The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-3000 Emails6 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 3:48 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: KSBY Interview request regarding SLO Rep tree removal Hi Rachel, I forget the protocol on this. Should I direct this to comms? Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 3:45 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: KSBY Interview request regarding SLO Rep tree removal Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Karson Wells Site Visitor Email: Karson.Wells@ksby.com Hi Walter, I was wondering if you'd be available for a quick on camera interview sometime tomorrow (ideally before 12pm) to talk about the tree that will be removed at the SLO Rep site? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how Tuesday nights city council meeting went, and what tree's will be replacing the one that will be removed. I'd also love to learn more about what rules and regulations there are for situations like this. The interview would take about 5 minutes of your time, and maybe we could meet near the tree? Thank you! Feel free to give me a call if you have questions. Karson Wells (805)441-0942 7 From:City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 3:45 PM To:Gault, Walter Subject:KSBY Interview request regarding SLO Rep tree removal Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Karson Wells Site Visitor Email: Karson.Wells@ksby.com Hi Walter, I was wondering if you'd be available for a quick on camera interview sometime tomorrow (ideally before 12pm) to talk about the tree that will be removed at the SLO Rep site? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how Tuesday nights city council meeting went, and what tree's will be replacing the one that will be removed. I'd also love to learn more about what rules and regulations there are for situations like this. The interview would take about 5 minutes of your time, and maybe we could meet near the tree? Thank you! Feel free to give me a call if you have questions. Karson Wells (805)441-0942 8 From:Jillian Bleher < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:30 PM To:Francis, Emily Subject:Re: Oak tree at 614 Monterey Street Hi Emily, That's great news that you're getting more info from the arborist. I really hope we can save it. Thanks for looking into this! Jill Bleher “Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 12:18 Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Dear Jill, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey Street. I truly appreciate hearing from community members like you who recognize the beauty this magnificent tree brings to our downtown. I have asked the arborist to provide me with additional information about whether it's feasible to save this tree. I'm hopeful there's a path forward that allows us to preserve this remarkable specimen for future generations to enjoy. Thank you again for your advocacy and for caring so deeply about our community's trees. Your voice matters in this process. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org 9 On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 10:20 PM, Jillian Bleher < wrote: I am emailing about item 5.g - Tree Removal at 614 Monterey Street which is to be discussed at the February 3rd meeting. I would urge the council to consider alternative ideas for development which preserve this amazing oak tree specimen! Nature trees are a hallmark of an area and this distinct tree adds such character and beauty to this area of downtown. It will be sorely missed if removed. Jill Bleher “Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson 10 From:McDonald, Whitney Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 4:07 PM To:Marx, Jan; Stewart, Erica A Subject:RE: Agenda correspondence Attachments:2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (3/4); 2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (4/4) Hi Jan, All agenda correspondence was posted and emailed as of 2:16, with the first set posted at 1:02 and the golf course item sent at 2:16. I have attached the emails for ease of reference, and we will have a few hard copies available on the dais as well. Thanks much, Whitney From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:03 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda correspondence When will council and the public receive agenda correspondence today? I am concerned that council members will once again not have enough time to read and analyze correspondence received at the last minute. Get Outlook for iOS 1 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:02 PM To:CityClerk Cc:McDonald, Whitney; Hermann, Greg; Read, Chris; Harnett, Natalie; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter Subject:2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (3/4) Attachments:Item 5f. Hermann and Read - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf; Item 5g. Tway and Gault - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf; Item 5h. McDonald and Harnett - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf Mayor & Council, Attached, and linked below, is staff agenda correspondence for tonight’s City Council Regular Meeting. There is 1 more staff agenda correspondence regarding Item 7a that is in progress and will be sent out within the hour. Item 5f. Authorization to Accept TECH Clean California QuickStart Grant to Support Local Energy Efficient Retrofits in Mobile and Manufactured Homes Hermann and Read – Staff Agenda Correspondence Item 5g. Review of a Request to Remove One Tree Associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project Located at 614 Monterey Street Tway and Gault – Staff Agenda Correspondence Item 5h. Approve a Draft Letter to Legislators Regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant McDonald and Harnett – Staff Agenda Correspondence BCC: Agenda Correspondence, Council All Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk II City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 5f - AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT TECH CLEAN CALIFORNIA QUICKSTART GRANT TO SUPPORT LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETROFITS IN MOBILE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES Staff received the following question regarding the TECH QuickStart grant with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) Will all the beneficiaries of the TECH Clean California QuickStart Grant, assisted by the partner agencies (CAPSLO, Diversity Coalition, and Climate Coalition) reside in the City of SLO? I do not see this outlined anywhere specifically in the agreements or program requirements/eligibility criteria. As noted in the Council Agenda Report, the grant funds are intended to be passed through to CAPSLO for direct energy efficiency retrofits with additional funds passed through to the Diversity Coalition and the SLO Climate Coalition for supporting services. CAPSLO, the Diversity Coalition, and the SLO Climate Coalition intend to reach out to local mobile and manufactured home occupants to generate leads for energy retrofits as soon as the agreements are completed. The City fully expects that all funds will be expended within the City of San Luis Obispo. However, given the “Quick Start” nature of the grant and the associated short timeframe (all funds must be expended by March of 2027), the grant agreement gives CAPSLO flexibility to complete projects in the region should local projects not materialize which would happen in consultation with the City. Should CAPSLO complete a regional project, City staff would not be directly involved. However, in this instance, the City would still benefit from project -based learnings associated with the installations. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Prepared By: Walter Gault, City Arborist SUBJECT: ITEM 5g - REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SLO REP THEATRE PROJECT LOCATED AT 614 MONTEREY STREET Staff received the following questions regarding the request to remove one (1) 48 -inch DBH Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) at 614 Monterey Street , with staff’s responses shown in italics. 1) Why wasn’t the extent of the Oak’s root system disclosed earlier during the design phase? At the time this project was reviewed through the planning entitlement phase, an arborist report was not required for projects. Previously, best practice considered the canopy dripline to be the extent of a tree root system, and this is what was shown on project plans. Current best practice states that the critical root zone often extends well beyond the dripline. The City now requires an arborist report with detailed information regarding root zones during the entitlement phase. The project plans indicated the tree was to remain, and this was shown on the building permit application. Once construction of the adjacent parking structure began and detailed building plans for the SLO REP Theatre were submitted for review, it became apparent that the roots occup ied a greater area than the canopy dripline. 2) What is the age of the tree? The arborist report, prepared by Rodney Thurman of Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting, Inc., estimated that the tree age likely ranges from 65 to 96 years old. To more accurately determine the age of trees, an increment borer would need to be used to extract a small core sample to count growth rings. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 2 3) Can the oak tree be transplanted? An Oak tree of this size, age and structure would not be a candidate for a successful transplant. Moving a tree of this size would be costly, logistically difficult and would likely not result in the long term survival of the tree. 4) Is it possible to leave the tree in place to see if it survives, then replace later if it does not? Yes. The tree can remain and could be replaced later if it does not survive. However, based on the tree’s known root structure and the existing and proposed infrastructure required for the project, the likelihood of survival is low. The consulting arborist determined that the tree would likely not survive unless the project was redesigned to more appropriately accommodate the tree because of the loss of canopy combined with impacts to the critical root zone. The proposed theatre could be redesigned to reduce damage to the critical root zone. This would be a fairly significant redesign that would require new architectural and engineering plans, as well as additional review by the City. According to the project representatives, this would result in a delay to the project schedule, postpone the final completion and opening of the theatre, and could reduce the size of the theatre to the extent that it no longer meets project objectives and financial projections based on seating numbers and theatre offerings. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 3 5) What is the estimated Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and height for the replacement tree in a 48-inch or 60-inch box? Replacement trees in a 48-inch or 60-inch box are typically 8-10 feet tall with a 10-12 foot wide canopy. DBH at this size is not typically available from the nursery as they are multi-trunk specimens (See Figure 1 below). Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral tree) is expected to reach a height of at least 40 feet (See Figure 2). Figure 1: 60-inch box Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral) Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 4 6) What is the estimated growth rate of the replacement tree? Mandela Coral trees (Erythrina affra) grow quickly at an average of 3 feet of growth each year. 7) Where are the replacement trees being planted and what species are proposed to be planted? The applicant is proposing to replant one (1) 60-inch box Mandela Coral (Erythrina afra) tree onsite in the same area of the existing oak tree (see Figure 3) and four (4) 24-inch box trees from the Approved City Tree List off-site along Nipomo Street (see Figure 4). Trees that have been considered for off-site planting include Chitalpa x tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud (see Figure 5) and Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion) (Figure 6). Figure 2: Large, mature specimen Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral) tree located in a southern California park Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 5 Figure 3: The dashed black line outlines the 20 foot x 20 foot area on the Landscape Plan where SLO Rep proposes to replant one (1) 60-inch box Mandela Coral (Erythrina afra) tree. SLO REP Theatre Figure 3: Four, 24-inch box trees from the Approved City Tree List are proposed to be planted off-site along Nipomo Street. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 6 Figure 5: Chitalpa x tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud Figure 6: Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion) City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager Prepared By: Natalie Harnett, Policy and Project Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM #5h - APPROVE A DRAFT LETTER TO LEGISLATORS REGARDING DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT The City Council received agenda correspondence from Senator John Laird regarding the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) and the proposed letter from the City Council that is provided in Item 5h. Staff received a request from a Council Member to address that letter from Senator Laird in a staff agenda correspondence that also includes proposed language that acknowledges the letter from Senator Laird and expresses support and understanding for the concerns and goals outlined in his letter, which is attached to this agenda correspondence as Attachment A. Proposed language for consideration is shown below which would be inserted as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of the draft letter should Council wish to include it: “The City Council would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Laird for his letter dated January 30, 2026, addressed to them on this matter. The City Council understands the issues and concerns identified in the letter and supports the goals and processes outlined regarding DCPP.” ATTACHMENT A – Senator Laird Letter to the City of San Luis Obispo Re DCPP 1 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:16 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin Subject:2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (4/4) Attachments:Item 7a. Avakian and Hyfield - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf Mayor & Council, Attached, and linked below, is staff agenda correspondence for tonight’s City Council Regular Meeting. This is the final staff agenda correspondence for tonight. Item 7a. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Avakian and Hyfield – Staff Agenda Correspondence BCC: Agenda Correspondence, Council All Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk II City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks and Recreation Director Prepared By: Devin Hyfield, Parks and Recreation Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 7a – LAGUNA LAKE GOLF COURSE PROGRAM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW STUDY SESSION Staff received the following questions regarding the Laguna lake Golf Course program operations and maintenance overview study session. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics: 1. How many identifiable individual users used the golf course each year? What is the per capita general fund subsidy per golfer? The Golf Course tracked 5,011 unique annual users in 2024 -2025 (which includes the Cal Poly Kinesiology quarterly classes); however, this does not include the community partnership groups which utilize quarterly rosters for tracking the number of users: - SLO High School: 15-17 on season roster (fall and spring) - Morro Bay High School: 15-20 on seasonal roster (fall and spring) - Laguna Middle School: 60-80 on roster (fall) - SLO Academy School: 12-15 on seasonal roster (fall) - First Tee Program: 25 on seasonal roster (fall, winter, spring) - Special Olympics: 20 on seasonal roster (fall, winter, spring) Unfortunately, it is not feasible to accurately identify a per capita expenditure, or General Fund subsidy, per individual user due to the software system capability and the variety of community partnerships that utilize group rate fee structures or full facility reservations for rentals and tournaments. The 5,011 unique users identified for 2024-2025 are incorporated in the annual Total Rounds of 24,494. However, the other group uses are not tracked per player but by group impact to the course, such as a half or full-day rental. If the total rounds of 24,494 uses are divided within the FY 2024-25 subsidized amount from the General Fund of $459,140 results in approximately $18.74 per play. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 2 2. What percentage of the LLGC 5,000 unique golfers per year are City of SLO residents? Unfortunately, the tee time reservation system does not track zip code s for daily transactions and staff are not able to accurately track the resident vs. non -resident uses. The majority of the players from the partnership user groups are local residents as they attend the local schools, including the majority of First Tee as other courses host their own First Tee (e.g., Sea Pines in Baywood). Additionally, the Cal Poly Kinesiology courses are considered ‘residents’ as they attend the university yet their permanent addresses may reflect out of the area. 3. Are the groups charged by group, or do the individuals in the group get charged? The majority of the organized groups (schools, teams) purchase “Play Pass Cards” (10 plays) which provide a 10% discount on daily play rates and each organization varies in how they institute payment to the City. As an example, Cal Poly Kinesiology has each student purchase the passes individually. Whereas, SLO High School, Laguna Middle School, and SLO Classical Academy are charged a one-time use fee per season for their class uses and standard rates for tournaments. First Tee is a non-profit organization that promotes youth development and is partnered with thirteen central coast golf courses. The City does not charge First Tee a use rate for its weekly uses of the driving range or putting area, and charges $3/round for play outside of the scheduled times. First Tee Tournaments are charged standard rates when hosted at the course. Special Olympics is provided use of the driving range during their Spring season at no cost. For tournaments, a course reservation fee (similar to a park or room reservation fee) is charged and a group rate is provided and charged based on the nu mber of players, golf cart use, and if driving range is included. 4. How do we calculate the subsidy per user at the course given this nuance with groups? It is difficult to accurately determine a subsidy when considering groups, as different rates apply for certain groups. Non-profit organizations, such as Special Olympics and the First Tee program , are provided discount rates based on being a non-profit community group. The majority of the groups facility use is for the driving range and putting areas at no charge and are programed during lower use times. If First Tee members utilize the course for full play, they are provided with a discounted rate and scheduled during non-peak times. For school groups, they are assessed a seasonal fee based upon their group size and impact to the course. These groups are typically charged $500 per season per user group. This fee covers access to the driving range, and lim ited course access during non-peak times. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 3 5. What is the dollar amount of the General Fund subsidy each year since the Golf Course Enterprise Fund was discontinued to the present? What was the revenue recovery (reimbursement) percentage of each year? Staff have provided a chart and graph below outlining the FY 2011-2025 subsidies related to General Fund (GF) and cost recovery percentages. Fiscal Year Actual Revenues Actual Expenses GF Subsidy Percent Subsidized 2011-12 $297,600 $517,375 $219,775 42% 2012-13 $291,700 $523,237 $231,537 44% 2013-14 $336,700 $516,018 $179,318 35% 2014-15 $328,383 $550,409 $222,026 40% 2015-16 $263,870 $576,352 $312,482 54% 2016-17 $234,897 $616,852 $381,955 62% 2017-18 $250,433 $604,534 $354,101 59% 2018-19 $227,602 $621,659 $394,057 63% 2019-20 $166,919 $595,060 $428,141 72% 2020-21 $248,101 $599,489 $351,388 59% 2021-22 $220,129 $829,248 $609,119 73% 2022-23 $213,003 $724,556 $511,554 71% 2023-24 $287,577 $735,748 $448,171 61% 2024-25 $375,077 $827,151 $452,073 55% $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 Annual Revenues and Subsidies by Fiscal Year Revenues Subsidy Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 4 6. What revenue enhancement measures can we put in place to help increase revenue for the course? Can we charge non -residents more and are we doing that already after we created the non-resident fee category in the last user fee update? Daily use fees for City Park and Recreation Department programs , such as the SLO Swim Center and Golf Course, currently do not include a different fee for residents vs. non-residents. This concept was discussed and researched during the City-wide User Fee Study in 2023 and was determined that requiring ID for each individual paying an entry fee (or tee time) at th e golf course or at the SLO Swim Center would be a challenging task for staff and potential barrier for accessibility by community members. The current Resident vs. Non-Resident fee program for the Department is associated with program registrations such as summer and sports camps, swim lessons, instructional classes, and facility/field rentals. One consideration for instituting a Resident and Non-Resident rate as part of the 2023 User Fee Study for certain Parks & Recreation programs was the registration systems used for certain programs and facilities that require an address at time of registration, enabling the software system to identify the Resident or Non-Resident rate based on the zip code. The golf course reservation system does not currently have this capability. 7. The staff report states how many rounds of golf have been generated each year over the last several years. Is there any estimate for the number of total visitors to the course, including the youth programs and other special events (school groups, September Scramble, Cross Country races, etc.)? The demographics provided in the staff report were compiled from reservations and purchases to showcase the number of Tee Time reservations and driving range use. When a large event utilizes the course, such as the SLO County Cross County Race or the September Scramble, the group is charged a facility reservation fee for the entire use of the course for that time period and not a per person rate. The overall number of total users is not able to be accurately tracked, other than through individual daily sales and reservations for play. a. Do we have similar data on Sinsheimer Pool or Damon Garcia usage? (number or users/number of “swims” per year) This is similar to the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex as user group organizations reserve field space vs. paying per individual player/user. The SLO Swim Center is able to track ‘door entries’ for the majority of swim entries (2024-2025 recorded 76,898 entries , however a similar issue arises for full and half facility reservations for swim meets or water polo matches as the groups reserve facility space rather than per person entries. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 5 8. Are there any other park spaces besides the three compared in this report that generate revenue? Such as the Jack House. If so, what is its cost recovery percentage? Revenue collections from other City parks are based on a variety of types of reservations related to facility and event reservations. Some of the larger parks allow the Department to rent out fields (softball, baseball, soccer/football), BBQ and picnic areas, roller rink, tennis or pickleball courts (for tournament play). The Jack House Gardens generates some revenue through wedding rentals or private outdoor events within the garden area. The most common rentals that generate revenue relate to special events and traditionally occur within Mission Plaza, Santa Rosa Park (e.g., Art in the Park), Meadow Park, and Laguna Lake Park. The cost recovery on these types of event rental reservations are difficult to account for as the types of uses and number of rentals vary. The significance of comparing the Laguna Lake Golf Course, SLO Swim Center, and Damon-Garcia Sports Complex are that all three require ‘reservation’ or a fee to utilize the property and have a controlled entry (e.g., Damon-Garcia Sports Complex can only be used through the reservation system, while other parks host drop -in play opportunities). 9. Regarding the idea of adding Disc Golf to LLGC. Can you explain how that would be worked into the program model alongside other activities at LLGC? Since we have two existing courses in the city that are free for users, I am wondering if we would charge fo r playing at LLGC? If so, what data do you have to support the idea that this would generate revenue, given the free opportunities at parks elsewhere? The addition of disc golf to a traditional golf course would be seen as complementary rather than competing activities. A variety of golf courses have incorporated this addition over the last few years. Models are in place at other golf courses that operate both within the same property area by providing time -based separation during off-peak golf hours, ensuring spatial design and safety that avoid potential damage to tee boxes, greens, fairways and common ball landing zones with clear signage in place. Disc golf courses require minimal infrastructure with removable baskets. Disc golf attracts a variety of ages and demographics as well, such as younger players, families, beginners and new users who may not be familiar with the course, some of whom may conver t later to traditional golf. The model for play would include a fee assessed with playing disc golf at LLGC, recommended at $10.00 per user, with the benefit being the quality of experience of using a professionally designed course on manicured terrain, better sightlines, and year-round playability. Both the Sinsheimer and Laguna Lake Park disc golf courses are volunteer supported and during the Spring season require consistent upkeep due to the increase in foliage growth (Parks Maintenance typically mows the fields once or twice per year.) Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 6 The addition of disc golf at LLGC will provide more opportunities to host tournament play, allowing general access at Sinsheimer and Laguna to remain open, and set up of league play opportunities. Staff have been in contact with the local SLO Throwers Disc Golf Club as they have provided a design and proposal for the Laguna Lake Golf Course. The proposal still needs more review by staff and be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission before being considered. According to the most recent SLO Throwers Disc Club attendance tracking from 2023, they listed 5,247 players participated in organized games/tournaments (excluding drop in play). 10. A letter from a constituent was received stating that they would be interested in volunteering to support the course. Has the use of volunteers been considered before? The Golf Course had utilized volunteers to assist with the driving range, serve as ‘Marshalls’ on the course (help with rules and player interactions), as well as within the Pro Shop, for a number of years. The program has been on hiatus since 2020 (initially ended with the on-set of the COVID-19 pandemic) and has not been revitalized with the Pro Shop being out of service. As of November 2025, staff have been in discussion of reinstating volunteer Marshall roles potentially starting in spring 2026 and working in conjunction with the City’s Volunteer Program. Volunteer roles could assist with the driving range area, serve as Marshalls to help educate players, as well as assist during events and tournaments. Staff will keep City Council updated on this potential reinstatement of the program. 11. Do the following words on the Corporation Grant Deed dated October 29,1979 mean that the golf course property could not be used for housing or other non-park/recreation purposes? “The use of this property shall be restricted to outdoor park/recreation pursuant to the Nejedly-Hart State, Urban and Coastal Park Bond Act of 1976” The property deed dated October 29, 1979 (APN 053 -111-055) is specific to the parcel containing the driving range, BBQ/event space, and maintenance yard. This parcel has restricted use for outdoor park and recreation purposes, reflecting the requirements of the Land and Water Conservation grant. The other two parcels that encompass the golf course site are not deed restricted. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 7 12. Is parcel 053-111-055 restricted to "outdoor" recreational uses or could indoor recreational uses (e.g., gymnasium, ball courts) be allowed? While the Nejedly-Hart Act itself allows certain indoor recreational facilities in other contexts; this specific parcel is subject to a recorded deed restriction that is more restrictive than the Act and limits use to outdoor park and recreation purposes o nly. The deed specifically states that the property is ‘restricted to outdoor park/recreation purposes’. As a result, indoor recreational facilities such as gymnasiums or enclosed ball courts are not permitted unless the deed restriction is formally amended or removed through the appropriate State process. