|
Prepared by Precision Advocacy
Advisory Committee Meets on Zone Zero Regulations for Fire Safety
The debate and development of emergency rules for defensible space closest to homes and buildings has garnered much public interest and comment this year. The Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is expected to consider a new draft at their meeting in December, and if approved by the full board in January, the rules would go into effect early next year. The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Zone Zero Regulatory Advisory Committee has held nine workshops this year and expects to have at least one additional meeting to discuss requirements for Zone 0 fire regulations.
The rulemaking was initially prompted by AB 3074 (Friedman, 2020) and SB 504 (Dodd, 2024) which made changes requiring the board to establish an ember-resistant defensible zone the first 5 feet around a structure, referred to as Zone 0. Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-18-25 requires that the board complete rulemaking for Zone 0 no later than December 31, 2025, though it seems likely that this deadline will not be met.
The new rule will require all property owners in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) to maintain defensible space immediately around buildings. The standard is intended to be strict because it is the area where embers are most likely to ignite a home. Enforcement of this regulation would be phased in over a three-year period, with education and progress towards compliance being the ultimate goal. State Fire Hazard Severity maps were updated earlier this year, and can be found here.
Additionally, AB 1455 (Bryan, 2025), authorized the board to adopt the Zone 0 regulations under emergency regulatory authority if the regulations are not adopted by the governor's December 31, 2025, deadline under regular regulatory authority. The law also authorizes a local agency responsible for fire protection to adopt a local ordinance comparable to the board's Zone 0 regulations in consideration of local variations in local fire hazards, geography, development, and other conditions.
The development of the Zone 0 regulations have proven to be controversial, as the more stringent version of the regulations being considered by the board would require residents to remove healthy vegetation that is within five feet of their home. Media coverage highlighted the push and pull between fire safety and the need for tree shade and other greenery. It also noted the variance in building settings throughout California and communities with smaller lots that have less defensible space between homes.
A stakeholder meeting in October garnered over 1,000 comments with commenters both for and against various aspects of the regulations. Those in favor of the most stringent options being considered highlighted the connection to the insurance crisis and the need to manage safety and risk. Those in opposition to the most stringent options being considered, characterized the regulations as draconian and having a negative impact on property values and the character of the community.
At their meeting in November, the board reviewed various options for the more controversial vegetation and tree requirements.
Proposed Zone 0 Vegetation Options:
All options exclude fallen leaves, weeds, and combustible mulches
Option 1 – Some plants in pots allowed
Option 2 – Some plants in pots and low, maintained vegetation allowed
Option 3 – Some plants, in pots or planted, allowed
Option 4 – Well maintained plants allowed (The current requirement for vegetation in Zone 1)
Proposed Zone 0 Tree Options:
Option 1: Well-maintained trees allowed with no limbs in Zone 0, local tree ordinances included.
Option 2: Well-maintained trees allowed, branches must be 10 feet from chimneys (This is the statutory minimum requirements).
The Advisory Committee is expected to make a final decision on the regulations at their meeting in December. Committee members acknowledged the controversial nature of the regulations, the tremendous amount of community input, and the need to make a decision based on the science.
Background of Defensible Space Zones. If you live or own structures in the State Responsibility Area (SRA), you are responsible for ensuring that your property complies with California's defensible space regulations which are outlined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 1299.03. Occupied structures in the VERY High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) must comply with local ordinances for defensible space that are based on the Board of Forestry's regulations.
Defensible space is an area where flammable material is removed or reduced to help protect people, homes, and communities from wildfire. Adequate defensible space aids in the safety of firefighters and helps to slow or halt the progress of fire that might otherwise overcome a structure.
Zone 0 (0-5 feet from a structure) details are still being defined by the board. Once finalized, requirements for this zone will focus on ember resistance and the removal of combustible materials adjacent to, and touching, a structure.
Zone 1 (5-30 feet from a structure or to the property line if less than 30 feet) is designed to reduce wildfire risk by minimizing flammable materials and maintaining vegetation in a way that slows fire spread.
- Remove dead leaves, pine needles, and debris from your yard, roof, and gutters.
- Trim overhanging branches to at least 10 feet away from chimneys.
- Keep trees pruned to maintain spacing.
- Clear flammable vegetation and items from under decks, balconies, and stairs.
- Maintain space between trees and shrubs.
