Many houses in the proposed Grizzly Peak Mitigation Area (“Zone 4”) received yesterday a flyer that was dense with extreme disinformation about EMBER.
Discussion about an important local measure is always valuable because it gets us all to understand better the issues underlying it. But it must be discussion based on facts, not on misinformation or, even worse, disinformation, which, in this specific case, is particularly willful and flagrant, since these statements have already been discussed and proven wrong multiple times on NextDoor threads.
So here are the actual facts on the issues discussed in the flier:
-
EMBER is based on established wildfire science that has met with general consensus from the whole field of wildfire science, from Jack Cohen, who came up, in the 1990s, with the concept of Home Ignition Zone (the idea of zone 0 and zone 1), to Michael Gollner, director of the Fire Research Lab at UC Berkeley, who recently sent comments to the CA Board of Forestry supporting the enforcement of a strict zone 0.
-
The firefighting community is unanimous in supporting strict enforcement of Zone 0, as shown by every single firefighter who spoke at the CA Board of Forestry May 12 Zone 0 workshop. In fact, the most advanced wildfire fighting county, Ventura County, was lobbying for harder standards going beyond zone 0.
-
The Sierra Club of Northern Alameda County, i.e. the ultimate steward of the land, has endorsed the EMBER initiative.
Now for what the flyer says—every single paragraph (!!) of EMBER description is dis/misinformation:
-
“No plants within 5 ft of entire home:” FALSE. All mature trees can be kept if their foliage can be kept 5 ft away from the walls when low, or 10 ft above the roof. We have conducted, so far, advisory defensible zone assessments to provide advice to homeowners in 58 different properties: it is only in a small minority that we encountered trees that needed to be removed, generally because they were trapped between two houses.
-
“Targeting 9,000 homes:” FALSE. EMBER is solely focused on the 900 homes that are on Grizzly Peak and east. While state law will eventually require the 1,800 homes in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to enforce Zone 0 requirements, any extension, if it happens, would have to be voted on by the city council.
-
“Huge financial burden solely on homeowners: estimate of $100,000 for one home on Buena Vista Way” FALSE and a deliberate, fully debunked lie. The woman who claims that it would cost her $100,000 to enforce EMBER is actually including home hardening (not included in EMBER requirements) and re-landscaping in her estimate, and we have no idea of what her actual costs of enforcing EMBER are… For instance, she wrote that “we would need to redo our deck” …" to maintain any of our garden and privacy , shade and use of our deck and our back yard" and that “this included vents, hardscaping, LOTS of major vegetation removal, replacing lots of wood fences within five feet of our home” [but only 5 ft of wood fence ATTACHED to the house need to be replaced]. Later she actually admits that “not all these costs will be required by the city ordinance.” As a comparison, The city believes the costs will average $3,000-$5,000, and, in the defensible space assessments conducted on the Ridge so far, we found that for over half of them, the homeowner herself could do all or almost all the work, or have it done for a small amount of money (although there were a few, probably 4-5, where the amount of work was significant). The alternative, of course, is the complete loss of our homes.
-
“Only 60 days to comply then fines and house liens:” FALSE. There will be a year or more to comply BEFORE the first inspection; afterwards the process will be the same as today for violations. In 3 years of inspections, how many of us have actually had to pay a fine, let alone had a lien on their home for a violation?
-
“No exceptions:” FALSE. Any resident may ask for a “modification” under the existing Berkeley fire code if they can show that they can reach the same result as the ordinance in another manner. Any resident may also put together a “fire plan” and ask for approval from BFD if they would like to phase their modifications over several years, for financial or feasibility reasons.
-
“Studies show home hardening saves homes, not plant removal:” FALSE and a blatant falsehood that has already been debunked multiple times on NextDoor. Numerous and repeated studies, and the unanimous opinions of California firefighters, point at defensible space AND home hardening as being both required. For instance, this 2021 study shows that wood roofs and noncompliance with defensible space [i.e. zones 0, 1 and 2] contributed equally to the loss of homes in the Paradise fire, and this 2018 study shows that zone 0 makes it possible to greatly decrease home ignitions. In CA it is not possible to enforce home hardening in any other way than in the building code (i.e. when you get permits), and BFD can only recommend, but not require, that you do the home hardening, which it has already done for many years.
-
“No environmental impact study:” NOT REQUIRED. The law specifically exempts fire abatement within up to 100 ft of a home from the need of an EIR, which is the traditional weapon of those who don’t want a project to happen, because it is typically very costly (often in the range of $1M) and takes several years.
-
“Rushed and hushed:” FALSE. EMBER itself has been in preparation for a long time. There have been numerous public presentations and workshops. The city recently postponed the final vote on it by 6 weeks for the specific purpose of making sure that everyone is informed. Much more importantly, the science has been in place for many years, since the 1990s, and a consortium of insurance companies (IBHS) has been pushing for zone 0 since 2011: that is 14 years. The state has had zone 0 regulation proposals since 2020 but still has not provided final regulations: how much of a difference could it have made to Altadena and Pacific Palisades? And btw, the present state proposal for zone 0 exactly mirrors EMBER: Defensible Space- Zones 0, 1 & 2
It is not easy to deal with change, and we all wish that it were not necessary to deal with the wildfire danger that we are now facing. But we should not blind ourselves to the reality around us. If we want to survive the next wildfire, we must make our neighborhood defensible. The seven leaders of the Firewise groups on the Berkeley Ridge have all endorsed EMBER and requested that the city not delay its adoption any further. We urge you to look at the facts and follow the science.
Do attend the May 27 workshop at 6:00pm, and the City Council vote on June 17. Make your voice heard.