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 8 13. Does the following language in Resolution 2805 dated June 2, 1975 paragraph 3 commit the City to requiring the golf course revenue recovery to be at least 50%: “(The City) certifies that said agency…can finance 100 percent of the project, half of which will be reimbursed”? Resolution 2805, dated June 2, 1975, approved the City’s submission of a Land and Water Conservation Fund application for the Laguna Lake Golf Course and Driving Range Acquisition Project. The language in paragraph 3 states that the City “certifies that said agency has or will have matching funds and can finance 100 percent of the project, half of which will be reimbursed.” In this context, the “project” refers to the development and acquisition of the golf course and driving range, not the ongoing operation of the facility. This language confirms the City’s ability to fund the project and the expectation of reimbursement through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but it does not commit the City to achieving a 50 percent revenue recovery from golf course operations. 14. Has there ever been any environmental review (EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of the golf course? What chemicals are being used on the turf? How much non-recycled water does the golf course utilize per month? Are there any environmental protection addressing the runoff from the golf course to Laguna Lake and Prefumo Creek? The Laguna Lake Golf Course was first constructed in 1964, which preceded the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the development of the course, Prefumo Creek was realigned through the golf course at this time. This City later acquired the property in phases in the late 1970s; however, property acquisition is typically exempt from CEQA. Current environmental protections addressing runoff include the City’s MS4 Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, as well as City Municipal Code, chapter 12.08 (Urban Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control) and chapter 12.23 (Creeks, Tributaries and Riparian Corridor Regulations). Over the years, the City and its partners have implemented a variety of environmental enhancement projects at Laguna Lake Golf Course, including a series of in-stream steelhead migration passage improvements, tree planting, and invasive species removal. Several areas of Prefumo Creek within the golf course were damaged during the winter storms in 2023, and any emergency project to be completed would follow current environmental review requirements. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 9 The course utilizes approximately 70% reclaimed wastewater for irrigation, supplementing 30% irrigation from the two on-site freshwater wells to reduce and flush out salts from the reclaimed wastewater treatment process which can be harmful to turf and shrubs over long-periods of time. In 2024-2025, the Golf Course utilized 10,759,232 gallons of water for irrigation, plumbing, and operations. In comparison, the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex utilized 11,160,908 gallons of water, and Santa Rosa Park utilized 5,398316 gallons of water during the same time period. The golf course maintenance staff overall approach is based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM). The course prioritizes cultural practices such as mowing, irrigation control, fertility balance, and improving turf growing conditions to prevent pest and disease issues before they start. Chemical applications are made only when monitoring and site conditions indicate they are necessary to protect turf health and playability. Staff utilize a fungicide program which is less intrusive or harmful to the vegetation with a focus primarily on greens, with applications to tees and fairways when disease pressure warrants. The course maintains a rotation of systemic and contact fungicides to manage resistance and provide both preventative and curative control. The Course avoids the use of non -selective or aggressive herbicides on putting greens. Weed pressure in greens is primarily addressed through cultural practices and turf density ma nagement. Spot treatments are used whenever possible instead of broadcast applications. 15. What cost-cutting (or value engineering) measures could be taken to reduce the capital costs of the club house (Pro Shop) and of the bridge? Bridge Replacement: Public Works and Parks and Recreation staff identified reuse of an existing City-owned bridge as the most cost-effective option for the cart/pedestrian bridge replacement. The bridge is currently being stored at the City’s Corporation Yard and would be hauled to the golf course for placement on new abutments outside of the creek banks to reduce future impact to the creek area and embankments. Pro Shop Rehabilitation: Staff from Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Human Relations – Risk Management have worked directly with California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CJPIA )and the City’s insurer to identify the most cost- effective methods for the initial mold remediation and initial flood prevention mitigation techniques during the first two phases of the project. The third phase is to release a Request For Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of design documents for the internal renovation of the Pro Shop, followed by a request for construction bids. The RFP for design services is currently being finalized and could be released within the next few months. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 10 16. What measures could the City take to increase the revenue generated by golf course use, moving the cost recovery percentage to the top of the range, 60% Staff have provided a couple of program expansion opportunities for revenue generation within the staff report and will highlight those during the presentation to City Council on February 3. In addition, the critical areas to increase the number of users and grow both current programs and expand new opportunities are based on the completion of the bridge installation and pro shop rehabilitation. The lack of a bridge and fully functional pro shop negatively impact consistent year-round play, the ability to host tournaments, as well as facility reservations and rentals. The opportunity to collect monthly lease revenue from a food and beverage concessionaire will also expand revenue generation and support the community requests while utilizing the golf programs, as well as expanding even t potential. 17. How many unique visitors does the SLO Swim Center have in a year? Staff are not able to accurately identify unique users of the SLO Swim Center as the daily entry fees are not tracked as individual ‘reservations/registrations’ in the software system. Additionally, the community partnership with the Seahawk Swim Club and local school districts are classified as group uses and contracted based on hours and number of lanes of use, rather than individuals. The below chart is a breakdown of the user group breakdown during the 2024 -2025 season for the SLO Swim Center: Overall Total 2024-2025 76,898 Total Lap Swim Users 30,039 39.06% Total YMCA Member Entries 10,807 14.05% Total Recreation Swim Users 8,806 11.45% Total Warm Water Exercise Users 1,816 2.36% Total Miscellaneous Users 25,430 33.07% The total number of door entry’s does not reflect individual unique users. Some swim center users visit the facility 3-4 times per week for swim workouts such as lap swim, warm water exercise classes, or summer swim lessons. Miscellaneous users represent specialty user groups that do not enter through the City’s system including SLO Seahawks (12,555), swim meets (including spectators – 1,760), scuba classes (160), swim lessons (8,855) and high school swim practices (1,065). The miscellaneous number represents an average attendance based on the number of days per program. Laguna Lake Golf Course Program Operations and Maintenance Overview Study Session Page 11 18. Is there a potential to expand the current Pro Shop to accommodate additional uses? The current Pro Shop rehabilitation project, which is supported by insurance repair funds, is to rehab the facility to its previous floorplan with some mandatory ADA required upgrades. The original floor plan includes a small lobby/social area that was previously used for golf related social uses, as well as the opportunity to be used as a small community space for meetings and social engagements. The current Pro Shop building is 1,575 square feet, which includes the main pro shop area (795 sf), staff offices (262 sf) and con cessionaire space (424 sf). Staff anticipate that the space will sufficiently accommodate other uses, such as community meeting, small events, etc. 19. Will the Pro Shop renovations include a kitchen facility appropriate for use by a food and beverage vendor? The Pro Shop currently has the infrastructure of a full commercial kitchen (stove, vent, fridge/freezer, commercial sinks, service counter) and operated as such prior to the closing of the building. The rehabilitation project includes the kitchen space in order to support the full operations returning for concessionaire to provide food and beverage service to the users and neighboring community members. 11 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 3:42 PM To:'Jan Marx' Subject:FW: 2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (3/4) Attachments:Item 5f. Hermann and Read - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf; Item 5g. Tway and Gault - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf; Item 5h. McDonald and Harnett - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:02 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Read, Chris <cread@slocity.org>; Harnett, Natalie <nharnett@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: 2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (3/4) Mayor & Council, Attached, and linked below, is staff agenda correspondence for tonight’s City Council Regular Meeting. There is 1 more staff agenda correspondence regarding Item 7a that is in progress and will be sent out within the hour. Item 5f. Authorization to Accept TECH Clean California QuickStart Grant to Support Local Energy Efficient Retrofits in Mobile and Manufactured Homes Hermann and Read – Staff Agenda Correspondence Item 5g. Review of a Request to Remove One Tree Associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project Located at 614 Monterey Street Tway and Gault – Staff Agenda Correspondence Item 5h. Approve a Draft Letter to Legislators Regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant McDonald and Harnett – Staff Agenda Correspondence BCC: Agenda Correspondence, Council All Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk II City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 5f - AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT TECH CLEAN CALIFORNIA QUICKSTART GRANT TO SUPPORT LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETROFITS IN MOBILE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES Staff received the following question regarding the TECH QuickStart grant with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) Will all the beneficiaries of the TECH Clean California QuickStart Grant, assisted by the partner agencies (CAPSLO, Diversity Coalition, and Climate Coalition) reside in the City of SLO? I do not see this outlined anywhere specifically in the agreements or program requirements/eligibility criteria. As noted in the Council Agenda Report, the grant funds are intended to be passed through to CAPSLO for direct energy efficiency retrofits with additional funds passed through to the Diversity Coalition and the SLO Climate Coalition for supporting services. CAPSLO, the Diversity Coalition, and the SLO Climate Coalition intend to reach out to local mobile and manufactured home occupants to generate leads for energy retrofits as soon as the agreements are completed. The City fully expects that all funds will be expended within the City of San Luis Obispo. However, given the “Quick Start” nature of the grant and the associated short timeframe (all funds must be expended by March of 2027), the grant agreement gives CAPSLO flexibility to complete projects in the region should local projects not materialize which would happen in consultation with the City. Should CAPSLO complete a regional project, City staff would not be directly involved. However, in this instance, the City would still benefit from project -based learnings associated with the installations. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Prepared By: Walter Gault, City Arborist SUBJECT: ITEM 5g - REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SLO REP THEATRE PROJECT LOCATED AT 614 MONTEREY STREET Staff received the following questions regarding the request to remove one (1) 48 -inch DBH Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) at 614 Monterey Street , with staff’s responses shown in italics. 1) Why wasn’t the extent of the Oak’s root system disclosed earlier during the design phase? At the time this project was reviewed through the planning entitlement phase, an arborist report was not required for projects. Previously, best practice considered the canopy dripline to be the extent of a tree root system, and this is what was shown on project plans. Current best practice states that the critical root zone often extends well beyond the dripline. The City now requires an arborist report with detailed information regarding root zones during the entitlement phase. The project plans indicated the tree was to remain, and this was shown on the building permit application. Once construction of the adjacent parking structure began and detailed building plans for the SLO REP Theatre were submitted for review, it became apparent that the roots occup ied a greater area than the canopy dripline. 2) What is the age of the tree? The arborist report, prepared by Rodney Thurman of Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting, Inc., estimated that the tree age likely ranges from 65 to 96 years old. To more accurately determine the age of trees, an increment borer would need to be used to extract a small core sample to count growth rings. