Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3001-5000 First Half1 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 2 City Administration E AColunga@slocity.org T 805.781.7105 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 3 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 12:01 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: Gault, Walter shared "Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request" with you Yes, will do. 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: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 11:49 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Gault, Walter shared "Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request" with you Thank you Walter. Can you share this document with Tyler as well? Thank you, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 11:35 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Gault, Walter shared "Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request" with you 4 Gault, Walter invited you to edit a file Here's the document that Gault, Walter shared with you. Item 5g SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request This invite will only work for you and people with existing access. This email is generated through City of San Luis Obispo's use of Microsoft 365 and may contain content that is controlled by City of San Luis Obispo. 5 From:Michael Badalamenti < Sent:Monday, February 2, 2026 10:56 AM To:E-mail Council Website 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 6 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Sunday, February 1, 2026 8:33 PM To:George B. Cotkin Subject:Re: Oak Tree Hi George, Thank you for taking the time to write in about the oak tree at the SLO REP theater site. I wanted to let you know that the SLO REP theater was actually designed around that oak tree, and there were never any plans to remove it. Unfortunately, the tree sustained damage that led to this request. The decision to address the tree's condition was not made lightly, and I understand how disappointing this is for those of us who value these natural landmarks in our community. I'm grateful for your engagement on this issue. 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 Sun, Feb 01, 2026 at 3:31 PM, George B. Cotkin < wrote: Greetings City Council, Keep the oak tree. It has roots there. Demand that SLO REP build around it. Thank you. Sincerely, George Cotkin 7 (A SLO citizen who doesn't particularly like trees, in general!) 8 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Sunday, February 1, 2026 3:15 PM To:Allan Cooper Subject:RE: Letter To The SLO City Council Thanks for the email Allan. I will ask a few of these questions. However, my understanding from the staff report and accompanying documents is that, SLO Rep and the design/build of the parking structure have already implemented significant efforts to retain and save the tree, including actually designing both structures “around” the tree, and still in addition to the damage that has already occurred to the root system, there will also be pruning and cutting of canopy to a level that the tree will likely be unable to recover from. That said, I am holding out hope for your idea of permeable sidewalk alternatives, etc., so we will see what staff says. Thanks for writing in. Michelle From: Allan Cooper < Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 3:05 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Letter To The SLO City Council Dear City Clerk - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the SLO City Council? This letter pertains to their February 3, 2026 meeting when they have the opportunity to review Consent Agenda Item 5G "Review of a Request to remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street". We would also like this letter to be placed in the City's Correspondence File. Thank you! - Allan Cooper 9 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2026 10:22 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:RE: TREE-0827-2025 (614 Monterey) Added to Council Agenda 2-3-26 Great- thanks! 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. 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 Community Development 10 919 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 ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 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 11 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 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 19 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:44 AM To:Gault, Walter; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Corey, Tyler Subject:RE: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a I’ll also add that Bob Hill will be at the meeting as well. Cheers, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:41 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a Hi All, Kevin Harris of SLO Rep has confirmed he will be in attendance and can speak for the SLO Rep Team and the architect if the item is pulled. 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: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:26 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: RE: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a Hi Timmi- We will confirm who from the applicant team will be in attendance. 20 Cheers, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 6:56 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a HI team, Correspondence received on tree item for next week. Who from the applicant team will be there to speak to questions about design, etc? Thanks! T From: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 4:59:32 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Honer-Hollstien, Lily <lhoner@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 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  Evans, M. Item 7a - Laguna Lake Golf Course Operations & Maintenance Overview Study Session  Evans, P.  Evans, M.  Patrick  DeLaby 21  Herlihy, M.  Zialcita  Herlihy, C.  Doell  Dressler  Shepherd (2)  Davis  Marsalek  Welch  Latta  Espy, L.  Espy, B.  Schmoll  Haring  Blackler  Thomas  Espy, M. 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 22 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:39 AM To:Gault, Walter 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 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. 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 23 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 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 24 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2026 8:25 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:FW: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a Hi Walter – Can you reach out to Kevin and see if he and maybe his architect Bryce will be attending the City Council meeting next week? Hopefully you have shared that the staff report is available for them to review online. Thank you, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 6:56 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a HI team, Correspondence received on tree item for next week. Who from the applicant team will be there to speak to questions about design, etc? Thanks! T From: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 4:59:32 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Avakian, Greg <gavakian@slocity.org>; Hyfield, Devin <DHyfield@slocity.org>; Honer-Hollstien, Lily <lhoner@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: 02/03/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence, Item 7a BCC: Agenda Correspondence Group Hello, 25 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  Evans, M. Item 7a - Laguna Lake Golf Course Operations & Maintenance Overview Study Session  Evans, P.  Evans, M.  Patrick  DeLaby  Herlihy, M.  Zialcita  Herlihy, C.  Doell  Dressler  Shepherd (2)  Davis  Marsalek  Welch  Latta  Espy, L.  Espy, B.  Schmoll  Haring  Blackler  Thomas  Espy, M. 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 30 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Wednesday, January 28, 2026 4:58 PM To: Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: Public comment regarding Feb. 3 City Council meeting agenda 5g Hi Meg, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for upcoming meeting. 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 From: Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 6:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Public comment regarding Feb. 3 City Council meeting agenda 5g Deny the request to remove the oak tree at 614 Monterey St. Every other tree on that lot was removed and this one beautiful oak tree was to be protected per the plans. It is laughable to read that it was ‘unknown’ that the root system of a tree this size and age would ‘reach beyond the drip line.’ I am sorry to be snarky but the designers knew that tree was supposed to be retained and either someone fell down on the job when it came to tree protection or the tree just doesn’t fit into the architects ‘vision’ for the site. Calling out a Coral tree as a replacement for a California Live Oak makes me think it is the latter. The tree is still in fair condition and may still survive and thrive- everything should be done to retain it per the original plans. Thank you, Meg Evans 31 103 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Friday, January 23, 2026 1:46 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:Gault, Walter shared "SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request_Whitedit" with you Gault, Walter invited you to edit a file this has everyone's edits. I've transferred my previous responses over and working on refining a response to one of scott's comments. whitney asked for a link to a document--i could use your help with that or at least point me in the right direction. thank you SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal Request_Whitedit This invite will only work for you and people with existing access. This email is generated through City of San Luis Obispo's use of Microsoft 365 and may contain content that is controlled by City of San Luis Obispo. Share Open 119 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Thursday, January 8, 2026 2:54 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Cohen, Rachel Subject:CC 2-3-26 614 Monterey SLOREP Oak Staff Report Hi Timmi, Here’s the folder and the staff report for your review. We are still waiting on comments/review from Sadie on Final EIR Addendum and Bob on the Alternatives. Thank you, 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 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 120 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Thursday, January 8, 2026 2:18 PM To:Collins, Scott Subject:FW: SLO Rep Tree Removal Request - Council Consent Item Hi Scott, Please see below for the agenda item we discussed this morning. Our (CDDs) understanding is that Bob and team have discussed with Whitney, but we want to make sure that we are notifying you/Whitney, etc. prior to the tree being noticed for removal for awareness, Thanks, Timmi From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2026 8:12 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Removal Request - Council Consent Item Good morning Timmi- As I reminder, staff has added a consent item for the 2/3/2026 Council Meeting regarding the requested removal of a Coast Live Oak from the site of where the new SLO Rep Theatre is going to be constructed. Below is a snip of the item on the Agenda Forecast. The tree removal notification sign will be posted at the site one week before the item goes to Council. Thank you, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org 121 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 123 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, January 7, 2026 2:20 PM To:Gault, Walter Subject:RE: SLOREP Oak Staff Report Thanks, Walter! I won’t be able to look at it today, but I will definitely have time tomorrow. More soon… From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 9:09 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: SLOREP Oak Staff Report Good morning Bob, Here’s the folder of documents for the SLO REP Oak Tree Removal Staff Report. Please take a look, edit and comment. Thank you, 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 124 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Monday, January 5, 2026 1:21 PM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:Gault, Walter shared the folder "CC 2-3-26 614 Monterey SLOREP Oak" with you Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Gault, Walter invited you to edit a folder Here's the folder that Gault, Walter shared with you. CC 2-3-26 614 Monterey SLOREP Oak This invite will only work for you and people with existing access. This email is generated through City of San Luis Obispo's use of Microsoft 365 and may contain content that is controlled by City of San Luis Obispo. Share Open 125 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Tuesday, October 28, 2025 11:15 AM To:Hill, Robert; Gault, Walter Subject:RE: Check-in on SLO REP Oak Tree Works for me. Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:32 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Check-in on SLO REP Oak Tree Let’s go for 3-3:30. Callie’s meeting technically goes till 2:50. From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:30 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Check-in on SLO REP Oak Tree Hi Bob, I can do 2:30 or 3. I have another meeting at 3:30 *Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse brevity, spelling or grammar. From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:21:31 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: New Time Proposed: Check-in on SLO REP Oak Tree When: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 2:00 PM-2:25 PM. Where: Microsoft Teams Meeting Hi Walter and Rachel, Any chance we can push this meeting back ½ hour or even better start at 3:00? Callie has scheduled an Avila Ranch meeting with the developer and consultants at 2:00 tomorrow that is conflicting… 126 Thanks! Bob 127 From:Emily < Sent:Monday, October 20, 2025 11:06 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:Re: SLO Rep Theater Courtyard Tree Hi Walter, Thank you so much for the explanation. It’s really too bad because it’s a beautiful tree and I think they had hoped to keep it but should’ve done better in checking things out before design designs were finalized and construction started. I know that’s the way it is sometimes. Take good care happy Halloween and happy Thanksgiving! Emily To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 苪苩蔚蔛蔜蔞蔝옔옕옖옗옘옜옙옚옛 On Oct 20, 2025, at 9:10 AM, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> wrote: Good morning Emily, Thank you for reaching out about this. Unfortunately, it is so. The SLO Rep/Parking Garage project was approved by City Council and any changes or new tree removals requested while the project is active, must return to the approving authority (City Council). It is likely that the tree removal approval will be a consent item on a Council Agenda. This is another example, like 1422 Monterey, where sufficient due diligence was not performed during the initial planning stages of the project. I advocated for a redesign of the theatre that reduced impacts to the oak, but ultimately, it was decided that the theatre design as is was in the best interests of the City. There is a compensatory replanting plan 4 trees onsite as well as offsite replanting of 4 new street trees at the corner of Nipomo and Palm by the high school. 