- Ensure outbuildings and propane tanks have 10 feet of clearance with no flammable vegetation nearby.
Zone 2 (30-100 feet from a structure or to the property line if less than 100 feet) is designed to slow the spread of wildfire by reducing the amount of vegetation that could fuel flames.
- Mow grass to a maximum height of 4 inches.
- Create horizontal spacing between shrubs and trees.
- Remove dead vegetation and fallen leaves.
- Prune lower branches of trees.
Artificial Intelligence Legislation & Hearing
Artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI, is quickly becoming a practical reality for counties, in some cases fundamentally reshaping local government operations and service delivery. Tools like ChatGPT offer a unique opportunity to expand capacity and improve efficiency, delivering constituent services and managing critical infrastructure. AI has been quietly supporting local governments for years with applications like spam filtering and data analysis. The latest evolution, generative AI, introduces groundbreaking capabilities to create new content, ranging from written responses to visual designs. Modern AI tools can summarize complex documents, draft resolutions, and extract valuable insights from vast datasets, opening new doors for innovation in governance.
The California legislature has demonstrated a growing and proactive interest in regulating AI, leading to a significant increase in legislative activity on the subject. This year, the legislative session saw the introduction of numerous bills aimed at establishing frameworks, safeguards, and ethical guidelines for the development and deployment of AI technologies within the state. A notable portion of these proposed measures advanced through the legislative process and were ultimately signed into law by the governor. Below is an outline of the significant AI legislation that was actively debated and considered within the legislature this year. .
AB 316 (Krell) Artificial intelligence: defenses, Chapter 672, Statutes of 2025
Establishes that in civil actions, where a plaintiff alleges harm caused by AI, a defendant who developed, modified, or used the AI is prohibited from asserting that the AI acted autonomously as a defense.
AB 410 (Wilson) Bots: disclosure, Held in the Senate Appropriations Committee
Would have required that bots disclose their identity before interacting with another person, respond truthfully to any query about their identity, and otherwise refrain from misrepresenting themselves as human. Additionally, the measure would have established a civil penalty for a violation. The author’s goal with AB 410 was to strengthen consumer protections, combat misinformation, and uphold the integrity of online communication in customer service, healthcare, or on social media.
AB 412 (Bauer-Kahan) Generative artificial intelligence: training data: copyrighted materials, Awaiting a full vote of the Assembly
Would establish a transparency framework to allow copyright owners to determine whether their registered works were used to train a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model.
AB 489 (Bonta) Health care professions: deceptive terms or letters: AI, Chapter 615, Statutes of 2025
Prohibits AI and GenAI systems from misrepresenting themselves as licensed or certified healthcare professionals and provides state licensing boards or enforcement agencies the authority to pursue legal recourse against developers or deployers of AI or GenAI systems.
AB 682 (Ortega) Health Care Coverage Reporting, Vetoed
Among other provisions, AB 682 would have required health insurers to include in an annual plan claims payment and dispute resolution report, or in another report as prescribed by the director, the number of claims denied that at any point were processed, adjudicated, or reviewed with AI or other predictive algorithms. Governor Newsom vetoed AB 682 stating that it was duplicative and conflicted with other health plan reporting requirements.
AB 723 (Pellerin) Real estate: digitally altered images: disclosure, Chapter 497, Statutes of 2025
Requires that a digitally-altered image used in an advertisement or other promotional material for the sale of real estate include a reasonably conspicuous statement located on or near the image stating that the image has been digitally altered and language indicating that the unaltered images can be accessed on a linked internet website, URL, or QR code.
AB 853 (Wicks) California AI Transparency Act, Chapter 674, Statutes of 2025
Requires large online platforms to develop a way for users to easily access provenance data of uploaded content. establishes requirements on large online platforms, capture device manufacturers, and generative AI (GenAI) system hosting platforms to embed and disclose provenance data in certain GenAI created or altered content.
Last year, the California AI Transparency (CAIT) Act (SB 942, Becker), was signed into law by the governor. The CAIT Act requires providers to make an AI detection tool available at no cost by which a person can assess whether content was created or altered by the provider’s GenAI system. The CAIT Act also regulates AI-generated images, video, or audio that are created by a GenAI system. Covered providers are required to include a latent disclosure in such content that is detectable using the above tool, and that is, to the extent technically feasible, permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove. This latent disclosure must identify the provider, the tool, and the time and date of the content’s creation or alteration. Covered providers are also required to provide users making such content with their system with the option to include a manifest disclosure that identifies it as AI-generated content.