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 2 3) Can the oak tree be transplanted? An Oak tree of this size, age and structure would not be a candidate for a successful transplant. Moving a tree of this size would be costly, logistically difficult and would likely not result in the long term survival of the tree. 4) Is it possible to leave the tree in place to see if it survives, then replace later if it does not? Yes. The tree can remain and could be replaced later if it does not survive. However, based on the tree’s known root structure and the existing and proposed infrastructure required for the project, the likelihood of survival is low. The consulting arborist determined that the tree would likely not survive unless the project was redesigned to more appropriately accommodate the tree because of the loss of canopy combined with impacts to the critical root zone. The proposed theatre could be redesigned to reduce damage to the critical root zone. This would be a fairly significant redesign that would require new architectural and engineering plans, as well as additional review by the City. According to the project representatives, this would result in a delay to the project schedule, postpone the final completion and opening of the theatre, and could reduce the size of the theatre to the extent that it no longer meets project objectives and financial projections based on seating numbers and theatre offerings. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 3 5) What is the estimated Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and height for the replacement tree in a 48-inch or 60-inch box? Replacement trees in a 48-inch or 60-inch box are typically 8-10 feet tall with a 10-12 foot wide canopy. DBH at this size is not typically available from the nursery as they are multi-trunk specimens (See Figure 1 below). Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral tree) is expected to reach a height of at least 40 feet (See Figure 2). Figure 1: 60-inch box Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral) Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 4 6) What is the estimated growth rate of the replacement tree? Mandela Coral trees (Erythrina affra) grow quickly at an average of 3 feet of growth each year. 7) Where are the replacement trees being planted and what species are proposed to be planted? The applicant is proposing to replant one (1) 60-inch box Mandela Coral (Erythrina afra) tree onsite in the same area of the existing oak tree (see Figure 3) and four (4) 24-inch box trees from the Approved City Tree List off-site along Nipomo Street (see Figure 4). Trees that have been considered for off-site planting include Chitalpa x tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud (see Figure 5) and Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion) (Figure 6). Figure 2: Large, mature specimen Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral) tree located in a southern California park Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 5 Figure 3: The dashed black line outlines the 20 foot x 20 foot area on the Landscape Plan where SLO Rep proposes to replant one (1) 60-inch box Mandela Coral (Erythrina afra) tree. SLO REP Theatre Figure 3: Four, 24-inch box trees from the Approved City Tree List are proposed to be planted off-site along Nipomo Street. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 6 Figure 5: Chitalpa x tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud Figure 6: Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion) City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager Prepared By: Natalie Harnett, Policy and Project Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM #5h - APPROVE A DRAFT LETTER TO LEGISLATORS REGARDING DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT The City Council received agenda correspondence from Senator John Laird regarding the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) and the proposed letter from the City Council that is provided in Item 5h. Staff received a request from a Council Member to address that letter from Senator Laird in a staff agenda correspondence that also includes proposed language that acknowledges the letter from Senator Laird and expresses support and understanding for the concerns and goals outlined in his letter, which is attached to this agenda correspondence as Attachment A. Proposed language for consideration is shown below which would be inserted as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of the draft letter should Council wish to include it: “The City Council would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Laird for his letter dated January 30, 2026, addressed to them on this matter. The City Council understands the issues and concerns identified in the letter and supports the goals and processes outlined regarding DCPP.” ATTACHMENT A – Senator Laird Letter to the City of San Luis Obispo Re DCPP 12 From:Angela Perez <angela@atomarchitects.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:43 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Preserving the Historic Coastal Live Oak in Downtown SLO: Feb 3 Mtg + Item 5.g Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St Hi Michelle, Thank you for taking the time to respond. I have spent a little time digging through the available materials and staff report, and while I understand the challenges outlined and the uncertainty around the tree’s long-term viability, we are still disappointed that there doesn’t appear to be a stronger or more creative path forward that prioritizes preservation. Even acknowledging the risks, this oak holds significant cultural, environmental, and symbolic value for our community. In my view, that makes it worth exhausting every possible alternative.... whether through site redesign, adaptive use of the space, or reframing the project to treat the tree as a civic asset rather than a constraint. The possibility that the tree might not survive feels like an especially painful justification for removal, given that removal guarantees its loss. Are there arborist reports to verify this? I’m grateful to hear you plan to ask additional questions at the meeting. I truly hope the discussion leaves room for solutions that better reflect the long-term interests and identity of San Luis Obispo, not just the immediate demands of the project. Thank you again for your time and for being willing to engage further on this issue. Best, Angela Perez LEED GA Principal Project Manager atomarchitects.com 805.316.1822 From: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 6:56 PM To: Angela Perez <angela@atomarchitects.com> Subject: RE: Preserving the Historic Coastal Live Oak in Downtown SLO: Feb 3 Mtg + Item 5.g Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St Hi Angela, Thanks for writing in. I am not sure if you have had a chance to review the staff report on this item, but it lays out all the information about what has been done so far to try and preserve the tree. It is not clear, that even if we preserve it now, if it will survive.  That said, I definitely plan to ask more questions tomorrow to see if we will be able to keep it or not. Thanks again, Michelle 13 From: Angela Perez <angela@atomarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 2:43 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Preserving the Historic Coastal Live Oak in Downtown SLO: Feb 3 Mtg + Item 5.g Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Cal Poly graduate and local resident who deeply values San Luis Obispo’s character, history, and relationship to the natural landscape. I am concerned about the proposed removal of the mature coastal live oak in downtown SLO to accommodate new construction. Coastal live oaks are not interchangeable landscape elements, they are living landmarks. This tree represents decades, if not centuries, of history and is woven into the cultural and environmental identity of our city. Once removed, it cannot be replaced in any meaningful way within our lifetime. Cutting it down would be a permanent loss, not just to the streetscape, but to the collective memory and sense of place that makes San Luis Obispo special. Our downtown is loved precisely because it balances development with human scale, history, and nature. These trees are part of what make SLO feel grounded, walkable, and distinct from other cities that have chosen expediency over preservation. I urge the Council to reconsider whether removal is truly the only option. Could this site instead become a small pocket park, plaza, or sculpture garden that celebrates the oak as a centerpiece rather than an obstacle? Many cities have successfully integrated historic trees into public spaces, turning them into assets that enhance development rather than limit it. A solution like this would demonstrate creativity, stewardship, and a long-term vision aligned with SLO’s values. Progress does not have to come at the expense of irreplaceable natural and cultural resources. Protecting this oak would send a strong message that San Luis Obispo honors its history, prioritizes sustainability, and believes thoughtful design can coexist with growth. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. I hope you will choose preservation and explore alternatives that allow this remarkable tree to remain part of downtown SLO for generations to come. Best, Angela Perez LEED GA Principal Project Manager atomarchitects.com 805.316.1822 14 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 2:38 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Honer-Hollstien, Lily; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter; McDonald, Whitney; Harnett, Natalie Subject:02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 5g, 5h & 7a BCC: Agenda Correspondence Group Hello, Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 3, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Walker - Peluso - Davies - Hunter - Hoffman (2) (voicemail) - Silvas (voicemail) - DePaoli - Schmidt (2) - Miller Item 5h – Approve a Draft Letter to Legislators Regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Black - Salinas - Addis - Baldwin Item 7a – Laguna Lake Golf Course Operations & Maintenance Overview Study Session - Marc - Wilson - Simon - Leal - Hess - Avakian and Hyfield – Staff Agenda Correspondence Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org 15 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 16 From:Richard Schmidt < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:43 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Agenda Item 5g -- second letter Attachments:council slorep tree 2 pdf.pdf Dear Mayor and Council, Please see the attached pdf letter. 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. 17 From:Rachel Hunter <rhunter@etnainteractive.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:30 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:5.g - Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St. Meeting - Feb 3rd, 2026 To whom it may concern, MeeƟng – February 3rd, 2026 Item: 5.g – tree removal at 614 Monterey Street To remove the well-established coastal live oak to fit in more buildings would be a travesty. This is mature tree that provides so much to the environment that newly planted trees cannot do. I always thought SLO was an eco-friendly community and have been apart of this community since 2007 when I started college here. I have remained a community member because of the beauty of the outdoors, the friendly people, and the quaint downtown ac ƟviƟes. It is up to the city and community to protect nature while also allowing for new growth and saving this tree reflects the values San Luis Obispo claims to stand for. Please make the right choice and save this tree! Thank you. Rachel Hunter | Project Manager | Etna Interactive PH: 805-303-4296 www.etnainteractive.com We cultivate success through partnership. EMAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission may contain confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to postmaster@etnainteractive.com. 18 From:Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:18 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Hi Michelle, Thank you for sending this. This is quite disappointing. Just about anyone who works in architecture or landscaping could tell you that the construction (based on the design plans) would absolute affect the health of the tree. The tree is too big and too established to sustain vitality not only through the construction process but long term with the critical root zone impacted so severely. It seems to be an "ask for forgiveness not permission". Had the original design proposal included removal of the tree, it most likely would not have passed. It seems either egregious or complete ignorance on the part of the designers. Also, a 60" box replacement is only a 4"-6" diameter tree vs the 48" current one. This is not even close to a replacement. Plus the loss of a (what I am assuming) is a +100 yr old oak tree that are increasingly rare in urban environments. I understand that a lot of time and money has gone into the original plans, but it sets a negative precedent to allow for plans to go through that were never actually feasible. As land stewards, it is our duty to be a voice for the voiceless. As in my original email, I am proposing this plot of land be reimagined into a pocket park. If you haven't been by the tree lately, I encourage you to swing by before the meeting. It really is a special tree. I truly appreciate your dialogue and am grateful that you are bringing the concerns of the public to your meeting. Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 8:01 AM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: The agenda packet and materials can be found here: https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city- council/agendas-and-minutes under city council. You can look at it in PDF or HTML. Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:25:21 AM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Hi Michelle, 19 Thank you so much for your reply! I have not seen the staff report, can you please direct me to where I can find this? I just heard about the tree removal a few days ago so do not have a lot of info. But I did go see it on Sunday evening and spend some time under it's branches. It is a very special tree. Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 6:49 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Bianca. Have you taken a look at the staff report? I know this is a super unfortunate situation. I am not happy about it either. I will be asking questions about it tomorrow of staff. But, I am afraid their might be nothing we can do about this one. The good news is, if it’s any consolation, the project is planting a fairly mature tree in it’s place and several other trees along Nipomo street, above and beyond the replacement. In any case, thanks for the email. I hope we are able to preserve the tree, I’m just not sure it will be possible. Thanks! Michelle From: Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 3:42 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I originally moved to SLO in 2006 to study Architecture and Sustainable Environments at Cal Poly, and quickly fell in love with the natural landscape here. I am writing to urge you to deny the removal of the legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street (Item 5.g). This oak is not only a protected native tree, but a living, breathing member of our downtown community. One that has quietly witnessed generations of San Luis Obispo residents, businesses, and civic life. Mature oaks provide irreplaceable benefits, including carbon 20 sequestration, wildlife habitat, shade, and climate resilience that cannot be replicated by replacement plantings within our lifetimes. Located in the heart of downtown within the emerging Arts and Culture District, this tree represents an opportunity to lead with creativity and values-forward planning. As stewards of the land entrusted to us, we have a responsibility to care for legacy natural assets rather than treat them as obstacles to be removed. The City could explore alternatives that design around the oak and elevate it as a focal point, such as a pocket park with public art, sculpture, and murals, demonstrating that development and preservation can meaningfully coexist. This majestic tree offering shade to those who want to pause for a while. Once a legacy oak is removed, its ecological and cultural contributions are lost forever. The decision before you will shape the character of downtown for generations to come. I respectfully ask that you uphold the intent of SLO County’s oak protections, explore alternatives to removal, and choose stewardship over short- term convenience. Preserving this tree would affirm San Luis Obispo’s commitment to honoring its living heritage and our shared responsibility to protect it. Sincerely, Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com 21 From:Armas, Sara Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 1:02 PM To:CityClerk Cc:McDonald, Whitney; Hermann, Greg; Read, Chris; Harnett, Natalie; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter Subject:2/3/2026 City Council Meeting - Staff Agenda Correspondence (3/4) Attachments:Item 5f. Hermann and Read - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf; Item 5g. Tway and Gault - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf; Item 5h. McDonald and Harnett - Staff Agenda Correspondence.pdf Mayor & Council, Attached, and linked below, is staff agenda correspondence for tonight’s City Council Regular Meeting. There is 1 more staff agenda correspondence regarding Item 7a that is in progress and will be sent out within the hour. Item 5f. Authorization to Accept TECH Clean California QuickStart Grant to Support Local Energy Efficient Retrofits in Mobile and Manufactured Homes Hermann and Read – Staff Agenda Correspondence Item 5g. Review of a Request to Remove One Tree Associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project Located at 614 Monterey Street Tway and Gault – Staff Agenda Correspondence Item 5h. Approve a Draft Letter to Legislators Regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant McDonald and Harnett – Staff Agenda Correspondence BCC: Agenda Correspondence, Council All Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk II City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM 5f - AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT TECH CLEAN CALIFORNIA QUICKSTART GRANT TO SUPPORT LOCAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETROFITS IN MOBILE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES Staff received the following question regarding the TECH QuickStart grant with staff’s response shown in italics: 1) Will all the beneficiaries of the TECH Clean California QuickStart Grant, assisted by the partner agencies (CAPSLO, Diversity Coalition, and Climate Coalition) reside in the City of SLO? I do not see this outlined anywhere specifically in the agreements or program requirements/eligibility criteria. As noted in the Council Agenda Report, the grant funds are intended to be passed through to CAPSLO for direct energy efficiency retrofits with additional funds passed through to the Diversity Coalition and the SLO Climate Coalition for supporting services. CAPSLO, the Diversity Coalition, and the SLO Climate Coalition intend to reach out to local mobile and manufactured home occupants to generate leads for energy retrofits as soon as the agreements are completed. The City fully expects that all funds will be expended within the City of San Luis Obispo. However, given the “Quick Start” nature of the grant and the associated short timeframe (all funds must be expended by March of 2027), the grant agreement gives CAPSLO flexibility to complete projects in the region should local projects not materialize which would happen in consultation with the City. Should CAPSLO complete a regional project, City staff would not be directly involved. However, in this instance, the City would still benefit from project -based learnings associated with the installations. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director Prepared By: Walter Gault, City Arborist SUBJECT: ITEM 5g - REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE TREE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SLO REP THEATRE PROJECT LOCATED AT 614 MONTEREY STREET Staff received the following questions regarding the request to remove one (1) 48 -inch DBH Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) at 614 Monterey Street , with staff’s responses shown in italics. 1) Why wasn’t the extent of the Oak’s root system disclosed earlier during the design phase? At the time this project was reviewed through the planning entitlement phase, an arborist report was not required for projects. Previously, best practice considered the canopy dripline to be the extent of a tree root system, and this is what was shown on project plans. Current best practice states that the critical root zone often extends well beyond the dripline. The City now requires an arborist report with detailed information regarding root zones during the entitlement phase. The project plans indicated the tree was to remain, and this was shown on the building permit application. Once construction of the adjacent parking structure began and detailed building plans for the SLO REP Theatre were submitted for review, it became apparent that the roots occup ied a greater area than the canopy dripline. 2) What is the age of the tree? The arborist report, prepared by Rodney Thurman of Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting, Inc., estimated that the tree age likely ranges from 65 to 96 years old. To more accurately determine the age of trees, an increment borer would need to be used to extract a small core sample to count growth rings. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 2 3) Can the oak tree be transplanted? An Oak tree of this size, age and structure would not be a candidate for a successful transplant. Moving a tree of this size would be costly, logistically difficult and would likely not result in the long term survival of the tree. 4) Is it possible to leave the tree in place to see if it survives, then replace later if it does not? Yes. The tree can remain and could be replaced later if it does not survive. However, based on the tree’s known root structure and the existing and proposed infrastructure required for the project, the likelihood of survival is low. The consulting arborist determined that the tree would likely not survive unless the project was redesigned to more appropriately accommodate the tree because of the loss of canopy combined with impacts to the critical root zone. The proposed theatre could be redesigned to reduce damage to the critical root zone. This would be a fairly significant redesign that would require new architectural and engineering plans, as well as additional review by the City. According to the project representatives, this would result in a delay to the project schedule, postpone the final completion and opening of the theatre, and could reduce the size of the theatre to the extent that it no longer meets project objectives and financial projections based on seating numbers and theatre offerings. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 3 5) What is the estimated Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and height for the replacement tree in a 48-inch or 60-inch box? Replacement trees in a 48-inch or 60-inch box are typically 8-10 feet tall with a 10-12 foot wide canopy. DBH at this size is not typically available from the nursery as they are multi-trunk specimens (See Figure 1 below). Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral tree) is expected to reach a height of at least 40 feet (See Figure 2). Figure 1: 60-inch box Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral) Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 4 6) What is the estimated growth rate of the replacement tree? Mandela Coral trees (Erythrina affra) grow quickly at an average of 3 feet of growth each year. 7) Where are the replacement trees being planted and what species are proposed to be planted? The applicant is proposing to replant one (1) 60-inch box Mandela Coral (Erythrina afra) tree onsite in the same area of the existing oak tree (see Figure 3) and four (4) 24-inch box trees from the Approved City Tree List off-site along Nipomo Street (see Figure 4). Trees that have been considered for off-site planting include Chitalpa x tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud (see Figure 5) and Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion) (Figure 6). Figure 2: Large, mature specimen Erythrina affra (Mandela Coral) tree located in a southern California park Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 5 Figure 3: The dashed black line outlines the 20 foot x 20 foot area on the Landscape Plan where SLO Rep proposes to replant one (1) 60-inch box Mandela Coral (Erythrina afra) tree. SLO REP Theatre Figure 3: Four, 24-inch box trees from the Approved City Tree List are proposed to be planted off-site along Nipomo Street. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request Page 6 Figure 5: Chitalpa x tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud Figure 6: Cassia leptophylla (Gold Medallion) City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Correspondence DATE: February 3, 2026 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Whitney McDonald, City Manager Prepared By: Natalie Harnett, Policy and Project Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager SUBJECT: ITEM #5h - APPROVE A DRAFT LETTER TO LEGISLATORS REGARDING DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT The City Council received agenda correspondence from Senator John Laird regarding the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) and the proposed letter from the City Council that is provided in Item 5h. Staff received a request from a Council Member to address that letter from Senator Laird in a staff agenda correspondence that also includes proposed language that acknowledges the letter from Senator Laird and expresses support and understanding for the concerns and goals outlined in his letter, which is attached to this agenda correspondence as Attachment A. Proposed language for consideration is shown below which would be inserted as a new paragraph after the first paragraph of the draft letter should Council wish to include it: “The City Council would like to acknowledge and thank Senator Laird for his letter dated January 30, 2026, addressed to them on this matter. The City Council understands the issues and concerns identified in the letter and supports the goals and processes outlined regarding DCPP.” ATTACHMENT A – Senator Laird Letter to the City of San Luis Obispo Re DCPP 22 From:Jodie Davies < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:59 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Feb, 3 2026 meeting. Item 5.g -tree removal at 614 Monterey Street Dear City Council Members, For your consideration in response to the planned Feb, 3 2026 meeting. Item 5.g -tree removal at 614 Monterey Street I have been a resident of the central coast and SLO for the past 19 years. The Coast Live Oaks are a beautiful symbol of our community and I am saddened to learn of the possibility of our majestic Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street being removed. I have witnessed Acorn Woodpecker’s and Scrub Jay’s feeding amongst its branches and a Red Tailed Hawk that likes to perch at the oaks crown. Our Coast Live Oak’s are so much more than just a beautiful symbol. The Live Oak is considered a keystone species supporting 596 identified species, including 245 higher-level taxa. The tree’s acorns and foliage are crucial for many organisms, making it a vital component of our ecosystem. Coast Live Oaks can live for over 250 years, contributing to long-term ecological stability. As a keystone species, the Coast Live Oak plays an essential role in maintaining the health and diversity of our ecosystem, supporting a wide array of life forms and contributing to ecological balance. It is also my understanding that this Coast Live Oak resides in SLO’s new, art’s and culture district. It is my hope like so many others that this heritage oak will be included in an alternative plan for this land. Perhaps a pocket park or art installation that would represent and celebrate what makes downtown SLO unique and special. I hope you will give this deep thought and consideration. What you decide today will affect future generations to come. Thank you for your time. In gratitude, Jodie Davies 23 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:18 PM To:Jillian Bleher Subject:Re: Oak tree at 614 Monterey Street Dear Jill, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey Street. I truly appreciate hearing from community members like you who recognize the beauty this magnificent tree brings to our downtown. I have asked the arborist to provide me with additional information about whether it's feasible to save this tree. I'm hopeful there's a path forward that allows us to preserve this remarkable specimen for future generations to enjoy. Thank you again for your advocacy and for caring so deeply about our community's trees. Your voice matters in this process. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 10:20 PM, Jillian Bleher < wrote: I am emailing about item 5.g - Tree Removal at 614 Monterey Street which is to be discussed at the February 3rd meeting. I would urge the council to consider alternative ideas for development which preserve this amazing oak tree specimen! Nature trees are a hallmark of an area and this distinct tree adds such character and beauty to this area of downtown. It will be sorely missed if removed. Jill Bleher “Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson 24 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:15 PM To:stacy l henderson Subject:Re: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 Dear Stacy, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey Street. I truly appreciate hearing from community members like you who have such deep roots in San Luis Obispo and who care so passionately about preserving our natural heritage for future generations. You're absolutely right that this ancient oak is an honorable member of our community, and the microclimate and ecological benefits it provides are irreplaceable. I have asked the arborist to provide me with additional information about whether it's feasible to save this tree. I'm hopeful there's a path forward that allows us to preserve this incredible Coastal Live Oak for future generations to enjoy. Thank you again for your advocacy and for caring so deeply about our community's natural treasures. Your voice matters in this process. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 12:45 AM, stacy l henderson < wrote: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 3, 2026 at 12:44:52 AM PST To: Whitney Szentesi <communications@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 Sent from my iPhone 25 Begin forwarded message: From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 2, 2026 at 8:42:14 PM PST To: Norma Jean Hoffman MY Mom < Subject: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 This is the email I sent to city council Mom :) From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 2, 2026 at 8:26:09 PM PST To: emailcouncil@slocity.org Subject: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 G’day honorable members of SLO City Council. Please consider this email as a comment for: item # "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026. I’m Stacy Henderson. I’ve been a ( grateful) resident ( with in the city limits) of SLO for 55 of my 62 years. It is my privilege to be able to voice my concerns to our elected officials. I OPPOSE the removal of this tree! I would imagine /surmise that the reason you all have run for the honorable seats on our City Council… (& subsequently were elected by us , the good citizens of SLO ) …is because we ALL SHARE the same love for the environmental beauty and unique diversity that SLO has. I want to remind the honorable council members that we are very fortunate to be able to SUPPORT this kind of environmental benefit within our city limits ! Very few places on the planet have the kind of micro climates we do! I hope the Council WILL NOT remove this ancient and yes “honorable”member of our community and the thew it’s brings in her silent standing! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Best, 26 Stacy L Henderson 27 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:07 PM To:Michael Cole Subject:Re: Save the tree!! Dear Dr. Cole, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey. I share your concern about preserving the elements that make our city unique. I have asked for additional information ahead of making this important decision, and I'm hopeful there's a path forward that allows us to preserve this incredible tree for future generations. Thank you again for your advocacy and for caring so deeply about our community's trees. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 7:34 AM, Michael Cole < wrote: Dear council members: Although I do not live in SLO, it is a region I frequent almost monthly. It's a relatively short drive from Fresno. Additionally, I have family that has and does attend college there. Part of what makes SLO such an amazing city is the beautiful ways in which natural beauty is incorporated into the existing urban environment. It has come to my attention that very mature oak is in danger in order to make progress for new construction at 614 Monterey St. While new development is essential to urban growth, it should not come at the expense of the natural beauty that makes SLO a special place. 28 I hope that you will give careful consideration to the precedent such a decision would make and how it would reflect on the council's commitment to preserving that which makes SLO unique and a wonderful city to both live in and visit. Thank you for taking the time to allow me to express my concerns. Sincerely, Dr. Michael Cole 29 From:donotreply@escribemeetings.com Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 11:28 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Approval Task Assigned - Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request A Task has been assigned to you to Approve the following item. Log into eSCRIBE to review or edit the following Report. Report Item: Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request.docx Supporting Documents: N/A Workflow Initiator: Sara Armas Sponsor(s): N/A Meeting Type: City Council Meeting Date: CC_Feb03_2026 Department: Community Development Contributor Comments: No Comments Participants Status Due Date Alert Teresa Purrington Approved tpurring@slocity.org Scott Collins Approved scollins@slocity.org Christine Dietrick Approved cdietrick@slocity.org Whitney McDonald Approved wmcdonal@slocity.org Walter Gault Pending 2/4/2026 wgault@slocity.org Click here to action this task 30 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 10:45 AM To:Hill, Robert Subject:MEMO Attachments:SLO REP TREE ESTIMATES- 8.6.25.pdf Attached- I reread it and stand by these estimates. Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to review these estimates. All figures are based on the findings in SLO REP’s commissioned arborist report from HERITAGE TREE completed on July 7, 2025. SCENARIO #1: The design of the building is modified before construction to protect the minimum s/f of critical root structure recommended: After meeting with our architect (Bryce Engstrom), consultants (Theatre DNA), Structural Engineers (RW), and Civil engineers (EDM), we have determined that modifying the design of the building would result in, basically, a complete redesign on the project. We would, most likely, lose the black box theatre and at least 30% of the capacity for the mainstage theatre. These changes would result in a building that would not meet SLO REP or the community’s needs and expectations and would not be financially feasible to operate if constructed. DESIGN EXPENSE: our design team would be nearly starting from scratch. Given that SLO REP has already spent $800k+ in design expenses to date, we estimate a redesigning of the building would cost approximately $550,000. CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE: even with the significantly reduced footprint, SLO REP estimates that to guarantee the protection of the critical root structure during the 16-20 month construction process would increase the overall expenses by $225,000-$250,000. Even after these precautions are taken and expenses paid, it is doubtful that that the tree will survive in the long-term. TIMELINE: to redesign and reengineer the building would result in our first two plancheck submittals to be thrown out, and for SLO REP to start over. Even the most expediated timeline would result in a construction delay of approximately 6-10 months. SCENARIO #2: The design of the building is not altered, and SLO REP moved forward attempting to protect the critical root structure of the tree: DESIGN EXPENSE: negligible before contruction. CONTRUCTION EXPENSE: Given the current footprint of the building (with the critical root structure extending significantly into building on all sides, foundation construction would have to modified on the site as contractors/arborists see the realties of the roots structure. Our engineers and contractors estimate that these design/construction changes would result in change orders and on-site modification would increase the overall expenses of construction by approximately $500,000-$600,000. Even after these precautions are taken and expenses paid, it is doubtful that that the tree will survive in the long-term. TIMELINE: SLO REP estimated that this will not significantly affect the construction start date but would eventually result in at least 2.5-3 months of additional construction time. SCENARIO #3: The tree is removed before the beginning of construction: DESIGN EXPENSE: Modest. Our structural Engineers have already included design precautions based on the assumed perimeter of the critical root structure of the tree. They would certainly simplify some of these design precautions which would result in some additional design expenses but would certainly wash out due to lower construction expenses. CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE: Our engineers, consultants, and contractors have confirmed that by removing the tree: • SLO REP would have a significantly larger staging area and will be less likely to have to request Monterey Street closures. • SLO REP would not have to alter the foundations onsite (in collaboration with the City arborists) to attempt to protect the critical roots structure. • The final design of the foundations, retaining walls, etc could be simplified significantly. If the tree is removed before construction begins, our team estimated that this will reduce the construction expenses of the building by approximately $300,000. TIMELINE: Having additional staging areas next to construction and being able to move quickly will result in our construction timeline being reduced by approximately 10-15%, or around 70 days. 31 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 10:31 AM To:Kevin Harris; Gault, Walter Subject:RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Unfortunately, Rodney is already scheduled for a council meeting in Paso this evening, so, no dice. Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 6:12 PM To: Walter Gault <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: Re: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Thanks, Walter. I’ll reach out to him now. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2026, at 4:41 PM, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon Kevin, There’s been a lot of public comment---we recommend that you bring your arborist to answer questions. https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=220320&cr=1 Best regards, 32 Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:22 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Great- thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org <~WRD0000.jpg> SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: <~WRD0000.jpg> <~WRD0000.jpg> From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:20 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Hi Kevin, Thank you for confirming your attendance. I would be prepared to answer question revolving around why/how did the designers not think the tree would be impacted by the design and if/how the project could be designed around the tree. Best regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 33 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:39 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Hi Walter, Thanks for this email and for your voicemail- appreciate it! I am planning on being at the meeting next Tuesday and will be able to speak for SLO REP team, including the architect, if the item is pulled. Anything else I should know? Thanks for your help throughout this process. Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org <~WRD0000.jpg> SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: <~WRD0000.jpg> <~WRD0000.jpg> From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:36 AM To: kevinharris@slorep.org Subject: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Good morning Kevin, I’m reaching out to let you know that your tree removal request has been added to the consent agenda of next City Council Meeting on Tuesday February 3 at 5:30pm. https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=23305 We have also received public comment regarding the request: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220766&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Will you and or your architect Bryce be available to answer any questions. The item is on the consent agenda in if pulled will be one of the first items of discussion. Thank you, 34 Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 35 From:Morgan Walker < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:21 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:FEB 3 MEETING + ITEM 5.g - TREE REMOVAL at 614 MONTEREY ST Hi Council, Please consider this note a formal vote to abstain from the removal of SLO history via our Grandfather Oak tree at 614 Monterey Street. The pondering to remove this legacy for construction of a new "arts and culture" is void of consideration for future generations, and will echo longer than any building lifespan. I am suggesting that the land be used as a pocket park with installation art, sculptures, murals, etc. Visitors and locals gravitate towards shade, and art and life tend to feed from the same palm. This tree contributes to what makes downtown SLO distinct, the live oak stores exponentially more carbon than newly planted trees and helps mitigate urban heat. Please hear our cries....you cannot undo destruction. Thank you, A SLO resident 36 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 9:16 AM To:CityClerk Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter; Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Honer-Hollstien, Lily Subject:02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 5g & 7a BCC: Agenda Correspondence Group Hello, Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 3, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Hoffman - Stone - Henderson, S. - Henke - Bleher - Brown - Cole - Lappé Item 7a – Laguna Lake Golf Course Operations & Maintenance Overview Study Session - Sparrow - McClave - Names - Hiner - Quinney - Danowitz - Calloway - Cox Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 37 From:Michael Cole < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:34 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Save the tree!! Dear council members: Although I do not live in SLO, it is a region I frequent almost monthly. It's a relatively short drive from Fresno. Additionally, I have family that has and does attend college there. Part of what makes SLO such an amazing city is the beautiful ways in which natural beauty is incorporated into the existing urban environment. It has come to my attention that very mature oak is in danger in order to make progress for new construction at 614 Monterey St. While new development is essential to urban growth, it should not come at the expense of the natural beauty that makes SLO a special place. I hope that you will give careful consideration to the precedent such a decision would make and how it would reflect on the council's commitment to preserving that which makes SLO unique and a wonderful city to both live in and visit. Thank you for taking the time to allow me to express my concerns. Sincerely, Dr. Michael Cole 38 From:Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 7:25 AM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Hi Michelle, Thank you so much for your reply! I have not seen the staff report, can you please direct me to where I can find this? I just heard about the tree removal a few days ago so do not have a lot of info. But I did go see it on Sunday evening and spend some time under it's branches. It is a very special tree. Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 6:49 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Thanks Bianca. Have you taken a look at the staff report? I know this is a super unfortunate situation. I am not happy about it either. I will be asking questions about it tomorrow of staff. But, I am afraid their might be nothing we can do about this one. The good news is, if it’s any consolation, the project is planting a fairly mature tree in it’s place and several other trees along Nipomo street, above and beyond the replacement. In any case, thanks for the email. I hope we are able to preserve the tree, I’m just not sure it will be possible. Thanks! Michelle From: Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 3:42 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 39 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I originally moved to SLO in 2006 to study Architecture and Sustainable Environments at Cal Poly, and quickly fell in love with the natural landscape here. I am writing to urge you to deny the removal of the legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street (Item 5.g). This oak is not only a protected native tree, but a living, breathing member of our downtown community. One that has quietly witnessed generations of San Luis Obispo residents, businesses, and civic life. Mature oaks provide irreplaceable benefits, including carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, shade, and climate resilience that cannot be replicated by replacement plantings within our lifetimes. Located in the heart of downtown within the emerging Arts and Culture District, this tree represents an opportunity to lead with creativity and values-forward planning. As stewards of the land entrusted to us, we have a responsibility to care for legacy natural assets rather than treat them as obstacles to be removed. The City could explore alternatives that design around the oak and elevate it as a focal point, such as a pocket park with public art, sculpture, and murals, demonstrating that development and preservation can meaningfully coexist. This majestic tree offering shade to those who want to pause for a while. Once a legacy oak is removed, its ecological and cultural contributions are lost forever. The decision before you will shape the character of downtown for generations to come. I respectfully ask that you uphold the intent of SLO County’s oak protections, explore alternatives to removal, and choose stewardship over short-term convenience. Preserving this tree would affirm San Luis Obispo’s commitment to honoring its living heritage and our shared responsibility to protect it. Sincerely, Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com 40 From:Kai Brown < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 5:47 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:5.g tree removal- 614 Monterey street Mourning, No, that’s not a typo. It is precisely what will happen if you chop down the legacy oak located in the unceded territory of the Yak Tityu Titiyu Yak Tilhini, Northern Chumash tribe, or so called 614 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, CA. I have lived in slo county most of my life. Oaks are an integral part of our ecosystem and an iconic symbol of the central coast. Progress does not require erasing our living heritage, or killing a home and food source to our more than human kin. This tree is a habitat for our birds, it provides food for our rodentia friends. And this is just present day. Who knows how many of its acorns have nourished the people who came before us, the Yak Tityu Titiyu Yak Tilhini people who had stewarded this land for thousands of years prior to colonization. To cut it down for an “art and culture district” is the biggest hypocrisy I’ve ever heard. You would be erasing art, erasing the very culture you speak to! With out this land, there is no culture. This land is not just a back drop for human affairs but it’s own life force, and cutting down this tree will have impacts far longer than any of us will be alive to see. Moreover, preserving this oak would allow many generations after us to enjoy it’s presence. This tree has more of an impact than any man made building ever could. Regards, Kai Brown 41 From:stacy l henderson < Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2026 12:45 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 3, 2026 at 12:44:52 AM PST To: Whitney Szentesi <communications@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 2, 2026 at 8:42:14 PM PST To: Norma Jean Hoffman MY Mom < Subject: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 This is the email I sent to city council Mom :) From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 2, 2026 at 8:26:09 PM PST To: emailcouncil@slocity.org Subject: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 G’day honorable members of SLO City Council. Please consider this email as a comment for: item # "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026. I’m Stacy Henderson. I’ve been a ( grateful) resident ( with in the city limits) of SLO for 55 of my 62 years. It is my privilege to be able to voice my concerns to our elected officials. I OPPOSE the removal of this tree! 42 I would imagine /surmise that the reason you all have run for the honorable seats on our City Council… (& subsequently were elected by us , the good citizens of SLO ) …is because we ALL SHARE the same love for the environmental beauty and unique diversity that SLO has. I want to remind the honorable council members that we are very fortunate to be able to SUPPORT this kind of environmental benefit within our city limits ! Very few places on the planet have the kind of micro climates we do! I hope the Council WILL NOT remove this ancient and yes “honorable”member of our community and the thew it’s brings in her silent standing! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Best, Stacy L Henderson 43 From:Jillian Bleher < Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 10:20 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Oak tree at 614 Monterey Street I am emailing about item 5.g - Tree Removal at 614 Monterey Street which is to be discussed at the February 3rd meeting. I would urge the council to consider alternative ideas for development which preserve this amazing oak tree specimen! Nature trees are a hallmark of an area and this distinct tree adds such character and beauty to this area of downtown. It will be sorely missed if removed. Jill Bleher “Live in the sunshine, swim the sea, drink the wild air.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson 44 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 10:07 PM To:Vanessa Henke Subject:RE: Feb 3rd meeting, item 5.g- Tree removal at 614 Monterey st Hi Vanessa. Thanks for writing in. I love our local urban forest and definitely want to save as many large trees as we can, while we continue to plant new ones. I’m not sure what will happen tomorrow night, but I do appreciate you writing in. Michelle From: Vanessa Henke < Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 9:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Feb 3rd meeting, item 5.g- Tree removal at 614 Monterey st Please leave that beautiful tree. I’ve lived here in SLO going on 25 years and part of what makes this area so great is how connected the community is to our beautiful environment, including our large old coastal oaks. Isn’t there something you could utilize that area for including the oak? Small park, community garden, some kind of local artistic space?! I hope you reconsider removing this tree, it’s a part of our charming historic town. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for helping our community Warmest regards, Vanessa Henke 45 From:stacy l henderson < Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 8:26 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:"5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 G’day honorable members of SLO City Council. Please consider this email as a comment for: item # "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026. I’m Stacy Henderson. I’ve been a ( grateful) resident ( with in the city limits) of SLO for 55 of my 62 years. It is my privilege to be able to voice my concerns to our elected officials. I OPPOSE the removal of this tree! I would imagine /surmise that the reason you all have run for the honorable seats on our City Council… (& subsequently were elected by us , the good citizens of SLO ) …is because we ALL SHARE the same love for the environmental beauty and unique diversity that SLO has. I want to remind the honorable council members that we are very fortunate to be able to SUPPORT this kind of environmental benefit within our city limits ! Very few places on the planet have the kind of micro climates we do! I hope the Council WILL NOT remove this ancient and yes “honorable”member of our community and the thew it’s brings in her silent standing! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Best, Stacy L Henderson 46 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 7:04 PM To:Michael Badalamenti Subject:RE: SLO Rep Tree Removal Request should be denied Thanks for writing in. I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts. We have gotten several letters. I am just not sure that the tree is savable. But, I plan to ask staff tomorrow if anything can be done. Thanks again, Michelle From: Michael Badalamenti < Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 10:56 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Removal Request should be denied Dear Council Members, I’m writing to respectfully urge you to reject SLO Rep’s application to remove the mature Coast Live Oak tree at 614 Monterey Street. As a city that prides itself on being tree-friendly, preserving this iconic tree aligns with San Luis Obispo’s values and commitment to our urban canopy. This oak tree is a vital asset, softening the harsh lines of the adjacent parking structure and theater site with its natural beauty and ecological benefits. Replacing it with smaller trees, which would take decades to reach its current size, is not a comparable solution. Instead, SLO Rep can and should be respectful to the site and redesign their project to accommodate and protect this tree, ensuring it remains a part of our downtown landscape. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter. I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the character and sustainability of our community. Best regards, Michael Badalamenti 47 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:57 PM To:Angela Perez Subject:RE: Preserving the Historic Coastal Live Oak in Downtown SLO: Feb 3 Mtg + Item 5.g Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St Hi Angela, Thanks for writing in. I am not sure if you have had a chance to review the staff report on this item, but it lays out all the information about what has been done so far to try and preserve the tree. It is not clear, that even if we preserve it now, if it will survive.  That said, I definitely plan to ask more questions tomorrow to see if we will be able to keep it or not. Thanks again, Michelle From: Angela Perez <angela@atomarchitects.com> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 2:43 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Preserving the Historic Coastal Live Oak in Downtown SLO: Feb 3 Mtg + Item 5.g Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Cal Poly graduate and local resident who deeply values San Luis Obispo’s character, history, and relationship to the natural landscape. I am concerned about the proposed removal of the mature coastal live oak in downtown SLO to accommodate new construction. Coastal live oaks are not interchangeable landscape elements, they are living landmarks. This tree represents decades, if not centuries, of history and is woven into the cultural and environmental identity of our city. Once removed, it cannot be replaced in any meaningful way within our lifetime. Cutting it down would be a permanent loss, not just to the streetscape, but to the collective memory and sense of place that makes San Luis Obispo special. Our downtown is loved precisely because it balances development with human scale, history, and nature. These trees are part of what make SLO feel grounded, walkable, and distinct from other cities that have chosen expediency over preservation. I urge the Council to reconsider whether removal is truly the only option. Could this site instead become a small pocket park, plaza, or sculpture garden that celebrates the oak as a centerpiece rather than an obstacle? Many cities have successfully integrated historic trees into public spaces, turning them into assets that enhance development rather than limit it. A solution like this would demonstrate creativity, stewardship, and a long-term vision aligned with SLO’s values. Progress does not have to come at the expense of irreplaceable natural and cultural resources. Protecting this oak would send a strong message that San Luis Obispo honors its history, prioritizes sustainability, and believes thoughtful design can coexist with growth. