there are many ways you can assist the alliance

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.

What is wrong with Berkeley? EMBER 

The Alliance expresses deep disappointment in the Berkeley City Council’s unanimous approval of the EMBER proposal on June 17, despite overwhelming community opposition and procedural concerns.

Over 60% of public commenters during the hearing spoke against the proposal, including a Botanist, a CEQA environmental attorney and a former City Attorney of Oakland who was responsible for drafting that city’s fire code. Their expert testimony, alongside impassioned remarks from residents, underscored both the environmental risks and the lack of due diligence in the proposal’s advancement.

This decision comes even as a new federally funded scientific study has just been released—bringing critical, updated insights into fire mitigation strategies—and amid repeated calls from AFPFS and others to allow the State's process and the Fire & Forestry Commission's Zone Zero sub-committee to complete their pending recommendations. These frameworks were explicitly designed to guide and harmonize local actions with science-backed state policy.Their methodical approach to deliberations underscores the complexity of the issue and the need for consensus.

The Council’s vote today reflects a troubling disregard for both expert input and meaningful public engagement and reignites concerns of a rigged system as well influenced by the need to create a legacy legislature. We would urge the City to reconsider this course and re-anchor its fire prevention policy in transparent, inclusive, and evidence-based planning, but their lack of active listening and inclusive approach puts into doubt the efficacy of such efforts. 

But we are not letting this end here. All politics is local and we will continue to demand representation and good governance. We will remain engaged and pursue next steps, not steps we wanted to have to take, but the city council has given us no choice.

Yes, Berkeley is going to be a model for the state, but not for fire prevention. It has instead proven itself last night to mirror governance somewhat similar to that at the national level, pursuing grand schemes to the detriment of stakeholders, the City's depleted budget, the environment, and the democratic process.

The fight is not over, but we are resolutely shifting to a new phase, as the council has shown us what they really stand for. Please stay connected to AFPFS as we pursue next steps. 

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/

Some Takeaways From the May 28th Community Forum

1. Though the Berkeley Fire Department, Council-Member Blackaby and the Mayor's office have incorporated some of our requested changes, their unwillingness to stop the process and incorporate the reviewed changes before the June 17th vote contradicts their commitment to community input and consensus.

2. The City of Berkeley continues to push the unrealistic average house hold compliance cost of 3k to 5k ( note that prior to our push back they had $3900 as the maximum) when we have seen estimates ranging between 5k to 60k.

3. The City's assertion of possible financial assistance to mitigate the considerable compliance costs are not truly fleshed out and the process for compensation not clear or sufficient with the aggregated costs to 900 homes of 4.5 to 8 million dollars.

4. Although CA has not finalized any recommendations and is not looking to implement any directives until 2029, the City of Berkeley refuses to wait for the State mandated regulations and is still intending go ahead and impose their  own controversial and nuance lacking version .

5. Although further clarification has been given on structures and vegetation requirements, no intent to add such specifics into the proposal is planned.  

6. The city of Berkeley had no real answer to the CEQA concerns and has no interest in conducting an environmental impact assessment study as it is "not legally required" while STILL not providing the community with the written legal opinion from the City Atttorney.