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 128 From: Emily < Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 7:58 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Theater Courtyard Tree Good morning, Walter, I just heard that there is a request to remove the large, beautiful oak on Nipomo Street that I have long assumed would grace the courtyard of the new SLO Rep. I am hoping that you can say “it ain’t so” or that the tree committee will be able to have a real voice in the decision. Thanks, Emily <image002.png> 133 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Tuesday, October 14, 2025 3:35 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Thank you! Greg From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 10:00 AM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Keeping you in the loop… From: Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 9:58 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Hi Whitney, The subject tree removal can be put on consent at Council. We did a similar tree removal for the parking structure back in April and it was on consent at Council per Chapter 12.24.090(F)(5) of the MC. This section states, “During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal.” Tyler From: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 3:02 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org>; Purrington, Teresa <TPurring@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Hi team, Quick question – Does this require a public hearing at Council or can it be on consent? Copying Teresa for agenda forecast awareness. Thanks much! Whitney 134 Whitney McDonald pronouns (she/hers) City Manager City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E WMcDonal@slocity.org T 805.781.7114 C 805.550.8349 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:24 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Hi Rachel, I have received a complete tree removal application requesting the removal of 1 48-inch Coast Live Oak at 614 Monterey St (TREE-0827-2025). Since this request must return to the original approving body (City Council), I wanted to check-in on agenda timing before creating a public notice to post onsite. We might also want to consider making a public announcements regarding the construction of the theatre and the removal request. Thank you, 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 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 141 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Monday, October 13, 2025 11:20 AM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:FW: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Attachments:SLO Rep - Arborist Report.pdf; SLO REP- Landscape Plan.pdf FYI copy. From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2025 9:24 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Corey, Tyler <tcorey@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Hi Rachel, I have received a complete tree removal application requesting the removal of 1 48-inch Coast Live Oak at 614 Monterey St (TREE-0827-2025). Since this request must return to the original approving body (City Council), I wanted to check-in on agenda timing before creating a public notice to post onsite. We might also want to consider making a public announcements regarding the construction of the theatre and the removal request. Thank you, 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 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications (614 Monterey)APN#: 002-412-011 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel: 805 234 8760 - Email: rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com Date: July 7, 2025 To: Kevin Harris - Managing Artistic Director - SLOREP Theater – 888 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. Re: Construction impact analysis and tree protection report regarding one tree near the proposed building site of a theater at 614 Monterey Street in the city of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Harris, Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) within or adjacent to the construction footprint for your project. Assignment 1. Assess health, construction impacts, feasibility of retention and tree protection needs for all trees that may be impacted by construction of buildings, drainage or utility installation. 2. Prepare written arborist report in accordance with City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code 12.24.090.D(2)(a) to include tree protection requirements according to the city standard specifications (77-1.03A(2))s. Summary After careful review of the encroachments into the critical root zone of the subject tree, I have found that the impacts will be too great to allow it to remain in a healthy state once construction has been completed. I recommend the tree be removed and replaced. Replacements to mitigate the loss of the tree is a minimum of 1:1 ratio, however the size quantity and species will be dictated by the City’s authorized approving authority. Introduction The site is located at the north corner of Monterey and Nipomo Streets in San Luis Obispo. The property’s former use was residential which included two homes occupying the space where the tree is growing. The tree appeared to have been planted as a landscape tree in the front yard of the former 614 Monterey Street home. Both homes at the site have been demolished and a new building for the SLO Repertory theater is proposed to be built on the site. 2 The current plans show significant encroachment into the critical root zone (CRZ) of the tree as well as a need for significant pruning to allow for construction of the new facility. This report is based on the City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code 12.24.090.D(2)(a) – Tree Regulations. In accordance with the code, I have prepared the following: An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drainage patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain. Methodology Tree Diameter Measurements I measured each tree’s Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) at 4.5’ above ground with a diameter tape. Per the International Society of Arboriculture’s (ISA) standard For multi-stem trees that divided below 4.5’, I measured below the division at the narrowest point on the trunk. If it was not possible to measure below the division, I measured each stem individually, then squared the diameter of each stem. Finally, I summed the squared diameters and took the square root of the sum to get the most accurate diameter of the tree. Diameters were rounded up or down depending on fractions of inches. My measurements may be different than those recorded by surveyors, but I assure you, they are correct. Typically, surveyors estimate trunk diameter rather than hand measure. All trees included in the inventory were numbered in the field with a metal tag that was nailed to the trunk between 2 and 4 feet above ground. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Measurements CRZs were determined by giving a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. E.g., a 12- inch diameter tree would have a 12-foot CRZ radius measured from the outside of the trunk or at the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater. Tree Protection Zone Measurements Generally, TPZ distances followed the distances listed for CRZs. The exception is if there were proposed tree-root encroachments into the CRZ of less than 25%. In most cases encroachments of 25% or less were allowed unless the structure or health of the tree would be compromised. Tree Condition Ratings All trees in the inventory were given a condition rating. The rating was based on the health, structure and presence of disease and insects. See the following definitions: 1. Dead = Severely declining or no foliage, large dead branches, decay cavities, loss of bark, roots decayed or dead. 2. Very Poor = Evidence of multiple large past failures, advanced disease, uncontrollable pest infestations or disease infection. Tree in severe decline. 3 3. Poor = Tree may be suppressed, drought stressed, or had at least 1 large branch failure. Disease or pest infestations may be present. Can potentially be retained with attention to mitigation pruning, cultural care changes, pest and disease control. 4. Fair = May have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present, small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. 5. Good = A relatively healthy tree with minor to no structural defects with minimal to no pest observed. Defects can be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. 6. Very Good = Trees that have had professional arboricultural care. No structural defects, disease or pests identified. 7. Excellent = Specimen tree with superior form, root structure and health. Tree has been regularly cared for by professional arborists over its lifetime, E.g., estate or arboretum tree. Trees Assessed On June 11, 2025 I assessed one (1) tree that was within or adjacent to construction impact zones. The tree is plotted on the Root Encroachment Assessment sheet TPP 1 & 2 provided by Heritage Tree in Appendix A and as Attachment 1 (in full scale format). For pictures of the tree, See Appendix B – Photographs. Tree Details, Health and Structure The tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with a diameter of 48 inches and an approximate height of 45 feet. The canopy spread was approximately 38 feet southwest toward Nipomo Street, 42 feet southeast toward Monterey Street, 30 feet northeast down Monterey Street toward the Mission Plaza and 28 feet northwest toward the interior of the lot. Based on the diameter of the tree, I estimate it to be 65 to 96 years old. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 1, 2 & 6. Overall, I assigned a condition rating of FAIR to this tree. It appeared to be solidly rooted with no signs of decay at the root crown. The trunk was also sound with no observable decay cavities. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photo 8. There was some minor evidence of insect frass (feces) in the crevices of the bark on the trunk. The frass deposits were likely created by sycamore borers (Synanthedon resplendens). The insect is relatively harmless. Its larvae mainly feeds on the outer bark of trees and rarely damages vascular tissue or live wood. At approximately 4.5’ above ground the trunk transitioned into two main scaffold branches. At the transition there was an area of included bark (included bark occurs when two parts of a tree grow parallel but do not completely bond together). The inclusion was minor but does indicate structural weakness between the scaffolds. In terms of safety, the likelihood that the parts would fail is moderate. A cabling system had been installed in the upper canopy between the scaffolds to mitigate the stress being exerted at the included bark area. With the cabling system installed. The likelihood of the parts failing would be reduced to low. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 8, 9 & 10. 4 The canopy had good form and was relatively symmetrical. There was evidence that maintenance pruning had occurred over the life of the tree, with the last pruning likely taking place within the last 5 years. The tree displayed good vigor and normal leaf size. No insects of concern were found on the foliage. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 6 & 7. I did note what appeared to be a minor bacterial wetwood infection on the southwest scaffold branch of the tree. Bacterial wetwood infections are common and not typically considered a serious disease that will kill a mature tree. The infection is indicated by oozing sap that has a fermented beer-like smell. Often, infection appears at a wound caused by pruning, mechanical damage or boring insects. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photo 12. Assessment of Tree Impacts When considering proposed impacts to a tree, two factors should be considered closely: 1. Loss of roots in the critical root zone. 2. Loss of live canopy. CRZ Impact Assessment The critical root zone or CRZ is the area of roots that are critical to the survival and stability of the tree. There are several ways to determine CRZ’s but as pointed out in the methodology section of this report, I used the method that gives a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. The dripline extent is not the best way to consider the CRZ because roots, if unrestricted, can grow far beyond the extent of the canopy in search of moisture and favorable conditions. Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark, in their book Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development explains that “Tree roots extend far beyond the crown and occupy from two to ten times the area beneath the canopy.” Typically, the CRZ is circular in form and radiates out from the trunk of the tree. If we visualize the circle as a pie chart and then deduct the areas of proposed impact/disturbance, the result is the percentage of CRZ impact. A twenty-five (25) percent impact is the standard accepted allowance of encroachment into a trees CRZ. In this CRZ impact assessment I considered the proposed impacts from excavation for the building footprint (including over-excavation for foundations) , utilities and drainage routes, compaction for installation of hardscape features beneath the tree as well as disturbances caused by installing landscape plant material. I did not include the area beyond the sidewalk along Nipomo Street as CRZ because the compacted road base and associated asphalt would not have been favorable to root growth and few roots would have been located in that area. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 3,4 & 5 for view of assumed root encroachments when considering over-excavation and allowances for building construction crew movement. 5 The total area of CRZ was 5,733 square feet. The area of disturbance was 5,439 square feet. The total percentage of CRZ disturbance was 95%. Only 282 square feet would be preserved as undisturbed in the scenario depicted in Appendix A - Critical Root Zone Encroachment Assessment Drawings - TPP-1. In the scenario depicted in Appendix A - TPP-2, the area of disturbance was calculated by decreasing the compacted, decomposed granite (DG) around the tree. Still, the area of disturbance was 4,929 square feet with 791 square feet being preserved. The overall gain in undisturbed area was 9%. The total percentage of CRZ disturbance was 86%. Either way we look at the disturbance from encroachments, the percentage well exceeds the 25% threshold. The loss of that quantity of critical roots would make the tree extremely vulnerable to severe decline or death. Canopy Impact Assessment The tree’s canopy would need to be pruned to allow for construction of the building and to provide for fire safety and prevention of pest intrusion. A 10 foot buffer from the finished walls of the proposed building would need to be cleared to give sufficient clearance for scaffoldings to be erected and machinery to operate. Longer term, the clearance would give adequate space for fire safety as well as discourage pests from entering the building via the tree canopy. In assessing clearance needs, pruning should be completed according to established pruning standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI A-300 guidance) for tree care. Essentially, this means that branches shall be cut to lateral connections and made at the appropriate location at the branch union rather than simply hedging back the branches with indiscriminate cuts. The guidance also recommends limiting foliage removal to 25% of the total tree in a single year. When I assessed the pruning needs for this tree in terms of clearance to allow the construction of the new building, the northwest, north and east side of the tree required pruning. Further there were low growing branches on the west side of the tree that needed to be removed to give clearance above the ground for delivery vehicles loading in to the theater. Overextended branches growing over the street would also need to be reduced to lessen the stress being exerted at the area of included bark at the two main scaffold attachments. All told, the reduction of live canopy would be approximately 35%. While this percentage is not wildly above the standard, it further impacts the tree’s ability to make and store energy. