Battalion Chief on Zone Zero

The recent article “Zero Zero: The Regulations Being Defined Right Now” leaves readers with several incorrect impressions about Zone Zero and California’s wildfire mitigation strategy. I have close family ties to the Montecito community and care deeply about its future. I also bring over 34 years of frontline and policy experience in wildfire suppression and management. In 2018, I coined the term “Zone Zero” to describe the critical five-foot ignition zone, a concept already deeply rooted in field experience and science.

1) This is not based on a single study.

There is a substantial body of science – from full-scale testing and post-fire forensics to machine-learning analyses of recent California fire sieges – showing that the first five feet around structures are the most common ignition pathway in wind-driven fires. The 2025 Nature Communications study (Zamanialaei et al.) is important because it quantifies relative drivers of loss and shows that home hardening plus a clear Zone Zero materially improves survival probability compared with hardening alone. The authors’ WUI analysis does not stand in isolation; it is consistent with decades of fire investigation and guidance from CAL FIRE and IBHS that call for a non-combustible five-foot buffer to stop ember ignitions at the wall, at the corner, under decks, and at vents and openings. 

2) California is not “requiring Zone Zero instead of home hardening.”

Home hardening requirements already exist and apply to all homes in the same Fire Hazard Severity Zones where Zone Zero will apply. Chapter 7A of the California Building Code – the most stringent statewide WUI construction standard in the U.S. – has applied to new construction in mapped fire-prone areas since 2008 (adopted 2007), covering ember-resistant vents, roofing, siding, decks, windows, and more. CAL FIRE’s statewide home-hardening program continues to expand retrofits. Zone Zero is in addition to, not instead of, hardening. 

3) Why the Board of Forestry is doing this, and what it regulates.

Zone Zero isn’t an agency passion project; it is a statutory mandate. The Legislature enacted AB 3074 (2020) to create an ember-resistant zone within five feet as part of defensible space law (Public Resources Code §4291). The Board of Forestry is carrying out that law in the part of the world it can regulate: defensible space. It does not regulate the building code – that’s Chapter 7A and local building officials. 

4) Trees: exemptions exist, pruning is the focus, and the canopy-loss narrative is inflated.

The current August 2025 draft and agency FAQs recognize single-specimen trees and focus on maintenance: removing dead material and keeping live branches away from roofs, chimneys, and walls. That is arboriculture best practice and fire safety, not wholesale canopy removal. In the vast majority of properties, Zone Zero regulates less than two percent of the defensible-space footprint, and only a small fraction of that narrow strip is actually tree trunk or canopy. 

5) Zone Zero is not “about plants.”

The purpose of Zone Zero is to eliminate receptive fuels where embers can collect and smolder, including leaf litter, doormats, planter boxes, brooms, plastic furniture, wood fencing that touches the wall, bark mulch, and other stored combustibles. Plants are part of that picture only when they sit where embers land and accumulate. CAL FIRE’s own public guidance emphasizes a non-combustible five-foot zone for exactly this reason. 

6) Cost and heat-island claims are overstated and misdirected.

Compliance for most homeowners is modest and low-cost: move the firewood, swap bark mulch for gravel, clear gutters, prune, and relocate combustibles. Any potential change in shading at the foundation line does not outweigh the financial risk of structure loss and the regional economic damage of urban conflagrations. And nothing in Zone Zero prevents shade five feet and beyond; homeowners can – and should – keep green landscape where it does not create an ignition pathway.

7) Home hardening and Zone Zero are complementary, not competing.

The science, the building code, and the law all point to the same layered solution: harden the home and clear the first five feet. The first prevents ember entry and structural failure. The second denies embers the fuel they need to start the fire in the first place. That is how you break the structure-to-structure domino effect that devastates neighborhoods. 

Finally: Zone Zero is not an “arbitrary five-foot idea.” 

The Legislature required it, the Board is implementing it, and the wildfire community supports it because it addresses the ignition zone we know best. If we are serious about reducing losses in places like Montecito, we should stop framing Zone Zero as a landscaping debate and start treating it as what it is: the most controllable, enforceable, and cost-effective ignition-prevention step we have.

