zone

Concerns⁢ Mount Over Proposed California Wildfire Regulations

Proposed regulations aimed at ​reducing wildfire risk⁢ in California are facing ⁣growing ⁣opposition, ‌particularly in Southern California, with critics arguing⁤ they are overly broad and potentially counterproductive. ​The rules, developed by‍ the⁣ California Department of Forestry‌ and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), focus on vegetation ⁣management around homes in⁢ high-risk areas, but​ experts and residents alike​ are raising concerns about their‍ potential impact.

A report by the University of California, Riverside’s Center for ⁣Preservation Research (as reported on Sept. 4) suggests that removing irrigated, healthy vegetation could exacerbate⁣ problems by eliminating shade, increasing erosion risk,⁣ and destroying⁣ crucial wildlife habitat. The⁣ report advocates for a more ‍nuanced approach, moving away from a ⁤”one-size-fits-all” policy and incorporating an appeals process.It specifically recommends exemptions for⁢ “healthy, ⁢hydrated⁣ and ‍well maintained ⁣vegetation… not likely to be ignited by embers,” alongside protections for native trees and ‍shrubs, historically‍ significant trees, ‌and well-maintained municipal street trees.

according to Michael Hubach,‍ a representative ‌familiar with​ the regulations, public awareness ⁢is low.”Most people don’t no⁢ this is coming their way, and when they find ​out about [the proposed rules] they‍ don’t⁤ think it will make​ them safer. They think it will ​make their neighborhoods hotter, dryer, uglier and less ​safe.”

Environmental ‌scientist Travis ​Longcore, former president of the Los​ Angeles Audubon Society, recently ‍presented a detailed​ analysis⁣ of the‍ proposed‌ regulations online. While agreeing with some aspects, such as removing flammable materials⁣ like wood⁣ fences​ attached to ⁢buildings and debris from roofs, longcore echoed the‌ call for​ allowing healthy vegetation to​ remain. He emphasized the distinction between plants prone‌ to accumulating dead wood, like junipers⁣ and ⁣cypress, and those less likely to⁢ ignite.

Enforcement of the regulations is also​ a point of contention.Both Longcore and⁣ former State Fire Marshal ⁣Ruben Grijalva⁤ expressed ‌concerns about the capacity of existing inspectors. ⁢Grijalva further criticized the “one-size-fits-all” approach, arguing⁤ it fails to ⁤account for building code updates. He pointed out that homes ​built after 2008 are​ already subject to stricter fire-resistant construction standards, including ​ignition-resistant materials ⁤and ​ember-resistant vents, implemented through​ Chapter 7A of the California Building⁤ Code. ⁢

Grijalva now works with developers to create fire-resistant communities, like Rancho Mission Viejo,‍ while still prioritizing the benefits of trees like oaks and sycamores for cooling and aesthetics.

Residents will have opportunities to voice their concerns at​ upcoming meetings. An informational town hall ‌is scheduled ⁢for Sept. 17 ⁢from ‌5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at the Ventura⁤ County Fire⁢ Headquarters in ‌Newbury‍ Park; RSVP⁤ is requested through Ventura County Supervisor Jeff Gorell. ⁣The Board of forestry and Fire Protection⁤ will hold a public ⁣meeting on Sept. 18,⁤ though in-person attendance may⁢ be prioritized due to anticipated high turnout.

The committee⁣ plans‍ to ⁣discuss the⁢ feedback received on sept.18 at its regular meeting in sacramento on Sept.‍ 22, at which ​point it will decide whether to⁤ revise the proposed ‍rules or ⁤forward them to the full board​ for consideration.