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 1 & 2. Combined Impact Assessment Root disturbance is clearly the greatest impact to the tree and will be the most detrimental to its health. Pruning on its own would not cause severe, adverse effects but combined with the root impacts, would further contribute to the trees decline. 6 Discussion It is critical that assessments of trees and their protection needs be initiated early in the design phase of a project. The assessments should be completed by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist. Quality trees should be identified and tree root protection zones established based on ANSI A-300 standards and the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for Managing Trees During Construction. Protecting the greatest amount of roots is the single best way to ensure the highest likelihood of success for a tree after a project has been completed. Early planning did not appear to have included an accurate assessment of root impacts. With critical root zone encroachments adding up to 95% in the worst case and 86% in the best case, the severity of construction impacts were not clearly understood. The footprint of the building was the largest impact to the tree, but it was not the limit of construction impacts. Hidden impacts such as over-excavation for foundations as well as buffer areas to allow workers to move about and construct the project were not considered. Further, landscape features such as sidewalks, compacted pathways and plantings beneath the trees canopy also contributed to the impacts. An example of these hidden impacts are visible along the Monterey Street side of the tree. The tree Protection Plan and Fine Grading Plan provided to me prescribed a tree protection zone distance of approximately 16’ from the trunk of the tree on its Monterey Street side. At the time of my inspection, grading for frontage improvements currently being constructed had encroached within 12’ of the trunk of the tree. Recommendations As the building, hardscape and landscape design is currently drawn, it does not allow for adequate space to protect the tree’s critical roots. Without sufficient roots to sustain the tree, it will not be a long term viable feature to the project. Even if landscaping and hardscape were eliminated within the extent of the tree canopy, the impacts from the building footprint would still be too great. Unless the building footprint is redesigned to accommodate the tree more appropriately, I recommend this tree be remove and replaced with a new tree that will have a mature size that will be proportionate to the space. Tree Removals The City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code Chapter 12.24 - Tree Regulations states that native trees 10” diameter and greater require a permit to remove. See mitigation section below for replanting requirements. Mitigation Each regulated tree approved for removal must be mitigated 1:1 on site or 2:1 off site. The minimum container size and trunk diameter shall be 15 gallon with diameters between 0.75" to 1.5". The tree shall be planted and staked according to city engineering standards. See table below for specifications. 7 Container Size Trunk Diameter (inches) 15 gallon 0.75" to 1.5" 24” box 1.5" to 2.5" 36” box 2.5" to 3.5" 48” box 3.5" to 4.5" I have recommend the removal of one (1) regulated tree, therefore one (1) mitigation tree shall be planted on site or two (2) off site. Considering the size and prominence of the tree I have recommended for removal. It would be more appropriate to replant a larger container tree such as a 48” box size. Ultimately, the City has the final approval regarding the quantity, size and species of the replacement tree(s). Conclusion As stated previously in this report, it is critical that assessments of trees and their protection needs be initiated early in the design phase of a project. Protecting the greatest amount of roots is the single best way to ensure the highest likelihood of success for a tree after a project has been completed. With critical root zone encroachment adding up to 95% in the worst case and 86% in the best case, it was apparent that construction impacts were not correctly factored into the plan. When all was told, the impacts would be too great and outweighed the reasonability of retaining the tree in a healthy state once the project was completed. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney D. Thurman ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM ISA Municipal Specialist ISA Utility Arborist ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Appendices: CRZ encroachment assessment drawings, photographs Attachments: CRZ encroachment assessment drawings 8 Appendix A – Root Encroachment Assessment 9 10 Appendix B – Photographs Photo 1 – View northwest of tree from Monterey Street. White lines indicate location for pruning cuts needed for building clearance on east side of tree & for delivery vehicle clearance on west side of tree. Estimated total reduction of live canopy for all pruning needs, including those shown in Photo 2, is approximately 35%. 83 11 Photo 2 – View northeast of tree. White lines indicate location for pruning cuts needed for building clearance & to reduce stress in included bark area at scaffold attachments. Estimated total reduction of live canopy for all pruning needs, including those shown in Photo 1, is approximately 35%. 12 Photo 3 – View northeast of tree. In order to prepare the space for proposed landscape features, significant soils disturbance, leveling, fill and compaction would be required within the critical root zone. Encroachments from construction over- excavation will come within approximately 15’ feet of northwest side of trunk , 22’ on the southwest side of the trunk and within 15’ of the trunk. Encroachments have already been made within 12’ of the trunk on the southeast side of the tree along Monterey Street. Yellow dashed lines indicate approximate extent of encroachment. 13 Photo 4 – View southeast of tree. Construction encroachments will come within 22’ of west side of tree. Yellow dashed line indicates approximate extent of encroachment. 14 Photo 5 – View northeast of tree, down Monterey Street. Street improvements have encroached within 12’ of the tree’s trunk which is a 4’ intrusion into the tree protection zone that was to supposed to be established prior to frontage improvement. Yellow dashed line indicates approximate 15 Photo 6 – Full view northwest of tree from Monterey Street. The canopy is vigorous, full and dark green in color. 16 Photo 7 – Close view of example of foliage. 17 Photo 8 – View southwest of trunk of tree. No decay was detected in root crown or trunk. An area of included bark, however, was present at the connection of main scaffold branches to trunk of tree. Arrow indicates location of included bark. 18 Photo 9 – Closer view of included bark area indicated by arrow. 19 Photo 10 – View southwest of tree with included bark area at connection of main scaffold branches to trunk of tree. Arrow indicates location of cabling system to give support to the two sections of tree. 20 Photo 11 – Closer view of cabling system connected to scaffold branches. 21 Photo 12– View of bleeding on scaffold branch. 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel: 805 234 8760 - Email: rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com September 24, 2025 To: Walter Gault – City of San Luis Obispo Urban Forest Program Coordinator From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. Mr. Gault, In my capacity as project arborist for the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theater (SLO REP), I have prepared the following memo to memorialize the mitigation tree planting agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO REP, for the loss of trees at the new sight for SLO REP Theatre on Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo, California. • One (1) 38” diameter coast live oak – Quercus agrifolia has been proposed for removal • One (1) 40” diameter African fern pine – Afrocarpus falcatus that has already removed at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets as part of the new parking structure street improvements. To compensate for the loss of the coast live oak SLO REP Theater, based on your guidance, proposes replanting one (1) 48” to 60” box sized, Mandela’s Coral Tree - Erythrina afra in the same location. The planting space shall be a 20’ x 20’ area of native soil that has been protected from compaction during the construction stage of the development. No hardscape features are to be placed within the planting area. See Mitigation Planting Plan provided by others for exact placement. To compensate for the loss of the African fern pine, SLO REP Theater, based on your guidance, proposes replanting one (1) 48” box sized Tipu Tree – Tipuana tipu at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets near where the fern pine once stood. The planting space shall be a 10’ x 10’ area of native soil that has been protected from compaction during the construction stage of the development. No hardscape features are to be placed within the planting area. See Mitigation Planting Plan provided by others for exact placement. As additional compensation for the loss of the aforementioned on-site trees, SLO Rep Theater, based on your guidance, proposes replanting four (4) additional 24” box sized trees along Nipomo Street between Palm and Peach Streets. The trees were chosen from the City’s Master Street Tree List. The selections are two (2) Gold Medallion Trees – Cassia leptophylla and two (2) Morning Cloud Chitalpa trees – Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud’. See Mitigation Planting Plan provided by others for exact placement. 2 Tree Planting Planting of all trees both on and off-site shall be in accordance with city engineering standards. On-site trees shall be planted during the landscape installation phase of the project. The trees shall be established and maintained in accordance with the city’s standards for landscaping of newly constructed properties. Per your direction, a maintenance and establishment period of 5 years, from the time of planting, is required by the city. If at any time during the 5 year establishment period, an on-site mitigation tree dies for any reason, SLO Rep Theater shall be responsible for replacing that tree and establishing it for a period of 5 years. Water for the trees shall be supplied by an automatic irrigation system which shall be calibrated by a professional installer, based on volume needed to establish the tree. Deep watering is preferred, typically once per week, however, supplemental irrigation may need to be provided during the first few months of establishment. SLO REP’s landscape contractor will responsible for monitoring irrigations needs. Off-site trees shall be planted as soon as possible and according to city engineering standards. All cost for trees, maintenance and watering shall be the responsibility of SLO Rep Theater or their assigned contractor. Per your direction, a maintenance and establishment period of 5 years, from the time of planting, is required by the city. If at any time during the 5 year establishment period, an off-site mitigation tree dies for any reason, SLO Rep Theater shall be responsible for replacing that tree and establishing it for a period of 5 years. To ensure the off-site street trees have the greatest chance of success, irrigation shall be provided once per week between May 1st and October 31st of each required establishment year. Since there is no irrigation infrastructure at the site, the water will be transported to the site by the contractor and water will be applied by hand until soil around the root area is saturated to a depth of 24-inches (approximately 10 gallons). The area shall also be kept weed free to reduce competition for water and nutrient resources. Thank you, Rodney D. Thurman – Owner ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM SLO Rep Offsite Mitigation Plantings WATERING BAG SYSTEM SCHEMATIC DETAIL DeWitt DEW Right Tree Watering Bag - 15gallon A. WATERING BAG SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER RECOMENDATION. B. THE WATERING BAG IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM DIRECTLY TO THE TREE ROOTS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME . THE BAG IS SELECTED TO PREVENT WATER RUNOFF AND EVAPORATION. C. ONE BAG SHALL FIT 3" DIA TREE D.BAG IS TYPICALLY EMPTIED WITHIN 5-8HOURS AND SHOULD BE REFILLED AT MINIMUNM ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS . A June 30, 2026LICENSEDLANDSCAPEAR C HI TECTC A L I F O R NIAOFETAT S LINDSAY A CORICANO. 6359 10/8/25 Signature Expiration Date Date San Luis Obispo Repertory TheaterPLANTING PLANFIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC Landscape Architecture Planning Environmental Studies Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA CA Registration No. 6359 Phone: 805.781.9800 PO BOX 4404 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 firmaconsultants.com REVISIONPROJECT:JOB NO:22044 PLAN CHECK: SHEET L3.0Monterey StreetSan Luis Obispo, CADATE firma SHEET TITLE:LAST MODIFIED:10/8/25OFF SITE MITIGATION2CAS LEP 24"B 1CHI TAK 24"B 1CHI TAK 24"B June 30, 2026LICENSEDLANDSCAPEAR C HI TECTC A L I F O R NIAOFETAT S LINDSAY A CORICANO. 