Submitted on 12/1/2025 to the CalFire Zone 0 Committee by HelpBerkeley.org and its partners
Model support letter to the Committee: Model letter to the CalFire Zone 0 Committee: Dec 8 meeting - Berkeley Firewise
Executive Summary
- Key inconsistencies: The current text of §1299 contains internal contradictions—some inherited, some introduced by new Zone 0 language—that make Zone 2 stricter than Zone 1 and leave Outbuildings ambiguously regulated.
- Legal basis: AB 3074, SB 504, and AB 1455 collectively authorize the BoF to update Zone 1 and, in some cases, Zone 2 to align with GC §51182’s need for clear, enforceable defensible-space requirements.
- Minimal changes required: A small set of clarifying revisions—primarily definitional alignments and cross-sections edits—can correct the contradictions without reopening broad policy questions.
Why This Matters
The inconsistencies between Zones 1 and 2 aren’t academic—they directly undermine effectiveness, enforceability and public compliance. Zone 1, more significant than Zone 2, does not carry the additional requirements of Zone 2 that would make it much more effective in wildfire mitigation. Inspectors cannot apply the regulations uniformly if Zone 2 is, on paper, stricter than Zone 1, and homeowners will quickly lose trust in a rule set that appears internally contradictory. These gaps will translate into uneven enforcement, disputes in the field, and legal and administrative appeals, especially once Zone 0 requirements begin increasing inspection volume statewide. Correcting these issues now ensures that, when the Board of Forestry (“BoF”) adopts its Zone 0 package, the rest of the defensible-space framework functions coherently, predictably, and in alignment with statutory intent.
Summary of Findings
- We discuss severe and dangerous inconsistencies in the existing language of §1299, some pre-existing, and some amplified by the new Zone 0 language.
- We carefully analyze the purview of the BoF based on AB3074, SB504 and AB1455.
- We conclude that the BoF can definitely update the regulations for Zone 1, and in some circumstances update the language for Zone 2.
- We propose a simple fix for the most egregious consistency issue, which today makes Zone 2 more restrictive than Zone 1, without changing Zone 2 language.
- We propose a simple fix for Outbuildings in Zone 1, without changing Zone 2 language.
- We propose a simple change to the requirements of Outbuildings in Zone 2.
1. Problem setting: consistency issues within §1299 in the CA Fire Code
1.1. Rationale
Over the course of 2025, while submitting Zone 0–related language proposals to the CalFire Zone 0 Committee representing the Board of Forestry (“BoF”), we identified a few severe internal inconsistencies in the existing text of §1299 — most of them predating Zone 0 entirely.
Historically these contradictions remained invisible because §1299 has never been significantly enforced statewide. But with the introduction of Zone 0 and the expected surge in inspections, §1299 will soon operate as an integrated framework, and these contradictions will convert directly into:
- Ineffectiveness of the final regulations in wildfire-critical Zone 1
- Contradictory defensible-space obligations
- Uneven enforcement across jurisdictions
- Disputes between inspectors and homeowners
- Increased likelihood of appeals and administrative delays
Because Zone 0 interacts structurally with Zones 1 and 2, the introduction of Zone 0 amplifies these inconsistencies and will make them operationally unmanageable unless corrected now.
1.2. Context
Below is a brief list of the most critical conflicts discovered in §1299 as written in the current plead:
1.2.1. Misplaced horizontal/vertical spacing requirement
A decades-old editing error placed the requirement to “create horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees…” under “Zone 2 Requirements” instead of “For both Zone 1 and 2.” This yields an impossible framework in which:
- Zone 2 is stricter than Zone 1,
- Zone 1 essentially only requires removing dead/dying material, and
- Zone 1 has no spacing requirement at all, despite statutory language (PRC §4291 and GC §51182) clearly stating that 5–30 ft should receive more intensive fuel treatment than 30–100 ft.
This is the single largest structural contradiction in §1299.
1.2.2. Outbuildings are treated more harshly than buildings
Outbuildings are treated like LPG storage tanks, and currently require:
“ten feet of clearance to bare mineral soil and no flammable vegetation for an additional ten feet around their exterior”
This is effectively a mandatory 20-foot Zone 0 applied to Outbuildings but not to homes — a rule that made sense in 1960s rural WUI but is wildly incompatible with modern, dense WUI development.
