HomeMy WebLinkAbout1001-2000 Remainder212
From:Hill, Robert
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:01 AM
To:Hermann, Greg
Subject:RE: Request for 30-Day Delay – Downtown Oak
Attachments:San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Lease Agreement (Final).pdf; SLO REP TREE ALTERNATIVES
ESTIMATES- 8.6.25.pdf
Hi Greg,
This first part of this response is the similar to the one I sent to Timmi earlier this morning on the question: when do we
think SLO REP will remove the tree?
The lease agreement we have with SLO REP states that they can take possession of the site when Swinerton
relinquishes the site back to us and closes out the CADPS project. I checked in with Madeline earlier this week and
learned that Swinerton has not yet filed a Notice of Completion and there are still final documents out there that need
to be completed / accepted. She indicated to me that March 16th might be a good date to plan for. SLO REP’s lease
also states that they have a 60-day period, from the date that they take possession, to inspect the site and let us know
if they are unsatisfied with the condition of the site for some reason. See paragraphs 2 and 3.
Most importantly, paragraph 6 outlines the remaining items that they need to submit to us:
“Lessee shall not commence construction of the Downtown Theatre unless Lessee demonstrates, to the City’s
Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction prior to commencement of construction, that Lessee has all of the
funds necessary to design and construct the Theatre, plus a 15% construction contingency, available in cash
or approved financing (the “Required Funds”), and Lessee shall also submit to the City Manager (or their
delegate) a written document that demonstrates a 20% operating reserve for the first year of operating the
Downtown Theatre together with a three year operating plan including the establishment of a building and
facilities maintenance and repair reserve fund.”
In addition, SLO REP also needs to furnish us with evidence of the required insurance outlined in Exhibit B. I have
advised Kevin to stay focused on these items and allow us time for review.
While the City Council’s Resolution approving removal of the tree is their “permit”, SLO REP does not yet have
possession of the site, and we think that’s at least 30+ days from now.
Thanks,
Bob
From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:56 AM
To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Request for 30-Day Delay – Downtown Oak
13
Lets chat about this when you have a moment.
Greg
From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
<TTway@slocity.org>
Subject: Fw: Request for 30-Day Delay – Downtown Oak
Looping Greg into this request.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 7:42:46 AM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott
<SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: Fw: Request for 30-Day Delay – Downtown Oak
This seems like a reasonable request to me. Please respond to this citizen request and copy me in.
Jan
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Lauren Parcel <
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 8:30:45 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Request for 30-Day Delay – Downtown Oak
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to respectfully request a short 30-day delay before removal of the mature oak at the future Performing Arts
Theater site proceeds.
I understand the importance of the theater project to our downtown community. However, given that the oak remains
standing and construction has not yet begun, I believe a brief feasibility window to explore preservation alternatives is
warranted before an irreversible step is taken.
A short pause to allow independent architectural and structural review, along with transparent cost comparison of
preservation scenarios, would demonstrate due diligence and reinforce the city’s commitment to stewardship.
Thank you for your consideration.
214
Sincerely,
Lauren Hartley
200
From:Hermann, Greg
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 3:42 PM
To:Hill, Robert
Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Thank you, Bob. Confirming Kevin is good with this content, correct?
Looping in Timmi for her response.
Greg
From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 3:39 PM
To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi Greg,
Thanks for forwarding this email and the attached open letter.
The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action
and functions as a tree removal permit.
SLO REP has not yet taken possession of the site as the final stages of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure
project wrap. We do not anticipate that they will take possession of the site until the middle of March at the soonest.
There were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director,
Kevin Harris, that are worth expounding upon. Upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did, in fact, explore
different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer.
These options included:
1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The
design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would
cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design
expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would
necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure
remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is
estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically
feasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales.
2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through
modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately
$500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the
tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial
removal of overhead tree canopy.
SLO REP and City staff relied on the arborist report prepared by Rodney Thurman at Heritage Tree. This is a
reputable, experienced, local arborist that we know and trust.
Lastly, the open letter indicates that the oak tree is a “protected legacy tree” but Community Development Department
staff clearly explained during the hearing that this tree is not on the City’s list of heritage trees.
Bob
201
From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 2:36 PM
To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 5:27 PM
To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Subject: Fw: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
I request that the tree be spared for 30 days as per the forwarded open letter. The city should explore how the
tree could be saved.
Jan
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Nicholas DePaoli <nldepaoli@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Mayor and Council Members,
Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay
to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site.
My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded
feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds.
I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of
identifying viable pathways.
Thank you for taking the time to review.
Respectfully,
Nicholas DePaoli
195
From:Hermann, Greg
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 6:04 PM
To:Shoresman, Michelle
Subject:Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 4:05 PM
To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
BCC: City Council
Hello Mayor and Council Members,
We are working on responding to the inquiries we’ve received regarding the request for a 30-day delay of the tree
removal at the SLO REP Theater site, and I wanted to provide some additional context for awareness.
SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal. We
don’t anticipate turning the property over to them until we have fully closed out the parking garage project. That is
currently expected to happen on March 16th, so there would be at least 30 days before SLO REP takes any action on
the site.
When responding, we will also briefly summarize the due diligence shared by SLO REP during public comment on this
item, including the assessment of the tree by an independent, certified arborist, as well as their efforts to explore
feasible design alternatives, as that is the focus of their interest.
196
Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions.
Greg
From: Nicholas DePaoli <nldepaoli@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Mayor and Council Members,
Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay
to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site.
My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded
feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds.
I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of
identifying viable pathways.
Thank you for taking the time to review.
Respectfully,
Nicholas DePaoli
146
From:Hermann, Greg
Sent:Monday, February 16, 2026 8:54 PM
To:Christiansen, Lindsay
Subject:FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Can I please get your help with this meeting? It is a priority so I’m game to move things around. It will need to be
Timmi, Walt, Bob and I?