6359 10/8/25 Signature Expiration Date Date San Luis Obispo RepertoryTheaterFIRMA CONSULTANTS, INC Landscape Architecture Planning Environmental Studies Principal: Lindsay Corica ASLA CA Registration No. 6359 Phone: 805.781.9800 PO BOX 4404 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 firmaconsultants.com REVISIONPROJECT:JOB NO:22044 PLAN CHECK: SHEET L3.1 DATE firma SHEET TITLE:LAST MODIFIED:10/8/25 10'0 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 50'10'20'40' NORTH LOCATION MAP NIPOMO STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO source: City of SLO Parcel Viewer PROPOSED TREE PLANTING AREA NIPOMO STREET PROJECT SITE P A L M S T R E E T N I P O M O S T R E E T MONTEREY STPALM NI P OMO S T MISSION PREP HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS FIELDS NORTHBARK MULCH, TYPICAL DRB DRB DRB DRB ++++ PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION: OFF SITE MITIGATION TREES (1) TREE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD SHALL BE FIVE YEARS. (2) REFER TO ARBORIST LETTER DATED Sept 24, 2025 (3)IRRIGATE TREE MANUALLY, AT WEEKLY INTERVAL MAY THROUGH OCTOBER (4) SLO REP THEATER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IRRIGATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF PROPSOED TREES ANY DEAD TREE SHALL BE REPLACED BY SLO REP. (5) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, PROJECT MANAGER OR CITY ARBORIST SHALL REVIEW TREES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION AND PROVIDE A LETTER TO CITY REGARDING THE COMMENCEMENT OF ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD (6) ONGOING MONITORING SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY SLO REP THEATER + OFF SITE MITIGATION PLANTING PLANT LIST ID SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY TREES CAS LEP 24"B CASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA GOLD MEDALLION TREE 2 CHI TAK 24"B CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS 'MORNING CLOUD'MORNING CLOUD CHITALPA 2 MULCH APPLY 3" MINIMUM LAYER BARK MULCH AREA UNDER TREE (3FT X 6FT MIN) WATERING BAG INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER RECCOMENDATION (4 TOTAL) DRB DEEP ROOT BARRIER REQUIRED. INSTALL PER DETAILS IRRIGATION DETAILS FOR REFERENE ONLY NOTE: ON-SITE MITIGATION TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED AUTOMATICALLY VIA DEEP ROOT WATERING SYSTEM (DETAIL 24 BELOW) OFF-SITE MITIGATION TREES SHALL BE WATERED MANUALLY BY SLO REP. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY ORGANIC AND INORGANIC FERTILIZER PER DETAIL 40 BELOW DEEP ROOT BARRIERS REQUIRED FOR ALL OFF-SITE TREES, DETAIL 42 BELOW. 142 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Monday, October 13, 2025 9:24 AM To:Cohen, Rachel Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Corey, Tyler; Collins, Scott; McDonald, Whitney; Hill, Robert; Szentesi, Whit Subject:SLO REP Theatre Request to remove 48-inch Coast Live Oak Attachments:SLO Rep - Arborist Report.pdf; SLO REP- Landscape Plan.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Rachel, I have received a complete tree removal application requesting the removal of 1 48-inch Coast Live Oak at 614 Monterey St (TREE-0827-2025). Since this request must return to the original approving body (City Council), I wanted to check-in on agenda timing before creating a public notice to post onsite. We might also want to consider making a public announcements regarding the construction of the theatre and the removal request. Thank you, 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 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 143 From:lindsay@firmaconsultants.com Sent:Friday, October 10, 2025 11:35 AM To:Kevin Harris; Rodney Thurman; Gault, Walter; Tyler Benson Cc:Hill, Robert; Bryce Engstrom Subject:Re: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Attachments:Firma_SLOREP_CD_TreeMitigation_v1.pdf Hi All, Attached is the updated Landscape Plans with the proposed Mitigation Trees on-site and offsite, also revised to remove Geijera species, addition of Markhanima tree. Thank you Walter and Rodney for your assistance to formulate the plan. It is disheartening to loose the historic oak, however these vibrant flowering trees will liven up the streetscape for decades to come! Sincerely, Lindsay Corica Firma Consultants, Inc. Landscape Architects | Planning | Environmental Studies office: 805.781.9800 | http://www.firmaconsultants.com From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 at 9:35 AM To: Rodney Thurman <rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com>, Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>, Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Cc: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>, Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>, lindsay@firmaconsultants.com <lindsay@firmaconsultants.com> Subject: RE: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Thanks, Rodney! Appreciate it! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. 144 From: Rodney Thurman <rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 6:26 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Cc: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; lindsay@firmaconsultants.com Subject: Re: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Hello Kevin- we are all good on species for mitigation. Lindsay just needs to make the change on general landscape Get Outlook for iOS From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 10:24:38 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Cc: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Rodney Thurman <rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com>; lindsay@firmaconsultants.com <lindsay@firmaconsultants.com> Subject: RE: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Thanks, everyone- so is that Lindsay, or Rodney, or both? When can we get the updated materials so we can submit? Sorry for the confusion , everyone! Thank you for catching that, Walt, before we submitted! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 10:11 AM To: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Cc: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Thank you Tyler. That is correct. Landscape plan for BLDG-2740-2024 and this tree removal application do need to match. Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist 145 Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 10:01 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: Re: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET All, I believe Walter is referring to the original plan check comment below....this item would need to be addressed on the updated landscape planting plan. 146 Tyler Benson VP, Preconstruction | Operations tyler@weareedwards.com | 805-748-8210 Edwards Construction Group 991 Bennett Ave. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-335-1161 www.WeAreEdwards.com On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 9:20 AM Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> wrote: Thanks, Walter! Rodney/Tyler/Lindsay: I shared the draft app/packet with Walter and Bob- please see comment from Walter below: Thank you for this update. I had asked the Geijera parvifolia be replaced in some earlier building permit review comments—I see that that species is still on the plans—please provide a replacement. Rodney/Tyler, does this comment make sense to you? (This is all out of wheelhouse, for sure.) If so, how soon can we get updated materials (or just an appendix doc) that clearly lists the replacement so I can submit the app/packet? Thanks! Rodney, feel free to reach out to Walt directly if you have any questions, and please keep me posted- we’d love to get this ball rolling ASAP. Thanks, everyone! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:14 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Good morning Kevin, 147 Thank you for this update. I had asked the Geijera parvifolia be replaced in some earlier building permit review comments—I see that that species is still on the plans—please provide a replacement. Thank you, 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: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:07 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Hey Bob and Walt, Thanks again for your help through this process. Our landscaping engineer was able to provide the new drawings/plan to support our replacement plans a day early, so I thought I would forward our draft app/packet to you for review before submitting it this afternoon. Bob, I’ll give you a call soon to figure out how to get your signature. Please let me know if we’re missing anything- thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 148 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:19 AM To:Gault, Walter; Hill, Robert Cc:Tyler Benson; Bryce Engstrom Subject:RE: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Attachments:SLO REP- TREE REMOVAL-REPLACEMENT APPLICATION- 10.8.pdf Importance:High Thanks, Walter! Rodney/Tyler/Lindsay: I shared the draft app/packet with Walter and Bob- please see comment from Walter below: Thank you for this update. I had asked the Geijera parvifolia be replaced in some earlier building permit review comments—I see that that species is still on the plans—please provide a replacement. Rodney/Tyler, does this comment make sense to you? (This is all out of wheelhouse, for sure.) If so, how soon can we get updated materials (or just an appendix doc) that clearly lists the replacement so I can submit the app/packet? Thanks! Rodney, feel free to reach out to Walt directly if you have any questions, and please keep me posted- we’d love to get this ball rolling ASAP. Thanks, everyone! 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. From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:14 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> 149 Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: RE: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Good morning Kevin, Thank you for this update. I had asked the Geijera parvifolia be replaced in some earlier building permit review comments—I see that that species is still on the plans—please provide a replacement. Thank you, 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: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 9:07 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Subject: DRAFT APPLICATION/PACKET Hey Bob and Walt, Thanks again for your help through this process. Our landscaping engineer was able to provide the new drawings/plan to support our replacement plans a day early, so I thought I would forward our draft app/packet to you for review before submitting it this afternoon. Bob, I’ll give you a call soon to figure out how to get your signature. Please let me know if we’re missing anything- thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 150 156 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Thursday, September 25, 2025 8:46 AM To:Hill, Robert; Gault, Walter; Tyler Benson; Bryce Engstrom; Rodney Thurman Subject:TREE REMOVAL APP (without FIRMA plans) 9.25 Attachments:SLO REP- TREE REMOVAL-REPLACEMENT APPLICATION- NO FIRMA 9.25.pdf Hi everyone, Thanks so much for all of your help getting this together over the last two weeks. I’m attaching the current TREE REMOVAL APP/PACKAGE we’ve compiled. As you know, we’ve forwarded the replanting analysis/materials from Rodney to our Landscape engineers (FIRMA) and they are planning on getting us new drawings for the onsite tree replacements by 10/9, but I thought that I would forward what we currently have now for review. Please let me know if anything is incorrect. BOB, page 2 of the application has signature fields for the Property Owner and Permission to Access Property. I seem to remember getting a City signature in those fields for the first tree removal a few years back, but I’m not sure. Please let me know whose signature I need there, if any. Thanks, all! 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. (614 Monterey)APN#: 002-412-011 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel: 805 234 8760 - Email: rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com Date: July 7, 2025 To: Kevin Harris - Managing Artistic Director - SLOREP Theater – 888 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. Re: Construction impact analysis and tree protection report regarding one tree near the proposed building site of a theater at 614 Monterey Street in the city of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Harris, Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) within or adjacent to the construction footprint for your project. Assignment 1. Assess health, construction impacts, feasibility of retention and tree protection needs for all trees that may be impacted by construction of buildings, drainage or utility installation. 2. Prepare written arborist report in accordance with City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code 12.24.090.D(2)(a) to include tree protection requirements according to the city standard specifications (77-1.03A(2))s. Summary After careful review of the encroachments into the critical root zone of the subject tree, I have found that the impacts will be too great to allow it to remain in a healthy state once construction has been completed. I recommend the tree be removed and replaced. Replacements to mitigate the loss of the tree is a minimum of 1:1 ratio, however the size quantity and species will be dictated by the City’s authorized approving authority. Introduction The site is located at the north corner of Monterey and Nipomo Streets in San Luis Obispo. The property’s former use was residential which included two homes occupying the space where the tree is growing. The tree appeared to have been planted as a landscape tree in the front yard of the former 614 Monterey Street home. Both homes at the site have been demolished and a new building for the SLO Repertory theater is proposed to be built on the site. 2 The current plans show significant encroachment into the critical root zone (CRZ) of the tree as well as a need for significant pruning to allow for construction of the new facility. This report is based on the City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code 12.24.090.D(2)(a) – Tree Regulations. In accordance with the code, I have prepared the following: An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drainage patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain. Methodology Tree Diameter Measurements I measured each tree’s Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) at 4.5’ above ground with a diameter tape. Per the International Society of Arboriculture’s (ISA) standard For multi-stem trees that divided below 4.5’, I measured below the division at the narrowest point on the trunk. If it was not possible to measure below the division, I measured each stem individually, then squared the diameter of each stem. Finally, I summed the squared diameters and took the square root of the sum to get the most accurate diameter of the tree. Diameters were rounded up or down depending on fractions of inches. My measurements may be different than those recorded by surveyors, but I assure you, they are correct. Typically, surveyors estimate trunk diameter rather than hand measure. All trees included in the inventory were numbered in the field with a metal tag that was nailed to the trunk between 2 and 4 feet above ground. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Measurements CRZs were determined by giving a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. E.g., a 12- inch diameter tree would have a 12-foot CRZ radius measured from the outside of the trunk or at the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater. Tree Protection Zone Measurements Generally, TPZ distances followed the distances listed for CRZs. The exception is if there were proposed tree-root encroachments into the CRZ of less than 25%. In most cases encroachments of 25% or less were allowed unless the structure or health of the tree would be compromised. Tree Condition Ratings All trees in the inventory were given a condition rating. The rating was based on the health, structure and presence of disease and insects. See the following definitions: 1. Dead = Severely declining or no foliage, large dead branches, decay cavities, loss of bark, roots decayed or dead. 2. Very Poor = Evidence of multiple large past failures, advanced disease, uncontrollable pest infestations or disease infection. Tree in severe decline. 3 3. Poor = Tree may be suppressed, drought stressed, or had at least 1 large branch failure. Disease or pest infestations may be present. Can potentially be retained with attention to mitigation pruning, cultural care changes, pest and disease control. 