1.2.3. New Zone 0 edits worsen the contradiction
The proposed allowance for non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 0 creates a scenario where:
- non-Combustible Outbuildings are allowed in the most restrictive zone, even though they may violently blow open during heat exposure
- but Outbuildings, Combustible or not, must maintain a 20-foot clearance in Zones 1 and 2, even when a property has no room for such spacing
This produces a regulatory structure that is both illogical and operationally unenforceable.
Worse: now that new language authorizes non-Combustible Outbuildings within Zone 0, the existing regulation, as it is written, directly contradicts legislative language in AB3074 (2020), SB504 (2024), and AB1455 (2025), which expects progressively stricter fuel reduction rules when going from Zone 2 towards Zone 0.
1.3. Authority Question: does the BoF have the authority to edit Zones 1 & 2 regulations?
Yes, in some circumstances — and this is the key point.
As analyzed in depth in sections 2 through 5, the BoF, through the CalFire Zone 0 Committee, does have authority to correct §1299 inconsistencies where:
- For Zone 1 regulations, the change is required to integrate Zone 0 into the defensible-space framework (SB 504, PRC §4291, GC §51182)
- For Zone 1 and 2 regulations, the changes to existing regulations apply to those that, through past errors, directly contradict legislative language (i.e. illegal regulations).
SB 504 explicitly authorizes the BoF to:
“alter the fuel reduction required between 5 and 30 feet to integrate the ember-resistant zone…”
Therefore, when Zone 0 revisions reveal contradictions that must be fixed for the code to operate coherently, in the limited circumstances listed above the BoF is fully within its mandate to correct them.
2. Purview of the Board of Forestry: AB3074 (2020)
2.1. Rationale
AB3074 (2020) established the need for the CalFire Zone 0 Committee. The establishment of Zone 0 inevitably interacts with Zones 1 and 2. It is critical to understand the legal boundaries of its authority to adjust defensible-space regulations beyond the 0–5 ft zone. If the Board of Forestry, represented through the CalFire Zone 0 Committee, believes its authority is limited strictly to Zone 0, it may avoid necessary corrections, leaving Zones 1 and 2 internally inconsistent and unworkable when enforcement ramps up statewide. Clarifying the BoF’s scope ensures the final rulemaking is both legally grounded and practically enforceable.
2.2. Recommendation
The relevant excerpted language within AB3074 (2020) is quoted in full in Appendix 1.
We recommend clearly distinguishing three separate statutory mandates embedded within PRC §4291 / GC §51182:
a. The Zone 0 mandate
—”51182. (a)(1)(A)… more intense fuel reductions being used between 5 and 30 feet around the structure, and an ember-resistant zone being required within 5 feet of the structure, based on regulations promulgated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to consider the elimination of materials in the ember-resistant zone that would likely be ignited by embers”
—”51182. (c)(2) On or before January 1, 2023, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, shall update the guidance document to include suggestions for creating an ember-resistant zone within five feet of a structure based on regulations promulgated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to consider the elimination of materials in the ember-resistant zone”
b. The broader, largely preexisting defensible-space mandate
— “51182. (a)(1)(A)… Fuels shall be maintained and spaced in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure”: this language requires fuel to be maintained and spaced throughout the 100 ft of defensible space
—”51182. (a)(1)(A)… The intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure, with more intense fuel reductions being used between 5 and 30 feet around the structure”
c. The ongoing authority to update statewide fuel-management guidance
— “51182. (c)(1) The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, shall develop, periodically update, and post on its internet website a guidance document on fuels management pursuant to this chapter”
Framed this way, the BoF can confidently assert authority to modify guidance for Zones 1 and 2 whenever necessary to (a) integrate Zone 0 and (b) maintain a coherent framework.
2.3. Statutory Interpretation
The relevant language of GC §51182 (mirroring PRC §4291) provides three key signals:
a. The Zone 0 mandate’s language in §51182(a)(1)(A) and §51182(c)(2)
- requires the BoF to regulate an ember-resistant zone within 5 ft
- but does not limit its authority exclusively to Zone 0.
b. The broader, preexisting defensible-space mandate in §51182(a)(1)(A) establishes clear legislative intent:
- fuels to be maintained and spaced throughout the 100 ft of defensible space, and
- more intense fuel reductions being used in Zone 1.
c. The ongoing authority to update statewide fuel-management guidance in §51182(c)(1) establishes legislative intent:
- The BoF must “develop, periodically update” fuel-management guidance through the entire 0-100ft defensible space
- This mandate is not limited to Zone 0.
