HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2022 Item 4a, Cooper
Delgado, Adriana
From:Allan Cooper <allancoope@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October
To:Advisory Bodies; Bell, Kyle; Whipple, Anthony; E-mail Council Website
Cc:Peg
Subject:Peg Pinard's Letter to the Tree Committee
Attachments:410_04_22...lettertotreecommittee.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
Dear Kyle & Anthony -
Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the
Tree Committee? This letter pertains to the Committee's
October 10, 2022 review of Agenda #4a: 1422 Monterey
Street. We would also like this letter to appear in the City's
Correspondence File. I received this letter from Peg Pinard.
Peg was co-founder of the Old Town Neighborhood
Association, former SLO City Mayor and former SLO
County Supervisor. Apparently her computer is "on the
blink" and she requested that I send this to you on her
behalf. Thanks!
1
Dear Tree Committee -
It’s important for the city to be honest when it talks about climate impacts.
Having approved the recent destruction of thousands of mature trees in our city,
the city has little reason to “celebrate”. Rather than planning developments
respecting the crucial role that trees play in carbon sequestration, the city itself
has become one of the worst carbon polluters.
According to Davey Research Group, the firm hired by the city for its expertise in
analyzing urban forestry programs, below is their accounting of some of the city's
carbon sequestration impacts. Even the roughest calculations for the loss of so
many trees shows that the carbon impact will be substantial. The resulting
thousands of tons of carbon pollution will be with us for generations.
"Trees absorb atmospheric carbon, which reduces green house gasses. The
carbon-related function of trees is measure in two (2) ways: storage (total stored
in tree biomass) and sequestration (the absorption rate per year). Urban trees act
as a sink of CO2 by storing excess carbon as biomass during photosynthesis
and the amount of CO2 stored is proportional to the biomass of the trees.” In
other words, the larger the tree, the bigger its carbon sequestering ability.
For instance:
A 6” diameter Plum tree reduces approx. 110 lbs. of atmospheric
carbon per year.
A 12” Maple = 267 lbs. of carbon per year
A 24” Maple = 731 lbs. of carbon per year
A 24” Douglas Fir = 466 lbs. of carbon per year.
SLO city doesn’t count the removal of ‘native species' trees that are "less than
(10”) ten inches in diameter” or a “nonnative…less than (24”) twenty four inches”
in diameter (SLO Tree regs: 12:24). So, the thousands of permitted tree
removals don’t even include the loss of the sequestering ability of the native and
nonnative trees that fit those dimensions. It is important to note that those
existing trees had already survived multiple drought cycles. Even a conservative
estimate of this city's tree removal impacts would be an approx. INCREASE of
50,000 lbs. of carbon a year that will no longer be sequestered but will now
remain in our atmosphere. That is a HUGE negative impact! AND, nowhere in
all the discussion of climate change is this new source of pollution ever
mentioned.
Instead, the city touts its tree planting program. While a tree planting program is
very important, new trees should have been IN ADDITION to our
exisiting, carbon-sequestering-trees, NOT INSTEAD OF them. New tree saplings
will take at least 30-50 years before they even begin to make up for the huge
deficit (if they even survive!). The city's PR campaign is called “Greenwashing”
and is meant to distract from the city’s real, devastating environmental impacts.
- Peg Pinard