CalFire Zone 0 Advisory Committee August 18, 2025 Workshop Notes

Wildfire defense ⊃ EMBER
1

CalFire Zone 0 Advisory Committee August 18, 2025 Workshop Notes

Summary: Our first efforts were successful

Our organization efforts were successful—it remains to be seen, however, if our positions will influence the Committee:

  • we had the support of every FireSafe organization in the East Bay and some in the North Bay, and representation from many Firewise groups
  • we represented half of the in-person audience
  • we had another equivalent amount of commenters online
  • we believe that several fire Chiefs, as well as other participants, were in attendance because of our outreach efforts
  • our individual presentations were all focused on different aspects, and likely reached different Commissioners thanks to their diversity

We will share the outcome with the wildfire groups we have connected with, and hope to continue networking successfully on the subject.

Meeting introduction and brief summary

The hearing was convened by the Board of Forestry to receive public comment on the proposed Zone 0 regulations. The Commissioners are Chair Terrence O’Brien (mostly Environment background), J. Lopez (retired Fire Chief, Forestry Division), and Elicia Goldsworthy (with a forestry background, she works for a logging company in their regulatory affairs department—-i.e. apparently lobbyist). The meeting took place in a relatively small windowless room, in an architecturally striking building housing the California Natural Resources Agency.

The morning session began with procedural remarks noting prior committee discussions and the upcoming site visit to Southern California. The meeting quickly moved into public testimony (with no presentations for once) which spanned both the morning and afternoon. The Committee secretary mentioned that 2,000 comments had been received prior to the meeting. The Commissioners asked many questions of presenters, in particular when in person, and mentioned several times how thankful they were for the hands-on experience reported with Zone 0, and how they would listen to everyone’s point of view.

The next meeting will be in SoCal on Sep 18, after which a following meeting will occur in Sacramento on Sep 22. The location of the LA meeting will be posted 10 days prior on the website. Short note about future changes: Commissioners mentioned that (a) planned communities (planned with very little space) and (b) public spaces like the Getty may need special treatment.

What emerged was a clear divide: fire professionals, Firewise/FireSafe leaders, and community safety advocates (typically from non-profits) spoke strongly in support of Zone 0 as essential for protecting homes and lives, while a group of homeowners and landscape architects (clearly coordinated) voiced concern about costs, feasibility, and unintended impacts on vegetation and property rights.

Comments in Favor

Supporters of Zone 0 consistently emphasized that the first five feet around a home is the most critical ignition zone, citing clear science and lived experience that embers landing in this area are the primary cause of structure loss. They framed Zone 0 as a common-sense, life-safety baseline that provides homeowners with clarity and consistency, complements home hardening, and directly improves community resilience. Many highlighted the growing insurance crisis, stressing that adoption of Zone 0 is not only a safety measure but also essential for preserving insurability, reducing reliance on the FAIR Plan, and encouraging carriers to return. Several emphasized the equity dimension, noting that the greatest burden falls on vulnerable communities when homes are lost or when insurance becomes unobtainable. Fire professionals, Firewise leaders, and wildfire survivors strongly endorsed the regulation as a tool that reduces risk, sets a cultural expectation of adaptation, and empowers communities with a simple set of rules.

Who they are:

Fire Marshals and firefighters (e.g., Trevor Smith, Sonoma Valley Fire District, James Gillespie Fire Marshal City of Newport Beach)

  • Firewise and Firesafe coordinators from different regions in California

  • Leaders and staff of wildfire-related non-profits

  • Homeowners with direct fire experience or loss

  • Volunteer search-and-rescue personnel

  • Leaders of recovery projects and HOAs (e.g., Scripps Ranch, San Diego)

  • Representatives from highly fire-prone counties (Nevada County, Dixie/Calder fire survivors)

  • Inspectors and municipal staff delivering fire-prevention programs

Key points raised:

Firefighters

  • A need for strict criteria for Zone 0: a theme that came back over and over among firefighters.

  • Zone 1 for firefighter safety: the point was made directly or indirectly by several presenters, among both firefighters and others.

  • Consistency: Firefighters (as well as other speakers) stressed that fuels and ember behavior are the same statewide, and consistent standards are critical to public safety.

