Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0001-10001 From:Paonessa, Kelly Sent:Friday, April 17, 2026 4:10 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Kacsinta, Madeline; Cruce, Greg Subject:FW: ALL CALLS Caller: Alex Hischier Phone: 805-801-7608 Is There Any+ Hi Bob, Madeline asked me to forward this to you – not sure if you have been fielding quesƟons about the Tree at the SLO Rep Theater… ? Wanted to get this in front of you though just in case. Thank you, Kelly Paonessa pronouns She/Her/Hers Administrative Assistant III Public Works 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934 E KPaoness@slocity.org T 805.781.7274 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications -----Original Message----- From: message@advantage-plus1.com <message@advantage-plus1.com> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2026 3:54 PM To: Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org> Subject: ALL CALLS Caller: Alex Hischier Phone: Is There Any+ ALL CALLS Caller: Alex Hischier Phone: Is There Anything We Can Do Re: The Tree Removal For The S L O Rep Feeder? This Is A Monumental/Legacy Tree And Is Cri Ɵcal To Our History. Please Call Me Back To Advise. On The Corner Of Monterey & Nipomo Caller ID: 2 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 7:53 PM To:Karen Petersen Subject:RE: Beautiful oak tree and SLO REP Good evening Karen, Thank you for the email. I really appreciate your concern for the tree. I was very, very unhappy as well, with the need for SLO Rep to submit a request for a permit to remove the tree aŌer almost 15 years of working toward a plan to build the theater that protected the 60-80 year old tree (as dated by the professional arborists). It was very upseƫng to learn that the informaƟon we had been working under for so many years, was based on old, and now known-to-be-inaccurate informaƟon about the tree's ability to survive the building of the theater. (The tree DID survive the building of the parking structure, but it was damaged. And mulƟple arborists have confirmed that the addiƟonal damage of construcƟon of the theater would be unsurvivable.) SLO Rep was and is very disappointed with this as well. They have provided a statement to the community explaining the process for making the decision to remove the tree. See that statement here: hƩps://www.slorep.org/a-new-stage/a-message-from-our- president/ For more informaƟon and clarity on all of this, especially the City’s role in it, you are also welcome to go back and watch the deliberaƟons of the meeƟng where the council decided to approve their permit on Youtube. The mee Ɵng was on February 3. On a posiƟve note, if there is one to be seen in this situaƟon, as part of SLO Rep's development plan, they will be replacing the removed three on the property with 4 new trees...one in the spot where the tree will be removed and 3 more along Nipomo Street. The City is also in the process of planƟng 10,000 trees over the next several years...many, many of them are oaks, and they are being planted where they are much more likely to survive, than in our urban center. Oaks are not a great species, it turns out, for areas surrounded by concrete, streets and buildings. Thanks for caring about our city's trees so very much. I care about them too. I just wanted to be clear that we did not WANT to cut the tree down. Please let me know if you have further quesƟons. Michelle From: City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 4:28 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful oak tree and SLO REP Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Karen Petersen Site Visitor Email: Hello, I am writing regarding the huge oak tree that sits on the lot that the new SLO REP is to be built. The theater was designed with the intent to save the beautiful old oak tree. Now, it seems it is dispensable? Huge, mature trees such as this add so much to our community. I was pleased to see that it was originally in the plan to keep the tree. I hope the SLO REP will try to build without disturbing this huge asset to our urban forest. Save our mature trees! 3 Respectfully submitted, Karen Petersen 4 From:City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 15, 2026 4:26 PM To:Boswell, Mike Subject:SLO REP Oak Tree Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Karen Petersen Site Visitor Email: Hello, I am writing regarding the huge oak tree that sits on the lot that the new SLO REP is to be built. The theater was designed with the intent to save the beautiful old oak tree. Now, it seems it is dispensable? Huge, mature trees such as this add so much to our community. I was pleased to see that it was originally in the plan to keep the tree. I hope the SLO REP will try to build without disturbing this huge asset to our urban forest. Save our mature trees! Respectfully submitted, Karen Petersen 5 From:fitzgerald kelly < Sent:Monday, April 13, 2026 10:51 AM Cc:Boswell, Mike; Francis, Emily; Shoresman, Michelle; Marx, Jan Subject:Our SLO Rep oak tree Below is the leƩer I sent to Mayor Stewart last Friday, April 10. I am forwarding it to each of you first three, and to Jan Marx to keep her apprised. I am requesƟng your reconsideraƟon and reversal of your recent vote to cut down this heritage oak and reincorporate it into the original proposal of a theater and our tree. FYI,I have not met a single person that thinks cuƫng down this tree is a plus for SLO. Fitz Kelly This leƩer is directed to you, Ms Stewart, as mayor of SanLuisObispo. The decision by you and three of your fellow councilors to conƟnue to approve of the removal of the SLO Rep heritage oak is breaking a wri Ʃen compact with us in San Luis Obispo: construct the new SLO Rep theater as long as that oak is included in the design and its compleƟon. For quite a while, that pact was comfortably in effect. Now, with recent council votes, the latest being 4 - 1, that agreement has been cancelled by the vote to now cut that same tree down. As a peach and nectarine farmer for 44 years, I know that trees are incredibly resourceful and resilient. Ms Stewart, this vote is a betrayal of years of planning. Years of assumpƟon that saving that oak tree was inviolate. I suspect that including the tree in the inspiring construcƟon plans had a huge influence on geƫng funding and might have been a Ɵpping point to get that funding. This recent vote is unacceptable acƟon on the Councils part. I ask for another vote on the future of The People’s Oak. Keep Our Tree! Thank you for your aƩenƟon. Fitzgerald Kelly. Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad 6 From:Juliescr < Sent:Sunday, April 12, 2026 3:11 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Keep our tree! 🌳 Hi Michelle, Thanks for your thoughƞul reply. It helps to know that the city and slorep have had thoughƞul people and arborists do their due diligence in making this very tough decision. With much appreciaƟon, Julie > On Apr 12, 2026, at 14:36, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: > > Hi Julie! > > Thanks for wriƟng in. There is a lot of confusion out there about the removal of the tree, so I have been sharing the foll owing informaƟon and email with folks that have wriƩen in. Forgive me for copying and pasƟng here, but it seems easier to provide the same informaƟon to you, that I have provided to others. Most importantly, the City is not removing the tree, but we did have to approve SLO Rep's permit to remove the tree. Much more informaƟon provided below and feel free to reach out if you have further quesƟons...aŌer reading the below: > > Thank you for the email. I really appreciate your concern for the tree. I was very, very unhappy as well, with the need for SLO Rep to submit a request for a permit to remove the tree aŌer almost 15 years of working toward a plan to build the theater that protected the tree. It was very upseƫng to learn that the informaƟon we had been working under for so many years, was based on old, and now known-to-be-inaccurate informaƟon about the tree's ability to survive the building of the theater. (The tree DID survive the building of the parking structure, but it was damaged. And mul Ɵple arborists have confirmed that the addiƟonal damage of construcƟon of the theater would be unsurvivable.) SLO Rep was and is very disappointed with this as well. They have provided a statement to the community explaining the process for making the decision to remove the tree. See that statement here: hƩps://url.us.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/xVGICzp4m6S9qDxs4fgT9bopB?domain=slorep.org > > For more informaƟon and clarity on all of this, especially the City’s role in it, you are also welcome to go back and watch the deliberaƟons of the meeƟng where the council decided to approve their permit on Youtube. The meeƟng was on February 3. > > On a posiƟve note, if there is one to be seen in this situaƟon, as part of SLO Rep's development plan, they will be replacing the removed three on the property with 4 new trees...one in the spot where the tree will be removed and 3 more along Nipomo Street. The City is also in the process of planƟng 10,000 trees over the next several years...many, many of them are oaks, and they are being planted where they are much more likely to survive, than in our urban center. Oaks are not a great species, it turns out, for areas surrounded by concrete, streets and buildings. > > Thanks for caring about our city's trees so very much. I care about them too. I just wanted to be clear that we did not WANT to cut the tree down. Please let me know if you have further quesƟons. > > Michelle > > -----Original Message----- 7 > From: Juliescr < > Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2026 12:52 PM > To: Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org>; Boswell, Mike <MBoswell@slocity.org>; Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org>; Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org>; Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> > Subject: Keep our tree! 苪苩 > > Hi City Council members > > I know some of you personally, and do I know you also care about the oak tree near the new SLO rep locaƟon. > > I have seen some of you at tree planƟng days, and so I know you know how long it takes to grow such a big beau Ɵful tree. > > I wanted to add my name to the campaign to try to save it. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. > > Kind regards > > Julie Rawlings > 8 From:fitzgerald kelly < Sent:Friday, April 10, 2026 1:56 PM To:Stewart, Erica A Subject:Our SloRep heritage oak tree This leƩer is directed to you, Ms Stewart, as mayor of SanLuisObispo. The decision by you and three of your fellow councilors to conƟnue to approve of the removal of the SLO Rep heritage oak is breaking a wri Ʃen compact with us in San Luis Obispo: construct the new SLO Rep theater as long as that oak is included in the design and its compleƟon. For quite a while, that pact was comfortably in effect. Now, with recent council votes, the latest being 4 - 1, that agreement has been cancelled by the vote to now cut that same tree down. As a peach and nectarine farmer for 44 years, I know that trees are incredibly resourceful and resilient. Ms Stewart, this vote is a betrayal of years of planning. Years of assumpƟon that saving that oak tree was inviolate. I suspect that including the tree in the inspiring construcƟon plans had a huge influence on geƫng funding and might have been a Ɵpping point to get that funding. This recent vote is unacceptable acƟon on the Councils part. I ask for another vote on the future of The People’s Oak. Keep Our Tree! Thank you for your aƩenƟon. Fitzgerald Kelly. Sent from my iPad 9 From:Webb, Donré Sent:Wednesday, April 8, 2026 2:56 PM To:Accounts Payable Cc:Stowe, Lala; Nichols, Vanessa Subject:CSG (Bldg Plan Review Feb 26) Invoice # B260294 Receipt# 93430 Attachments:CSG (Bldg Plan Review Feb 26) Invoice # B260294 Receipt# 93430.pdf Donré Webb pronouns she/her/hers Administrative Assistant III Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E DWebb@slocity.org T 805.781.7577 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications ^4.CSG 550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA94404 INVOICE Dale: 31212026 lnvoice No.: 8260294 CONSULTANTS \/ Mike Loew Deputy Building Official City of San Luis ObisPo 9't9 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Billing Type: Building Plan Review Services Account No.: Period: 21112026 - 212812026 FED lD: 91-2053749 Citv Fee GSG FeePG No JobAddress DescriotionCSG NO 4500931 4510027 4514256 BLDG-2740-2024 PLREV-o629-2025 614 Monterey St 1422 Monterey St. Structural review only - New performing arts theatre -EXPEDITED- -DEFERRED SUBMITTAL TO csc #4403990- Elevator & Connections Submittal. Hourly $255.00 s924.75Hourly PLREV-0948-2025 609 Palm St. 45'14858 PLREV-0985-2025 609 Palm St Hourly $172.50 Hourly $138.00 $1 Reference lo CSG t14212123 (original parking garage approval), Deferred Submittal- Distributed Antenna System Total: Please remit payment to: CSG Consultants, lnc' PO Box 8485 cA 91 1 09-8485 '*',$k q ,Ib \\ CSG Consultants 650-522-2500 | csgstaff@csgengr.com I www.csgengr.com Page 1 of 1 10 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:01 PM To:Tawny Sterios Subject:RE: Keep the tree 🌳 From: Tawny Sterios < Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 5:03 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Keep the tree 苪苩 Tawny Sterios Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #155683 Supervised by Monique Sigler, LMFT #82989 Swell Therapy & Wellness, Inc. swelltherapyslo.com NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 11 On Apr 7, 2026, at 3:38 PM, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: From: Tawny Sterios < Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2026 2:54 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Keep the tree 苪苩 Thanks, I will keep an eye out for those Oaks, and yes, it does look like some new oaks have possibly been planted on the new Backburn. We have been hiking there often, as it's so close to us. T <image003.jpg><image004.png> Tawny Sterios Associate Marriage and Family Therapist #155683 Supervised by Monique Sigler, LMFT #82989 Swell Therapy & Wellness, Inc. swelltherapyslo.com NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, protected, and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. On Apr 7, 2026, at 8:01 AM, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: There have been lots of oaks planted through our effort to plant 10,000 trees called “Ten Tall.” (You can look that up on our website too.) We spend a small percentage of our tourism bed taxes on planting trees. 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 The oaks are mostly planted in our open spaces. The most obvious spots are near the bottom of south hills open space, around the base of terrace hill and I think they might have planted some around the new Backburn Trail at the bottom of high school hill, but don’t quote me on that. 뇤눈눉눊눍눋눌 Michelle From: Tawny Sterios < Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:26 PM 12 To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Keep the tree 苪苩 Thanks 뜱뜲뜳뜴뜵뜶띃뜷뜸뜹뜺뜻뜼뜽뜾뜿띀띁띂띄 for the reply. Sad to hear the tree is being cut down but happy to hear more are being planted. Where are those new oaks being planted? All the best— Tawny Day Sterios Yoga Teacher, Doula, Mother + Circle Guide ॐ www.tawnysterios.com 500hr. RYT Sent from my tiny iPhone, sorry for any typos! Be Well, Be You, LOVE On Apr 6, 2026, at 7:36 PM, Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tawny, Thank you for your email on this topic. I have written back to several other community members who have written in, about this topic, and I am going to share that message here. Not that it matters too terribly much, because it is still an old tree. But, our dating of the tree is somewhere between ~60-80 years old. I assure you that there were multiple independent arborists hired by SLO Rep to look at this issue over time, and their permit request to remove the tree was after much expert feedback outside the city. So, the city isn’t actually removing the tree, it’s SLO Rep. But, they needed the city’s permission for the permit. Anyway, here is the email, I have sent to other residents with more context and information. Thanks again for writing about this and for caring for our trees: Thank you for the email. I really appreciate your concern for the tree. I was very, very unhappy as well, with the need for SLO Rep to submit a request for a permit to remove the tree after almost 15 years of working toward a plan to build the theater that protected the tree. It was very upsetting to learn that the information we had been working under for so many years, was based on old, 13 and now known-to-be-inaccurate information about the tree's ability to survive the building of the theater. (The tree DID survive the building of the parking structure, but it was damaged. And multiple arborists have confirmed that the additional damage of construction of the theater would be unsurvivable.) SLO Rep was and is very disappointed with this as well. They have provided a statement to the community explaining the process for making the decision to remove the tree. See that statement here:https://www.slorep.org/a-new- stage/a-message-from-our-president/ For more information and clarity on all of this, especially the City’s role in it, you are also welcome to go back and watch the deliberations of the meeting where the council decided to approve their permit on Youtube. The meeting was on February 3. On a positive note, if there is one to be seen in this situation, as part of SLO Rep's development plan, they will be replacing the removed three on the property with 4 new trees...one in the spot where the tree will be removed and 3 more along Nipomo Street. The City is also in the process of planting 10,000 trees over the next several years...many, many of them are oaks, and they are being planted where they are much more likely to survive, than in our urban center. Oaks are not a great species, it turns out, for areas surrounded by concrete, streets and buildings. Thanks for caring about our city's trees so very much. I care about them too. I just wanted to be clear that we did not WANT to cut the tree down. Please let me know if you have further questions. Michelle From: Tawny Sterios < Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 4:28 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Keep the tree 苪苩 Dear Michelle, I am writing to express my strong support for preserving the century-old oak tree that is currently under consideration for removal. This tree is not only a vital part of our local ecosystem but also a cherished symbol of our community’s history and identity. 14 The loss of this tree would be deeply felt by many residents, and I believe that preserving it aligns with our shared commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship S a tree city. Thank you very much for considering this request. I trust that you will take the community’s sentiments into account. Warm regards, Tawny Sterios. Tawny Day Sterios Yoga Teacher, Doula, Mother + Circle Guide ॐ www.tawnysterios.com 500hr. RYT Sent from my tiny iPhone, sorry for any typos! Be Well, Be You, LOVE 15 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Monday, April 6, 2026 6:16 AM To:Marx, Jan Subject:Re: Oak Tree Jan, Will do. Chip On Apr 5, 2026, at 10:07 PM, Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> wrote: City council is getting bombarded by pleas to save the Oak. As SLO Rep faces another find raising challenge, the Board may want to reconsider the decision to take out that oak and, thus become heroes (not villains) in this real life drama. Please forward this to Kevin and team. Jan Get Outlook for iOS From: Mark Johnson < Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2026 5:21:06 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Subject: Oak Tree Dear Council Member Marx, My name is Mark Johnson and I live about 100 yards away from the magnificent oak tree that grows near the corner of Nipomo and Monterey. Numerous independent arborists have concluded that this tree is healthy and that it will survive construction of the new Little Theater. Please protect this wonderful tree and appoint a mutually-acceptable independent arborist to evaluate this tree and its prospects. Sadly, in these divided political times, it is very difficult for the public to trust statements from official city employees, like the official City Arborist. Thank you for your consideration, Mark — Mark S. Johnson 16 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 28 From:Szentesi, Whit Sent:Wednesday, April 1, 2026 8:52 AM To:Bulbul Rajagopal; Gault, Walter Subject:Re: Media request: New Times SLO I would recommend reaching out to SLO Rep, as they this is related to their project. The City is not actually doing any of the removal, to my knowledge. Whit Szentesi pronouns she/her/hers Public Communications Manager City Administration 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E wszentes@slocity.org T 805.783.7716 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Bulbul Rajagopal <brajagopal@newtimesslo.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 1:43 PM To: Szentesi, Whit <wszentes@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Media request: New Times SLO Hi Whitney and Walter, Is there a confirmed timeline for when the oak tree near the proposed SLO Rep building will be removed? Was the City Council's 4-1 vote on its removal the final say in the matter? Best, Bulbul ––––– Bulbul Rajagopal (she/her) Staff Writer New Times Media Group PRINT · DIGITAL · MOBILE · TICKETING NEW TIMES San Luis Obispo County's News & Entertainment Weekly San Luis Obispo | (805) 592-0412 | www.NewTimesSLO.com SUN Northern Santa Barbara County's News & Entertainment Weekly Santa Maria | (805) 347-1968 | www.SantaMariaSun.com 29 MY805TIX Your Local Ticketing Solution 30 From:Francis, Emily Sent:Monday, March 30, 2026 7:47 PM To:Richard Schmidt Subject:Re: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Hi Richard, Thank you for looping the council into your continued correspondence on the SLOREP oak tree issue. I appreciate you keeping me informed. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 9:02 AM, Richard Schmidt < wrote: I think the council should be aware of this correspondence thread -- chronological from bottom. This controversy is not going away. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Richard Schmidt < To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 at 08:58:08 AM PDT Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Dear Ms. Nichter and SLOREP Board Members, I do hope my comments and the comments of others addressed to the Board are getting to all the individual board members, for otherwise they would have no idea the amount of community concern percolating over SLOREP’s planned removal of the oak tree. Since my last letter I’ve been quietly observing new developments, including the kind and generous offer by private citizens to pay for arboricultural work to protect the tree and ultimate tree removal should the tree not survive. I am, frankly, horrified at SLOREP’s brusk and belligerent rejection of that offer, and SLOREP’s declaration that this is the end of its willingness to talk about saving the tree. Indeed, that sounds like arrogant detached entitlement speaking, and does not speak well for SLOREP’s long-standing beneficial-to-SLOREP community partnership. I am shocked at this. Let’s just be blunt about this: Without the gift of venue and further gifts of monetary support from we the people of SLO, SLOREP wouldn’t be what it is today, and might not exist at all. Some appreciation from SLOREP might be in order. Let me remind SLOREP once again — this not your tree, it is a public tree that belongs to we the people of SLO. As a condition of the lease we the people granted SLOREP for permanent use of our land, SLOREP pledged to save the oak. Verbatim from your lease: 31 “SLOREP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey . . .” “Shall” is a promise, an obligation, a requirement, not something to be tossed away if SLOREP doesn’t like the cost of doing what it promised in order to get its lease. Now, instead of taking “ALL reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” our public tree, SLOREP says it cannot be bothered, that moving ahead quickly with total site clearance and construction is more important. The reasons SLOREP cites for its position ring hollow, some because of questionable factuality, others because they use language my college mate Dave Barry calls “Marketing Speak, which is sort of like English, except that it doesn’t actually mean anything.” Here’s my take on major features of SLOREP’s current position. Extra Cost. At the top of SLOREP’s latest explanation for refusing to save the oak, even with generous financial assistance from private citizens, is that it costs more than cutting down the tree and totally clearing the site so contractors don’t have to bother with precautionary measures, or what SLOREP calls “restricted staging required to protect the tree” — stuff like fencing off the tree’s dripline, which is totally standard practice on construction sites with trees. If the tree is to be saved, SLOREP claims it will cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” more than removing the tree. Here’s the problem with that rationalization. We’re talking about money SLOREP would have had to spend to fulfill the tree preservation clause in its lease, so it’s not a new monetary requirement caused by what SLOREP seemingly regards as unreasonable public demands to preserve the tree. Nor is it in any way an increase in costs over what SLOREP would have paid to follow its lease terms. Now that SLOREP has its lease and permission to proceed with construction on public land, is SLOREP being too cheap to spend what it would have had to spend to fulfill terms of its lease with we the people? Sure it’s cheaper this way, but that’s not the deal we made with each other. SLOREP, please don’t Trump us by tearing up the agreement we and you agreed to. Extensive Hand Excavation Required. SLOREP also makes much of the cost and inconvenience of “specialized manual excavation” for the building’s foundation. The nature, reason for, and extent of this alleged hand excavation are not spelled out — simply repeated emphatically as if that bestows legitimacy. As an architect I don’t get it. Mechanical excavators come in all sizes, with buckets from small to enormous. It seems to me that using appropriately sized equipment almost all excavation could be done with machinery. Further, since (as detailed below in earlier email) the likely extent of the tree’s root system is being greatly exaggerated, there would likely be far less root intrusion beneath the building footprint than the arborist’s alarmist report suggests — but nobody knows for sure since SLOREP has refused to hire a different arborist to study the issue of actual root spread and location. SLOREP’s Two “Independent" “Professional” Arborists. SLOREP claims “two independent professional arborists conclud[ed] that the tree is unlikely to survive,” and therefore no effort to save it is worthwhile. There are numerous problems with this statement, which has been repeated in its essence in numerous documents, including questions about its fundamental factuality. In previous emails (see below) I have detailed major factual problems. In summary, the hired arborist’s report bases its non- viability claim due to root spread not on actual site investigation but on a textbook rule of thumb about possible root spread patterns in an undisturbed non-urban setting. This tree has been subject to root zone interference and disturbance throughout its urban life, with building foundations dug in, dug out, underground utility installation and removal, ground-intruding site improvements installed and removed, etc. Previous building footprints were even more restrictive of root zone spread than the theater will be. I find it curious that SLOREP, if truly shocked by the arborist’s report of non-viability, didn’t bother to get a second opinion from another arborist, as a prudent person would upon receiving an unexpected dire medical diagnosis. If SLOREP’s intent was to “take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” the tree, this omission is weird. The repeated claim SLOREP worked with two “professional” arborists is also weird, since each message from SLOREP repeats the word “professional” as if this has meaning. Does it have meaning? One doesn’t speak of professional doctors, or professional lawyers, or professional any other profession. So why arborists? Perhaps because “arborist” is not a profession the state reg ulates and licenses, as it does for actual professions like lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, plumbers, contractors, cosmetologists or real estate brokers. While arborists offering certain services must have contractor licenses, California does not license arborists, nor does it limit who can call herself an arborist. So the term “professional” arborist is without meaning. Except as “Marketing Speak.” Likewise, the SLOREP claim two “independent” arborists agree on the tree’s non-viability also has factual problems. The arborist hired by SLOREP made the non-viability claim. According to SLOREP this came out of the blue, was an unwanted surprise. The obvious and intelligent thing to do next would be seek a second opinion, preferably from an oak expert. Another intelligent action would have been to determine where roots are actually located rather than believing they’re where a textbook rule of thumb says they might be located and that, preposterously, up to 95% of them will be disturbed by construction. SLOREP did neither. Instead, according to SLOREP’s own account, weeks or months were spent with contractors hashing out … what, exactly? Why not find 32 out if the allegation of non-viability was supported by other experts? Maybe the whole fuss was over little-to-nothing. Now SLOREP alleges its refusal to plan for tree preservation stems from two “independent” arborists agreeing about non-viability, implying this conclusion is therefore beyond questioning. The second “independent” arborist is the city arborist, and attributing this role to him is both improper and quite simply wrong, for two reasons: 1. The city arborist’s role is as administrator of the removal permit process, an administrative not a determinative role. It is not within the city arborist’s job description to reach the expert determinative conclusions SLOREP claims he reached on its behalf. 2. Even if it were his job to reach determinative conclusions about viability, he may lack the experience and knowledge to reach the sort of conclusion SLOREP attributes to him (see LinkedIn), and SLOREP does the young man’s career no favor by verbally inflating his role and embroiling him in this controversy. Fact: there was one arborist advancing the claim of non-viability, not two. SLOREP could have, but chose not to, seek a second expert opinion. (SLOREP has also rejected expertise offered free by citizen arborists.) Fiduciary Responsibilities. SLOREP does owe the public fiduciary accountability for how its project is carried out. SLOREP apparently defines this duty as monetary prudence deferential to a select group of “donors.” I say select group of donors because SLOREP’s actions suggest not all donors merit this respect. For example, I am a building fund donor to the tune of about $150, but my concerns and needs are denied by SLOREP. I am actually a donor in two respects: 1. As part owner of SLOREP’s high value prime downtown site which we the people are allowing SLOREP to use for free essentially forever (at least for 99 years), after previous multi-decade free use of the old public library building. 2. As a direct construction funder through the city’s $6.7 million gift to SLOREP. So I have given SLOREP about $150 by that means. Do I not therefore deserve SLOREP’s fiduciary respect? Fiduciary responsibilities may take many forms; it isn’t just about penny-pinching. For example, how does SLOREP respond to major donors who would be furious about the tree’s removal were they able to be so? It doesn’t appear SLOREP has awareness of this fiduciary issue. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (an op-ed the Tribune declined to print): I suspect my old friend Harold Miossi, whose charitable trust has given $1.5 million to the SLO Repertory Theater’s building fund, would be hopping mad SLOREP wants to cut down a magnificent publicly owned coast live oak it promised to save. Harold loved these oaks, and sparked my own interest in them. In fact, he was my first “oak teacher.” I grew up in the midwest, where deciduous oaks dominate many forests, but had never seen an evergreen oak till coming to California. When I arrived in SLO for my first job — as a reporter for the Telegram-Tribune — I was struck by the unfamiliar beauty of these spreading sprawling trees, unlike any tree I knew from the old country. As I explored the outdoors, I photographed oaks I found interesting, and soon some of my photos were turning up in the newspaper — like in a photo spread on the oaks of San Luis Mountain in the paper’s Saturday magazine. Harold made my acquaintance early on. A prominent rancher, he was chair of the new SLO Sierra Club chapter, and something of an environmental hell-raiser. He was known for stopping a CalTrans scheme to cut down Cuesta Pass and fill Cuesta Canyon, where his family ranch was located. He had also fought PG&E’s proposal to relocate its ill-fated Bodega Head nuclear plant, with an earthquake fault right under it, to Diablo Canyon. At that time Diablo was smack in the middle of a stretch of coastline the feds were eyeing for a national seashore. Harold also led a campaign to create the first national wilderness area in our region — to designate Lopez Canyon, which is right over Cuesta ridge from SLO, as wilderness. In me, a kid reporter, he found access to the news. He’d stop by the office frequently with news tidbits, which is exactly what any reporter loves. I was assigned to do in-depth coverage of the Lopez Canyon wilderness. Harold was my tour guide. For two days we hiked the wilderness, canyon and ridge tops, getting a sense of the land. It was on these trips that Harold taught me about the different live oaks of our area. On the coast we find Quercus agrifolia, the coast live oak, but in Lopez Canyon there’s a second type, Quercus chrysolepis, the canyon oak. Superficially similar, these two species differ in shape, size, leaf, and acorn shape. The wilderness quest proved frustrating for local conservationists. Our congressman, Burt Talcott, was opposed. Eventually we got a new congressman, a youngish guy named Leon Panetta, who was all for it, and the Santa Lucia Wilderness became reality. The Diablo Canyon controversy tore the national Sierra Club apart. Among club board members, only one had been to Diablo, Martin Litton. The rest talked about Diablo being a “treeless slot” with little value. Litton knew better — one of the finest coast live oak forests was located there. It included what Litton called the largest coast live oak in the world, with a spread of 150 f eet. It was a beauty. Litton photographed it, and Harold, a friend of Litton’s, borrowed Litton’s negatives so we could make prints for the 33 newspaper. PG&E planned to obliterate this fine oak forest to make space for a switching yard. But pressure was brought to at least save the world’s largest oak, though by the time PG&E finished “trimming,” it was much smaller. In being willing to work with this remarkable tree, PG&E showed more flexibility and public spirit than SLOREP, which has worked itself into a tizzy, convinced their choice is the theater OR the tree, when in fact it’s the theater AND the tree. SLOREP claims, based on easily refuted assumptions about the tree’s root spread, the tree has no chance of survival, so it plans to cut it down despite promising, in writing, to save it. SLOREP has absolutely nothing to lose by leaving the tree in place, taking reasonable care during construction to protect it, and then nurturing it to assure its continuing health. Nothing to lose, and a whole lot in the good citizen department to gain. I suspect that’s the outcome SLOREP’s generous patron would prefer. So SLOREP, honor Harold Miossi’s memory, his love for live oaks, his large monetary gift, and do right by our oak tree. Give it the chance you promised. The chance it deserves. SLOREP directors, I urge you to think carefully about the problems with your current position regarding the oak, and to live up to your obligation under your land lease to protect the oak with “all reasonable efforts.” Chopping down the oak for operational and economic convenience is not a “reasonable effort.” It is arborcide. Does SLOREP want arborcide to be its legacy to our city? SLOREP has created this political problem with its ill-intent towards this remarkable publicly-owned tree. Politics and the public arts don’t mix well — witness the Kennedy Center fiasco. Continuing on your present path could well make SLOREP our local equivalent. I, along with many others with arboricultural knowledge and experience with oaks, reject the dire predictions of your hired arborist. Given a chance, this tree should do quite well. So, please — work around this tree as you build your theater and make every effort to see that it has hundreds of years of life to live. Richard Schmidt PS. A note about distribution of this email. I asked previously if letters addressed to the board went to all board members or just the chair, and didn’t get a reply. So I have attempted to obtain board member emails from public sources (but could only find a handful), and have included those as bcc. I’m also noticing the city council of our correspondence. On Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 12:10:32 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for sharing your professional perspective as an architect. We recognize that this tree is a significant piece of the local landscape, and we respect the passion you and others have shown for its preservation. To answer your question, my previous response reflects the position of the SLO REP Board of Directors. Our decision was not reached lightly; it followed the independent assessments of two professional arborists who concluded that the tree is unlikel y to survive the next phase of construction. While we hear your concerns regarding the methodology of those reports, SLO REP and the SLO City Council have accepted these professional findings as the basis for our path forward. We believe we have exhausted all reasonable avenues for preservation, and the City Council has agreed with us. I have posted a final statement regarding the tree on our website, which you can read here https://www.slorep.org/a-new- stage/a-message-from-our-president/. 34 At this stage, our focus must turn toward the construction of the theater and the long-term stewardship of the site. While we may remain at an impasse on this specific issue, we thank you for your engagement with SLOREP. Respectfully, Pam Nichter From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:31 PM To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site Re: Our Oak Tree’s Preservation, Letter #2 March 2, 2026 To Pam Nichter and SLOREP Board of Directors, Thank you, Ms. Nichter, for your response to my letter to the SLOREP board of directors. I appreciate your willingness to engage with criticism of the SLOREP decision to remove our live oak it promised to preserve as a condition of its land lease. That is very encouraging. I do have a question, though: did my letter get to the entire board and your response represents their careful reconsideration, or is it from you individually? I do hope my comments, and those of any others addressed to the board, reach the entire board, in a timely way. Given the public relations nightmare SLOREP is building for itself if tree removal takes place, I certainly hope the board will want to convene to reconsider this issue. I further hope the board will adopt the win-win-win solution I offer at the end of this letter. You make a forceful statement in support of pre-emptive tree removal. I however disagree with much of the “evidence” used to support that decision, and therefore as a co-owner of this tree, wish to continue this discussion. Please do not lose sight of the fact that this is not SLOREP’s tree; it is our tree — belonging to we the people of SLO — and hundreds, perhaps thousands of us, are upset with what’s happening as a result of our extending SLOREP a most generous long- term lease for use of our property. In short, I believe pre-emptive removal of this tree prior to construction is both unnecessary and wrong. I’ll organize my discussion around four themes: 1, the arborist’s work; 2, mitigations to benefit the tree; 3, eco-services provided by the oak; and 4, a suggested win-win-win resolution to this faux pas. 1. Arborist’s Work. • Arborist’s scope of work. In your letter, you state that SLOREP has been committed to preserving the tree, and that in preparation for construction SLOREP consulted an arborist to get protective guidelines. You state: “We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree.” That is entirely proper, and as a licensed architect myself, exactly what I would expect at this point. The arborist, however, seems to have a different view of what his work assignment was. In his report he characterizes it as: “Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak . . .” Potential for protection? In the next sentence his report is referenced as a “feasibility of retention” study. Feasibility of retention suggests retention is a dubious option subject to subjective opinion, when it is actually a requirement of SLOREP’s legal agreement with the city. It is impossible for me to square your forceful statement of intent for the arborist study with the arborist’s own characterization of the assigned purpose of his work. I think you can see the problem of these incompatible statements of purpose and intent. If his given assignment was to provide protective guidelines, why is he even talking about “potential for protection” or “feasibility of retention”? And if his report wasn’t what SLOREP asked for, why was it accepted and used to undercut SLOREP’s intent? • Who hired this arborist? It is unclear from the public record who did this hire, and to whom he answered. SLOREP board? SLOREP staff? Architect? Contractor? City?Given your forceful statement of purpose for the report, I suspect he was not answerable to the board. 35 And why this particular arborist? What unique qualifications did he present to get this particularly sensitive job? What recommendations featured in the hire? Was there any sort of bidding process? Were numerous arborists considered, interviewed and evaluated? Or was this a let’s-go-to-this-guy hire without comparison or competition? There are oak specialists, and my impression is they were not consulted. And if his recommendation to execute the tree was truly unexpected and unwanted, why did SLOREP fall in behind it and not immediately seek a second opinion? Different arborists see things differently, and I’m confident SLOREP could have found one more interested in helping you save the tree. • Basis for stating tree is doomed by construction. It appears condemnation of this tree stems from an eye-popping claim: that construction would disturb 86% to 95% of the so-called “critical root zone” (CRZ) and thus probably kill the tree. Eye-popping allegations like that merit critical analysis, of which there is no evidence in the public record. Using my grade-school mathematics skills, let me toss this claim into a ray of sunlight. Baseline best practice construction-site tree protection is protecting ground within the tree’s drip-line (the outer extent of its branches). To attain 95% disturbance while following that best practice would require a CRZ diameter on the order of 300 feet! Since the arborist report alleges a hypothetical CRZ diameter of 96 feet, the arborist’s report is internally inconsistent — and its 95% measure would thus be off by about a multiple of three. So there’s a serious and obvious problem with the reliability of the extent-of-damage analysis that drives the tree’s death sentence. I have no idea where this 95% root damage claim comes from, but if I were intending to preserve this tree and had this thrown in my face unexpectedly, I’d sure ask a lot of questions and seek answers from many other ideologically neutral sources. • Is CRZ relevant? CRZ, on which the tree’s condemnation is based, is a theory. It is an abstract rule of thumb that may or may not apply to any particular tree. The only way to determine actual dimensions of a tree’s root zone is on-site investigation. It appears there has been none of that at this site. Instead we have vague allegations of unspecified damage due to street improvements and the claim of hugely expansive root systems away from the street. No concrete evidence. CRZ has faced criticism for being overly simplistic, as it doesn’t account for complex interactions between tree roots and their environment. Critics argue relying solely on CRZ can lead to incorrect assessments of tree health and survival prospects . So determination of tree health based solely or mainly on rule-of-thumb CRZ allegations, as this one was, presents at best only part of the picture. • This Tree on This Site. Even cursory thought about this tree and its site suggest a rule-of-thumb CRZ hypothesis about root extent is likely erroneous. This tree has never lived in an environment where such widespread roots are likely. Consider the tree’s history. It grew in someone’s front yard. Its root footprint was constrained by building foundations (that are not too different in location from the theater’s) and soil-intrusive site improvements like sidewalks, driveways and underground utility connections. It has also had public right of way impediments to root spread — the city sidewalk, gutter and street pavement with underground municipal utilities are not something new with the parking garage construction, despite what the arborist report suggests. This tree never had the opportunity to extend its root system in the manner the CRZ analysis assumes. (Photos of the tree with previous buildings are included in the attached pdf file at the end of this thread. They show how constrained the root system would have been by earlier site features.) Then the site was cleared, with heavy equipment: other vegetation with root systems ripped out of the ground, buildings demolished, building foundations dug out, driveways and walkways dug out, underground utilities dug out. Lots of disturbance in the alleged CRZ root zone and years later no harm from it visible on the tree’s above ground parts. This tree’s entire life has been one of root-zone limitation, truncation and disturbance. It is an urban tree adapted to this sort of thing, not a forest virgin facing root disturbance for the first time. These facts undercut any validity to the rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis being used as grounds for justifying execution of this tree. Clearly this tree is an urban survivor. If ever there was a tree capable of suffering root damage and surviving it, this is it. 2. Mitigations for Construction Root Damage. There is always root damage when construction takes place near established trees. The purpose of a pre-construction arborist report is to prescribe ways that damage may be prevented to the extent possible, and mitigated to the extent protection is not possible. We’ll lump those two together and call them “mitigations.” The thing that strikes me about this report is it doesn’t provide mitigations. So if SLOREP’s “sole assignment [to the arborist] was to tell us how to protect the tree,” I find this omission odd. The report doesn’t provide what SLOREP says it asked for. 36 • Drip line zone. The baseline protective mitigation is “prevent damage within the drip line” because that’s where the most important roots are located. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing contractors to damage ground within the drip line. Best practices are to fence off the ground area to be protected. But this best practices mitigation goes unmentioned. Instead we have a diagram that shows unexplained extensive ground damage within the drip line. Why is there such damage? (If this damage is due to proposed new site features like paved walkways within the drip line, those features can and should be redesigned — moved outside the drip line; or if walkways must be there, raise them above ground level like a boardwalk or deck, and don’t put them in the ground. This sort of site improvement should never have been placed inside the drip line.) Further, not all roots are of equal importance when damaged. While roots do often extend beyond the drip line, the most serious damage to a tree comes from damaging roots well within the drip line. This is because that’s where one finds large roots that provide the tree’s structural support. • Oak Root Structure. Oaks typically have deep tap roots that provide support in addition to lateral roots. Roots that extend further than the drip line aren’t structural. They are “feeders,” the fibrous little guys familiar to anyone who gardens near trees. They can sustain considerable damage without seriously harming the tree. Further, this tree’s location across the street from San Luis Creek, in an area with a high water table, means it would have roots extending into water-table-moistened soil, thus providing a ready source of moisture to nourish the tree regardless of ground conditions in the feeder root zone. So that’s a natural mitigation this tree enjoys that many don’t. • Mitigation for Peripheral Root Loss. There are commonplace mitigations for peripheral root loss, but the arborist report suggests none. I find that omission interesting since it’s common practice for arborists to recommend rebalancing canopy size after root damage to reduce the amount of canopy the remaining roots must nourish. Such compensatory pruning of the canopy reduces the tree’s demand for water and nutrients. Balancing the canopy with a diminished root system reduces physiological stress and conserves energy for root regeneration. I find this omission especially odd given it is built into the SLOREP plan — there’s to be trimming of the tree facing the theater. Instead of viewing that trimming as a bad thing, as the arborist report does, it could be viewed positively as compensatory insurance in the event the root system is truncated by construction. Any root loss would thus be compensated for by the already pre-planned trimming. A good mitigation, in other words. • Can root spread be documented? If one cared to, one could figure out the real extent of this tree’s root spread. There are low- tech methods, like digging holes and seeing what's there, or higher tech methods like ground-penetrating radar. But, frankly, I’d not bother. The overwhelming evidence from the history of this tree on this site is the CRZ claims vastly overstate the extent of root spread, and I’d feel comfortable keeping the tree on that basis alone. • Replacement Trees. SLOREP will plant 5 new trees to replace this oak. There are many problems with this since none of the replacements are natives like the oak; it will be 50 years before they collectively have something approaching the mass and carbon sequestration of the one oak — if they even live that long; they will never provide the ecological services provided by this one oak, etc. The replacement species are what I refer to as “junk trees” that are inappropriate to our location. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of coral trees here — they’re ugly and don’t do well. Highly sensitive to frost, how will yours do when we have a recurrence of the 17 degree overnight low we had some winters ago (which did major damage even to the huge downtown ficus trees)? This species is a poor choice. The two other species are also junk trees — one can even become an invasive pest. None of them grow large enough to collectively come close to the canopy of the oak. They are a waste. I find it sort of funny the city is having SLOREP plant four street trees in front of the parking garage, and SLOREP feels good about this. Those trees would have been planted, with or without SLOREP’s involvement. The city has simply transferred the cost of those four trees from its budget to yours. Even with the addition of SLOREP’s 5 trees, the total number of trees on the parking garage/SLOREP site will be fewer than prior to construction. In other words, actual “mitigation” is less than one-to-one. 37 This is not real mitigation. There is no actual mitigation possible for the oak’s removal. But if SLOREP were to attempt such, I think it might look like planting several dozen coast live oaks, most off site for obvious spatial reasons. It would take decades even so to mitigate the loss of our one mature oak, but hopefully by then SLOREP would have accomplished something for our ecosystem that might provide a semblance of longer-term mitigation. 3. Eco-services Lost. Perhaps the most important thing about executing our oak is the eco-services it provides that will be lost with its removal. • Carbon sequestration. At the top of anyone’s list of eco-concerns today is climate change, and the realization that a couple centuries of putting previously sequestered fossil carbon into the atmosphere has brought the earth to a climate tipping point. Experts tell us what we do in the next decade is far more important than what we plan to do in the next half century — that we must do everything we can to cut down on carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration right now if we’re serious about seeking to avoid long-term climate catastrophe. Our large oak contains tons of sequestered carbon, and continues to sequester more and more carbon with each passing year. This is found most obviously in the wood and canopy, but also in the root zone, where carbon is sequestered into roots and soil. When a tree like this is cut down, all of this sequestration not only ends, but the shredded remains almost immediately re-release their sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. (Saving a small amount of this with lumber harvesting, as SLOREP plans, makes little difference as the carbon thus sequestered is such a small proportion of the whole.) Removing trees like this is exactly what climate experts say we should NOT be doing right now; it increases carbon release into the atmosphere and diminishes high-level on-going sequestration. I don’t think the unnecessary removal of trees like this is ethical under these circumstances. • Local Climate Moderation. Tree canopies mitigate urban heat in a number of ways: protecting the ground level from direct sun, reflecting heat upwards, canopy evapotranspiration that cools temperatures, etc. Our oak does all of that with spades. Your coral tree replacement will do very little. This is about more than outdoor human health and comfort. Urban heat is a major driver of increased energy/carbon usage (like for air conditioning when a/c might not otherwise be needed) which drives us closer to climate collapse. Tree canopy protection from direct sun also helps preserve soil moisture, and that reduces wildfire danger by maintaining more moist ground level vegetation. SLO brags about its tree canopy, but at 16% coverage, it’s actually pretty poor. Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Jo se, and even New York City have much higher percentage cover. We are ahead of LA. • Oak’s Contribution to Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystem. It is sad that most people understand so little about how the ecosystem that we are part of works, even the most basic stuff like Barry Commoner’s declaration that in nature everything is related to everything else. In this respect, our mighty oak has quite a story to tell. Humans don’t exist apart from nature. If nature collapses, we do too. Increasingly scientists are telling us a healthy biodiverse ecosystem starts with the tiniest organisms and works upwards from there. Organisms have their particular niches, and often cannot be shuffled around at human convenience; Monarch butterflies dependence on milkweed to reproduce is a well-known example of this principle. As far as our oak goes, this is far too complex to discuss deeply here, but allow me to provide one example to show how its life interweaves with lives of other species: its relationship to songbirds, which are species of local concern (meaning they’re in significant decline). The decline stems from loss of suitable habitat, including the loss of native oaks. “Habitat” provides not only sheltered places for resting and nesting, but also plant species that provide or support the particular foods on which birds depend. The city has done a decent job of revegetating the previously exotic-filled, and thus sterile, San Luis Creek corridor across from SLOREP with native tree species that nourish songbirds, and this potentiates the value of our oak. Note, native is essential — native trees support native invertebrates which support native birds. Introduce exotic trees, and you’ve interrupted the natural synergy. A simple example, and touchstone, for assessing a tree’s nutritional support for birds is to measure invertebrate populations supported by that tree. Caterpillar species is a stand-in to illustrate this. According to Xerces Society studies, a native oak can support up to 275 species of native caterpillars, making them incredibly valuable for native songbird viability. Our oak is an incredible food resource for our declining riparian songbird populations. The birds’ presence in the oak will also bring delight to your patrons. A coral tree will not fill this niche; it speaks a foreign eco-language. These sorts of ethical considerations need to be included in decisions about retaining/replacing trees, particularly those stalwart 38 natives like our oak, with its known ecological roles and benefits. 4. A Win/Win/Win Easy-to-Implement Solution. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a solution that’s a win for the tree, a win for SLOREP’s public relations problem, and a win for sustaining the ecological value of our urban forest? Alas, there is one staring us in the face. It is this: leave the tree in place, work around it with proper best practices care for it on a construction site, cut what must be cut but no more (roots and canopy), and allow the tree to recover and thrive. What is there to lose? Absolutely nothing. Worst case, in five years the tree dies and can easily be removed with a lift truck from the street. Best and most likely case, this wonderful tree continues to live, delight us, and offer its eco-services for several more centuries. Please note, this solution is entirely reasonable. The arborist report’s negativity is based on a lot of guess work based on subjective interpretation of rule-of-thumb textbook information, and is not based on examination of actual root densities and locations on the site. Circumstantially, given past construction and deconstruction on the site (described above and illustrated in photos in pdf attachment at end of the thread), the likelihood of a root structure like that hypothesized in the arborist report is small. The theater footprint appears to partly replicate that of earlier buildings on the site, whose foundations would have inhibited root spread. All this suggests the tree has a very good chance at robust survival. Further, with roots deep into the ground where the riparian water table is high and plentiful year round, this tree is uniquely suited to weather any harms that might occur to its peripheral roots. It will not be dependent upon peripheral roots for its water supply. Since conventional remediation for root damage is canopy pruning, and such pruning is already part of the SLOREP plan, that mitigation is already built into the preservation plan. Remember, construction around trees always damages roots. With time, any root damage sustained will repair itself. There’s no need to be hysterical about the future of this tree due to careful excavation in its potential peripheral root zone. The benefits to SLOREP’s reputation from changing course would be huge. Are you aware the city council received a large number of letters opposing tree removal? Those spontaneous letters represent a tiny fraction of people upset about removing this publicly-owned oak. If SLOREP were to say it’s had a change of heart, and will give the tree a chance, you’d be heroes instead of bums in the public’s mind. Think about it — this solution costs you nothing, while it changes the vibe by showing you really do care about our tree. Finally, I’d suggest SLOREP hire a different arborist to draw up a construction protection protocol, one “whose sole assignment [is] to tell us how to protect the tree.” If SLOREP cannot afford that, I’d respectfully suggest maybe board members could chip in to cover the modest cost. