The proposed “Zero Zone” rule is now a hot topic in California debate

Depending on who you are talking to, the proposed new defensive space rules for “Zero” will help save homes in areas with high fire hazard severity or stand out in urban canopy in southern Southern California without really stopping the types of wild fires that destroyed the Pacific Palisdis and Malibu earlier this year.

Either way, the District 0 Advisory Committee of the State Forestry and Fire District may comment at a public meeting at the Pasadena Convention Center Thursday from 10:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The committee will introduce its proposed rules for establishing a “fire-proof space” or “saturation-resistant area” within five feet of a building, a very high fire hazard area protected by city and county firefighters, and all areas protected by state firefighters. These five-foot-wide buffers are now widely referred to as “area zero.”

Yana Valachovic, technical adviser to the board, said the Forestry and Fire Prevention Commission initially formulated the mandate of zone zero regulations in 2020 after the legislature passed Parliament Bill 3074.

But on February 6, after the devastating Eaton and Palisades fires, Gov. Gavin Newsom awarded the board the board until December 31 to finalize the regulations.

Here are the key points of the proposed zero-zone statute, which was released in August and is now in public opinion:

• “In the area zero, there is no beautification material that allows embers to ignite.” (i.e., within five feet of the structure). “This includes but is not limited to grasses, ornamental or native plants, shrubs, fallen leaves and tree needles, weeds, and combustible coverings including bark and wood chips.”
• Under the proposed rules, trees in area zero can be maintained by removing dead or dying branches, and all living branches are five feet above the roof, away from the sides of the structure, and 10 feet away from any chimney or stove.
• Two exemptions are listed. The first allows potted plants up to 18 inches in unrestricted containers, no more than 5 gallons, and “not directly below, above or in front of windows, glass doors or vents.”
• The second exemption is not quite clear: “Single samples of organized and maintained trees to effectively manage fuel and fuel ladders.” Board executive Tony Andersen said the committee is still defining this exemption more specifically. He said, for example, the committee could clarify that trees that allow good release (i.e. trees five feet away from the roof or wall) can be used as fuel ladders as long as they do not have overlapping canopies, allowing the fire to spread.
• The roof and storm drains must be away from needles and leaves, “the areas under the deck, balcony and stairs must be free of nutrients and combustible items.”
• Other proposed zero rules will prohibit “combustible items that may be ignited by embers”, including non-buildings that are not habitable. Combustible doors cannot be directly adjacent to buildings or structures. Fences directly fixed to buildings or structures must have a non-fixable span of five feet at the attachment point and no new combustible fences or fixed decks shall be allowed within five feet of the building or structure after the rules come into effect.
• The Zero Zone Requirements will be effective immediately upon approval of all new buildings and will be effective for existing buildings within three years.
• In areas protected by city, county and state firefighters, as long as the authority of the local jurisdiction finds that the alternative practices “provides practical effects that are substantially similar to those specified in the provisions, jurisdictions may “choose a zero-region compliance development alternative practice to take into account local differences. “Anderson said he did not know whether the committee would further articulate the “basically similar” language,” but the defense case for the draft rules is still being considered and discussed. ”

Supporters believe that in light of the recent increase in wildfires in southern Southern California, regulations are needed to ensure the safety of communities.

“As a society, we see fire and fuel issues as someone else’s problems, and we rely entirely on firefighters to save our homes,” Varachovic said. “But as usual, does business protect us?

“We lost 57,000 structures [to fire] Over the past decade. “In the past decade, 200 people have died in wildfires and one out of every seven acres in the state burns,” she said. It takes time for people to understand the new environment and changes we live in is difficult, but these areas-zero areas work to give people a chance to better understand that fuel can pose risks to their homes and families, and that these are outdoors and are homes at home and one person.

Varachovich said the rulemaking went through many modifications and stalls when the board then screened hours of testimony, dozens of studies and hundreds of comments.

Opponents say the rules are driven by insurers trying to limit their exposure and do not consider studies that show the spread of urban fires in house-to-house rather than plants to houses, many irrigated trees and other plants can actually protect the structure from fires. Indeed, Varachovich noted that insurance company lobbyists and researchers often contribute to the proposal’s testimony, strongly advocated the cancellation of all combustible materials near the house.

In addition, as their houses are often close to small plots, with the landscape wells of trees and other buildings and buildings in five-foot buildings and buildings, their houses are often built together on small plots, such as communities in very high fire-hard areas such as Silver Lake, Beachwood Canyon and Eagle Rock can cause huge greening losses.

“They are talking about destroying our city canopy, hundreds of acres of trees,” said Cyndi Hubach, a member of the City of Los Angeles Community Forest Advisory Committee. Hubach, who lives in Silver Lake, wrote the CFAC report for the council, outlining the issues with the proposed regulations and changes the organization believes should be made.

Basically, the report (approved by the CFAC on September 4) believes that reducing irrigation around homes, healthy vegetation will bring more problems than eliminating shadows, increasing the risk of erosion and destroying habitats. The report recommends that the statute departs from the “crystalline approach”, allows for appeal proceedings and exempts “healthy, hydrated and well-maintained vegetation… unlikely to be ignited by the rest”, as well as protected local trees and shrubs, historic and heritage trees, and living on municipal streets, if well-maintained, living on municipal streets.

Hubach said the state has made a bad attitude towards the news about these regulations. “Most people don’t know it’s their way when they find out [the proposed rules]they don’t think it will make them safer. They think it will make their community hotter, dry, ugly and less secure. ”

Opposition has swelled around Southern California as news spreads this summer about proposed regulations. In a recent online speech, environmental scientist and former president of the Audubon Society in Los Angeles, Travis Longcore conducted a detailed online analysis of the proposed regulations.

Longcore agreed with Valachovic’s point of view in his speech that some parts of the proposed regulations made sense, such as removing wooden fences that were linked to buildings, pine needles and leaves on roofs. “However, if it is impossible to be ignited by embers, we should continue to ask that healthy living vegetation be allowed, so it will not mix with plants that accumulate dead wood such as juniper and cypress, which will always accumulate dead things.”

Longcore also said it is unclear how the proposed regulations are implemented and what fines will be imposed on those who do not comply.

Former state fire marshal Ruben Grijalva has similar concerns about law enforcement given the inspectors have surpassed it. Grijalva opposes what he calls the “cookie-cutter approach” of the proposed regulations because they do not recognize the differences between the houses built before 2008 and those built behind. Newer homes must comply with changes he implemented in Chapter 7A of California Building Code, including the need for ignition materials for roofs and decks, double pane glass for windows and vents that extinguish the ash.

Grijalva is currently working with large developers to make the master-planned community as resistant to fires as possible with thousands of homes, such as Rancho Mission Viejo on the hill above San Juan Capistrano, while also including the aesthetic and cooling benefits of trees like oaks and green baseballs.

Members of the State Forestry and Fire District District 0 Advisory Committee will also speak at the Information Town Hall meeting held at the Ventura County Fire Headquarters in Newbury Park from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. on September 17. Visitors were asked to join the RSVP with the organizer of the event, Ventura County Supervisor Jeff Gorell.

Marcie Yates, the board’s land use planning plan manager, said the next day, September 18, anyone can listen to a public meeting of the Forestry and Fire Protection Commission, but public comments may be limited to those who appear in person, because of the huge number of people expected to be published.

This is the committee’s first public meeting in Southern California, and may be the last, as it plans to discuss the comments it has received during a regular meeting in Sacramento on September 22, and then decide whether to further adjust the proposed rules or forward them to the entire board of directors.