AB 853 seeks to bolster the CAIT Act by establishing similar transparency requirements on large online platforms, capture device manufacturers, and GenAI system hosting platforms.
AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan) Automated decision systems, Awaiting a vote of the full Senate
Would regulate the use of “automated decision systems” (ADS), placing obligations on developers and deployers of such systems designed or used to make or facilitate “consequential decisions.”
AB 1064 (Bauer-Kahan) Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act, Vetoed
Would have prohibited making a companion chatbot available to children if it is foreseeably capable of specified harmful behaviors, including encouraging the child to engage in self harm, suicidal ideation, or violence, or engaging in sexually explicit interactions with the child.
Governor Newsom vetoed AB 1064 stating, “AB 1064 imposes such broad restrictions on the use of conversational AI tools that it may unintentionally lead to a total ban on the use of these products by minors. AI is already shaping the world, and it is imperative that adolescents learn how to safely interact with AI systems. This extends far beyond knowing how to use technology tools, such as conversational chatbots, and includes an understanding of what AI is, how it functions, and how to critically evaluate AI-generated content for algorithmic bias, misinformation, and other risks. We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether.”
SB 7 (McNerney) Employment: automated decision systems, Vetoed
Would have required employers to provide a written notice to employees and job applicants when using ADS for employment-related decisions. Specifically, SB 7:
- Required an employer to provide a written notice that an ADS is in use at the workplace to all workers that will foreseeably be directly affected by the ADS.
- Prohibited in some instances and in others limited the use of an ADS by an employer, as specified.
- Provided worker anti-retaliation protections for exercising their rights under the provisions of the bill.
- Specified enforcement provisions, including penalties and relief for violations.
Governor Newsom vetoed SB 7 stating, “I share the author's concern that in certain cases unregulated use of ADS by employers can be harmful to workers. However, rather than addressing the specific ways employers misuse this technology, the bill imposes unfocused notification requirements on any business using even the most innocuous tools. This proposed solution fails to directly address incidents of misuse.
Moreover, this measure proposes overly broad restrictions on how employers may use ADS tools. For example, prohibiting an employer from using customer ratings as the primary input data for an ADS takes away a potentially valuable tool for rewarding high-performing employees. To the extent that customer reviews are unfairly or inappropriately used to make decisions about a worker, legislation should address those specific scenarios rather than ban this practice altogether.
Finally, I share the author's concern about situations where an employer uses an ADS to make disciplinary, termination, or deactivation decisions. Such situations are partially covered by forthcoming California Privacy Protection Agency regulations, which would allow employees and independent contractors to better understand how their personal data is used by automated decision technology. Before enacting new legislation in this space, we should assess the efficacy of these regulations to address these concerns.”
SB 11 (Ashby) Artificial intelligence technology, Vetoed
Would have required sellers of AI tools that enable a user to create digital replicas to provide a consumer warning about potential legal liability for unlawful use, clarified that realistic digital replicas may violate a person′s right of publicity, directed the Judicial Council to address AI-generated evidence in court proceedings, and clarified that the use of a digital replica to impersonate another qualifies as ″false impersonation.″
SB 11 was opposed by a coalition of technology and business associations, led by the Chamber of Commerce, arguing that the mandated warning is vague and problematic, and that SB 11 is premature given the recent passage of AB 1836 regarding digital replicas and the publicity rights of deceased individuals.
Governor Newsom vetoed SB 11, stating “This year, I have signed bills requiring companion chatbot operators to disclose to users that they are interacting with an artificial system (SB 243, Padilla) and internet companies to warn minors of the potential dangers of social media use (AB 56, Bauer-Kahan). Under certain circumstances, public disclosures and warning labels can play a key role in providing transparency to the public and mitigating harm. In this case, however, it is unclear whether a warning would be sufficient to dissuade wrongdoers from using AI to impersonate others without their consent.”
SB 53 (Wiener) Artificial intelligence models: large developers, Chapter 138, Statutes of 2025
Requires large AI developers to publish safety frameworks, disclose specified transparency reports, and report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services, as specified. Additionally, this bill creates enhanced whistleblower protections for employees reporting AI safety violations and establishes a consortium to design a framework for “CalCompute,” a public cloud platform to expand safe and equitable AI research.