Respectfully, 

Todd Lando, President, Fire Safe Marin; Battalion Chief / Wildfire Hazard Mitigation Specialist, Central Marin Fire Authority

Asher’s Zone Zero Story

Excellent excellent article – I implore you to use this article and your voice to get it circulated to every possible media outlet in existence, especially podcasts, via social media and TV. A loud megaphone is the only answer to standing up against an ill-founded unscientific policy that could logically lead to the extreme detriment of those who live in California.

As a resident in Mandeville Canyon, (adjacent to Palisades) whose house was spared because the wind did not turn east and go up my well-watered green hill, my home of 45 years in the hills of the Santa Monica Mountains would have been lost. The delay in “City Hall” action resulted in an unnecessary, catastrophic, devastating fire, where the handicapped Fire department had to chase a fire. But why did that happen. It wasn’t our green trees or shrubs Zone Zero threatens.

Most of our dear friends in the Pacific Palisades lost their homes because the city and county and state offices were absent on every level – from lack of funding, to equipment, to having water, to having a plan, mitigation steps, and a governor who vetoed a bill twice that would have mandated underbrush cleared in the mountains of California – the dead, fire fueling underbrush!

We all need a loud voice to represent the truth: The sheer absence of the local government (particularly in Los Angeles) to provide the tools and funding and intelligence to provide top tier fire mitigation, resources, prevention and planning are the underbrush to these wildfires.

Zone Zero promises an exponential outcome: Homeowners are the scapegoats. The ecosystem and all of the animals who live in nature are the victims. Noncompliance will let insurance companies refuse insured homes compensation, let alone non-coverage altogether. The cost of electricity will skyrocket without natural shade. More brownouts will occur. Etc. etc. 

Sarah

Thank You for Ashleigh, his Thoughts, & his Story

Thank you for your cover story, “Ashleigh’s Brilliant Summer,” (MJ issue October 2-9, 2025) written by Jeff Wing so eloquently (yes, brilliantly). It was a welcome piece of journalism for so many of us who were struck by the suddenness of Ashleigh Brilliant’s passing. In truth it really wasn’t so sudden, since he was 91, but he was a treasure we all expected to have forever. Those of us in Santa Barbara often saw him walking here, there, and everywhere, always deep in thought, most likely thinking of his next ideas. I grew up with “Pot-Shots” taped or magnetized all over the front of my refrigerators for years, and was so happy when the Montecito Journal began publishing his “Brilliant Thoughts” pieces, many of which I shared or saved. It would be a dream if his work could be replicated in the Montecito Journal going forward, so that we could read them all again.

Thanks again to Jeff Wing for writing the story of his life.

Hillary Hauser

Capping Annual Rent Increases

On October 9th, the City Council will learn that on October 14th (or soon after), Councilmembers Kristen Sneddon and Wendy Santamaria plan to introduce a proposal capping annual rent increases at 60% of CPI (Consumer Price Index). With Santa Barbara’s CPI currently at 2.7%, that would limit rent increases this year to just 1.62%. In years when CPI is negative, no increases would be allowed at all – unless property owners go before the Rental Housing Mediation Board, forcing disclosure of financials and adding new administrative costs for the city. In short, you would need government approval just to manage your own private property.

Why You Need to Speak Up Now

If rent control moves forward, the consequences will be real for both property owners and renters in Santa Barbara:

1. Fewer Rentals Available – Many owners will shift their properties to short-term rentals or other uses if they can.

2. New Housing Will Stall – Developers will stop building, choking off future supply.

3. Investment Will Dry Up – Investors will skip Santa Barbara entirely, reducing options for renters.

4. Forced Sales & Higher Rents – Some owners will sell, and new buyers will raise rents to the maximum allowed.

5. Falling Property Values – Both rental providers and homeowners will see their values decline.

6. Less Revenue for the City – Lower values mean less property tax money for city services.

7. Rents Will Still Go Up – With fewer units and less investment, scarcity will continue driving rents higher.

8. More Government-Owned Housing – The Housing Authority, exempt from paying taxes, will grow its holdings, further reducing city revenue.

9. Loss of Local Control – Builder’s Remedy projects may move forward with little say from Council or neighborhoods.

10. What’s Next? – Mandates on renting out spare bedrooms? A vacancy tax on second homes, commercial spaces, and rentals?

The bottom line: Rent control will not solve our housing challenges – it will make them worse. The only way to stop this is for Council to hear directly from you today!!  

https://santabarbaraca.gov/government/mayor-city-council

Loy Beardsmore