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. I hope you will choose preservation and explore alternatives that allow this remarkable tree to remain part of downtown SLO for generations to come. 48 Best, Angela Perez LEED GA Principal Project Manager atomarchitects.com 805.316.1822 49 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:49 PM To:Bianca Clayton Subject:RE: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Thanks Bianca. Have you taken a look at the staff report? I know this is a super unfortunate situation. I am not happy about it either. I will be asking questions about it tomorrow of staff. But, I am afraid their might be nothing we can do about this one. The good news is, if it’s any consolation, the project is planting a fairly mature tree in it’s place and several other trees along Nipomo street, above and beyond the replacement. In any case, thanks for the email. I hope we are able to preserve the tree, I’m just not sure it will be possible. Thanks! Michelle From: Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 3:42 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I originally moved to SLO in 2006 to study Architecture and Sustainable Environments at Cal Poly, and quickly fell in love with the natural landscape here. I am writing to urge you to deny the removal of the legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street (Item 5.g). This oak is not only a protected native tree, but a living, breathing member of our downtown community. One that has quietly witnessed generations of San Luis Obispo residents, businesses, and civic life. Mature oaks provide irreplaceable benefits, including carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, shade, and climate resilience that cannot be replicated by replacement plantings within our lifetimes. Located in the heart of downtown within the emerging Arts and Culture District, this tree represents an opportunity to lead with creativity and values-forward planning. As stewards of the land entrusted to us, we have a responsibility to care for legacy natural assets rather than treat them as obstacles to be removed. The City could explore alternatives that design around the oak and elevate it as a focal point, such as a pocket park with public art, sculpture, and murals, demonstrating that development and preservation can meaningfully coexist. This majestic tree offering shade to those who want to pause for a while. Once a legacy oak is removed, its ecological and cultural contributions are lost forever. The decision before you will shape the character of downtown for generations to come. I respectfully ask that you uphold the intent of SLO County’s oak protections, explore alternatives to removal, and choose stewardship over short-term convenience. Preserving this tree would affirm San Luis Obispo’s commitment to honoring its living heritage and our shared responsibility to protect it. Sincerely, 50 Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com 51 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:30 PM To:allison lorne Subject:Re: 5.g-tree removal at 614 monterrey 2-3-26 Categories:Waiting (Superhuman/AI) Dear Allison, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey. I truly appreciate hearing from community members like you who have such a deep connection to our natural environment and who care about preserving the elements that give San Luis Obispo its unique character. I have asked the arborist to provide me with additional information about whether it's feasible to save this tree. I'm hopeful there's a path forward that allows us to preserve this incredible Coastal Live Oak for future generations. Thank you again for your advocacy and for caring so deeply about our community's natural treasures. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 3:17 PM, allison lorne < wrote: Dear Council, To be discussed at meeting 2-3-26 5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterrey I have lived in SLO for 12 years and love this tree. This landmark specimen deserves to live. This incredible Coastal Live Oak is emblematic of our town and delivers great value in its presence. I suggest we create a sculpture garden around the oak or a sitting area for bathing under the tree's canopy. Please keep this tree and avoid killing this magnificent wonder, we need to steward and protect the natural elements of downtown that make SLO such a "tucked into nature" feel. This tree cannot be replaced by planting young trees that would take another hundred years to get to this size. Please consider the value of this tree to the community and it's right to exist. Thank you, 52 Allison Lorne www.healwithallison.com 53 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:12 PM To:Gault, Walter Cc:Kevin Harris Subject:Re: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Thanks, Walter. I’ll reach out to him now. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2026, at 4:41 PM, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> wrote: Good afternoon Kevin, There’s been a lot of public comment---we recommend that you bring your arborist to answer questions. https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=220320&cr=1 Best regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:22 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Great- thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org <~WRD0000.jpg> SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 54 <~WRD0000.jpg> <~WRD0000.jpg> From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:20 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Hi Kevin, Thank you for confirming your attendance. I would be prepared to answer question revolving around why/how did the designers not think the tree would be impacted by the design and if/how the project could be designed around the tree. Best regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:39 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Hi Walter, Thanks for this email and for your voicemail- appreciate it! I am planning on being at the meeting next Tuesday and will be able to speak for SLO REP team, including the architect, if the item is pulled. Anything else I should know? Thanks for your help throughout this process. Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org <~WRD0000.jpg> SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 55 <~WRD0000.jpg> <~WRD0000.jpg> From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:36 AM To: kevinharris@slorep.org Subject: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Good morning Kevin, I’m reaching out to let you know that your tree removal request has been added to the consent agenda of next City Council Meeting on Tuesday February 3 at 5:30pm. https://pub- slocity.escribemeetings.com/FileStream.ashx?DocumentId=23305 We have also received public comment regarding the request: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220766&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Will you and or your architect Bryce be available to answer any questions. The item is on the consent agenda in if pulled will be one of the first items of discussion. Thank you, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 56 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 6:09 PM To:norma Hoffman Subject:Re: Item 5g tree removal 614 Monterey Categories:Waiting (Superhuman/AI) Dear Norma, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey. I truly appreciate hearing from community members like you who have such deep roots in San Luis Obispo and who care about preserving our natural heritage for future generations. I have asked the arborists to give me more information on the survivability of the tree trimming described in the report. I'm hopeful there's a path to saving the tree. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 5:43 PM, norma Hoffman < wrote: I have been a resident of this town since 1972. My children grew up here and still remain here with their children. It is a tragedy to even be considering removal of a heritage oak. Right here in our town we have the school of architecture and environmental design at Cal Poly I am sure there are many who would come up with ideas to save this oak for our future generations my children’s children’s children! my name is Norma Hoffman. I live at Call me at Save The Oak! Sent from my iPhone 57 From:norma Hoffman < Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 5:43 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Item 5g tree removal 614 Monterey I have been a resident of this town since 1972. My children grew up here and sƟll remain here with their children. It is a tragedy to even be considering removal of a heritage oak. Right here in our town we have the school of architecture and environmental design at Cal Poly I am sure there are many who would come up with ideas to save this oak for our future generaƟons my children’s children’s children! my name is Norma Hoffman. I live San Luis Obispo Call me at Save The Oak! Sent from my iPhone 58 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 4:59 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Honer-Hollstien, Lily; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter; McDonald, Whitney; Harnett, Natalie; Hermann, Greg; Purrington, Teresa Subject:02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 5g, 5h, 6a & 7a BCC: Agenda Correspondence Group Hello, Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 3, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Perez - Lorne - Clayton - Schmidt - Clayton (2), (Voicemail) Item 5h – Approve a Draft Letter to Legislators Regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Morton Item 6a – Introduction of an Ordinance to amend Municipal Code Chapter 2.40.040 (Campaign Contribution Limits) - Rowley Item 7a – Laguna Lake Golf Course Operations & Maintenance Overview Study Session - Enns - Enfield - Raider - Phillips - Cross - Henderson - Walker - Vujovich-LaBarre - Johnson - Coryell Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org 59 T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 60 From:Bianca Clayton <bianca@milkweedandalchemy.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 3:42 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Please Preserve the Legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street - ITEM 5.g for 2/3/2026 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I originally moved to SLO in 2006 to study Architecture and Sustainable Environments at Cal Poly, and quickly fell in love with the natural landscape here. I am writing to urge you to deny the removal of the legacy Coastal Live Oak at 614 Monterey Street (Item 5.g). This oak is not only a protected native tree, but a living, breathing member of our downtown community. One that has quietly witnessed generations of San Luis Obispo residents, businesses, and civic life. Mature oaks provide irreplaceable benefits, including carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, shade, and climate resilience that cannot be replicated by replacement plantings within our lifetimes. Located in the heart of downtown within the emerging Arts and Culture District, this tree represents an opportunity to lead with creativity and values-forward planning. As stewards of the land entrusted to us, we have a responsibility to care for legacy natural assets rather than treat them as obstacles to be removed. The City could explore alternatives that design around the oak and elevate it as a focal point, such as a pocket park with public art, sculpture, and murals, demonstrating that development and preservation can meaningfully coexist. This majestic tree offering shade to those who want to pause for a while. Once a legacy oak is removed, its ecological and cultural contributions are lost forever. The decision before you will shape the character of downtown for generations to come. I respectfully ask that you uphold the intent of SLO County’s oak protections, explore alternatives to removal, and choose stewardship over short-term convenience. Preserving this tree would affirm San Luis Obispo’s commitment to honoring its living heritage and our shared responsibility to protect it. Sincerely, Dr. Bianca Clayton, DTCM, L.Ac. Doctor of Traditional Chinese Medicine M & A Acupuncture, Inc. 878 Boysen Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 p: (805) 996-0682 f: (805) 436-1900 www.milkweedandalchemy.com 61 From:Angela Perez <angela@atomarchitects.com> Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 2:43 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Preserving the Historic Coastal Live Oak in Downtown SLO: Feb 3 Mtg + Item 5.g Tree Removal at 614 Monterey St Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing as a Cal Poly graduate and local resident who deeply values San Luis Obispo’s character, history, and relationship to the natural landscape. I am concerned about the proposed removal of the mature coastal live oak in downtown SLO to accommodate new construction. Coastal live oaks are not interchangeable landscape elements, they are living landmarks. This tree represents decades, if not centuries, of history and is woven into the cultural and environmental identity of our city. Once removed, it cannot be replaced in any meaningful way within our lifetime. Cutting it down would be a permanent loss, not just to the streetscape, but to the collective memory and sense of place that makes San Luis Obispo special. Our downtown is loved precisely because it balances development with human scale, history, and nature. These trees are part of what make SLO feel grounded, walkable, and distinct from other cities that have chosen expediency over preservation. I urge the Council to reconsider whether removal is truly the only option. Could this site instead become a small pocket park, plaza, or sculpture garden that celebrates the oak as a centerpiece rather than an obstacle? Many cities have successfully integrated historic trees into public spaces, turning them into assets that enhance development rather than limit it. A solution like this would demonstrate creativity, stewardship, and a long-term vision aligned with SLO’s values. Progress does not have to come at the expense of irreplaceable natural and cultural resources. Protecting this oak would send a strong message that San Luis Obispo honors its history, prioritizes sustainability, and believes thoughtful design can coexist with growth. Thank you for your time, consideration, and service to our community. I hope you will choose preservation and explore alternatives that allow this remarkable tree to remain part of downtown SLO for generations to come. Best, Angela Perez LEED GA Principal Project Manager atomarchitects.com 805.316.1822 62 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 12:05 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Avakian, Greg; Hyfield, Devin; Honer-Hollstien, Lily; Harnett, Natalie; McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter Subject:02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 5g, 5h & 7a BCC: Agenda Correspondence Group Hello, Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 3, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Conlen - Cooper - Cotkin - Badalamenti Item 5h – Approve a Draft Letter to Legislators Regarding Diablo Canyon Power Plant - Woodruff Item 7a - Laguna Lake Golf Course Operations & Maintenance Overview Study Session - Lawless - Rutledge - Orlando - Robinson - Burke - Heptig - O’Neil - DeCosta - Thorlakson - Marin - Grant - Ion - Borrow - Walton, M. - Cotta - Segor - Marie - Fernandes - SLO Tenants Union - Morgan - Hicks - Christianson - Ferguson Best, Andrea Colunga-Lopez pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 63 City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications