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.

8/20: 530 PM 997 Cedar St

9/3: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

9/10: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

9/17: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

9/24: NO MEETING

10/1: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 1st Floor (Cypress Room)

10/15: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

10/22: 1PM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

10/29: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

11/5: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 1st Floor (Cypress Room)

11/12: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

11/19: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 1st Floor (Cypress Room)

11/26: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 6th Floor (Redwood Room)

12/3: 9AM 2810 Milvia St 1st Floor (Cypress Room)

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

WUI VEGETATION CODE WORKGROUP

REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

9:00 AM

Redwood Room – 2180 Milvia St. 6th Floor North

Fire Chief’s Representative- Asst. Chief Colin Arnold

Assistant Chief David Winnacker Eric Weaver

Richard Illgen Margit Roos-Collins

George Perez-Velez

AGENDA

Preliminary Matters

Call to Order

Approval of the August 27 Minutes

Public Comment on Non-Agenda Matters

AGENDA MATTERS All Regular agenda matters are for discussion and possible

action.

1. Action:

Written Materials:

Discussion of existing local amendments to

ensure clarity

Gov. Code 51175-51189

Summary of Proposed State Changes

General Guidance for Creating Defensible Space

Vegetation Ordinance, Annotated

Resident Assistance Program Factsheet

2. Action:

Written Materials:

Identify and Clarify AMMR Process, Clarify

modification process (including local conditions

and evidence to support the same practical effect

COB Workgroup AMMR PPT

State Appendix A1-A5

BMC 1.28

9/3/2025 AGENDA Page 2

3. Action:

Written Materials:

Presentation:

Upcoming Meeting Schedule, including Sept 24th.

WORK GROUP REPORTS

Adjournment

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.

Below is draft rule text that the Zone 0 Regulation Advisory Committee will discuss at a public workshop on Thursday July 24 2025. The Board invites comments on all provisions of the draft rule text.

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection

Defensible Space Zone 0

Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations

Division 1.5, Chapter 7,

Subchapter 3 Article 3

§ 1299.01. Purpose. 

The intent of this regulation is to provide guidance for implementation of Public Resources Code Section 4291 to improve safety for fire fighters defending a home as well as increase the survivability of a “Building or Structure” as defined, that exists in grass, brush, and forest covered lands within the designated State Responsibility Area (SRA) of California.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 4291, Public Resources Code.

§ 1299.02. Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this article:

(a) Attached: Directly connected or affixed to a Building or Structure.

(b) Building or Structure. Anything constructed that is designed or intended for support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, or property, having a permanent roof that is supported by walls or posts that connect to, or rest on the ground. A Building or Structure, for the purpose of an ember-resistant zone, includes an attached deck.

(c) Combustible: Vegetative, wood, or petroleum-based materials that are likely to ignite and transmit flames.

(ad) Defensible space. The buffer that landowners are required to create on their property between a “Building or Structure” and the plants, brush and trees or other items surrounding the “Building or Structure” that could ignite in the event of a fire.

(e) Existing Building or Structure. An Existing Building or Structure is a Building or Structure other than a New Building or Structure.

(f) New Building or Structure. A New Building or Structure is a Building or Structure that did not exist prior to the effective date of the regulation that added this subsection.

(g) Outbuilding. Buildings or Sstructures that are less than one hundred-twenty (120) square feet in size and not used for human habitation. For purposes of this Section, an “Outbuilding” is not a “Building or Structure” as defined in subsection (b) above.

(h) Roof Ridgeline: The highest point of a roof.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 4291, Public Resources Code; and Sections 18908 and 18917, Health and Safety Code.

§ 1299.03. Requirements.

Defensible space is required to be maintained at all times, whenever flammable vegetative conditions exist. 

(a) One hundred feet (100 ft.) of defensible space clearance shall be maintained in two three distinct “Zzones” as follows: Zone 0 is the area within five feet (5 ft.) around each Building or Structure or to the property line, whichever comes first. “Zone 1” extends from five (5ft.) to thirty feet (30 ft.) out from each “Building or Structure,” or to the property line, whichever comes first; “Zone 2” extends from thirty feet (30 ft.) to one hundred feet (100 ft.) from each “Building or Structure,” but not beyond the property line. The vegetation treatment requirements for Zone 0 are more restrictive than for Zone 1; the requirements for Zone 1 are more restrictive than for Zone 2,; as provided in this section (a) and (b) below. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's “Property Inspection Guide, 2000 version, April 2000,” provides additional guidance on vegetation treatment within Zone 1 and Zone 2, but is not mandatory and is not intended as a substitute for these regulations. 

(b) Zone 0 Requirements: 

(1) No landscaping materials that are likely to be ignited by embers are permitted within Zone 0. This includes, but is not limited to grass, ornamental or native plants, shrubs, branches, fallen leaves and tree needles, weeds, and combustible mulches including bark and woodchips. 

