Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board urges changes to state’s proposed Zone 0 wildfire rules, seeks local control and funding
Summary
Supervisors passed a resolution urging the Legislature and Board of Forestry to revise draft Zone 0 rules tied to AB 3074, citing implementation costs, local differences in vegetation and the need for funding and map corrections.
The Ventura County Board of Supervisors unanimously on Oct. 21 adopted a resolution urging changes to the state’s draft Zone 0 regulations tied to Assembly Bill 3074, saying the current draft could impose large unfunded mandates, harm housing development and fail to account for local vegetation and topography.
Supervisor Gurel, the item’s sponsor, told the board the county supports stronger fire-safety outcomes but objects to a one‑size‑fits‑all regulatory approach. “If implemented as written, the regulations would create a major unfunded mandate requiring inspections of as much as or more than 60,000 additional properties throughout the county,” Gurel said during the hearing.
Why it matters: The Board of Forestry and the governor have been fast‑tracking guidance to create a tight timeframe for Zone 0 implementation. Supervisors said the draft rules risk imposing compliance costs on homeowners, complicating local housing projects and straining county inspection resources.
Local leaders and fire officials asked for more flexibility and funding. County Fire Chief Dustin Gardner told the board he supports the concept of Zone 0 — “the science backs it. It works” — but said the current timeline and scope are unrealistic to implement across existing homes. "A 2029 objective for all existing homes ... I don't see it as being achievable," Gardner said, adding staff estimates the operational cost impact on his department could be “a minimum … $2,000,000 a year." He and the board asked that the state allow alternative, locally tailored means to achieve the same ember‑intrusion protection goals.
Several outside speakers and local officials supported the county position and asked for specific regulatory options. Thousand Oaks Mayor David Newman said Zone 0 should not force removal of drought‑tolerant landscaping that provides shade and helps cool neighborhoods; he urged the board to ask the Board of Forestry to adopt more flexible vegetation and tree options. Dr. Betsy Conley, an advocate who organized a Conejo Valley town hall, requested the Board of Forestry adopt “vegetation option 4 and tree option 2” in the draft advisory menu of options; supervisors incorporated those references when they amended the resolution.
The board’s action asks the state to: slow the rule‑making timeline, provide a longer, regionally adaptable implementation schedule, permit locally approved alternatives, fix and allow local review of the state’s fire-hazard severity maps, and create direct state funding for inspections, homeowner assistance and education. The board added an amendment directing staff to transmit the resolution immediately to the Board of Forestry and legislative offices and to include support for the advisory committee options (vegetation option 4 and tree option 2) posted Oct. 23.
Supervisors also discussed insurance market impacts and the potential for insurers to cite new regulations when underwriting policies. The board instructed county staff to coordinate transmittal of the resolution and to pursue related advocacy in the legislative and rule‑making process.