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment: pdf file with photos of earlier site development showing relation of tree to buildings. On Monday, February 23, 2026 at 03:30:16 PM PST, Pam Nichter <psnichter@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the oak tree. Please forgive my delayed reply; I have been out of the country visiting my daughter. For 13 years, that tree’s preservation has been a core priority in our building plans. Since 2012 when the City first invited us to build, we have invested significant resources into a design specifically intended to protect the oak. We have operated in good faith, believing – as did the City – that our footprint and design plans were compatible with the tree’s survival. As garage construction neared completion last July, we began preparing the City-required tree protection plan. We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree. We were devastated by his conclusion that the tree was unlikely to survive any construction. Despite the arborist’s findings, we subsequently spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. Ultimately, no viable alternative was found. These are the insurmountable facts today: 39 - Root size and vulnerability: The tree’s critical root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making the tree highly vulnerable to foundation work. - Design limitation: As the Council was informed Feb. 3, no feasible changes to our design would improve the tree’s odds of survival. - Prior Impact: As the City Staff report noted, the root structure had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure. Following the City Council’s final decision, we have shifted our focus toward a responsible succession plan that honors the tree’s legacy. Our Board has committed to a plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing trees, all drought-tolerant species. In addition, we have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber to give the tree a permanent, meaningful presence within the new theatre. I firmly believe that both SLO REP and the City have acted in good faith and exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. I hope you can support our overall project for the cultural and economic benefits it will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors On Feb 19, 2026, at 11:40 AM, Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear SLOREP Board of Directors, Please put an end to plans to remove the large coast live oak on SLOREP’s future theater site. That is the ethical resolution of this ill-considered plan. When SLOREP struck a deal with SLOCity to use public land at Monterey/Nipomo for $1 per year for 99 years, they signed a lease. With regard to the beautiful coast live oak on the site — a tree owned, incidentally, not by SLOREP but by we the people of San Luis Obispo —, the lease states “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree . . .” There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word “shall” in a legal document. Despite promising, in writing, to “preserve, protect and maintain” this tree, SLOREP recently went to the city seeking permis sion to remove this much-cherished and wonderful tree rather than preserve and protect it. The excuse for this was provided by a private arborist report solicited and paid for by SLOREP that instead of laying out how to preserve and protect during construction, what one would expect at this stage of development planning, devoted itself to rationalizations for the tree’s removal — rationalizations that in my opinion, and the opinions of others, hold little merit. It would appear, despite denials, that SLOREP wants the tree out of the way to make construction easier. How SLOREP proceeds from this point will say a lot about SLOREP’s values, as actions reflect an organization’s values better than words. Will SLOREP double down and chop down this publicly-owned tree? Or will it preserve and protect what it pledged to preserve and protect in order to get its lease? SLOREP’s reputation has already suffered from its going to the city to request tree removal. Proceeding with that removal, in my judgement, will cement that reputational loss into long-term disgust toward and distrust of the SLOREP brand. Why go that route? You have little to nothing to lose by preserving this tree on the theater site. Worst case, it dies later and has to be removed. But I don’t think that worst case is likely. Oaks like this aren’t hothouse flowers, they are resilient survivors. My hunch is if SLOREP takes reasonable steps to protect the tree during construction, the tree will outlive SLOREP’s 99-year lease. You owe it the chance to do that. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 40 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Monday, March 30, 2026 5:00 PM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:FW: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! From: Chip Visci < Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 4:43 PM To: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevin@slorep.org> Subject: Re: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Jan, Thanks for the info. We have heard several times from Mr. Schmidt and we gave him a thoughtful and courteous reply. Enjoy your trip. We can catch up when you return. Chip On Mar 30, 2026, at 1:57 PM, Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> wrote: Heads up, Chip and Kevin. I’m going to be out of the country tomorrow through April 15, so wanted you to be aware of this brewing situation in case something happens during the time I sm gone. If there is any way SLO Rep can avoid these negative optics, you may want to consider your options. The community was promised by the City for decades that the oak would be protected, but the anger at it being destroyed seems now to be aimed at SLO Rep. Best Jan Get Outlook for iOS From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:02:29 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! I think the council should be aware of this correspondence thread -- chronological from bottom. This controversy is not going away. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Richard Schmidt < To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 at 08:58:08 AM PDT 41 Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Dear Ms. Nichter and SLOREP Board Members, I do hope my comments and the comments of others addressed to the Board are getting to all the individual board members, for otherwise they would have no idea the amount of community concern percolating over SLOREP’s planned removal of the oak tree. Since my last letter I’ve been quietly observing new developments, including the kind and generous offer by private citizens to pay for arboricultural work to protect the tree and ultimate tree removal should the tree not survive. I am, frankly, horrified at SLOREP’s brusk and belligerent rejection of that offer, and SLOREP’s declaration that this is the end of its willingness to talk about saving the tree. Indeed, that sounds like arrogant detached entitlement speaking, and does not speak well for SLOREP’s long-standing beneficial-to-SLOREP community partnership. I am shocked at this. Let’s just be blunt about this: Without the gift of venue and further gifts of monetary support from we the people of SLO, SLOREP wouldn’t be what it is today, and might not exist at all. Some appreciation from SLOREP might be in order. Let me remind SLOREP once again — this not your tree, it is a public tree that belongs to we the people of SLO. As a condition of the lease we the people granted SLOREP for permanent use of our land, SLOREP pledged to save the oak. Verbatim from your lease: “SLOREP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey . . .” “Shall” is a promise, an obligation, a requirement, not something to be tossed away if SLOREP doesn’t like the cost of doing what it promised in order to get its lease. Now, instead of taking “ALL reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” our public tree, SLOREP says it cannot be bothered, that moving ahead quickly with total site clearance and construction is more important. The reasons SLOREP cites for its position ring hollow, some because of questionable factuality, others because they use language my college mate Dave Barry calls “Marketing Speak, which is sort of like English, except that it doesn’t actually mean anything.” Here’s my take on major features of SLOREP’s current position. Extra Cost. At the top of SLOREP’s latest explanation for refusing to save the oak, even with generous financial assistance from private citizens, is that it costs more than cutting down the tree and totally clearing the site so contractors don’t have to bother with precautionary measures, or what SLOREP calls “restricted staging required to protect the tree” — stuff like fencing off the tree’s dripline, which is totally standard practice on construction sites with trees. If the tree is to be saved, SLOREP claims it will cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” more than removing the tree. Here’s the problem with that rationalization. We’re talking about money SLOREP would have had to spend to fulfill the tree preservation clause in its lease, so it’s not a new monetary requirement caused by what SLOREP seemingly regards as unreasonable public demands to preserve the tree. Nor is it in any way an increase in costs over what SLOREP would have paid to follow its lease terms. Now that SLOREP has its lease and permission to proceed with construction on public land, is SLOREP being too cheap to spend what it would have had to spend to fulfill terms of its lease with we the people? Sure it’s cheaper this way, but that’s not the deal we made with each other. SLOREP, please don’t Trump us by tearing up the agreement we and you agreed to. Extensive Hand Excavation Required. SLOREP also makes much of the cost and inconvenience of “specialized manual excavation” for the building’s foundation. The nature, reason for, and extent of this alleged hand excavation are not spelled out — simply repeated emphatically as if that bestows legitimacy. As an architect I don’t get it. Mechanical excavators come in all sizes, with buckets from small to enormous. It seems to me that using appropriately sized equipment almost all excavation could be done with machinery. Further, since (as detailed below in earlier email) the likely extent of the tree’s root system is being greatly exaggerated, there would likely be far less root intrusion beneath the building footprint than the arborist’s alarmist report suggests — but nobody knows for sure since SLOREP has refused to hire a different arborist to study the issue of actual root spread and location. SLOREP’s Two “Independent" “Professional” Arborists. SLOREP claims “two independent professional 42 arborists conclud[ed] that the tree is unlikely to survive,” and therefore no effort to save it is worthwhile. There are numerous problems with this statement, which has been repeated in its essence in numerous documents, including questions about its fundamental factuality. In previous emails (see below) I have detailed major factual problems. In summary, the hired arborist’s report bases its non-viability claim due to root spread not on actual site investigation but on a textbook rule of thumb about possible root spread patterns in an undisturbed non-urban setting. This tree has been subject to root zone interference and disturbance throughout its urban life, with building foundations dug in, dug out, underground utility installation and removal, ground-intruding site improvements installed and removed, etc. Previous building footprints were even more restrictive of root zone spread than the theater will be. I find it curious that SLOREP, if truly shocked by the arborist’s report of non-viability, didn’t bother to get a second opinion from another arborist, as a prudent person would upon receiving an unexpected dire medical diagnosis. If SLOREP’s intent was to “take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” the tree, this omission is weird. The repeated claim SLOREP worked with two “professional” arborists is also weird, since each message from SLOREP repeats the word “professional” as if this has meaning. Does it have meaning? One doesn’t speak of professional doctors, or professional lawyers, or professional any other profession. So why arborists? Perhaps because “arborist” is not a profession the state regulates and licenses, as it does for actual professions like lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, plumbers, contractors, cosmetologists or real estate brokers. While arborists offering certain services must have contractor licenses, California does not license arborists, nor does it limit who can call herself an arborist. So the term “professional” arborist is without meaning. Except as “Marketing Speak.” Likewise, the SLOREP claim two “independent” arborists agree on the tree’s non-viability also has factual problems. The arborist hired by SLOREP made the non-viability claim. According to SLOREP this came out of the blue, was an unwanted surprise. The obvious and intelligent thing to do next would be seek a second opinion, preferably from an oak expert. Another intelligent action would have been to determine where roots are actually located rather than believing they’re where a textbook rule of thumb says they might be located and that, preposterously, up to 95% of them will be disturbed by construction. SLOREP did neither. Instead, according to SLOREP’s own account, weeks or months were spent with contractors hashing out … what, exactly? Why not find out if the allegation of non-viability was supported by other experts? Maybe the whole fuss was over little-to- nothing. Now SLOREP alleges its refusal to plan for tree preservation stems from two “independent” arborists agreeing about non-viability, implying this conclusion is therefore beyond questioning. The second “independent” arborist is the city arborist, and attributing this role to him is both improper and quite simply wrong , for two reasons: 1. The city arborist’s role is as administrator of the removal permit process, an administrative not a determinative role. It is not within the city arborist’s job description to reach the expert determinative conclusions SLOREP claims he reached on its behalf. 2. Even if it were his job to reach determinative conclusions about viability, he may lack the experience and knowledge to reach the sort of conclusion SLOREP attributes to him (see LinkedIn), and SLOREP does the young man’s career no favor by verbally inflating his role and embroiling him in this controversy. Fact: there was one arborist advancing the claim of non-viability, not two. SLOREP could have, but chose not to, seek a second expert opinion. (SLOREP has also rejected expertise offered free by citizen arborists.) Fiduciary Responsibilities. SLOREP does owe the public fiduciary accountability for how its project is carried out. SLOREP apparently defines this duty as monetary prudence deferential to a select group of “donors.” I say select group of donors because SLOREP’s actions suggest not all donors merit this respect. For example, I am a building fund donor to the tune of about $150, but my concerns and needs are denied by SLOREP. I am actually a donor in two respects: 1. As part owner of SLOREP’s high value prime downtown site which we the people are allowing SLOREP to use for free essentially forever (at least for 99 years), after previous multi-decade free use of the old public library building. 2. As a direct construction funder through the city’s $6.7 million gift to SLOREP. So I have given SLOREP about $150 by that means. Do I not therefore deserve SLOREP’s fiduciary respect? Fiduciary responsibilities may take many forms; it isn’t just about penny-pinching. For example, how does SLOREP respond to major donors who would be furious about the tree’s removal were they able to be so? It doesn’t appear SLOREP has awareness of this fiduciary issue. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (an op-ed the Tribune declined to print): 43 I suspect my old friend Harold Miossi, whose charitable trust has given $1.5 million to the SLO Repertory Theater’s building fund, would be hopping mad SLOREP wants to cut down a magnificent publicly owned coast live oak it promised to save. Harold loved these oaks, and sparked my own interest in them. In fact, he was my first “oak teacher.” I grew up in the midwest, where deciduous oaks dominate many forests, but had never seen an evergreen oak till coming to California. When I arrived in SLO for my first job — as a reporter for the Telegram-Tribune — I was struck by the unfamiliar beauty of these spreading sprawling trees, unlike any tree I knew from the old country. As I explored the outdoors, I photographed oaks I found interesting, and soon some of my photos were turning up in the newspaper — like in a photo spread on the oaks of San Luis Mountain in the paper’s Saturday magazine. Harold made my acquaintance early on. A prominent rancher, he was chair of the new SLO Sierra Club chapter, and something of an environmental hell-raiser. He was known for stopping a CalTrans scheme to cut down Cuesta Pass and fill Cuesta Canyon, where his family ranch was located. He had also fought PG&E’s proposal to relocate its ill-fated Bodega Head nuclear plant, with an earthquake fault right under it, to Diablo Canyon. At that time Diablo was smack in the middle of a stretch of coastline the feds were eyeing for a national seashore. Harold also led a campaign to create the first national wilderness area in our region — to designate Lopez Canyon, which is right over Cuesta ridge from SLO, as wilderness. In me, a kid reporter, he found access to the news. He’d stop by the office frequently with news tidbits, which is exactly what any reporter loves. I was assigned to do in-depth coverage of the Lopez Canyon wilderness. Harold was my tour guide. For two days we hiked the wilderness, canyon and ridge tops, getting a sense of the land. It was on these trips that Harold taught me about the different live oaks of our area. On the coast we find Quercus agrifolia, the coast live oak, but in Lopez Canyon there’s a second type, Quercus chrysolepis, the canyon oak. Superficially similar, these two species differ in shape, size, leaf, and acorn shape. The wilderness quest proved frustrating for local conservationists. Our congressman, Burt Talcott, was opposed. Eventually we got a new congressman, a youngish guy named Leon Panetta, who was all for it, and the Santa Lucia Wilderness became reality. The Diablo Canyon controversy tore the national Sierra Club apart. Among club board members, only one had been to Diablo, Martin Litton. The rest talked about Diablo being a “treeless slot” with little value. Litton knew better — one of the finest coast live oak forests was located there. It included what Litton called the largest coast live oak in the world, with a spread of 150 feet. It was a beauty. Litton photographed it, and Harold, a friend of Litton’s, borrowed Litton’s negatives so we could make prints for the newspaper. PG&E planned to obliterate this fine oak forest to make space for a switching yard. But pressure was brought to at least save the world’s largest oak, though by the time PG&E finished “trimming,” it was much smaller. In being willing to work with this remarkable tree, PG&E showed more flexibility and public spirit than SLOREP, which has worked itself into a tizzy, convinced their choice is the theater OR the tree, when in fact it’s the theater AND the tree. SLOREP claims, based on easily refuted assumptions about the tree’s root spread, the tree has no chance of survival, so it plans to cut it down despite promising, in writing, to save it. SLOREP has absolutely nothing to lose by leaving the tree in place, taking reasonable care during construction to protect it, and then nurturing it to assure its continuing health. Nothing to lose, and a whole lot in the good citizen department to gain. I suspect that’s the outcome SLOREP’s generous patron would prefer. So SLOREP, honor Harold Miossi’s memory, his love for live oaks, his large monetary gift, and do right by our oak tree. Give it the chance you promised. The chance it deserves. SLOREP directors, I urge you to think carefully about the problems with your current position regarding the oak, and to live up to your obligation under your land lease to protect the oak with “all reasonable efforts.” Chopping down the oak for operational and economic convenience is not a “reasonable effort.” It is arborcide. 44 Does SLOREP want arborcide to be its legacy to our city? SLOREP has created this political problem with its ill-intent towards this remarkable publicly-owned tree. Politics and the public arts don’t mix well — witness the Kennedy Center fiasco. Continuing on your present path could well make SLOREP our local equivalent. I, along with many others with arboricultural knowledge and experience with oaks, reject the dire predictions of your hired arborist. Given a chance, this tree should do quite well. So, please — work around this tree as you build your theater and make every effort to see that it has hundreds of years of life to live. Richard Schmidt PS. A note about distribution of this email. I asked previously if letters addressed to the board went to all board members or just the chair, and didn’t get a reply. So I have attempted to obtain board member emails from public sources (but could only find a handful), and have included those as bcc. I’m also noticing the city council of our correspondence. On Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 12:10:32 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for sharing your professional perspective as an architect. We recognize that this tree is a significant piece of the local landscape, and we respect the passion you and others have shown for its preservation. To answer your question, my previous response reflects the position of the SLO REP Board of Directors. Our decision was not reached lightly; it followed the independent assessments of two professional arborists who concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive the next phase of construction. While we hear your concerns regarding the methodology of those reports, SLO REP and the SLO City Council have accepted these professional findings as the basis for our path forward. We believe we have exhausted all reasonable avenues for preservation, and the City Council has agreed with us. I have posted a final statement regarding the tree on our website, which you can read here https://www.slorep.org/a-new-stage/a-message-from-our-president/. At this stage, our focus must turn toward the construction of the theater and the long-term stewardship of the site. While we may remain at an impasse on this specific issue, we thank you for your engagement with SLOREP. Respectfully, Pam Nichter From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:31 PM To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site 45 Re: Our Oak Tree’s Preservation, Letter #2 March 2, 2026 To Pam Nichter and SLOREP Board of Directors, Thank you, Ms. Nichter, for your response to my letter to the SLOREP board of directors. I appreciate your willingness to engage with criticism of the SLOREP decision to remove our live oak it promised to preserve as a condition of its land lease. That is very encouraging. I do have a question, though: did my letter get to the entire board and your response represents their careful reconsideration, or is it from you individually? I do hope my comments, and those of any others addressed to the board, reach the entire board, in a timely way. Given the public relations nightmare SLOREP is building for itself if tree removal takes place, I certainly hope the board will want to convene to reconsider this issue. I further hope the board will adopt the win-win-win solution I offer at the end of this letter. You make a forceful statement in support of pre-emptive tree removal. I however disagree with much of the “evidence” used to support that decision, and therefore as a co-owner of this tree, wish to continue this discussion. Please do not lose sight of the fact that this is not SLOREP’s tree; it is our tree — belonging to we the people of SLO — and hundreds, perhaps thousands of us, are upset with what’s happening as a result of our extending SLOREP a most generous long-term lease for use of our property. In short, I believe pre-emptive removal of this tree prior to construction is both unnecessary and wrong. I’ll organize my discussion around four themes: 1, the arborist’s work; 2, mitigations to benefit the tree; 3, eco- services provided by the oak; and 4, a suggested win-win-win resolution to this faux pas. 1. Arborist’s Work. • Arborist’s scope of work. In your letter, you state that SLOREP has been committed to preserving the tree, and that in preparation for construction SLOREP consulted an arborist to get protective guidelines. You state: “We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree.” That is entirely proper, and as a licensed architect myself, exactly what I would expect at this point. The arborist, however, seems to have a different view of what his work assignment was. In his report he characterizes it as: “Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak . . .” Potential for protection? In the next sentence his report is referenced as a “feasibility of retention” study. Feasibility of retention suggests retention is a dubious option subject to subjective opinion, when it is actually a requirement of SLOREP’s legal agreement with the city. It is impossible for me to square your forceful statement of intent for the arborist study with the arborist’s own characterization of the assigned purpose of his work. I think you can see the problem of these incompatible statements of purpose and intent. If his given assignment was to provide protective guidelines, why is he even talking about “potential for protection” or “feasibility of retention”? And if his report wasn’t what SLOREP asked for, why was it accepted and used to undercut SLOREP’s intent? • Who hired this arborist? It is unclear from the public record who did this hire, and to whom he answered. SLOREP board? SLOREP staff? Architect? Contractor? City?Given your forceful statement of purpose for the report, I suspect he was not answerable to the board. And why this particular arborist? What unique qualifications did he present to get this particularly sensitive job? What recommendations featured in the hire? Was there any sort of bidding process? Were numerous arborists considered, interviewed and evaluated? Or was this a let’s-go-to-this-guy hire without comparison or competition? There are oak specialists, and my impression is they were not consulted. And if his recommendation to execute the tree was truly unexpected and unwanted, why did SLOREP fall in behind it and not immediately seek a second opinion? Different arborists see things differently, and I’m confident SLOREP could have found one more interested in helping you save the tree. • Basis for stating tree is doomed by construction. It appears condemnation of this tree stems from an eye- popping claim: that construction would disturb 86% to 95% of the so-called “critical root zone” (CRZ) and thus probably kill the tree. Eye-popping allegations like that merit critical analysis, of which there is no evidence in the public record. 46 Using my grade-school mathematics skills, let me toss this claim into a ray of sunlight. Baseline best practice construction-site tree protection is protecting ground within the tree’s drip-line (the outer extent of its branches). To attain 95% disturbance while following that best practice would require a CRZ diameter on the order of 300 feet! Since the arborist report alleges a hypothetical CRZ diameter of 96 feet, the arborist’s report is internally inconsistent — and its 95% measure would thus be off by about a multiple of three. So there’s a serious and obvious problem with the reliability of the extent-of-damage analysis that drives the tree’s death sentence. I have no idea where this 95% root damage claim comes from, but if I were intending to preserve this tree and had this thrown in my face unexpectedly, I’d sure ask a lot of questions and seek answers from many other ideologically neutral sources. • Is CRZ relevant? CRZ, on which the tree’s condemnation is based, is a theory. It is an abstract rule of thumb that may or may not apply to any particular tree. The only way to determine actual dimensions of a tree’s root zone is on-site investigation. It appears there has been none of that at this site. Instead we have vague allegations of unspecified damage due to street improvements and the claim of hugely expansive root systems away from the street. No concrete evidence. CRZ has faced criticism for being overly simplistic, as it doesn’t account for complex interactions between tree roots and their environment. Critics argue relying solely on CRZ can lead to incorrect assessments of tree health and survival prospects . So determination of tree health based solely or mainly on rule-of-thumb CRZ allegations, as this one was, presents at best only part of the picture. • This Tree on This Site. Even cursory thought about this tree and its site suggest a rule-of-thumb CRZ hypothesis about root extent is likely erroneous. This tree has never lived in an environment where such widespread roots are likely. Consider the tree’s history. It grew in someone’s front yard. Its root footprint was constrained by building foundations (that are not too different in location from the theater’s) and soil-intrusive site improvements like sidewalks, driveways and underground utility connections. It has also had public right of way impediments to root spread — the city sidewalk, gutter and street pavement with underground municipal utilities are not something new with the parking garage construction, despite what the arborist report suggests. This tree never had the opportunity to extend its root system in the manner the CRZ analysis assumes. (Photos of the tree with previous buildings are included in the attached pdf file at the end of this thread. They show how constrained the root system would have been by earlier site features.) Then the site was cleared, with heavy equipment: other vegetation with root systems ripped out of the ground, buildings demolished, building foundations dug out, driveways and walkways dug out, underground utilities dug out. Lots of disturbance in the alleged CRZ root zone and years later no harm from it visible on the tree’s above ground parts. This tree’s entire life has been one of root-zone limitation, truncation and disturbance. It is an urban tree adapted to this sort of thing, not a forest virgin facing root disturbance for the first time. These facts undercut any validity to the rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis being used as grounds for justifying execution of this tree. Clearly this tree is an urban survivor. If ever there was a tree capable of suffering root damage and surviving it, this is it. 2. Mitigations for Construction Root Damage. There is always root damage when construction takes place near established trees. The purpose of a pre-construction arborist report is to prescribe ways that damage may be prevented to the extent possible, and mitigated to the extent protection is not possible. We’ll lump those two together and call them “mitigations.” The thing that strikes me about this report is it doesn’t provide mitigations. So if SLOREP’s “sole assignment [to the arborist] was to tell us how to protect the tree,” I find this omission odd. The report doesn’t provide what SLOREP says it asked for. • Drip line zone. The baseline protective mitigation is “prevent damage within the drip line” because that’s where the most important roots are located. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing contractors to damage ground within the drip line. Best practices are to fence off the ground area to be protected. 47 But this best practices mitigation goes unmentioned. Instead we have a diagram that shows unexplained extensive ground damage within the drip line. Why is there such damage? (If this damage is due to proposed new site features like paved walkways within the drip line, those features can and should be redesigned — moved outside the drip line; or if walkways must be there, raise them above ground level like a boardwalk or deck, and don’t put them in the ground. This sort of site improvement should never have been placed inside the drip line.) Further, not all roots are of equal importance when damaged. While roots do often extend beyond the drip line, the most serious damage to a tree comes from damaging roots well within the drip line. This is because that’s where one finds large roots that provide the tree’s structural support. • Oak Root Structure. Oaks typically have deep tap roots that provide support in addition to lateral roots. Roots that extend further than the drip line aren’t structural. They are “feeders,” the fibrous little guys familiar to anyone who gardens near trees. They can sustain considerable damage without seriously harming the tree. Further, this tree’s location across the street from San Luis Creek, in an area with a high water table, means it would have roots extending into water-table-moistened soil, thus providing a ready source of moisture to nourish the tree regardless of ground conditions in the feeder root zone. So that’s a natural mitigation this tree enjoys that many don’t. • Mitigation for Peripheral Root Loss. There are commonplace mitigations for peripheral root loss, but the arborist report suggests none. I find that omission interesting since it’s common practice for arborists to recommend rebalancing canopy size after root damage to reduce the amount of canopy the remaining roots must nourish. Such compensatory pruning of the canopy reduces the tree’s demand for water and nutrients. Balancing the canopy with a diminished root system reduces physiological stress and conserves energy for root regeneration. I find this omission especially odd given it is built into the SLOREP plan — there’s to be trimming of the tree facing the theater. Instead of viewing that trimming as a bad thing, as the arborist report does, it could be viewed positively as compensatory insurance in the event the root system is truncated by construction. Any root loss would thus be compensated for by the already pre-planned trimming. A good mitigation, in other words. • Can root spread be documented? If one cared to, one could figure out the real extent of this tree’s root spread. There are low-tech methods, like digging holes and seeing what's there, or higher tech methods like ground- penetrating radar. But, frankly, I’d not bother. The overwhelming evidence from the history of this tree on this site is the CRZ claims vastly overstate the extent of root spread, and I’d feel comfortable keeping the tree on that basis alone. • Replacement Trees. SLOREP will plant 5 new trees to replace this oak. There are many problems with this since none of the replacements are natives like the oak; it will be 50 years before they collectively have something approaching the mass and carbon sequestration of the one oak — if they even live that long; they will never provide the ecological services provided by this one oak, etc. The replacement species are what I refer to as “junk trees” that are inappropriate to our location. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of coral trees here — they’re ugly and don’t do well. Highly sensitive to frost, how will yours do when we have a recurrence of the 17 degree overnight low we had some winters ago (which did major damage even to the huge downtown ficus trees)? This species is a poor choice. The two other species are also junk trees — one can even become an invasive pest. None of them grow large enough to collectively come close to the canopy of the oak. They are a waste. I find it sort of funny the city is having SLOREP plant four street trees in front of the parking garage, and SLOREP feels good about this. Those trees would have been planted, with or without SLOREP’s involvement. The city has simply transferred the cost of those four trees from its budget to yours. Even with the addition of SLOREP’s 5 trees, the total number of trees on the parking garage/SLOREP site will be fewer than prior to construction. In other words, actual “mitigation” is less than one-to-one. This is not real mitigation. 48 There is no actual mitigation possible for the oak’s removal. But if SLOREP were to attempt such, I think it might look like planting several dozen coast live oaks, most off site for obvious spatial reasons. It would take decades even so to mitigate the loss of our one mature oak, but hopefully by then SLOREP would have accomplished something for our ecosystem that might provide a semblance of longer-term mitigation. 3. Eco-services Lost. Perhaps the most important thing about executing our oak is the eco-services it provides that will be lost with its removal. • Carbon sequestration. At the top of anyone’s list of eco-concerns today is climate change, and the realization that a couple centuries of putting previously sequestered fossil carbon into the atmosphere has brought the earth to a climate tipping point. Experts tell us what we do in the next decade is far more important than what we plan to do in the next half century — that we must do everything we can to cut down on carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration right now if we’re serious about seeking to avoid long-term climate catastrophe. Our large oak contains tons of sequestered carbon, and continues to sequester more and more carbon with each passing year. This is found most obviously in the wood and canopy, but also in the root zone, where carbon is sequestered into roots and soil. When a tree like this is cut down, all of this sequestration not only ends, but the shredded remains almost immediately re-release their sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. (Saving a small amount of this with lumber harvesting, as SLOREP plans, makes little difference as the carbon thus sequestered is such a small proportion of the whole.) Removing trees like this is exactly what climate experts say we should NOT be doing right now; it increases carbon release into the atmosphere and diminishes high-level on-going sequestration. I don’t think the unnecessary removal of trees like this is ethical under these circumstances. • Local Climate Moderation. Tree canopies mitigate urban heat in a number of ways: protecting the ground level from direct sun, reflecting heat upwards, canopy evapotranspiration that cools temperatures, etc. Our oak does all of that with spades. Your coral tree replacement will do very little. This is about more than outdoor human health and comfort. Urban heat is a major driver of increased energy/carbon usage (like for air conditioning when a/c might not otherwise be needed) which drives us closer to climate collapse. Tree canopy protection from direct sun also helps preserve soil moisture, and that reduces wildfire danger by maintaining more moist ground level vegetation. SLO brags about its tree canopy, but at 16% coverage, it’s actually pretty poor. Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Jose, and even New York City have much higher percentage cover. We are ahead of LA. • Oak’s Contribution to Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystem. It is sad that most people understand so little about how the ecosystem that we are part of works, even the most basic stuff like Barry Commoner’s declaration that in nature everything is related to everything else. In this respect, our mighty oak has quite a story to tell. Humans don’t exist apart from nature. If nature collapses, we do too. Increasingly scientists are telling us a healthy biodiverse ecosystem starts with the tiniest organisms and works upwards from there. Organisms have their particular niches, and often cannot be shuffled around at human convenience; Monarch butterflies dependence on milkweed to reproduce is a well-known example of this principle. As far as our oak goes, this is far too complex to discuss deeply here, but allow me to provide one example to show how its life interweaves with lives of other species: its relationship to songbirds, which are species of local concern (meaning they’re in significant decline). The decline stems from loss of suitable habitat, including the loss of native oaks. “Habitat” provides not only sheltered places for resting and nesting, but also plant species that provide or support the particular foods on which birds depend. The city has done a decent job of revegetating the previously exotic-filled, and thus sterile, San Luis Creek corridor across from SLOREP with native tree species that nourish songbirds, and this potentiates the value of our oak. Note, native is essential — native trees support native invertebrates which support native birds. Introduce exotic trees, and you’ve interrupted the natural synergy. A simple example, and touchstone, for assessing a tree’s nutritional support for birds is to measure invertebrate populations supported by that tree. Caterpillar species is a stand-in to illustrate this. According to Xerces Society studies, a native oak can support up to 275 species of native caterpillars, making them incredibly valuable for native songbird viability. Our oak is an incredible food resource for our declining riparian songbird populations. The birds’ presence in the oak will also bring delight to your patrons. A coral tree will not fill this niche; it speaks a 49 foreign eco-language. These sorts of ethical considerations need to be included in decisions about retaining/replacing trees, particularly those stalwart natives like our oak, with its known ecological roles and benefits. 4. A Win/Win/Win Easy-to-Implement Solution. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a solution that’s a win for the tree, a win for SLOREP’s public relations problem, and a win for sustaining the ecological value of our urban forest? Alas, there is one staring us in the face. It is this: leave the tree in place, work around it with proper best practices care for it on a construction site, cut what must be cut but no more (roots and canopy), and allow the tree to recover and thrive. What is there to lose? Absolutely nothing. Worst case, in five years the tree dies and can easily be removed with a lift truck from the street. Best and most likely case, this wonderful tree continues to live, delight us, and offer its eco-services for several more centuries. Please note, this solution is entirely reasonable. The arborist report’s negativity is based on a lot of guess work based on subjective interpretation of rule-of-thumb textbook information, and is not based on examination of actual root densities and locations on the site. Circumstantially, given past construction and deconstruction on the site (described above and illustrated in photos in pdf attachment at end of the thread), the likelihood of a root structure like that hypothesized in the arborist report is small. The theater footprint appears to partly replicate that of earlier buildings on the site, whose foundations would have inhibited root spread. All this suggests the tree has a very good chance at robust survival. Further, with roots deep into the ground where the riparian water table is high and plentiful year round, this tree is uniquely suited to weather any harms that might occur to its peripheral roots. It will not be dependent upon peripheral roots for its water supply. Since conventional remediation for root damage is canopy pruning, and such pruning is already part of the SLOREP plan, that mitigation is already built into the preservation plan. Remember, construction around trees always damages roots. With time, any root damage sustained will repair itself. There’s no need to be hysterical about the future of this tree due to careful excavation in its potential peripheral root zone. The benefits to SLOREP’s reputation from changing course would be huge. Are you aware the city council received a large number of letters opposing tree removal? Those spontaneous letters represent a tiny fraction of people upset about removing this publicly-owned oak. If SLOREP were to say it’s had a change of heart, and will give the tree a chance, you’d be heroes instead of bums in the public’s mind. Think about it — this solution costs you nothing, while it changes the vibe by showing you really do care about our tree. Finally, I’d suggest SLOREP hire a different arborist to draw up a construction protection protocol, one “whose sole assignment [is] to tell us how to protect the tree.” If SLOREP cannot afford that, I’d respectfully suggest maybe board members could chip in to cover the modest cost. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment: pdf file with photos of earlier site development showing relation of tree to buildings. On Monday, February 23, 2026 at 03:30:16 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the oak tree. Please forgive my delayed reply; I have been out of the country visiting my daughter. For 13 years, that tree’s preservation has been a core priority in our building plans. Since 2012 when the City first invited us to build, we have invested significant resources into a design specifically intended to protect the oak. We have operated in good faith, believing – as did the City – that our footprint and design plans were compatible with the tree’s survival. 50 As garage construction neared completion last July, we began preparing the City-required tree protection plan. We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree. We were devastated by his conclusion that the tree was unlikely to survive any construction. Despite the arborist’s findings, we subsequently spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. Ultimately, no viable alternative was found. These are the insurmountable facts today: - Root size and vulnerability: The tree’s critical root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making the tree highly vulnerable to foundation work. - Design limitation: As the Council was informed Feb. 3, no feasible changes to our design would improve the tree’s odds of survival. - Prior Impact: As the City Staff report noted, the root structure had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure. Following the City Council’s final decision, we have shifted our focus toward a responsible succession plan that honors the tree’s legacy. Our Board has committed to a plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing trees, all drought-tolerant species. In addition, we have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber to give the tree a permanent, meaningful presence within the new theatre. I firmly believe that both SLO REP and the City have acted in good faith and exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. I hope you can support our overall project for the cultural and economic benefits it will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors On Feb 19, 2026, at 11:40 AM, Richard Schmidt < wrote: Dear SLOREP Board of Directors, Please put an end to plans to remove the large coast live oak on SLOREP’s future theater site. That is the ethical resolution of this ill-considered plan. When SLOREP struck a deal with SLOCity to use public land at Monterey/Nipomo for $1 per year for 99 years, they signed a lease. With regard to the beautiful coast live oak on the site — a tree owned, incidentally, not by SLOREP but by we the people of San Luis Obispo —, the lease states “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree . . .” There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word “shall” in a legal document. Despite promising, in writing, to “preserve, protect and maintain” this tree, SLOREP recently went to the city seeking permission to remove this much-cherished and wonderful tree rather than preserve and protect it. The excuse for this was provided by a private arborist report solicited and paid for by SLOREP that instead of laying out how to preserve and protect during construction, what one would expect at this stage of development planning, devoted itself to rationalizations for the tree’s removal — rationalizations that in my opinion, and the opinions of others, hold little merit. It would appear, despite denials, that SLOREP wants the tree out of the way to make construction easier. How SLOREP proceeds from this point will say a lot about SLOREP’s values, as actions reflect an organization’s values better than words. Will SLOREP double down and chop down this publicly-owned tree? Or will it preserve and protect what it pledged to preserve and protect in order to get its lease? SLOREP’s reputation has already suffered from its going to the city to request tree removal. Proceeding with that removal, in my judgement, will cement that reputational loss into long-term disgust toward and distrust of the SLOREP brand. Why go that route? You have little to nothing to lose by preserving this tree on the theater site. Worst case, it dies later and has to be removed. But I don’t think that worst case is likely. Oaks like this aren’t hothouse flowers, they are resilient survivors. My hunch is if SLOREP takes reasonable steps to protect the tree during construction, the tree will outlive 51 SLOREP’s 99-year lease. You owe it the chance to do that. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 64 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Monday, March 30, 2026 4:38 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:FW: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! FYI. From: Richard Schmidt <slobuild@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:02 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! I think the council should be aware of this correspondence thread -- chronological from bottom. This controversy is not going away. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Richard Schmidt < To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 at 08:58:08 AM PDT Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Dear Ms. Nichter and SLOREP Board Members, I do hope my comments and the comments of others addressed to the Board are getting to all the individual board members, for otherwise they would have no idea the amount of community concern percolating over SLOREP’s planned removal of the oak tree. Since my last letter I’ve been quietly observing new developments, including the kind and generous offer by private citizens to pay for arboricultural work to protect the tree and ultimate tree removal should the tree not survive. I am, frankly, horrified at SLOREP’s brusk and belligerent rejection of that offer, and SLOREP’s declaration that this is the end of its willingness to talk about saving the tree. Indeed, that sounds like arrogant detached entitlement speaking, and does not speak well for SLOREP’s long-standing beneficial-to-SLOREP community partnership. I am shocked at this. Let’s just be blunt about this: Without the gift of venue and further gifts of monetary support from we the people of SLO, SLOREP wouldn’t be what it is today, and might not exist at all. Some appreciation from SLOREP might be in order. Let me remind SLOREP once again — this not your tree, it is a public tree that belongs to we the people of SLO. As a condition of the lease we the people granted SLOREP for permanent use of our land, SLOREP pledged to save the oak. Verbatim from your lease: “SLOREP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey . . .” “Shall” is a promise, an obligation, a requirement, not something to be tossed away if SLOREP doesn’t like the cost of doing what it promised in order to get its lease. Now, instead of taking “ALL reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” our public tree, SLOREP says it cannot be bothered, that moving ahead quickly with total site clearance and construction is more important. The reasons SLOREP cites for its position ring hollow, some because of questionable factuality, others because they use language my college mate Dave Barry calls “Marketing Speak, which is sort of like English, except that it doesn’t actually mean anything.” Here’s my take on major features of SLOREP’s current position. Extra Cost. At the top of SLOREP’s latest explanation for refusing to save the oak, even with generous financial assistance from private citizens, is that it costs more than cutting down the tree and totally clearing the site so contractors don’t have to bother with precautionary measures, or what SLOREP calls “restricted staging required to protect the tree” — stuff like fencing off the tree’s 65 dripline, which is totally standard practice on construction sites with trees. If the tree is to be saved, SLOREP claims it will cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” more than removing the tree. Here’s the problem with that rationalization. We’re talking about money SLOREP would have had to spend to fulfill the tree preservation clause in its lease, so it’s not a new monetary requirement caused by what SLOREP seemingly regards as unreasonable public demands to preserve the tree. Nor is it in any way an increase in costs over what SLOREP would have paid to follow its lease terms. Now that SLOREP has its lease and permission to proceed with construction on public land, is SLOREP being too cheap to spend what it would have had to spend to fulfill terms of its lease with we the people? Sure it’s cheaper this way, but that’s not the deal we made with each other. SLOREP, please don’t Trump us by tearing up the agreement we and you agreed to. Extensive Hand Excavation Required. SLOREP also makes much of the cost and inconvenience of “specialized manual excavation” for the building’s foundation. The nature, reason for, and extent of this alleged hand excavation are not spelled out — simply repeated emphatically as if that bestows legitimacy. As an architect I don’t get it. Mechanical excavators come in all sizes, with buckets from small to enormous. It seems to me that using appropriately sized equipment almost all excavation could be done with machinery. Further, since (as detailed below in earlier email) the likely extent of the tree’s root system is being greatly exaggerated, there would likely be far less root intrusion beneath the building footprint than the arborist’s alarmist report suggests — but nobody knows for sure since SLOREP has refused to hire a different arborist to study the issue of actual root spread and location. SLOREP’s Two “Independent" “Professional” Arborists. SLOREP claims “two independent professional arborists conclud[ed] that the tree is unlikely to survive,” and therefore no effort to save it is worthwhile. There are numerous problems with this statement, which has been repeated in its essence in numerous documents, including questions about its fundamental factuality. In previous emails (see below) I have detailed major factual problems. In summary, the hired arborist’s report bases its non- viability claim due to root spread not on actual site investigation but on a textbook rule of thumb about possible root spread patterns in an undisturbed non-urban setting. This tree has been subject to root zone interference and disturbance throughout its urban life, with building foundations dug in, dug out, underground utility installation and removal, ground-intruding site improvements installed and removed, etc. Previous building footprints were even more restrictive of root zone spread than the theater will be. I find it curious that SLOREP, if truly shocked by the arborist’s report of non-viability, didn’t bother to get a second opinion from another arborist, as a prudent person would upon receiving an unexpected dire medical diagnosis. If SLOREP’s intent was to “take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” the tree, this omission is weird. The repeated claim SLOREP worked with two “professional” arborists is also weird, since each message from SLOREP repeats the word “professional” as if this has meaning. Does it have meaning? One doesn’t speak of professional doctors, or professional lawyers, or professional any other profession. So why arborists? Perhaps because “arborist” is not a profession the state regulates and licenses, as it does for actual professions like lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, plumbers, contractors, cosmetologists or real estate brokers. While arborists offering certain services must have contractor licenses, California does not license arborists, nor does it limit who can call herself an arborist. So the term “professional” arborist is without meaning. Except as “Marketing Speak.” Likewise, the SLOREP claim two “independent” arborists agree on the tree’s non-viability also has factual problems. The arborist hired by SLOREP made the non-viability claim. According to SLOREP this came out of the blue, was an unwanted surprise. The obvious and intelligent thing to do next would be seek a second opinion, preferably from an oak expert. Another intelligent action would have been to determine where roots are actually located rather than believing they’re where a textbook rule of thumb says they might be located and that, preposterously, up to 95% of them will be disturbed by construction. SLOREP did neither. Instead, according to SLOREP’s own account, weeks or months were spent with contractors hashing out … what, exactly? Why not find out if the allegation of non-viability was supported by other experts? Maybe the whole fuss was over little-to-nothing. Now SLOREP alleges its refusal to plan for tree preservation stems from two “independent” arborists agreeing about non-viability, implying this conclusion is therefore beyond questioning. The second “independent” arborist is the city arborist, and attributing this role to him is both improper and quite simply wrong, for two reasons: 1. The city arborist’s role is as administrator of the removal permit process, an administrative not a determinative role. It is not within the city arborist’s job description to reach the expert determinative conclusions SLOREP claims he reached on its behalf. 2. Even if it were his job to reach determinative conclusions about viability, he may lack the experience and knowledge to reach the sort of conclusion SLOREP attributes to him (see LinkedIn), and SLOREP does the young man’s career no favor by verbally inflating his role and embroiling him in this controversy. Fact: there was one arborist advancing the claim of non-viability, not two. SLOREP could have, but chose not to, seek a second expert opinion. (SLOREP has also rejected expertise offered free by citizen arborists.) Fiduciary Responsibilities. SLOREP does owe the public fiduciary accountability for how its project is carried out. SLOREP apparently defines this duty as monetary prudence deferential to a select group of “donors.” I say select group of donors because 66 SLOREP’s actions suggest not all donors merit this respect. For example, I am a building fund donor to the tune of about $150, but my concerns and needs are denied by SLOREP. I am actually a donor in two respects: 1. As part owner of SLOREP’s high value prime downtown site which we the people are allowing SLOREP to use for free essentially forever (at least for 99 years), after previous multi-decade free use of the old public library building. 2. As a direct construction funder through the city’s $6.7 million gift to SLOREP. So I have given SLOREP about $150 by that means. Do I not therefore deserve SLOREP’s fiduciary respect? Fiduciary responsibilities may take many forms; it isn’t just about penny-pinching. For example, how does SLOREP respond to major donors who would be furious about the tree’s removal were they able to be so? It doesn’t appear SLOREP has awareness of this fiduciary issue. