Sacramento officials came to Southern California this week for the first public meeting since they issued new proposed rules on how people in fire-prone neighborhoods will be allowed to landscape their yards.

In contrast to prior proposals from the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, many who attended were … OK with this one.

“It is a reasonable compromise,” Beth Burnam, who holds leadership positions in multiple local environmental and fire safety organizations, told the board. “Do I like everything? No. Can I live with it? Yes.”

Under the proposal, residents would not be allowed to plant anything within a 1-foot “Safety Zone” around the home, including beneath roof overhangs; two feet from windows, vents and doors and five feet from decks. Elsewhere within a 5-foot buffer around the home, known as “Zone Zero,” grass and dispersed plants up to 18 inches tall would be permissible.

Trees would also be allowed, but would need to be trimmed away from walls and roofs, and residents could install only noncombustible fencing against the house. Any sheds in the zone would need a noncombustible exterior.

The response has been a far cry from the blue “HANDS OFF OUR YARDS!” signs that multiplied across Los Angeles foothill neighborhoods last year as the board began developing the rules in earnest.

Zone Zero is just one layer in a home’s fire defenses. In fire-prone areas, Cal Fire and local fire departments already enforce defensible space rules, and building codes require home hardening like covering vents with mesh to prevent embers from entering the house. The more measures residents stack together, the safer the home.

Once the state finalizes the Zone Zero rules, they could take effect as early as July 7. Residents will have up to five years to comply with the stricter Safety Zone requirements and bigger lifts, like updating sheds. They will have three years to comply with the plant spacing requirements for the rest of Zone Zero. New construction will have to comply immediately.

The fiercest subject of debate has been around whether to allow plants if they are well-watered. Many fire officials have argued that residents should have to remove all plants, because anything that can burn, will burn. Some ecologists argue that residents should be able to keep green plants they say do not pose a major fire threat and bring a plethora of benefits, including bolstering the urban ecosystem.

This proposal was a compromise. It provides extra fire protection via strict plant prohibitions nearest the house, yet flexibility for landscaping elsewhere in Zone Zero.

Those still not in love with the state’s proposal have found solace in a section that allows local governments to create their own version of Zone Zero, as long as it’s at least as protective against fire as state rules.

James Gillespie, Newport Beach fire marshal and president of the fire marshal section of the California Fire Chiefs Assn., said he hoped that local variations would embolden cities to adopt a stricter and more protective 5-foot buffer devoid of vegetation — which Berkeley has already done.

The city of Los Angeles is in the process of creating its own Zone Zero regulations. Some Angelenos, like David Lefkowith, president of the Mandeville Canyon Assn., hope it will be more accepting of fire-resistant native species and emphasize less expensive home hardening measures.

Yet, some concerns remain. After months of residents asking the board to provide estimated costs to homeowners, it finally did. Officials insist some requirements won’t cost anything. The combined requirements, with shed upgrades and significant landscaping, they said, could cost north of $4,500 for some homeowners.

These estimates — which one attendee described as “cute” — prompted audible scoffs in the room.

One online commenter said he’s been quoted around $13,000 to comply with Berkeley’s stricter version of Zone Zero.

Lefkowith encouraged the board to do a deeper analysis of the costs, based on real-world data from early adopters. For others, seeing the estimate for the first time raised questions about how the state will help homeowners comply.

Tony Andersen, the board’s executive officer, said the board will do “everything we can to make this affordable” and work with state agencies and fire safety organizations during the five-year adoption period to develop a “one-stop shop” for folks to find financial support and local organizations that can help them navigate the rules and complete the work.

In the end, it may not be these rules that govern many Californians’ decisions in fire-prone areas, because insurance companies set their own requirements. They can require property owners to remove significantly more plants and other flammable material to qualify for lower rates or any insurance at all. Insurance professionals at the meeting in Calabasas said as much.

“This is about insurability,” Laura Blaul, a senior wildfire fellow for the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, told the board. Blaul pointed to fire survivors in L.A. County who are already choosing the stricter buffer: “Homeowners are not just rebuilding to be safer; they are rebuilding to remain insurable.”