To the San Luis Obispo community, City Council, SLO REP, and fellow stewards of our urban canopy:
I have lived and worked in downtown San Luis Obispo for over a decade in the fields of land planning, ecological stewardship, and urban landscape systems. I am writing in response to the recent council decision approving removal of the mature oak at the future Performing Arts Theater site.
This letter is not written in anger, nor in dismissal of the value of a performing arts venue. Our city benefits deeply from cultural infrastructure. The question before us is not “theater or tree.” The question is whether we are willing, even at a late stage, to reconsider how those two can coexist.
The framing of inevitability
During deliberation, the situation was framed as an unavoidable choice: the viability of the theater or the preservation of the oak. Respectfully, in the built environment, such binaries are rarely absolute. Architecture and site planning are iterative disciplines. Redesign, footprint adjustment, phasing alteration, structural bridging, and hybrid solutions are common responses to unexpected constraints. Mature, legacy trees are not decorative elements; they are fixed ecological infrastructure. In responsible development practice, they are treated as non-negotiable design drivers.
The oak remains standing. The building has not yet been constructed. Drawings can change.
Significance
A mature oak provides ecological functions that cannot be replaced through new planting in any meaningful timeframe, including:
• Long-term carbon sequestration
• Urban heat mitigation
• Established habitat networks
• Soil stabilization
• Cultural continuity and spatial grounding
Replacement trees, while beneficial, do not substitute for a legacy organism that has shaped its block for decades. Urban forestry totals do not offset singular heritage loss.
Alternative pathways
If the current position is that redesign is financially unviable at this stage, that assertion deserves transparent exploration before removal proceeds. Potential pathways include:
• Independent architectural feasibility review by firms unaffiliated with the current design team
• Targeted community fundraising dedicated to redesign costs
• Phased construction adjustments
• Structural bridging or foundation reconfiguration
• Public-private subsidy collaboration
If both arts infrastructure and canopy preservation are civic priorities, viability should not hinge solely on late-stage financial constraints.
Request for pause
Before removal proceeds, I respectfully request:
• A short-term delay in tree removal
• A publicly announced 30-day feasibility exploration window
• Formation of a small technical review group including independent architects, certified arborists, structural engineers, and urban forestry representatives
• Public release of cost analyses comparing preservation alternatives
If preservation is ultimately determined to be impossible after such a review, the community will at least know every option was responsibly explored.
Why this matters
This moment establishes precedent. If late-stage inconvenience becomes sufficient grounds for removal of protected legacy trees, future preservation commitments weaken in practice. San Luis Obispo has long identified itself as a community rooted in stewardship. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that stewardship includes flexibility, creativity, and collective problem-solving—even when inconvenient.
I remain open to contributing constructively to any collaborative effort aimed at preserving the oak while ensuring the theater’s success.
The tree remains standing. There is still time. ∆
Nicholas DePaoli writes from San Luis Obispo. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Feb 19-26, 2026.