HomeMy WebLinkAboutREDschmidtph1hard copy:a
d COUNCIL
CITY MGR
'ASST CM
'ATTORNEY
Is CLERKIORI G
toff PIB
(TRIBUNE
KNEW TIMES
SLO CITY NEWS
.;Ashbaugh ,RED FIL E
MEETING AGENDA
Dear Council Members,DATE///io ITEM #en
Beware of enshrining the Wildland-Urban Interface Code's requirement s
into your city's planning regimen! This bureaucratic boondoggle is a
nightmare based on single-issue thinking underwritten by excessiv e
genuflection paid to "first responders" since 9/11 . The code's
requirements are a mishmash of propaganda, bureaucratic over-reach ,
unproven or disputable assertions of "fact", and a tiny bit of commo n
sense which whitewashes the rest . It has no regard for reasonabl e
cost/benefit, vastly raises the cost of building even a minimu m
dwelling, despoils the environment, will significantly change th e
esthetics of our city for the worse .
Those comments apply equally to the intellectually-incoheren t
resolution you're being asked to approve . It's a dumpster load o f
intellectual refuse .
To extend W-UIC regulations from the actual countryside interface int o
the city itself (1000-foot zone) is a very bad idea that will come bac k
to bite you politically .
The Negative Declaration is a farce - either because those who prepare d
it don't understand the issue, or by deliberate bureaucratic sleight o f
hand .
The general plan changes being given a neg dec will have significan t
effects on esthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology an d
soils, hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, an d
utilities/service systems . For example, one of the recommende d
vegetation modification regimens in high fire areas is replacement o f
native vegetation (biologically important habitat) with irrigated lawn ;
if this happens, not only do we have massive biological, hydrological ,
greenhouse gas and esthetic impacts, we have a huge increase in deman d
for city water . When native vegetation is thinned/limbed up, we hav e
biological loss, esthetic loss, alteration of soil cover so that wha t
was shaded is now in full sun and dries out faster thus changin g
hydrology and ultimately soil structure while also increasing erosio n
and altering natural vegetation still further as the drier soil ca n
support less vegetation, etc . The neg dec is written to justify a one -
dimensional fire program that's based on environmentally questionabl e
assumptions, and fails to connect the dots to show what this progra m
actually means four-dimensionally .
I find the fire establishment's arguments for its require d
"improvements" intellectually disingenuous . For example, they will tel l
you things like a residential fire sprinkler system increases a n
occupant's chances of surviving a fire by 80% compared to just having a
smoke alarm . What they don't tell you is that a smoke alarm provides a
99 .45% chance of survival, so the 80% increase brings that chance t o
99 .89% -- a trivial difference for a $15,000 increase in the cost o f
the house and on-going costs for maintenance and flood cleanup when th eRECEIvP
NOV08201 0
SLO CITY CLER K
From : rschmidt@rain .org (rschmidt@rain .org ]
Sent : Monday, November 08, 2010 10 :11 AM
To : Romero, Dave ; Settle, Allen ; Carter, Andrew ; Marx, Jar
John
Subject :
DD DIII
IT DI R
FIRE CHIEFe'PW DIRis-POLICE CHIE F
PARKS & RECDIR
dUTIL DIR
iRDIR
COUNCIL
'CITY MGR
p'CLERK
things go off by mistake . Likewise for the W-UIC's latest gimmick -
tempered glass in all windows, which puts even small windows into th e
$1,000 range for a very insignificant increase in house survivabilit y
in event of wild fire . (The problem with the W-UIC is it's
prescriptive, not performance-based . Operable window shutters woul d
provide better protection than tempered glass for less cost, bu t
they're not an option under the prescriptive standards of this one -
dimensional code .)
The premise put forth in the staff report that vegetation modificatio n
will only apply to "new construction" is unsupportable, both becaus e
that is not what the W-UIC says (such control applies to new AN D
existing premises within areas under the W-UIC) but because it would b e
nonsensical (if it's actually an important measure, why would it onl y
apply to SOME premises within the alleged "danger zone" and not to AL L
premises?).
You need to be aware that what you're being asked to approve is th e
camel's nose within the tent . Once you approve this, I guarantee yo u
these onerous fire provisions will be incrementally extended an d
expanded - perhaps by bureaucrats' changing the maps, which is beyon d
your control - until they encompass the entire city and become a
nightmare of city harassment upon the citizenry and the environment .
Once you've included reference to the W-UIC in your city plans, furthe r
expansions are automatic and out of your control .
Be very suspicious . Don't get snookered .
Sincerely ,
Richard Schmidt, Architect