SB 243 (Padilla) Companion chatbots, Chapter 677, Statutes of 2025
Requires companion chatbot operators to disclose that the chatbot is artificial if a reasonable person interacting with a companion chatbot would be misled to believe that the person is interacting with a human. SB 242 would also require an operator to take certain actions if the user is a minor, including disclosing to the user that they are interacting with AI.
The bill further mandates that chatbot operators implement protocols to respond when a user expresses suicidal ideation or self-harm, including providing contact information for crisis or suicide hotlines. Operators must also track and report data on the frequency operator has issued a crisis service provider referral in the preceding calendar year and the protocols they have in place to prevent the chatbot from engaging in suicidal discussions to the Office of Suicide Prevention.
SB 420 (Padilla) Automated decision systems, Awaiting hearing in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protections Committee
Would regulate the use of high-risk ADS, including requirements on developers and deployers to perform impact assessments on their systems. Would have established the right of individuals to know when an ADS has been used, details about the systems, and an opportunity to appeal ADS decisions, where technically feasible.
SB 435 (Wahab) California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018: sensitive personal information, Failed passage in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protections Committee
Would have deleted the exemption for public information from the definition of “sensitive personal information.”
Currently, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CPPA) allows data brokers and corporations to sell and share sensitive personal information they consider publicly available. Federal legislation such as the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act fails to prohibit data brokers from selling data belonging to children. As a result, data brokers can legally sell sensitive personal information to government agencies, bypassing legal processes and procedures to request this information.
SB 435 aims to address the loophole in the CCPA by changing the definition of “sensitive personal information” that allows it to be considered “publicly available,” increasing the privacy and security of consumers and preventing data brokers and corporations from selling or sharing sensitive personal information.
AI Informational Hearing. Last month, the Senate Select Committee on Economic Development and Technological Innovation, led by Senator Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park), held an informational hearing to investigate the Impacts of AI on California’s workforce. The hearing featured labor representatives, human resource professionals, and policy researchers who discussed how AI is transforming employment and the potential policy measures the state could use to ensure fair outcomes. Senator Becker framed the discussion as an effort to strike a balance between promoting innovation and safeguarding workers. He emphasized California's unique position as both a leader in AI development and a proving ground for its social and economic effects.
Panelists' testimony aligned with the themes of the Committee's background paper: AI presents both significant opportunities for productivity and innovation, and severe risks of inequality, bias, and job displacement if not properly regulated.
Impacts of AI on Employees. Sara Flocks, Legislative Director for the California Labor Federation, cautioned that the rapid and large-scale adoption of AI is fundamentally altering the workplace in ways that significantly consolidate power in the hands of employers. While technology is not inherently negative, the deployment of AI is primarily geared towards cutting labor expenses and reducing the need for managerial oversight. Flocks identified two critical dynamics currently at play:
-
Labor Replacing (Automation): AI is eliminating entry-level, creative, and knowledge-based positions—the "bottom rungs off the career ladder." Examples include roles for writers, animators, customer service agents, and even therapy functions via chatbots. This trend poses a significant challenge for new graduates entering the job market.
-
Labor Exploiting (Algorithmic Management): Workers are increasingly subjected to machine-based management. This includes intense surveillance systems that monitor keystrokes, track movements, and analyze vocal tone. Workers in the gig economy, warehouses, and healthcare are facing consequences like algorithmic discipline, automatic termination, and suppressed wages.
Flocks noted specific instances, such as algorithmic staffing tools endangering patients in nursing homes, and stated that AI-driven technologies are being actively used for union-busting and invasive employee monitoring.
To prevent AI from "Uberizing" entire professions and fracturing the social structure, Flocks advocated for the following guardrails:
-
Mandatory Worker Involvement: Require employers to provide early notification and solicit input from workers before deploying AI systems.
-
Human Oversight: Consequential employment decisions must be reserved for human judgment, not automated by AI.
-
Bias Audits and Transparency: Mandate third-party testing and ensure transparency for all hiring algorithms to prevent bias.
-
Support for Public Development: Invest in publicly funded AI tools that are designed with a focus on worker benefit rather than solely on corporate profit.