  • Effectiveness & Evidence: Firefighters (as well as other speakers) pointed to direct observations and widely recognized published science showing that Zone 0 principles work. Homes with defensible space and 5-foot clearances survived while neighbors burned.

  • Zone 0 and the firefighting process: Both firefighters and one of the commission members described how they first approach a home on fire. The Commissioner, in particular, had a very clear process—- assess ability to defend, if they stay, they first clear Zone 0 and establish a defensive perimeter. If unsafe/too difficult to clear, let it burn and go to the next home. One told story of fighting a fire and how it spread through wooden fencing. Showed video. Commissioners requested copies.

  • Push back on fences: firefighters as well as other speakers pushed back on combustible fence exceptions in Zone 0, sometimes supporting fence removal even further away than Zone 0.

  • Risk inherent to reliance on irrigation: several presenters including fire fighters and others (and one Commissioner as well) mentioned the risk of relying on irrigation and irrigated vegetation, for instance technical problems, absence of property owner, and water use restrictions.

  • Education & Culture: Homeowners underestimate ember storms and escape risks. Zone 0 both educates and helps normalize fire-adapted landscaping.

IBHS Representative

  • Scientific validation: Exhaustive peer-reviewed evidence for Zone 0.

  • Commission’s questions: Responded to multiple Commissioner questions on artificial turf (currently included in State regs/not in IBHS) and other differences between the regulations: single specimen tree in Zone 0, parallel fences within Zone 0 and wooden fences in general. His conclusion: IBHS supports the last current plead.

Other supporters

  • Insurance Imperative: Many framed Zone 0 as indispensable for keeping private insurance viable. One San Diego homeowner described spending ~$7,700 on compliance and receiving an $1,800 insurance discount, a 3.5-year payback. Some mentioned the need to line up State Zone 0 mandates with IBHS regulations.

  • Practical experience of Zone 0: many described their practical experience of developing Zone 0, and pointed out that it was very doable and not unduly expensive. Several mentioned good aesthetics after re-landscaping. Several mentioned actual costs. One Firewise leader, based on defensible space assessments of over 100 homes in the WUI, gave some statistics on zone 0 difficulty:

    • 102 houses of 104 would have a fairly straightforward process without undue difficulty or cost
    • Only one house out of 104 had an issue of front or backyard depth with the 5 ft mandate (issues were concentrated on lateral space between two houses)

  • Trees can stay in Zone 0: Several presenters pointed out that trees are, in general, able to stay in Zone 0, and that Zone 0 does not involve the clearing that is feared by opponents. The Commissioners made sure to ask IBHS about the support for this part. One non-profit representative supported the single specimen compromise. A Firewise leader mentioned that, in a study of 62 houses, only 5% of trees in Zone 0 would get removed.

  • Keep strict criteria at the State level (Operational Needs): Firewise leaders described their role as “good cops” needing the state to be the “bad cop” — needing clear, enforceable rules to help them overcome neighbor reluctance. Several presenters discussed the need for the State to spare local jurisdictions local fights by giving them a strong set of Zone 0 criteria. One asked: “have a spine.”

  • Equity Lens: Several emphasized that the costs of wildfire loss and insurance retreat hit lower-income and vulnerable residents the hardest; proactive standards help spread responsibility fairly.

  • Moral Obligation: Inspectors and council members argued that aesthetics and comfort cannot outweigh the reality of wildfire risk.

Tone: Supporters grounded their arguments in lived fire experience, scientific consensus, and practical examples. Many were already implementing Zone 0 and saw benefits in safety, insurance, and community resilience.

Comments in Opposition / Concern

Opponents of Zone 0 focused on practicality, cost, and personal autonomy. Many argued that the five-foot clearance standard is overly rigid, disruptive to established landscapes, and detrimental to property aesthetics or value. Several stressed the disproportionate burden on seniors, fixed-income homeowners, and those with steep or heavily vegetated lots, where retrofitting is especially costly or complex. Others expressed concern about ecological consequences, including loss of biodiversity, erosion, and heat buildup from hardscape replacements. A recurring theme was skepticism toward a uniform statewide mandate, with calls for flexibility, local tailoring, and greater recognition of existing homeowner stewardship.

