there are many ways you can assist the alliance. we welcome you

The Alliance for Practical Fire Safety (AFPFS) will have two representatives serving on the working group tasked with reviewing and providing recommendations to the City Council regarding the EMBER ordinance. We are committed to keeping the Alliance community informed as this important work progresses.

At AFPFS, a grassroots organization of over 500 Berkeley residents, we advocate for practical and pragmatic fire safety solutions that protect our homes without sacrificing our natural habitats, increasing erosion risks, or harming the character of our communities.

We believe in science-based alternatives and common-sense mitigation practices that are sustainable and effective. We stand with our firefighters and uphold public safety as both a mission and a shared community value.

We acknowledge the summary of the WUI Vegetation Code Working Group’s work and acknowledge the effort and time contributed by all participants. We will also acknowledge the time, engagement and energy invested by the Berkeley Fire Department and staff. Two Woking Group members appointed by the Alliance For Practical Fire Solutions (“AFPFS”) and several working group members agree that sustained engagement and respectful dialogue were essential to improving clarity in the EMBER amendments, and we recognize the hours invested by community members and public speakers in that process. We all remain committed to reducing the wildfire risk to the Berkeley community.

The Working Group spent over two months of weekly meetings reviewing the EMBER ordinance and addressing its lack of clarity and flaws in many of its provisions. More than 30 modifications to EMBER were proposed and implemented by the Working Group. We also spend considerable time assisting in creating a “Resident’s Guide” to help community members subject to EMBER comply with its complicated requirements.

At the same time, it is important for the public record to reflect that consensus was not achieved on several core issues, and that significant matters remain unresolved. Chief among the unresolved issues is the core of EMBER—Zone 0 — and whether prohibiting plants in Zone 0 is truly necessary to fully protect homes from wildfire. Although we presented some preliminary research showing plant removal may not be necessary, because the State Board of Forestry has not yet issued its statewide regulations on Zone 0 that may override local ordinances, we deferred further work on the heart of Zone 0 until the state acts, and we know the parameters of local authority. Contrary to the assertions that the science around Zone 0 is clear, it is inconclusive;  yet that has still been accepted as a factual finding.

As to the consensus issue, first, the AFPFS appointees and other members of the Working Group continue to disagree with the characterization of the enforcement issue as resolved or outside of implementation responsibility. While Council directed that December revisions to EMBER remove the Berkeley Fire Department’s (“BFD”) authority to use criminal misdemeanors to enforce EMBER, the December EMBER amendments continued to authorize the BFD to use criminal penalties to enforce EMBER.; this undermines the Council’s clear intent. From our perspective, the Berkeley Fire Department has not yet followed through on Council’s instruction to ensure EMBER Code vegetation management violations are not subject to misdemeanor enforcement. This remains a substantive concern for many residents and was repeatedly raised during the working group process. BFD has other, more effective, less draconian means to enforce EMBER. If BFD administration, the fire code enforcement agency, can bypass a clear City Council directive, why would residents comply with EMBER, and how can we rely on balanced enforcement from BFD. This clarification of intent has been requested from the City Attorney in writing, but  a response has not been received. 

Second, the appeal process remains unresolved. The resident Working Group members are still awaiting a formal response from the City Attorney regarding homeowner appeal rights from BFD determinations, and procedures. There are several conflicting appeal processes that might apply to EMBER. One appeal process goes directly to the City Council with homeowners having potentially only a few days to appeal, and which the City Council could ignore without any action. Another goes to a Hearing Officer, and another to the State Fire Marshall. Until this information is clearly articulated and made public, residents lack essential due process clarity. This issue was flagged early and often, and its absence from final materials is a significant gap, particularly as BFD moves to enforce EMBERS’s Zone 0 requirements..