Impacts of Artificial Intelligence on Employers. Tara Fournier, Deputy State Director for SHRM California, presented a contrasting perspective, arguing that AI can boost human capabilities instead of replacing them.
SHRM research highlights the increasing integration of AI in HR, with 43% of employers utilizing it, a notable increase from 26% the previous year. Most HR professionals report that AI is beneficial, leading to time savings, reduced hiring costs, and a wider pool of diverse candidates. An example of AI's potential to broaden opportunities is an employer who successfully increased retention by focusing on experience rather than degrees during assessment.
Fournier stressed the importance of preparing the workforce for evolving roles through ongoing education and initiatives like SHRM’s E² (Education-to-Employment) program, which aims to close the gap between training and employment needs. She advocated for a collaborative effort among government, educators, and employers, alongside a balanced regulatory strategy that targets high-risk systems without hindering innovation.
Research and Policy Insights. Molly Kinder, Senior Fellow at Brookings, views the impact of AI as a blend of "wonder and worry." Her joint research with Yale currently shows no evidence of widespread job loss, yet she cautioned that the disruption could intensify, particularly for workers early in their careers.
California is especially vulnerable due to its high concentration of AI-related industries and roles in clerical work, creative fields, and customer service - sectors that employ over 10% of the state's workforce. Kinder identified three primary risks:
-
Automation of clerical roles: This disproportionately affects women with high school-level education.
-
The "augmentation gap": AI tools offer the greatest benefits to the most advantaged workers.
-
Overreliance on reskilling: Future jobs replacing those displaced by AI may offer lower wages.
She proposed the following solutions:
- Boost worker power through novel organizing structures, such as sectoral councils.
- Mandate data transparency from AI companies to facilitate research and accountability.
- Ensure employer responsibility by using incentives or taxes to require AI profits be reinvested in affected industries.
- Encourage entrepreneurship by leveraging AI's ability to reduce barriers to starting new businesses.
We will continue to track AI-related legislation and legislative hearings into the 2026 session, specifically noting elements that could impact the county.
Upcoming Hearings
Agendas are typically posted on the committee websites in the Assembly and Senate a few days prior to the hearings. To view hearings after they take place, you may access them in the Assembly or Senate media archives where they are generally available within a few hours of committee adjournment.
Friday, November 21 2025, 10:00 a.m. to noon
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on State Administration
City of Anaheim Council Chambers, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim
Informational Hearing: Honoring our Heroes: The Path Forward for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon
Grant Opportunities
Below is a list of the latest grant opportunities released by the state. All opportunities for local jurisdictions may be found here.
Deadline:12/3/26 00:00
Title: 2025–26 After School Education and Safety grant program (Round 2)
State Agency / Department: CA Department of Education
Match Funding? No
Estimated Total Funding: $30,000,000
Funding Method: Advances & Reimbursement(s)
Governor’s Press Releases
Below is a list of the governor’s press releases beginning November 5.
November 12: Governor Newsom inks new global partnerships at COP30 as Trump administration doesn’t even show up
November 12: During COP30, Governor Newsom highlights subnational climate action as the defining economic opportunity of the 21st Century, while Trump sleeps
November 7: Governor Newsom announces “Quantum California” — strengthening the Golden State’s leadership in next-generation technology
November 7: Paw and order: four new K-9 teams join CHP to increase public safety statewide
November 7: Governor Newsom announces multiple clemency actions
November 7: Governor Newsom proclaims Veterans Day
November 7: Governor Newsom fights for Californians’ access to food benefits while Trump basically says “THE POOR MUST STARVE!”
November 7: California and Fresno unite to tackle unsheltered homelessness through new cooperative agreement
November 7: Governor Newsom proclaims Native American Heritage Month
November 6: Californians are beginning to see cash on their SNAP cards following major win against the Trump administration
November 6: Governor Newsom announces appointments 11.6.2025
November 6: Environmental leaders, fire practitioners applaud California’s efforts to expand beneficial fire this Fall
November 6: Governor Newsom proclaims Alzheimer’s Disease Awareness Month
November 6: World-leading economy and climate solutions: California’s emissions drop in 2023, driven by clean transportation
November 6: Retail theft crackdown keeps delivering results: 25,675 arrests and $190 million in recovered stolen goods
November 5: As Trump abandons people and the planet, Governor Newsom heads to COP30 in Brazil
|
