As the wildfire crisis in California intensifies and regulatory deadlines approach, MySafe:LA has formally urged the State Board of Forestry to reconsider the state’s forthcoming regulations for the ember-resistant zone—often called Zone 0. This appeal responds to the Board’s plan to establish Zone 0 rules set to take effect on January 1, 2026.
Zone 0, which is the five-foot area surrounding any structure, is deemed by fire experts as the most susceptible zone for ember ignition during wildfires. Nevertheless, MySafe:LA—based on extensive outreach to thousands of residents in Southern California—argues that the current definition of Zone 0 fails to address critical regional factors and scientific precision.
Their stance is shaped by firsthand accounts from communities affected by the January 2025 Palisades and Eaton Fires. Conversations with survivors and community members revealed widespread concern that the Board of Forestry’s understanding of Zone 0 does not align with the latest scientific insights into ember dynamics. Although theoretically removing all vegetation within five feet of structures might lower ignition risks, residents and fire safety experts note that some native plants—like specific succulents and low-moisture, ember-resistant varieties—pose minimal danger, even in windy conditions.
In its letter, MySafe:LA supports the Governor’s goal of minimizing wildfire damage to homes, acknowledging the significant challenges the Board of Forestry faces in revising and enforcing new state guidelines. However, the organization stresses that applying the same rules universally—regardless of whether properties are in rural Northern California or urban Southern California—lacks practicality and fairness. Many homes in Southern California are situated on small lots, in close proximity to one another, and reflect older building styles that did not foresee fire-resistant landscaping.
The letter also underscores the conflicting views within the community: some residents believe that Zone 0 should only be a set of voluntary recommendations, while others feel that enforceable standards are necessary for property owners to maintain landscapes that shield their homes and those of their neighbors. As highlighted in the letter, achieving uniform compliance is challenging in dense urban areas without clear regulations and a feasible implementation plan.
Rather than rejecting the proposal, MySafe:LA’s letter advocates for careful consideration. It suggests that the Board of Forestry should clarify its definition of acceptable Zone 0 vegetation based on scientific data regarding plant ignition risks. It also calls for a differentiation between the needs of spacious rural properties and compact urban settings, taking into account the limitations of older homes that may find it financially challenging to retrofit or adjust to new standards.
In conclusion, MySafe:LA’s message conveys that while the intent of the law is admirable, its specifics must align with the real-life experiences and environmental contexts of all Californians. By including perspectives from Southern California, the Board of Forestry can help ensure that the law achieves its goal—to enhance home safety—while avoiding unintended negative effects on the communities it aims to safeguard.
To read the letter and add your name to the list of supportive individuals, visit this link: www.wildfirela.org/letter/