Third, while we acknowledge the discussion of compliance agreements extending up to three years, the State is expected to give three years to comply with Zone 0 requirements. We continue to request that the two-year good-faith compliance process be explicitly included in the Resident Guide and in regulations, consistent with the verbal commitment made on the record by the Department to Working Group members regarding EMBER Code compliance. Verbal assurances—however well-intended—are insufficient without written guidelines and inclusion in guidance materials that residents and inspectors will rely upon during inspections and enforcement. Many residents need additional time to comply with EMBER’s strictures, particularly with the high cost of compliance for many—sometimes running into tens of thousands of dollars for plant removal and relandscaping, removal and replacement of attached fencing, and trimming or removal of trees. This, coupled with the potential difficulty in getting responsible contractors to perform the work with thousands of Berkeley homes needing to comply, and other cities also looking to comply with requirements for urban wildfire interface areas. We note that the City only offers very limited financial assistance: only for plant removal, not for relandscaping bare ground, tree trimming or removal, removing and replacing attached fencing, and installing gutter and vent guards. And the assistance comes with conditions–only city contractors can perform the work, and the homeowner cannot bring a claim against the City for damages or injuries caused by the work.

Finally, while the working group produced useful clarifications to EMBER Code ordinance language, implementation details are where residents will experience the greatest impacts, and it is precisely in those areas—appeals, enforcement exposure, and compliance timelines—that uncertainty persists. It took over two months of intense work for the resident Working Group members to review, understand, and make recommendations for EMBER modifications; imagine what it will take for community members to understand and implement EMBER requirements.

There remain other issues the Working Group was unable to address due to the limited time we were given to act. These include:

• Addressing erosion and runoff, and plant removal;
• Analysis of the true costs of EMBER compliance;
• Removal of the dangerous eucalyptus trees within Berkeley.

We remain committed to transparency and respectful, constructive engagement. We believe it is essential that the City clearly resolve these outstanding issues before inspections begin, so residents are not placed in a position of navigating ambiguity, financial risk, or enforcement uncertainty under the EMBER Code.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process and expect continued dialogue to ensure that Council intent, resident protections, and public trust are fully honored. We believe the Working Group should continue advising the City on the critical issues of wildfire risk reduction and EMBER as they develop from the State and the Fire and Forestry Commission.

Respectfully,
AFPFS Members of the WUI Working Group 

https://berkeleyca.gov/your-government/boards-commissions/wui-vegetation-code-workgroup

The meetings are public and public comment is welcomed either in person or via wildfire@berkeleyca.gov 

Dear Alliance Members,

The WUI Working Group is in Hiatus until the Fire and Forestry Commission delivers on the delayed state wide regulations. 

Fire and Forestry Zone Zero Subcommittee Meeting.

NEXT MEETINGS April 2026

https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/defensible-space-zones-0-1-and-2

Good afternoon, members of the Commission.

My name is George Perezvelez . I am a Berkeley resident, a member of the Alliance for Practical Fire Solutions and a Commissioner on the Alameda County Fire Advisory Commission. I want to make clear that I am speaking today in my personal capacity, not on behalf of the Fire Advisory Commission.

I want to highlight several concerns as you consider Zone Zero implementation.

First, erosion control must be integrated into any vegetation management plan. When large amounts of fuel, particularly trees, are removed, hillside and watershed erosion becomes a significant risk. Addressing wildfire danger should not create new environmental hazards.

Second, the issue of eucalyptus in our regional parks requires clear state guidance. This non-native species is a well-documented fire risk, and its removal should be treated as a financial priority by the State. Whether through phased removal, selective thinning, or replacement with fire-resistant native species, the State should assume responsibility for funding and implementation, given the scale of the problem and the public safety risks involved.

Third, there is the financial burden of compliance. Costs should not fall disproportionately on local communities or individual property owners. Support, grants, and cost-sharing models are essential. Compliance should also follow reasonable timelines, allowing phased benchmarks and spreading costs over multiple years. This approach reduces financial strain, particularly on low- and middle-income homeowners, while still improving community safety. On a personal level, I have already spent $8,000 prior to gate removal, and as a senior, this financial burden is overwhelming. These expenses have taken away from other essential home and personal needs. Expenses of $3,000–$8,000 are not on par with ordinary home maintenance obligations, especially given the ability of local agencies to impose strict compliance timelines. Being “ready to support” these measures is meaningless if tangible financial assistance is not actual and actionable.