2.4. Conclusion
AB3074 (2020) clearly established legislative intent to expect (a) fuels maintained and spaced throughout both Zone 1 and Zone 2, and (b) more intense fuel reductions being used in Zone 1.
While two clauses (§51182(a)(1)(A) and §51182(c)(2)) deal specifically with Zone 0, the broader clause (§51182(c)(1)) clearly authorizes the BoF to update defensible-space guidance for all zones whenever necessary (although it does not extend to regulations).
Therefore, the BoF does have authority to correct inconsistencies in Zones 1 and 2 within the guidance documents as long as those corrections are necessary to properly integrate Zone 0 and maintain a functional, legally coherent framework within guidance documents.
3. Purview of the Board of Forestry: SB504 (2024)
3.1. Rationale
SB504 (2024) explicitly ties Zone 0 to Zone 1. Because Zone 0 cannot function in isolation, SB 504 authorizes changes beyond the 0–5 ft zone, throughout Zone 1. Without this clarity, the BoF risks adopting Zone 0 regulations that cannot be properly integrated into Zone 1 regulations—leading to contradictions, enforcement failures, and public confusion. AB3074 (2020) already established legislative intent for the BoF to update guidance documents throughout the whole defensible space—-SB504 specifically extends the authority of the BoF to Zone 1 regulations.
3.2. Recommendation
The relevant excerpted language within SB504 (2024) is quoted in full in Appendix 2.
We recommend considering that SB 504 provides two forms of authority, which must be read together:
a. Direct authority over Zone 1 regulations
- ““51182 (a)(1)(A)… The regulations may also alter the fuel reduction required between 5 and 30 feet to integrate the ember-resistant zone into the requirements of this section…”
b. Indirect but well-established authority across Zones 0, 1 and 2
- Through §51182(c)(1), the BoF retains ongoing authority to “periodically update” the entire defensible-space guidance, which necessarily includes Zones 1 and 2 whenever updates are needed to maintain coherence.
- Specifically for regulations within Zone 2, two cases should be distinguished
- Where existing regulations in Zone 2 actually contradict legislative language, we consider that BoF’s authority extends to their modification
- Where existing regulations in Zone 2 make the overall defensible space framework ineffective, irrational or incoherent but when they do not contradict the legislation, there is legislative intent for the BoF to take action but no explicit authorization.
3.3 Statutory Interpretation
What the legislators knew when they wrote SB504 (2025)
SB504 was written in 2024-2025, modified and voted in late 2025, and signed in late 2025. This was 4 years after AB3074, which had come with significant public debate, which many of the lawmakers of either chamber who voted in SB504—and certainly those who originated it—participated in, or must have been aware of.
Therefore, the legislators were well aware of the existing state of enforcement of section 51182 of the CA Fire Code and Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code: there is essentially no enforcement today—-one of the reasons for the existence of AB3074.
The legislators were also well aware of the difficulties encountered by the BoF through the CalFire Zone 0 Committee in drafting regulations that integrate the ember-resistant zone into existing regulations applying to the whole of the defensible space: it was largely in response to the missed 2023 deadline required in AB3074 that SB504 was created.
The rationale for the SB504’s change in 51182
AB3074 aimed to correct issues that caused section 51182 to be unenforceable, and to reinforce its efficiency through the addition of a Zone 0. SB504 immediately followed the 2023 implementation deadline missed by the BoF.
The legislators writing SB504 must therefore have taken both issues into account when writing SB504. They clearly expected to provide the BoF with the legislative language that had been missing in AB3074 to make the BoF successful, i.e. the language required to extend its authority to
- (a) make section 51182 enforceable throughout the state
- knowing that the existing regulations were inadequate to the purpose, and
- (b) make it possible to smoothly include Zone 0 into a rational AND coherent framework of regulations for the whole of the defensible space
- Knowing that the BOF had had difficulties generating the appropriate language within the previous scope of authority defined by AB3074.
Our reasonable assumptions
Since Zone 0 is only proximal to Zone 1 (and not to Zone 2), the legislators clearly assumed that the integration of Zone 0 regulations would only impact Zone 1 regulations—-which is why they extended the BoF’s authority with respect to regulations throughout Zone 1.
