HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, Smith
RECEIVED
COUNCIL MEETING: L/-
ITEM NO.: - MAR 3 0 2017
SLO CITY CLERK
From: carolyn smith [
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 8:12 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: April 4, 2017, City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #16 - 71 Palomar Appeal
Mayor Harmon and Council Members:
I have lived in SLO for 37 years. I have supported and applauded the city's policies to protect our
environment by taking actions such as banning drive-through restaurants and banks to prevent
pollution from idling vehicles, not allowing smoking in restaurants and public areas, banning plastic
bags in grocery stores, plastic food containers in restaurants, and now plastic bottles at public events.
Truly it should be obvious to anyone that this city is very concerned about our carbon footprint in the
world and does whatever it can to protect our environment.
So you can imagine my, and other residents', confusion when this project moved forward through the
planning process approving the removal of 55 tall mature trees on a historical site. This makes no
sense given the importance of mature trees and their ability to help our environment. Young trees
absorb carbon dioxide at a significantly smaller rate than a mature tree which can consume 48
pounds of carbon dioxide per year. It then releases enough oxygen to support two human beings for
years. These two effects help to promote a healthier climate. Further the shade canopy from mature
trees act as natural air conditioning which helps reduce energy use. It will take the new trees
proposed to be planted in this project decades to reach the level of climate benefits that the 55
mature trees on this site produce.
Removing 55 trees is so contrary and even hypocritical to our historical desire to protect our
environment. The pleas from those who want the city to build housing they can afford is causing us to
toss aside the very protections that have kept our city such a desirable place to live. Why would we
want to destroy what we have worked so hard to achieve?
This isn't about whether or not you're in favor of more housing. It's about standing firm on our city's
historical commitment to preserve our environment and quality of life. Certainly there is a way to
design a project surrounding the historical Stanford house that won't require moving it or removing the
many trees. It might also accomplish a secondary benefit by providing for a smaller project that will be
less intrusive on the nearby R-1 neighborhoods. Their concerns for traffic, peace, and safety are
legitimate and long-term residents should be given respect and consideration, not just be summarily
dismissed.
Therefore, please grant the appeal and send this project back to the applicant for a re -design that
retains a majority of the trees and reduces the footprint of the project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Carolyn Smith
San Luis Obispo