It is also important to recognize that the major fires in Los Angeles and Oakland were not initiated by homeowners, but caused by external circumstances beyond their control. Homeowners should not bear undue responsibility or financial burden for disasters they did not cause.

Additionally, regardless of past promises, the creation of high hazard zones will impact homeowners’ ability to obtain insurance. This risk must be addressed explicitly in the legislation so that residents are not left without coverage and to avoid conflicts between fire safety requirements and insurance obligations.

Finally, the compliance checklist for structures should be practical, clear, and enforceable. Standards on defensible space, ember-resistant construction, vegetation management, and inspections should be paired with realistic timelines and cost distribution, so that compliance is achievable, not punitive.

As a member of the Berkeley Working Group, I also want to note that these regulations will be critical to ongoing discussions and possible changes at the local level. The decisions made here will directly shape how communities implement fire safety measures and manage high-risk areas.

I urge the Commission to adopt a balanced, equitable approach that protects our communities and the environment, while fairly distributing responsibilities, costs, and timelines, and ensuring that residents maintain access to insurance coverage.

Thank you.

To:
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460

From:
[Your Full Name]
[Your Street Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]

Subject: Formal Objection to Proposed Zone 0 Regulations Under AB 3074 – Request for Revisions

Dear Members of the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection,

I am writing to formally express my strong objection to the proposed Zone 0 vegetation clearance regulations released in the June 10, 2025 draft, pursuant to Assembly Bill 3074. While I support the goal of reducing wildfire risk, the current draft adopts a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach that departs from the intent of AB 3074, bypasses critical scientific findings, and could unintentionally make some communities less safe, less livable, and ecologically degraded.

1. Increased Fire Risk
Requiring the removal of all vegetation within 5 feet of structures risks creating wind tunnels that accelerate ember movement toward buildings. This was evident in the Palisades Fire, where cleared areas contributed to rapid ember travel and structure exposure. Strategically placed vegetation can act as a buffer, not just a hazard.

2. Scientific Consensus
Leading fire ecologists such as Dr. Jon Keeley have shown that certain types of vegetation can slow ember spread and reduce heat exposure when properly managed. The current draft does not incorporate  this growing body of peer-reviewed, field-based research, favoring a removal model not rooted in site-specific evidence.

3. Environmental Damage
Mass vegetation clearance—particularly in urban areas—will have cascading environmental consequences, including:

• Decreased air quality and increased particulate matter
• Stormwater runoff and erosion, especially on urban hillsides
• Rising urban heat island effects
• Declines in native biodiversity, habitat, and pollinators

4. Legislative Mismatch
AB 3074 was designed to establish a collaborative, science-informed process that respects regional differences, financial realities, and environmental impacts. The June 10 draft falls short of that legislative mandate by proposing one-size rules with limited flexibility and no clear mechanism for local discretion.

To bring the Zone 0 rules in line with California’s diverse geography, urban needs, and scientific understanding, I respectfully urge the Board to:

• Develop region-specific guidance. Not all regions are the same and need to be evaluated independently based on their specific eco characteristics and climate. 
• Include independent scientific experts such as Dr. Keeley and Dr. Travis Longcore, whose urban ecological expertise is essential.
• Rely on field-based data and fire behavior modeling, not solely laboratory or insurance-driven metrics.
• Allow local fire authorities to grant site-specific flexibility, based on defensible space performance and terrain.
• Use a tiered compliance structure, considering home hardening, construction age, and cost barriers.
• Exempt well-maintained native plants and municipal landscaping known to have low flammability and high environmental value.

