(To be adapted and personalized — not copied verbatim). It would be a big bonus if you can send your letter by end of day Dec 5.
Beyond the basic elements of the letter below, you may want to also mention specific items that we proposed for edits, if you feel that they are particularly important to you.
[Your Full Name]
[Your Street Address], [City, State, ZIP]
[Email Address], [Phone Number]
[Date]
CAL FIRE Zone 0 Advisory Committee
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
Sent via: PublicComments@bof.ca.gov
Re: Support for Strong, Enforceable Zone 0 Regulations
Dear Members of the Zone 0 Advisory Committee,
I am writing to express support for strong, science-based Zone 0 regulations and to comment on the proposed vegetation and tree options currently under review.
After following the Committee’s work and reviewing the materials presented at the October and November meetings, I believe the most effective path forward is:
• Vegetation Options 1 or 2, and Tree Option 1.
These options best reflect the testimony from wildfire scientists, firefighters, and defensible-space practitioners.
• If Vegetation Option 2 is adopted, it must be enforceable.
Option 2 can only succeed if fire departments are able to enforce it consistently. To ensure enforceability, the final version should include:
– Objective, plainly stated criteria that do not rely on subjective judgments such as “healthy vegetation” or “properly maintained plants,” include, in some form, the type of ground cover, for instance in the form of a list, and precluding ground cover that needs constant maintenance such as mowing.
– Clear, measurable spacing or condition requirements so inspectors can issue determinations uniformly across properties, that include at least a minimum protective strip virgin of any vegetation growth around the structure, and possibly a maximum amount of acreage as a percentage of the Zone 0 area.
– An explicit statement that fire departments have the authority to selectively allow Option 2 property by property, in case the resident has proven unable to maintain wildfire-resistant landscape.
Without these elements, Option 2 risks becoming a standard that cannot be applied in the field.
• New construction or replacement of combustible fences should no longer be allowed within Zone 0.
Allowing new combustible fences undermines the purpose of the ember-resistant zone and contradicts the Committee’s own stated concerns. Replacement sections of existing combustible fences should not be allowed.
I appreciate the significant time, analysis, and public engagement the Committee has invested in this process. I urge the Board of Forestry to adopt regulations that are clear, science-based, and enforceable in the field, and that support both resident safety and long-term insurability.
Thank you for your work on behalf of Californians in the WUI.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Optional: Affiliation]