adjacent to or attached to a building or structure. Fences that are directly attached to a building or structure must have a five-foot noncombustible span at the point of attachment, and after the rules go into effect, no new combustible fences or attached decks will be permitted within five feet of a building or structure.The requirements for zone zero will go into effect immediately after approval for all new construction and within three years for existing buildings. In areas protected by city, county and state firefighters, jurisdictions may “choose to develop alternative practices for zone zero compliance that take into account local variations” as long as an authority in the local jurisdiction finds that the alternative practice “provides for substantially similar practical effects as those stated in the regulations.” Andersen said he doesn’t know if the committee will further clarify the “substantially similar” language, “but the full draft rule plead continues to be considered and discussed.” Proponents argue that the proposed regulations are needed to keep communities safe, given the recent increases in wildfires in Southern California. “As a society, we’ve thought of fire and fuel issues as somebody else’s problem, and we’ve been entirely dependent on firefighters to save our homes,” Valachovic said. “But is business as usual protecting us? “We’ve lost 57,000 structures [to fire] in this state in the last decade. Two hundred people have died in wildfires and one out of every seven acres in the state have burned in the last decade,” she said. “It takes time for people to understand the new environment we’re living in and change is hard, but what these zone-zero regs do is give people a chance to better understand what’s constituted as fuels that might pose a risk to their home and family, and these are things that are within a homeowner’s control.” The rulemaking has gone through many revisions and stalls, Valachovic said, as the board and then the committee sifted through hours of testimony, dozens of studies and hundreds of comments. Opponents say the rules are being pushed by insurance companies trying to limit their exposure and don’t take into account research that indicates urban fires are spread more from house to house than plants to house, and many irrigated trees and other plants can actually protect structures from fire. Indeed, Valachovic notes that lobbyists and researchers for insurance companies have been frequent contributors to the testimony about the proposal, arguing strongly in favor of removing all combustible materials near homes.Furthermore, opponents say, neighborhoods in very high fire hazard severity zones such as Silver Lake, Beachwood Canyon and Eagle Rock could see a huge loss of greenery since their homes are often built close together on small lots, with trees and other landscaping well within five feet of buildings and structures. “They’re talking about destroying our urban canopy, hundreds of acres of trees for uncertain benefits,” said Cyndi Hubach, a member of the City of Los Angeles’ Community Forest Advisory Committee. Hubach, who lives in Silver Lake, wrote CFAC’s report for the council outlining the problems with the proposed regulations, and what the organization believes should change.Basically, the report (approved by CFAC on Sept. 4) argues that cutting down irrigated, healthy vegetation around homes will cause more problems than it solves by eliminating shade, increasing the risk of erosion and destroying habitat, among other things. The report recommends that the regulations move away from a “one-size-fits-all approach,” allow for an appeals process and exempt “healthy, hydrated and well maintained vegetation ... not likely to be ignited by embers,” as well as protected native trees and shrubs, historic and heritage trees and living municipal street trees if well-pruned and maintained.The state has done a poor job of getting the word out about these regulations, Hubach said. “Most people don’t know this is coming their way, and when they find out about [the proposed rules], they don’t think it will make them safer. They think it will make their neighborhoods hotter, dryer, uglier and less safe.”As word has spread this summer about the proposed regulations, opposition has swelled around Southern California. In a recent online talk, Travis Longcore, an environmental scientist and former president of the Los Angeles Audubon Society, laid out a detailed online analysis of the proposed regulations.In his talk, Longcore agrees with Valachovic that certain parts of the proposed regulations make sense, such as removing wood fences connected to buildings and pine needles and dead leaves from roofs. “But we should continue to request that healthy live vegetation be permissible if it’s not likely to be ignited by embers, so it’s not lumped in with plants that accumulate dead wood like junipers and cypress trees that always have accumulated dead matter in them.”Longcore also said it’s unclear how the proposed regulations will be enforced and what kinds of penalties will be applied to people who don’t comply.Former State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva has similar concerns about enforcement, given that inspectors are already overtaxed. Grijalva objects to what he calls the “one-size-fits-all approach” of the proposed regulations because they don’t recognize differences between houses constructed before 2008 and those built after. Newer houses must comply with changes he helped implement in Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, including requiring ignition-resistant materials for roofs and decks, dual-pane glass for windows and vents that keep embers out. Grijalva currently works with large developers to make master plan communities with thousands of dwellings — such as Rancho Mission Viejo in the hills above San Juan Capistrano — as fire-resistant as possible, while also including the aesthetic and cooling benefits of trees such as oaks and sycamores. Members of the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Zone 0 Advisory Committee will also be speaking at an informational town hall meeting Sept. 17 from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Ventura County Fire Headquarters in Newbury Park. Visitors are requested to RSVP with the organizer of the event, Ventura County Supervisor Jeff Gorell. The following day, Sept. 18, anyone can listen in to the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s public meeting, but public comments may be limited to people appearing in person because of the sheer number expected to speak, said Marcie Yates, the board’s land-use planning program manager. This is the committee’s first public meeting in Southern California and could be its last, since, according to Andersen, it plans to discuss the comments it receives Sept. 18 at its regular meeting in Sacramento on Sept. 22, and then decide whether to further tweak the proposed rules or forward them to the full board for consideration.