Thanks and we can discuss in the morning.
Greg
From: Hermann, Greg
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:52 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
I’ll work on finding some time for us to meet to make a plan.
Greg
From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 7:46 AM
To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi Whitney,
Yes, let me talk to Walt tomorrow and get his thoughts. Greg, let's connect regarding reaching out to SLO REP.
Thanks,
Timmi
From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 3:33:15 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi Timmi and Greg,
147
Thanks much!
Whitney
Whitney McDonald
pronouns (she/hers)
City Manager
City Administration
990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934
E WMcDonal@slocity.org
T 805.781.7114
C 805.550.8349
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Nicholas DePaoli <
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A
<estewart@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi Timothea,
Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline.
After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural
question given the window we are already working with.
The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category.
However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both:
• deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and
• surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-
dig methods.
Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-
specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there
148
may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even
maintaining current building footprint design.
Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider
supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically:
1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-
impact hardscape)
2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context
3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted
to minimize excavation and compaction.
The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86%
encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different
construction activities into a single disturbance classification.
If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be
strengthened by a more site-specific basis.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Nicholas
On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote:
BCC: CC
Nicholas,
Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I
appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic.
The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree
is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff.
Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30
days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the
tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest.
While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public
comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide
additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO
REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants,
structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As
described by Kevin, the options included:
149
1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure
recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch
and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they
have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction
documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the
construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after
redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is
estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is
economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket
sales.
2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones
through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases
of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there
is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and
construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy.
While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the
City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney
Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here.
Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness.
I hope this information is helpful, Thank you,
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Nicholas DePaoli <
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Mayor and Council Members,
Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief
30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the
performance art theater site.
My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically
grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds.
150
I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in
hopes of identifying viable pathways.
Thank you for taking the time to review.
Respectfully,
Nicholas DePaoli
6
From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:53 AM
To:Hill, Robert; Hermann, Greg
Cc:Collins, Scott; Floyd, Aaron
Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Thanks, Bob
Let me talk to Walter and then you can coordinate with him.
Thanks,
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:38 AM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi Timmi and All,
Thanks for forwarding.
”
Also adding Aaron who was looped into other emails earlier.
Thanks,
7
Bob
From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:07 AM
To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Cc: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi,
The access to the site is beyond my expertise, let me know your thoughts please.
Thanks,
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Nicholas DePaoli <
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi again Timmi,
I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was
discussing the ideas presented in my prior message.
In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that
the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are
secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question.
If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root
investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider
allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control?
8
The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain
site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and
associated costs would be independently arranged.
If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Best,
Nicholas DePaoli
On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote:
BCC:Council_All
Hello Nicholas,
Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and
will get back to you shortly.
Thanks,
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Nicholas DePaoli <
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM
To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>
Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica
A <estewart@slocity.org>
Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Hi Timothea,
Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated
timeline.
9
After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused
procedural question given the window we are already working with.
The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a
single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both:
• deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and
• surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-
impact or no-dig methods.
Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula
rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically
occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root
distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building
footprint design.
Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or
consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-
March? Specifically:
1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs.
potentially low-impact hardscape)
2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root
context
3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are
adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction.
The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86%
encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially
different construction activities into a single disturbance classification.
If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would
be strengthened by a more site-specific basis.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best,
Nicholas
On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote:
10
BCC: CC
Nicholas,
Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO
REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic.
The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the
removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed,
or changed by staff.
Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place
within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they
are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until
around mid-March, at the earliest.
While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few
elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic
Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal.
Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options
and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and
civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described
by Kevin, the options included:
1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root
structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly
starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately
$550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on
design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although
a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost
estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after
redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses.
This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result
in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a
reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales.
2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect
critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was
estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and
a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that
the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of
foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy.
While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost
estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by
a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report
here.
Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their
awareness.
I hope this information is helpful, Thank you,
Timothea (Timmi) Tway
Director of Community Development
<image001.png>
Community Development
919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
11
E TTway@slocity.org
T 805.781.7187
slocity.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications
From: Nicholas DePaoli <
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>
Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay
Mayor and Council Members,
Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter
requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the
downtown oak at the performance art theater site.
My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a
constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible
removal proceeds.
I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community
stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways.
Thank you for taking the time to review.
Respectfully,
Nicholas DePaoli
1
From:Marx, Jan
Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:10 AM
To:Hill, Robert
Cc:Floyd, Aaron; McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Hermann, Greg
Subject:RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep
Thank you for getting back. Does the City or SLO Rep in fact control the timing of the demolition of the tree? Who
pays for the tree crew cost of taking out the tree? It is my understanding that the City restricted protection of the root
system to the drip line, and the Construction company followed that policy direction, therefore damaged the root
structure that extended beyond the drip line. If that is the case, then it is the City’s mistake that has caused the tree to
be compromised. In my opinion, the City should pay for it being demolished.
Jan
From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:47 AM
To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>
Cc: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi)
<TTway@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep
Hi Jan,
Director Floyd asked me to provide a response to you on this question. I apologize for the delay in getting back to
you.
The SLO REP lease is in effect, however they do not take possession of the site itself until they complete their final
prerequisites with us and until Swinerton Construction (the City’s contractor for the new parking structure) completes
all of its final paperwork with us and formally relinquishes the site.
Thank you,
Bob
Robert Hill
Sustainability & Natural Resources Official
City Administration
Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
E rhill@slocity.org
T 805.781.7211
slocity.org
From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org>
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:53 AM
To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron
2
<afloyd@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep
Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep?
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM
To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron
<afloyd@slocity.org>
Subject: Oak tree & SLO Rep
Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep?
Answering this question can wait till Monday.
Thanks
Jan
Get Outlook for iOS