HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates 20263-20266 Schmidt From: Richard Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 10:12 AM
To: E-mai) Counci) Website
Subject: Agenda #9 Villaggio
9/15/2020
Item 9: Villaggio
Dear Council Members,
Developing this site with the proposed use is insane. It would be a public safety
disaster waiting to explode.
THIS SITE IS ARGUABLY THE MOST DANGEROUS PIECE OF GEOLOGY IN OUR
TOWN, AND SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPED.
A few of the issues.
1 . FLOOD. Froom Creek emerges from Froom Canyon at the rear of this property. This
particular creek system supports an active alluvial fan that shoots across then spreads
along the level portion of the property. An alluvial fan like this is among the most
dangerous forms of kinetic geology, and in Southern California such have caused much
death and destruction.
You have all lived in SLO too short time to have any memory of an actual flood (as
contrasted with the pipsqueak events of the 1990s that your short-memoried staff refer to
as floods).
�
20263
When Froom Creek floods, it shoots huge quantities of boulders, rock, debris from up
canyon, silt, and unbelievable quantities of high-velocity water across the flats straight at
the auto park area, which has been badly damaged in the past. This thick soup is powered
by energy you cannot imagine. Everything in its immediate path will be destroyed — and if
developed as planned, that means cars, landscape, site development and BUILDINGS!
Rinky-dink re-engineering of the creek's course will not change Mother Nature's fury.
Mother remembers, and has a mind of her own. You simply cannot hold back this type of
natural force. It will prevail.
Why place living quarters for the vulnerable in such a dangerous place? It would be far
more intelligent to give Mother the space she needs to spread out and calm down, by
leaving this land alone.
2. EARTHQUAKE. City planners and the property owner seem indifferent to the fact this
property is a seismically active fault zone. So it's up to decision-makers like you to take
note. A significant fault goes near the base of the hills — part of the whole San Andreas-
Hosgri fault complex that destablilzes western California as a whole, and our county in
particular. Geologists have recently concluded these parallel faults act as one, and that a
quake originating on one can jump to another, which means this fault could deliver a huge
jolt when the section of the San Andreas to our east lets go — something that time-wise is
past-due.
Why would you develop atop an earthquake fault zone? This is plain stupid. It's
the sort of thing that makes the public ask, when the inevitable happens, "What
were they thinking?" One doesn't need to build right on an active fault. We've got
plenty of better places to build. Only lunatics would approve developing this site
once this has been called to their attention.
3. LIQUEFACTION. The soils on the site are alluvial. The water table is high. There are
wetlands, former wetlands, creek beds, former creek beds. All this adds up to a site
primed for liquefaction during an earthquake. Given the site is practically atop an active
fault, this is a very serious matter.
2
20264
What does liquefaction do? It turns what looks like firm soil to soup. The soil loses the
ability to support anything, like buildings. Buildings sink into the muck, tip, perhaps fall
over. This is all well-known. It's a nightmare scenario, one that intelligent and ethical
planners would avoid.
Liquefaction cannot be stopped with good thoughts or even engineering of soils, let alone
by ignoring its potential to happen. Further, a site like this that's been monkeyed with so
extensively by moving creeks (Froom Creek used to go to Prefumo Creek through the
auto park; today's Calle Joaquin routing is fakery) and wetlands, is EXCEPTIONALLY
DANGEROUS because all those old creek beds and wetlands remain intact at the
geological level, and Mother Earth remembers, and liquefies them despite their surface
removal. The Loma Prieta earthquake demonstrated this principle in San Francisco; lines
of destruction followed long-forgotten and built-upon creek beds.
It is insane to develop a site with such liquefaction potential.
4. FIRE. The site adjoins the Irish Hills, which is an extensive high fire danger zone, fully
capable of causing the sort of ember-storm-driven urban fire disasters we've seen
elsewhere in California of late. Others have pointed out the insanity of housing the
debilitated, slow and vulnerable in such a location. It's something like encouraging
premature cremation.
But danger to residents is not the only problem with this project's fire-land adjacency.
What about fire insurance? Has anyone even considered this impact, not only on the
development but on the rest of us? In case you're unaware of this issue, it's already a
problem in SLO, as I myself found out this year when my 40+ year fire insurance was
summarily cancelled based on an allegation I live in an ember-storm-prone location,
surrounded by mile-upon-mile of ember-spewing natural fuels, with no conceivable
mitigation! Those of you who know where I live know this allegation is totally bonkers, but
there was no appeal from it.
A fire insurer looking at Villaggio, on the other hand, would have a pretty good right to
make such an argument. And other insurers, looking at Villaggio, and the potential for it to
burn and create a fire storm of embers (buildings are greater ember sources than
wildlands, believe it or not) affecting downwind houses (like Laguna, San Luis Ranch and
on into downtown) could well create an insurance disaster for much of our city — simply
3
20265
because you guys and gals allowed a development like this too close to a dangerous fire
zone.
5. CONCLUSION. For the reasons cited, this site is inappropriate for development such
as proposed.
I realize there's a huge astroturf campaign urging you to approve this project, including
what appear to be internet-generated "letters" bearing unfamiliar names with no
identification.
But PUBLIC SAFETY is not a popularity contest. It's something you, the Council,
are charged with protecting.
As for the sort of "community" being proposed on this site, it can be located elsewhere.
There's no lack of potential for that.
Public safety needs to take precedence.
Richard Schmidt
4
20266