However, because of the analysis in section 1 of the present document, we now realize that the impact of Zone 0 regulations goes all the way to Zone 2.
Reasonable inferences on legislative intent
-
There is no doubt that the legislative intent of both AB3074 and SB504 was to give the BoF the authority to produce a fully effective, rational and coherent set of regulations for the full defensible space from 0 to 100 ft: that was the goal for both bills. It was the original goal of AB3074, and, in response to the missed 2023 deadline, SB504 tried to provide the authority missing for the BoF to be successful in its mission. In fact, both explicitly gave the BoF authority to modify guidance as needed for the whole defensible space.
-
Therefore, at the very least we can consider that the “integration” of Zone 0 regulations into the overall framework of the defensible space should be construed as widely as necessary, as long as it remains within Zone 0 and Zone 1, where the authority of the BoF is explicit as far as regulations are concerned.
-
In particular, it should be clear, at this stage, that producing a set of ineffective, incoherent, irrational or unenforceable regulations for Zone 0 and Zone 1 would go against the legislative intent of AB3074 and SB504.
Where some doubt remains
The authority for the BoF to modify regulations within Zone 2 is not as clear. It is certain that it was the intent of AB3074 and SB504 to give the BoF authority to produce a fully effective, rational and coherent set of regulations for the defensible space from 0 to 100 ft, because the goal of both bills was to produce effective and enforceable defensible space regulations. Yet the authority explicitly given to the BoF over the writing of regulations at this time only extends through Zones 0 and 1.
We consider, then, that two cases should be distinguished:
- When the existing regulations clearly contradict requirements explicitly listed within AB3074, SB504, or AB1455, the BoF should consider that it has the authority to modify faulty Zone 2 regulations: indeed, in no circumstances should the BoF issue what would amount to illegal regulations;
- When the existing Zone 2 regulations result in an ineffective, irrational or incoherent framework when combined with new and/or modified Zone 0 and Zone 1 regulations, the implications are unclear to us. Clearly, though, the legislative intent exists, but this may not be enough.
3.4 Conclusion
SB504 (combined with AB3074) gives the BoF the authority to produce a set of regulations for both Zone 0 and Zone 1 that can enforce the legislative content of both bills. The authority that the BOF has to integrate Zone 0 regulations should be construed broadly to include the requirement to produce a set of effective, rational, coherent and enforceable regulations extending through Zone 0 and Zone 1 within the framework of the full defensible space.
We consider that the ability for the BoF to change existing Zone 2 regulations in order to produce a set of rational, coherent and enforceable regulations extends to changing existing provisions that contradict the existing legislation. It is less clear if the authority of the BoF extends to other provisions within Zone 2 regulations, although it was clearly within the legislative intent to have the BoF produce the best possible set of regulations..
4. Purview of the Board of Forestry: AB1455 (2025)
4.1. Rationale
Because AB1455 (2025) modifies adjacent defensible-space compliance sections and changes the broader defensible-space framework, since the present document argues for clarifying the scope of permissible modifications to Zones 1 and 2, it is important to confirm explicitly that AB1455 does not alter state-level rulemaking authority, and neither limits nor enlarges the BoF’s statutory purview. This avoids misinterpretation and prevents anyone from claiming that AB 1455 somehow restricts the BoF’s ability to fix inconsistencies in §1299.
4.2. Recommendation
The relevant excerpted language within AB1455 (2025) is quoted in full in Appendix 3.
We recommend considering that AB 1455 does not affect the BoF’s authority regarding Zones 0–2. As no other provisions in AB1455 address BoF rulemaking authority, the only remotely relevant item is:
- §51182(f)(1) … a local agency may … consider local variations in local fire hazards, geography, development, and other conditions and authorize alternative practices to those in the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations, if the alternative practices provide for substantially similar practical effects…”
This means AB 1455 should be treated as context, not as a basis for—or constraint on—Zone 0 integration work.
4.3. Statutory Interpretation
AB 1455 does not modify the BoF’s regulatory purview for Zones 0–30 ft. Its only impact is indirect: according to §51182(f)(1), Local agencies may review and self-certify alternative practices to comply with defensible-space requirements.
Key implications:
- This clause concerns local implementation, not state-level rulemaking. It applies to how local agencies manage alternative compliance pathways, not to how the BoF drafts or revises regulations.
