HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/7/2021 Item 7b, Czech (2)
Delgado, Adriana
From:Genevieve Czech <agczech@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, September
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:Sept. 7th meeting, Item 7b, 500 Westmont project,
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
________________________________
Honorable Mayor Harmon and City Council Members:
While the 500 Westmont project has received approval at the second PC meeting of July 28th, it was not without
considerable unease. One problem was that the committee was directed at the outset of the meeting that were they to
deny approval of the project in its current form, that would entail their needing a subsequent meeting, thereby denying
you, the City Council, the possibility of 2 meetings, under the Housing Accountability Act. This was most unfortunate as
some issues were unsettled over the design of the project. Mr. Jorgensen stated that it was ¨hard to achieve a balance¨.
At the first PC meeting of May 26th he stated it was a ¨missed opportunity¨. He felt a more flexible and creative design
with reduced grading to preserve more trees could have been achieved in the planning development process. There was
a general consensus among the PC that the project should be shifted more to the east given the riparian corridor to the
west.
The Engineering firm responsible for the design stated already at the Tree Committee meeting of May 17th that it was
¨too late to make changes¨. At the subsequent May 26th PC meeting, after hearing multiple issues raised by the public,
Tyler Corey stated that adjustments could be incorporated into the design. There was concern ( already stated at the
Tree Committee meeting ) that the plan did not work around major native and non-native trees. Both the Tree
Committee and the PC found it hard to visualize the tree removals without a tree removal plan being superimposed on
the tract map.
Questions arose over the factual assumptions made concerning the creek´s ability to sustain some amphibian life, and
the specifics of the creek´s flow, A detailed video study was subsequently submitted by a neighboring Biologist making
recommendations for further mitigation of the riparian corridor. There was no acknowledgment of that informed
submission; it was as if it hadn't existed.
The current proposal is basically a repeat of the 1958 tract map with
2 rows of facing units and a few larger units near the riparian corridor. However, rather than extend the Westmont Road
east to west, the current design proposes connecting Stanford Drive to Cuest Drive, forming a loop. This necessitates
cutting down 3 redwoods, majestic eucalyptus, among others, ( It also has traffic implications. The City assures Stanford
residents that the street will in fact become ¨safer¨!! ). An alternative reconfiguration was presented by Mr. Allan
Cooper ( see his Correspondence ), which could save some of those trees with a minor adjustment of 2 lots. ( and which
would not devalue the profit margin of the development, but rather enhance it ).
Ms. Dandekar visited the streets, and the site and even spoke to one of the applicants. She was clearly uncomfortable
with the current plan, the traffic impacts, the loss of tree life. Her further concern was that given the imminent passage
of SB9, the future is not clear in the division and density of the 4.98 parcel. She requested the City Staff to provide a
detailed breakdown of the PC´s analysis. Mr.
Codron promised that her repeated concerns among others would be provided to you, the City Council, which I assume
you will have received.
1
The 500 Westmont project is at the very northern edge of SLO, abutting land owned by Cal Poly and Cal Fire. It is not
just ¨another infill project¨ but a parcel whose current ecosystem has evolved over the last 65 years, beautifully
maintained by the applicant´s family.
Dramatic upheaval to that ecosystem is inevitable if it is developed, and the EIR demonstrates consideration to details
like wild flowers and grasses. Isn´t it consistent, then, to grant better protection to some majestic trees and the riparian
corridor?
If we are meant to be seriously addressing climate change, ¨undevelopment¨ would be the best option. However, if
development of
500 Westmont is inevitable, surely it should be as environment- friendly as possible. That includes the question of the
tree canopy.
The resilient redwoods do not grow much farther south of San Luis Obispo. How many redwoods does SLO count? They
form their own ecosystem upon their very branches, in their undercover; they affect the water in the creek bed, and
form a fire screen. A recent Cal Poly student project established that SLO is short of the recommended tree canopy to
sequester carbon dioxide in the face of climate change. The redwood lumber industry does not cut down a redwood
whose girth is more than 4 feet. But our developers do. Each individual tree is part of a network that shares
underground signals to warn of insect attack and water shortage .Each tree lost to the developer´s axe hurts the
network ( called a mycorrhizal network ). In man´s haste to build a home, he/she needs to remember that each tree is a
home, to wildlife that includes birds, insects, fungi; each tree in its networking could be described as part of a family.
There is a newly published report by the Global Tree Assessment ( 500 experts and 61 institutions ) on the conservation
status of all trees.
One in three of all tree species in the wild faces extinction, including oak and ash. Development is responsible for 13%
of that threat. Each tree has a unique ecological role to play. Trees´ underground messages cannot be heard above
ground. However, we can arouse our awareness and inform the unenlightened developers, while affirming those
developers who are sensitive to the living and non-living natural features they put under cement.
While the Tree Committee advises replanting, we cannot replace a mature tree that is part of a mycorrhizal network by
saplings in a planter. Decades of growth and maintenance are required with unpredictable weather patterns and water
resources to ensure a healthy new tree is nourished. The Westmont project describes that the homeowner will be
responsible for its planter with trees. What mechanism is in place to ensure they are cared for, and at what timeline
during the interim of planting and home ownership/ occupancy?
When SLO fails to protect her trees, she fails the planet.
Mayor Harmon, you will be leaving behind the pledge to include the community in your deliberations. I remember you
visiting an eldelrly lady in her home in the historic district to hear her concerns over development proposals affecting
her homestead. One of our neighbours, Mrs. Stansfield, invited Commissioners to visit her in her home abutting the
southern edge of the Westmnt project; no one has accepted her invitation. You are undertaking a new job to advocate
and advise on behalf of responsible climate change behaviour. The issues raised in the Westmont project provide you
with an excellent occasion to begin that advocacy, namely responsible development within the natural limits dictated by
climate change. The City Staff are working within a rigid definition of regulations which are out of touch with the current
reality raised by drought, fire, traffic, energy change, population increase, and living with a pandemic. We are living
between a rock and a hard place; we do need ¨affordable¨ housing, but we need to respect nature and build
accordingly.
Richard Powers in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, ¨Overstory¨ wrote about the life-or-death matter of saving trees.
¨Your kind never sees us whole. You miss the half of it and more.
There´s always as much belowground as above. That's the trouble with people, their root problem.
Life runs alongside them unseen. Right here, right next, creating the soil. Cycling water, trading in nutrients. Making
weather. Building atmosphere. Feeding and curing
and sheltering more kinds of creatures than people know how to count.¨
2
May the Mayor and City Council reflect and demonstrate its commitment to safety and the environment in
recommending a further review of the issues raised regarding the current design of the 500 Westmont project.
Respectfully, Genevieve Czech, 612 Stanford Drive, SLO
3