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (an op-ed the Tribune declined to print): I suspect my old friend Harold Miossi, whose charitable trust has given $1.5 million to the SLO Repertory Theater’s building fund, would be hopping mad SLOREP wants to cut down a magnificent publicly owned coast live oak it promised to save. Harold loved these oaks, and sparked my own interest in them. In fact, he was my first “oak teacher.” I grew up in the midwest, where deciduous oaks dominate many forests, but had never seen an evergreen oak till coming to California. When I arrived in SLO for my first job — as a reporter for the Telegram-Tribune — I was struck by the unfamiliar beauty of these spreading sprawling trees, unlike any tree I knew from the old country. As I explored the outdoors, I photogr aphed oaks I found interesting, and soon some of my photos were turning up in the newspaper — like in a photo spread on the oaks of San Luis Mountain in the paper’s Saturday magazine. Harold made my acquaintance early on. A prominent rancher, he was chair of the new SLO Sierra Club chapter, and something of an environmental hell-raiser. He was known for stopping a CalTrans scheme to cut down Cuesta Pass and fill Cuesta Canyon, where his family ranch was located. He had also fought PG&E’s proposal to relocate its ill-fated Bodega Head nuclear plant, with an earthquake fault right under it, to Diablo Canyon. At that time Diablo was smack in the middle of a stretch of coastline the feds were eyeing for a national seashore. Harold also led a campaign to create the first national wilderness area in our region — to designate Lopez Canyon, which is right over Cuesta ridge from SLO, as wilderness. In me, a kid reporter, he found access to the news. He’d stop by the office frequently with news tidbits, which is exactly what any reporter loves. I was assigned to do in-depth coverage of the Lopez Canyon wilderness. Harold was my tour guide. For two days we hiked the wilderness, canyon and ridge tops, getting a sense of the land. It was on these trips that Harold taught me about the different live oaks of our area. On the coast we find Quercus agrifolia, the coast live oak, but in Lopez Canyon there’s a second type, Quercus chrysolepis, the canyon oak. Superficially similar, these two species differ in shape, size, leaf, and acorn shape. The wilderness quest proved frustrating for local conservationists. Our congressman, Burt Talcott, was opposed. Eventually we got a new congressman, a youngish guy named Leon Panetta, who was all for it, and the Santa Lucia Wilderness became reality. The Diablo Canyon controversy tore the national Sierra Club apart. Among club board members, only one had been to Diablo, Martin Litton. The rest talked about Diablo being a “treeless slot” with little value. Litton knew better — one of the finest coast live oak forests was located there. It included what Litton called the largest coast live oak in the world, with a spread of 150 feet. It was a beauty. Litton photographed it, and Harold, a friend of Litton’s, borrowed Litton’s negatives so we could make prints for the newspaper. PG&E planned to obliterate this fine oak forest to make space for a switching yard. But pressure was brought to at least save the world’s largest oak, though by the time PG&E finished “trimming,” it was much smaller. In being willing to work with this remarkable tree, PG&E showed more flexibility and public spirit than SLOREP, which has worked itself into a tizzy, convinced their choice is the theater OR the tree, when in fact it’s the theater AND the tree. SLOREP claims, based on easily refuted assumptions about the tree’s root spread, the tree has no chance of survival, so it plans to cut it down despite promising, in writing, to save it. SLOREP has absolutely nothing to lose by leaving the tree in place, taking reasonable care during construction to protect it, and then nurturing it to assure its continuing health. Nothing to lose, and a whole lot in the good citizen department to gain. I suspect that’s the outcome SLOREP’s generous patron would prefer. So SLOREP, honor Harold Miossi’s memory, his love for live oaks, his large monetary gift, and do right by our oak tree. Give it the chance you promised. The chance it deserves. 67 SLOREP directors, I urge you to think carefully about the problems with your current position regarding the oak, and to live up to your obligation under your land lease to protect the oak with “all reasonable efforts.” Chopping down the oak for operational and economic convenience is not a “reasonable effort.” It is arborcide. Does SLOREP want arborcide to be its legacy to our city? SLOREP has created this political problem with its ill-intent towards this remarkable publicly-owned tree. Politics and the public arts don’t mix well — witness the Kennedy Center fiasco. Continuing on your present path could well make SLOREP our local equivalent. I, along with many others with arboricultural knowledge and experience with oaks, reject the dire predictions of your hired arborist. Given a chance, this tree should do quite well. So, please — work around this tree as you build your theater and make every effort to see that it has hundreds of years of life to live. Richard Schmidt PS. A note about distribution of this email. I asked previously if letters addressed to the board went to all board members or just the chair, and didn’t get a reply. So I have attempted to obtain board member emails from public sources (but could only find a handful), and have included those as bcc. I’m also noticing the city council of our correspondence. On Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 12:10:32 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for sharing your professional perspective as an architect. We recognize that this tree is a significant piece of the local landscape, and we respect the passion you and others have shown for its preservation. To answer your question, my previous response reflects the position of the SLO REP Board of Directors. Our decision was not reached lightly; it followed the independent assessments of two professional arborists who concluded that the tree is unlikel y to survive the next phase of construction. While we hear your concerns regarding the methodology of those reports, SLO REP and the SLO City Council have accepted these professional findings as the basis for our path forward. We believe we have exhausted all reasonable avenues for preservation, and the City Council has agreed with us. I have posted a final statement regarding the tree on our website, which you can read here https://www.slorep.org/a-new- stage/a-message-from-our-president/. At this stage, our focus must turn toward the construction of the theater and the long-term stewardship of the site. While we may remain at an impasse on this specific issue, we thank you for your engagement with SLOREP. Respectfully, Pam Nichter From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:31 PM To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site 68 Re: Our Oak Tree’s Preservation, Letter #2 March 2, 2026 To Pam Nichter and SLOREP Board of Directors, Thank you, Ms. Nichter, for your response to my letter to the SLOREP board of directors. I appreciate your willingness to engage with criticism of the SLOREP decision to remove our live oak it promised to preserve as a condition of its land lease. That is very encouraging. I do have a question, though: did my letter get to the entire board and your response represents their careful reconsideration, or is it from you individually? I do hope my comments, and those of any others addressed to the board, reach the entire board, in a timely way. Given the public relations nightmare SLOREP is building for itself if tree removal takes place, I certainly hope the board will want to convene to reconsider this issue. I further hope the board will adopt the win-win-win solution I offer at the end of this letter. You make a forceful statement in support of pre-emptive tree removal. I however disagree with much of the “evidence” used to support that decision, and therefore as a co-owner of this tree, wish to continue this discussion. Please do not lose sight of the fact that this is not SLOREP’s tree; it is our tree — belonging to we the people of SLO — and hundreds, perhaps thousands of us, are upset with what’s happening as a result of our extending SLOREP a most generous long- term lease for use of our property. In short, I believe pre-emptive removal of this tree prior to construction is both unnecessary and wrong. I’ll organize my discussion around four themes: 1, the arborist’s work; 2, mitigations to benefit the tree; 3, eco-services provided by the oak; and 4, a suggested win-win-win resolution to this faux pas. 1. Arborist’s Work. • Arborist’s scope of work. In your letter, you state that SLOREP has been committed to preserving the tree, and that in preparation for construction SLOREP consulted an arborist to get protective guidelines. You state: “We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree.” That is entirely proper, and as a licensed architect myself, exactly what I would expect at this point. The arborist, however, seems to have a different view of what his work assignment was. In his report he characterizes it as: “Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak . . .” Potential for protection? In the next sentence his report is referenced as a “feasibility of retention” study. Feasibility of retention suggests retention is a dubious option subject to subjective opinion, when it is actually a requirement of SLOREP’s legal agreement with the city. It is impossible for me to square your forceful statement of intent for the arborist study with the arborist’s own characterization of the assigned purpose of his work. I think you can see the problem of these incompatible statements of purpose and intent. If his given assignment was to provide protective guidelines, why is he even talking about “potential for protection” or “feasibility of retention”? And if his report wasn’t what SLOREP asked for, why was it accepted and used to undercut SLOREP’s intent? • Who hired this arborist? It is unclear from the public record who did this hire, and to whom he answered. SLOREP board? SLOREP staff? Architect? Contractor? City?Given your forceful statement of purpose for the report, I suspect he was not answerable to the board. And why this particular arborist? What unique qualifications did he present to get this particularly sensitive job? What recommendations featured in the hire? Was there any sort of bidding process? Were numerous arborists considered, interviewed and evaluated? Or was this a let’s-go-to-this-guy hire without comparison or competition? There are oak specialists, and my impression is they were not consulted. And if his recommendation to execute the tree was truly unexpected and unwanted, why did SLOREP fall in behind it and not immediately seek a second opinion? Different arborists see things differently, and I’m confident SLOREP could have found one more interested in helping you save the tree. • Basis for stating tree is doomed by construction. It appears condemnation of this tree stems from an eye-popping claim: that construction would disturb 86% to 95% of the so-called “critical root zone” (CRZ) and thus probably kill the tree. Eye-popping allegations like that merit critical analysis, of which there is no evidence in the public record. Using my grade-school mathematics skills, let me toss this claim into a ray of sunlight. Baseline best practice construction-site tree protection is protecting ground within the tree’s drip-line (the outer extent of its branches). To attain 95% disturbance while 69 following that best practice would require a CRZ diameter on the order of 300 feet! Since the arborist report alleges a hypothetical CRZ diameter of 96 feet, the arborist’s report is internally inconsistent — and its 95% measure would thus be off by about a multiple of three. So there’s a serious and obvious problem with the reliability of the extent-of-damage analysis that drives the tree’s death sentence. I have no idea where this 95% root damage claim comes from, but if I were intending to preserve this tree and had this thrown in my face unexpectedly, I’d sure ask a lot of questions and seek answers from many other ideologically neutral sources. • Is CRZ relevant? CRZ, on which the tree’s condemnation is based, is a theory. It is an abstract rule of thumb that may or may not apply to any particular tree. The only way to determine actual dimensions of a tree’s root zone is on-site investigation. It appears there has been none of that at this site. Instead we have vague allegations of unspecified damage due to street improvements and the claim of hugely expansive root systems away from the street. No concrete evidence. CRZ has faced criticism for being overly simplistic, as it doesn’t account for complex interactions between tree roots and their environment. Critics argue relying solely on CRZ can lead to incorrect assessments of tree health and survival prospects . So determination of tree health based solely or mainly on rule-of-thumb CRZ allegations, as this one was, presents at best only part of the picture. • This Tree on This Site. Even cursory thought about this tree and its site suggest a rule-of-thumb CRZ hypothesis about root extent is likely erroneous. This tree has never lived in an environment where such widespread roots are likely. Consider the tree’s history. It grew in someone’s front yard. Its root footprint was constrained by building foundations (that are not too different in location from the theater’s) and soil-intrusive site improvements like sidewalks, driveways and underground utility connections. It has also had public right of way impediments to root spread — the city sidewalk, gutter and street pavement with underground municipal utilities are not something new with the parking garage construction, despite what the arborist report suggests. This tree never had the opportunity to extend its root system in the manner the CRZ analysis assumes. (Photos of the tree with previous buildings are included in the attached pdf file at the end of this thread. They show how constrained the root system would have been by earlier site features.) Then the site was cleared, with heavy equipment: other vegetation with root systems ripped out of the ground, buildings demolished, building foundations dug out, driveways and walkways dug out, underground utilities dug out. Lots of disturbance in the alleged CRZ root zone and years later no harm from it visible on the tree’s above ground parts. This tree’s entire life has been one of root-zone limitation, truncation and disturbance. It is an urban tree adapted to this sort of thing, not a forest virgin facing root disturbance for the first time. These facts undercut any validity to the rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis being used as grounds for justifying execution of this tree. Clearly this tree is an urban survivor. If ever there was a tree capable of suffering root damage and surviving it, this is it. 2. Mitigations for Construction Root Damage. There is always root damage when construction takes place near established trees. The purpose of a pre-construction arborist report is to prescribe ways that damage may be prevented to the extent possible, and mitigated to the extent protection is not possible. We’ll lump those two together and call them “mitigations.” The thing that strikes me about this report is it doesn’t provide mitigations. So if SLOREP’s “sole assignment [to the arborist] was to tell us how to protect the tree,” I find this omission odd. The report doesn’t provide what SLOREP says it asked for. • Drip line zone. The baseline protective mitigation is “prevent damage within the drip line” because that’s where the most important roots are located. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing contractors to damage ground within the drip line. Best practices are to fence off the ground area to be protected. But this best practices mitigation goes unmentioned. Instead we have a diagram that shows unexplained extensive ground damage within the drip line. Why is there such damage? (If this damage is due to proposed new site features like paved walkways within the drip line, those features can and should be redesigned — moved outside the drip line; or if walkways must be there, raise them above ground level like a boardwalk or deck, and don’t put them in the ground. This sort of site improvement should never have been placed inside the drip line.) Further, not all roots are of equal importance when damaged. While roots do often extend beyond the drip line, the most serious damage to a tree comes from damaging roots well within the drip line. This is because that’s where one finds large roots that provide the tree’s structural support. 70 • Oak Root Structure. Oaks typically have deep tap roots that provide support in addition to lateral roots. Roots that extend further than the drip line aren’t structural. They are “feeders,” the fibrous little guys familiar to anyone who gardens near trees. They can sustain considerable damage without seriously harming the tree. Further, this tree’s location across the street from San Luis Creek, in an area with a high water table, means it would have roots extending into water-table-moistened soil, thus providing a ready source of moisture to nourish the tree regardless of ground conditions in the feeder root zone. So that’s a natural mitigation this tree enjoys that many don’t. • Mitigation for Peripheral Root Loss. There are commonplace mitigations for peripheral root loss, but the arborist report suggests none. I find that omission interesting since it’s common practice for arborists to recommend rebalancing canopy size after root damage to reduce the amount of canopy the remaining roots must nourish. Such compensatory pruning of the canopy reduces the tree’s demand for water and nutrients. Balancing the canopy with a diminished root system reduces physiological stress and conserves energy for root regeneration. I find this omission especially odd given it is built into the SLOREP plan — there’s to be trimming of the tree facing the theater. Instead of viewing that trimming as a bad thing, as the arborist report does, it could be viewed positively as compensatory insurance in the event the root system is truncated by construction. Any root loss would thus be compensated for by the already pre-planned trimming. A good mitigation, in other words. • Can root spread be documented? If one cared to, one could figure out the real extent of this tree’s root spread. There are low- tech methods, like digging holes and seeing what's there, or higher tech methods like ground-penetrating radar. But, frankly, I’d not bother. The overwhelming evidence from the history of this tree on this site is the CRZ claims vastly overstate the extent of root spread, and I’d feel comfortable keeping the tree on that basis alone. • Replacement Trees. SLOREP will plant 5 new trees to replace this oak. There are many problems with this since none of the replacements are natives like the oak; it will be 50 years before they collectively have something approaching the mass and carbon sequestration of the one oak — if they even live that long; they will never provide the ecological services provided by this one oak, etc. The replacement species are what I refer to as “junk trees” that are inappropriate to our location. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of coral trees here — they’re ugly and don’t do well. Highly sensitive to frost, how will yours do when we have a recurrence of the 17 degree overnight low we had some winters ago (which did major damage even to the huge downtown ficus trees)? This species is a poor choice. The two other species are also junk trees — one can even become an invasive pest. None of them grow large enough to collectively come close to the canopy of the oak. They are a waste. I find it sort of funny the city is having SLOREP plant four street trees in front of the parking garage, and SLOREP feels good about this. Those trees would have been planted, with or without SLOREP’s involvement. The city has simply transferred the cost of those four trees from its budget to yours. Even with the addition of SLOREP’s 5 trees, the total number of trees on the parking garage/SLOREP site will be fewer than prior to construction. In other words, actual “mitigation” is less than one-to-one. This is not real mitigation. There is no actual mitigation possible for the oak’s removal. But if SLOREP were to attempt such, I think it might look like planting several dozen coast live oaks, most off site for obvious spatial reasons. It would take decades even so to mitigate the loss of our one mature oak, but hopefully by then SLOREP would have accomplished something for our ecosystem that might provide a semblance of longer-term mitigation. 3. Eco-services Lost. Perhaps the most important thing about executing our oak is the eco-services it provides that will be lost with its removal. • Carbon sequestration. At the top of anyone’s list of eco-concerns today is climate change, and the realization that a couple centuries of putting previously sequestered fossil carbon into the atmosphere has brought the earth to a climate tipping point. Experts tell us what we do in the next decade is far more important than what we plan to do in the next half century — that we must do everything we can to cut down on carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration right now if we’re serious about 71 seeking to avoid long-term climate catastrophe. Our large oak contains tons of sequestered carbon, and continues to sequester more and more carbon with each passing year. This is found most obviously in the wood and canopy, but also in the root zone, where carbon is sequestered into roots and soil. When a tree like this is cut down, all of this sequestration not only ends, but the shredded remains almost immediately re-release their sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. (Saving a small amount of this with lumber harvesting, as SLOREP plans, makes little difference as the carbon thus sequestered is such a small proportion of the whole.) Removing trees like this is exactly what climate experts say we should NOT be doing right now; it increases carbon release into the atmosphere and diminishes high-level on-going sequestration. I don’t think the unnecessary removal of trees like this is ethical under these circumstances. • Local Climate Moderation. Tree canopies mitigate urban heat in a number of ways: protecting the ground level from direct sun, reflecting heat upwards, canopy evapotranspiration that cools temperatures, etc. Our oak does all of that with spades. Your coral tree replacement will do very little. This is about more than outdoor human health and comfort. Urban heat is a major driver of increased energy/carbon usage (like for air conditioning when a/c might not otherwise be needed) which drives us closer to climate collapse. Tree canopy protection from direct sun also helps preserve soil moisture, and that reduces wildfire danger by maintaining more moist ground level vegetation. SLO brags about its tree canopy, but at 16% coverage, it’s actually pretty poor. Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Jo se, and even New York City have much higher percentage cover. We are ahead of LA. • Oak’s Contribution to Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystem. It is sad that most people understand so little about how the ecosystem that we are part of works, even the most basic stuff like Barry Commoner’s declaration that in nature everything is related to everything else. In this respect, our mighty oak has quite a story to tell. Humans don’t exist apart from nature. If nature collapses, we do too. Increasingly scientists are telling us a healthy biodiverse ecosystem starts with the tiniest organisms and works upwards from there. Organisms have their particular niches, and often cannot be shuffled around at human convenience; Monarch butterflies dependence on milkweed to reproduce is a well-known example of this principle. As far as our oak goes, this is far too complex to discuss deeply here, but allow me to provide one example to show how its life interweaves with lives of other species: its relationship to songbirds, which are species of local concern (meaning they’re in significant decline). The decline stems from loss of suitable habitat, including the loss of native oaks. “Habitat” provides not only sheltered places for resting and nesting, but also plant species that provide or support the particular foods on which birds depend. The city has done a decent job of revegetating the previously exotic-filled, and thus sterile, San Luis Creek corridor across from SLOREP with native tree species that nourish songbirds, and this potentiates the value of our oak. Note, native is essential — native trees support native invertebrates which support native birds. Introduce exotic trees, and you’ve interrupted the natural synergy. A simple example, and touchstone, for assessing a tree’s nutritional support for birds is to measure invertebrate populations supported by that tree. Caterpillar species is a stand-in to illustrate this. According to Xerces Society studies, a native oak can support up to 275 species of native caterpillars, making them incredibly valuable for native songbird viability. Our oak is an incredible food resource for our declining riparian songbird populations. The birds’ presence in the oak will also bring delight to your patrons. A coral tree will not fill this niche; it speaks a foreign eco-language. These sorts of ethical considerations need to be included in decisions about retaining/replacing trees, particularly those stalwart natives like our oak, with its known ecological roles and benefits. 4. A Win/Win/Win Easy-to-Implement Solution. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a solution that’s a win for the tree, a win for SLOREP’s public relations problem, and a win for sustaining the ecological value of our urban forest? Alas, there is one staring us in the face. It is this: leave the tree in place, work around it with proper best practices care for it on a construction site, cut what must be cut but no more (roots and canopy), and allow the tree to recover and thrive. What is there to lose? Absolutely nothing. Worst case, in five years the tree dies and can easily be removed with a lift truck from the street. Best and most likely case, this wonderful tree continues to live, delight us, and offer its eco-services for several more centuries. Please note, this solution is entirely reasonable. The arborist report’s negativity is based on a lot of guess work based on subjective interpretation of rule-of-thumb textbook information, and is not based on examination of actual root densities and 72 locations on the site. Circumstantially, given past construction and deconstruction on the site (described above and illustrated in photos in pdf attachment at end of the thread), the likelihood of a root structure like that hypothesized in the arborist report is small. The theater footprint appears to partly replicate that of earlier buildings on the site, whose foundations would have inhibited root spread. All this suggests the tree has a very good chance at robust survival. Further, with roots deep into the ground where the riparian water table is high and plentiful year round, this tree is uniquely suited to weather any harms that might occur to its peripheral roots. It will not be dependent upon peripheral roots for its water supply. Since conventional remediation for root damage is canopy pruning, and such pruning is already part of the SLOREP plan, that mitigation is already built into the preservation plan. Remember, construction around trees always damages roots. With time, any root damage sustained will repair itself. There’s no need to be hysterical about the future of this tree due to careful excavation in its potential peripheral root zone. The benefits to SLOREP’s reputation from changing course would be huge. Are you aware the city council received a large number of letters opposing tree removal? Those spontaneous letters represent a tiny fraction of people upset about removing this publicly-owned oak. If SLOREP were to say it’s had a change of heart, and will give the tree a chance, you’d be heroes instead of bums in the public’s mind. Think about it — this solution costs you nothing, while it changes the vibe by showing you really do care about our tree. Finally, I’d suggest SLOREP hire a different arborist to draw up a construction protection protocol, one “whose sole assignment [is] to tell us how to protect the tree.” If SLOREP cannot afford that, I’d respectfully suggest maybe board members could chip in to cover the modest cost. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment: pdf file with photos of earlier site development showing relation of tree to buildings. On Monday, February 23, 2026 at 03:30:16 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the oak tree. Please forgive my delayed reply; I have been out of the country visiting my daughter. For 13 years, that tree’s preservation has been a core priority in our building plans. Since 2012 when the City first invited us to build, we have invested significant resources into a design specifically intended to protect the oak. We have operated in good faith, believing – as did the City – that our footprint and design plans were compatible with the tree’s survival. As garage construction neared completion last July, we began preparing the City-required tree protection plan. We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree. We were devastated by his conclusion that the tree was unlikely to survive any construction. Despite the arborist’s findings, we subsequently spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. Ultimately, no viable alternative was found. These are the insurmountable facts today: - Root size and vulnerability: The tree’s critical root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making the tree highly vulnerable to foundation work. - Design limitation: As the Council was informed Feb. 3, no feasible changes to our design would improve the tree’s odds of survival. - Prior Impact: As the City Staff report noted, the root structure had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure. Following the City Council’s final decision, we have shifted our focus toward a responsible succession plan that honors the tree’s legacy. Our Board has committed to a plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing trees, all drought-tolerant species. In addition, we have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber to give the tree a permanent, meaningful presence within the new theatre. I firmly believe that both SLO REP and the City have acted in good faith and exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. I hope you can support our overall project for the cultural and economic benefits it will bring to our community. Sincerely, 73 Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors On Feb 19, 2026, at 11:40 AM, Richard Schmidt < wrote: Dear SLOREP Board of Directors, Please put an end to plans to remove the large coast live oak on SLOREP’s future theater site. That is the ethical resolution of this ill-considered plan. When SLOREP struck a deal with SLOCity to use public land at Monterey/Nipomo for $1 per year for 99 years, they signed a lease. With regard to the beautiful coast live oak on the site — a tree owned, incidentally, not by SLOREP but by we the people of San Luis Obispo —, the lease states “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree . . .” There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word “shall” in a legal document. Despite promising, in writing, to “preserve, protect and maintain” this tree, SLOREP recently went to the city seeking permis sion to remove this much-cherished and wonderful tree rather than preserve and protect it. The excuse for this was provided by a private arborist report solicited and paid for by SLOREP that instead of laying out how to preserve and protect during construction, what one would expect at this stage of development planning, devoted itself to rationalizations for the tree’s removal — rationalizations that in my opinion, and the opinions of others, hold little merit. It would appear, despite denials, that SLOREP wants the tree out of the way to make construction easier. How SLOREP proceeds from this point will say a lot about SLOREP’s values, as actions reflect an organization’s values better than words. Will SLOREP double down and chop down this publicly-owned tree? Or will it preserve and protect what it pledged to preserve and protect in order to get its lease? SLOREP’s reputation has already suffered from its going to the city to request tree removal. Proceeding with that removal, in my judgement, will cement that reputational loss into long-term disgust toward and distrust of the SLOREP brand. Why go that route? You have little to nothing to lose by preserving this tree on the theater site. Worst case, it dies later and has to be removed. But I don’t think that worst case is likely. Oaks like this aren’t hothouse flowers, they are resilient survivors. My hunch is if SLOREP takes reasonable steps to protect the tree during construction, the tree will outlive SLOREP’s 99-year lease. You owe it the chance to do that. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 74 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Monday, March 30, 2026 4:26 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Kevin Harris Subject:Fwd: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Bob, And now Jan weighs in. I spoke to Jan at some length at the Downtown SLO event. I think I shared that conversation with you. Chip Begin forwarded message: From: "Marx, Jan" <jmarx@slocity.org> Subject: Fw: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Date: March 30, 2026 at 1:57:30 PM PDT To: Chip Visci < Heads up, Chip and Kevin. I’m going to be out of the country tomorrow through April 15, so wanted you to be aware of this brewing situation in case something happens during the time I sm gone. If there is any way SLO Rep can avoid these negative optics, you may want to consider your options. The community was promised by the City for decades that the oak would be protected, but the anger at it being destroyed seems now to be aimed at SLO Rep. Best Jan Get Outlook for iOS From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 9:02:29 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Agenda Correspondence next meeting -- Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! I think the council should be aware of this correspondence thread -- chronological from bottom. This controversy is not going away. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Richard Schmidt < To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2026 at 08:58:08 AM PDT Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Dear Ms. Nichter and SLOREP Board Members, 75 I do hope my comments and the comments of others addressed to the Board are getting to all the individual board members, for otherwise they would have no idea the amount of community concern percolating over SLOREP’s planned removal of the oak tree. Since my last letter I’ve been quietly observing new developments, including the kind and generous offer by private citizens to pay for arboricultural work to protect the tree and ultimate tree removal should the tree not survive. I am, frankly, horrified at SLOREP’s brusk and belligerent rejection of that offer, and SLOREP’s declaration that this is the end of its willingness to talk about saving the tree. Indeed, that sounds like arrogant detached entitlement speaking, and does not speak well for SLOREP’s long-standing beneficial-to-SLOREP community partnership. I am shocked at this. Let’s just be blunt about this: Without the gift of venue and further gifts of monetary support from we the people of SLO, SLOREP wouldn’t be what it is today, and might not exist at all. Some appreciation from SLOREP might be in order. Let me remind SLOREP once again — this not your tree, it is a public tree that belongs to we the people of SLO. As a condition of the lease we the people granted SLOREP for permanent use of our land, SLOREP pledged to save the oak. Verbatim from your lease: “SLOREP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey . . .” “Shall” is a promise, an obligation, a requirement, not something to be tossed away if SLOREP doesn’t like the cost of doing what it promised in order to get its lease. Now, instead of taking “ALL reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” our public tree, SLOREP says it cannot be bothered, that moving ahead quickly with total site clearance and construction is more important. The reasons SLOREP cites for its position ring hollow, some because of questionable factuality, others because they use language my college mate Dave Barry calls “Marketing Speak, which is sort of like English, except that it doesn’t actually mean anything.” Here’s my take on major features of SLOREP’s current position. Extra Cost. At the top of SLOREP’s latest explanation for refusing to save the oak, even with generous financial assistance from private citizens, is that it costs more than cutting down the tree and totally clearing the site so contractors don’t have to bother with precautionary measures, or what SLOREP calls “restricted staging required to protect the tree” — stuff like fencing off the tree’s dripline, which is totally standard practice on construction sites with trees. If the tree is to be saved, SLOREP claims it will cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” more than removing the tree. Here’s the problem with that rationalization. We’re talking about money SLOREP would have had to spend to fulfill the tree preservation clause in its lease, so it’s not a new monetary requirement caused by what SLOREP seemingly regards as unreasonable public demands to preserve the tree. Nor is it in any way an increase in costs over what SLOREP would have paid to follow its lease terms. Now that SLOREP has its lease and permission to proceed with construction on public land, is SLOREP being too cheap to spend what it would have had to spend to fulfill terms of its lease with we the people? Sure it’s cheaper this way, but that’s not the deal we made with each other. SLOREP, please don’t Trump us by tearing up the agreement we and you agreed to. Extensive Hand Excavation Required. SLOREP also makes much of the cost and inconvenience of “specialized manual excavation” for the building’s foundation. The nature, reason for, and extent of this alleged hand excavation are not spelled out — simply repeated emphatically as if that bestows legitimacy. As an architect I don’t get it. Mechanical excavators come in all sizes, with buckets from small to enormous. It seems to me that using appropriately sized equipment almost all excavation could be done with machinery. Further, since (as detailed below in earlier email) the likely extent of the tree’s root system is being greatly exaggerated, there would likely be far less root intrusion beneath the building footprint than the arborist’s alarmist report suggests — but nobody knows for sure since SLOREP has refused to hire a different arborist to study the issue of actual root spread and location. SLOREP’s Two “Independent" “Professional” Arborists. SLOREP claims “two independent professional arborists conclud[ed] that the tree is unlikely to survive,” and therefore no effort to save it is worthwhile. There are numerous problems with this statement, which has been repeated in its essence in numerous documents, including questions about its fundamental factuality. 76 In previous emails (see below) I have detailed major factual problems. In summary, the hired arborist’s report bases its non-viability claim due to root spread not on actual site investigation but on a textbook rule of thumb about possible root spread patterns in an undisturbed non-urban setting. This tree has been subject to root zone interference and disturbance throughout its urban life, with building foundations dug in, dug out, underground utility installation and removal, ground-intruding site improvements installed and removed, etc. Previous building footprints were even more restrictive of root zone spread than the theater will be. I find it curious that SLOREP, if truly shocked by the arborist’s report of non-viability, didn’t bother to get a second opinion from another arborist, as a prudent person would upon receiving an unexpected dire medical diagnosis. If SLOREP’s intent was to “take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” the tree, this omission is weird. The repeated claim SLOREP worked with two “professional” arborists is also weird, since each message from SLOREP repeats the word “professional” as if this has meaning. Does it have meaning? One doesn’t speak of professional doctors, or professional lawyers, or professional any other profession. So why arborists? Perhaps because “arborist” is not a profession the state regulates and licenses, as it does for actual professions like lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, plumbers, contractors, cosmetologists or real estate brokers. While arborists offering certain services must have contractor licenses, California does not license arborists, nor does it limit who can call herself an arborist. So the term “professional” arborist is without meaning. Except as “Marketing Speak.” Likewise, the SLOREP claim two “independent” arborists agree on the tree’s non-viability also has factual problems. The arborist hired by SLOREP made the non-viability claim. According to SLOREP this came out of the blue, was an unwanted surprise. The obvious and intelligent thing to do next would be seek a second opinion, preferably from an oak expert. Another intelligent action would have been to determine where roots are actually located rather than believing they’re where a textbook rule of thumb says they might be located and that, preposterously, up to 95% of them will be disturbed by construction. SLOREP did neither. Instead, according to SLOREP’s own account, weeks or months were spent with contractors hashing out … what, exactly? Why not find out if the allegation of non-viability was supported by other experts? Maybe the whole fuss was over little-to- nothing. Now SLOREP alleges its refusal to plan for tree preservation stems from two “independent” arborists agreeing about non-viability, implying this conclusion is therefore beyond questioning. The second “independent” arborist is the city arborist, and attributing this role to him is both improper and quite simply wrong , for two reasons: 1. The city arborist’s role is as administrator of the removal permit process, an administrative not a determinative role. It is not within the city arborist’s job description to reach the expert determinative conclusions SLOREP claims he reached on its behalf. 2. Even if it were his job to reach determinative conclusions about viability, he may lack the experience and knowledge to reach the sort of conclusion SLOREP attributes to him (see LinkedIn), and SLOREP does the young man’s career no favor by verbally inflating his role and embroiling him in this controversy. Fact: there was one arborist advancing the claim of non-viability, not two. SLOREP could have, but chose not to, seek a second expert opinion. (SLOREP has also rejected expertise offered free by citizen arborists.) Fiduciary Responsibilities. SLOREP does owe the public fiduciary accountability for how its project is carried out. SLOREP apparently defines this duty as monetary prudence deferential to a select group of “donors.” I say select group of donors because SLOREP’s actions suggest not all donors merit this respect. For example, I am a building fund donor to the tune of about $150, but my concerns and needs are denied by SLOREP. I am actually a donor in two respects: 1. As part owner of SLOREP’s high value prime downtown site which we the people are allowing SLOREP to use for free essentially forever (at least for 99 years), after previous multi-decade free use of the old public library building. 2. As a direct construction funder through the city’s $6.7 million gift to SLOREP. So I have given SLOREP about $150 by that means. Do I not therefore deserve SLOREP’s fiduciary respect? Fiduciary responsibilities may take many forms; it isn’t just about penny-pinching. For example, how does SLOREP respond to major donors who would be furious about the tree’s removal were they able to be so? It doesn’t appear SLOREP has awareness of this fiduciary issue. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (an op-ed the Tribune declined to print): I suspect my old friend Harold Miossi, whose charitable trust has given $1.5 million to the SLO Repertory Theater’s building fund, would be hopping mad SLOREP wants to cut down a magnificent publicly owned coast live oak it promised to save. 77 Harold loved these oaks, and sparked my own interest in them. In fact, he was my first “oak teacher.” I grew up in the midwest, where deciduous oaks dominate many forests, but had never seen an evergreen oak till coming to California. When I arrived in SLO for my first job — as a reporter for the Telegram-Tribune — I was struck by the unfamiliar beauty of these spreading sprawling trees, unlike any tree I knew from the old country. As I explored the outdoors, I photographed oaks I found interesting, and soon some of my photos were turning up in the newspaper — like in a photo spread on the oaks of San Luis Mountain in the paper’s Saturday magazine. Harold made my acquaintance early on. A prominent rancher, he was chair of the new SLO Sierra Club chapter, and something of an environmental hell-raiser. He was known for stopping a CalTrans scheme to cut down Cuesta Pass and fill Cuesta Canyon, where his family ranch was located. He had also fought PG&E’s proposal to relocate its ill-fated Bodega Head nuclear plant, with an earthquake fault right under it, to Diablo Canyon. At that time Diablo was smack in the middle of a stretch of coastline the feds were eyeing for a national seashore. Harold also led a campaign to create the first national wilderness area in our region — to designate Lopez Canyon, which is right over Cuesta ridge from SLO, as wilderness. In me, a kid reporter, he found access to the news. He’d stop by the office frequently with news tidbits, which is exactly what any reporter loves. I was assigned to do in-depth coverage of the Lopez Canyon wilderness. Harold was my tour guide. For two days we hiked the wilderness, canyon and ridge tops, getting a sense of the land. It was on these trips that Harold taught me about the different live oaks of our area. On the coast we find Quercus agrifolia, the coast live oak, but in Lopez Canyon there’s a second type, Quercus chrysolepis, the canyon oak. Superficially similar, these two species differ in shape, size, leaf, and acorn shape. The wilderness quest proved frustrating for local conservationists. Our congressman, Burt Talcott, was opposed. Eventually we got a new congressman, a youngish guy named Leon Panetta, who was all for it, and the Santa Lucia Wilderness became reality. The Diablo Canyon controversy tore the national Sierra Club apart. Among club board members, only one had been to Diablo, Martin Litton. The rest talked about Diablo being a “treeless slot” with little value. Litton knew better — one of the finest coast live oak forests was located there. It included what Litton called the largest coast live oak in the world, with a spread of 150 feet. It was a beauty. Litton photographed it, and Harold, a friend of Litton’s, borrowed Litton’s negatives so we could make prints for the newspaper. PG&E planned to obliterate this fine oak forest to make space for a switching yard. But pressure was brought to at least save the world’s largest oak, though by the time PG&E finished “trimming,” it was much smaller. In being willing to work with this remarkable tree, PG&E showed more flexibility and public spirit than SLOREP, which has worked itself into a tizzy, convinced their choice is the theater OR the tree, when in fact it’s the theater AND the tree. SLOREP claims, based on easily refuted assumptions about the tree’s root spread, the tree has no chance of survival, so it plans to cut it down despite promising, in writing, to save it. SLOREP has absolutely nothing to lose by leaving the tree in place, taking reasonable care during construction to protect it, and then nurturing it to assure its continuing health. Nothing to lose, and a whole lot in the good citizen department to gain. I suspect that’s the outcome SLOREP’s generous patron would prefer. So SLOREP, honor Harold Miossi’s memory, his love for live oaks, his large monetary gift, and do right by our oak tree. Give it the chance you promised. The chance it deserves. SLOREP directors, I urge you to think carefully about the problems with your current position regarding the oak, and to live up to your obligation under your land lease to protect the oak with “all reasonable efforts.” Chopping down the oak for operational and economic convenience is not a “reasonable effort.” It is arborcide. Does SLOREP want arborcide to be its legacy to our city? SLOREP has created this political problem with its ill-intent towards this remarkable publicly-owned tree. Politics 78 and the public arts don’t mix well — witness the Kennedy Center fiasco. Continuing on your present path could well make SLOREP our local equivalent. I, along with many others with arboricultural knowledge and experience with oaks, reject the dire predictions of your hired arborist. Given a chance, this tree should do quite well. So, please — work around this tree as you build your theater and make every effort to see that it has hundreds of years of life to live. Richard Schmidt PS. A note about distribution of this email. I asked previously if letters addressed to the board went to all board members or just the chair, and didn’t get a reply. So I have attempted to obtain board member emails from public sources (but could only find a handful), and have included those as bcc. I’m also noticing the city council of our correspondence. On Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 12:10:32 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for sharing your professional perspective as an architect. We recognize that this tree is a significant piece of the local landscape, and we respect the passion you and others have shown for its preservation. To answer your question, my previous response reflects the position of the SLO REP Board of Directors. Our decision was not reached lightly; it followed the independent assessments of two professional arborists who concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive the next phase of construction. While we hear your concerns regarding the methodology of those reports, SLO REP and the SLO City Council have accepted these professional findings as the basis for our path forward. We believe we have exhausted all reasonable avenues for preservation, and the City Council has agreed with us. I have posted a final statement regarding the tree on our website, which you can read here https://www.slorep.org/a-new-stage/a-message-from-our-president/. At this stage, our focus must turn toward the construction of the theater and the long-term stewardship of the site. While we may remain at an impasse on this specific issue, we thank you for your engagement with SLOREP. Respectfully, Pam Nichter From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:31 PM To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site Re: Our Oak Tree’s Preservation, Letter #2 March 2, 2026 To Pam Nichter and SLOREP Board of Directors, 79 Thank you, Ms. Nichter, for your response to my letter to the SLOREP board of directors. I appreciate your willingness to engage with criticism of the SLOREP decision to remove our live oak it promised to preserve as a condition of its land lease. That is very encouraging. I do have a question, though: did my letter get to the entire board and your response represents their careful reconsideration, or is it from you individually? I do hope my comments, and those of any others addressed to the board, reach the entire board, in a timely way. Given the public relations nightmare SLOREP is building for itself if tree removal takes place, I certainly hope the board will want to convene to reconsider this issue. I further hope the board will adopt the win-win-win solution I offer at the end of this letter. You make a forceful statement in support of pre-emptive tree removal. I however disagree with much of the “evidence” used to support that decision, and therefore as a co-owner of this tree, wish to continue this discussion. Please do not lose sight of the fact that this is not SLOREP’s tree; it is our tree — belonging to we the people of SLO — and hundreds, perhaps thousands of us, are upset with what’s happening as a result of our extending SLOREP a most generous long-term lease for use of our property. In short, I believe pre-emptive removal of this tree prior to construction is both unnecessary and wrong. I’ll organize my discussion around four themes: 1, the arborist’s work; 2, mitigations to benefit the tree; 3, eco- services provided by the oak; and 4, a suggested win-win-win resolution to this faux pas. 1. Arborist’s Work. • Arborist’s scope of work. In your letter, you state that SLOREP has been committed to preserving the tree, and that in preparation for construction SLOREP consulted an arborist to get protective guidelines. You state: “We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree.” That is entirely proper, and as a licensed architect myself, exactly what I would expect at this point. The arborist, however, seems to have a different view of what his work assignment was. In his report he characterizes it as: “Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak . . .” Potential for protection? In the next sentence his report is referenced as a “feasibility of retention” study. Feasibility of retention suggests retention is a dubious option subject to subjective opinion, when it is actually a requirement of SLOREP’s legal agreement with the city. It is impossible for me to square your forceful statement of intent for the arborist study with the arborist’s own characterization of the assigned purpose of his work. I think you can see the problem of these incompatible statements of purpose and intent. If his given assignment was to provide protective guidelines, why is he even talking about “potential for protection” or “feasibility of retention”? And if his report wasn’t what SLOREP asked for, why was it accepted and used to undercut SLOREP’s intent? • Who hired this arborist? It is unclear from the public record who did this hire, and to whom he answered. SLOREP board? SLOREP staff? Architect? Contractor? City?Given your forceful statement of purpose for the report, I suspect he was not answerable to the board. And why this particular arborist? What unique qualifications did he present to get this particularly sensitive job? What recommendations featured in the hire? Was there any sort of bidding process? Were numerous arborists considered, interviewed and evaluated? Or was this a let’s-go-to-this-guy hire without comparison or competition? There are oak specialists, and my impression is they were not consulted. And if his recommendation to execute the tree was truly unexpected and unwanted, why did SLOREP fall in behind it and not immediately seek a second opinion? Different arborists see things differently, and I’m confident SLOREP could have found one more interested in helping you save the tree. • Basis for stating tree is doomed by construction. It appears condemnation of this tree stems from an eye- popping claim: that construction would disturb 86% to 95% of the so-called “critical root zone” (CRZ) and thus probably kill the tree. Eye-popping allegations like that merit critical analysis, of which there is no evidence in the public record. Using my grade-school mathematics skills, let me toss this claim into a ray of sunlight. Baseline best practice construction-site tree protection is protecting ground within the tree’s drip-line (the outer extent of its branches). To attain 95% disturbance while following that best practice would require a CRZ diameter on the order of 300 feet! Since the arborist report alleges a hypothetical CRZ diameter of 96 feet, the arborist’s report is internally 80 inconsistent — and its 95% measure would thus be off by about a multiple of three. So there’s a serious and obvious problem with the reliability of the extent-of-damage analysis that drives the tree’s death sentence. I have no idea where this 95% root damage claim comes from, but if I were intending to preserve this tree and had this thrown in my face unexpectedly, I’d sure ask a lot of questions and seek answers from many other ideologically neutral sources. • Is CRZ relevant? CRZ, on which the tree’s condemnation is based, is a theory. It is an abstract rule of thumb that may or may not apply to any particular tree. The only way to determine actual dimensions of a tree’s root zone is on-site investigation. It appears there has been none of that at this site. Instead we have vague allegations of unspecified damage due to street improvements and the claim of hugely expansive root systems away from the street. No concrete evidence. CRZ has faced criticism for being overly simplistic, as it doesn’t account for complex interactions between tree roots and their environment. Critics argue relying solely on CRZ can lead to incorrect assessments of tree health and survival prospects . So determination of tree health based solely or mainly on rule-of-thumb CRZ allegations, as this one was, presents at best only part of the picture. • This Tree on This Site. Even cursory thought about this tree and its site suggest a rule-of-thumb CRZ hypothesis about root extent is likely erroneous. This tree has never lived in an environment where such widespread roots are likely. Consider the tree’s history. It grew in someone’s front yard. Its root footprint was constrained by building foundations (that are not too different in location from the theater’s) and soil-intrusive site improvements like sidewalks, driveways and underground utility connections. It has also had public right of way impediments to root spread — the city sidewalk, gutter and street pavement with underground municipal utilities are not something new with the parking garage construction, despite what the arborist report suggests. This tree never had the opportunity to extend its root system in the manner the CRZ analysis assumes. (Photos of the tree with previous buildings are included in the attached pdf file at the end of this thread. They show how constrained the root system would have been by earlier site features.) Then the site was cleared, with heavy equipment: other vegetation with root systems ripped out of the ground, buildings demolished, building foundations dug out, driveways and walkways dug out, underground utilities dug out. Lots of disturbance in the alleged CRZ root zone and years later no harm from it visible on the tree’s above ground parts. This tree’s entire life has been one of root-zone limitation, truncation and disturbance. It is an urban tree adapted to this sort of thing, not a forest virgin facing root disturbance for the first time. These facts undercut any validity to the rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis being used as grounds for justifying execution of this tree. Clearly this tree is an urban survivor. If ever there was a tree capable of suffering root damage and surviving it, this is it. 2. Mitigations for Construction Root Damage. There is always root damage when construction takes place near established trees. The purpose of a pre-construction arborist report is to prescribe ways that damage may be prevented to the extent possible, and mitigated to the extent protection is not possible. We’ll lump those two together and call them “mitigations.” The thing that strikes me about this report is it doesn’t provide mitigations. So if SLOREP’s “sole assignment [to the arborist] was to tell us how to protect the tree,” I find this omission odd. The report doesn’t provide what SLOREP says it asked for. • Drip line zone. The baseline protective mitigation is “prevent damage within the drip line” because that’s where the most important roots are located. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing contractors to damage ground within the drip line. Best practices are to fence off the ground area to be protected. But this best practices mitigation goes unmentioned. Instead we have a diagram that shows unexplained extensive ground damage within the drip line. Why is there such damage? (If this damage is due to proposed new site features like paved walkways within the drip line, those features can 81 and should be redesigned — moved outside the drip line; or if walkways must be there, raise them above ground level like a boardwalk or deck, and don’t put them in the ground. This sort of site improvement should never have been placed inside the drip line.) Further, not all roots are of equal importance when damaged. While roots do often extend beyond the drip line, the most serious damage to a tree comes from damaging roots well within the drip line. This is because that’s where one finds large roots that provide the tree’s structural support. • Oak Root Structure. Oaks typically have deep tap roots that provide support in addition to lateral roots. Roots that extend further than the drip line aren’t structural. They are “feeders,” the fibrous little guys familiar to anyone who gardens near trees. They can sustain considerable damage without seriously harming the tree. Further, this tree’s location across the street from San Luis Creek, in an area with a high water table, means it would have roots extending into water-table-moistened soil, thus providing a ready source of moisture to nourish the tree regardless of ground conditions in the feeder root zone. So that’s a natural mitigation this tree enjoys that many don’t. • Mitigation for Peripheral Root Loss. There are commonplace mitigations for peripheral root loss, but the arborist report suggests none. I find that omission interesting since it’s common practice for arborists to recommend rebalancing canopy size after root damage to reduce the amount of canopy the remaining roots must nourish. Such compensatory pruning of the canopy reduces the tree’s demand for water and nutrients. Balancing the canopy with a diminished root system reduces physiological stress and conserves energy for root regeneration. I find this omission especially odd given it is built into the SLOREP plan — there’s to be trimming of the tree facing the theater. Instead of viewing that trimming as a bad thing, as the arborist report does, it could be viewed positively as compensatory insurance in the event the root system is truncated by construction. Any root loss would thus be compensated for by the already pre-planned trimming. A good mitigation, in other words. • Can root spread be documented? If one cared to, one could figure out the real extent of this tree’s root spread. There are low-tech methods, like digging holes and seeing what's there, or higher tech methods like ground- penetrating radar. But, frankly, I’d not bother. The overwhelming evidence from the history of this tree on this site is the CRZ claims vastly overstate the extent of root spread, and I’d feel comfortable keeping the tree on that basis alone. • Replacement Trees. SLOREP will plant 5 new trees to replace this oak. There are many problems with this since none of the replacements are natives like the oak; it will be 50 years before they collectively have something approaching the mass and carbon sequestration of the one oak — if they even live that long; they will never provide the ecological services provided by this one oak, etc. The replacement species are what I refer to as “junk trees” that are inappropriate to our location. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of coral trees here — they’re ugly and don’t do well. Highly sensitive to frost, how will yours do when we have a recurrence of the 17 degree overnight low we had some winters ago (which did major damage even to the huge downtown ficus trees)? This species is a poor choice. The two other species are also junk trees — one can even become an invasive pest. None of them grow large enough to collectively come close to the canopy of the oak. They are a waste. I find it sort of funny the city is having SLOREP plant four street trees in front of the parking garage, and SLOREP feels good about this. Those trees would have been planted, with or without SLOREP’s involvement. The city has simply transferred the cost of those four trees from its budget to yours. Even with the addition of SLOREP’s 5 trees, the total number of trees on the parking garage/SLOREP site will be fewer than prior to construction. In other words, actual “mitigation” is less than one-to-one. This is not real mitigation. There is no actual mitigation possible for the oak’s removal. But if SLOREP were to attempt such, I think it might look like planting several dozen coast live oaks, most off site for obvious spatial reasons. It would take decades even so to mitigate the loss of our one mature oak, but hopefully by then SLOREP would have accomplished 82 something for our ecosystem that might provide a semblance of longer-term mitigation. 3. Eco-services Lost. Perhaps the most important thing about executing our oak is the eco-services it provides that will be lost with its removal. • Carbon sequestration. At the top of anyone’s list of eco-concerns today is climate change, and the realization that a couple centuries of putting previously sequestered fossil carbon into the atmosphere has brought the earth to a climate tipping point. Experts tell us what we do in the next decade is far more important than what we plan to do in the next half century — that we must do everything we can to cut down on carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration right now if we’re serious about seeking to avoid long-term climate catastrophe. Our large oak contains tons of sequestered carbon, and continues to sequester more and more carbon with each passing year. This is found most obviously in the wood and canopy, but also in the root zone, where carbon is sequestered into roots and soil. When a tree like this is cut down, all of this sequestration not only ends, but the shredded remains almost immediately re-release their sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. (Saving a small amount of this with lumber harvesting, as SLOREP plans, makes little difference as the carbon thus sequestered is such a small proportion of the whole.) Removing trees like this is exactly what climate experts say we should NOT be doing right now; it increases carbon release into the atmosphere and diminishes high-level on-going sequestration. I don’t think the unnecessary removal of trees like this is ethical under these circumstances. • Local Climate Moderation. Tree canopies mitigate urban heat in a number of ways: protecting the ground level from direct sun, reflecting heat upwards, canopy evapotranspiration that cools temperatures, etc. Our oak does all of that with spades. Your coral tree replacement will do very little. This is about more than outdoor human health and comfort. Urban heat is a major driver of increased energy/carbon usage (like for air conditioning when a/c might not otherwise be needed) which drives us closer to climate collapse. Tree canopy protection from direct sun also helps preserve soil moisture, and that reduces wildfire danger by maintaining more moist ground level vegetation. SLO brags about its tree canopy, but at 16% coverage, it’s actually pretty poor. Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Jose, and even New York City have much higher percentage cover. We are ahead of LA. • Oak’s Contribution to Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystem. It is sad that most people understand so little about how the ecosystem that we are part of works, even the most basic stuff like Barry Commoner’s declaration that in nature everything is related to everything else. In this respect, our mighty oak has quite a story to tell. Humans don’t exist apart from nature. If nature collapses, we do too. Increasingly scientists are telling us a healthy biodiverse ecosystem starts with the tiniest organisms and works upwards from there. Organisms have their particular niches, and often cannot be shuffled around at human convenience; Monarch butterflies dependence on milkweed to reproduce is a well-known example of this principle. As far as our oak goes, this is far too complex to discuss deeply here, but allow me to provide one example to show how its life interweaves with lives of other species: its relationship to songbirds, which are species of local concern (meaning they’re in significant decline). The decline stems from loss of suitable habitat, including the loss of native oaks. “Habitat” provides not only sheltered places for resting and nesting, but also plant species that provide or support the particular foods on which birds depend. The city has done a decent job of revegetating the previously exotic-filled, and thus sterile, San Luis Creek corridor across from SLOREP with native tree species that nourish songbirds, and this potentiates the value of our oak. Note, native is essential — native trees support native invertebrates which support native birds. Introduce exotic trees, and you’ve interrupted the natural synergy. A simple example, and touchstone, for assessing a tree’s nutritional support for birds is to measure invertebrate populations supported by that tree. Caterpillar species is a stand-in to illustrate this. According to Xerces Society studies, a native oak can support up to 275 species of native caterpillars, making them incredibly valuable for native songbird viability. Our oak is an incredible food resource for our declining riparian songbird populations. The birds’ presence in the oak will also bring delight to your patrons. A coral tree will not fill this niche; it speaks a foreign eco-language. These sorts of ethical considerations need to be included in decisions about retaining/replacing trees, particularly those stalwart natives like our oak, with its known ecological roles and benefits. 83 4. A Win/Win/Win Easy-to-Implement Solution. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a solution that’s a win for the tree, a win for SLOREP’s public relations problem, and a win for sustaining the ecological value of our urban forest? Alas, there is one staring us in the face. It is this: leave the tree in place, work around it with proper best practices care for it on a construction site, cut what must be cut but no more (roots and canopy), and allow the tree to recover and thrive. What is there to lose? Absolutely nothing. Worst case, in five years the tree dies and can easily be removed with a lift truck from the street. Best and most likely case, this wonderful tree continues to live, delight us, and offer its eco-services for several more centuries. Please note, this solution is entirely reasonable. The arborist report’s negativity is based on a lot of guess work based on subjective interpretation of rule-of-thumb textbook information, and is not based on examination of actual root densities and locations on the site. Circumstantially, given past construction and deconstruction on the site (described above and illustrated in photos in pdf attachment at end of the thread), the likelihood of a root structure like that hypothesized in the arborist report is small. The theater footprint appears to partly replicate that of earlier buildings on the site, whose foundations would have inhibited root spread. All this suggests the tree has a very good chance at robust survival. Further, with roots deep into the ground where the riparian water table is high and plentiful year round, this tree is uniquely suited to weather any harms that might occur to its peripheral roots. It will not be dependent upon peripheral roots for its water supply. Since conventional remediation for root damage is canopy pruning, and such pruning is already part of the SLOREP plan, that mitigation is already built into the preservation plan. Remember, construction around trees always damages roots. With time, any root damage sustained will repair itself. There’s no need to be hysterical about the future of this tree due to careful excavation in its potential peripheral root zone. The benefits to SLOREP’s reputation from changing course would be huge. Are you aware the city council received a large number of letters opposing tree removal? Those spontaneous letters represent a tiny fraction of people upset about removing this publicly-owned oak. If SLOREP were to say it’s had a change of heart, and will give the tree a chance, you’d be heroes instead of bums in the public’s mind. Think about it — this solution costs you nothing, while it changes the vibe by showing you really do care about our tree. Finally, I’d suggest SLOREP hire a different arborist to draw up a construction protection protocol, one “whose sole assignment [is] to tell us how to protect the tree.” If SLOREP cannot afford that, I’d respectfully suggest maybe board members could chip in to cover the modest cost. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment: pdf file with photos of earlier site development showing relation of tree to buildings. On Monday, February 23, 2026 at 03:30:16 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the oak tree. Please forgive my delayed reply; I have been out of the country visiting my daughter. For 13 years, that tree’s preservation has been a core priority in our building plans. Since 2012 when the City first invited us to build, we have invested significant resources into a design specifically intended to protect the oak. We have operated in good faith, believing – as did the City – that our footprint and design plans were compatible with the tree’s survival. As garage construction neared completion last July, we began preparing the City-required tree protection plan. We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree. We were devastated by his conclusion that the tree was unlikely to survive any construction. 84 Despite the arborist’s findings, we subsequently spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. Ultimately, no viable alternative was found. These are the insurmountable facts today: - Root size and vulnerability: The tree’s critical root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making the tree highly vulnerable to foundation work. - Design limitation: As the Council was informed Feb. 3, no feasible changes to our design would improve the tree’s odds of survival. - Prior Impact: As the City Staff report noted, the root structure had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure. Following the City Council’s final decision, we have shifted our focus toward a responsible succession plan that honors the tree’s legacy. Our Board has committed to a plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing trees, all drought-tolerant species. In addition, we have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber to give the tree a permanent, meaningful presence within the new theatre. I firmly believe that both SLO REP and the City have acted in good faith and exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. I hope you can support our overall project for the cultural and economic benefits it will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors On Feb 19, 2026, at 11:40 AM, Richard Schmidt < wrote: Dear SLOREP Board of Directors, Please put an end to plans to remove the large coast live oak on SLOREP’s future theater site. That is the ethical resolution of this ill-considered plan. When SLOREP struck a deal with SLOCity to use public land at Monterey/Nipomo for $1 per year for 99 years, they signed a lease. With regard to the beautiful coast live oak on the site — a tree owned, incidentally, not by SLOREP but by we the people of San Luis Obispo —, the lease states “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree . . .” There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word “shall” in a legal document. Despite promising, in writing, to “preserve, protect and maintain” this tree, SLOREP recently went to the city seeking permission to remove this much-cherished and wonderful tree rather than preserve and protect it. The excuse for this was provided by a private arborist report solicited and paid for by SLOREP that instead of laying out how to preserve and protect during construction, what one would expect at this stage of development planning, devoted itself to rationalizations for the tree’s removal — rationalizations that in my opinion, and the opinions of others, hold little merit. It would appear, despite denials, that SLOREP wants the tree out of the way to make construction easier. How SLOREP proceeds from this point will say a lot about SLOREP’s values, as actions reflect an organization’s values better than words. Will SLOREP double down and chop down this publicly-owned tree? Or will it preserve and protect what it pledged to preserve and protect in order to get its lease? SLOREP’s reputation has already suffered from its going to the city to request tree removal. Proceeding with that removal, in my judgement, will cement that reputational loss into long-term disgust toward and distrust of the SLOREP brand. Why go that route? You have little to nothing to lose by preserving this tree on the theater site. Worst case, it dies later and has to be removed. But I don’t think that worst case is likely. Oaks like this aren’t hothouse flowers, they are resilient survivors. My hunch is if SLOREP takes reasonable steps to protect the tree during construction, the tree will outlive SLOREP’s 99-year lease. You owe it the chance to do that. Sincerely, 85 Richard Schmidt 86 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Monday, March 30, 2026 4:24 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:Fwd: Additional communication about the oak tree Bob, Just FYI Mr. Schmidt sends along more commentary. See below. Our Board President so far does not plan to respond. Chip Begin forwarded message: From: Pam Nichter < Date: March 30, 2026 at 3:30:38 PM PDT To: SLO REP BOARD Subject: Additional communication about the oak tree Hello everyone, I am forwarding an email I received today from Mr. Schmidt as it was also addressed to the entire board. I know that some of you were blind copied on the email too. I do not intend to respond, at least at this point. Please feel free to communicate with me if you have anything to add. All my best, Pam Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Schmidt < Date: March 30, 2026 at 8:58:12 AM PDT To: Pam Nichter < , boardofdirectors@slorep.org Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site -- Please save it!!! Dear Ms. Nichter and SLOREP Board Members, I do hope my comments and the comments of others addressed to the Board are getting to all the individual board members, for otherwise they would have no idea the amount of community concern percolating over SLOREP’s planned removal of the oak tree. Since my last letter I’ve been quietly observing new developments, including the kind and generous offer by private citizens to pay for arboricultural work to protect the tree and ultimate tree removal should the tree not 87 survive. I am, frankly, horrified at SLOREP’s brusk and belligerent rejection of that offer, and SLOREP’s declaration that this is the end of its willingness to talk about saving the tree. Indeed, that sounds like arrogant detached entitlement speaking, and does not speak well for SLOREP’s long-standing beneficial-to-SLOREP community partnership. I am shocked at this. Let’s just be blunt about this: Without the gift of venue and further gifts of monetary support from we the people of SLO, SLOREP wouldn’t be what it is today, and might not exist at all. Some appreciation from SLOREP might be in order. Let me remind SLOREP once again — this not your tree, it is a public tree that belongs to we the people of SLO. As a condition of the lease we the people granted SLOREP for permanent use of our land, SLOREP pledged to save the oak. Verbatim from your lease: “SLOREP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain the large oak tree on 614 Monterey . . .” “Shall” is a promise, an obligation, a requirement, not something to be tossed away if SLOREP doesn’t like the cost of doing what it promised in order to get its lease. Now, instead of taking “ALL reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” our public tree, SLOREP says it cannot be bothered, that moving ahead quickly with total site clearance and construction is more important. The reasons SLOREP cites for its position ring hollow, some because of questionable factuality, others because they use language my college mate Dave Barry calls “Marketing Speak, which is sort of like English, except that it doesn’t actually mean anything.” Here’s my take on major features of SLOREP’s current position. Extra Cost. At the top of SLOREP’s latest explanation for refusing to save the oak, even with generous financial assistance from private citizens, is that it costs more than cutting down the tree and totally clearing the site so contractors don’t have to bother with precautionary measures, or what SLOREP calls “restricted staging required to protect the tree” — stuff like fencing off the tree’s dripline, which is totally standard practice on construction sites with trees. If the tree is to be saved, SLOREP claims it will cost “hundreds of thousands of dollars” more than removing the tree. Here’s the problem with that rationalization. We’re talking about money SLOREP would have had to spend to fulfill the tree preservation clause in its lease, so it’s not a new monetary requirement caused by what SLOREP seemingly regards as unreasonable public demands to preserve the tree. Nor is it in any way an increase in costs over what SLOREP would have paid to follow its lease terms. Now that SLOREP has its lease and permission to proceed with construction on public land, is SLOREP being too cheap to spend what it would have had to spend to fulfill terms of its lease with we the people? Sure it’s cheaper this way, but that’s not the deal we made with each other. SLOREP, please don’t Trump us by tearing up the agreement we and you agreed to. Extensive Hand Excavation Required. SLOREP also makes much of the cost and inconvenience of “specialized manual excavation” for the building’s foundation. The nature, reason for, and extent of this alleged hand excavation are not spelled out — simply repeated emphatically as if that bestows legitimacy. As an architect I don’t get it. Mechanical excavators come in all sizes, with buckets from small to enormous. It seems to me that using appropriately sized equipment almost all excavation could be done with machinery. Further, since (as detailed below in earlier email) the likely extent of the tree’s root system is being greatly exaggerated, there would likely be far less root intrusion beneath the building footprint than the arborist’s alarmist report suggests — but nobody knows for sure since SLOREP has refused to hire a different arborist to study the issue of actual root spread and location. SLOREP’s Two “Independent" “Professional” Arborists. SLOREP claims “two independent professional arborists conclud[ed] that the tree is unlikely to survive,” and therefore no effort to save it is worthwhile. There are numerous problems with this statement, which has been repeated in its essence in numerous documents, including questions about its fundamental factuality. In previous emails (see below) I have detailed major factual problems. In summary, the hired arborist’s report bases its non-viability claim due to root spread not on actual site investigation but on a textbook rule of thumb about possible root spread patterns in an undisturbed non-urban setting. This tree has been subject to root zone interference and disturbance throughout its urban life, with building foundations dug in, dug out, underground utility installation and removal, ground-intruding site improvements installed and removed, etc. Previous building footprints were even more restrictive of root zone spread than the theater will be. I find it curious that SLOREP, if 88 truly shocked by the arborist’s report of non-viability, didn’t bother to get a second opinion from another arborist, as a prudent person would upon receiving an unexpected dire medical diagnosis. If SLOREP’s intent was to “take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect, and maintain” the tree, this omission is weird. The repeated claim SLOREP worked with two “professional” arborists is also weird, since each message from SLOREP repeats the word “professional” as if this has meaning. Does it have meaning? One doesn’t speak of professional doctors, or professional lawyers, or professional any other profession. So why arborists? Perhaps because “arborist” is not a profession the state regulates and licenses, as it does for actual professions like lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, plumbers, contractors, cosmetologists or real estate brokers. While arborists offering certain services must have contractor licenses, California does not license arborists, nor does it limit who can call herself an arborist. So the term “professional” arborist is without meaning. Except as “Marketing Speak.” Likewise, the SLOREP claim two “independent” arborists agree on the tree’s non-viability also has factual problems. The arborist hired by SLOREP made the non-viability claim. According to SLOREP this came out of the blue, was an unwanted surprise. The obvious and intelligent thing to do next would be seek a second opinion, preferably from an oak expert. Another intelligent action would have been to determine where roots are actually located rather than believing they’re where a textbook rule of thumb says they might be located and that, preposterously, up to 95% of them will be disturbed by construction. SLOREP did neither. Instead, according to SLOREP’s own account, weeks or months were spent with contractors hashing out … what, exactly? Why not find out if the allegation of non-viability was supported by other experts? Maybe the whole fuss was over little-to- nothing. Now SLOREP alleges its refusal to plan for tree preservation stems from two “independent” arborists agreeing about non-viability, implying this conclusion is therefore beyond questioning. The second “independent” arborist is the city arborist, and attributing this role to him is both improper and quite simply wrong , for two reasons: 1. The city arborist’s role is as administrator of the removal permit process, an administrative not a determinative role. It is not within the city arborist’s job description to reach the expert determinative conclusions SLOREP claims he reached on its behalf. 2. Even if it were his job to reach determinative conclusions about viability, he may lack the experience and knowledge to reach the sort of conclusion SLOREP attributes to him (see LinkedIn), and SLOREP does the young man’s career no favor by verbally inflating his role and embroiling him in this controversy. Fact: there was one arborist advancing the claim of non-viability, not two. SLOREP could have, but chose not to, seek a second expert opinion. (SLOREP has also rejected expertise offered free by citizen arborists.) Fiduciary Responsibilities. SLOREP does owe the public fiduciary accountability for how its project is carried out. SLOREP apparently defines this duty as monetary prudence deferential to a select group of “donors.” I say select group of donors because SLOREP’s actions suggest not all donors merit this respect. For example, I am a building fund donor to the tune of about $150, but my concerns and needs are denied by SLOREP. I am actually a donor in two respects: 1. As part owner of SLOREP’s high value prime downtown site which we the people are allowing SLOREP to use for free essentially forever (at least for 99 years), after previous multi-decade free use of the old public library building. 2. As a direct construction funder through the city’s $6.7 million gift to SLOREP. So I have given SLOREP about $150 by that means. Do I not therefore deserve SLOREP’s fiduciary respect? Fiduciary responsibilities may take many forms; it isn’t just about penny-pinching. For example, how does SLOREP respond to major donors who would be furious about the tree’s removal were they able to be so? It doesn’t appear SLOREP has awareness of this fiduciary issue. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about (an op-ed the Tribune declined to print): I suspect my old friend Harold Miossi, whose charitable trust has given $1.5 million to the SLO Repertory Theater’s building fund, would be hopping mad SLOREP wants to cut down a magnificent publicly owned coast live oak it promised to save. Harold loved these oaks, and sparked my own interest in them. In fact, he was my first “oak teacher.” I grew up in the midwest, where deciduous oaks dominate many forests, but had never seen an evergreen oak till coming to California. When I arrived in SLO for my first job — as a reporter for the Telegram-Tribune — I was struck by the unfamiliar beauty of these spreading sprawling trees, unlike any tree I knew from the old country. As I explored the outdoors, I photographed oaks I found interesting, and soon some of my photos were turning up in 89 the newspaper — like in a photo spread on the oaks of San Luis Mountain in the paper’s Saturday magazine. Harold made my acquaintance early on. A prominent rancher, he was chair of the new SLO Sierra Club chapter, and something of an environmental hell-raiser. He was known for stopping a CalTrans scheme to cut down Cuesta Pass and fill Cuesta Canyon, where his family ranch was located. He had also fought PG&E’s proposal to relocate its ill-fated Bodega Head nuclear plant, with an earthquake fault right under it, to Diablo Canyon. At that time Diablo was smack in the middle of a stretch of coastline the feds were eyeing for a national seashore. Harold also led a campaign to create the first national wilderness area in our region — to designate Lopez Canyon, which is right over Cuesta ridge from SLO, as wilderness. In me, a kid reporter, he found access to the news. He’d stop by the office frequently with news tidbits, which is exactly what any reporter loves. I was assigned to do in-depth coverage of the Lopez Canyon wilderness. Harold was my tour guide. For two days we hiked the wilderness, canyon and ridge tops, getting a sense of the land. It was on these trips that Harold taught me about the different live oaks of our area. On the coast we find Quercus agrifolia, the coast live oak, but in Lopez Canyon there’s a second type, Quercus chrysolepis, the canyon oak. Superficially similar, these two species differ in shape, size, leaf, and acorn shape. The wilderness quest proved frustrating for local conservationists. Our congressman, Burt Talcott, was opposed. Eventually we got a new congressman, a youngish guy named Leon Panetta, who was all for it, and the Santa Lucia Wilderness became reality. The Diablo Canyon controversy tore the national Sierra Club apart. Among club board members, only one had been to Diablo, Martin Litton. The rest talked about Diablo being a “treeless slot” with little value. Litton knew better — one of the finest coast live oak forests was located there. It included what Litton called the largest coast live oak in the world, with a spread of 150 feet. It was a beauty. Litton photographed it, and Harold, a friend of Litton’s, borrowed Litton’s negatives so we could make prints for the newspaper. PG&E planned to obliterate this fine oak forest to make space for a switching yard. But pressure was brought to at least save the world’s largest oak, though by the time PG&E finished “trimming,” it was much smaller. In being willing to work with this remarkable tree, PG&E showed more flexibility and public spirit than SLOREP, which has worked itself into a tizzy, convinced their choice is the theater OR the tree, when in fact it’s the theater AND the tree. SLOREP claims, based on easily refuted assumptions about the tree’s root spread, the tree has no chance of survival, so it plans to cut it down despite promising, in writing, to save it. SLOREP has absolutely nothing to lose by leaving the tree in place, taking reasonable care during construction to protect it, and then nurturing it to assure its continuing health. Nothing to lose, and a whole lot in the good citizen department to gain. I suspect that’s the outcome SLOREP’s generous patron would prefer. So SLOREP, honor Harold Miossi’s memory, his love for live oaks, his large monetary gift, and do right by our oak tree. Give it the chance you promised. The chance it deserves. SLOREP directors, I urge you to think carefully about the problems with your current position regarding the oak, and to live up to your obligation under your land lease to protect the oak with “all reasonable efforts.” Chopping down the oak for operational and economic convenience is not a “reasonable effort.” It is arborcide. Does SLOREP want arborcide to be its legacy to our city? SLOREP has created this political problem with its ill-intent towards this remarkable publicly-owned tree. Politics and the public arts don’t mix well — witness the Kennedy Center fiasco. Continuing on your present path could well make SLOREP our local equivalent. I, along with many others with arboricultural knowledge and experience with oaks, reject the dire predictions of your hired arborist. Given a chance, this tree should do quite well. 90 So, please — work around this tree as you build your theater and make every effort to see that it has hundreds of years of life to live. Richard Schmidt PS. A note about distribution of this email. I asked previously if letters addressed to the board went to all board members or just the chair, and didn’t get a reply. So I have attempted to obtain board member emails from public sources (but could only find a handful), and have included those as bcc. I’m also noticing the city council of our correspondence. On Saturday, March 7, 2026 at 12:10:32 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for your detailed follow-up and for sharing your professional perspective as an architect. We recognize that this tree is a significant piece of the local landscape, and we respect the passion you and others have shown for its preservation. To answer your question, my previous response reflects the position of the SLO REP Board of Directors. Our decision was not reached lightly; it followed the independent assessments of two professional arborists who concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive the next phase of construction. While we hear your concerns regarding the methodology of those reports, SLO REP and the SLO City Council have accepted these professional findings as the basis for our path forward. We believe we have exhausted all reasonable avenues for preservation, and the City Council has agreed with us. I have posted a final statement regarding the tree on our website, which you can read here https://www.slorep.org/a-new-stage/a-message-from-our-president/. At this stage, our focus must turn toward the construction of the theater and the long-term stewardship of the site. While we may remain at an impasse on this specific issue, we thank you for your engagement with SLOREP. Respectfully, Pam Nichter From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:31 PM To: Pam Nichter < ; boardofdirectors@slorep.org <boardofdirectors@slorep.org> Subject: Re: Oak Tree on SLOREP Site Re: Our Oak Tree’s Preservation, Letter #2 March 2, 2026 To Pam Nichter and SLOREP Board of Directors, Thank you, Ms. Nichter, for your response to my letter to the SLOREP board of directors. I appreciate your willingness to engage with criticism of the SLOREP decision to remove our live oak it promised to preserve as a condition of its land lease. That is very encouraging. I do have a question, though: did my letter get to the entire board and your response represents their careful reconsideration, or is it from you individually? I do hope my comments, and those of any others addressed to the 91 board, reach the entire board, in a timely way. Given the public relations nightmare SLOREP is building for itself if tree removal takes place, I certainly hope the board will want to convene to reconsider this issue. I further hope the board will adopt the win-win-win solution I offer at the end of this letter. You make a forceful statement in support of pre-emptive tree removal. I however disagree with much of the “evidence” used to support that decision, and therefore as a co-owner of this tree, wish to continue this discussion. Please do not lose sight of the fact that this is not SLOREP’s tree; it is our tree — belonging to we the people of SLO — and hundreds, perhaps thousands of us, are upset with what’s happening as a result of our extending SLOREP a most generous long-term lease for use of our property. In short, I believe pre-emptive removal of this tree prior to construction is both unnecessary and wrong. I’ll organize my discussion around four themes: 1, the arborist’s work; 2, mitigations to benefit the tree; 3, eco- services provided by the oak; and 4, a suggested win-win-win resolution to this faux pas. 1. Arborist’s Work. • Arborist’s scope of work. In your letter, you state that SLOREP has been committed to preserving the tree, and that in preparation for construction SLOREP consulted an arborist to get protective guidelines. You state: “We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree.” That is entirely proper, and as a licensed architect myself, exactly what I would expect at this point. The arborist, however, seems to have a different view of what his work assignment was. In his report he characterizes it as: “Per your request, the following report is an assessment regarding the condition and potential for protection of one (1) coast live oak . . .” Potential for protection? In the next sentence his report is referenced as a “feasibility of retention” study. Feasibility of retention suggests retention is a dubious option subject to subjective opinion, when it is actually a requirement of SLOREP’s legal agreement with the city. It is impossible for me to square your forceful statement of intent for the arborist study with the arborist’s own characterization of the assigned purpose of his work. I think you can see the problem of these incompatible statements of purpose and intent. If his given assignment was to provide protective guidelines, why is he even talking about “potential for protection” or “feasibility of retention”? And if his report wasn’t what SLOREP asked for, why was it accepted and used to undercut SLOREP’s intent? • Who hired this arborist? It is unclear from the public record who did this hire, and to whom he answered. SLOREP board? SLOREP staff? Architect? Contractor? City?Given your forceful statement of purpose for the report, I suspect he was not answerable to the board. And why this particular arborist? What unique qualifications did he present to get this particularly sensitive job? What recommendations featured in the hire? Was there any sort of bidding process? Were numerous arborists considered, interviewed and evaluated? Or was this a let’s-go-to-this-guy hire without comparison or competition? There are oak specialists, and my impression is they were not consulted. And if his recommendation to execute the tree was truly unexpected and unwanted, why did SLOREP fall in behind it and not immediately seek a second opinion? Different arborists see things differently, and I’m confident SLOREP could have found one more interested in helping you save the tree. • Basis for stating tree is doomed by construction. It appears condemnation of this tree stems from an eye- popping claim: that construction would disturb 86% to 95% of the so-called “critical root zone” (CRZ) and thus probably kill the tree. Eye-popping allegations like that merit critical analysis, of which there is no evidence in the public record. Using my grade-school mathematics skills, let me toss this claim into a ray of sunlight. Baseline best practice construction-site tree protection is protecting ground within the tree’s drip-line (the outer extent of its branches). To attain 95% disturbance while following that best practice would require a CRZ diameter on the order of 300 feet! Since the arborist report alleges a hypothetical CRZ diameter of 96 feet, the arborist’s report is internally inconsistent — and its 95% measure would thus be off by about a multiple of three. So there’s a serious and obvious problem with the reliability of the extent-of-damage analysis that drives the tree’s death sentence. I have no idea where this 95% root damage claim comes from, but if I were intending to preserve this tree and had this thrown in my face unexpectedly, I’d sure ask a lot of questions and seek answers from many other ideologically neutral sources. 92 • Is CRZ relevant? CRZ, on which the tree’s condemnation is based, is a theory. It is an abstract rule of thumb that may or may not apply to any particular tree. The only way to determine actual dimensions of a tree’s root zone is on-site investigation. It appears there has been none of that at this site. Instead we have vague allegations of unspecified damage due to street improvements and the claim of hugely expansive root systems away from the street. No concrete evidence. CRZ has faced criticism for being overly simplistic, as it doesn’t account for complex interactions between tree roots and their environment. Critics argue relying solely on CRZ can lead to incorrect assessments of tree health and survival prospects . So determination of tree health based solely or mainly on rule-of-thumb CRZ allegations, as this one was, presents at best only part of the picture. • This Tree on This Site. Even cursory thought about this tree and its site suggest a rule-of-thumb CRZ hypothesis about root extent is likely erroneous. This tree has never lived in an environment where such widespread roots are likely. Consider the tree’s history. It grew in someone’s front yard. Its root footprint was constrained by building foundations (that are not too different in location from the theater’s) and soil-intrusive site improvements like sidewalks, driveways and underground utility connections. It has also had public right of way impediments to root spread — the city sidewalk, gutter and street pavement with underground municipal utilities are not something new with the parking garage construction, despite what the arborist report suggests. This tree never had the opportunity to extend its root system in the manner the CRZ analysis assumes. (Photos of the tree with previous buildings are included in the attached pdf file at the end of this thread. They show how constrained the root system would have been by earlier site features.) Then the site was cleared, with heavy equipment: other vegetation with root systems ripped out of the ground, buildings demolished, building foundations dug out, driveways and walkways dug out, underground utilities dug out. Lots of disturbance in the alleged CRZ root zone and years later no harm from it visible on the tree’s above ground parts. This tree’s entire life has been one of root-zone limitation, truncation and disturbance. It is an urban tree adapted to this sort of thing, not a forest virgin facing root disturbance for the first time. These facts undercut any validity to the rule-of-thumb root-spread hypothesis being used as grounds for justifying execution of this tree. Clearly this tree is an urban survivor. If ever there was a tree capable of suffering root damage and surviving it, this is it. 2. Mitigations for Construction Root Damage. There is always root damage when construction takes place near established trees. The purpose of a pre-construction arborist report is to prescribe ways that damage may be prevented to the extent possible, and mitigated to the extent protection is not possible. We’ll lump those two together and call them “mitigations.” The thing that strikes me about this report is it doesn’t provide mitigations. So if SLOREP’s “sole assignment [to the arborist] was to tell us how to protect the tree,” I find this omission odd. The report doesn’t provide what SLOREP says it asked for. • Drip line zone. The baseline protective mitigation is “prevent damage within the drip line” because that’s where the most important roots are located. There is absolutely no excuse for allowing contractors to damage ground within the drip line. Best practices are to fence off the ground area to be protected. But this best practices mitigation goes unmentioned. Instead we have a diagram that shows unexplained extensive ground damage within the drip line. Why is there such damage? (If this damage is due to proposed new site features like paved walkways within the drip line, those features can and should be redesigned — moved outside the drip line; or if walkways must be there, raise them above ground level like a boardwalk or deck, and don’t put them in the ground. This sort of site improvement should never have been placed inside the drip line.) Further, not all roots are of equal importance when damaged. While roots do often extend beyond the drip line, the most serious damage to a tree comes from damaging roots well within the drip line. This is because that’s 93 where one finds large roots that provide the tree’s structural support. • Oak Root Structure. Oaks typically have deep tap roots that provide support in addition to lateral roots. Roots that extend further than the drip line aren’t structural. They are “feeders,” the fibrous little guys familiar to anyone who gardens near trees. They can sustain considerable damage without seriously harming the tree. Further, this tree’s location across the street from San Luis Creek, in an area with a high water table, means it would have roots extending into water-table-moistened soil, thus providing a ready source of moisture to nourish the tree regardless of ground conditions in the feeder root zone. So that’s a natural mitigation this tree enjoys that many don’t. • Mitigation for Peripheral Root Loss. There are commonplace mitigations for peripheral root loss, but the arborist report suggests none. I find that omission interesting since it’s common practice for arborists to recommend rebalancing canopy size after root damage to reduce the amount of canopy the remaining roots must nourish. Such compensatory pruning of the canopy reduces the tree’s demand for water and nutrients. Balancing the canopy with a diminished root system reduces physiological stress and conserves energy for root regeneration. I find this omission especially odd given it is built into the SLOREP plan — there’s to be trimming of the tree facing the theater. Instead of viewing that trimming as a bad thing, as the arborist report does, it could be viewed positively as compensatory insurance in the event the root system is truncated by construction. Any root loss would thus be compensated for by the already pre-planned trimming. A good mitigation, in other words. • Can root spread be documented? If one cared to, one could figure out the real extent of this tree’s root spread. There are low-tech methods, like digging holes and seeing what's there, or higher tech methods like ground- penetrating radar. But, frankly, I’d not bother. The overwhelming evidence from the history of this tree on this site is the CRZ claims vastly overstate the extent of root spread, and I’d feel comfortable keeping the tree on that basis alone. • Replacement Trees. SLOREP will plant 5 new trees to replace this oak. There are many problems with this since none of the replacements are natives like the oak; it will be 50 years before they collectively have something approaching the mass and carbon sequestration of the one oak — if they even live that long; they will never provide the ecological services provided by this one oak, etc. The replacement species are what I refer to as “junk trees” that are inappropriate to our location. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of coral trees here — they’re ugly and don’t do well. Highly sensitive to frost, how will yours do when we have a recurrence of the 17 degree overnight low we had some winters ago (which did major damage even to the huge downtown ficus trees)? This species is a poor choice. The two other species are also junk trees — one can even become an invasive pest. None of them grow large enough to collectively come close to the canopy of the oak. They are a waste. I find it sort of funny the city is having SLOREP plant four street trees in front of the parking garage, and SLOREP feels good about this. Those trees would have been planted, with or without SLOREP’s involvement. The city has simply transferred the cost of those four trees from its budget to yours. Even with the addition of SLOREP’s 5 trees, the total number of trees on the parking garage/SLOREP site will be fewer than prior to construction. In other words, actual “mitigation” is less than one-to-one. This is not real mitigation. There is no actual mitigation possible for the oak’s removal. But if SLOREP were to attempt such, I think it might look like planting several dozen coast live oaks, most off site for obvious spatial reasons. It would take decades even so to mitigate the loss of our one mature oak, but hopefully by then SLOREP would have accomplished something for our ecosystem that might provide a semblance of longer-term mitigation. 3. Eco-services Lost. Perhaps the most important thing about executing our oak is the eco-services it provides that will be lost with its removal. 94 • Carbon sequestration. At the top of anyone’s list of eco-concerns today is climate change, and the realization that a couple centuries of putting previously sequestered fossil carbon into the atmosphere has brought the earth to a climate tipping point. Experts tell us what we do in the next decade is far more important than what we plan to do in the next half century — that we must do everything we can to cut down on carbon emissions and increase carbon sequestration right now if we’re serious about seeking to avoid long-term climate catastrophe. Our large oak contains tons of sequestered carbon, and continues to sequester more and more carbon with each passing year. This is found most obviously in the wood and canopy, but also in the root zone, where carbon is sequestered into roots and soil. When a tree like this is cut down, all of this sequestration not only ends, but the shredded remains almost immediately re-release their sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. (Saving a small amount of this with lumber harvesting, as SLOREP plans, makes little difference as the carbon thus sequestered is such a small proportion of the whole.) Removing trees like this is exactly what climate experts say we should NOT be doing right now; it increases carbon release into the atmosphere and diminishes high-level on-going sequestration. I don’t think the unnecessary removal of trees like this is ethical under these circumstances. • Local Climate Moderation. Tree canopies mitigate urban heat in a number of ways: protecting the ground level from direct sun, reflecting heat upwards, canopy evapotranspiration that cools temperatures, etc. Our oak does all of that with spades. Your coral tree replacement will do very little. This is about more than outdoor human health and comfort. Urban heat is a major driver of increased energy/carbon usage (like for air conditioning when a/c might not otherwise be needed) which drives us closer to climate collapse. Tree canopy protection from direct sun also helps preserve soil moisture, and that reduces wildfire danger by maintaining more moist ground level vegetation. SLO brags about its tree canopy, but at 16% coverage, it’s actually pretty poor. Paso Robles, Santa Barbara, Monterey, San Jose, and even New York City have much higher percentage cover. We are ahead of LA. • Oak’s Contribution to Biodiversity and Healthy Ecosystem. It is sad that most people understand so little about how the ecosystem that we are part of works, even the most basic stuff like Barry Commoner’s declaration that in nature everything is related to everything else. In this respect, our mighty oak has quite a story to tell. Humans don’t exist apart from nature. If nature collapses, we do too. Increasingly scientists are telling us a healthy biodiverse ecosystem starts with the tiniest organisms and works upwards from there. Organisms have their particular niches, and often cannot be shuffled around at human convenience; Monarch butterflies dependence on milkweed to reproduce is a well-known example of this principle. As far as our oak goes, this is far too complex to discuss deeply here, but allow me to provide one example to show how its life interweaves with lives of other species: its relationship to songbirds, which are species of local concern (meaning they’re in significant decline). The decline stems from loss of suitable habitat, including the loss of native oaks. “Habitat” provides not only sheltered places for resting and nesting, but also plant species that provide or support the particular foods on which birds depend. The city has done a decent job of revegetating the previously exotic-filled, and thus sterile, San Luis Creek corridor across from SLOREP with native tree species that nourish songbirds, and this potentiates the value of our oak. Note, native is essential — native trees support native invertebrates which support native birds. Introduce exotic trees, and you’ve interrupted the natural synergy. A simple example, and touchstone, for assessing a tree’s nutritional support for birds is to measure invertebrate populations supported by that tree. Caterpillar species is a stand-in to illustrate this. According to Xerces Society studies, a native oak can support up to 275 species of native caterpillars, making them incredibly valuable for native songbird viability. Our oak is an incredible food resource for our declining riparian songbird populations. The birds’ presence in the oak will also bring delight to your patrons. A coral tree will not fill this niche; it speaks a foreign eco-language. These sorts of ethical considerations need to be included in decisions about retaining/replacing trees, particularly those stalwart natives like our oak, with its known ecological roles and benefits. 4. A Win/Win/Win Easy-to-Implement Solution. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a solution that’s a win for the tree, a win for SLOREP’s public relations problem, and a win for sustaining the ecological value of our urban forest? Alas, there is one staring us in the face. It is this: leave the tree in place, work around it with proper best practices 95 care for it on a construction site, cut what must be cut but no more (roots and canopy), and allow the tree to recover and thrive. What is there to lose? Absolutely nothing. Worst case, in five years the tree dies and can easily be removed with a lift truck from the street. Best and most likely case, this wonderful tree continues to live, delight us, and offer its eco-services for several more centuries. Please note, this solution is entirely reasonable. The arborist report’s negativity is based on a lot of guess work based on subjective interpretation of rule-of-thumb textbook information, and is not based on examination of actual root densities and locations on the site. Circumstantially, given past construction and deconstruction on the site (described above and illustrated in photos in pdf attachment at end of the thread), the likelihood of a root structure like that hypothesized in the arborist report is small. The theater footprint appears to partly replicate that of earlier buildings on the site, whose foundations would have inhibited root spread. All this suggests the tree has a very good chance at robust survival. Further, with roots deep into the ground where the riparian water table is high and plentiful year round, this tree is uniquely suited to weather any harms that might occur to its peripheral roots. It will not be dependent upon peripheral roots for its water supply. Since conventional remediation for root damage is canopy pruning, and such pruning is already part of the SLOREP plan, that mitigation is already built into the preservation plan. Remember, construction around trees always damages roots. With time, any root damage sustained will repair itself. There’s no need to be hysterical about the future of this tree due to careful excavation in its potential peripheral root zone. The benefits to SLOREP’s reputation from changing course would be huge. Are you aware the city council received a large number of letters opposing tree removal? Those spontaneous letters represent a tiny fraction of people upset about removing this publicly-owned oak. If SLOREP were to say it’s had a change of heart, and will give the tree a chance, you’d be heroes instead of bums in the public’s mind. Think about it — this solution costs you nothing, while it changes the vibe by showing you really do care about our tree. Finally, I’d suggest SLOREP hire a different arborist to draw up a construction protection protocol, one “whose sole assignment [is] to tell us how to protect the tree.” If SLOREP cannot afford that, I’d respectfully suggest maybe board members could chip in to cover the modest cost. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt Attachment: pdf file with photos of earlier site development showing relation of tree to buildings. On Monday, February 23, 2026 at 03:30:16 PM PST, Pam Nichter < wrote: Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the oak tree. Please forgive my delayed reply; I have been out of the country visiting my daughter. For 13 years, that tree’s preservation has been a core priority in our building plans. Since 2012 when the City first invited us to build, we have invested significant resources into a design specifically intended to protect the oak. We have operated in good faith, believing – as did the City – that our footprint and design plans were compatible with the tree’s survival. As garage construction neared completion last July, we began preparing the City-required tree protection plan. We hired a professional arborist whose sole assignment was to tell us how to protect the tree. We were devastated by his conclusion that the tree was unlikely to survive any construction. Despite the arborist’s findings, we subsequently spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. Ultimately, no viable alternative was found. These are the insurmountable facts today: - Root size and vulnerability: The tree’s critical root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making the tree highly vulnerable to foundation work. 96 - Design limitation: As the Council was informed Feb. 3, no feasible changes to our design would improve the tree’s odds of survival. - Prior Impact: As the City Staff report noted, the root structure had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure. Following the City Council’s final decision, we have shifted our focus toward a responsible succession plan that honors the tree’s legacy. Our Board has committed to a plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing trees, all drought-tolerant species. In addition, we have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber to give the tree a permanent, meaningful presence within the new theatre. I firmly believe that both SLO REP and the City have acted in good faith and exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. I hope you can support our overall project for the cultural and economic benefits it will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors On Feb 19, 2026, at 11:40 AM, Richard Schmidt < wrote: Dear SLOREP Board of Directors, Please put an end to plans to remove the large coast live oak on SLOREP’s future theater site. That is the ethical resolution of this ill-considered plan. When SLOREP struck a deal with SLOCity to use public land at Monterey/Nipomo for $1 per year for 99 years, they signed a lease. With regard to the beautiful coast live oak on the site — a tree owned, incidentally, not by SLOREP but by we the people of San Luis Obispo —, the lease states “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts to preserve, protect and maintain the large oak tree . . .” There is no ambiguity about the meaning of the word “shall” in a legal document. Despite promising, in writing, to “preserve, protect and maintain” this tree, SLOREP recently went to the city seeking permission to remove this much-cherished and wonderful tree rather than preserve and protect it. The excuse for this was provided by a private arborist report solicited and paid for by SLOREP that instead of laying out how to preserve and protect during construction, what one would expect at this stage of development planning, devoted itself to rationalizations for the tree’s removal — rationalizations that in my opinion, and the opinions of others, hold little merit. It would appear, despite denials, that SLOREP wants the tree out of the way to make construction easier. How SLOREP proceeds from this point will say a lot about SLOREP’s values, as actions reflect an organization’s values better than words. Will SLOREP double down and chop down this publicly-owned tree? Or will it preserve and protect what it pledged to preserve and protect in order to get its lease? SLOREP’s reputation has already suffered from its going to the city to request tree removal. Proceeding with that removal, in my judgement, will cement that reputational loss into long-term disgust toward and distrust of the SLOREP brand. Why go that route? You have little to nothing to lose by preserving this tree on the theater site. Worst case, it dies later and has to be removed. But I don’t think that worst case is likely. Oaks like this aren’t hothouse flowers, they are resilient survivors. My hunch is if SLOREP takes reasonable steps to protect the tree during construction, the tree will outlive SLOREP’s 99-year lease. You owe it the chance to do that. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt 107 From:Building Sent:Wednesday, March 18, 2026 3:05 PM To:Rebecca Newman; Nichols, Vanessa Cc:Kevin Harris; Bryce Engstrom; Thom Jess Subject:RE: SLO Rep Theatre - BLDG-2740-2024 Attachments:BLDG-2740-2024 CSG FIRE V3.pdf; BLDG-2740-2024 CSG STRUC V3.pdf; BLDG-2740-2024 _Review_V3.docx; Permit Corrections Report.pdf Hi Rebecca, I have added you to the permit in case you need access. See attached V3 corrections. The Architectural review was done in house by Sean, and the Structural/Fire review was reviewed by our consultant CSG. Let me know if you need anything else. Ilianna Silva Permit Technician II Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Rebecca Newman <rebecca@arris-studio.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 2:42 PM To: Building <building@slocity.org>; Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org>; Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Thom Jess <tjess@arris- studio.com> Subject: SLO Rep Theatre - BLDG-2740-2024 Hi Ilianna & Vanessa, We are working with SLO Rep Theatre to address the plan check items, ownership and the AOR are cc'ed here. Would you be able to provide the team all of the plan check comments? We've received Seano's comments as well as the other in-house reviewers whose comments show up in the report, however, we don't have anything from the 3 rd party reviewer comments. Based on the report we need the following:  Building Consultant  Fire and/or Fire Consultant  Public Works  Stormwater 108 Thank You, Rebecca Newman | Arris Studio Architects 1319 Marsh Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph: (805) 547-2240 ext 122 Email: rebecca@arris-studio.com Web: ARRIS-STUDIO.com Letter of Transmittal Fire Plan Review Services 930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360 www.csgengr.com phone 1.888.794.2016 To: City of San Luis Obispo Date: January 30, 2026 Review No: 3rd 990 Palm Street CSG No.: 25F-0470 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Jurisdiction No.: BLDG-2740-2024 Attn: Building and Fire Department Job Address: 614 Monterey Job Description: New Performing Arts Theater Status: Plan requires corrections. See attached list. Plan is ready for permit issuance for the following: Architectural <20 Head Sprinkler Mod UG Fire Service Fixed Fire Protection Fire Sprinklers Water Flow Monitoring Monitoring Hood/Duct System Fire Alarm Repair Automatic Fire Alarm Other: We have reviewed the following documents (Digital): X Plans CSFM Listing Hydraulic Calculations Water Flow Test Letter Battery Calculations Structural Review Letter Manufacture’s Specs Other: Special items to note: Plans have been stamped by CSG. Water Meter Size Required: Fire Inspection During Installation is Required For: Alternate Materials and Method Review Expedited Plan Check Performed X Please collect a plan review fee for 3 hour(s) of plan check. Amount: $ 414.00 Sprinkler Head Count Alarm Device Count Remarks: From: Rodger Maggio CSG Consultants 25F-0470 Page | 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FIRE REVIEW Date: January 30, 2026 Phone: 1.888.794.2016 Job Description: New Performing Arts Theater Email: planreview@csgengr.com Address: 614 Monterey Jurisdiction No.: BLDG-2740-2024 INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW Please resubmit (3) complete sets of revised hardcopy plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit complete sets of revised digital plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. In addition to the below plan check comments, there may be additional comments from other departments and agencies having jurisdiction for this project (i.e. City of San Luis Obispo Planning, Public Works, Building, etc.). PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 1. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit a complete set of plans and documents upon every resubmittal. Any missing plan sheets, missing stamps and/or signatures (where required) may delay the review process. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 2. Submit written responses addressing each plan review comments below and a summary of changes for any additional modifications. In each response, refer to specific detail or sheet, or specific page of the supporting documents. Show compliance with all comments within the construction documents. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ Fire Plan Check Comments by |Rodger Maggio, rodgerm@csgengr.com| A1. Deferred Submittals: Add Fire Sprinklers as a Deferred submittal. If Fire sprinklers have already been submittal, add note under Separate Submittals with the permit number under which they were reviewed. Remove fire sprinkler hydraulic calculations and manufacturer spec sheets from building plan submittal package. These belong with the fire sprinkler package. Response: _____________________________________________________________ A2. Remove Fire Alarm plan from building submittal. Add Fire Alarm under Deferred submittal on cover sheet. If already submitted for review add note under Separate Submittals with the permit number under which they were submitted. Response: __________________________________________________________________________ A3. Add Emergency Responder Communications Enhancement Systems (California Fire Code 510) as a deferred submittal. Response: ___________________________________________________________________ 25F-0470 Page | 2 A4. Deferred Submittals: The San Luis Obispo Fire Departments requires separate plans and permits for Underground fire mains. Please add a “Deferred Submittal” section on cover sheet. A. Add Underground Fire Lateral under “Deferred Submittal section. i. Fire lateral plans shall be submitted by the installing contractor or registered engineer to include pipe material, size and pressure class; thrust blocks or mechanical restraint; trench detail; tracer wire/metallic tape. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ A5. The occupant load of the building is over 300 persons. All exits shall be directly to the exterior or through a 1- hour rated corridor, or lobby to an exit. CFC 1030.2. The exit from the Black Box Theater, Doors D30, to the “hallway” is the main entrance to the theater from the lobby and therefore is the main exit from the Black Box Theater. The main exit shall accommodate 50% of the occupant load. The “hallway” is a required 1-hour corridor and shall be labeled “corridor”. The roll up door, D22, from the Green Room to the corridor shall have a 1-hour fire rating and a smoke rating. As such, the automatic closure shall be activated by listed door closing smoke detectors, not just a fusible link. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ A6. The egress analysis sheet A-1.1. Shows an exit door from the Green Room light lock to the corridor/lobby with an occupant load served of 23 persons, however, this door is not shown on the floor plan on Sheet A-3.0, the lighting plans among others. Please review and provide consistency on every sheet. Exit doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel. The exit analysis occupant loads from the Green Room do not match the calculated occupant load. Response: _______________________________________________________________________ A7. All exit doors in a fire rated assembly that require “panic hardware” (referred to on the door schedule as “crashbars”) shall be listed “Fire Exit Hardware” Show on door schedule. CFC 1010.2.9. Response: ___________________________________________________________________________ A8. Please confirm is “passageway” (CFC 1024) is required for exit travel distance or is this mislabeled and should be an exit access corridor (CFC 1020). Response: _______________________________________________________________________ A9. Please show locations of all fire extinguishers. Extinguishers shall have a minimum 2A10BC rating, mounted in cabinets 3-5 feet above floor, locations not to exceed 75 feet to an extinguisher. Additional fire extinguishers shall be located in the following locations: On each side of fly galleries, In basement spaces beneath stages, In every hallway or passageway leading to a dressing room, in every property room, carpenter shop or similar work room, on each stage. Please show locations and cabinet detail on plans. Third request. (CFC 906) Response: ________________________________________________________________________ (End of Fire Comments) Letter of Transmittal 930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360 www.csgengr.com phone 1.888.794.2016 To: City of San Luis Obispo Date: February 5, 2026 Review No: 3rd 919 Palm Street CSG No.: 450931 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Jurisdiction No.: BLDG-2740-2024 Attn: Building Department Job Address: 614 Monterey St Job Description: Structural review only –New performing arts theatre Status: Plan requires corrections. See attached list. Plan is ready for permit issuance for the following: Architectural Energy Structural CalGreen Mechanical Wildland Urban Interface Plumbing Certified CASp Electrical Other: We have reviewed the following documents (Digital): X Plans Energy Compliance Documents X Structural Calculations CalGreen Checklist – Not Applicable X Geotechnical Report Specifications Geotechnical Review Letter Wildland Urban Interface Truss Calculations CASp Documents Truss Review Letter X Response to Comments Special Inspection Form Other: Special items to note: Plans have been stamped by CSG. Environmental Health Services approval required. X Special Inspection is required. X Structural Observation is required. Valuation X Please collect a plan review fee for 1.5 hour(s) of plan check. Amount: $ Remarks: From: Ash Arya CSG Consultants 450931 Page | 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Date: February 5, 2026 Phone: 1.888.794.2016 Job Description: Structural review only –New performing arts theatre Email: planreview@csgengr.com Address: 614 Monterey St Jurisdiction No.: BLDG-2740-2024 INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW Please resubmit (3) complete sets of revised hardcopy plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit complete sets of revised digital plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. In addition to the below plan check comments, there may be additional comments from other departments and agencies having jurisdiction for this project (i.e. City of San Luis Obispo Planning, Public Works, Fire Prevention, etc.). PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 1. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit a complete set of plans and documents upon every resubmittal. Any missing plan sheets, missing stamps and/or signatures (where required) may delay the review process. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 2. Submit written responses addressing each plan review comments below and a summary of changes for any additional modifications. In each response, refer to specific detail or sheet, or specific page of the supporting documents. Show compliance with all comments within the construction documents. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ Structural Plan Check Comments by |Christine Jansen, PE, ChristineJ@csgengr.com| Ash Arya, PE, asha@csgengr.com| 3rd Review Comment: Please provide and submit written itemized response to comments S1 thru S20 by CSG and reflect the corrections on plans and in calculations for review. S1. Please provide a copy of the City of San Luis Obispo Testing and Inspection agreement, with signatures by all requested parties, with resubmitted documents. Please ensure the Inspection Agency is selected from the City approved list. https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31699/637795651542430000 https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31685/637795651445870000 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The form could not be located in the resubmission. Please provide. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S2. Geotechnical Report: A. Provide a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer stating that the drawings (i.e. –the foundation plan, the grading plan, and all pertinent details) have been reviewed, and that the geotechnical report’s recommendations are properly incorporated. Any exceptions noted by the Geotechnical Engineer are to be addressed prior to resubmittal. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. 450931 Page | 2 B. Please provide a letter or updated report from the Geotechnical Engineer validating the current report is compliant with the code change to the 2022 CBC Chapter 18. Please ensure the revised USGS database input coefficients were updated when the 2022 CBC was adopted. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. C. Please provide an independent peer review for the performance-based procedure (site-specific seismic design parameters) per ASCE 7-16 § 1.3.1.3.4 and C21.0. Please ensure a letter from the peer review engineer/firm is provided in the resubmission. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. D. Table D-1 – Spectral Response Values: i. Based on the Table D-1 Spectral Response Values data, the USGS Unified Hazard Tool with 2014 static values is being used. Additionally, this location can only be Site Class B/C using this tool; per the provided report, the Site Class is D. Per the Unified Hazard Tool user error note, ASCE 7-16 § C21.1 and USGS Seismic Hazard Model, Maps, and Site-Specific Data guide, either the 2018 NSHMP or WCGEP UCERF3 should be used. Site Class D should be used for the determination of the site-specific data. Please update. ii. Per ASCE 7-16 § 21.2.3, this should be the lesser of column 1, 2 or 5. iii. Based on the ASCE Hazard Tool Crs = 0.899. Please review and revise. iv. Please clarify where the design values in column 2 were obtained. v. There is not an exception ASCE 7-16 § 21.2.2. Please provide the deterministic MCE and lower limit deterministic MCE. vi. The Cr reduction only applies to method 1 (aka column (1)), please revise the footnote and column 2. vii. Per ASCE 7-16 § 21.4, the Sds, Sd1, Sm1 and Sms cannot be less than 80% of the values determined in ASCE 7-16 § 11.4.3 and 11.4.5. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S3. Deferred Submittals: A. For non-structural elements which would like to be deferred, which have not been explicitly allowed by the below comments, must have written approval from the Chief Building Official. Please ensure this written approval is included in the resubmission. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S5. Structural Calculations: B. At the wall designs, 1W or 1E are being used. Please revise to the applicable lateral loads from ASCE 7-16 Ch. 13 and 30, with a minimum of 0.2W with a but not less than load of 5 psf. ASCE 7-16 § 1.4.4 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The 1W (aka 1 psf or equivalent E value) resulting in a uniform load of the value of the height of the wall; example page 89, w1= 1W x 23.1 = 23 plf. This is less than the required 5psf. Please update the wall design calculations to consider the minimum requirements too; E=0.2xwall weight or 5 psf. H. At the shear wall overturning calculations, where holdowns are required at CMU walls, please revise the allowable tension per 2024-2025 Simpson Wood Construction Guide Pages 41. Further guidance on the required size of holdown for SDC D can be found on Page 46. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The Simpson third-party listed design values apply to this project. Please see above and provide an engineered design which includes calculations. M. Provide a shear wall design for the 8'-3" shear wall along Line G and the short wall along Line 8, at the control room level. 450931 Page | 3 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please see comment S20 for the short wall along line 8. P. For the Catwalk Truss Risa Model: Please provide the following: i. Code summary. ii. Load Summary. iii. Load combination summary. iv. Member Deflections. v. Node reactions. 2nd Review Comment: Comment corrected. Please provide the following from the RISA model. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S6. Provide the following calculations: A. CMU walls. Please include the in-plane, compression (considering overstrength where offsets exist) and uplift (considering overstrength were offsets exist). 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please confirm the compression with overstrength (at offsets) has been considered. B. CMU retaining walls. Walls retaining more than 6' are required to consider seismic loading per CBC 1807.2.2. Please include the in-plane, compression (considering overstrength were offsets exist) and uplift (considering overstrength were offsets exist). 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The revised Geotechnical Report was not included in the resubmission. Additionally, the above is the minimum requirements of the CBC and the Geotechnical Report cannot waive this requirement. E. Theater seating platform (gravity and lateral). 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please clarify how the cantilevered diaphragm requirements of SDPWS § 4.2.6 have been addressed. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S8. Provide structural plans and calculations for the following (these items are allowed to be a deferred submittal): C. Guardrails. Sheets A-3.0, A-4.0, A-4.1, A-5.0, A-5.2, A-9.1, A-9.2, A-10.1 and T-TE231 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Thank you for the stair guard rail calculations and detailing. Please provide calculations and detailing for the guard rails at the non-stair condition. D. Roof Access Hatch and Ladder. Sheet A-3.0 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response from Architect or modification could be located in the resubmission. Please note detailing and calculations is required for this comment. E. Accessible Lift/Elevator - Structural Support (not typically covered by the manufacture), attachment, railing, etc. Sheet A-3.0 and A-10.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please provide a complete list of the vertical egress elements in the deferred submittals list on Sheet A-1.0. H. Spiral Stairs structural support and the actual stairs. Sheet A-3.0, A-11.0 and A-11.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. Modification could not be located in the resubmission. See Comment S15. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S10. Equipment (these items are allowed to be a deferred submittal) - Energy Recovery Ventilator, Condensing Unit and RTU - Sheet M-1.0; Ducting w/largest dimension 24" and greater - Sheet M-2.1 and M-3.0; and Elevated water heater and platform - Sheet P-2.0;: A. Provide anchorage and supporting structural calculations for all floor- or roof-mounted units weighing more than 400 lbs. and all wall- or ceiling-suspended or mounted equipment weighing more than 20 lbs. Reference CBC 1613, CEBC 503 and ASCE 7-16 Ch. 13 and 26. 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Per the response to comment these items should be included in the deferred submittals list on Sheet A-1.0. Please coordinate and updated. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 450931 Page | 4 S12. Per CBC Table 601 footnotes B, every part of the roof construction is required to be 20' above the floor(s) (floors include mezzanines and catwalks). This building does not meet this exception. Please provide detailing for 1 hour rated protection of the primary structural frame. Ref. CBC 704.2, 704.3 and Ch. 2 definition for Primary Structural Frame 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. No response could be located in the resubmission. A. Please clarify how the continuity requirements of CBC 704.3 have been met where the catwalk connects to the primary frame member. B. Detail 2/A-5.1: The provided rated protection is for a column, not a beam. Please revise. C. Only detailing for the roof framing beams could be located. Please clarify how the other primary structural frame members in the screen shot below have been addressed. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S13. Please clarify how the structural elements supporting the 1 hour rated wall required by CBC Table 705.5, along the parking garage and garage egress court, have been protected. CBC 704.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Please ensure the modification to a 2-hour rated wall is considered in the support structure outlined above. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S14. Sheet A-9.7: Suspended ceilings in Seismic Design Category D shall be designed and installed in accordance with ASTM C635, ASTM C636 and ASTM E580, Section 5. The width of the perimeter supporting closure angle or channel shall not be less than 2 inches and the ceiling system shall be heavy duty. Please add a note for the Seismic Design Category D. Provide notes on the plans to indicate compliance with the ASTM standards as well as ASCE 7-16 § 13.5.6.2. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S15. Sheet A-11.0 and A11.1: All stair live loads are required to be 100 psf. CBC Table 1607.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. The spiral stair detailing has not been provided in the submission. Based on the Architectural Floor Plan the stairs are still a part of this project. Please either re-incorporate the stairs into the plan set and update per the above comment OR add to the deferred submittals list on Sheet A- 1.0. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S16. Detail 1/T-TS101: The title of the detail states "wood" and the detailing shown is for concrete. Per Sheet S-2.7, the material is wood. Please coordinate. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 450931 Page | 5 S17. Please update the structural plans and calculations to include the modifications to the Geotechnical Report per Comment S2. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Comment S2 was not addressed in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S18. Based on the City's Flood Prep Map and the Geotechnical Report some portions of the building/parcel are inclusive in the flood hazard map/zones. Please update the building to either be above the design flood elevation (BFE + 1') OR update the design of the building per ASCE 7-16 Ch. 5, CBC 1612 and City Ordinance 17.78 (https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.78). 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S19. Sheet S-0.1: A. The seating area is most like bleachers or grandstands (ref CBC Ch. 2 Definitions), therefore the required live load is 100 psf. and horizontal swaying forces 24plf/10plf. CBC Table 1607.1 and ASCE 7-16 § 4.14 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please also add the sway forces to the live load design criteria. CBC 1603.1.1 B. Per the occupant loads on Sheet A-1.1and CBC Table 1604.5 and ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-1, the Risk Category III. Please update the wind and seismic design criteria and the calculations. 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please update the basic wind speed on Sheet S-0.1 with the calculations. D. Please clarify on the plans that the Sms, Sm1, Sds and Sd1 are site specific values. 2nd Review Comment: Comment held until Geotechnical Comments are addressed. E. At the Design Criteria - Building Notes: Please coordinate with the Seismic Loads Section and the revised Geotechnical Report. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No modification could be located in the resubmission. Comment S2 was not addressed in the resubmission. G. At the structural observations, please add shear wall sheathing (decking), holdowns and anchoring. CBC 1704.6 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. In addition to the structural systems, details….general conformance code, the following also applies “shall submit to the building official a written statement identifying the frequency and extent of structural observations.” Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S20. Sheet S-2.5: Provide shear wall type and length for the control room level along line 8. CBC 1603.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. For clarity, please see the below screenshot from Sheet S2.5- Control Room Level. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 450931 Page | 6 (End of Building Comments) Date: 2-20-2026 Plan Check Review # 3 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Building DEPARTMENT ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) Sean McCaffrey Plans Examiner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E smccaffrey@slocity.org C 805.440.6617 P 805.781.7168 Project Address TBD Project Name SLO Repertory Theatre Application Number BLDG-2740-2024 Review of New Theatre Occupancy Class A-1 Construction Type V-A Occupant Load First Review 779 Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 2 1. When reviewing these comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future or we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify the design on the plan set is code complaint as I’m not fully aware of the day-to-day business within some of these spaces the code take note to that may not be okay. As discussed, please review the comments with your team and if needed you can reach out for an online teams meeting to go over some comments. 2nd Review: Teams meeting still okay to go over 2nd round of comment corrections as there is several comments needing vefication from Building Official & Fire Marshall to verify. New Fire Marshall and Building Official have changed since first review. 2nd Review Online meeting minutes: Verified that no storage (Outfits & Stage props) will be stored or kept during shows within the Green Room. This satisfies’ s the comment 3rd Review: During online meeting with client, arch, Arris and Edwards team is was onveyed not to complete the 3 rd review. Please be aware that there are outstanding structural comments still by outside reviewers. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2. Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery (If battery ends up being required) 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction. 2nd review: It seems Grandstand construction has been provided for the structure portion of the project and could be taken off this list. The fixed theater seating that attaches to the grandstand is still not reviewed and shall stay on this list. Comment on remaining open until last review to re-check all deferred items make it to the list. Please understand that fixed seating has not been verified yet and may change the construction of the grandstand if items need to be addressed during the deferred submittal process. Comments for ADA on the fixed grandstand seating updated plans were not provided from Round #1 comments. 3rd review: Put back fire & platform lifts back on the deffered submittal list as this is required. Engineer reviewer was not made aware of these changes to this list and will have to be notified within their plan check responses they have to start the structural review of these items. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 3. Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up-to-date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Please also stamp all sheets. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 3 2nd review: Note to reviewer- Check this at last review as other designers or reviewers may require additional sheets. Note to Designer- if including any pages that are calling out deferred submittal items and you would like to keep this sheet within the index provide a clear gray scaled out “For Reference only” from corner to corner on the individual page or details. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 4. Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd review meeting minutes: This was crossed of on the 2nd review as no code requirement would trigger any type of marking on the ground to prohibit stage creeping into the exit access aisle. 5. Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 6. When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal, please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Also please be aware attachments look like they are going to be to the roof that is (1) hour fire assembly. All items will that attach back will require a approved fire rating for membrane penetrations. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 7. Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 8. (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 4 2nd Review: Response to comment was stated money and space for a code complaint method which is not an acceptable Alternative means and methods acceptable to the code requirement. Please see code commentary for the “Why” this is required & you can possibly apply for a AMMR that would be reviewed by the building official and fire Marshall. As a plans examiner I cannot grant this exemption for the reasons provided. 2nd review meeting minutes: As discussed exemption # 3 does not require a “Won Door” but will require a fire rated door equal to wall the fire barrier rating of (1) hour *This is higher F rating as typically only 45 min per Table 716.1(2). Also, as exemption states the fire rated door shall be rated to ASTM E119 or UL 263 which are the fire test standards for walls. Please put test standard on this door mark schedule. Typically fire rated doors are rated to NFPA 252 or UL10C. Please specifically call these door outs with this special design requirement. From calculations it looks like for the larger theater space you will have to require this at the stage door or both light lock doors. Same requirement for little block box theater space. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 9. Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 5 2nd Review: Found it thanks. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 10. Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the BLDG & room backstage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. (Provide details of intersection) 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers bo d from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 2nd Review: Provide typical details for intersections and call out on the elevation view. As stated in plan response, the structural drawings would call out fire rated hangers where non-rated ceilings intersect rated wall assemblies, but I could not find details for these locations that specify this. See attic section at main theatre. See catwalk to rated wall connection. Referenced detail 2/A-5.1 for a drywall method of protecting (W-Flange roof members) need to provide the entire detail as the snip shot is not enough information for construction. Also Please look at member size that this was tested at as this is significantly larger than what is shown on the plans. Larger steel members perform better as they have a larger thermal mass to keep them below the transformation range of steel as it heats up. The required rated W-flange with crawl space needs a detail showing how to address the specified drywall to fluted deck fire rated continuity. Still missing required fire ratings at all floors and ceilings do to the 5A construction type requiring this per 602 CBC. Also, your typical detail call out 13/A-10.1 is for floor framing only and will not be used for roof as this is showing a subfloor and ¾” gyp crete installation. Note to reviewer: Next review for floors using this gyp crete confirm this is allowed deadload per his structural calculations. 2nd Review meeting minutes: As discussed re-work will be completed and possibly consult a fire engineer. Structural drawings shall clearly call out fire rated hangers if this is the method of protection to satisfy continuity requirements. FYI if 1 hour wall is required some walls shall pass through the ceiling assembly regardless of fire rating of floor/ceiling (707.5 CBC) if designed as a fire barrier. If designed as a fire partition you can stop the wall rating at equally rated floor or roof assemblys. (708.4 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 6 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 7 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 8 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 11. Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that an exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. (410.5.1 CBC) is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd Review meeting minutes: This was not covered on the 2nd review meeting, but was on the list of questions submitted to plan reviewer. Comment is addressed and no further action is required. 12. Technical areas will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) Alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Could we maybe even have a direct door to the low roof? 2nd review: This code section only addresses the maximum exit access travel distance, but when reviewing 1006 CBC your common path of egress is over the maximum which would trigger the second exit from these spaces. Mike Loew is currently not with the city anymore and this comment can be eliminated by Contract building official if designer wishes to challenge code comment. This is okay and we can gather all challenges and ask to go over one time after 2 nd review. 2nd Review meeting minutes- This has been sent to the building official as discussed & verified that a AMMR (Alternative Means & Methods Report) shall be submitted upon next review limiting the occupancy load for these area’s using excemption within 1004. This will allow us to have (1) means of egress down from the technical production area as long as less than 400’ without the use of the proposed “Exit passageway” currently on the plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 13. Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot as separated with Fire barriers. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 14. Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? The “Crawl space” cannot be used for storage as this is traveling through the electrical room. Please put on the door schedule for these access doors a sticker that states not for storage. (413 CBC / 107 CBC) 2nd review: From response it sounds like props will be brought in through garage doors D22 and put right on the stage? There will be no storage in the unlabeled room next to the break room? If going to be used for storage of stage items, please design according to room separation requirements. Also Green room shall not be used as storage if this is the intention as we cannot exit through “Storage space”. I’m not familiar how the back of house works and maybe a good topic to go over with Building official and Fire Marshall. (1016.2.5 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 9 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 15. Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 16. Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 17. Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 for the mezzanine to floor area calculation as done on the other main theater. (505.2 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 18. Under project data building is (2) stories due to the electrical room being (504.4 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 19. Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 20. Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assemblies. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 10 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzinises bellow as they are consider floor, but not stories. (I believe chapter 4 prohibits me from looking at the catwalk to roof measurement if still trying to use these footnotes.). Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specific details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzanine. Please review other comments that address fire concerns due to fire barriers continuity requirements. IF you end up going to a spray applied fireproof application, please add this to the special inspection list and deferred submittal list for fire protection plan. (1705.15 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd Review: This can be gone over via teams as a very complicated subject as comment 10 in this report addresses the same concerns. This can be a recorded session so you can search the video for explanations given with requirements, so no confusion on our conversation to 3rd plan submittal. Structural drawings and help from the structural engineer can help a lot of identifying members requiring individual fire protection. (704 CBC) This is a Risk category III building upon this review so special inspection will be required for ALL fire related items. Please update your statement of special inspection document and provide these inspection requirements on the plans. (1705 CBC) 21. ESR report for all exterior walls requires Dense glass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. For exterior wall call outs that are using this ESR report match drywall specs as this is a preoperatory system. (ESR-1627) 2nd Review: No call out #18 on north elevation sheets a directed from comment response. Looking further into your fire rated wall assembly’s it seems you are adding items to these GA / UL files which is not allowed per the listing. Please review all these wall schedules and make sure they match exactly what the file reads with directions that provide board orientation / screw spacing. Looking at A-4.2 calling out the rigid foam is not called out on the red boxed out system. 1 hour system can be calculated method per 722 if desired but is not allowed for 2 hours. As discussed you may not need a 2-hour wall system which would allow you to “Design” one-hour systems to your exact situation. 10/A-3.5 walls that are receiving the acoustic wall attachment please provide note that this attachment going from this material to studs shall be treated as membrane penetration. (714 CBC). Specifically call out the fire blocking requirements for Topa Ustick wall & Cera Clad as these wall assemblies create a air space void that allows fire to freely spread within the wall cavity or provide documents these have been tested to the correct NFPA standards. (718.2.6 CBC / 718.2.7 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 11 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 12 22. Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) 2nd Review: Provide a structural response that states this has been incorporated into their design as I did not see a response from them. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 13 23. Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items are corrected review for individual incasement requirements. (704 CBC) 2nd review: This comment applies to your project. Please review as this is a very expensive large requirement for your project. Columns and beams that are subject to this chapter shall be individually encapsulated i.e. intumescent paint. These beams and columns shall be identified and provide submittal fireproofing method. Please add special inspection table in accordance with 1705 CBC that outlines the special inspectors’ duties. Okay to add the submittal of the fireproofing on the deffered submittal list, but at minimum structural members subject to this code section shall be clearly shown on plan view. Please keep in mind that steel to steel connections with (1) member subject to this requirement would still have you incorporate 12” of the beam or column not subjected to this requirement for heat transfer. (704.6.1 CBC) 2nd Review meeting minutes: As discussed during the online meeting this requirement applies to your project. It’s advisable you consult your structural engineer on this requirement so they can help you determine what columns / beams apply to this requirement. Highlighted structural plans showing where this requirement is applicable is the best method of showing this requirement. Please make sure your Gypsum assembly or UL listed assembly matches the essential variables listed. Please pay close attention to the size & weights of the structural beams within the assembly instructions match the structural plans. Make sure to address all connecting elements (Non rated beam to rated column) details. As discussed during meeting you are not considered light frame construction by definition. (202 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 24. 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exterior wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passageway wall regarding the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Imaginary property line shall go straight up so even the parking garage will have to comply with this requirement on all stories. 2nd Review: Response stated you wish to hash this out via teams or in person. We can set this up after you have gone over all 2nd review. We need to address the entire length of green shown in snip shot. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 14 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 25. Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building as this is giving us a issue with the ESR report. (705 CBC) 2nd review: As stated 2 hour wall is not required. As previous comment in this 2nd review indicates we can build it to a (1) hour requirement and keep the same assembly & would give us more control on how you wish to design this wall for the sound rating between active shows and parking structure. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 15 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 26. 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). 2nd review: Detail works 4/A10.1 works, but you will have issues with framing breaking the plan of the required fire rating of the wall. Chapter 6 is going to make you rate this roof anyways so drywall could be eliminated within the roof framing void. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 16 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 17 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 27. 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire- resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. This will be established when we get the PL linen. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 18 28. Provide a specific fire detail for all items shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) a. Show insert or tile shower b. Detail #24/A3.0 c. Fire riser through the (1) hour floor assembly * SOG then disregard but address the min hole and if seismic gap is required* d. Laundry box e. DWV pipes f. Water pipes g. Electrical conduits & cables h. Cat walk attachments back to structure i. Mechanical attachments back to structure j. Roof access penetration k. Sub panels l. Shower diverters m. Baby changing station n. Typical any item that is a membrane or thru penetration into a fire rated wall. Please address all receded items and attachments back. 2nd review: Comment was not addressed. We can go over this via teams. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 29. When imaginary property line is proposed for entire site, verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. Also, I don’t believe this will fit through the parapet wall as the duct is larger than the proposed parapet. (705.10 CBC) 2nd Review: Comment will remain when the imaginary property line gets established as Mechanical pentrations within 3’ of PL line within exterior wall’s needs to be protected. This new overhang structure over the landing / assisted rescue would be non-complaint due to openness. (1009.7.3 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 19 : 30. Desing the lulu lift as a shaft as it connects floors together that penetrates a (1) hour horizontal assembly. Submit a shaft construction GA file for this and address all attachments back to this shaft framing. (712.1 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 31. 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. Please also call out draftstoping under the grandstand seating. (718.2.2 CBC) 2nd Review: These sheets are missing that are referenced within your comment response. Sections do not call out draftstoping as referenced in your comment response. We can check with Fire department that sprinklers will not be required under grand stand seating with combustible construction materials. Please see also section 1030 for fire rating requirements for the grandstand seating in main and black bock theater due to the 5A construction method. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 20 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 32. Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 33. Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access, but your plans are not matching between all the different designers. I believe maybe the electrical has it correct with another room within the light blocking room that would be accessible from the outside. (902.1.1 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 22 34. Where is the fire department connection as I couldn’t locate on the plans? (912.2 CBC) 2nd Review: Fire department can sign off after verification of new fire riser location in relation to the fire hydrant location. Typical these connections are outside of the building as code states, but you have a dedicated room with outside access which may meet the intent. New fire Marshall shall review and approve before next submittal. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 35. Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occurred 2nd review: Please outline stage parameters and show how this will be marked on the floor. Cannot have audience within this space exit through the stage / backstage. Permanent marking may be required so during normal operations props on the stage do not block exit access. Please outline stage clearly between all pages A-3.0/A-8.1/A1.1. When completing this verify with structural foundation plan depressed slab is correct limits for the stage wood floor over the depressed slab. Please verify 6” depressed slab over electrical room does not effect equipment or ducting passing through this section. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 36. The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. Think this was just a clicking error.(CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 23 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 37. Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? I understand very little when it comes to the back out house operations when it comes to these types of business. The concern is the entire back of house is considered common employee space which will require path of travel requirements and also just normal fire life and safety for general means of egress. I’m assuming that the scenary and props and stuff get put on the pully system and get lifted up into the air and are stored there. Is this correct thinking so it would just be staging things are being temporary stored here why they get lifted into the air to be stored? Thanks for explaining as just want to make sure we are safe. 2nd review: Building official to accept or deny this item as if using the “Green Room” as a storage component it would not be allowed per code as you are exiting through a “Storage space” (1016 CBC). I do understand some items need to be stored at these locations for quick set up during show, but again a meeting will help out to verify the allowed use within this area so issue don’t arise within this buildings life span. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 38. Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 39. Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1. Please also show means of egress sizing from farthest point that occupied to ROW. Enough information needs to be provide so to verify all items of the means of egress system. ( PGE Vaults / Storm drain access points) Please look at minimum assembly exit discharge requirements due to your occupancy. Also is the main exit that leads to the staircase and entrance also? (1005 CBC / 1030.2 CBC) 2nd Review: Where occupants egress from one room, area, or space through another, the egress path capacity must be based on the cumulative occupant load of all interconnected spaces to that point per CBC 1004.2.1. You are currently just Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 24 sizing doors for each space and not showing the cumulative. Also please see section 1030.2 CBC for the main exit requirements and provide information on the plans that can confirm this requirement. Also second main double doors at this location leads to a staircase which would not be an accessible exit, Design according. Ground surfaces on accessible routes must be stable, firm, and slip resistant; decomposed granite (DG) is not permitted CBC 11B-302.1 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 40. Please post an occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) 2nd Review: As explained earlier in this report you have worked out a occupancy load for mezzanines with the old building official Mike Loew. Provide this occupancy load at this area for control room & we will verify this during the meeting this is acceptable. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 41. Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 25 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 42. Provide an emergency lighting / Normal photometric plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting from all occupied space to ROW. (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3) 2nd Review: No response given from electrical. Add EM lights to Fire riser room (1008.3.3 CBC). Add EM to light lock room, add EM light to theatre rooms, EM lights required from equipment platforms to ROW. Provide a photometric plan for normal power and emergency power. EM lights are required from exit door to ROW. During meeting we can address lighting requirements for when the show is going on the minimum lighting requirements with activation with fire alarm. Also exit sign illumination during show time. CBC 1008.2.1, 1013.1. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 43. Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) 2nd Review: Provide these on the exterior stairs also. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 44. Provide mid-handrail for monument staircase. (CBC 1014.9) 2nd Review: You need to call this out on the plan. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 45. 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. ARCH sheets please go to one staircase and call out typical stair construction so fabricator can look at other requirements that are not shown on the structural sheets. (11B-504.5 CBC) 2nd Review: You are calling out 1 ½” which is not code compliant for NEW CONSTRUCTION and these measurement of 1 ½” is only for existing buildings. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 26 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 46. Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) 2nd Review: ARCH did not assign cumulative occupant load to exit doors so verification will happen upon next review. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 27 47. For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we can’t go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance is not given nor be granted in the field. For instance, if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. Please verify all staircases. (1011.8 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 48. 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 28 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 29 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 49. 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. 2nd Review: Did not provide signage. As stated in earlier comments with HVAC now above (1) staircase with walls has a openness issue or further details need to be provided to show compliance with the code. See 11B code sections for location of signage. (11B Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 30 50. 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Please make sure both buildings are complaint. 2nd Review: When imaginary lot line are established this can be verified. You will have to address the “egress court” created at the parking garage staircase. (1029 CBC) : 51. 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. 2nd review: LULU lift is opening into a corridor now, please design according to 3006 CBC for protection methods. This area is not considered a lobby nor a hallway. A hallway becomes a corridor when it functions as a required part of the means of egress system. Think of it this way: all corridors are hallways, but not all hallways are corridors. Change this wording on the plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 52. 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passageways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 31 of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. 2nd Review: There is confusion as you are using a very specific word that carries very specific requirements, please see exit passageway definition within the CBC and determine if you need to use this method of exiting in your design. If you do not need to use this method, take the word “Exit passageway” of the plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 53. 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communication openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. 2nd Review: Comment may be addressed with comments above with clarification on if is needing to be designed as an exit passageway or not. See section 1024 CBC for clarification. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 54. 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 2nd review: Did not receive comment responses from consultants. Also this comment will remain when exit passageway is determined if necessary or not. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 55. Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verification can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesn’t meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. I seen that other sheets are showing this area from the theater specialist, but doesn’t match yours. We can speak about just using yours for showing the space then we can use the deferred submittal to verify all these items and construction details are not supplied for this at time of first review. (1030.16) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 32 2nd Review: Sheets referenced have not been updated since last review, also this is referred within the plan set to be a deferred submittal which is okay, just need to put for reference only on all “Deferred submittals” sheets so your team can use it for reference when building, but would not build to it nor inspect to it as it hasn’t been fully reviewed. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 56. Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depictive accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A- 8.1 2nd Review: Still have this issue at the black box theatre. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 57. At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 58. In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 33 59. At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 60. At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 61. The minimum number of receivers to be provided shall be equal to 4 percent of the total number of seats, but in no case less than two. Twenty-five percent minimum of receivers provided, but no fewer than two, shall be hearing-aid compatible in accordance with Section 11B-706.3. (CBC 11B-219.3) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 62. Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 63. Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth as this is common space. 2nd Review: Comment is addressed, but I do not believe it will work with the measurements you are giving as this would only allow for a 3” deep drawer with a 30” counter height and 27” knee clearance. Counter height can go to a maximum of 34” Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 34 64. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. 2nd review: 48” is for reaching ranges maximum which would not meet the intent of the code. Provide a lower level communication speaking hole or provide a communication device. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 65. Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) 2nd review: Newly constructed commercial places of public amusement shall provide no fewer than one adult changing facility in compliance with Section 11B-813. (CBC 11B-249.1.2) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 66. Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines and any other sinks. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 67. Door 26 within Vestibule has an encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. 2nd Review: No changes on plans stated in comment response. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 35 68. Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. 2nd review: Comment was not addressed. We can go over via teams, but an enlarged view with all requirements for these spaces would help as of this review you have some requirements on the main plan view sheet A-3, and some on the exiting ADA accessible route plan and other on the elevation view. With all 3 combined locations to look at this restroom general information is still missing needed to inspect and build to. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 69. Provide Plumbing calculations. (422 CPC) 2nd Review: Not provided as stated. From calculation performed on my end would be short water closet. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 70. Provide water demand calculations and show sizing on plans. (610.4 CBC) 2nd Review: Utility plans do not match water demand calculations. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 71. Missing elevation view for the point-of-sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. 2nd Review: Elevation view notes and references to verify compliance with 11B requirements as it seems you are designing to 11A standards. Specifically call out counter height. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 72. Not required, but in commercial kitchens (Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disabilities worker in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair to travel within this space. **NOT A COMMENT Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 36 73. Kitchen is not an employee workstation and is a break room. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. 2nd review: Desing per 11B standards not 11A. Please review counter height, reach ranges (outlets / appliance functions) and show clear floor spaces for all required locations. (11B-804 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 74. Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. The Plumbing sheets do not satisfy this comment as not enough and wrong information is shown. Make sure to show depression within the SOG plan. (11B-213.2 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 75. Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. Provide a method for this to be self-closing. (707) 2nd review: D22- Doors within a corridor that are normally open must be automatic-closing by activation of a smoke detector installed in accordance with CBC 716.2.6.6 per CBC 1026.3. Please also update the door schedule on this as not called out on plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 76. Provide protection for roof access for occupant. (1015.7 CBC) 2nd review: Please review this section as if access or mechanical equipment needs servicing a guard shall be installed. Parapets are not tall enough to be consider a guard. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 77. Update mechanical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multiple times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 78. (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code. 2nd review: See section 410.4 and all wall schedules as the entire back area is compartmentalized. The building is 5A (All bearing walls (1) hour and Lobby/Corridor separation from theater area. Please keep an eye out for the large mechanical penetrations next to parking garage as this may need to be protected when imaginary property line is established. Note to reviewer: Smoke control system is not established yet at this review for the assembly space if designer wishes to take advantages of the benefits. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 37 79. Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. Please make sure this is okay with planning and this should be shown on the ARCH sheet. (107 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 80. Coordinate with ARCH as you show (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also, you cannot terminate the dryer onto an exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) 2nd review: Is the exterior exit staircase not at the same elevation of these dryer vents designed to be a assisted rescue? I’m showing 6’ separation at this location. Note to reviewer: Opening protections are not required due to fire sprinklers for assisted rescue. Mechanical states code section not applicable, but arch states they can move it. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 81. Provide Completed Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd review: no response. Will review at the end to verify any changes that occur on 2nd plan review show up on this report. 82. Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) ** Check to make sure right OA going to the correct unit. N/A on sheet 17 or 21. Okay. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 83. CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. 2nd Review: It’s pretty clearly shown as your comment response states. I didn’t read the entire mechanical plan and thought it went up closer to the appliance. Thanks. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 84. ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 85. Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 86. Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 38 2nd review: You re-design is code compliant. Please review the structural plans for the depressed slab over your equipment / head height shooting over a door lintel with structural engineer. Typically not okay, but floor framing W- Flange over this wall may allow this. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 87. Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 88. Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that VTR’s are missing or we are trying to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 89. Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. I think this would work, but door will have to be within both sides double working space overlap only. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) 2nd review: I’m getting a working clearance of 4’ with exposed live part both sides which would require a 4’ working space which would trigger the room to be non-complaint. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 90. PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. 2nd review: no response. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 91. Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 92. Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 39 93. Verify wiring method considers the neutral conductor as non-current carrying so Feeders do not need to be derated. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 94. Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 95. Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 96. Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to comply for total lighting wattage allowed. Electrical energy documents were not provided. 