- AB 1455 does not change the BoF’s authority to correct inconsistencies in §1299.
4.4. Conclusion
AB 1455 introduces implementation mechanisms but does not change the BoF’s authority with respect to regulations and guidance documents. The BoF’s ability to refine Zones 1 and 2 to integrate Zone 0 continues to rest exclusively on AB 3074 and SB 504, within 51182 (a)(1)(A) and §51182(c)(1).
5. Conclusion drawn on the purview of the BoF
5.1. Rationale
It would be difficult to consider the final regulations a success if they result in an ineffective, irrational, incoherent or unenforceable framework: this cannot have been the legislative intent for any of the bills that are a part of the legislative background for the modifications of §1299 of the CA Fire Code.
The BoF cannot finalize coherent Zone 0 regulations if the surrounding framework in Zones 1 and 2 remains contradictory or internally inconsistent. SB 504 explicitly authorizes integrating Zone 0 and Zone 1 regulations together, and §51182(c)(1) within the language produced by AB3074 authorizes as-needed updates to fuels-management guidance across all zones. This creates a narrow but meaningful opportunity: the BoF can resolve the most problematic inconsistencies now, ensuring that Zone 0 works within a functional, enforceable defensible-space system.
5.2. Recommendation
We recommend the BoF formally assert—and use—its authority to:
-
Make targeted updates to Zone 1 regulations where needed to integrate Zone 0, correct contradictions, and produce a set of coherent, rational and enforceable regulations for Zone 0 and Zone 1 within the whole defensible space framework.
-
Make targeted updates to Zone 2 regulations only where existing regulations contradict legislative language.
-
Advance only a minimal, essential set of modifications in Zone 1 and 2 regulation language, limited to corrections that directly support Zone 0 integration, rationalize the defensible space framework, and eliminate long-standing drafting errors.
This ensures the final package is coherent without expanding the rulemaking scope beyond what AB3074, SB 504, §51182(a)(1)(A) and §51182(c)(1) clearly allow.
5.3. Statutory Interpretation
Three statutory pillars establish the BoF’s purview:
- AB3074 and SB504, in §51182(c)(1)
Require the BoF to
“develop, periodically update, and post…a guidance document on fuels management pursuant to this chapter.”
This authority is not limited to Zone 0, meaning updates to Zones 0, 1, and 2 fall within the BoF’s—and thus the Committee’s—permissible scope when necessary to maintain internal consistency. This also indicates legislative intent with respect to the authority the BoF has to administer the full extent of the defensible space from 0 to 100 ft (although it does not give it explicit regulation authority over the same range), and with respect to the maintenance of an effective, rational, coherent and enforceable set of regulations—-otherwise why request the periodic reviews and updates?
- SB 504, in 51182. (a)(1)(A)
Explicitly requests the BoF to issue
“… regulations [that] may also alter the fuel reduction required between 5 and 30 feet to integrate the ember-resistant zone into the requirements of this section…”
This unambiguously covers Zone 1 and allows adjustments necessary to harmonize Zones 0 and 1. Our analysis of legislative intent for SB504 above shows that integration of the Zone 0 with Zone 1 regulations should be broadly understood to produce a set of effective, rational, coherent and enforceable regulations through Zone 0 and Zone 1 within the full defensible space framework.
- Final regulations generated by the BoF may not produce manifestly illegal provisions that directly contradict existing legislative language.
5.4. Conclusion
The Zone 0 Committee is well within its purview to recommend corrections and clarifications affecting
- Zone 1 where those changes stem directly from integrating the new Zone 0 language, resolving pre-existing contradictions in §1299, or producing a set of effective, rational, coherent and enforceable regulations within the full defensible space framework;
- Zone 2 where those changes remove illegal provisions that directly contradict existing legislative language.
6. Allowing fuel separation and spacing in Zone 1
6.1. Rationale
Current statutory language (Gov. Code §51182 and PRC §4291) clearly establishes a hierarchy of increasing restrictiveness: Zone 0 (most restrictive) > Zone 1 > Zone 2 (least restrictive).
However, due to a long-standing editing error—likely introduced between 1964 and the early 2000s—the existing §1299 text imposes more stringent fuel-separation and spacing requirements in Zone 2 than in Zone 1.
Specifically, Zone 2 alone requires mandatory horizontal and vertical fuel separation among shrubs and trees.
Neither of these appear in the Zone 1 section, even though
- state law explicitly expects that Zone 1 fuel treatments be more restrictive than Zone 2
- We can testify from the experience of more than 120 property inspections that this requirement is the most onerous, and critical, of all requirements for Zone 1 or 2
This inconsistency:
- Contradicts legislative language that expects fuels to be maintained and spaced, and more stringent fuel reduction in Zone 1
- Creates an ineffective, irrational and incoherent set of rules
- Confuses homeowners
- Causes enforceability conflicts for inspectors
A minimal correction is necessary to restore logical order and legal coherence.
6.2. Recommendation
Reassign the Zone 2 fuel-spacing requirements to apply to both Zones 1 and 2, as the statutory hierarchy intends.
This requires only:
- Moving subsections (1) currently under “Zone 2 Requirements” into the “For both Zones 1 and 2” section.
- Changing the wording from “In this zone…” to “In these zones…”
This correction
- restores the originally intended structure
- Does not alter Zone 2 regulations
- allows integration of Zone 0 requirements [per 51182. (a)(1)(A)]
- within a progressively more restrictive framework [per 51182. (a)(1)(A)]
- And ensures that fuels within Zone 1 are maintained and spaced [per 51182. (a)(1)(A).]
6.3. Proposed Regulatory Text
/—
Move the following text (currently under “Zone 2 Requirements”) into the “For both Zones 1 and 2” section:
(1) In these zones, create horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees using the “Fuel Separation” method, the “Continuous Tree Canopy” method, or a combination of both to achieve defensible-space clearance requirements. Further guidance regarding these methods is contained in the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s “General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, February 8, 2006,” incorporated herein by reference, and the “Property Inspection Guide” referenced elsewhere in this regulation.
—/
7. Allowing in some circumstances non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zones 0 and 1
7.1. Rationale
The October Plead introduced, for the first time, an allowance for non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 0, primarily to address very small lots with little usable space beyond Zone 0.
However, testimony before the Committee has repeatedly shown that metal Outbuildings—often used to store firewood or other combustibles—can fail violently under high heat, with doors blowing off and becoming dangerous projectiles.
Allowing such structures broadly in Zone 0, on any property where there is sufficient space in Zone 1 or 2, would therefore:
- Introduce ignition hazards where defensible space should be strongest
- Create risks inconsistent with the intent of Zone 0 rules
- Conflict with GC §51182’s emphasis on eliminating ignition sources near structures
At the same time, homeowners with very small lots do need a practicable option for storing Combustible materials safely.
A narrow, conditional allowance—only where there is no alternative location in Zones 1 or 2—preserves both safety and practicality.
Any such Outbuilding must maintain its own Zone 0 to limit heat exposure and reduce blow-open risk.
These edits fall squarely within the BoF’s purview because:
- They directly modify Zone 0 rules, and
- They introduce only corresponding adjustments in Zone 1 (explicitly authorized under SB 504).
7.2. Recommendation
-
Limit non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 0 to cases where no suitable location exists in Zone 1 or 2, with their own Zone-0 buffer, and only if oriented to avoid projecting debris toward structures.
-
Allow non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 1 under similar constraints, but with their own Zone-0 buffer rather than the full 20-foot clearance otherwise required.
-
Apply these changes without modifying Zone 2 language, keeping them tightly scoped to the Zone 0 expansion and Zone 1 adjustments authorized by statute.
This approach fits squarely within the BoF’s authority under §51182(a)(1)(A) [via SB504]. Indeed, the correction:
- Does not alter Zone 2 regulations
- allows integration of Zone 0 requirements [per 51182. (a)(1)(A)]
- within a progressively more restrictive framework [per 51182. (a)(1)(A)]
- since, otherwise, Zone 0 would be less restrictive than Zone 1
- within a progressively more restrictive framework [per 51182. (a)(1)(A)]
7.3. Proposed Regulatory Text
/—
Zone 0 Outbuildings
From:
“(6) Outbuildings are not permitted in Zone 0 unless they are constructed entirely of non-Combustible materials.”
To:
“(6) Outbuildings are not permitted in Zone 0.
