2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 the thrift shop and other retail venues used to be? The property Mr. Halley and Mr. Anderson propose to develop is only 5 acres, which may seem to be too small to be of relevance for addressing climate change, but this is my point: Someone has to have the courage to stand up and say no more land development, especially when there is previously developed land nearby that is decaying or idling. The City of Roseville must consider the earth before profit. Roseville has been a vanguard in creating ordinances to protect nature, for example, its Tree Replacement Policy, as referenced by Mr. Halley. But trees cannot be simply replaced. Replacement does not address the damage done to the soil that the removed trees together nourish and support, harm to the wildlife living within and among them, and the loss of the collective air and soil purification they perform. An ecosystem cannot be replaced by nursery trees placed where it is convenient to builders. I am grateful that the wetlands have been carefully considered and I ask the same for the woods. I understand that something must be done with the property in question, as it too is in neglect. However, I urge you and other City representatives to reconsider Mr. Halley’s and Mr. Anderson’s plan in favor of one that conserves the woods as well as the wetlands and retains the property’s current platting. I urge the City to put City resources, and the resources of developers, into reclaiming housing such as the condemned apartment complex that stands on already developed property. As Mr. Halley and Mr. Anderson have pointed out, their plans adhere to Roseville’s current ordinances; however, Roseville’s ordinances were excellent in the twentieth century but are laggard in the twenty- first. Roseville policies and ordinances need revision so that they effectively address and ameliorate the climate crisis. Sincerely, Susan Love cc: Roseville City Council Members On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 4:40 PM Bryan Lloyd <Bryan.Lloyd@cityofroseville.com> wrote: Hello. You are receiving this email because you engaged in an exchange of email with the developers of the proposed subdivision at 196 – 210 S McCarrons Boulevard. Pursuant to City Code requirements, I am sending the collection of emails and the developer’s summary of the discussions held in the virtual open house meeting held on December 29 so that you can independently validate whether you feel the developer is representing your feedback accurately and in good faith. Please note that I have redacted all email addresses and phone numbers that may have appeared in your email correspondence, and I redacted the name of one individual who wished their comments to remain confidential. RCA Attachment D Page 50 of 51