Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/3/2026 Item 5g, Schmidt (3) Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Agenda item followup -- SLOREP TREE Attachments:council sloreop tree 3 pdf.pdf Dear Mayor and Council, please see attached letter. This issue is still very much alive. 1 Feb. 10, 2026 Mayor and Council, I’m writing again about the SLOREP oak to state my sadness at the council’s action. I am doubly saddened because that action was based on a well-choreographed staff fear campaign designed to give the tree removal applicant exactly what they wanted and not to do what should have been staff’s duty, to be loyal the public interest, past council actions, and the provisions of the SLOREP lease. Removal of this tree is both unnecessary and wrong, and therefore the Council needs to reverse its decision ASAP. It appears the council signed the execution warrant for this great publicly-owned tree based on an outrageous claim — that construction as contemplated would disturb/destroy 86% to 95% of the “critical root zone” and thus probably kill the tree. Eye-popping allegations like that merit critical analysis, not what you got from staff — doubling down and just repeating them. To attain 95% disturbance would require a CRZ diameter on the order of 300 feet! Since the arborist report suggests a hypothetical CRZ diameter of 96 feet, the arborist’s report is internally inconsistent — and his 95% measure would thus be off by about a factor of three. The sensational claim about percentage of destruction aside, there are a number of issues that further diminish staff’s removal recommendation. 1. CRZ is a rule-of-thumb textbook concept, lacking any site-specific nuance. It has faced criticism for being overly simplistic, as it doesn’t account for complex interactions between tree roots and their environment. Critics argue relying solely on CRZ can lead to incorrect assessments of tree health and survival prospects. So any determination of tree health based solely or mainly on rule-of-thumb textbook CRZ, as this one was, presents only part of the picture. 2. While the arborist’s CRZ discussion is a rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis presented as hard fact, resulting in potentially unfactual assumptions about where this tree’s roots extend, even cursory thought about this tree and its location suggest the rule-of-thumb hypothesis is likely enormously erroneous. Consider the tree’s history. It grew in someone’s front yard. Its root footprint was limited by building foundations and soil-intrusive site improvements like sidewalks, driveways and underground utility connections. It never had the opportunity to extend its root system in the manner the CRZ analysis assumes. Then the site was cleared with heavy equipment: other vegetation with roots ripped out of the ground, buildings demolished, building foundations dug out, driveways and walkways dug out, underground utilities removed. Lots of disturbance in the alleged CRZ root zone and years later no harm from it visible on the tree’s above ground parts. This tree’s entire life has been one of root-zone limitation, truncation and disturbance. It is an urban tree adapted to this sort of thing, not a forest virgin facing root disturbance for the first time. These facts undercut any validity to the rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis’s use as grounds for justifying execution of this tree. Clearly this tree is an urban survivor. 3. All roots in the CRZ are not equivalent when it comes to considering ill effects from their damage or destruction. Traditionally, the tree-protective measure on construction sites has been to protect the ground within the drip line, which is the line on the ground below the farthest-reaching branches. This generally works quite well. While roots do extend beyond the drip line, the most serious damage to a tree comes from damaging roots in the inner portion of the CRZ, i.e., well within the drip line. This is because that’s where one finds large roots that provide the tree’s structural support. Oaks typically have deep tap roots that provide support in addition to lateral roots. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing contractors to damage anything within the drip line. Best practices are to fence off the ground area to be protected. Roots that extend further than the drip line aren’t structural. They are “feeders,” the small and fibrous little guys familiar to anyone who gardens around trees. 4. Given the tree’s location so close to SL Creek, I’ll wager it has deep roots extending to the water table, providing generous moisture regardless of surface soil conditions or peripheral root damage. 5. It appears the arborist report involved no effort to discern where this tree’s peripheral roots do in fact extend. There are guesses about sidewalks and streets, and not much more. Given the site’s urban history, and the lack of site specific investigative evidence of root locations, the assertion of far-reaching root systems that will be disturbed doesn’t hold merit. 