HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/3/2026 Item 5g, Schmidt (2)Mayor and Council, I think you have a much bigger ethical problem with this item than
was clear to me when I wrote yesterday.
Issue 1: Your agenda packet includes an application for tree removal that seems to
have been processed despite failing to meet minimum application requirements. This
seems highly improper.
There are 6 listed requirements for a complete application, with boxes to check to
show each is met. For the SLOREP application only 5 are checked. The one that’s not
checked is the one that provides for public notice via “banding” a tree proposed for
removal. This is a crucial means for involving the public. Its meaning is well-understood
by those who care about our urban trees. Since the public owns this tree, that makes
providing clear and full notice even more important. And since the public had been told
repeatedly the tree “shall” be preserved as part of site development, failing to show the
public the applicant was trying to renege on the requirement to preserve the tree is very
serious indeed.
The application form is very clear that incomplete applications “will not be accepted.
Failure to keep trees banded may result in a rejected application,” a requirement
that acknowledges the importance of the omitted application action.
Next to the unchecked box for banding is hand-written: “City confirmed banding not
needed.” Say what? It’s required but not needed? How does “city” get to change the
rules? (Banding was surely possible, even behind a fence.)
This puts one in mind of Lily Tomlin’s phone lady shtick,
only with a new predicate:
“We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the City of San
Luis Obispo.”
Issue 2. Saving this tree is not an option. It is a requirement of SLOREP’s land lease
with the city. Violating that requirement violates the lease agreement.
Here’s how the lease states the requirement: “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts
to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey, along with the
tree on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo.” (Council agenda item 6j, May 21, 2024)
Note the word “SHALL.” That is emphatic, which makes it a requirement, not an “it
would be nice if. . .”
And what about the second tree that “shall” be preserved, protected and maintained?
Where did it go? So much for pretty words about protecting trees.
Issue 3. Till now, as far as the public knew, the oak would be incorporated into a
courtyard in front of the theater, and thus be be preserved and protected if not
maintained. That’s what’s been shown in the public renderings of the theater, like those
in an extensive Tribune article of less than a year ago (Feb, 27, 2025). That article
explicitly noted the theater’s “odd shape . . . designed to protect some legacy oaks.”
Issue 4. Was the public being gaslighted and lied to all along? Was the intent always to
design a theater that would doom the trees? If not, why did the SLOREP board accept
a design that would force them to violate a key condition of their lease rather than send
the design back for a redo to better protect the tree and conform to the very generous
lease agreement we the people made with them?
I have no idea what happened and when, or who decided to ignore the “shall” order to
save the tree, but we do know that in February 2025 we were still being told the
building would bend to save the tree, but only a few months later SLOREP was
employing a “tree expert” to develop a rationale for removing the tree.
Issue 5. So, as I said yesterday, it would be highly unethical for the Council to approve
removal of this stunning publicly-owned tree which with proper care will likely live many
centuries.
Richard Schmidt
PS. If it turns out the city’s lease construction timing requirements, which are strict, are
the problem, change the timing. Give SLOREP the time they need to get a better
design.