To the editor: Lacking within the protection of “zone zero” rules is the big, mind-boggling value of implementing a clear-cut mandate at greater than 1 million properties throughout the state (“‘Zone zero’ rule may very well be California’s wildfire savior — or its environmental undoing,” Sept. 15).
Apparently, greater than 1.75 million properties in California could be affected by the draft zone zero rules. What number of billions of {dollars} wouldn’t it value these property house owners to take away zone zero timber, hedges and vegetation, to restore the ensuing harm, to switch with new hardscaping and to ensure any soil erosion or hillside stability points are addressed?
These rules would additionally enhance electrical payments throughout the state. As hundreds of shade-providing timber and hedges are eliminated, houses will undoubtedly turn into hotter. This might enhance electrical system peaks, which might each enhance electrical utility charges and degrade system reliability (extra blackouts and brownouts).
Extremely, the Zone 0 Advisory Committee has not considerably addressed these prices in any of its conferences or in any of its public communications.
Maybe it’s time somebody requested: “Why hasn’t the committee accomplished and launched an evaluation of the prices to property house owners and electrical utility ratepayers of the draft zone zero rules?”
Dave Lefkowith, Los Angeles
This author is vice chairman of the Mandeville Canyon Assn., a householders affiliation.
..
To the editor: Will this imply that I have to reduce down the large sycamore that shades and protects our home and patio? Should I take away the wonderful gingko tree on our entrance garden that could be a neighborhood delight when it turns golden in November?
Say goodbye to birdsong, butterflies and squirrels scampering in timber. Say whats up to the Nevada desert.
Toby Horn, Mid Metropolis
