Sacramento officials came to Southern California this week for the first public meeting since issuing new proposed rules on how people in fire-prone neighborhoods will be allowed to landscape their yards.
Unlike previous proposals from the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, many who attended were… on board with this one.
“It's a reasonable compromise,” said Beth Burnam, who holds leadership positions at multiple locations environmental and fire safety organizationshe told the board. “Do I like it all? No. Can I live with it? Yes.”
Under the proposal, residents would not be allowed to plant anything within a 1-foot “Safety Zone” around the home, including under the roof eaves; two feet of windows, vents and doors and five feet of covers. Elsewhere within a 5-foot buffer zone around the home, known as “Ground Zero,” scattered grass and plants up to 18 inches tall would be permitted.
Trees would also be allowed, but they would have to be trimmed away from walls and roofs, and residents would only be able to install noncombustible fences against the house. Any shed in the area would need a non-combustible exterior.
The response has been far from the blue “HANDS OFF OUR YARDS!” signs that mushroomed in Los Angeles' foothill neighborhoods last year as the board began developing the rules in earnest.
Ground Zero is just one layer of a home's fire defenses. In fire-prone areas, Cal Fire and local fire departments already enforce defensible space rules, and building codes require home reinforcement, such as covering vents with mesh to prevent embers from entering the home. The more measures residents stack up, the safer the house will be.
Once the state finalizes Ground Zero rules, they could go into effect on July 7. Residents will have up to five years to comply with stricter Safety Zone requirements and larger lifts, such as upgrading sheds. They will have three years to meet the plant spacing requirements for the rest of Ground Zero. New construction must comply immediately.
The most intense topic of debate has been whether plants should be allowed if they are well watered. Many firefighters have argued that residents should remove all plants, because anything that can burn will burn. Some environmentalists argue that residents should be able to conserve green plants, which they say don't pose much of a fire threat and provide a host of benefits, including bolstering the urban ecosystem.
This proposal was a compromise. It provides additional fire protection through strict plant bans near the house, but flexibility for landscaping elsewhere at Ground Zero.
Those not yet enamored of the state proposal have found solace in a section that allows local governments to create their own version of Ground Zero, as long as it is at least as fire-protective as the state rules.
James Gillespie, Newport Beach fire chief and president of the fire chiefs' chapter of the California Fire Chiefs Association, said he hoped local variations would encourage cities to adopt a stricter, more protective 5-foot barrier without vegetation, something Berkeley has already done.
The city of Los Angeles is in the process of creating its own Ground Zero regulations. Some Angelenos, like David Lefkowith, president of the Mandeville Canyon Association, hope there will be greater acceptance of native fire-resistant species and an emphasis on less costly measures to strengthen homes.
However, some concerns remain. After months of residents asking the board to provide cost estimates to homeowners, it finally did. Officials insist that some requirements will cost nothing. They said the combined requirements, with shed improvements and significant landscaping, could cost more than $4,500 for some homeowners.
These estimates, which one attendee described as “pretty,” drew audible jeers in the room.
One online commenter said he had been quoted about $13,000 to comply with the strictest version of Berkeley's Ground Zero.
Lefkowith encouraged the board to conduct a deeper cost analysis, based on real-world data from early adopters. For others, seeing the estimate for the first time raised questions about how the state will help homeowners comply.
Tony Andersen, the board's executive director, said the board will do “everything we can to make this affordable” and will work with state agencies and fire safety organizations during the five-year adoption period to develop a “one-stop shop” for people to find financial support and local organizations that can help them navigate the rules and complete the work.
In the end, it may not be these rules that govern the decisions of many Californians in fire-prone areas, because insurance companies set their own requirements. They can require homeowners to remove many more plants and other flammable materials to qualify for lower rates or any type of insurance. The insurance professionals at the meeting in Calabasas said as much.
“It's about insurability,” Laura Blaul, senior wildfire investigator for the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, told the board. Blaul pointed to fire survivors in Los Angeles County who are already choosing the strictest protection: “Homeowners are not just rebuilding to be safer; they are rebuilding to remain insurable.”