Who they are:

  • Individual homeowners (Berkeley Hills, Los Angeles, Oakland)

  • Landscape architects

  • Other miscellaneous

Key points raised:

  • Cost Burden: Highlighted recurring expenses (e.g., $2–3k every other year for tree trimming), with disproportionate impacts on older adults and those with challenging topography.

  • Flexibility & Enforcement: Criticism of rigid rules with limited allowance for local adaptation. Concerns about harsh penalties for minor violations (e.g., succulents).

  • Environmental Impacts: Worries that vegetation removal would worsen erosion and runoff on steep slopes (e.g., Berkeley Hills), reduce canopy in hot urban areas, and harm biodiversity.

  • Protective value of irrigated vegetation: several presenters, in particular landscape architects, mentioned the protective value of irrigated vegetation against embers [note: there is no scientific study supporting this point at this time]

  • Loss of shade: some fear that Zone 0 requires massive clearing of al vegetation in Zone 0 including trees, and that it will leave them without shade or all the positive effects of large trees in a lot, such as cooling effect, birds and insects etc.

  • Pushback on fences and artificial turf: several presenters mentioned being opposed to both in Zone 0.

  • Preordained outcome/ conspiracy: some felt that the whole process was controlled by insurance companies focused on profit, and that the outcome of the workshop was preordained. The Committee Chair strongly disagreed.

  • Scientific Disputes: Some accused the regulations of leaning on “insurance-driven science” while overlooking alternative findings that irrigated vegetation can reduce ignition. Some asked that the Commission follow the science that documents the protective effects of irrigated vegetation [but this peer-reviewed science does not exist today].

  • Administrative & Legal Issues: Raised issues around the lack of CEQA review (e.g., Berkeley) and insufficient appeals processes for homeowners.

  • Los Angeles Perspective: The LA Community Forest Advisory Committee chair argued that Zone 0 undervalues biodiversity, invasive species dynamics, and canopy needs in hotter Southern California climates. The mayor of Agoura Hills was concerned about the Zone 0 concept, although her discourse appeared to show little understanding of wildfire concepts.

Tone: Opposition testimony was more fragmented than support, often rooted in individual hardship, local ecological context, or mistrust of regulatory institutions. While some spoke from technical or advisory roles, many framed Zone 0 as regulatory overreach with unintended consequences.

Patterns & Observations

  1. Supporters were overwhelmingly fire professionals and wildfire-related community leaders with direct, hands-on experience — either fighting fires or working with communities on risk reduction. Their arguments were pragmatic and strikingly consistent across geographies.

  2. Opposition largely came from homeowners and landscape architects. Their concerns centered on cost burdens, vegetation management, and fairness in enforcement.

  3. Insurance pressure emerged as a unifying theme. Both sides cited coverage loss or forced reliance on high-cost FAIR/non-admitted plans. Supporters framed Zone 0 as a pathway to restoring insurance access; opponents saw it as compounding financial hardship. At least one Commissioner felt that one outcome of the regulations should be to make homes more insurable.

  4. A gap in understanding of the implications of Zone 0 for trees and shade: supporters point at the fact that trees, and their benefits, can remain in Zone 0, while opponents assume that all will need to be removed.

  5. Some misunderstanding of existing science: Existing science, as it stands today, widely supports the efficiency of Zone 0. There is today no peer-reviewed science that supports the value of irrigated vegetation to intercept embers or protect homes in specific circumstances [although this does not mean that some could not exist in the future]. .Supporters rely on existing science, while opponents appear to rely on social-media-reported science that is actually not supported or paper-reviewed.

  6. Some common ground against fences and artificial turf: A number of both supporters and opponents pushed back on exceptions for combustible fences and artificial turf.

  7. Geographic divides were evident. Northern California testimony stressed ember risk and referenced catastrophic fires (Dixie, Tunnel, etc.), while Los Angeles voices highlighted biodiversity, urban canopy, and heat-island effects. This divergence partly reflects the hearing’s location and the Bay Area’s mobilized campaign to demonstrate support for the Board of Forestry.

A credibility gap was notable. Pro–Zone 0 testimony consistently came from those with operational knowledge (fire marshals, inspectors, wildfire-related non-profits, recovery groups), whereas opposition leaned more heavily on anecdotal claims or selective science, with less cohesion across speakers.