HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/7/2021 Item 7b, Pinard
Delgado, Adriana
From:Peg Pinard <pinardmat@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:CityClerk; E-mail Council Website; Harmon, Heidi; Pease, Andy
Cc:Dave Congalton; Stephanie Finucane; Peter Johnson; Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra
Club
Subject:Agenda Item 7-B REVIEW OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TRACT 3157)...
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
RE: Item 7-B
REVIEW OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TRACT 3157) TO CREATE 23 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON A 4.98-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE
Attention City Council Members,
The city council needs to stop deceiving its residents. In spite of the bureaucratic jargon about protecting the
environment and especially that you are focusing on carbon emissions and climate change…your actions tell a
different story. Buried amid pages of staff reports is the clear language that, well, all that pretense of “care"
doesn’t mean a thing when developers come in with a proposal that would provide more profit for them and
more tax revenue for the city.
It’s all about money…it always is.
In just the last couple of years the city has been responsible for well over, (approx). 22,400 more pounds of
carbon into the atmosphere EVERY YEAR. The city itself added even more to the amount of carbon being put
into the atmosphere when they cut down even more trees to make room for a new entrance to the San Luis
Ranch project. That was just one project, 71 Palomar cleared the site of dozens more mature trees as did
other recent projects.
How come none of the actual increase in carbon emissions was noted on the staff reports when these projects
came up for approval?
The so-called “mitigation” that a new little tree could make up for this level of polltuion is folly. It would take as
many years as the age of the original tree just to reach the current level of biological impacts. Most of these
trees have been here as long as I’ve been here…over 50 years. That means we won’t even have the current
level of our air quality, water retention, soil eroison prevention, or wildlife habitat…oh, and let’s not forget the
very oxygen we breathe! for at least another 50 years! In the meantime, that’s approximately a million pounds
of carbon being put into the atmosphere from just a couple of local projects!
We don’t have that kind of time anymore! There is a huge net loss to all of us and yet that fact is constantly
dismissed. Nothing is improved.
1
The council uses the words “climate crisis” but obviously doesn’t believe it. It makes for great public relations
to appear to care….to just say the words. The sad thing is that people believe you. However, in staff report
after staff report, and council vote after council vote, the real record of the city doesn’t honor the trust of
residents. This staff report, and the action you are being asked to take, is another instance. The developer
doesn’t have to do this much damage to the environment to have a project. Developers are still being allowed
to cut down lots of trees in order to squeeze in additional units and profit. The environmental costs of
clearcutting are being felt everywhere…yet nothing is changing...not even here is supposedly environmentally-
conscious SLO. Development applications are constantly seeking your permission for massive tree removals
and avoiding taking any responsibility for taking care of the very land we depend on.
Our children and grandchildren will pay the costs. But the developer and the city will have made a few extra
bucks!
A fairly new introduction for reasons to cut down so many trees in the city is to prevent fires. The rationale is
that if we just cut them all down then we won’t have a problem! While we are all concerned about fires,
especially in watching the current forests fires, however, trees in urban areas are not the same category. The
city’s use of fear-mongering is shameful. We need to be responsible custodians of our urban trees, not
loggers.
I am just concentrating on the trees in this email because if that doesn’t mean anything to you then nothing
else I can say will make a difference. But, this same cavalier attitude exists towards wildlife (they can find
somewhere else to go) and fauna (we’ll pick up the endangered species and move it) are prevalent throughout
staff reports. The so-called environmental review of the burrowing owl on the site is an example - basically,
you’ll do a review of the site a few days prior to construction, and, "if they are still there” then you’ll call for a
review. How does that not give any developer the incentive to make sure that they are not “still there”?
Until you are ready to face the fact that “business as usual” isn’t going to be the order of the day, then stop
telling people that you care…because you don’t! This project is a clear example of "business as usual” and
sets us back at least 50 years. There’s no honest mitigation and no attempt at trying to make anything better.
If you approve this project as it is, then you are the problem!
Sincerely,
Peg Pinard
former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo,
Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors
2