If enacted as written, these regulations could require homeowners and municipalities to remove or radically alter nearly all vegetation within 5 feet of buildings, including privacy hedges, foundation plantings, and community landscaping. Non-compliance could even be criminalized.

This extreme approach risks degrading neighborhoods without meaningfully improving fire safety. By ignoring science, local knowledge, and environmental impacts, the Board would be enacting rules that are neither practical nor effective.

We can—and must—do better.

Please revise the proposed Zone 0 regulations to reflect the true intent of AB 3074: fire safety through collaboration, scientific integrity, regional sensitivity, and environmental stewardship.

Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[City or Affiliation, if desired]
[Email and/or Phone Number]

Alliance for Practical Fire Solutions (AFPFS)
Berkeley, CA
afpfs120@gmail.com
www.afpfs.org

June 2nd, 2025

Mayor IshII, City  Council, City Manager
Berkeley, CA, 94704

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Lack of CEQA Review, Fire Mitigation, and Zone Zero Compliance

Dear Mayor Ishii and City Councilmembers,

We are writing as concerned residents to express our strong opposition to the advancement of the EMBER proposal without a legally required and comprehensive environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is especially alarming given the project’s broad impact and obligatory compliance with Berkeley’s newly written Zone Zero defensible space requirements as proposed for adoption prior to California’s Department of Fire and Forestry finalization of the Statewide requirements per AB 3074. 

Although wildfires are a growing threat to our city and region, CEQA exists to ensure projects are carefully analyzed and designed with environmental safety in mind. Unfortunately, this project appears to have moved forward without an Environmental Impact Study / Analysis, one which may conclude that a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared. As it is apparent that Berkeley’s ordinance may be more stringent than that proposed by the State of California, the ability to fall back under any possible CEQA exclusion by the State is questionable at best.  Our group contends that meaningful analysis of habitat loss, land erosion risks, evacuation access, and extreme loss of vegetation should be fully evaluated.  If the Berkeley City Council has concluded an exemption is appropriate, the City should by best practice file a Notice of Exemption (NOE) that documents how such a conclusion was reached.

Our specific concerns include, but are not limited to:

• No CEQA review or justification for exemption has been made publicly available.
• Fire risk analysis is missing or insufficient.
• There is no supporting analysis that considers the negative impacts that could occur to implement measures necessary to be in compliance with updated defensible space regulations and Zone Zero requirements.
• The Class 4 (i) exemption is meant to be a home-by-home exemption so it is inapplicable at a larger scale.
• Class 4 (i) is dependent on there being no “significant erosion or sedimentation” from Zone Zero which has not been demonstrated.
• These measures are not localized and will be applied over time to a large area and the cumulative impacts must be considered and have not been.
• Pending state legislation implies that CEQA analysis would be required absent a state regulatory program that will require CNRA to certify a functionally equivalent EIR.
• Lack of an evacuation route plan or emergency vehicle access assessment.
• Inadequate fire-resistant building material requirement considerations when considered in parallel with landscaping considerations inclusive of fire resistant plants.

Implementing the EMBER proposal without a comprehensive environmental analysis carries a substantial risk to our lush green spaces. This could potentially impact clean air and water standards and lead to significant climate changes. It is vital to assess the environmental implications thoroughly before proceeding with any alterations  It also undermines public trust in the City’s commitment to transparent, responsible land-use decision-making.

We respectfully urge the Council to:

1. Halt the June 17th vote until a full CEQA environmental review is completed.
2. Make public the legal opinion from the City Attorney’s office regarding the CEQA exemption and issue a corresponding NOE if the City decides to follow such a path.
3. Ensure public access to all relevant environmental and safety documents prior to any further Council action.

Please confirm receipt of this letter and inform the AFPFS of any upcoming hearings, comment periods, or opportunities to provide public input on this matter. We appreciate your attention to this critical issue and your commitment to protecting the safety and sustainability of our community.  It is important to us to get this critical issue right for the overall well being of our community, city and region.  