4. Fair = May have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present, small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. 5. Good = A relatively healthy tree with minor to no structural defects with minimal to no pest observed. Defects can be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. 6. Very Good = Trees that have had professional arboricultural care. No structural defects, disease or pests identified. 7. Excellent = Specimen tree with superior form, root structure and health. Tree has been regularly cared for by professional arborists over its lifetime, E.g., estate or arboretum tree. Trees Assessed On June 11, 2025 I assessed one (1) tree that was within or adjacent to construction impact zones. The tree is plotted on the Root Encroachment Assessment sheet TPP 1 & 2 provided by Heritage Tree in Appendix A and as Attachment 1 (in full scale format). For pictures of the tree, See Appendix B – Photographs. Tree Details, Health and Structure The tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with a diameter of 48 inches and an approximate height of 45 feet. The canopy spread was approximately 38 feet southwest toward Nipomo Street, 42 feet southeast toward Monterey Street, 30 feet northeast down Monterey Street toward the Mission Plaza and 28 feet northwest toward the interior of the lot. Based on the diameter of the tree, I estimate it to be 65 to 96 years old. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 1, 2 & 6. Overall, I assigned a condition rating of FAIR to this tree. It appeared to be solidly rooted with no signs of decay at the root crown. The trunk was also sound with no observable decay cavities. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photo 8. There was some minor evidence of insect frass (feces) in the crevices of the bark on the trunk. The frass deposits were likely created by sycamore borers (Synanthedon resplendens). The insect is relatively harmless. Its larvae mainly feeds on the outer bark of trees and rarely damages vascular tissue or live wood. At approximately 4.5’ above ground the trunk transitioned into two main scaffold branches. At the transition there was an area of included bark (included bark occurs when two parts of a tree grow parallel but do not completely bond together). The inclusion was minor but does indicate structural weakness between the scaffolds. In terms of safety, the likelihood that the parts would fail is moderate. A cabling system had been installed in the upper canopy between the scaffolds to mitigate the stress being exerted at the included bark area. With the cabling system installed. The likelihood of the parts failing would be reduced to low. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 8, 9 & 10. 4 The canopy had good form and was relatively symmetrical. There was evidence that maintenance pruning had occurred over the life of the tree, with the last pruning likely taking place within the last 5 years. The tree displayed good vigor and normal leaf size. No insects of concern were found on the foliage. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 6 & 7. I did note what appeared to be a minor bacterial wetwood infection on the southwest scaffold branch of the tree. Bacterial wetwood infections are common and not typically considered a serious disease that will kill a mature tree. The infection is indicated by oozing sap that has a fermented beer-like smell. Often, infection appears at a wound caused by pruning, mechanical damage or boring insects. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photo 12. Assessment of Tree Impacts When considering proposed impacts to a tree, two factors should be considered closely: 1. Loss of roots in the critical root zone. 2. Loss of live canopy. CRZ Impact Assessment The critical root zone or CRZ is the area of roots that are critical to the survival and stability of the tree. There are several ways to determine CRZ’s but as pointed out in the methodology section of this report, I used the method that gives a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. The dripline extent is not the best way to consider the CRZ because roots, if unrestricted, can grow far beyond the extent of the canopy in search of moisture and favorable conditions. Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark, in their book Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development explains that “Tree roots extend far beyond the crown and occupy from two to ten times the area beneath the canopy.” Typically, the CRZ is circular in form and radiates out from the trunk of the tree. If we visualize the circle as a pie chart and then deduct the areas of proposed impact/disturbance, the result is the percentage of CRZ impact. A twenty-five (25) percent impact is the standard accepted allowance of encroachment into a trees CRZ. In this CRZ impact assessment I considered the proposed impacts from excavation for the building footprint (including over-excavation for foundations) , utilities and drainage routes, compaction for installation of hardscape features beneath the tree as well as disturbances caused by installing landscape plant material. I did not include the area beyond the sidewalk along Nipomo Street as CRZ because the compacted road base and associated asphalt would not have been favorable to root growth and few roots would have been located in that area. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 3,4 & 5 for view of assumed root encroachments when considering over-excavation and allowances for building construction crew movement. 5 The total area of CRZ was 5,733 square feet. The area of disturbance was 5,439 square feet. The total percentage of CRZ disturbance was 95%. Only 282 square feet would be preserved as undisturbed in the scenario depicted in Appendix A - Critical Root Zone Encroachment Assessment Drawings - TPP-1. In the scenario depicted in Appendix A - TPP-2, the area of disturbance was calculated by decreasing the compacted, decomposed granite (DG) around the tree. Still, the area of disturbance was 4,929 square feet with 791 square feet being preserved. The overall gain in undisturbed area was 9%. The total percentage of CRZ disturbance was 86%. Either way we look at the disturbance from encroachments, the percentage well exceeds the 25% threshold. The loss of that quantity of critical roots would make the tree extremely vulnerable to severe decline or death. Canopy Impact Assessment The tree’s canopy would need to be pruned to allow for construction of the building and to provide for fire safety and prevention of pest intrusion. A 10 foot buffer from the finished walls of the proposed building would need to be cleared to give sufficient clearance for scaffoldings to be erected and machinery to operate. Longer term, the clearance would give adequate space for fire safety as well as discourage pests from entering the building via the tree canopy. In assessing clearance needs, pruning should be completed according to established pruning standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI A-300 guidance) for tree care. Essentially, this means that branches shall be cut to lateral connections and made at the appropriate location at the branch union rather than simply hedging back the branches with indiscriminate cuts. The guidance also recommends limiting foliage removal to 25% of the total tree in a single year. When I assessed the pruning needs for this tree in terms of clearance to allow the construction of the new building, the northwest, north and east side of the tree required pruning. Further there were low growing branches on the west side of the tree that needed to be removed to give clearance above the ground for delivery vehicles loading in to the theater. Overextended branches growing over the street would also need to be reduced to lessen the stress being exerted at the area of included bark at the two main scaffold attachments. All told, the reduction of live canopy would be approximately 35%. While this percentage is not wildly above the standard, it further impacts the tree’s ability to make and store energy. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 1 & 2. Combined Impact Assessment Root disturbance is clearly the greatest impact to the tree and will be the most detrimental to its health. Pruning on its own would not cause severe, adverse effects but combined with the root impacts, would further contribute to the trees decline. 6 Discussion It is critical that assessments of trees and their protection needs be initiated early in the design phase of a project. The assessments should be completed by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist. Quality trees should be identified and tree root protection zones established based on ANSI A-300 standards and the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for Managing Trees During Construction. Protecting the greatest amount of roots is the single best way to ensure the highest likelihood of success for a tree after a project has been completed. Early planning did not appear to have included an accurate assessment of root impacts. With critical root zone encroachments adding up to 95% in the worst case and 86% in the best case, the severity of construction impacts were not clearly understood. The footprint of the building was the largest impact to the tree, but it was not the limit of construction impacts. Hidden impacts such as over-excavation for foundations as well as buffer areas to allow workers to move about and construct the project were not considered. Further, landscape features such as sidewalks, compacted pathways and plantings beneath the trees canopy also contributed to the impacts. An example of these hidden impacts are visible along the Monterey Street side of the tree. The tree Protection Plan and Fine Grading Plan provided to me prescribed a tree protection zone distance of approximately 16’ from the trunk of the tree on its Monterey Street side. At the time of my inspection, grading for frontage improvements currently being constructed had encroached within 12’ of the trunk of the tree. Recommendations As the building, hardscape and landscape design is currently drawn, it does not allow for adequate space to protect the tree’s critical roots. Without sufficient roots to sustain the tree, it will not be a long term viable feature to the project. Even if landscaping and hardscape were eliminated within the extent of the tree canopy, the impacts from the building footprint would still be too great. Unless the building footprint is redesigned to accommodate the tree more appropriately, I recommend this tree be remove and replaced with a new tree that will have a mature size that will be proportionate to the space. Tree Removals The City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code Chapter 12.24 - Tree Regulations states that native trees 10” diameter and greater require a permit to remove. See mitigation section below for replanting requirements. Mitigation Each regulated tree approved for removal must be mitigated 1:1 on site or 2:1 off site. The minimum container size and trunk diameter shall be 15 gallon with diameters between 0.75" to 1.5". The tree shall be planted and staked according to city engineering standards. See table below for specifications. 7 Container Size Trunk Diameter (inches) 15 gallon 0.75" to 1.5" 24” box 1.5" to 2.5" 36” box 2.5" to 3.5" 48” box 3.5" to 4.5" I have recommend the removal of one (1) regulated tree, therefore one (1) mitigation tree shall be planted on site or two (2) off site. Considering the size and prominence of the tree I have recommended for removal. It would be more appropriate to replant a larger container tree such as a 48” box size. Ultimately, the City has the final approval regarding the quantity, size and species of the replacement tree(s). Conclusion As stated previously in this report, it is critical that assessments of trees and their protection needs be initiated early in the design phase of a project. Protecting the greatest amount of roots is the single best way to ensure the highest likelihood of success for a tree after a project has been completed. With critical root zone encroachment adding up to 95% in the worst case and 86% in the best case, it was apparent that construction impacts were not correctly factored into the plan. When all was told, the impacts would be too great and outweighed the reasonability of retaining the tree in a healthy state once the project was completed. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney D. Thurman ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM ISA Municipal Specialist ISA Utility Arborist ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Appendices: CRZ encroachment assessment drawings, photographs Attachments: CRZ encroachment assessment drawings 8 Appendix A – Root Encroachment Assessment 9 10 Appendix B – Photographs Photo 1 – View northwest of tree from Monterey Street. White lines indicate location for pruning cuts needed for building clearance on east side of tree & for delivery vehicle clearance on west side of tree. Estimated total reduction of live canopy for all pruning needs, including those shown in Photo 2, is approximately 35%. 83 11 Photo 2 – View northeast of tree. White lines indicate location for pruning cuts needed for building clearance & to reduce stress in included bark area at scaffold attachments. Estimated total reduction of live canopy for all pruning needs, including those shown in Photo 1, is approximately 35%. 12 Photo 3 – View northeast of tree. In order to prepare the space for proposed landscape features, significant soils disturbance, leveling, fill and compaction would be required within the critical root zone. Encroachments from construction over- excavation will come within approximately 15’ feet of northwest side of trunk , 22’ on the southwest side of the trunk and within 15’ of the trunk. Encroachments have already been made within 12’ of the trunk on the southeast side of the tree along Monterey Street. Yellow dashed lines indicate approximate extent of encroachment. 13 Photo 4 – View southeast of tree. Construction encroachments will come within 22’ of west side of tree. Yellow dashed line indicates approximate extent of encroachment. 14 Photo 5 – View northeast of tree, down Monterey Street. Street improvements have encroached within 12’ of the tree’s trunk which is a 4’ intrusion into the tree protection zone that was to supposed to be established prior to frontage improvement. Yellow dashed line indicates approximate 15 Photo 6 – Full view northwest of tree from Monterey Street. The canopy is vigorous, full and dark green in color. 16 Photo 7 – Close view of example of foliage. 17 Photo 8 – View southwest of trunk of tree. No decay was detected in root crown or trunk. An area of included bark, however, was present at the connection of main scaffold branches to trunk of tree. Arrow indicates location of included bark. 18 Photo 9 – Closer view of included bark area indicated by arrow. 19 Photo 10 – View southwest of tree with included bark area at connection of main scaffold branches to trunk of tree. Arrow indicates location of cabling system to give support to the two sections of tree. 20 Photo 11 – Closer view of cabling system connected to scaffold branches. 21 Photo 12– View of bleeding on scaffold branch. 