My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
778
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
2 <br />the thrift shop and other retail venues used to be? The property Mr. Halley and Mr. Anderson propose to <br />develop is only 5 acres, which may seem to be too small to be of relevance for addressing climate <br />change, but this is my point: Someone has to have the courage to stand up and say no more land <br />development, especially when there is previously developed land nearby that is decaying or idling. The <br />City of Roseville must consider the earth before profit. <br /> <br />Roseville has been a vanguard in creating ordinances to protect nature, for example, its Tree <br />Replacement Policy, as referenced by Mr. Halley. But trees cannot be simply replaced. Replacement <br />does not address the damage done to the soil that the removed trees together nourish and support, harm <br />to the wildlife living within and among them, and the loss of the collective air and soil purification they <br />perform. An ecosystem cannot be replaced by nursery trees placed where it is convenient to builders. I <br />am grateful that the wetlands have been carefully considered and I ask the same for the woods. <br /> <br />I understand that something must be done with the property in question, as it too is in neglect. However, <br />I urge you and other City representatives to reconsider Mr. Halley’s and Mr. Anderson’s plan in <br />favor of one that conserves the woods as well as the wetlands and retains the property’s current <br />platting. I urge the City to put City resources, and the resources of developers, into reclaiming <br />housing such as the condemned apartment complex that stands on already developed property. <br /> <br />As Mr. Halley and Mr. Anderson have pointed out, their plans adhere to Roseville’s current ordinances; <br />however, Roseville’s ordinances were excellent in the twentieth century but are laggard in the twenty- <br />first. Roseville policies and ordinances need revision so that they effectively address and ameliorate the <br />climate crisis. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Susan Love <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />cc: Roseville City Council Members <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:40 PM Bryan Lloyd <Bryan.Lloyd@cityofroseville.com> wrote: <br />Hello. <br /> <br />You are receiving this email because you engaged in an exchange of email with the developers of the <br />proposed subdivision at 196 – 210 S McCarrons Boulevard. Pursuant to City Code requirements, I am <br />sending the collection of emails and the developer’s summary of the discussions held in the virtual <br />open house meeting held on December 29 so that you can independently validate whether you feel the <br />developer is representing your feedback accurately and in good faith. Please note that I have redacted <br />all email addresses and phone numbers that may have appeared in your email correspondence, and I <br />redacted the name of one individual who wished their comments to remain confidential. <br /> <br />RCA Attachment D <br />Page 50 of 51
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.