Depending on whom you talk to, the proposed new defensible space rules for \u201czone zero\u201d will help save homes in very high fire hazard severity zones, or decimate much of Southern California\u2019s urban tree canopy without really deterring the types of wildland fires that destroyed much of Altadena, Pacific Palisades and Malibu earlier this year. <\/p>\n
Either way, the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection\u2019s Zone 0 Advisory Committee<\/a> will likely get an earful of comments during its public meeting Thursday <\/a> from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Pasadena Convention Center. The committee will be presenting its proposed rules for creating \u201cfire defensible spaces\u201d or \u201cember-resistant zones\u201d 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 \u201czone zero.\u201d <\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Here are the main points in the proposed zone zero regulations<\/a>, published in August and now up for public comment:<\/p>\n Proponents argue that the proposed regulations are needed to keep communities safe, given the recent increases in wildfires in Southern California. <\/p>\n \u201cAs a society, we\u2019ve thought of fire and fuel issues as somebody else\u2019s problem, and we\u2019ve been entirely dependent on firefighters to save our homes,\u201d Valachovic said. \u201cBut is business as usual protecting us? <\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ve 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,\u201d she said. \u201cIt takes time for people to understand the new environment we\u2019re living in and change is hard, but what these zone-zero regs do is give people a chance to better understand what\u2019s constituted as fuels that might pose a risk to their home and family, and these are things that are within a homeowner\u2019s control.\u201d <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Opponents say the rules are being pushed by insurance companies trying to limit their exposure and don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n Zone zero aims to protect homes but threatens urban\u00a0shade<\/p>\n Very high fire hazard severity zones protected by city and county firefighters as well as all areas protected by state firefighters are shaded in\u00a0red.<\/p>\n California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection<\/p>\n Hailey Wang LOS ANGELES TIMES<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re talking about destroying our urban canopy, hundreds of acres of trees for uncertain benefits,\u201d said Cyndi Hubach, a member of the City of Los Angeles\u2019 Community Forest Advisory Committee. Hubach, who lives in Silver Lake, wrote CFAC\u2019s report for the council<\/a> outlining the problems with the proposed regulations, and what the organization believes should change.<\/p>\n Basically, the report<\/a> (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 \u201cone-size-fits-all approach,\u201d allow for an appeals process and exempt \u201chealthy, hydrated and well maintained vegetation … not likely to be ignited by embers,\u201d as well as protected native trees and shrubs, historic and heritage trees and living municipal street trees if well-pruned and maintained.<\/p>\n The state has done a poor job of getting the word out about these regulations, Hubach said. \u201cMost people don\u2019t know this is coming their way, and when they find out about [the proposed rules], they don\u2019t think it will make them safer. They think it will make their neighborhoods hotter, dryer, uglier and less safe.\u201d<\/p>\n As word has spread this summer about the proposed regulations, opposition has swelled around Southern California. In a recent online talk, Travis Longcore<\/a>, an environmental scientist and former president of the Los Angeles Audubon Society, laid out a detailed online analysis of the proposed regulations<\/a>.<\/p>\n 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. \u201cBut we should continue to request that healthy live vegetation be permissible if it\u2019s not likely to be ignited by embers, so it\u2019s not lumped in with plants that accumulate dead wood like junipers and cypress trees that always have accumulated dead matter in them.\u201d<\/p>\n Longcore also said it\u2019s unclear how the proposed regulations will be enforced and what kinds of penalties will be applied to people who don\u2019t comply.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Board of Forestry and Fire Protection itself is not responsible for enforcement,\u201d Andersen wrote in an email. \u201cHowever, the Board understands that Zone 0 will be enforced like other defensible space inspection<\/a>s.\u201d<\/p>\n Former State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva has similar concerns about enforcement, given that inspectors are already overtaxed. Grijalva objects to what he calls the \u201cone-size-fits-all approach\u201d of the proposed regulations because they don\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n Grijalva currently works with large developers to make master plan communities with thousands of dwellings \u2014 such as Rancho Mission Viejo in the hills above San Juan Capistrano \u2014 as fire-resistant as possible, while also including the aesthetic and cooling benefits of trees such as oaks and sycamores. <\/p>\n\n