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel: 805 234 8760 - Email: rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com September 24, 2025 To: Walter Gault – City of San Luis Obispo Urban Forest Program Coordinator From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. Mr. Gault, In my capacity as project arborist for the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theater (SLO REP), I have prepared the following memo to memorialize the mitigation tree planting agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO REP, for the loss of trees at the new sight for SLO REP Theatre on Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo, California. • One (1) 38” diameter coast live oak – Quercus agrifolia has been proposed for removal • One (1) 40” diameter African fern pine – Afrocarpus falcatus that has already removed at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets as part of the new parking structure street improvements. To compensate for the loss of the coast live oak SLO REP Theater, based on your guidance, proposes replanting one (1) 48” to 60” box sized, Mandela’s Coral Tree - Erythrina afra in the same location. The planting space shall be a 20’ x 20’ area of native soil that has been protected from compaction during the construction stage of the development. No hardscape features are to be placed within the planting area. See Mitigation Planting Plan provided by others for exact placement. To compensate for the loss of the African fern pine, SLO REP Theater, based on your guidance, proposes replanting one (1) 48” box sized Tipu Tree – Tipuana tipu at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets near where the fern pine once stood. The planting space shall be a 10’ x 10’ area of native soil that has been protected from compaction during the construction stage of the development. No hardscape features are to be placed within the planting area. See Mitigation Planting Plan provided by others for exact placement. As additional compensation for the loss of the aforementioned on-site trees, SLO Rep Theater, based on your guidance, proposes replanting four (4) additional 24” box sized trees along Nipomo Street between Palm and Peach Streets. The trees were chosen from the City’s Master Street Tree List. The selections are two (2) Gold Medallion Trees – Cassia leptophylla and two (2) Morning Cloud Chitalpa trees – Chitalpa tashkentensis ‘Morning Cloud’. See Mitigation Planting Plan provided by others for exact placement. 2 Tree Planting Planting of all trees both on and off-site shall be in accordance with city engineering standards. On-site trees shall be planted during the landscape installation phase of the project. The trees shall be established and maintained in accordance with the city’s standards for landscaping of newly constructed properties. Per your direction, a maintenance and establishment period of 5 years, from the time of planting, is required by the city. If at any time during the 5 year establishment period, an on-site mitigation tree dies for any reason, SLO Rep Theater shall be responsible for replacing that tree and establishing it for a period of 5 years. Water for the trees shall be supplied by an automatic irrigation system which shall be calibrated by a professional installer, based on volume needed to establish the tree. Deep watering is preferred, typically once per week, however, supplemental irrigation may need to be provided during the first few months of establishment. SLO REP’s landscape contractor will responsible for monitoring irrigations needs. Off-site trees shall be planted as soon as possible and according to city engineering standards. All cost for trees, maintenance and watering shall be the responsibility of SLO Rep Theater or their assigned contractor. Per your direction, a maintenance and establishment period of 5 years, from the time of planting, is required by the city. If at any time during the 5 year establishment period, an off-site mitigation tree dies for any reason, SLO Rep Theater shall be responsible for replacing that tree and establishing it for a period of 5 years. To ensure the off-site street trees have the greatest chance of success, irrigation shall be provided once per week between May 1st and October 31st of each required establishment year. Since there is no irrigation infrastructure at the site, the water will be transported to the site by the contractor and water will be applied by hand until soil around the root area is saturated to a depth of 24-inches (approximately 10 gallons). The area shall also be kept weed free to reduce competition for water and nutrient resources. Thank you, Rodney D. Thurman – Owner ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM SLO Rep Offsite Mitigation Plantings 157 From:Rodney Thurman <rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 17, 2025 9:19 AM To:Gault, Walter Cc:Kevin Harris; Tyler Benson; Bryce Engstrom; Hill, Robert Subject:Re: SLO Rep Tree Replacements Thanks for the clarification, Walter. A bit of a telephone game here with Bob Hill's input. Let's make sure we are all on the same page. I will work with the SLO Rep to get a planting plan together. Essentially, we will plan to plant two trees on site according to your recommendations.  on site -1 Tipuana Tipu per previous direction 36" box  on site - 1 Engleman oak or similar 48" box or greater o I am concerned about acorn litter in this area considering the hardscape and pedestrian walkways even with an expanded planting footprint. Are you open to other species besides oaks?  off-site - 2 street trees (24" box) to be planted with 5 years of establishment maintenance and watering by SLO rep or their contractor. Thank you, Rodney D. Thurman - Owner ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #PN2684BUM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Phone: 805 234 8760 From: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:03 PM To: Rodney Thurman <rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com> Subject: RE: SLO Rep Tree Replacements Good Afternoon Rodney, Thank you for your inquiry. It sounds like you may be receiving my comments 2 nd hand—here are the pertinent ones from my review of BLDG-2740-2025 (614 Monterey St):  Adjust plans to reflect removal of the 40-inch DBH Podocarpus on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo. This tree removal was approved with a compensatory replacement of (1) 36-inch box Tipuana Tipu. Please update landscaping plan with the new compensatory tree.  The impacts to the 36-inch Coast Live Oak near the theatre entrance are significant and according to the arborist report it cannot be retained. The landscaping plan should be adjusted to provide enough 158 space that is free of compaction that the replacement tree can attain a large mature size. Consider a specimen tree like the Engelmann Oak in a 48-box box or larger. In addition, an offsite compensatory planting plan will be required to approve the tree removal. The compensatory planting plan will require 5 years of establishment maintenance and watering. Please schedule a time with City Staff to discuss offsite compensatory planting plan. There is an existing landscaping plan that was submitted and there appears to be little room for additional trees (other than the 2 listed above) onsite. City Staff has discussed the matter and would to receive an offsite compensatory replanting plan in addition to the onsite.  At the corner of Palm and Nipomo, there appears to be a location in between 2 guy wires. There is at least one (1) stump from a mature tree (vacant site) next to a struggling black acacia. Another tree could also be planted between it and the camphor. It would be good to plant on either side of the black acacia to establish canopy in advance of its likely removal in the future. Those are three (3) potential locations, close to the site. Best regards, 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: Rodney Thurman <rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025 11:50 AM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Replacements Hello Walter, I just met with the SLO Rep team and discussed the oak tree removal application and tree replacement plan. I hear that you want a 48" box tree to replace the oak as well as two other trees to be planted on site to compensate for loss of trees removed earlier in the project. Are 24" box trees acceptable for the other two trees? I will also be working on a list of tree species that will work in the area, but also would like any input from you. Please let me know if there are any species you prefer. Thank you, Rodney D. Thurman - Owner ISA Board Certified Master Arborist #PN2684BUM ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Phone: 805 234 8760 159 164 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:52 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Perfect- thanks! 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. From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:50 PM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS No problem! 11:30 AM invite for tomorrow just sent. Talk soon. From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:11 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS BOB! My afternoon filled up! Can we do tomorrow any time between 10-12? Appreciate it! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org 165 SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 12:06 PM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hi Kevin, I hope move-in went well. Go Aggies! I am open at 3:15 today. I will send an invite in a moment. Thanks! Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 12:03 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hi Bob! I’m getting back into town Monday night. Can we jump on a quick call on Tuesday? I have a couple of questions before our team jumps full force into this tree removal application. Shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes. I’m free between 2:00 PM-3:30 on the afternoon on the 2nd. Just let me know. Thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org 166 SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:22 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hi Kevin, Thanks again for working with your design team to give us a ballpark sense for the ways the oak tree situation affects the project. As a beginning basic step, you’ll need to submit a tree removal application along with all the documents requested on the form (photos, arborist report, and a compensatory replanting plan). I have spoken more with the City Arborist, Walter Gault, and we have some ideas for tree replacement that we can share, but you’ll also need to consult with your arborist and come forward with a plan that works for the project and we can respond to that. We’d be happy to meet up, as well. The tree removal application has a fee of $330.50. Because the City Council was the approving body for your project entitlements, the City Council will also need to review and take action on the tree removal application, per SLOMC Section 12.24.090(F)(5) During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. As always, please feel free to give me a call. Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org 167 From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 11:00 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hey Bob! I was able to meet with our contractors, architect, consultants, and structural/civil engineers to talk about the tree scenarios. I’m attaching the estimates that they all came up with re: a few diƯerent scenarios. Let me know if you have any questions or want to touch base. Thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 184 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Thursday, August 7, 2025 3:29 PM To:Hill, Robert; Cohen, Rachel Subject:RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Sounds good Bob! Next week, Wednesday or Thursday morning I’m free before 10am. Thanks, Walter From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 2:58 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS P.S. Happy to assist with a staff report etc. From: Hill, Robert Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2025 2:57 PM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Thanks, Rachel. This is helpful. Walter, may I take you to coffee and brainstorm some mitigation ideas? We can bring in SLO REP and Rodney Thurman later, but it would be helpful if we have some guidance to offer when we do so. Bob From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 1:51 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hi Bob- Yes, they would need to submit a tree removal application along with all the documents requested on the form (photos, arborist report, and a compensatory replanting plan). I understand that we might ask for something different than what they propose, but it would be most helpful for them to consult with their arborist and come forward with a plan that works for their project and we can respond to that. The tree removal application has a fee of $330.50. They should submit their application online following the directions we have on the website here: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/programs-and-services/urban-forestry Once we receive the application, we would need to discuss going to Council to review the removal of the tree. We will need your assistance on the staff report. Thanks, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers 185 Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 11:21 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hi Rachel, Please see attached from Kevin. I also understand from him that they have resubmitted on their building permit as of last week. Would the next step be a separate tree removal permit application if they want to pursue option 3? Thanks for your guidance on this one! Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 11:00 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hey Bob! I was able to meet with our contractors, architect, consultants, and structural/civil engineers to talk about the tree scenarios. I’m attaching the estimates that they all came up with re: a few diƯerent scenarios. Let me know if you have any questions or want to touch base. Thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org 186 SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 192 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 11:21 AM To:Cohen, Rachel Subject:FW: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Attachments:SLO REP TREE ESTIMATES.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi Rachel, Please see attached from Kevin. I also understand from him that they have resubmitted on their building permit as of last week. Would the next step be a separate tree removal permit application if they want to pursue option 3? Thanks for your guidance on this one! Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 11:00 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: SLO REP TREE NUMBERS Hey Bob! I was able to meet with our contractors, architect, consultants, and structural/civil engineers to talk about the tree scenarios. I’m attaching the estimates that they all came up with re: a few diƯerent scenarios. Let me know if you have any questions or want to touch base. Thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube 193 SLO REP is a proud member of: 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. 