6. The arborist report mentions no potential mitigations for peripheral root damage. I find that omission interesting since it’s common practice among arborists to recommend compensatory pruning of the canopy to compensate for damaged or diseased roots. Pruning reduces the tree’s demand for water and nutrients. Balancing the canopy with a diminished root system reduces physiological stress and conserves energy for root regeneration. That mitigation is built into the SLOREP plan — there’s to be extensive trimming of the tree on the side facing the theater. Instead of viewing that trimming as a bad thing, it should be viewed as compensatory insurance in the event the root system is truncated by construction. Any root loss would thus be compensated for by the already pre-planned trimming. 7. So what about that CRZ and the 86-95% of it alleged to be disturbed by construction? Here’s the arborist’s diagram explaining a 95% loss: What it purportedly shows is a root zone extending largely under the theater. Given root limitations from the tree’s history and the site’s built history, this undocumented claim is — to use a technical term — bananas. In all likelihood previous building foundations truncated the root area far more than this. This is thus a great demonstration of how applying a rule-of-thumb conceptual approach without site specifics can lead one astray. Even more incredible to me is that the “preserved” root zone includes only a tiny fraction of area within the drip line — the tiny white patch in the diagram. While the tree canopy extending towards the theater is said to extend 28 feet, only 6 to 10 feet of that is “protected.” What in the world justifies such shortchanging of customary best practice efforts at drip line protection? While there is some intrusion by the theater into the drip line root zone, it is not a major one, and I’ll wager it is pretty similar to the impact of previous house foundations and their removal — i.e., thus not a huge issue. 8. SLOREP’s role has been less than honorable. SLOREP signed a lease with the city for essentially free use of public land (and also got a cash handout from the city). The lease states “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree . . .” That requirement is unambiguous. Typically in such a situation, before construction begins the client hires an arborist to draw up a list of best practice tree protection measures to be observed by contractors. SLOREP, it appears, did the opposite: it hired an arborist to rationalize an action that’s 180 degrees contrary to the lease it signed, i.e., to rationalize the tree’s destruction rather than its preservation, protection and maintenance. Evidence of this comes from the arborist’s description of the assignment SLOREP gave him: “Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak . . .” Potential for protection? The lease says “shall” protect. Period. Alternatively, in the next sentence this is referenced as a “feasibility of retention” study. Feasibility was determined when SLOREP signed its lease — protection is not an option subject to a subjective study of feasibility, it’s a requirement. So in other words, SLOREP wasn’t seeking methods of protection, as required by its lease, but something very different. Perhaps like Trump, SLOREP figures only suckers follow “rules.” There’s a lot we don’t know about how and when SLOREP decided to violate its lease. Was its board involved in this? If so that’s a very serious issue. Did city staff suggest this? If so that’s also a very serious issue. What we can say is SLOREP has demonstrated it is an unworthy partner for the city to be dealing with. I believe the harm to their institutional image from this caper will be tremendous unless they and the city both backtrack and get preservation front and center. ————————————— In summary, I think it’s pretty clear the council was railroaded into a vote that is based on factually dubious contentions about the tree’s future health. Removal of this tree is both unnecessary and wrong. And I think you were set up to look bad. The vote was wrong substantively (i.e., the council should have stood by the lease) and factually (i.e., based on exaggerated alleged facts that are mere textbook opinions substituted for a lack of site-specific/tree-specific information). I ask that the council rescind its vote to allow execution of this tree ASAP, and require its preservation. There is absolutely nothing to be lost by such an action , and a huge 1 amount to be gained both in public good will and urban quality of life. Hopefully there are 3 of you to get this back on the next agenda. My hunch is if you preserve this tree it will still be a happy resident when SLOREP’s 99 year lease ends. Richard Schmidt Staff’s argument it will be hard to remove it later should it die is nonsense. Given the tree’s 1 location, it can be removed with a boom truck from the street — a very easy task.