"Zone Zero" rules proposed by state forestry officials focus only on brush removal, which many think will cause more problems than they solve.
For at least a quarter century, the orange tree in my backyard has provided a home for birds, nourishment for critters and glorious shade from the intense sun that would otherwise bake the western side of my home.
The hardy citrus has survived drought, insect infestation, intense heat, pollution and my inexpert pruning. But it won’t survive the new fire safety rules drafted by state officials.
After the catastrophic fires in Altadena and Pacific Palisades in January, Gov. Gavin Newsom pressed the state Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to fast-track regulations to make buildings “ember-resistant” when nearby vegetation burns. They did.
In just months, a board advisory committee produced the “Zone Zero” plan to clear-cut vegetation from within five feet of more than 2.2 million structures in areas considered at particularly high risk for fire. Also: No wood fences or “petroleum-based” stuff would be allowed close to buildings — which means plastic trash cans or sheds, because most plastic is made from petroleum.
My Echo Park home is subject to the proposed Zone Zero rules, and the orange tree and its branches are far too close to the house.
Because I am a journalist, I didn’t just mourn my orange tree and all of the other lovely foliage surrounding my home. I dug into the documents and what other people — residents, experts, local officials and environmentalists — thought about it, and I attended a public hearing last week in Pasadena.
Were I still running the editorial board at the L.A. Times (and if the paper still had a functioning editorial board), this is how I might pitch a piece on the Zone Zero rules:
= The loss of substantial biodiversity. Birds, butterflies, insects, squirrels and other small mammals have a hard enough time surviving in our urban landscape without decimating their homes and food sources.
= Potentially catastrophic soil erosion. We know from hard experience that when hills are denuded of plant life, mudslides often follow.
= Less shade. Cities are giant heat islands that are getting hotter because of climate change. They need more shade, not less. From a purely self-serving human perspective, extreme heat is far deadlier than wildfire.
= More pollution. Healthy plants trap airborne pollutants, and the new rules would require the removal of some 2,000 acres of vegetation within the city of Los Angeles alone, according to the L.A.’s Community Forestry Advisory Committee.
= Higher energy use. People crank up the A/C to compensate for the lost insulation of greenery. That’s not only expensive but in direct opposition to climate goals.
Point 2: The Zone Zero rules could make homes more vulnerable to wildfire.
There's a growing body of research that indicates well-watered trees, vines and bushes can actually protect homes from wildfire. That’s the word from two California scientists who study how vegetation burns, as well as the experience of some wildfire survivors, such as a Palisades resident who told the committee members that his well-watered hedges kept his house safe during the January wildfire.
Point 3: If the Sept. 18 public hearing is any indication, most affected homeowners in Southern California are not happy with the rules. There’s the cost, of course — which L.A. city officials estimate at $13,000 per structure to comply — but the environmental and safety impacts appear to be bigger concern. Moreover, some said they feared the rules would be weaponized by insurers. (One attendee told me that her previous insurance company flew a drone over her house and then non-renewed her policy because of a camellia bush). Bottom line: If the state lacks widespread buy-in, it will not have compliance.
Many Southern California officials are opposed as well, saying the blanket rules don’t take into account geographic differences. Some Los Angeles City Council members — including Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades — sent letters to the board suggesting a compromise that would include home-hardening measures that have been shown to reduce fire risk. They support the city’s forestry advisory committee recommendations of “a more holistic and flexible approach to wildfire safety [that] would achieve substantial, scientifically-supported protection without sacrificing the multiple, invaluable benefits of trees and other vegetation.”
Wrap up: Of course, everyone wants to avoid losing their home in a wildfire, and a certain amount of brush clearing makes sense. (I’m already planning on it, regardless of the outcome of the new rules.) But following a path that may cause more environmental problems isn’t the answer. The board should reconsider the regulations before the Dec. 31 deadline and heed the request of local officials for a proposal that keeps us safer without turning whole neighborhoods into heat-trapping hellscapes.