199 From:Collins, Scott Sent:Friday, July 25, 2025 5:29 PM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:Re: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Greg, I think she mentioned this briefly. Let’s chat on it next week. Thanks! Scott Get Outlook for iOS From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2025 4:07:20 PM To: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Keep forgetting to chat about this one as well. Has Timmi mentioned anything to you? Greg From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:53 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Greg, Since the SLO REP project was approved by Council, this removal request would have to go back to Council per our tree regs (see below). . What I know for now… Bob From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 11:56 AM 200 To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Bob- Thank you again for meeting with Walter and I regarding the oak tree at SLO Rep’s build site. I misspoke when I said that the item would go to the Tree Committee. Instead it would need to go just to Council. See SLOMC Section 12.24.090(F)(5) During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. Just wanted to provide that clarification since I provided incorrect information. Thanks, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 2:34 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Walter and Rachel, I am thinking the tree of us need to have an internal chat! I’ll look for time and schedule something. I let Greg Hermann know already and I think he has let Whitney and Scott know, too. Thanks, Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:43 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Subject: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Good morning Bob and Walter, I am attaching the full report/recommendation from SLO REP’s arborist, Rodney Thurman with Heritage Tree. This report is based on the onsite visit a couple of months ago and subsequent study of the oak tree/current and planned construction on the site. 201 Happy to discuss at any time- thank you, and have a great Friday! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 202 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Friday, July 25, 2025 4:07 PM To:Collins, Scott Subject:FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Attachments:SLO Rep_Tree Protection Assessment Report.pdf Keep forgetting to chat about this one as well. Has Timmi mentioned anything to you? I’ll include it in the OneNote for Whitney, but we should also send something to Council. I don’t think we are ready for today’s weekly email, but probably something next week. Greg From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:53 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Greg, Since the SLO REP project was approved by Council, this removal request would have to go back to Council per our tree regs (see below). . What I know for now… Bob From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 11:56 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Bob- Thank you again for meeting with Walter and I regarding the oak tree at SLO Rep’s build site. I misspoke when I said that the item would go to the Tree Committee. Instead it would need to go just to Council. See SLOMC Section 12.24.090(F)(5) During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. Just wanted to provide that clarification since I provided incorrect information. 203 Thanks, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 2:34 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Walter and Rachel, I am thinking the tree of us need to have an internal chat! I’ll look for time and schedule something. I let Greg Hermann know already and I think he has let Whitney and Scott know, too. Thanks, Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:43 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Subject: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Good morning Bob and Walter, I am attaching the full report/recommendation from SLO REP’s arborist, Rodney Thurman with Heritage Tree. This report is based on the onsite visit a couple of months ago and subsequent study of the oak tree/current and planned construction on the site. Happy to discuss at any time- thank you, and have a great Friday! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org 204 SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel: 805 234 8760 - Email: rodney@heritagetreeconsulting.com Date: July 7, 2025 To: Kevin Harris - Managing Artistic Director - SLOREP Theater – 888 Morro Street, San Luis Obispo From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. Re: Construction impact analysis and tree protection report regarding one tree near the proposed building site of a theater at 614 Monterey Street in the city of San Luis Obispo. Mr. Harris, Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) within or adjacent to the construction footprint for your project. Assignment 1. Assess health, construction impacts, feasibility of retention and tree protection needs for all trees that may be impacted by construction of buildings, drainage or utility installation. 2. Prepare written arborist report in accordance with City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code 12.24.090.D(2)(a) to include tree protection requirements according to the city standard specifications (77-1.03A(2))s. Summary After careful review of the encroachments into the critical root zone of the subject tree, I have found that the impacts will be too great to allow it to remain in a healthy state once construction has been completed. I recommend the tree be removed and replaced. Replacements to mitigate the loss of the tree is a minimum of 1:1 ratio, however the size quantity and species will be dictated by the City’s authorized approving authority. Introduction The site is located at the north corner of Monterey and Nipomo Streets in San Luis Obispo. The property’s former use was residential which included two homes occupying the space where the tree is growing. The tree appeared to have been planted as a landscape tree in the front yard of the former 614 Monterey Street home. Both homes at the site have been demolished and a new building for the SLO Repertory theater is proposed to be built on the site. 2 The current plans show significant encroachment into the critical root zone (CRZ) of the tree as well as a need for significant pruning to allow for construction of the new facility. This report is based on the City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code 12.24.090.D(2)(a) – Tree Regulations. In accordance with the code, I have prepared the following: An arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within the development footprint (including, but not limited to, structural development, grading, staging areas, ground cover removal, changes in drainage patterns, and associated off-site improvements) including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that will remain. Methodology Tree Diameter Measurements I measured each tree’s Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) at 4.5’ above ground with a diameter tape. Per the International Society of Arboriculture’s (ISA) standard For multi-stem trees that divided below 4.5’, I measured below the division at the narrowest point on the trunk. If it was not possible to measure below the division, I measured each stem individually, then squared the diameter of each stem. Finally, I summed the squared diameters and took the square root of the sum to get the most accurate diameter of the tree. Diameters were rounded up or down depending on fractions of inches. My measurements may be different than those recorded by surveyors, but I assure you, they are correct. Typically, surveyors estimate trunk diameter rather than hand measure. All trees included in the inventory were numbered in the field with a metal tag that was nailed to the trunk between 2 and 4 feet above ground. Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Measurements CRZs were determined by giving a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. E.g., a 12- inch diameter tree would have a 12-foot CRZ radius measured from the outside of the trunk or at the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater. Tree Protection Zone Measurements Generally, TPZ distances followed the distances listed for CRZs. The exception is if there were proposed tree-root encroachments into the CRZ of less than 25%. In most cases encroachments of 25% or less were allowed unless the structure or health of the tree would be compromised. Tree Condition Ratings All trees in the inventory were given a condition rating. The rating was based on the health, structure and presence of disease and insects. See the following definitions: 1. Dead = Severely declining or no foliage, large dead branches, decay cavities, loss of bark, roots decayed or dead. 2. Very Poor = Evidence of multiple large past failures, advanced disease, uncontrollable pest infestations or disease infection. Tree in severe decline. 3 3. Poor = Tree may be suppressed, drought stressed, or had at least 1 large branch failure. Disease or pest infestations may be present. Can potentially be retained with attention to mitigation pruning, cultural care changes, pest and disease control. 4. Fair = May have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present, small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. 5. Good = A relatively healthy tree with minor to no structural defects with minimal to no pest observed. Defects can be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. 6. Very Good = Trees that have had professional arboricultural care. No structural defects, disease or pests identified. 7. Excellent = Specimen tree with superior form, root structure and health. Tree has been regularly cared for by professional arborists over its lifetime, E.g., estate or arboretum tree. Trees Assessed On June 11, 2025 I assessed one (1) tree that was within or adjacent to construction impact zones. The tree is plotted on the Root Encroachment Assessment sheet TPP 1 & 2 provided by Heritage Tree in Appendix A and as Attachment 1 (in full scale format). For pictures of the tree, See Appendix B – Photographs. Tree Details, Health and Structure The tree is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with a diameter of 48 inches and an approximate height of 45 feet. The canopy spread was approximately 38 feet southwest toward Nipomo Street, 42 feet southeast toward Monterey Street, 30 feet northeast down Monterey Street toward the Mission Plaza and 28 feet northwest toward the interior of the lot. Based on the diameter of the tree, I estimate it to be 65 to 96 years old. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 1, 2 & 6. Overall, I assigned a condition rating of FAIR to this tree. It appeared to be solidly rooted with no signs of decay at the root crown. The trunk was also sound with no observable decay cavities. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photo 8. There was some minor evidence of insect frass (feces) in the crevices of the bark on the trunk. The frass deposits were likely created by sycamore borers (Synanthedon resplendens). The insect is relatively harmless. Its larvae mainly feeds on the outer bark of trees and rarely damages vascular tissue or live wood. At approximately 4.5’ above ground the trunk transitioned into two main scaffold branches. At the transition there was an area of included bark (included bark occurs when two parts of a tree grow parallel but do not completely bond together). The inclusion was minor but does indicate structural weakness between the scaffolds. In terms of safety, the likelihood that the parts would fail is moderate. A cabling system had been installed in the upper canopy between the scaffolds to mitigate the stress being exerted at the included bark area. With the cabling system installed. The likelihood of the parts failing would be reduced to low. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 8, 9 & 10. 4 The canopy had good form and was relatively symmetrical. There was evidence that maintenance pruning had occurred over the life of the tree, with the last pruning likely taking place within the last 5 years. The tree displayed good vigor and normal leaf size. No insects of concern were found on the foliage. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 6 & 7. I did note what appeared to be a minor bacterial wetwood infection on the southwest scaffold branch of the tree. Bacterial wetwood infections are common and not typically considered a serious disease that will kill a mature tree. The infection is indicated by oozing sap that has a fermented beer-like smell. Often, infection appears at a wound caused by pruning, mechanical damage or boring insects. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photo 12. Assessment of Tree Impacts When considering proposed impacts to a tree, two factors should be considered closely: 1. Loss of roots in the critical root zone. 2. Loss of live canopy. CRZ Impact Assessment The critical root zone or CRZ is the area of roots that are critical to the survival and stability of the tree. There are several ways to determine CRZ’s but as pointed out in the methodology section of this report, I used the method that gives a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. The dripline extent is not the best way to consider the CRZ because roots, if unrestricted, can grow far beyond the extent of the canopy in search of moisture and favorable conditions. Nelda Matheny and James R. Clark, in their book Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development explains that “Tree roots extend far beyond the crown and occupy from two to ten times the area beneath the canopy.” Typically, the CRZ is circular in form and radiates out from the trunk of the tree. If we visualize the circle as a pie chart and then deduct the areas of proposed impact/disturbance, the result is the percentage of CRZ impact. A twenty-five (25) percent impact is the standard accepted allowance of encroachment into a trees CRZ. In this CRZ impact assessment I considered the proposed impacts from excavation for the building footprint (including over-excavation for foundations) , utilities and drainage routes, compaction for installation of hardscape features beneath the tree as well as disturbances caused by installing landscape plant material. I did not include the area beyond the sidewalk along Nipomo Street as CRZ because the compacted road base and associated asphalt would not have been favorable to root growth and few roots would have been located in that area. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 3,4 & 5 for view of assumed root encroachments when considering over-excavation and allowances for building construction crew movement. 