(A) Exception: An Outbuilding constructed entirely of non-Combustible materials is allowed in Zone 0 only if there is no alternative location for such an Outbuilding in Zone 1 or Zone 2, and if it is oriented such that, should its doors blow off during a fire, they would present no danger to adjacent Structures. Non-Combustible Outbuildings located partially or wholly within a Structure’s Zone 0 shall be considered part of the Structure for ember-resistant-zone purposes.”
—/
/—
Zone 1 Outbuildings (Carrying Their Own Zone 0)
From:
“(1) ‘Outbuildings’ and Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) storage tanks shall have the following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance to bare mineral soil and no flammable vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their exterior.”
To:
“(1) ‘Outbuildings’ and LPG storage tanks shall have the following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) to bare mineral soil and no flammable vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their exterior.
(A) Exception: An Outbuilding constructed entirely of non-Combustible materials is allowed in Zone 1 without this minimum clearance if there is no alternative location in Zone 2, and if it is oriented so that, should its access doors blow off during a fire, they would present no danger to adjacent Structures. Such an Outbuilding shall be considered a Building or Structure for ember-resistant-zone purposes.”
—/
8. Softening the requirements for Outbuildings in Zone 2
8.1. Rationale
The current regulatory language treats Outbuildings exactly like LPG tanks in both Zones 1 and 2, effectively requiring a 20-foot vegetation-free buffer. This approach may have made sense decades ago, when parcel configurations and WUI development densities were very different. Today, it creates practical and enforceability problems, especially for non-Combustible Outbuildings. It also produces an inconsistency: the October Plead already allows certain non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 1 under specific conditions—yet does not allow the same treatment in Zone 2, which is illogical and undermines coherent application in the field.
Most importantly for the BoF’s authority to make this change, with the newly introduced language authorizing non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 0, this inconsistency actually directly contradicts existing legislative language, which expects progressively more restrictive fuel reduction when going from zone 2 towards Zone 0. Therefore, it is now an illegal provision and needs to be changed.
8.2. Recommendation
Allow non-Combustible Outbuildings in Zone 2 under the same logic already approved for Zone 1:
- Does not directly contradict legislative language expecting a progressively more restrictive framework going from Zone 2 towards Zone 0
- Maintain safety by conditioning the allowance on door orientation and construction materials,
- Treat qualifying non-Combustible Outbuildings as Structures for Zone 0 purposes, and
- Avoid unnecessary vegetation clearance requirements where risk is already mitigated.
This approach allows the BoF to generate regulations that do not directly contradict legislative language.
8.3. Proposed Regulatory Text
/—
From:
“(1) ‘Outbuildings’ and Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) storage tanks shall have the following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance to bare mineral soil and no flammable vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their exterior.”
To:
“(1) Outbuildings and Liquid Propane Gas (LPG) storage tanks shall have the following minimum clearance: ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance to bare mineral soil and no flammable vegetation for an additional ten feet (10 ft.) around their exterior.
(A) Exception – Zone 1: An Outbuilding constructed entirely of non-Combustible materials is allowed in Zone 1 without the requirement for such minimum clearance if no feasible alternative location exists in Zone 2 and if its access doors, should they fail during a fire, present no danger to adjacent Structures. Such an Outbuilding shall be considered a Building or Structure for purposes of the ember-resistant zone.
(B) Exception – Zone 2: An Outbuilding constructed entirely of non-Combustible materials is allowed in Zone 2 without the requirement for such minimum clearance if its access doors, should they fail during a fire, present no danger to adjacent Structures. Such an Outbuilding shall be considered a Building or Structure for purposes of the ember-resistant zone, except that no Zone 1 shall be required around this Outbuilding.”
—/
Important, please note: the change above was not included in our original proposal titled Zone 0 Rule Plead for Zone0 2025-10-23 Corrected V6, submitted earlier.
8.4. The best way to deal with Outbuildings
In the longer term, we consider that the proper way to treat Outbuildings would be to separate them from Liquid Propane Gas storage tanks altogether, and to have them carry their own separate, though lesser, requirements.
This would require the BoF to modify Zone 2 regulations for the purpose of creating a more efficient and rational framework, but the existing regulation, as written, does not directly contradict existing legislative language.
Therefore, this rewrite would not follow the conclusions of our analysis of SB504, and it is not clear to us that it would be possible for the BoF to do so.
