ENVIRONMENTAL, FIRE SAFETY, AND COMMUNITY GROUPS BLAST CALIFORNIA’S “ZONE 0” POLICY AS UNLAWFUL, UNJUST, AND UNSCIENTIFIC
Members urge the Board of Forestry to halt rulemaking and pursue effective, evidence-based fire safety reforms
LOS ANGELES – A growing coalition of wildfire survivors, urban ecologists, fire scientists, and community groups is condemning California’s proposed “Zone 0” defensible space regulation, warning that the state’s plan would result in indiscriminate vegetation removal around homes—devastating fragile ecosystems, displacing urban wildlife, exacerbating extreme heat, and placing a disproportionate burden on low-income and older homeowners.
Comment letters to the California Board of Forestry (BOF), sharply criticize the draft regulation for:
- Relying on outdated or misapplied fire “science” that conflates healthy vegetation with ignition sources, while ignoring the role of embers and structural vulnerabilities;
- Failing to consider environmental harms, including loss of biodiversity, soil stability, and shade cover in climate-stressed communities;
- Conducting minimal public outreach, with only 800 public comments submitted statewide, despite the law’s sweeping impacts on private property and neighborhoods;
- Disregarding rigorous peer-reviewed, science-based alternatives that emphasize home hardening and site-specific risk mitigation instead of blanket vegetation clearance.
“This proposal is the antithesis of good fire policy,” said Dr. Travis Longcore, an urban ecologist and one of many experts who have testified before the Board. “Removing all plants within five feet of structures, regardless of species or condition, will destroy green spaces that actually reduce fire risk by holding moisture and shielding embers. This is political theater masquerading as fire safety.”
If implemented, Zone 0 would mandate the removal of all “vegetation” within five feet of structures in California’s fire-prone areas—an arbitrary buffer that fails to distinguish between a dry hedge and a well-watered, living garden. Native habitat gardens, privacy plantings, shade trees, and small urban refuges for pollinators and birds could all be subject to forced removal, penalties, or liens.
“This regulation will have catastrophic ecological and social consequences,” said a representative of the Sunshine Hill Residents Association, which has led efforts to expose the flawed science underpinning Zone 0. “It criminalizes resilience by punishing homeowners who maintain healthy gardens while letting insurers and builders off the hook for the real problem: flammable homes.”
Under AB 3074, enforcement of Zone 0 falls to local governments, who may use unskilled contract crews to forcibly enter and clear private property of its trees and other plants in most intimate spaces around the home at the homeowner’s expense—raising major questions about due process, private property rights, and equity. Most local elected officials remain unaware of the policy, leaving residents uninformed until it’s too late.
“By focusing on defensible space while ignoring home retrofits and the real causes of urban fires, this regulation amounts to environmental scapegoating,” said another coalition member. “It shifts risk management from the powerful—like the insurance industry and developers—onto individual homeowners and communities least able to afford compliance.”
Advocates are urging the Board of Forestry to withdraw or substantially revise the regulation and are exploring legal and legislative remedies if it proceeds in its current form. Many also support delaying implementation until robust CEQA analysis and public engagement is completed.