5 The total area of CRZ was 5,733 square feet. The area of disturbance was 5,439 square feet. The total percentage of CRZ disturbance was 95%. Only 282 square feet would be preserved as undisturbed in the scenario depicted in Appendix A - Critical Root Zone Encroachment Assessment Drawings - TPP-1. In the scenario depicted in Appendix A - TPP-2, the area of disturbance was calculated by decreasing the compacted, decomposed granite (DG) around the tree. Still, the area of disturbance was 4,929 square feet with 791 square feet being preserved. The overall gain in undisturbed area was 9%. The total percentage of CRZ disturbance was 86%. Either way we look at the disturbance from encroachments, the percentage well exceeds the 25% threshold. The loss of that quantity of critical roots would make the tree extremely vulnerable to severe decline or death. Canopy Impact Assessment The tree’s canopy would need to be pruned to allow for construction of the building and to provide for fire safety and prevention of pest intrusion. A 10 foot buffer from the finished walls of the proposed building would need to be cleared to give sufficient clearance for scaffoldings to be erected and machinery to operate. Longer term, the clearance would give adequate space for fire safety as well as discourage pests from entering the building via the tree canopy. In assessing clearance needs, pruning should be completed according to established pruning standards set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI A-300 guidance) for tree care. Essentially, this means that branches shall be cut to lateral connections and made at the appropriate location at the branch union rather than simply hedging back the branches with indiscriminate cuts. The guidance also recommends limiting foliage removal to 25% of the total tree in a single year. When I assessed the pruning needs for this tree in terms of clearance to allow the construction of the new building, the northwest, north and east side of the tree required pruning. Further there were low growing branches on the west side of the tree that needed to be removed to give clearance above the ground for delivery vehicles loading in to the theater. Overextended branches growing over the street would also need to be reduced to lessen the stress being exerted at the area of included bark at the two main scaffold attachments. All told, the reduction of live canopy would be approximately 35%. While this percentage is not wildly above the standard, it further impacts the tree’s ability to make and store energy. See Appendix B - Photographs – Photos 1 & 2. Combined Impact Assessment Root disturbance is clearly the greatest impact to the tree and will be the most detrimental to its health. Pruning on its own would not cause severe, adverse effects but combined with the root impacts, would further contribute to the trees decline. 6 Discussion It is critical that assessments of trees and their protection needs be initiated early in the design phase of a project. The assessments should be completed by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist. Quality trees should be identified and tree root protection zones established based on ANSI A-300 standards and the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for Managing Trees During Construction. Protecting the greatest amount of roots is the single best way to ensure the highest likelihood of success for a tree after a project has been completed. Early planning did not appear to have included an accurate assessment of root impacts. With critical root zone encroachments adding up to 95% in the worst case and 86% in the best case, the severity of construction impacts were not clearly understood. The footprint of the building was the largest impact to the tree, but it was not the limit of construction impacts. Hidden impacts such as over-excavation for foundations as well as buffer areas to allow workers to move about and construct the project were not considered. Further, landscape features such as sidewalks, compacted pathways and plantings beneath the trees canopy also contributed to the impacts. An example of these hidden impacts are visible along the Monterey Street side of the tree. The tree Protection Plan and Fine Grading Plan provided to me prescribed a tree protection zone distance of approximately 16’ from the trunk of the tree on its Monterey Street side. At the time of my inspection, grading for frontage improvements currently being constructed had encroached within 12’ of the trunk of the tree. Recommendations As the building, hardscape and landscape design is currently drawn, it does not allow for adequate space to protect the tree’s critical roots. Without sufficient roots to sustain the tree, it will not be a long term viable feature to the project. Even if landscaping and hardscape were eliminated within the extent of the tree canopy, the impacts from the building footprint would still be too great. Unless the building footprint is redesigned to accommodate the tree more appropriately, I recommend this tree be remove and replaced with a new tree that will have a mature size that will be proportionate to the space. Tree Removals The City of San Luis Obispo’s municipal code Chapter 12.24 - Tree Regulations states that native trees 10” diameter and greater require a permit to remove. See mitigation section below for replanting requirements. Mitigation Each regulated tree approved for removal must be mitigated 1:1 on site or 2:1 off site. The minimum container size and trunk diameter shall be 15 gallon with diameters between 0.75" to 1.5". The tree shall be planted and staked according to city engineering standards. See table below for specifications. 7 Container Size Trunk Diameter (inches) 15 gallon 0.75" to 1.5" 24” box 1.5" to 2.5" 36” box 2.5" to 3.5" 48” box 3.5" to 4.5" I have recommend the removal of one (1) regulated tree, therefore one (1) mitigation tree shall be planted on site or two (2) off site. Considering the size and prominence of the tree I have recommended for removal. It would be more appropriate to replant a larger container tree such as a 48” box size. Ultimately, the City has the final approval regarding the quantity, size and species of the replacement tree(s). Conclusion As stated previously in this report, it is critical that assessments of trees and their protection needs be initiated early in the design phase of a project. Protecting the greatest amount of roots is the single best way to ensure the highest likelihood of success for a tree after a project has been completed. With critical root zone encroachment adding up to 95% in the worst case and 86% in the best case, it was apparent that construction impacts were not correctly factored into the plan. When all was told, the impacts would be too great and outweighed the reasonability of retaining the tree in a healthy state once the project was completed. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney D. Thurman ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM ISA Municipal Specialist ISA Utility Arborist ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Appendices: CRZ encroachment assessment drawings, photographs Attachments: CRZ encroachment assessment drawings 8 Appendix A – Root Encroachment Assessment 9 10 Appendix B – Photographs Photo 1 – View northwest of tree from Monterey Street. White lines indicate location for pruning cuts needed for building clearance on east side of tree & for delivery vehicle clearance on west side of tree. Estimated total reduction of live canopy for all pruning needs, including those shown in Photo 2, is approximately 35%. 83 11 Photo 2 – View northeast of tree. White lines indicate location for pruning cuts needed for building clearance & to reduce stress in included bark area at scaffold attachments. Estimated total reduction of live canopy for all pruning needs, including those shown in Photo 1, is approximately 35%. 12 Photo 3 – View northeast of tree. In order to prepare the space for proposed landscape features, significant soils disturbance, leveling, fill and compaction would be required within the critical root zone. Encroachments from construction over- excavation will come within approximately 15’ feet of northwest side of trunk , 22’ on the southwest side of the trunk and within 15’ of the trunk. Encroachments have already been made within 12’ of the trunk on the southeast side of the tree along Monterey Street. Yellow dashed lines indicate approximate extent of encroachment. 13 Photo 4 – View southeast of tree. Construction encroachments will come within 22’ of west side of tree. Yellow dashed line indicates approximate extent of encroachment. 14 Photo 5 – View northeast of tree, down Monterey Street. Street improvements have encroached within 12’ of the tree’s trunk which is a 4’ intrusion into the tree protection zone that was to supposed to be established prior to frontage improvement. Yellow dashed line indicates approximate 15 Photo 6 – Full view northwest of tree from Monterey Street. The canopy is vigorous, full and dark green in color. 16 Photo 7 – Close view of example of foliage. 17 Photo 8 – View southwest of trunk of tree. No decay was detected in root crown or trunk. An area of included bark, however, was present at the connection of main scaffold branches to trunk of tree. Arrow indicates location of included bark. 18 Photo 9 – Closer view of included bark area indicated by arrow. 19 Photo 10 – View southwest of tree with included bark area at connection of main scaffold branches to trunk of tree. Arrow indicates location of cabling system to give support to the two sections of tree. 20 Photo 11 – Closer view of cabling system connected to scaffold branches. 21 Photo 12– View of bleeding on scaffold branch. 208 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, July 22, 2025 3:12 PM To:Cohen, Rachel; Gault, Walter Subject:RE: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Thanks, Rachel. I appreciate the call and the follow up. Let me know what y’all are finding in terms of requirements for CADPS tree planting – I will be happy to meet up and talk about how we structure a meaningful offsite planting situation, and I’d think that would need to be a key focus of a prospective Council Agenda Report. Bob From: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 11:56 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Bob- Thank you again for meeting with Walter and I regarding the oak tree at SLO Rep’s build site. I misspoke when I said that the item would go to the Tree Committee. Instead it would need to go just to Council. See SLOMC Section 12.24.090(F)(5) During property development or construction, any tree that is requested to be removed that was not identified and approved for removal by the authorized approving authority shall return to the authorized approving authority for approval prior to removal. Just wanted to provide that clarification since I provided incorrect information. Thanks, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 2:34 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Hi Walter and Rachel, I am thinking the tree of us need to have an internal chat! I’ll look for time and schedule something. 209 I let Greg Hermann know already and I think he has let Whitney and Scott know, too. Thanks, Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 9:43 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Subject: SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Good morning Bob and Walter, I am attaching the full report/recommendation from SLO REP’s arborist, Rodney Thurman with Heritage Tree. This report is based on the onsite visit a couple of months ago and subsequent study of the oak tree/current and planned construction on the site. Happy to discuss at any time- thank you, and have a great Friday! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 212 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Friday, July 11, 2025 9:43 AM To:Hill, Robert; Gault, Walter Cc:Tyler Benson Subject:SLO REP ARBORIST REPORT-THURMAN Attachments:SLO Rep_Tree Protection Assessment Report.pdf; Attachment 1 - TPP1 and TPP2.pdf Good morning Bob and Walter, I am attaching the full report/recommendation from SLO REP’s arborist, Rodney Thurman with Heritage Tree. This report is based on the onsite visit a couple of months ago and subsequent study of the oak tree/current and planned construction on the site. Happy to discuss at any time- thank you, and have a great Friday! 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. 217 From:Meghan Schmeiser <mschmeiser@kitchell.com> Sent:Thursday, April 17, 2025 4:28 PM To:Meghana Prabhune Cc:Paul Graebner; Tally Richtsmeier; Marquart, Ben; Gordon Knowles Subject:Tree Replanting - corner of Monterey and Nipomo Attachments:Tree Protection Zone_SLO Rep Theater.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Hi Meghana, As we chatted about earlier today in the City/Kitchell/Watry meeting, we recently obtained a tree removal permit for the tree at the corner of Monterey and Nipomo Street (below "x"). As part of the removal process, we need to identify a replacement tree and update our landscape plan to reflect this change. The tree selected by the City is a Tipuana tipu, which is consistent with the other trees on Nipomo Street. Per the City, the replacement tree should be replanted as close as possible to the removed tree. I've attached a map overlay, showing an aerial view of the corner along with our project's storm drain infrastructure, as well as SLO Rep's theater project, in the hope that it may help to coordinate a location that will be suitable for future development. Can you please help by coordinating with RRM to select a location for the replacement tree? Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need additional information! 218 Thanks so much, Meghan Schmeiser Project Engineer II O: (916) 713.6982 C: (805) 709.0785 E: mschmeiser@kitchell.com kitchell.com WV HYDSD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSD SDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SDSDSSWSSWWWWG G G G GGGGGWGGSDSDSD SD SDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SDSDSDSDSD SDSDSDSDWW WWW WEXISTING ELECTRICAL VAULT EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING WATER METER EXISTING TELEPHONE VAULT EXISTING ELECTRICAL VAULT EXISTING PARKING METER EXISTING PARKING METER EXISTING PARKING METER EXISTING PG&E VAULT EXISTING UTILITY VAULTEXISTING CATV VAULT EXISTING PARKING METER EXISTING PARKING METER EXISTING NO PARKING SIGN EXISTING WATER METER EXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALK EXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALKEXISTING DRIVEWAYEXISTING STREET LIGHT EXISTING ELECTRICAL VAULT EXISTING CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALK EXISTING GATE VALVES EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING SSMH RIM EL =(202.14) EXISTING 2.5' RETAINING WALL DRIP LINE DRIP LINE 48" OAK EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HANDICAP RAMP EXISTING CURB AND SIDEWALK EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK EXISTING STREET TREE EXISTING HANDICAP RAMP EX EXI WA EXISTING GATE VA MONTEREY STREET EXISTING SSMH RIM EL = 191.85 (PUBLIC) 2.43' BUILDING FF  PROPOSED T+EATER LI0ITS OF  YR FLOOD PLAIN LI0ITS OF  YR FLOOD PLAIN 1 200.00 TG 194.56 INV. 1200.66 TG 194.75 INV. 2 200.63 RIM 193.96 INV. 2 197.31 RIM 190.77 INV. 3 195.55 TG 189.50 INV. (NW) 189.50 INV.(SW) 188.30 INV. (NE) 190.73 INV. (SE) 186.30 SUMP 12 10 10 12 15.8'28.9' 9  CF10.9'6 193.64 INV. 6190.31 INV. 1193.29 TG 191.29 INV. 1026 LF 8" SD @ 8.63% 23 LF 8" SD @ 3.88% 10 8 LF 8" SD @ 3.67% 7 LF 8" SD @ 2.05% 1029 LF 8" SD @ 11.55% 104 LF 8" SD @ 11.00% 107 LF 8" SD @ 5.00% 1 2 3 8 8 FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 3 (BY OTHERS)FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE 3(BY OTHERS)3 LF 4" SD @ 3.33% 194.26 INV. 193.87 INV. 106 LF 8" SD @ 11.52% 5189.64 INV. (ROOF AREA TO DRAIN TO BASIN 2)(ROOF AREA TO DRAIN TO BASIN 2) 6190.73 INV.7 193.30 INV. 7 192.41 INV. 103 LF 8" SD @ 16.65% 107 LF 8" SD @ 16.65% 4 3 LF 4" SD @ 1.67% 200.08 INV. 200.03 INV. 10 13 LF 8" SD @ 3.00%HYDSTOPSD SD SD SD SD 9 DANA STREET NIPOMO STREET(PUBLIC)(PUBLIC)1199.96 TG 196.32 INV. 1 2 LF 8" SD @ 16.65%10 2 3 05 SCALE: 1" = 10 10'