(A) Exception: Plants in pots are allowable if they are in areas that are not directly beneath, above, or in front of a window, glass door, or vent; are kept in an unaffixed, not combustible pot or container that is no larger than five (5) gallon capacity; and set apart by one and a half (1.5) times the height of the plant or twelve inches (12”), whichever is greater, from the structure and each other. These plants shall be no greater than 18 inches in height. Dead or dying material on the plants shall be removed. 

(2) Trees within Zone 0 are permitted if shall be maintained so that there are no dead or dying branches.:

(A) for Buildings or Structures with fewer than three stories or for Buildings or Structures with any number of stories that have balconies or decks: If the bole of a tree is present within Zone 0, a tree is permitted if it is taller than the adjacent Building or Structure’s roof ridgeline and does not have any dead and dying branches. All live tree branches shall be kept maintained ten feet (10’) above the adjacent Building or Structure’s roof ridgeline, ten feet (10’) away from chimneys and stovepipe outlets, and five feet (5’) away from the sides of any Building or Structure.

(B) for Buildings or Structures with three or more stories and without balconies or decks: a tree is permitted if the bole of a tree is present within Zone 0, if it does not have any dead and dying branches; and All live tree branches shall be kept maintained five ten feet (10 5’) above the adjacent Building or Structure’s roof, ten feet (10’) away from chimneys and stovepipe outlets, and five feet (5’) away from the sides of any Building or Structure.

(B) Exception: this subdivision does not apply to single specimens of trees or other vegetation that are well-pruned and maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and fuel ladders, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 4291.

(3) No items that are likely to be ignited by embers are permitted within Zone 0, including but not limited to combustible boards, timbers, firewood, synthetic lawn petroleum-based products, attached window boxes, and trellises. The roof and rain gutters of a Building or Structure shall be kept clear of leaves and needles. The area under decks, balconies, and stairs shall be kept free from vegetative material and combustible items. 

(4) Combustible gates shall not be directly adjacent to or attached to a Building or Structure. 

(5) Fences that are directly attached to a Building or Structure shall have a five foot (5 ft) non-combustible span at the point of attachment. After the effective date of this regulation, no new sections of combustible fence are permitted within five feet (5 ft) of a Building or Structure including an attached deck. 

(6) Outbuildings are not permitted in Zone 0. 

(7) The requirements for Zone 0 shall take effect for New Buildings or Structures upon the date that the guidance document, as described in PRC § 4291(e), is updated and for existing Buildings or Structures three years thereafter. Upon updating the guidance document, the Board shall post it on its website. 

(8) For existing structures, the Department may allow the staging of work in stages to support implementation of Zone 0 and address the costs of compliance.

(ac) Zone 1 Requirements:

(1) Remove all dead or dying grass, plants, shrubs, trees, branches, leaves, weeds, and pine needles from the Zone whether such vegetation occurs in yard areas around the “Building or Structure,” on the roof or rain gutters of the “Building or Structure,” or any other location within the Zone.

(2) Remove dead tree or shrub branches that overhang roofs, below or adjacent to windows, or which are adjacent to wall surfaces, and keep all branches a minimum of ten feet (10 ft.) away from chimney and stovepipe outlets.

(3) Relocate exposed firewood piles outside of Zone 1 unless they are completely enclosed in a fire-resistant material.

(4) Remove flammable vegetation and items that could catch fire which are adjacent to or under combustible decks, balconies and stairs.

(bd) Zone 2 Requirements:

(1) In this zone, 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.

(2) In both the Fuel Separation and Continuous Tree Canopy methods the following standards apply:

(A) Dead and dying woody surface fuels and aerial fuels shall be removed. Loose surface litter, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches, shall be permitted to a maximum depth of three inches (3 in.).

(B) Cut annual grasses and forbs down to a maximum height of four inches (4 in.).

(C) All exposed wood piles must have a minimum of ten feet (10 ft.) of clearance, down to bare mineral soil, in all directions.

(ce) For both Zones 1 and 2:

(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.

(2) Protect water quality. Do not clear vegetation to bare mineral soil and avoid the use of heavy equipment in and around streams and seasonal drainages. Vegetation removal can cause soil erosion, especially on steep slopes. Keep soil disturbance to a minimum on steep slopes.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 4291, Public Resources Code; and Sections 18908 and 18917, Health and Safety Code.

§ 1299.05. Alternative Methods.

The provisions of these regulations are not intended to exclude alternative methods not specifically prescribed by these regulations. A fire expert designated by the Director may approve alternative practices which provide for the same practical effects as those stated in these regulations within the SRA. 

Within the LRA the authority having jurisdiction may choose to develop alternative practices for Zone 0 compliance that take into account local variation, including differences in geography, geology, ecology, city and county ordinances, and architecture. 

Note: Authority cited: Sections 4290 and 4291, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 4291 and 4291.3, Public Resources Code.

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/