Appendix 1: Relevant language in AB3074 (2020)
The CalFire Zone 0 Committee was set up by AB3074 (signed on Sep. 29, 2020). Here is the language that specifies its purview for section 51182 of the Government Code:
“51182. (a) A person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or occupied structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, shrub-covered land, grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable material, which area or land is within a very high fire hazard severity zone designated by the local agency pursuant to Section 51179, shall at all times do all of the following:
(1) (A) Maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, but not beyond the property line except as provided in subparagraph (B). The amount of fuel modification necessary shall consider the flammability of the structure as affected by building material, building standards, location, and type of vegetation. Fuels shall be maintained and spaced in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure. This subparagraph does not apply to single specimens of trees or other vegetation that are well-pruned and maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from other nearby vegetation to a structure or from a structure to other nearby vegetation or to interrupt the advance of embers toward a structure. The intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure, with more intense fuel reductions being used between 5 and 30 feet around the structure, and an ember-resistant zone being required within 5 feet of the structure, based on regulations promulgated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to consider the elimination of materials in the ember-resistant zone that would likely be ignited by embers. The promulgation of these regulations by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute for this purpose. Consistent with fuels management objectives, steps should be taken to minimize erosion, soil disturbance, and the spread of flammable nonnative grasses and weeds…
(c) (1) The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, shall develop, periodically update, and post on its internet website a guidance document on fuels management pursuant to this chapter. The guidance document shall include, but not be limited to, regionally appropriate vegetation management suggestions that preserve and restore native species that are fire resistant or drought tolerant, or both, minimize erosion, minimize the spread of flammable nonnative grasses and weeds, minimize water consumption, and permit trees and shrubs near homes for shade, aesthetics, and habitat; suggestions for fuel modification beyond the property line in order to maintain 100 feet of defensible space from a structure; and suggestions to minimize or eliminate the risk of flammability of nonvegetative sources of combustion such as woodpiles, propane tanks, decks, and outdoor lawn furniture.
(2) On or before January 1, 2023, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, shall update the guidance document to include suggestions for creating an ember-resistant zone within five feet of a structure based on regulations promulgated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to consider the elimination of materials in the ember-resistant zone that would likely be ignited by embers. The implementation of this paragraph is contingent upon an appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute for this purpose.
(d) For purposes of this section, a structure for the purpose of an ember-resistant zone shall include any attached deck. This section does not limit the authority of the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection or the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to require the removal of fuel or vegetation on top of or underneath a deck pursuant to this section.”
AB3074 (2020) also amends Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code to the same language.
Appendix 2: Relevant language in SB504 (2024)
SB504, signed on Sep 29, 2024, introduced additional modifications. For our purpose, here is the significant one for section 51182 of the Government Code:
“51182. (a)(1)(A)… The regulations may also alter the fuel reduction required between 5 and 30 feet to integrate the ember-resistant zone into the requirements of this section…”
SB504 (2024) also amends section 4291 of the Public Resources Code to the same language.
Appendix 3: Relevant language in AB1455 (2025)
AB1455 was signed on Oct. 13, 2025. There is no language applying to the purview of the CaFireZone 0 Committee, with the exception of the local agency provision in 51182 (f)(1), which only applies to alternative practices for local applications.
For information, the local agency provision follows for section 51182 of the Government Code:
“51182. … (f) (1) A local agency responsible for fire protection may designate, by ordinance, defensible space requirements based on regulations promulgated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to subdivision (a). In developing the ordinance, a local agency may, in order to meet the intent of the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations, consider local variations in local fire hazards, geography, development, and other conditions and authorize alternative practices to those in the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations, if the alternative practices provide for substantially similar practical effects as those stated in the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations. This subdivision does not preclude a local agency from adopting an ordinance designating defensible space requirements that are more stringent than the regulations adopted by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to subdivision (a).
(2) For purposes of Sections 51185, 51186, 51187, and any other laws imposing penalties for violations of this section, or any other laws otherwise requiring compliance with this section, a property owner in compliance with the applicable alternative practices adopted by that property owner’s local agency in an ordinance described in paragraph (1) shall not be deemed to have violated this section.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, “property owner” means a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or occupied structure within a very high fire hazard severity zone designated by the local agency pursuant to Section 51179, as described in subdivision (a).”
AB1455 (2025) also amends section 4291 of the Public Resources Code to the same language.