Sincerely,

Rhonda Gruska

George Perezvelez

David Ritsher

Margaret Cullen

Stephanie Goren

On Behalf of the Alliance for Practical Solutions

www.afpfs.org

Studies and articles in support of our request for a CEQA Review 

1. April 14th, 2025 Berkeley City Council expert letter

See PDF

1. April 26, 2025 Zone Zero Regulatory Advisory Committee; California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection expert letter

https://urbanwildlands.org/Resources/20250426_ZoneZeroPleadCommets.pdf

1. “Exploring urban vegetation type and defensible space’s role in building loss during wildfire-driven events in California”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204625001288

This study states that in the Paradise Fire the landscape elements that were most correlated with structure survival was higher pre-fire moisture levels in the landscape and counter-intuitively a lower percentage of bare ground (under 10%). More bare ground actually led to more structure fires, which makes sense if more bare ground means more sun exposure which can dry out fuels to a greater degree.There is additional supporting evidence from “Options for reducing house-losses during wildfires without clearing trees and shrubs”.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204618300598

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-06-02/california-fire-risk-zone-0-landscaping-plants

Both articles stress that less tree cover leads to more aridity and therefore more chances of loss of structures during a fire. Berkeley’s tree cover has diminished significantly over the past 40 years, as seen in this timelapse.

Given that Berkeley has less of a tree canopy than it has had in the past, the following studies are relevant as they show a direct correlation between land-cover types and urban heat, demonstrating that tree cover provides a beneficial effect, especially in arid regions, by significantly lowering temperatures and increasing humidity through evapotranspiration. Urbanization and decreased green space exacerbates global warming and atmospheric drying and increased aridity leads to larger fires.

1. Recent efforts such as the Alameda County Resource Conservation District and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District Regional Wildfire Prevention Plan (2023) have pulled together dozens of stakeholders in our region to propose steps to increase fire safety in ways that preserve natural habitats. 

https://alameda-and-contra-costa-county-regional-priority-plan-ccrcd.hub.arcgis.com/

1. In calling for California’s defensive space program, PRC 4291 (e) (1) says that the Fire Marshall’s guidance "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 water consumption, and permit trees near homes for shade, aesthetics, and habitat;”  These sorts of plants can be found in the following compendium of Fire-safe Plant Lists
   1. Berkeley Fire Resistant Plant List
   2. FireWiseNativePlants_Oakland-CA
   3. FIRESafe-MARIN_palntlist_2019
   4. CCFD-WUI-Vegetation-Lists-2021
   5. CA Plant List for Fire Safe Landscaping San Luis Obispo County
   6. fire-resistant California plants Nevada Placer counties
   7. plantsForFireSafeGardens
   8. Plants for a fire-resistant landscape California
   9. CNPS-fire-recovery-guide-LR-040618

1. WAIT FOR THE STATE 

2. CEQA Environmental Review on the record inclusive of proof of exception by the State.

3. All changes to the EMBER proposal to be incorporated into the enacting resolution in order for them to be legally binding. 

 4. Task Force to develop a consensus EMBER proposal inclusive of alternative solutions based on all applicable and emerging science, as well as all property exemptions due to extreme adverse impact.

5. Clear and specific EMBER compliance requirements and dedicated professional inspections per household. 

6. Establishment of an EMBER Financial Mitigation Fund inclusive of voluntary compliance until full funding is acquired. 

7.  No Excessive and impractical EMBER criminal penalties

8. Broader timelines for EMBER compliance taking into consideration "work in progress" proof towards completion.

9. No new EMBER CODE ENFORCEMENT appeal process. There already exists an appeal process within the City. The proposed one is more draconian and has steeper restrictions for resolution of concerns and adjudication.

10. Address compliance liability concerns for contiguous properties.

11. Waivers for construction fees due to compliance and to avoid double dipping as well as an approved list of vetted vendors to curtail price gouging.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/sanfrancisco/news/berkeley-ember-proposal-fire-mitigation/