2nd review: Square footage doesn’t match project plans. Also, can you provide exemption or code path for not showing the stage lighting shown on the T sheets and dressing mirrors. I also could not find demand response controllers as lighting is above 4,000W. (110.12.C CENC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 97. Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 98. No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 99. Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 100. Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided for first review. Please look at energy documents also as you are running the software under the wrong occupancy and showing mixed fuel when this is an all-electrical building. I due see for PV/Battery the same #’s, but still change this over as I don’t know the software good enough that it may not trigger a requirement somewhere else. Also missing electrical energy report. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 40 2nd review: Comment remains. Please see city’s reach code for required passing % requirement. (15.04.060 SLMOC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 101. Provide a grease trap and size per city of San Luis Obispo municipal code. (1014 CPC / SLOMC) 2nd review: Provide a sign off from utilitys not requiring this. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 102. Not the best at reading flood maps as shown on sheet C2 but I’m assuming just a small portion is in the flood zone. I need to verify so PG&E vault doesn’t fall within this zone and electrical room. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 103. Mezzanine floor to be fire rated. (601 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 104. Provide protection for the legally required standby system of lighting and show plans. (700 CEC) 2nd review: Emergency system wiring must be kept entirely independent from all other wiring and equipment unless specifically permitted; emergency circuits must be permanently marked for identification, and wiring must be designed and located to minimize hazards from flooding, fire, icing, vandalism, and other adverse conditions per CEC 700.10(A)- (C). Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 105. Employ moisture control measures. (5.407.2.2.1 CGBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd review: show how you comply with this section. 106. Planning to require bike parking standards if not please follow the California Green Building Code. 2nd review: show how you comply with this section. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 41 107. Where exit signs are provided at an area of refuge with direct access to a stairway, an exterior area for assisted rescue, an exit stairway or ramp, an exit passageway, a horizontal exit and the exit discharge, a sign stating "EXIT" in visual characters, raised characters and braille and complying with ICC A117.1 shall be provided. Tactile exit signs shall be required at the following locations: 1. Each grade-level exterior exit door that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the word, "EXIT". 2. Each exit door that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, and that leads directly to a grade-level exterior exit by means of a stairway or ramp shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the following words as appropriate: 2.1. "EXIT STAIR DOWN" 2.2. "EXIT RAMP DOWN" 2.3. "EXIT STAIR UP" 2.4. "EXIT RAMP UP" 3. Each exit door that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, and that leads directly to a grade-level exterior exit by means of an exit enclosure or an exit passageway shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the words, "EXIT ROUTE". 4. Each exit access door from an interior room or area to a corridor or hallway that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the words "EXIT ROUTE". 5. Each exit door through a horizontal exit that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, shall be identified by a sign with the words, "TO EXIT". (CBC 1013.4)Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 108. IS this building considered public funded due to the property owner, Grants or foundation preparation, soils report? 2nd review: Being publicly funded contract building official to determine if lulu lift is allowed for vertical access as this is non-code complaint method. (11B-206.7 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 109. Show clear head space with HVAC that is directly overhead. Make sure to have minimum headroom. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 42 110. Design attic for storage or provide a note on the door that’s states “Not for storage” Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 111. See marked up sheet C2 for general accessible routing issues. Compare your grading plan to your accessible routing plan. Please make sure to add the 20’ wide route from main exit door to ROW. Site plan indicates back two exits area is design by others but civils and landscaping do not show this. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 112. Provide special inspection and test tables for fireproofing columns and beams with intumescent or SFRM material, including inspection of substrate condition, thickness, density, bond strength, and finished application per CBC 1705.15, 1705.16. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 113. Provide special inspection for through-penetrations, membrane penetration firestops, fire-resistant joint systems, and perimeter fire containment systems by an approved agency in accordance with ASTM E2174 (penetrations) and ASTM E2393 (joints) per CBC 1705.18. Please update special inspection form submitted on the second review. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Note PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARCEL:002-412-019PERMIT ADDRESS:614 Monterey St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APPLICATION DATE:12/03/2024 EXPIRATION DATE: SQUARE FEET: 10,474.00 VALUATION:$13,000,000.00 DESCRIPTION:New Performing Arts Theater CONTACTS NAME COMPANY ADDRESS Applicant Bryce Engstrom Bryce Engstrom Architect 210 Traffic Wy, E Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Architect Rebecca Newman Arris Studio Architects 1319 Marsh Street, 200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Owner Kevin Harris SLO REP 888 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use REVIEW ITEM STATUS REVIEWER Addressing v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Addressing Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org 805-748-4338 Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Address is currently assigned as 614 Monterey Street. GIS Department will review and confirm that this address and address will be confirmed and finalized at next plan review. No action required. Addressing v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Addressing Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Address is currently assigned as 614 Monterey Street. GIS Department will review and confirm that this address and address will be confirmed and finalized at next plan review. No action required. Addressing v.3 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Addressing Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Address is currently assigned as 614 Monterey Street. GIS Department will review and confirm that this address and address will be confirmed and finalized at next plan review. No action required. Arborist v.1 Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Arborist Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry, 805-781-7578, wgault@slocity.org Corrective Action: Contact Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Trees appear to be impacted by your building permit submittal. Plans indicated that two (2) trees will be retained. However, based on current and anticipated impacts to the trees, the plans need to be adjusted. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: The impacts to the 40-inch DBH Podocarpus on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo are significant. The minimum Tree Protection Zone radius is 40 feet from its trunk; 50ft would ensure its survival. These protection radii are not feasible given project plans, and it is unlikely that the tree will survive the impacts to its critical root zone. Please submit a Tree Removal Application requesting its removal and provide an updated landscaping plan with a new compensatory tree. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 3.The impacts to the 36-inch Coast Live Oak near the theatre entrance are significant. It must be preserved. The minimum Tree Protection Zone radius is 36 feet. The foot of the theatre is as close as 20ft from the trunk of the tree. In addition to the construction of the theatre, the proposed installation of D.G. and decorative rock landscape will irreversibly impact the critical root zone of the tree and send it into decline due to its age. Given the unavoidable impacts to the tree’s critical root zone, alternatives to D.G. compaction and the decorative rock landscape, that are less detrimental to the critical root zone, are needed. Maximum effort must be made to reduce unnecessary impact to the critical root zone. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Provide a mitigation plan that will help the tree adapt the impacts to its critical root zone. This plan should include a long-term maintenance and care plan. A consulting arborist is a useful resource for this. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Update the planting plan so that impact to the Oak is significantly reduced. Replace Geijera parvifolia with Acacia stenophylla. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 6.The Project Arborist, not the City Arborist, is responsible for monitoring digging within the dripline of trees. Roots Page 1 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) encountered larger than one (1) inch shall be cut cleanly. Tree Protection fencing needs to be included on the building plans. The Project Arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Tree protection shall remain in place for the duration of the project. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Provide Project Arborist contact info on the building plans. Project Arborist shall submit photographic evidence that tree protection is in place prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: The Project Arborist shall supervise the installation of the compensatory tree plantings required. The root balls of trees to be installed shall be inspected and loosened, and if necessary, girdling roots shall be cut cleanly. Arborist v.2 Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Arborist Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry, 805-781-7578, wgault@slocity.org Corrective Action: Contact Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 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. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 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 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. Corrective Action: Please submit a tree removal application requesting the removal of the 36-inch Coast Live Oak. Please schedule a time with City Staff to discuss offsite compensatory planting plan. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Ceiba speciosa is a good specimen tree. Consider replacing Geijera parvifolia with trees off the Approved City Tree List that have vertical growth habits like Brachychiton acerifolius or populneous, Hymenosporum flavum, Lagunaria patersonia or Markhamia lutea. Corrective Action: Update the landscaping plan with tree species from the Approved City Tree List (available on the Urban Forestry webpage under "Tree Removal Resources. Geijera parvifolia is not an approved tree. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 6.The Project Arborist, not the City Arborist, is responsible for monitoring digging within the dripline of trees. Roots encountered larger than one (1) inch shall be cut cleanly. Tree Protection fencing needs to be included on the building plans. The Project Arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Tree protection shall remain in place for the duration of the project. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: A tree protection plan is needed for trees on neighboring property. Corrective Action: Provide Project Arborist contact info on the building plans. Project Arborist shall submit photographic evidence that tree protection is in place prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: A Certified Arborist (Landscape Contractor/Project Arborist) shall source healthy trees that have good structure, appropriate trunk taper for tree species and box size, and ensure that they are not root-bound. A Certified Arborist (Landscaper Contractor/Project Arborist) shall supervise the installation of trees and ensure that the root balls of trees have sufficient moisture prior to installation and inspect the root balls of the trees and loosen or shave all sides of the root system, as necessary and cleanly cutting girdling roots if necessary. If the trees are determined to improperly installed by the City Arborist, replanting may be required. All nursery stakes shall be removed from all trees and all trees shall be staked in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting. Corrective Action: The Project Arborist shall supervise the installation of the compensatory tree plantings required. The root balls of trees to be installed shall be inspected and loosened, and if necessary, girdling roots shall be cut cleanly. Arborist v.3 Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Arborist Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry, 805-781-7578, wgault@slocity.org Corrective Action: Contact Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 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. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 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 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. Corrective Action: Please submit a tree removal application requesting the removal of the 36-inch Coast Live Oak. Please schedule a time with City Staff to discuss offsite compensatory planting plan. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Ceiba speciosa is a good specimen tree. Replace Geijera parvifolia with trees off the Approved City Tree List that have vertical growth habits like Brachychiton acerifolius or populneous, Hymenosporum flavum, Lagunaria patersonia, Markhamia lutea, Chitalpa taskentensis Page 2 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) 'morning cloud', Elaeocarpus sylvestris, Tristaniopsis laurina 'elegant' . Corrective Action: Update the landscaping plan with tree species from the Approved City Tree List (available on the Urban Forestry webpage under "Tree Removal Resources. Geijera parvifolia is not an approved tree. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 6.The Project Arborist, not the City Arborist, is responsible for monitoring digging within the dripline of trees. Roots encountered larger than one (1) inch shall be cut cleanly. Tree Protection fencing needs to be included on the building plans. The Project Arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Tree protection shall remain in place for the duration of the project. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: A tree protection plan is needed for trees on neighboring property. Corrective Action: Provide Project Arborist contact info on the building plans. Project Arborist shall submit photographic evidence that tree protection is in place prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: A Certified Arborist (Landscape Contractor/Project Arborist) shall source healthy trees that have good structure, appropriate trunk taper for tree species and box size, and ensure that they are not root-bound. A Certified Arborist (Landscaper Contractor/Project Arborist) shall supervise the installation of trees and ensure that the root balls of trees have sufficient moisture prior to installation and inspect the root balls of the trees and loosen or shave all sides of the root system, as necessary and cleanly cutting girdling roots if necessary. If the trees are determined to improperly installed by the City Arborist, replanting may be required. All nursery stakes shall be removed from all trees and all trees shall be staked in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting. Corrective Action: The Project Arborist shall supervise the installation of the compensatory tree plantings required. The root balls of trees to be installed shall be inspected and loosened, and if necessary, girdling roots shall be cut cleanly. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Oak tree removal was approved with a compensatory Erythrina affra 60-inch box in a minimum 20' x 20' planter. Offsite location was identified as part of the compensatory replanting plan per the Arborist Report from Heritage Tree Consulting. Please include the location with species and irrigation plan. Corrective Action: Please update landscape plan to reflect the conditions of approval regarding the removal request. Building v.1 Sean McCaffrey Ph: 805-440-6617 email: smccaffrey@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building Dept. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: When Reviewing this comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify that design on the plan set are code complaint as i'm not fully aware of the day to day bussiness within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up to date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Page 3 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: * Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the Green room back stage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers shall extend from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that a exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. 410.5.1 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Technical area's will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) I alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? (413 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 (505.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under project data building is consider to be (2) stories. (504.4 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assembly's. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specfic details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzaine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: ESR report for all exterior walls requires Denseglass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. (ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items requiring fire rated review individual encasement requirements and see if they pertain with proposed protection methods. (704 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exteiror wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passage way wall in regards to the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof Page 4 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire-resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide a specific fire detail for shower that shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for #24/A3.0 that shows how to address this membrane pentration within fire barrier. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Address fire riser through (1) hour floor as shown as note #3 as this goes through the crawl space. A3.0. Please make sure minimum free space is established for the seismic gap if required per NFPA 13. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide membrane penetrations' caused by plumbing pipes within (1) hour walls. Tub box, DWV lines, Water lines , toilet flanges, shower diverters Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Lulu lift does not need to be a shaft. (712.1.11 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. (718.2.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access. (902.1.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occured. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. (CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1 (1005 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please post a occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide a emergency lighting / Normal photometerics plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting, (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Exiting plan shown on A8.1 needs to show accessible route from further building point to the ROW. Plans are only showing to the stairs. Show from stairs to sidewalk. From looking at your civil sheets it seems like you are going to have cross slope issues, PGE vault will be a issue as in the past the hinges give us issues and gap between door and casing, possible man hole cover issue EXT. (1003 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor Page 5 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. (11B-504.5 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we cant go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance are not given. For instance if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. (1011.8 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passage ways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1030.2 Assembly Main Exit ** Show the 20' wide pathway. * Note to review check for one exit leads to another staircase. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one-half of the occupant load, but such capacity shall be not less than the total required capacity of all means of egress leading to the exit. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on not less than one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width that adjoins a street or public way. In a building, room or space used for assembly purposes where there is not a well-defined main exit or where multiple main exits are provided, exits shall be Page 6 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) permitted to be distributed around the perimeter of the building provided that the total capacity of egress is not less than 100 percent of the required capacity and not less than one exit shall discharge on a street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in capacity that adjoins a street or publicway. Smoke-protected seating shall comply with Section 1029.6.2. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verifcaiton can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesnt meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. (1030.16) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depectived accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6)Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. (CBC 11B-606.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has a encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Missing elevation view for the point of sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Not required, but in commercial kitchens ( Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. Page 7 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) This helps people with disability's work in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair. Not a comment. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Kitchen is not a employee workstation. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. (707) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Update mechnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multipile times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code or California Residential Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Coordinate with ARCH as you are showing (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also you cannot terminate the dryer onto a exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that vents are missing or we are tyring to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: * Note to reviewer look back at feeder schedule and determine if neutral conductors are current carrying as this would require the feeders to be one size larger. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24, Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to be in complaince for total lighting wattage allowed. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire rated sub panels or provide approved 5 sided box out. Provide fire rating details for the conduit passing through fire rated walls. Page 8 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Light lock room off the main theator and electrical plan sheet E-11 conflict. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided. Building v.2 Sean McCaffrey Ph: 805-440-6617 email: smccaffrey@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building Dept. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Lulu lift does not need to be a shaft. (712.1.11 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: When Reviewing this comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify that design on the plan set are code complaint as i'm not fully aware of the day to day bussiness within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) 2nd Review: All comments are on a word documents. If you do not recieve please contact smccaffrey@slocity.org or building@slocity.org for comments. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up to date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the Green room back stage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers shall extend from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 Page 9 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that a exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. 410.5.1 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Technical area's will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) I alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? (413 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 (505.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under project data building is consider to be (2) stories. (504.4 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assembly's. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specfic details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzaine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ESR report for all exterior walls requires Denseglass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. (ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items requiring fire rated review individual encasement requirements and see if they pertain with proposed protection methods. (704 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exteiror wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passage way wall in regards to the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire-resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a specific fire detail for shower that shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for #24/A3.0 that shows how to address this membrane pentration within fire barrier. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Address fire riser through (1) hour floor as shown as note #3 as this goes through the crawl space. A3.0. Please make sure minimum free space is established for the seismic gap if required per NFPA 13. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 10 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Provide membrane penetrations' caused by plumbing pipes within (1) hour walls. Tub box, DWV lines, Water lines , toilet flanges, shower diverters Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. (718.2.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access. (902.1.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occured. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. (CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1 (1005 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please post a occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a emergency lighting / Normal photometerics plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting, (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Exiting plan shown on A8.1 needs to show accessible route from further building point to the ROW. Plans are only showing to the stairs. Show from stairs to sidewalk. From looking at your civil sheets it seems like you are going to have cross slope issues, PGE vault will be a issue as in the past the hinges give us issues and gap between door and casing, possible man hole cover issue EXT. (1003 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. (11B-504.5 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we cant go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance are not given. For instance if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. (1011.8 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where Page 11 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passage ways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1030.2 Assembly Main Exit ** Show the 20' wide pathway. * Note to review check for one exit leads to another staircase. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one-half of the occupant load, but such capacity shall be not less than the total required capacity of all means of egress leading to the exit. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on not less than one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width that adjoins a street or public way. In a building, room or space used for assembly purposes where there is not a well-defined main exit or where multiple main exits are provided, exits shall be permitted to be distributed around the perimeter of the building provided that the total capacity of egress is not less than 100 percent of the required capacity and not less than one exit shall discharge on a street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in capacity that adjoins a street or publicway. Smoke-protected seating shall comply with Section 1029.6.2. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verifcaiton can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesnt meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. (1030.16) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your Page 12 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) depectived accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6)Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. (CBC 11B-606.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has a encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Missing elevation view for the point of sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Not required, but in commercial kitchens ( Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disability's work in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair. Not a comment. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Kitchen is not a employee workstation. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. (707) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Update mechnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multipile times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code or California Residential Code. Page 13 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with ARCH as you are showing (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also you cannot terminate the dryer onto a exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that vents are missing or we are tyring to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Note to reviewer look back at feeder schedule and determine if neutral conductors are current carrying as this would require the feeders to be one size larger. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24, Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to be in complaince for total lighting wattage allowed. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire rated sub panels or provide approved 5 sided box out. Provide fire rating details for the conduit passing through fire rated walls. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Light lock room off the main theator and electrical plan sheet E-11 conflict. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided. Building v.3 Sean McCaffrey Ph: 805-440-6617 email: smccaffrey@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building Dept. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Lulu lift does not need to be a shaft. (712.1.11 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 14 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up to date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the Green room back stage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers shall extend from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that a exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. 410.5.1 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Technical area's will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) I alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? (413 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 (505.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under project data building is consider to be (2) stories. (504.4 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assembly's. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specfic details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzaine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Page 15 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ESR report for all exterior walls requires Denseglass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. (ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items requiring fire rated review individual encasement requirements and see if they pertain with proposed protection methods. (704 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exteiror wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passage way wall in regards to the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire-resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a specific fire detail for shower that shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for #24/A3.0 that shows how to address this membrane pentration within fire barrier. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Address fire riser through (1) hour floor as shown as note #3 as this goes through the crawl space. A3.0. Please make sure minimum free space is established for the seismic gap if required per NFPA 13. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide membrane penetrations' caused by plumbing pipes within (1) hour walls. Tub box, DWV lines, Water lines , toilet flanges, shower diverters Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. (718.2.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access. (902.1.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occured. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. (CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? Page 16 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1 (1005 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please post a occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a emergency lighting / Normal photometerics plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting, (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Exiting plan shown on A8.1 needs to show accessible route from further building point to the ROW. Plans are only showing to the stairs. Show from stairs to sidewalk. From looking at your civil sheets it seems like you are going to have cross slope issues, PGE vault will be a issue as in the past the hinges give us issues and gap between door and casing, possible man hole cover issue EXT. (1003 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. (11B-504.5 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we cant go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance are not given. For instance if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. (1011.8 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passage ways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Page 17 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1030.2 Assembly Main Exit ** Show the 20' wide pathway. * Note to review check for one exit leads to another staircase. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one-half of the occupant load, but such capacity shall be not less than the total required capacity of all means of egress leading to the exit. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on not less than one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width that adjoins a street or public way. In a building, room or space used for assembly purposes where there is not a well-defined main exit or where multiple main exits are provided, exits shall be permitted to be distributed around the perimeter of the building provided that the total capacity of egress is not less than 100 percent of the required capacity and not less than one exit shall discharge on a street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in capacity that adjoins a street or publicway. Smoke-protected seating shall comply with Section 1029.6.2. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verifcaiton can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesnt meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. (1030.16) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depectived accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please Page 18 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6)Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. (CBC 11B-606.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has a encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Missing elevation view for the point of sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Not required, but in commercial kitchens ( Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disability's work in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair. Not a comment. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Kitchen is not a employee workstation. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. (707) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Update mechnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multipile times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code or California Residential Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with ARCH as you are showing (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also you cannot terminate the dryer onto a exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that vents are missing or we are tyring to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to Page 19 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) make sure this does not obstruct the exit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Note to reviewer look back at feeder schedule and determine if neutral conductors are current carrying as this would require the feeders to be one size larger. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24, Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to be in complaince for total lighting wattage allowed. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire rated sub panels or provide approved 5 sided box out. Provide fire rating details for the conduit passing through fire rated walls. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Light lock room off the main theator and electrical plan sheet E-11 conflict. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: When Reviewing this comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify that design on the plan set are code complaint as i'm not fully aware of the day to day bussiness within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) 2nd Review: All comments are on a word documents. If you do not recieve please contact smccaffrey@slocity.org or building@slocity.org for comments. 3rd Review: Again all comments are on the word document and during online meeting with client, arch, Arris and Edwards team is was conveyed not to complete the 3rd review. Please be aware structural comments are still outstanding and were completed by an outside review team. Building (Consultant) v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building (Consultant) v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building (Consultant) v.3 Ilianna Silva email: isilva@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Fees v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fees Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/20/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org 805-748-4338 Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/20/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Please note the location and size of all existing and new water meters on Sheet C5. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/20/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #2 PV Solar, Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm should all be shown on cover plan sheet as Deferred Submittals. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fees v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fees Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Please note the location and size of all existing and new water meters on Sheet C5. PARTIAL COMMENT REMAINS: Please take Page 20 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) another look at the water meter sizing for both landscape and the building. Impact fees for both water and wastewater are based off of the water meter size. I recommend having engineering done for both meters to have the minimum size meter needed. A 2" water meter for landscape is very oversized as most likely you will find that a 3/4" meter will work for the landscaping meter. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this comment. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: #2 PV Solar, Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm should all be shown on cover plan sheet as Deferred Submittals. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fees v.3 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fees Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: #2 PV Solar, Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm should all be shown on cover plan sheet as Deferred Submittals. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Please note the location and size of all existing and new water meters on Sheet C5. PARTIAL COMMENT REMAINS: Please take another look at the water meter sizing for both landscape and the building. Impact fees for both water and wastewater are based off of the water meter size. I recommend having engineering done for both meters to have the minimum size meter needed. A 2" water meter for landscape is very oversized as most likely you will find that a 3/4" meter will work for the landscaping meter. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this comment. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fire v.1 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fire Fire v.2 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fire Fire v.3 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fire Fire (Consultant) v.1 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Fire (Consultant) v.2 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Fire (Consultant) v.3 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Health (Building) v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Not Required General - Health Planning v.1 Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Planning Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Rachel Cohen (Planning Reviewer) rcohen@slocity.org 805-781-7574 Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please a separate, full-sized sheet within the building permit that includes a mitigation compliance table with applicable mitigation measures from Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and how those mitigation measures will be satisfied. Please identify on plans the all the qualified professionals or persons (and their contact information) who have been designated to ensure compliance with the various mitigation measures. (see City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series) COA #57). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Thank you for providing the Conditions of Approval (COA) for City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series). Please also include the COA from the letter of approval dated September 16, 2022, that includes the requested modification to the design of the SLO Rep Theatre (application no. ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please note on all applicable plan sheets (such as Sheet A 2.0) the wall sign (or any other signage) is for “reference only” unless you would like to include all final sign details (lighting, design, materials, etc.) as part of your building permit. If this is the case, the project description should state that the building plans include a sign permit and provide a separate sheet with all the sign details. You may also defer the sign permit and submit separately. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Approved plans (application no. ARCH-0221-2022) state the use of an electrochromic glazing system for the wall of windows, however sheets E1 and E2 show clear tempered glass. Please provide additional information about this change and a sample / cut sheets of this changed material. Will the lobby now have curtains or some other manner in which they will close off light / view from the windows? Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide more information about the proposed bicycle parking. Sheet L 1.0 shows PATTERSON-WILLAMS M1700 ROUND UP as the model of bike rack, however I am unable to find specifications for this model. Please provide cut sheets for this type of bike rack so that staff can verify that it complies with City Engineering Standards. In addition, outdoor bike lockers are not permitted for this project. COA #62 states that all long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located within the building. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide cut-sheets for all exterior landscape lighting (Sheet L 1.0) to show that they comply with the City’s standards (see COA #61). Page 21 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Sheet C-2, construction note #16 states the trash enclosure is available on the architectural plans, but I am unable to find them. Please provide details for the trash enclosure including dimensions, colors and materials. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please demonstrate that mechanical and electrical equipment located on the roof is screened from view (see COA #64). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please show the location of the backflow preventer and double check assembly on the landscape plan (COA #62). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Note: Parking in-lieu fees will be required prior to building permit issuance. Planning v.2 Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Planning Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Rachel Cohen (Planning Reviewer) rcohen@slocity.org 805-781-7574 Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please a separate, full-sized sheet within the building permit that includes a mitigation compliance table with applicable mitigation measures from Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and how those mitigation measures will be satisfied. Please identify on plans the all the qualified professionals or persons (and their contact information) who have been designated to ensure compliance with the various mitigation measures. (see City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series) COA #57). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Thank you for providing the Conditions of Approval (COA) for City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series). Please also include the COA from the letter of approval dated September 16, 2022, that includes the requested modification to the design of the SLO Rep Theatre (application no. ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please note on all applicable plan sheets (such as Sheet A 2.0) the wall sign (or any other signage) is for “reference only” unless you would like to include all final sign details (lighting, design, materials, etc.) as part of your building permit. If this is the case, the project description should state that the building plans include a sign permit and provide a separate sheet with all the sign details. You may also defer the sign permit and submit separately. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Approved plans (application no. ARCH-0221-2022) state the use of an electrochromic glazing system for the wall of windows, however sheets A-4.0 notes the use of “Grey tint standard glazing per Kaweneer curtain wall system” and then refers to Sheet A-7.0 – A-12.0. I am unable to find any information in the plans about this window system and if it complies with the approved plans. Please provide additional information about why this is changing and sample / cut sheets of this changed material. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide more information about the proposed bicycle parking. Sheet L 1.0 shows PATTERSON-WILLAMS M1700 ROUND UP as the model of bike rack, however I am unable to find specifications for this model. Please provide cut sheets for this type of bike rack so that staff can verify that it complies with City Engineering Standards. In addition, outdoor bike lockers are not permitted for this project. COA #62 states that all long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located within the building. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide cut-sheets for all exterior landscape lighting (Sheet L 1.0) to show that they comply with the City’s standards (see COA #61). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Sheet C-2, construction note #16 states the trash enclosure is available on the architectural plans, but I am unable to find them. Please provide details for the trash enclosure including dimensions, colors and materials. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please demonstrate that mechanical and electrical equipment located on the roof is screened from view (see COA #64). Provide line of sight drawings showing that all rooftop equipment is screened from view. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please show the location of the backflow preventer and double check assembly on the landscape plan (COA #62). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Note: Parking in-lieu fees will be required prior to building permit issuance. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/21/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Planning staff reviewed the 2nd submittal on 8/21/2025. All of the above comments STILL REMAIN. Please revise the plans based on these comment and provide a response sheet noting where these changes are located in the plans. Planning v.3 Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Planning Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Rachel Cohen (Planning Reviewer) rcohen@slocity.org 805-781-7574 Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please a separate, full-sized sheet within the building permit that includes a mitigation compliance table with applicable mitigation measures from Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and how those mitigation measures will be satisfied. Please identify on plans the all the qualified professionals or persons (and their contact information) who have been designated to ensure compliance with the various mitigation measures. (see City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series) COA #57). Page 22 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Thank you for providing the Conditions of Approval (COA) for City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series). Please also include the COA from the letter of approval dated September 16, 2022, that includes the requested modification to the design of the SLO Rep Theatre (application no. ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Please note on all applicable plan sheets (such as Sheet A 2.0) the wall sign (or any other signage) is for “reference only” unless you would like to include all final sign details (lighting, design, materials, etc.) as part of your building permit. If this is the case, the project description should state that the building plans include a sign permit and provide a separate sheet with all the sign details. You may also defer the sign permit and submit separately. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Approved plans (application no. ARCH-0221-2022) state the use of an electrochromic glazing system for the wall of windows, however sheets A-4.0 notes the use of “Grey tint standard glazing per Kaweneer curtain wall system” and then refers to Sheet A-7.0 – A-12.0. I am unable to find any information in the plans about this window system and if it complies with the approved plans. Please provide additional information about why this is changing and sample / cut sheets of this changed material. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide more information about the proposed bicycle parking. Sheet L 1.0 shows PATTERSON-WILLAMS M1700 ROUND UP as the model of bike rack, however I am unable to find specifications for this model. Please provide cut sheets for this type of bike rack so that staff can verify that it complies with City Engineering Standards. In addition, outdoor bike lockers are not permitted for this project. COA #62 states that all long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located within the building. COMMENT REMAINS. The location of the long-term bicycle parking is stated in COA #62 (RESOLUTION NO. 11059 (2019 SERIES)); also stated as COA #3 in the modification letter for the project (Approval Letter for Application ARCH-0221-2022). Note that U racks are not allowed per COA #3 (Approval Letter for Application ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide cut-sheets for all exterior landscape lighting (Sheet L 1.0) to show that they comply with the City’s standards (see COA #61). COMMENT REMAINS. The location of the lighting is shown, but what do the fixtures look like? Separately submitted cutsheets are acceptable. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Sheet C-2, construction note #16 states the trash enclosure is available on the architectural plans, but I am unable to find them. Please provide details for the trash enclosure including dimensions, colors and materials. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Please demonstrate that mechanical and electrical equipment located on the roof is screened from view (see COA #64). Provide line of sight drawings showing that all rooftop equipment is screened from view. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please show the location of the backflow preventer and double check assembly on the landscape plan (COA #62). COMMENT REMAINS. Location is needed to verify that the backflow preventer is screened as required by the conditions of approval. Have left this comment in because the landscape plan will be revised and I want to make sure the new plans clearly show the location and screening of the backflow preventor. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Note: Parking in-lieu fees will be required prior to building permit issuance. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Planning staff reviewed the 2nd submittal on 8/21/2025. All of the above comments STILL REMAIN. Please revise the plans based on these comment and provide a response sheet noting where these changes are located in the plans. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Elevation note #2, Sheet A-4.0 states that the wall sconces are exempt from dark sky regulations. What does this mean? The light needs to meet the City’s night sky regulations (SLOMC Section 17.70.100(D)(1)). It does not appear the lighting is highlighting any specific architectural feature. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Please provide an exterior lighting photometric plan. Sheet E-22 shows only the interior photometric plan. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Update landscape plans and site plan to include the 2/3/2026 decision by Council to allow the removal of the oak tree (Resolution No. 11626 (2026 Series)). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Please provide building distance from the back of sidewalk on the site plan. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Is there a transformer needed for the project? If so, please show it on the site plan and landscape plan. Private Sewer Lateral v.1 Ryan Beech email: rbeech@slocity.org Ready for Action Private Sewer Lateral Inspection requirements (per Muni Code section 13.08.395) Public Works Permit Review v.1 Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Public Works Public Works Permit Review v.2 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Public Works Public Works Permit Review v.3 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Public Works Page 23 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Recycling v.1 Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Recycling Correction: Recycling - Rachelle Paris (1/30/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please submit your project's Recycle Plan online at https://forms.slocity.org/Forms/recyclingplan Corrective Action: Rachelle Paris - RecycleRight@slocity.org Recycling v.2 Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Recycling Correction: Recycling - Rachelle Paris (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please submit your project's Recycle Plan online at https://forms.slocity.org/Forms/recyclingplan Corrective Action: Rachelle Paris - RecycleRight@slocity.org Recycling v.3 Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org Ready for Action General - Recycling Correction: Recycling - Rachelle Paris (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: Please submit your project's Recycle Plan online at https://forms.slocity.org/Forms/recyclingplan Corrective Action: Rachelle Paris - RecycleRight@slocity.org Site Grading/PW v.1 Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Site Grading/PW Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Bridget Fraser bfraser@slocity.org 805-781-7192 Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1.A CAL-OSHA permit is required for excavations or trenching greater than 5 feet in depth. A copy of the annual, provisional, or temporary permit shall be provided to the Building Division prior to building, utility, and/or grading permit issuance if applicable. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 2.Provide a copy of the Storm water control Plan for this project. You can provide a copy of the SWCP submitted for the Parking Garage with notes indicating which portions apply specifically to this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 3.Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for all post construction storm water improvements BMPS on the project (drainage inlets and filters, roof drains and trash enclosure runoff, bioswales, bioretention and treatment planters, parking lot sweeping, detention/infiltration basin, storm underground storage chambers, etc.) The O&M Manual shall address maintenance, monitoring, inspections, cleanings, repairs, documentation, and reporting. It shall also include an overall plan showing where each of the subject features are located. Additionally, provide a discussion in the O&M manual that addresses the requirement for a “zero-year” inspection and report to be completed after completion of construction and prior to final inspection sign-off. The engineer of record shall perform an initial or “Zero-Year” inspection and report of all stormwater facilities as identified in the manual and project plans to verify functionality of the various BMPs at the completion of the work and ability to perform as designed. (For example: site is cleaned of trash, site is weeded and vegetation trimmed, flow into planters or drain inlets are free and clear of debris and vegetation, underground chambers are clean with no sediment and installed per design, MHs are clean and inverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 4.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) will be(might be) required for this project. Agreement will be prepared by the city and shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Provide a copy of the current property deed or a current title report, to verify the current ownership and legal description for this property so that the required agreement can be prepared by the city for recordation Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 5.Clarify with the City PW Department and City Engineer regarding who will be responsible for maintaining the underground chambers on this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 6.Add the following notes to C1 City of SLO Notes: a.Encroachment permits and parking meter bags will not be issued for new work in the public right-of-way in the Downtown Area during the holiday season. The holiday season commences with Thanksgiving and ends after New Year's Day. b.Metered parking spaces displaced during construction are limited to two spaces and shall be paid for by the contractor, owner, or operator at the current daily ratey. Parking bags are available from the Parking Division located at 1260 Chorro or the Engineering Division located at 919 Palm. c.Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and are in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. d.Contact the City Arborist at 781-7578 to review the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. Contact the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. e.Hand digging is required within the drip line of trees to remain; any exposed roots shall be observed by City Arborist before removing. Contact City Arborist before commencing with construction, grading, or excavations. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 7.Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the title sheet A-1.0 that identifies Performance Requirement (PR) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) used for compliance. Fill in the blanks with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Provide reference to the project’s Stormwater Control Page 24 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Plan, O&M Manual, and Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement, if applicable. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:  PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______  PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______  PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______  PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________ Operations and Maintenance Manual by__________________ dated__________ Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement dated__________________ City Field Verification. Contact the City for field verification of installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the project Stormwater Control Plan. For Performance Requirements 2 through 4, the following requirements apply: •Revisions. Prior to City field verification and final acceptance, revise Stormwater Control Plan and O & M Manual as needed to reflect final project •Inspection/Certification Requirements. Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the Building Division and the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall observe installation during construction and certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and installed in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. •Operations/Maintenance Report. After construction is complete and prior to final inspection approvals, the engineer of record shall perform a preliminary “year-zero” site inspection of the completed project site and stormwater facilities based on maintenance items identified in the approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. A report or checklist identifying the condition of the site and each stormwater facility shall be provided to the City. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 8.The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet A1.0 of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer. FLOOD ZONE NOTES: •Portions of this property are located in an AE Flood Zone, the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 188' (NGVD 88). The structure must be constructed and/or floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. •The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. •Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. •Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 9.Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Site Grading/PW v.2 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Site Grading/PW Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Gabriel Munoz-Morris gmunoz@slocity.org 805-781-7592 Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1.A CAL-OSHA permit is required for excavations or trenching greater than 5 feet in depth. A copy of the annual, provisional, or temporary permit shall be provided to the Building Division prior to building, utility, and/or grading permit issuance if applicable. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 2.Provide a copy of the Storm water control Plan for this project. You can provide a copy of the SWCP submitted for the Parking Garage with notes indicating which portions apply specifically to this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 3.Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for all post construction storm water improvements BMPS on the project (drainage inlets and filters, roof drains and trash enclosure runoff, bioswales, bioretention and treatment planters, parking lot sweeping, detention/infiltration basin, storm underground storage chambers, etc.) The O&M Manual shall address maintenance, monitoring, inspections, cleanings, repairs, documentation, and reporting. It shall also include an overall plan showing where each of the subject features are located. Additionally, provide a discussion in the O&M manual that addresses the requirement for a “zero-year” inspection and report to be completed after completion of construction and prior to final inspection sign-off. The engineer of record shall perform an initial or “Zero-Year” inspection and report of all stormwater facilities as identified in the manual and project plans to verify functionality of the various BMPs at the completion of the work and ability to perform as designed. (For example: site is cleaned of trash, site is weeded and vegetation trimmed, flow into planters or drain inlets are free and clear of debris and vegetation, underground chambers are clean with no sediment and installed per design, MHs are clean and Page 25 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) inverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 4.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) will be(might be) required for this project. Agreement will be prepared by the city and shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Provide a copy of the current property deed or a current title report, to verify the current ownership and legal description for this property so that the required agreement can be prepared by the city for recordation Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 5.Clarify with the City PW Department and City Engineer regarding who will be responsible for maintaining the underground chambers on this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 6.Add the following notes to C1 City of SLO Notes: a.Encroachment permits and parking meter bags will not be issued for new work in the public right-of-way in the Downtown Area during the holiday season. The holiday season commences with Thanksgiving and ends after New Year's Day. b.Metered parking spaces displaced during construction are limited to two spaces and shall be paid for by the contractor, owner, or operator at the current daily ratey. Parking bags are available from the Parking Division located at 1260 Chorro or the Engineering Division located at 919 Palm. c.Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and are in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. d.Contact the City Arborist at 781-7578 to review the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. Contact the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. e.Hand digging is required within the drip line of trees to remain; any exposed roots shall be observed by City Arborist before removing. Contact City Arborist before commencing with construction, grading, or excavations. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 7.Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the title sheet A-1.0 that identifies Performance Requirement (PR) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) used for compliance. Fill in the blanks with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Provide reference to the project’s Stormwater Control Plan, O&M Manual, and Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement, if applicable. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:  PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______  PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______  PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______  PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________ Operations and Maintenance Manual by__________________ dated__________ Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement dated__________________ City Field Verification. Contact the City for field verification of installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the project Stormwater Control Plan. For Performance Requirements 2 through 4, the following requirements apply: •Revisions. Prior to City field verification and final acceptance, revise Stormwater Control Plan and O & M Manual as needed to reflect final project •Inspection/Certification Requirements. Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the Building Division and the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall observe installation during construction and certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and installed in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. •Operations/Maintenance Report. After construction is complete and prior to final inspection approvals, the engineer of record shall perform a preliminary “year-zero” site inspection of the completed project site and stormwater facilities based on maintenance items identified in the approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. A report or checklist identifying the condition of the site and each stormwater facility shall be provided to the City. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 8.The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet A1.0 of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer. FLOOD ZONE NOTES: •Portions of this property are located in an AE Flood Zone, the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 188' (NGVD 88). The structure must be constructed and/or floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. Page 26 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) •The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. •Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. •Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 9.Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Site Grading/PW v.3 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Site Grading/PW Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 6.Add the following notes to C1 City of SLO Notes: a.Encroachment permits and parking meter bags will not be issued for new work in the public right-of-way in the Downtown Area during the holiday season. The holiday season commences with Thanksgiving and ends after New Year's Day. b.Metered parking spaces displaced during construction are limited to two spaces and shall be paid for by the contractor, owner, or operator at the current daily ratey. Parking bags are available from the Parking Division located at 1260 Chorro or the Engineering Division located at 919 Palm. c.Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and are in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. d.Contact the City Arborist at 781-7578 to review the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. Contact the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. e.Hand digging is required within the drip line of trees to remain; any exposed roots shall be observed by City Arborist before removing. Contact City Arborist before commencing with construction, grading, or excavations. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 9.Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Gabriel Munoz-Morris gmunoz@slocity.org 805-781-7592 Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 1.A CAL-OSHA permit is required for excavations or trenching greater than 5 feet in depth. A copy of the annual, provisional, or temporary permit shall be provided to the Building Division prior to building, utility, and/or grading permit issuance if applicable. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: 2.Provide a copy of the Storm water control Plan for this project. You can provide a copy of the SWCP submitted for the Parking Garage with notes indicating which portions apply specifically to this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: 3.Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for all post construction storm water improvements BMPS on the project (drainage inlets and filters, roof drains and trash enclosure runoff, bioswales, bioretention and treatment planters, parking lot sweeping, detention/infiltration basin, storm underground storage chambers, etc.) The O&M Manual shall address maintenance, monitoring, inspections, cleanings, repairs, documentation, and reporting. It shall also include an overall plan showing where each of the subject features are located. Additionally, provide a discussion in the O&M manual that addresses the requirement for a “zero-year” inspection and report to be completed after completion of construction and prior to final inspection sign-off. The engineer of record shall perform an initial or “Zero-Year” inspection and report of all stormwater facilities as identified in the manual and project plans to verify functionality of the various BMPs at the completion of the work and ability to perform as designed. (For example: site is cleaned of trash, site is weeded and vegetation trimmed, flow into planters or drain inlets are free and clear of debris and vegetation, underground chambers are clean with no sediment and installed per design, MHs are clean and inverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: 4.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) will be(might be) required for this project. Agreement will be prepared by the city and shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Provide a copy of the current property deed or a current title report, to verify the current ownership and legal description for this property so that the required agreement can be prepared by the city for recordation Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 5.Clarify with the City PW Department and City Engineer regarding who will be responsible for maintaining the underground chambers on this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 7.Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the title sheet A-1.0 that identifies Performance Requirement (PR) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) used for compliance. Fill in the blanks with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Provide reference to the project’s Stormwater Control Plan, O&M Manual, and Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement, if applicable. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:  PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______  PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______  PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Page 27 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024)  PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________ Operations and Maintenance Manual by__________________ dated__________ Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement dated__________________ City Field Verification. Contact the City for field verification of installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the project Stormwater Control Plan. For Performance Requirements 2 through 4, the following requirements apply: •Revisions. Prior to City field verification and final acceptance, revise Stormwater Control Plan and O & M Manual as needed to reflect final project •Inspection/Certification Requirements. Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the Building Division and the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall observe installation during construction and certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and installed in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. •Operations/Maintenance Report. After construction is complete and prior to final inspection approvals, the engineer of record shall perform a preliminary “year-zero” site inspection of the completed project site and stormwater facilities based on maintenance items identified in the approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. A report or checklist identifying the condition of the site and each stormwater facility shall be provided to the City. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 8.The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet A1.0 of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer. FLOOD ZONE NOTES: •Portions of this property are located in an AE Flood Zone, the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 188' (NGVD 88). The structure must be constructed and/or floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. •The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. •Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. •Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Gabriel Munoz-Morris (3/16/26) - Not Resolved Comments: This comment is added in response to project team's indication that additional site changes are pending in response to other department/division comments that may affect Engineering items. This comment will be resolved once project documents are resubmitted and either new comments are added in response to changed scope or lack of additional comments is confirmed. Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.1 Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Stormwater/PW Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.2 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Stormwater/PW Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.3 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Stormwater/PW Transportation v.1 Luke Schwartz email: LSchwartz@slocity.org Ready for Action General - Transportation Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.2 Nico Gurney email: ngurney@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Utilities Correction: Utilities - Miguel Barcenas (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: UT General Corrective Action: Nico Gurney - ngurney@slocity.org - 805-781-7508 Correction: Utilities - Nico Gurney (9/3/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Sheet C5: Please draw and label existing sewer mains on Monterey and Nipomo. SSMH are located but no main is shown. Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.3 Nico Gurney email: ngurney@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Utilities Correction: Utilities - Miguel Barcenas (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: UT General Corrective Action: Nico Gurney - ngurney@slocity.org - 805-781-7508 Correction: Utilities - Nico Gurney (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Sheet C5: Please draw and label existing sewer mains on Monterey and Nipomo. SSMH are located but no main is shown. Correction: Utilities - Nico Gurney (2/13/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide plumbing sheets P1-P5. Page 28 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.1 Geraldine Seng email: gseng@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Utilities Correction: Utilities - Miguel Barcenas (3/3/25) - Not Resolved Comments: See plan check #1 comments Corrective Action: See plan check #1 comments Utilities/Landscape v.1 Kellie Fortner email: Kfortner@slocity.org Not Required Utilities/Landscape Water (Building) v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Water Water (Building) v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Water Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (9/3/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Refer to plan comments under "Fees" Water (Building) v.3 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Water Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Refer to plan comments under "Fees" Page 29 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) eReview Session for Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use v.2 FILES:BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V1- Responses-Architect.pdf BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V1-Electrical Responses.pdf BMA PLAN CHECK RESPONSE LETTER.pdf Civil Responses & Markups.pdf Inspection Form- SIGNED 8.6.25- SLO Rep.pdf SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf SLO Rep Theater_Structural Calcs_07-25-25.pdf Structural Plan Check Response V1_07-24-25.pdf REVIEWER MARKUP DATE/TIME FILE NAME PG # Seano 40.9 sf 09/17/2025 5:28 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 2 Seano 218.64 sf 09/17/2025 5:28 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 2 Seano 2,551.79 sf 09/17/2025 5:35 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 2 Seano 10'-3"09/18/2025 12:11 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 22 Seano 10'-4 3/4"09/18/2025 12:12 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 22 Seano 4'-11"09/18/2025 12:15 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 12 Seano 5'-0"09/18/2025 4:41 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 12 Seano 6'-1/4"09/18/2025 6:21 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 122 Seano 3'-1/2"09/18/2025 6:58 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 144 Seano 2'-1"09/18/2025 6:58 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 144 Seano 6'-0"09/18/2025 6:59 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 144 Seano over cross slope 09/18/2025 9:09 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano Design a ramp 09/18/2025 9:09 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano max 2%09/18/2025 9:13 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano No DG allowed 09/18/2025 9:16 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano Stairs need to be moved back so handrail does not go into ROW 09/18/2025 9:16 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano 8'-8 1/4"09/19/2025 3:40 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 90 eReview Session for Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use v.3 FILES:20260122 SLO Repertory Theater - NRCC-PRF Report PC Resubmittal & RR Revisions.pdf 3_Geotech Report - Addendum 1.pdf 4_Geotech Report - Addendum 2.pdf BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V1- Electrical Responses.pdf BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V2_Meeting_Minutes_CommentReview.pdf BMA Permit Corrections Report_19-09-2025_10-02-54.pdf CAL- OSHA Permit App 1-25-26.pdf Construction and Demolition Recycling and Waste Pl.pdf FIRE-1729-2025_STAMPED PLANS.pdf PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLAN CHECK #2- Responses.pdf Plan Check Responses_ltr_Firma_110525_SLOREP.pdf PLREV-0533-2025_STAMPED REVISED PLANS.pdf Project Specifications - COMBINED.pdf RTC_ltr_Firma_110525_SLOREP- Plan Check Responses.pdf SLO Rep 3rd Building Submittal Full Planset 1-24-26.pdf Special Inspection Form- SIGNED 8.6.25- SLO Rep.pdf REVIEWER MARKUP DATE/TIME FILE NAME PG # Page 30 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Seano These items are not to be added to this review & even though somehow the fire sprinkler permit got signed permited it belongs on the deffered submittal list as this serves as a final checklist for inspector for final close out that all specail features within a building are signed off. This is typicall for all jobs. Also i'm not seeing anything on this plan for the removed deffered submittal items. 02/20/2026 4:13 am PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLAN CHECK #2- Responses.pdf 4 Seano 136'-0"02/21/2026 2:18 am SLO Rep 3rd Building Submittal Full Planset 1-24-26.pdf 45 Page 31 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 18, 2026 109 From:Schwartz, Luke Sent:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:16 AM To:Ebe, Dana Subject:RE: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Attachments:SLO Rep TCP 03.16.26.pdf Dana, We can huddle this week to discuss this TCP Luke Schwartz Transportation Manager Public Works Transportation Planning/Engineering 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E LSchwartz@slocity.org T 805.781.7190 slocity.org Report immediate concerns using the Ask SLO tool From: Kyle Blumer <kyle.blumer@weareedwards.com> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 1:43 PM To: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com>; Wong, Justin <jwong@slocity.org>; Clay Bragg <clay@weareedwards.com>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>; Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Schwartz, Luke <LSchwart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Good afternoon Dana, My name is Kyle Blumer, I will be the Superintendent overseeing this project in the field. Below are some rough timelines for the proposed traffic control and some of our justifications for the asks. Please see attached traffic control plan with phases as requested. Monterey Street and sidewalk closure (north lane only) - April 2026-August 2027. This is required to complete the earthwork and building foundations scopes of work as there is a requirement to over excavate outside the building foundations footprint. The southern most foundations will require the excavation to extend into the sidewalk along the north side of Monterey, thus the need for the north lane of Monterey to be closed 110 during these activities. We can move barricades to open this lane for special events (holiday parade etc.), but doing so every Friday for the weekend would not be tenable. Nipomo sidewalk closure & pedestrian re-route - April 2026-April 2028 . Similar to Monterey, overex requirements, shoring and foundation activities will require us to be working in the sidewalk along the east side of Nipomo street. With pedestrian safety in mind, we’d recommend keeping this sidewalk closure/pedestrian re-route in place for the duration of the project to avoid any work above pedestrians during the exterior envelope and finishes phases. We believe the sidewalk closures are supported by the December 2025 SLO City Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards. Page 40 notes “At locations where adjacent alternate walkways are not practical, the Engineer may approve sidewalk closures. Appropriate signs and barricades must be installed at the limits of construction and in advance of the closure at the nearest crosswalk or intersection to divert pedestrians across the street.” Guidelines for Construction Zones - Appendix G Figure P, Detail 1 depicts what our sidewalk closures will look like: 111 112 Let me know if you have any questions or feedback. Thank you, Kyle Blumer Superintendent II | Site Supervision kyle.blumer@weareedwards.com | (805) 225-4573 Edwards Construction Group 991 Bennett Ave. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-335-1161 www.WeAreEdwards.com On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:57 PM Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, We’ve taken an initial look at the site logistics plan. In order for our team to formally review and provide comments on the proposed traffic control, we will need additional information on the anticipated construction schedule and duration of each phase. Please provide a phasing plan that includes approximate timelines for major work activities and identifies when specific impacts (e.g., partial street closures, sidewalk closures, and parking structure access restrictions) would occur. At a high level, partial street and sidewalk closures along Nipomo and Monterey for the full anticipated construction duration (two years) would likely not be supported. We would expect most construction activities to occur within the site limits, with off-site impacts limited to shorter-duration work such as utility connections or frontage improvements. Once we receive a phasing schedule, we can conduct a more thorough review. We appreciate your coordination and look forward to your response. Thank you, Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II 113 Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 1:17 PM To: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org> Cc: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com>; Wong, Justin <jwong@slocity.org>; Clay Bragg <clay@weareedwards.com>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>; Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Kyle Blumer <kyle.blumer@weareedwards.com> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Madeline, Following up on the correspondence below....any available meeting times in the near future? Thanks, 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 Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 9:57 AM Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> wrote: Thanks for the quick response Madeline! 114 See attached site logistics plan, which indicates the proposed partial Monterey Street and parking structure access closures, and pedestrian routing. We plan to close pedestrian access to the parking structure from Monterey St., but access will remain open leading out to Nipomo St. No vehicular access to the parking structure will be impacted. We previously discussed maintaining pedestrian access along Nipomo St. but due to construction activities, this is proving cost-prohibitive and poses significant safety concerns. We can review this in more detail with you and your team. Other topics we would like to review are:  New storm drain system impacts, Removal and Reconstruction  New Frontage improvement impacts, Removal and Reconstruction  Access to parking structure for construction parking and storage  Temporary power from parking structure  Temporary water for construction operations  Temporary shoring  Existing ground coverings  Street lighting temporary removals during construction  Parking structure path lighting removal and salvage  Water and fire water utility tie-ins Please let us know your earliest availability. Thanks, 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 115 On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 8:06 PM Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, I hope you’re doing well! Has your team had a chance to draft any pedestrian control plans based on our last discussion? It would also be really helpful if you could outline any impacts to the Parking Structure that we might expect or that you’d like us to consider or discuss. We’d be happy to meet to go over this, but having something to review and react to beforehand will help make the meeting more productive. I’ll likely loop in our Parking Manager as well to discuss logistics and access to the structure, so having this information in advance will help us coordinate more effectively. Once we have your input, we can confirm a time to meet that works for everyone. Since this involves a larger group from the City, we may need a little more lead time to get everyone on the calendar. Thanks so much, and looking forward to your thoughts! Bests, Madeline Kacsinta Assistant Director of Public Works Public Works 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E MKacsint@slocity.org T 805.781.7094 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:17 PM To: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com>; Wong, Justin <jwong@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Clay Bragg <clay@weareedwards.com>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics 116 Hello all! I wanted to revive this communication chain now that the parking structure is completed. We’d like to request an on-site meeting to review pedestrian traffic control needs, logistics, as well discuss impacts to newly placed city infrastructure that will need to be coordinated as part of the theater build. Would it be possible to meet Monday morning? Thanks much! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2025, at 5:35 PM, Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, Apologies for my delay in getting back to you. We’d be happy to meet and discuss traffic control strategies. Would you prefer to meet in one of our conference rooms at 919 Palm Street or via Microsoft Teams? Please let me know if any of the times below work for you. If not, I’m happy to provide additional options later in the week. 1. Monday 10/13 8-11 am 2. Tuesday 10/14 9-11 am or 1-2 pm Thank you, 117 Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:34 PM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Liz Cuara <liz@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Hello all! I wanted to continue this correspondence around the City street and sidewalk impacts related to this project. I have not been able to connect successfully with the developer of the adjacent site but with that build happening concurrently with the theater build it would be advisable to close a portion of Monterey Street for the project duration, approximately 2 years, commencing around March of 2026. We would also advise a closure to public pedestrian access to the parking structure from the future courtyard area due to its proximity to primary construction activities. We believe these closures will be necessary to ensure public safety during the build. Please let us know a good time to meet to review this proposal. Your time is much appreciated! 118 Thanks, 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 Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:51 AM LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, Here is the developer’s contact information: 119 Marshall Ochylski 805-441-4466 mochylski@slolegal.com Thank you, Matt LaFreniere pronouns he/him/his Engineering Technician III Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mlafreni@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:41 PM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Matt, Would you be able to share the developer's contact information? I'd like to reach out and try to coordinate our efforts. Thanks! 120 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 Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:51 PM LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, We do not have an encroachment permit application in yet for the project across the street, 667 Monterey, but the project’s grading and utility improvements permit is nearing approval with only minor comments/requirements and fee payment left. We can coordinate with you as each of the encroachment permit applications are submitted. Please visit: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/engineering-development-review/encroachment-permits for the Encroachment Permit Application and related documents. Thank you, Matt LaFreniere pronouns he/him/his Engineering Technician III Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mlafreni@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 121 From: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:09 PM To: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Traffic <traffic@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Hi Tyler, Thanks for the update, and no problem at all. I’ll be heading out of the office after tomorrow for the remainder of August, but someone from our Transportation team would be happy to discuss traffic control strategies ahead of your formal traffic control application submittal. If possible, could you share a general idea of the anticipated work areas and timeline? That will help us prepare on our end. As for other construction activity in the area, there are a few City Capital Improvement Projects nearby, including the Mill Street Sewer Replacement and City Hall renovations, along with various utility-related encroachment projects. However, I’m not personally aware of any upcoming private development projects. Could you clarify which property you’re referring to? Also, Matt LaFreniere (cc’ed) oversees encroachment permits and may have more information on any private work that’s been reviewed or approved in the area. Thank you, Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 122 Upcoming leave: 08/06/25 – 09/02/25 From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 8:41 AM To: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Traffic <traffic@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Good morning all! Apologies, intended to reach out sooner. We have an idea of the laydown and staging areas we will need for this project. Maintaining public access to the parking structure will be tricky. We will put this to paper for discussion. We were told there is another private project across across the street that will be in construction at the same time as SLOREP Theater. Has this project been reviewed for street closures and pedestrian controls? Be good to coordinate now. Thanks, 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 Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 8:39 AM Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> wrote: Good morning Tyler, 123 Thanks for reaching out! I’d be happy to touch base and discuss traffic control strategies before the formal submittal of the traffic control application. Feel free to send your availability for next week and I’ll let you know what time works best for us. If possible, could you provide more details on the work area, timeline, and any other relevant information? That will help ensure the right people are on the call. Although if you're still in the early stages of planning, no problem at all. Also, I wanted to mention that there will be work on Morro Street between Palm and Mill for the City’s Mill Street Sewer Replacement Project, which is set to begin next month. We'll need to coordinate the schedule with the City Construction Inspector. Thanks, Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 6:30 AM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com> Subject: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Good morning Matt and Dana! 124 It was recommended to me by Madeline to reach out to you directly to discuss impacts to pedestrian and vehicular traffic around the SLOREP Theater build site adjacent to the parking structure. We’d like to be proactive in the approach to this as the site constraints are considerable. There is also another private build occurring across the street from the SLOREP theater that will be under construction concurrently. Can we meet virtually to preliminarily review and discuss? Thanks! 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 Our Emails are changing! Please update my contact information. Jonata HVAC & Restroom Modernization Site Logistics Plan 5/13/25 Phase 1 Buildings B & G Restrooms A & E Phase 2 Buildings E & H Phase 3 Buildings MPR, D & F Phase 4 Building A Legend:Worker Path of travel Fence Location Work Hours M-F 7am-3:30pm [ [ ] (E) TOW AWAY I SIGNAGE o _ a v vor I JI J < erks6912) N03 0 \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ 2 A1.02 2 A1.02 Laydown Area Pedestrian Control Plan Jonata HVAC & Restroom Modernization Site Logistics Plan 5/13/25 Phase 1 Buildings B & G Restrooms A & E Phase 2 Buildings E & H Phase 3 Buildings MPR, D & F Phase 4 Building A Legend:Worker Path of travel Fence Location Work Hours M-F 7am-3:30pm [ [ ] (E) TOW AWAY I SIGNAGE o _ a v vor I JI J < erks6912) N03 0 \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ 2 A1.02 2 A1.02 Laydown Area Pedestrian Control Plan 125 From:Building <building@slocity.org> Sent:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:05 AM To:brycethearchitect@gmail.com Subject:BLDG-2740-2024 (614 Monterey St Attachments:BLDG-2740-2024 CSG STRUC V3 (1).pdf; BLDG-2740-2024 CSG FIRE V3 (1).pdf; BLDG-2740-2024 _Review_V3 (1).docx; Permit Corrections Report.pdf Hello, Please find the attached comment letters for this project. Please address corrections and provide written responses with your re-submittal. Comments are also available to download on the portal. Thank you! Ilianna Silva Permit Technician II Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ISilva@slocity.org T 805.781.7101 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications _______________________ 550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA 94404 _______________________ INVOICE Date:3/2/2026 Mike Loew Invoice No.:B260294 Deputy Building Official City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street Period:2/1/2026 - 2/28/2026 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 FED ID:91-2053749 Billing Type: Building Plan Review Services Account No.: CSG No City PC No Job Address Description City Fee CSG Fee 4500931 BLDG-2740-2024 614 Monterey St Structural review only – New performing arts theatre Hourly $255.00 4510027 PLREV-0629-2025 1422 Monterey St.*EXPEDITED* *DEFERRED SUBMITTAL TO CSG #4403990* Elevator & Connections Deferred Submittal. Hourly $924.75 4514256 PLREV-0948-2025 609 Palm St.(New) *Deferred submittal for 4212123 (orig) * Stainless Steel vertical Mesh & Suspension cables. (Old) *Revision 4212123 (orig) & 4415749 (netting)* Stainless Steel vertical Mesh & Suspension cables. Hourly $172.50 4514858 PLREV-0985-2025 609 Palm St Reference to CSG #4212123 (original parking garage approval), Deferred Submittal- Distributed Antenna System Hourly $138.00 Total:$1,490.25 Please remit payment to: CSG Consultants, Inc. PO Box 8485, Pasadena, CA 91109-8485 CSG Consultants 1Page 1 of 650-522-2500 | csgstaff@csgengr.com | www.csgengr.com Letter of Transmittal 930 Fresno Street, Newman, CA 95360 www.csgengr.com phone 1.888.794.2016 To: City of San Luis Obispo Date: February 5, 2026 Review No: 3rd 919 Palm Street CSG No.: 450931 San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401 Jurisdiction No.: BLDG-2740-2024 Attn: Building Department Job Address: 614 Monterey St Job Description: Structural review only –New performing arts theatre Status: Plan requires corrections. See attached list. Plan is ready for permit issuance for the following: Architectural Energy Structural CalGreen Mechanical Wildland Urban Interface Plumbing Certified CASp Electrical Other: We have reviewed the following documents (Digital): X Plans Energy Compliance Documents X Structural Calculations CalGreen Checklist – Not Applicable X Geotechnical Report Specifications Geotechnical Review Letter Wildland Urban Interface Truss Calculations CASp Documents Truss Review Letter X Response to Comments Special Inspection Form Other: Special items to note: Plans have been stamped by CSG. Environmental Health Services approval required. X Special Inspection is required. X Structural Observation is required. Valuation X Please collect a plan review fee for 1.5 hour(s) of plan check. Amount: $ Remarks: From: Ash Arya CSG Consultants 450931 Page | 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION Date: February 5, 2026 Phone: 1.888.794.2016 Job Description: Structural review only –New performing arts theatre Email: planreview@csgengr.com Address: 614 Monterey St Jurisdiction No.: BLDG-2740-2024 INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR THE NEXT PLAN REVIEW Please resubmit (3) complete sets of revised hardcopy plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit complete sets of revised digital plans and supporting documents, with responses to the comment list to the City of San Luis Obispo Building counter. In addition to the below plan check comments, there may be additional comments from other departments and agencies having jurisdiction for this project (i.e. City of San Luis Obispo Planning, Public Works, Fire Prevention, etc.). PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 1. For electronically submitted plans, please resubmit a complete set of plans and documents upon every resubmittal. Any missing plan sheets, missing stamps and/or signatures (where required) may delay the review process. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 2. Submit written responses addressing each plan review comments below and a summary of changes for any additional modifications. In each response, refer to specific detail or sheet, or specific page of the supporting documents. Show compliance with all comments within the construction documents. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ Structural Plan Check Comments by |Christine Jansen, PE, ChristineJ@csgengr.com| Ash Arya, PE, asha@csgengr.com| 3rd Review Comment: Please provide and submit written itemized response to comments S1 thru S20 by CSG and reflect the corrections on plans and in calculations for review. S1. Please provide a copy of the City of San Luis Obispo Testing and Inspection agreement, with signatures by all requested parties, with resubmitted documents. Please ensure the Inspection Agency is selected from the City approved list. https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31699/637795651542430000 https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/31685/637795651445870000 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The form could not be located in the resubmission. Please provide. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S2. Geotechnical Report: A. Provide a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer stating that the drawings (i.e. –the foundation plan, the grading plan, and all pertinent details) have been reviewed, and that the geotechnical report’s recommendations are properly incorporated. Any exceptions noted by the Geotechnical Engineer are to be addressed prior to resubmittal. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. 450931 Page | 2 B. Please provide a letter or updated report from the Geotechnical Engineer validating the current report is compliant with the code change to the 2022 CBC Chapter 18. Please ensure the revised USGS database input coefficients were updated when the 2022 CBC was adopted. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. C. Please provide an independent peer review for the performance-based procedure (site-specific seismic design parameters) per ASCE 7-16 § 1.3.1.3.4 and C21.0. Please ensure a letter from the peer review engineer/firm is provided in the resubmission. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. D. Table D-1 – Spectral Response Values: i. Based on the Table D-1 Spectral Response Values data, the USGS Unified Hazard Tool with 2014 static values is being used. Additionally, this location can only be Site Class B/C using this tool; per the provided report, the Site Class is D. Per the Unified Hazard Tool user error note, ASCE 7-16 § C21.1 and USGS Seismic Hazard Model, Maps, and Site-Specific Data guide, either the 2018 NSHMP or WCGEP UCERF3 should be used. Site Class D should be used for the determination of the site-specific data. Please update. ii. Per ASCE 7-16 § 21.2.3, this should be the lesser of column 1, 2 or 5. iii. Based on the ASCE Hazard Tool Crs = 0.899. Please review and revise. iv. Please clarify where the design values in column 2 were obtained. v. There is not an exception ASCE 7-16 § 21.2.2. Please provide the deterministic MCE and lower limit deterministic MCE. vi. The Cr reduction only applies to method 1 (aka column (1)), please revise the footnote and column 2. vii. Per ASCE 7-16 § 21.4, the Sds, Sd1, Sm1 and Sms cannot be less than 80% of the values determined in ASCE 7-16 § 11.4.3 and 11.4.5. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S3. Deferred Submittals: A. For non-structural elements which would like to be deferred, which have not been explicitly allowed by the below comments, must have written approval from the Chief Building Official. Please ensure this written approval is included in the resubmission. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S5. Structural Calculations: B. At the wall designs, 1W or 1E are being used. Please revise to the applicable lateral loads from ASCE 7-16 Ch. 13 and 30, with a minimum of 0.2W with a but not less than load of 5 psf. ASCE 7-16 § 1.4.4 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The 1W (aka 1 psf or equivalent E value) resulting in a uniform load of the value of the height of the wall; example page 89, w1= 1W x 23.1 = 23 plf. This is less than the required 5psf. Please update the wall design calculations to consider the minimum requirements too; E=0.2xwall weight or 5 psf. H. At the shear wall overturning calculations, where holdowns are required at CMU walls, please revise the allowable tension per 2024-2025 Simpson Wood Construction Guide Pages 41. Further guidance on the required size of holdown for SDC D can be found on Page 46. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The Simpson third-party listed design values apply to this project. Please see above and provide an engineered design which includes calculations. M. Provide a shear wall design for the 8'-3" shear wall along Line G and the short wall along Line 8, at the control room level. 450931 Page | 3 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please see comment S20 for the short wall along line 8. P. For the Catwalk Truss Risa Model: Please provide the following: i. Code summary. ii. Load Summary. iii. Load combination summary. iv. Member Deflections. v. Node reactions. 2nd Review Comment: Comment corrected. Please provide the following from the RISA model. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S6. Provide the following calculations: A. CMU walls. Please include the in-plane, compression (considering overstrength where offsets exist) and uplift (considering overstrength were offsets exist). 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please confirm the compression with overstrength (at offsets) has been considered. B. CMU retaining walls. Walls retaining more than 6' are required to consider seismic loading per CBC 1807.2.2. Please include the in-plane, compression (considering overstrength were offsets exist) and uplift (considering overstrength were offsets exist). 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. The revised Geotechnical Report was not included in the resubmission. Additionally, the above is the minimum requirements of the CBC and the Geotechnical Report cannot waive this requirement. E. Theater seating platform (gravity and lateral). 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please clarify how the cantilevered diaphragm requirements of SDPWS § 4.2.6 have been addressed. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S8. Provide structural plans and calculations for the following (these items are allowed to be a deferred submittal): C. Guardrails. Sheets A-3.0, A-4.0, A-4.1, A-5.0, A-5.2, A-9.1, A-9.2, A-10.1 and T-TE231 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Thank you for the stair guard rail calculations and detailing. Please provide calculations and detailing for the guard rails at the non-stair condition. D. Roof Access Hatch and Ladder. Sheet A-3.0 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response from Architect or modification could be located in the resubmission. Please note detailing and calculations is required for this comment. E. Accessible Lift/Elevator - Structural Support (not typically covered by the manufacture), attachment, railing, etc. Sheet A-3.0 and A-10.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please provide a complete list of the vertical egress elements in the deferred submittals list on Sheet A-1.0. H. Spiral Stairs structural support and the actual stairs. Sheet A-3.0, A-11.0 and A-11.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. Modification could not be located in the resubmission. See Comment S15. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S10. Equipment (these items are allowed to be a deferred submittal) - Energy Recovery Ventilator, Condensing Unit and RTU - Sheet M-1.0; Ducting w/largest dimension 24" and greater - Sheet M-2.1 and M-3.0; and Elevated water heater and platform - Sheet P-2.0;: A. Provide anchorage and supporting structural calculations for all floor- or roof-mounted units weighing more than 400 lbs. and all wall- or ceiling-suspended or mounted equipment weighing more than 20 lbs. Reference CBC 1613, CEBC 503 and ASCE 7-16 Ch. 13 and 26. 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Per the response to comment these items should be included in the deferred submittals list on Sheet A-1.0. Please coordinate and updated. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 450931 Page | 4 S12. Per CBC Table 601 footnotes B, every part of the roof construction is required to be 20' above the floor(s) (floors include mezzanines and catwalks). This building does not meet this exception. Please provide detailing for 1 hour rated protection of the primary structural frame. Ref. CBC 704.2, 704.3 and Ch. 2 definition for Primary Structural Frame 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. No response could be located in the resubmission. A. Please clarify how the continuity requirements of CBC 704.3 have been met where the catwalk connects to the primary frame member. B. Detail 2/A-5.1: The provided rated protection is for a column, not a beam. Please revise. C. Only detailing for the roof framing beams could be located. Please clarify how the other primary structural frame members in the screen shot below have been addressed. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S13. Please clarify how the structural elements supporting the 1 hour rated wall required by CBC Table 705.5, along the parking garage and garage egress court, have been protected. CBC 704.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Please ensure the modification to a 2-hour rated wall is considered in the support structure outlined above. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S14. Sheet A-9.7: Suspended ceilings in Seismic Design Category D shall be designed and installed in accordance with ASTM C635, ASTM C636 and ASTM E580, Section 5. The width of the perimeter supporting closure angle or channel shall not be less than 2 inches and the ceiling system shall be heavy duty. Please add a note for the Seismic Design Category D. Provide notes on the plans to indicate compliance with the ASTM standards as well as ASCE 7-16 § 13.5.6.2. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S15. Sheet A-11.0 and A11.1: All stair live loads are required to be 100 psf. CBC Table 1607.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. The spiral stair detailing has not been provided in the submission. Based on the Architectural Floor Plan the stairs are still a part of this project. Please either re-incorporate the stairs into the plan set and update per the above comment OR add to the deferred submittals list on Sheet A- 1.0. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S16. Detail 1/T-TS101: The title of the detail states "wood" and the detailing shown is for concrete. Per Sheet S-2.7, the material is wood. Please coordinate. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 450931 Page | 5 S17. Please update the structural plans and calculations to include the modifications to the Geotechnical Report per Comment S2. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Comment S2 was not addressed in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S18. Based on the City's Flood Prep Map and the Geotechnical Report some portions of the building/parcel are inclusive in the flood hazard map/zones. Please update the building to either be above the design flood elevation (BFE + 1') OR update the design of the building per ASCE 7-16 Ch. 5, CBC 1612 and City Ordinance 17.78 (https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/17.78). 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No response or modification could be located in the resubmission. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S19. Sheet S-0.1: A. The seating area is most like bleachers or grandstands (ref CBC Ch. 2 Definitions), therefore the required live load is 100 psf. and horizontal swaying forces 24plf/10plf. CBC Table 1607.1 and ASCE 7-16 § 4.14 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please also add the sway forces to the live load design criteria. CBC 1603.1.1 B. Per the occupant loads on Sheet A-1.1and CBC Table 1604.5 and ASCE 7-16 Table 1.5-1, the Risk Category III. Please update the wind and seismic design criteria and the calculations. 2nd Review Comment: Comment continued. Please update the basic wind speed on Sheet S-0.1 with the calculations. D. Please clarify on the plans that the Sms, Sm1, Sds and Sd1 are site specific values. 2nd Review Comment: Comment held until Geotechnical Comments are addressed. E. At the Design Criteria - Building Notes: Please coordinate with the Seismic Loads Section and the revised Geotechnical Report. 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. No modification could be located in the resubmission. Comment S2 was not addressed in the resubmission. G. At the structural observations, please add shear wall sheathing (decking), holdowns and anchoring. CBC 1704.6 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. In addition to the structural systems, details….general conformance code, the following also applies “shall submit to the building official a written statement identifying the frequency and extent of structural observations.” Response: ______________________________________________________________________ S20. Sheet S-2.5: Provide shear wall type and length for the control room level along line 8. CBC 1603.1 2nd Review Comment: Comment remains. For clarity, please see the below screenshot from Sheet S2.5- Control Room Level. Response: ______________________________________________________________________ 450931 Page | 6 (End of Building Comments) Date: 2-20-2026 Plan Check Review # 3 Staff Response: Review #1 Review #2 Review #3 Review #4 (Additional Fees) Applicant Response: Please indicate here if any new changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of the corrections from this list. Briefly describe the type of changes and their location on the plans. Check one: _____yes ______no Print Name: If yes, please briefly describe the changes and where they are located on the plans: Building DEPARTMENT ☐ Ready for Action ☒ Needs Resubmit ☐ OK for Counter Re-Check ☐ Final Inspection Required (staff reminder: add yourself to final inspection in permit module) Sean McCaffrey Plans Examiner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E smccaffrey@slocity.org C 805.440.6617 P 805.781.7168 Project Address TBD Project Name SLO Repertory Theatre Application Number BLDG-2740-2024 Review of New Theatre Occupancy Class A-1 Construction Type V-A Occupant Load First Review 779 Sprinklers Yes 1 2 3 4 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 2 1. When reviewing these comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future or we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify the design on the plan set is code complaint as I’m not fully aware of the day-to-day business within some of these spaces the code take note to that may not be okay. As discussed, please review the comments with your team and if needed you can reach out for an online teams meeting to go over some comments. 2nd Review: Teams meeting still okay to go over 2nd round of comment corrections as there is several comments needing vefication from Building Official & Fire Marshall to verify. New Fire Marshall and Building Official have changed since first review. 2nd Review Online meeting minutes: Verified that no storage (Outfits & Stage props) will be stored or kept during shows within the Green Room. This satisfies’ s the comment 3rd Review: During online meeting with client, arch, Arris and Edwards team is was onveyed not to complete the 3 rd review. Please be aware that there are outstanding structural comments still by outside reviewers. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2. Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery (If battery ends up being required) 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction. 2nd review: It seems Grandstand construction has been provided for the structure portion of the project and could be taken off this list. The fixed theater seating that attaches to the grandstand is still not reviewed and shall stay on this list. Comment on remaining open until last review to re-check all deferred items make it to the list. Please understand that fixed seating has not been verified yet and may change the construction of the grandstand if items need to be addressed during the deferred submittal process. Comments for ADA on the fixed grandstand seating updated plans were not provided from Round #1 comments. 3rd review: Put back fire & platform lifts back on the deffered submittal list as this is required. Engineer reviewer was not made aware of these changes to this list and will have to be notified within their plan check responses they have to start the structural review of these items. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 3. Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up-to-date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Please also stamp all sheets. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 3 2nd review: Note to reviewer- Check this at last review as other designers or reviewers may require additional sheets. Note to Designer- if including any pages that are calling out deferred submittal items and you would like to keep this sheet within the index provide a clear gray scaled out “For Reference only” from corner to corner on the individual page or details. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 4. Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd review meeting minutes: This was crossed of on the 2nd review as no code requirement would trigger any type of marking on the ground to prohibit stage creeping into the exit access aisle. 5. Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 6. When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal, please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Also please be aware attachments look like they are going to be to the roof that is (1) hour fire assembly. All items will that attach back will require a approved fire rating for membrane penetrations. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 7. Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 8. (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 4 2nd Review: Response to comment was stated money and space for a code complaint method which is not an acceptable Alternative means and methods acceptable to the code requirement. Please see code commentary for the “Why” this is required & you can possibly apply for a AMMR that would be reviewed by the building official and fire Marshall. As a plans examiner I cannot grant this exemption for the reasons provided. 2nd review meeting minutes: As discussed exemption # 3 does not require a “Won Door” but will require a fire rated door equal to wall the fire barrier rating of (1) hour *This is higher F rating as typically only 45 min per Table 716.1(2). Also, as exemption states the fire rated door shall be rated to ASTM E119 or UL 263 which are the fire test standards for walls. Please put test standard on this door mark schedule. Typically fire rated doors are rated to NFPA 252 or UL10C. Please specifically call these door outs with this special design requirement. From calculations it looks like for the larger theater space you will have to require this at the stage door or both light lock doors. Same requirement for little block box theater space. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 9. Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 5 2nd Review: Found it thanks. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 10. Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the BLDG & room backstage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. (Provide details of intersection) 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers bo d from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 2nd Review: Provide typical details for intersections and call out on the elevation view. As stated in plan response, the structural drawings would call out fire rated hangers where non-rated ceilings intersect rated wall assemblies, but I could not find details for these locations that specify this. See attic section at main theatre. See catwalk to rated wall connection. Referenced detail 2/A-5.1 for a drywall method of protecting (W-Flange roof members) need to provide the entire detail as the snip shot is not enough information for construction. Also Please look at member size that this was tested at as this is significantly larger than what is shown on the plans. Larger steel members perform better as they have a larger thermal mass to keep them below the transformation range of steel as it heats up. The required rated W-flange with crawl space needs a detail showing how to address the specified drywall to fluted deck fire rated continuity. Still missing required fire ratings at all floors and ceilings do to the 5A construction type requiring this per 602 CBC. Also, your typical detail call out 13/A-10.1 is for floor framing only and will not be used for roof as this is showing a subfloor and ¾” gyp crete installation. Note to reviewer: Next review for floors using this gyp crete confirm this is allowed deadload per his structural calculations. 2nd Review meeting minutes: As discussed re-work will be completed and possibly consult a fire engineer. Structural drawings shall clearly call out fire rated hangers if this is the method of protection to satisfy continuity requirements. FYI if 1 hour wall is required some walls shall pass through the ceiling assembly regardless of fire rating of floor/ceiling (707.5 CBC) if designed as a fire barrier. If designed as a fire partition you can stop the wall rating at equally rated floor or roof assemblys. (708.4 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 6 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 7 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 8 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 11. Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that an exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. (410.5.1 CBC) is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd Review meeting minutes: This was not covered on the 2nd review meeting, but was on the list of questions submitted to plan reviewer. Comment is addressed and no further action is required. 12. Technical areas will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) Alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Could we maybe even have a direct door to the low roof? 2nd review: This code section only addresses the maximum exit access travel distance, but when reviewing 1006 CBC your common path of egress is over the maximum which would trigger the second exit from these spaces. Mike Loew is currently not with the city anymore and this comment can be eliminated by Contract building official if designer wishes to challenge code comment. This is okay and we can gather all challenges and ask to go over one time after 2 nd review. 2nd Review meeting minutes- This has been sent to the building official as discussed & verified that a AMMR (Alternative Means & Methods Report) shall be submitted upon next review limiting the occupancy load for these area’s using excemption within 1004. This will allow us to have (1) means of egress down from the technical production area as long as less than 400’ without the use of the proposed “Exit passageway” currently on the plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 13. Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot as separated with Fire barriers. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 14. Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? The “Crawl space” cannot be used for storage as this is traveling through the electrical room. Please put on the door schedule for these access doors a sticker that states not for storage. (413 CBC / 107 CBC) 2nd review: From response it sounds like props will be brought in through garage doors D22 and put right on the stage? There will be no storage in the unlabeled room next to the break room? If going to be used for storage of stage items, please design according to room separation requirements. Also Green room shall not be used as storage if this is the intention as we cannot exit through “Storage space”. I’m not familiar how the back of house works and maybe a good topic to go over with Building official and Fire Marshall. (1016.2.5 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 9 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 15. Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 16. Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 17. Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 for the mezzanine to floor area calculation as done on the other main theater. (505.2 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 18. Under project data building is (2) stories due to the electrical room being (504.4 CBC) : 19. Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 20. Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assemblies. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 10 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzinises bellow as they are consider floor, but not stories. (I believe chapter 4 prohibits me from looking at the catwalk to roof measurement if still trying to use these footnotes.). Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specific details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzanine. Please review other comments that address fire concerns due to fire barriers continuity requirements. IF you end up going to a spray applied fireproof application, please add this to the special inspection list and deferred submittal list for fire protection plan. (1705.15 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd Review: This can be gone over via teams as a very complicated subject as comment 10 in this report addresses the same concerns. This can be a recorded session so you can search the video for explanations given with requirements, so no confusion on our conversation to 3rd plan submittal. Structural drawings and help from the structural engineer can help a lot of identifying members requiring individual fire protection. (704 CBC) This is a Risk category III building upon this review so special inspection will be required for ALL fire related items. Please update your statement of special inspection document and provide these inspection requirements on the plans. (1705 CBC) 21. ESR report for all exterior walls requires Dense glass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. For exterior wall call outs that are using this ESR report match drywall specs as this is a preoperatory system. (ESR-1627) 2nd Review: No call out #18 on north elevation sheets a directed from comment response. Looking further into your fire rated wall assembly’s it seems you are adding items to these GA / UL files which is not allowed per the listing. Please review all these wall schedules and make sure they match exactly what the file reads with directions that provide board orientation / screw spacing. Looking at A-4.2 calling out the rigid foam is not called out on the red boxed out system. 1 hour system can be calculated method per 722 if desired but is not allowed for 2 hours. As discussed you may not need a 2-hour wall system which would allow you to “Design” one-hour systems to your exact situation. 10/A-3.5 walls that are receiving the acoustic wall attachment please provide note that this attachment going from this material to studs shall be treated as membrane penetration. (714 CBC). Specifically call out the fire blocking requirements for Topa Ustick wall & Cera Clad as these wall assemblies create a air space void that allows fire to freely spread within the wall cavity or provide documents these have been tested to the correct NFPA standards. (718.2.6 CBC / 718.2.7 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 11 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 12 22. Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) 2nd Review: Provide a structural response that states this has been incorporated into their design as I did not see a response from them. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 13 23. Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items are corrected review for individual incasement requirements. (704 CBC) 2nd review: This comment applies to your project. Please review as this is a very expensive large requirement for your project. Columns and beams that are subject to this chapter shall be individually encapsulated i.e. intumescent paint. These beams and columns shall be identified and provide submittal fireproofing method. Please add special inspection table in accordance with 1705 CBC that outlines the special inspectors’ duties. Okay to add the submittal of the fireproofing on the deffered submittal list, but at minimum structural members subject to this code section shall be clearly shown on plan view. Please keep in mind that steel to steel connections with (1) member subject to this requirement would still have you incorporate 12” of the beam or column not subjected to this requirement for heat transfer. (704.6.1 CBC) 2nd Review meeting minutes: As discussed during the online meeting this requirement applies to your project. It’s advisable you consult your structural engineer on this requirement so they can help you determine what columns / beams apply to this requirement. Highlighted structural plans showing where this requirement is applicable is the best method of showing this requirement. Please make sure your Gypsum assembly or UL listed assembly matches the essential variables listed. Please pay close attention to the size & weights of the structural beams within the assembly instructions match the structural plans. Make sure to address all connecting elements (Non rated beam to rated column) details. As discussed during meeting you are not considered light frame construction by definition. (202 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 24. 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exterior wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passageway wall regarding the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Imaginary property line shall go straight up so even the parking garage will have to comply with this requirement on all stories. 2nd Review: Response stated you wish to hash this out via teams or in person. We can set this up after you have gone over all 2nd review. We need to address the entire length of green shown in snip shot. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 14 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 25. Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building as this is giving us a issue with the ESR report. (705 CBC) 2nd review: As stated 2 hour wall is not required. As previous comment in this 2nd review indicates we can build it to a (1) hour requirement and keep the same assembly & would give us more control on how you wish to design this wall for the sound rating between active shows and parking structure. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 15 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 26. 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). 2nd review: Detail works 4/A10.1 works, but you will have issues with framing breaking the plan of the required fire rating of the wall. Chapter 6 is going to make you rate this roof anyways so drywall could be eliminated within the roof framing void. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 16 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 17 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 27. 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire- resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. This will be established when we get the PL linen. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 18 28. Provide a specific fire detail for all items shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) a. Show insert or tile shower b. Detail #24/A3.0 c. Fire riser through the (1) hour floor assembly * SOG then disregard but address the min hole and if seismic gap is required* d. Laundry box e. DWV pipes f. Water pipes g. Electrical conduits & cables h. Cat walk attachments back to structure i. Mechanical attachments back to structure j. Roof access penetration k. Sub panels l. Shower diverters m. Baby changing station n. Typical any item that is a membrane or thru penetration into a fire rated wall. Please address all receded items and attachments back. 2nd review: Comment was not addressed. We can go over this via teams. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 29. When imaginary property line is proposed for entire site, verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. Also, I don’t believe this will fit through the parapet wall as the duct is larger than the proposed parapet. (705.10 CBC) 2nd Review: Comment will remain when the imaginary property line gets established as Mechanical pentrations within 3’ of PL line within exterior wall’s needs to be protected. This new overhang structure over the landing / assisted rescue would be non-complaint due to openness. (1009.7.3 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 19 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 30. Desing the lulu lift as a shaft as it connects floors together that penetrates a (1) hour horizontal assembly. Submit a shaft construction GA file for this and address all attachments back to this shaft framing. (712.1 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 31. 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. Please also call out draftstoping under the grandstand seating. (718.2.2 CBC) 2nd Review: These sheets are missing that are referenced within your comment response. Sections do not call out draftstoping as referenced in your comment response. We can check with Fire department that sprinklers will not be required under grand stand seating with combustible construction materials. Please see also section 1030 for fire rating requirements for the grandstand seating in main and black bock theater due to the 5A construction method. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 20 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 32. Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 33. Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access, but your plans are not matching between all the different designers. I believe maybe the electrical has it correct with another room within the light blocking room that would be accessible from the outside. (902.1.1 CBC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 21 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 22 34. Where is the fire department connection as I couldn’t locate on the plans? (912.2 CBC) 2nd Review: Fire department can sign off after verification of new fire riser location in relation to the fire hydrant location. Typical these connections are outside of the building as code states, but you have a dedicated room with outside access which may meet the intent. New fire Marshall shall review and approve before next submittal. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 35. Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occurred 2nd review: Please outline stage parameters and show how this will be marked on the floor. Cannot have audience within this space exit through the stage / backstage. Permanent marking may be required so during normal operations props on the stage do not block exit access. Please outline stage clearly between all pages A-3.0/A-8.1/A1.1. When completing this verify with structural foundation plan depressed slab is correct limits for the stage wood floor over the depressed slab. Please verify 6” depressed slab over electrical room does not effect equipment or ducting passing through this section. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 36. The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. Think this was just a clicking error.(CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 23 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 37. Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? I understand very little when it comes to the back out house operations when it comes to these types of business. The concern is the entire back of house is considered common employee space which will require path of travel requirements and also just normal fire life and safety for general means of egress. I’m assuming that the scenary and props and stuff get put on the pully system and get lifted up into the air and are stored there. Is this correct thinking so it would just be staging things are being temporary stored here why they get lifted into the air to be stored? Thanks for explaining as just want to make sure we are safe. 2nd review: Building official to accept or deny this item as if using the “Green Room” as a storage component it would not be allowed per code as you are exiting through a “Storage space” (1016 CBC). I do understand some items need to be stored at these locations for quick set up during show, but again a meeting will help out to verify the allowed use within this area so issue don’t arise within this buildings life span. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 38. Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 39. Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1. Please also show means of egress sizing from farthest point that occupied to ROW. Enough information needs to be provide so to verify all items of the means of egress system. ( PGE Vaults / Storm drain access points) Please look at minimum assembly exit discharge requirements due to your occupancy. Also is the main exit that leads to the staircase and entrance also? (1005 CBC / 1030.2 CBC) 2nd Review: Where occupants egress from one room, area, or space through another, the egress path capacity must be based on the cumulative occupant load of all interconnected spaces to that point per CBC 1004.2.1. You are currently just Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 24 sizing doors for each space and not showing the cumulative. Also please see section 1030.2 CBC for the main exit requirements and provide information on the plans that can confirm this requirement. Also second main double doors at this location leads to a staircase which would not be an accessible exit, Design according. Ground surfaces on accessible routes must be stable, firm, and slip resistant; decomposed granite (DG) is not permitted CBC 11B-302.1 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 40. Please post an occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) 2nd Review: As explained earlier in this report you have worked out a occupancy load for mezzanines with the old building official Mike Loew. Provide this occupancy load at this area for control room & we will verify this during the meeting this is acceptable. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 41. Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 25 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 42. Provide an emergency lighting / Normal photometric plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting from all occupied space to ROW. (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3) 2nd Review: No response given from electrical. Add EM lights to Fire riser room (1008.3.3 CBC). Add EM to light lock room, add EM light to theatre rooms, EM lights required from equipment platforms to ROW. Provide a photometric plan for normal power and emergency power. EM lights are required from exit door to ROW. During meeting we can address lighting requirements for when the show is going on the minimum lighting requirements with activation with fire alarm. Also exit sign illumination during show time. CBC 1008.2.1, 1013.1. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 43. Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) 2nd Review: Provide these on the exterior stairs also. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 44. Provide mid-handrail for monument staircase. (CBC 1014.9) 2nd Review: You need to call this out on the plan. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 45. 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. ARCH sheets please go to one staircase and call out typical stair construction so fabricator can look at other requirements that are not shown on the structural sheets. (11B-504.5 CBC) 2nd Review: You are calling out 1 ½” which is not code compliant for NEW CONSTRUCTION and these measurement of 1 ½” is only for existing buildings. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 26 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 46. Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) 2nd Review: ARCH did not assign cumulative occupant load to exit doors so verification will happen upon next review. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 27 47. For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we can’t go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance is not given nor be granted in the field. For instance, if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. Please verify all staircases. (1011.8 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 48. 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 28 Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 29 Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 49. 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. 2nd Review: Did not provide signage. As stated in earlier comments with HVAC now above (1) staircase with walls has a openness issue or further details need to be provided to show compliance with the code. See 11B code sections for location of signage. (11B Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 30 50. 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Please make sure both buildings are complaint. 2nd Review: When imaginary lot line are established this can be verified. You will have to address the “egress court” created at the parking garage staircase. (1029 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 51. 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. 2nd review: LULU lift is opening into a corridor now, please design according to 3006 CBC for protection methods. This area is not considered a lobby nor a hallway. A hallway becomes a corridor when it functions as a required part of the means of egress system. Think of it this way: all corridors are hallways, but not all hallways are corridors. Change this wording on the plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 52. 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passageways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 31 of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. 2nd Review: There is confusion as you are using a very specific word that carries very specific requirements, please see exit passageway definition within the CBC and determine if you need to use this method of exiting in your design. If you do not need to use this method, take the word “Exit passageway” of the plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 53. 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communication openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. 2nd Review: Comment may be addressed with comments above with clarification on if is needing to be designed as an exit passageway or not. See section 1024 CBC for clarification. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 54. 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 2nd review: Did not receive comment responses from consultants. Also this comment will remain when exit passageway is determined if necessary or not. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 55. Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verification can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesn’t meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. I seen that other sheets are showing this area from the theater specialist, but doesn’t match yours. We can speak about just using yours for showing the space then we can use the deferred submittal to verify all these items and construction details are not supplied for this at time of first review. (1030.16) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 32 2nd Review: Sheets referenced have not been updated since last review, also this is referred within the plan set to be a deferred submittal which is okay, just need to put for reference only on all “Deferred submittals” sheets so your team can use it for reference when building, but would not build to it nor inspect to it as it hasn’t been fully reviewed. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 56. Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depictive accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A- 8.1 2nd Review: Still have this issue at the black box theatre. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 57. At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 58. In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 33 59. At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 60. At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 61. The minimum number of receivers to be provided shall be equal to 4 percent of the total number of seats, but in no case less than two. Twenty-five percent minimum of receivers provided, but no fewer than two, shall be hearing-aid compatible in accordance with Section 11B-706.3. (CBC 11B-219.3) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 62. Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) 2nd Review: Comment was not addressed as plans where not altered from Version 1 to Version 2. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 63. Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth as this is common space. 2nd Review: Comment is addressed, but I do not believe it will work with the measurements you are giving as this would only allow for a 3” deep drawer with a 30” counter height and 27” knee clearance. Counter height can go to a maximum of 34” Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 34 64. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. 2nd review: 48” is for reaching ranges maximum which would not meet the intent of the code. Provide a lower level communication speaking hole or provide a communication device. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 65. Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) 2nd review: Newly constructed commercial places of public amusement shall provide no fewer than one adult changing facility in compliance with Section 11B-813. (CBC 11B-249.1.2) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 66. Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines and any other sinks. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 67. Door 26 within Vestibule has an encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. 2nd Review: No changes on plans stated in comment response. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 35 68. Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. 2nd review: Comment was not addressed. We can go over via teams, but an enlarged view with all requirements for these spaces would help as of this review you have some requirements on the main plan view sheet A-3, and some on the exiting ADA accessible route plan and other on the elevation view. With all 3 combined locations to look at this restroom general information is still missing needed to inspect and build to. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 69. Provide Plumbing calculations. (422 CPC) 2nd Review: Not provided as stated. From calculation performed on my end would be short water closet. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 70. Provide water demand calculations and show sizing on plans. (610.4 CBC) 2nd Review: Utility plans do not match water demand calculations. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 71. Missing elevation view for the point-of-sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. 2nd Review: Elevation view notes and references to verify compliance with 11B requirements as it seems you are designing to 11A standards. Specifically call out counter height. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 72. Not required, but in commercial kitchens (Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disabilities worker in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair to travel within this space. **NOT A COMMENT Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 36 73. Kitchen is not an employee workstation and is a break room. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. 2nd review: Desing per 11B standards not 11A. Please review counter height, reach ranges (outlets / appliance functions) and show clear floor spaces for all required locations. (11B-804 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 74. Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. The Plumbing sheets do not satisfy this comment as not enough and wrong information is shown. Make sure to show depression within the SOG plan. (11B-213.2 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 75. Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. Provide a method for this to be self-closing. (707) 2nd review: D22- Doors within a corridor that are normally open must be automatic-closing by activation of a smoke detector installed in accordance with CBC 716.2.6.6 per CBC 1026.3. Please also update the door schedule on this as not called out on plans. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 76. Provide protection for roof access for occupant. (1015.7 CBC) 2nd review: Please review this section as if access or mechanical equipment needs servicing a guard shall be installed. Parapets are not tall enough to be consider a guard. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 77. Update mechanical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multiple times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 78. (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code. 2nd review: See section 410.4 and all wall schedules as the entire back area is compartmentalized. The building is 5A (All bearing walls (1) hour and Lobby/Corridor separation from theater area. Please keep an eye out for the large mechanical penetrations next to parking garage as this may need to be protected when imaginary property line is established. Note to reviewer: Smoke control system is not established yet at this review for the assembly space if designer wishes to take advantages of the benefits. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 37 79. Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. Please make sure this is okay with planning and this should be shown on the ARCH sheet. (107 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 80. Coordinate with ARCH as you show (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also, you cannot terminate the dryer onto an exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) 2nd review: Is the exterior exit staircase not at the same elevation of these dryer vents designed to be a assisted rescue? I’m showing 6’ separation at this location. Note to reviewer: Opening protections are not required due to fire sprinklers for assisted rescue. Mechanical states code section not applicable, but arch states they can move it. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 81. Provide Completed Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd review: no response. Will review at the end to verify any changes that occur on 2nd plan review show up on this report. 82. Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) ** Check to make sure right OA going to the correct unit. N/A on sheet 17 or 21. Okay. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 83. CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. 2nd Review: It’s pretty clearly shown as your comment response states. I didn’t read the entire mechanical plan and thought it went up closer to the appliance. Thanks. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 84. ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 85. Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 86. Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 38 2nd review: You re-design is code compliant. Please review the structural plans for the depressed slab over your equipment / head height shooting over a door lintel with structural engineer. Typically not okay, but floor framing W- Flange over this wall may allow this. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 87. Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 88. Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that VTR’s are missing or we are trying to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 89. Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. I think this would work, but door will have to be within both sides double working space overlap only. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) 2nd review: I’m getting a working clearance of 4’ with exposed live part both sides which would require a 4’ working space which would trigger the room to be non-complaint. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 90. PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. 2nd review: no response. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 91. Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 92. Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 39 93. Verify wiring method considers the neutral conductor as non-current carrying so Feeders do not need to be derated. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 94. Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 95. Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 96. Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to comply for total lighting wattage allowed. Electrical energy documents were not provided. 2nd review: Square footage doesn’t match project plans. Also, can you provide exemption or code path for not showing the stage lighting shown on the T sheets and dressing mirrors. I also could not find demand response controllers as lighting is above 4,000W. (110.12.C CENC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 97. Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 98. No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 99. Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 100. Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided for first review. Please look at energy documents also as you are running the software under the wrong occupancy and showing mixed fuel when this is an all-electrical building. I due see for PV/Battery the same #’s, but still change this over as I don’t know the software good enough that it may not trigger a requirement somewhere else. Also missing electrical energy report. Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 40 2nd review: Comment remains. Please see city’s reach code for required passing % requirement. (15.04.060 SLMOC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 101. Provide a grease trap and size per city of San Luis Obispo municipal code. (1014 CPC / SLOMC) 2nd review: Provide a sign off from utilitys not requiring this. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 102. Not the best at reading flood maps as shown on sheet C2 but I’m assuming just a small portion is in the flood zone. I need to verify so PG&E vault doesn’t fall within this zone and electrical room. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 103. Mezzanine floor to be fire rated. (601 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 104. Provide protection for the legally required standby system of lighting and show plans. (700 CEC) 2nd review: Emergency system wiring must be kept entirely independent from all other wiring and equipment unless specifically permitted; emergency circuits must be permanently marked for identification, and wiring must be designed and located to minimize hazards from flooding, fire, icing, vandalism, and other adverse conditions per CEC 700.10(A)- (C). Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 105. Employ moisture control measures. (5.407.2.2.1 CGBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 2nd review: show how you comply with this section. 106. Planning to require bike parking standards if not please follow the California Green Building Code. 2nd review: show how you comply with this section. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 41 107. Where exit signs are provided at an area of refuge with direct access to a stairway, an exterior area for assisted rescue, an exit stairway or ramp, an exit passageway, a horizontal exit and the exit discharge, a sign stating "EXIT" in visual characters, raised characters and braille and complying with ICC A117.1 shall be provided. Tactile exit signs shall be required at the following locations: 1. Each grade-level exterior exit door that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the word, "EXIT". 2. Each exit door that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, and that leads directly to a grade-level exterior exit by means of a stairway or ramp shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the following words as appropriate: 2.1. "EXIT STAIR DOWN" 2.2. "EXIT RAMP DOWN" 2.3. "EXIT STAIR UP" 2.4. "EXIT RAMP UP" 3. Each exit door that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, and that leads directly to a grade-level exterior exit by means of an exit enclosure or an exit passageway shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the words, "EXIT ROUTE". 4. Each exit access door from an interior room or area to a corridor or hallway that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, shall be identified by a tactile exit sign with the words "EXIT ROUTE". 5. Each exit door through a horizontal exit that is required to comply with Section 1013.1, shall be identified by a sign with the words, "TO EXIT". (CBC 1013.4)Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 108. IS this building considered public funded due to the property owner, Grants or foundation preparation, soils report? 2nd review: Being publicly funded contract building official to determine if lulu lift is allowed for vertical access as this is non-code complaint method. (11B-206.7 CBC) Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 109. Show clear head space with HVAC that is directly overhead. Make sure to have minimum headroom. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Plan Check Review #3 TBD BLDG-2740-2024 Page 42 110. Design attic for storage or provide a note on the door that’s states “Not for storage” Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 111. See marked up sheet C2 for general accessible routing issues. Compare your grading plan to your accessible routing plan. Please make sure to add the 20’ wide route from main exit door to ROW. Site plan indicates back two exits area is design by others but civils and landscaping do not show this. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 112. Provide special inspection and test tables for fireproofing columns and beams with intumescent or SFRM material, including inspection of substrate condition, thickness, density, bond strength, and finished application per CBC 1705.15, 1705.16. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): 113. Provide special inspection for through-penetrations, membrane penetration firestops, fire-resistant joint systems, and perimeter fire containment systems by an approved agency in accordance with ASTM E2174 (penetrations) and ASTM E2393 (joints) per CBC 1705.18. Please update special inspection form submitted on the second review. Response (Include Sheet and Detail Number): Note PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARCEL:002-412-019PERMIT ADDRESS:614 Monterey St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APPLICATION DATE:12/03/2024 EXPIRATION DATE: SQUARE FEET: 10,474.00 VALUATION:$13,000,000.00 DESCRIPTION:New Performing Arts Theater CONTACTS NAME COMPANY ADDRESS Applicant Bryce Engstrom Bryce Engstrom Architect 210 Traffic Wy, E Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Owner Kevin Harris SLO REP 888 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use REVIEW ITEM STATUS REVIEWER Addressing v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Addressing Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org 805-748-4338 Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Address is currently assigned as 614 Monterey Street. GIS Department will review and confirm that this address and address will be confirmed and finalized at next plan review. No action required. Addressing v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Addressing Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Address is currently assigned as 614 Monterey Street. GIS Department will review and confirm that this address and address will be confirmed and finalized at next plan review. No action required. Addressing v.3 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Addressing Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Address is currently assigned as 614 Monterey Street. GIS Department will review and confirm that this address and address will be confirmed and finalized at next plan review. No action required. Arborist v.1 Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Arborist Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry, 805-781-7578, wgault@slocity.org Corrective Action: Contact Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Trees appear to be impacted by your building permit submittal. Plans indicated that two (2) trees will be retained. However, based on current and anticipated impacts to the trees, the plans need to be adjusted. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: The impacts to the 40-inch DBH Podocarpus on the corner of Monterey and Nipomo are significant. The minimum Tree Protection Zone radius is 40 feet from its trunk; 50ft would ensure its survival. These protection radii are not feasible given project plans, and it is unlikely that the tree will survive the impacts to its critical root zone. Please submit a Tree Removal Application requesting its removal and provide an updated landscaping plan with a new compensatory tree. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 3.The impacts to the 36-inch Coast Live Oak near the theatre entrance are significant. It must be preserved. The minimum Tree Protection Zone radius is 36 feet. The foot of the theatre is as close as 20ft from the trunk of the tree. In addition to the construction of the theatre, the proposed installation of D.G. and decorative rock landscape will irreversibly impact the critical root zone of the tree and send it into decline due to its age. Given the unavoidable impacts to the tree’s critical root zone, alternatives to D.G. compaction and the decorative rock landscape, that are less detrimental to the critical root zone, are needed. Maximum effort must be made to reduce unnecessary impact to the critical root zone. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Provide a mitigation plan that will help the tree adapt the impacts to its critical root zone. This plan should include a long-term maintenance and care plan. A consulting arborist is a useful resource for this. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Update the planting plan so that impact to the Oak is significantly reduced. Replace Geijera parvifolia with Acacia stenophylla. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 6.The Project Arborist, not the City Arborist, is responsible for monitoring digging within the dripline of trees. Roots encountered larger than one (1) inch shall be cut cleanly. Tree Protection fencing needs to be included on the building plans. The Project Arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Tree protection shall remain in place for the duration of the project. Page 1 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Provide Project Arborist contact info on the building plans. Project Arborist shall submit photographic evidence that tree protection is in place prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: The Project Arborist shall supervise the installation of the compensatory tree plantings required. The root balls of trees to be installed shall be inspected and loosened, and if necessary, girdling roots shall be cut cleanly. Arborist v.2 Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Arborist Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry, 805-781-7578, wgault@slocity.org Corrective Action: Contact Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 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. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 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 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. Corrective Action: Please submit a tree removal application requesting the removal of the 36-inch Coast Live Oak. Please schedule a time with City Staff to discuss offsite compensatory planting plan. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Ceiba speciosa is a good specimen tree. Consider replacing Geijera parvifolia with trees off the Approved City Tree List that have vertical growth habits like Brachychiton acerifolius or populneous, Hymenosporum flavum, Lagunaria patersonia or Markhamia lutea. Corrective Action: Update the landscaping plan with tree species from the Approved City Tree List (available on the Urban Forestry webpage under "Tree Removal Resources. Geijera parvifolia is not an approved tree. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 6.The Project Arborist, not the City Arborist, is responsible for monitoring digging within the dripline of trees. Roots encountered larger than one (1) inch shall be cut cleanly. Tree Protection fencing needs to be included on the building plans. The Project Arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Tree protection shall remain in place for the duration of the project. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: A tree protection plan is needed for trees on neighboring property. Corrective Action: Provide Project Arborist contact info on the building plans. Project Arborist shall submit photographic evidence that tree protection is in place prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: A Certified Arborist (Landscape Contractor/Project Arborist) shall source healthy trees that have good structure, appropriate trunk taper for tree species and box size, and ensure that they are not root-bound. A Certified Arborist (Landscaper Contractor/Project Arborist) shall supervise the installation of trees and ensure that the root balls of trees have sufficient moisture prior to installation and inspect the root balls of the trees and loosen or shave all sides of the root system, as necessary and cleanly cutting girdling roots if necessary. If the trees are determined to improperly installed by the City Arborist, replanting may be required. All nursery stakes shall be removed from all trees and all trees shall be staked in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting. Corrective Action: The Project Arborist shall supervise the installation of the compensatory tree plantings required. The root balls of trees to be installed shall be inspected and loosened, and if necessary, girdling roots shall be cut cleanly. Arborist v.3 Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Arborist Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry, 805-781-7578, wgault@slocity.org Corrective Action: Contact Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 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. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 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 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. Corrective Action: Please submit a tree removal application requesting the removal of the 36-inch Coast Live Oak. Please schedule a time with City Staff to discuss offsite compensatory planting plan. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Ceiba speciosa is a good specimen tree. Replace Geijera parvifolia with trees off the Approved City Tree List that have vertical growth habits like Brachychiton acerifolius or populneous, Hymenosporum flavum, Lagunaria patersonia, Markhamia lutea, Chitalpa taskentensis 'morning cloud', Elaeocarpus sylvestris, Tristaniopsis laurina 'elegant' . Corrective Action: Update the landscaping plan with tree species from the Approved City Tree List (available on the Urban Forestry webpage under "Tree Removal Resources. Geijera parvifolia is not an approved tree. Page 2 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: 6.The Project Arborist, not the City Arborist, is responsible for monitoring digging within the dripline of trees. Roots encountered larger than one (1) inch shall be cut cleanly. Tree Protection fencing needs to be included on the building plans. The Project Arborist shall inspect tree protection fencing prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Tree protection shall remain in place for the duration of the project. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: A tree protection plan is needed for trees on neighboring property. Corrective Action: Provide Project Arborist contact info on the building plans. Project Arborist shall submit photographic evidence that tree protection is in place prior to the commencement of any grading, demolition or construction related activities. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: A Certified Arborist (Landscape Contractor/Project Arborist) shall source healthy trees that have good structure, appropriate trunk taper for tree species and box size, and ensure that they are not root-bound. A Certified Arborist (Landscaper Contractor/Project Arborist) shall supervise the installation of trees and ensure that the root balls of trees have sufficient moisture prior to installation and inspect the root balls of the trees and loosen or shave all sides of the root system, as necessary and cleanly cutting girdling roots if necessary. If the trees are determined to improperly installed by the City Arborist, replanting may be required. All nursery stakes shall be removed from all trees and all trees shall be staked in accordance with the City’s Engineering Standards for Tree Planting. Corrective Action: The Project Arborist shall supervise the installation of the compensatory tree plantings required. The root balls of trees to be installed shall be inspected and loosened, and if necessary, girdling roots shall be cut cleanly. Correction: Urban Forestry - Walter Gault (2/26/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Oak tree removal was approved with a compensatory Erythrina affra 60-inch box in a minimum 20' x 20' planter. Offsite location was identified as part of the compensatory replanting plan per the Arborist Report from Heritage Tree Consulting. Please include the location with species and irrigation plan. Corrective Action: Please update landscape plan to reflect the conditions of approval regarding the removal request. Building v.1 Sean McCaffrey Ph: 805-440-6617 email: smccaffrey@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building Dept. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: When Reviewing this comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify that design on the plan set are code complaint as i'm not fully aware of the day to day bussiness within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up to date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that Page 3 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: * Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the Green room back stage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers shall extend from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that a exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. 410.5.1 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Technical area's will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) I alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? (413 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 (505.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under project data building is consider to be (2) stories. (504.4 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assembly's. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specfic details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzaine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: ESR report for all exterior walls requires Denseglass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. (ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items requiring fire rated review individual encasement requirements and see if they pertain with proposed protection methods. (704 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exteiror wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passage way wall in regards to the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Page 4 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire-resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide a specific fire detail for shower that shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for #24/A3.0 that shows how to address this membrane pentration within fire barrier. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Address fire riser through (1) hour floor as shown as note #3 as this goes through the crawl space. A3.0. Please make sure minimum free space is established for the seismic gap if required per NFPA 13. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide membrane penetrations' caused by plumbing pipes within (1) hour walls. Tub box, DWV lines, Water lines , toilet flanges, shower diverters Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Lulu lift does not need to be a shaft. (712.1.11 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. (718.2.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access. (902.1.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occured. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. (CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1 (1005 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please post a occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide a emergency lighting / Normal photometerics plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting, (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Exiting plan shown on A8.1 needs to show accessible route from further building point to the ROW. Plans are only showing to the stairs. Show from stairs to sidewalk. From looking at your civil sheets it seems like you are going to have cross slope issues, PGE vault will be a issue as in the past the hinges give us issues and gap between door and casing, possible man hole cover issue EXT. (1003 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. (11B-504.5 Page 5 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we cant go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance are not given. For instance if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. (1011.8 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passage ways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1030.2 Assembly Main Exit ** Show the 20' wide pathway. * Note to review check for one exit leads to another staircase. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one-half of the occupant load, but such capacity shall be not less than the total required capacity of all means of egress leading to the exit. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on not less than one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width that adjoins a street or public way. In a building, room or space used for assembly purposes where there is not a well-defined main exit or where multiple main exits are provided, exits shall be permitted to be distributed around the perimeter of the building provided that the total capacity of egress is not less than 100 percent of the required capacity and not less than one exit shall discharge on a street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in capacity that adjoins a street or publicway. Smoke-protected seating shall comply with Section 1029.6.2. Page 6 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verifcaiton can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesnt meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. (1030.16) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depectived accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6)Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. (CBC 11B-606.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has a encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Missing elevation view for the point of sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Not required, but in commercial kitchens ( Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disability's work in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair. Not a comment. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Kitchen is not a employee workstation. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used Page 7 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. (707) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Update mechnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multipile times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code or California Residential Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Coordinate with ARCH as you are showing (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also you cannot terminate the dryer onto a exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that vents are missing or we are tyring to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: * Note to reviewer look back at feeder schedule and determine if neutral conductors are current carrying as this would require the feeders to be one size larger. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24, Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to be in complaince for total lighting wattage allowed. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire rated sub panels or provide approved 5 sided box out. Provide fire rating details for the conduit passing through fire rated walls. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Light lock room off the main theator and electrical plan sheet E-11 conflict. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Page 8 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided. Building v.2 Sean McCaffrey Ph: 805-440-6617 email: smccaffrey@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building Dept. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Lulu lift does not need to be a shaft. (712.1.11 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: When Reviewing this comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify that design on the plan set are code complaint as i'm not fully aware of the day to day bussiness within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) 2nd Review: All comments are on a word documents. If you do not recieve please contact smccaffrey@slocity.org or building@slocity.org for comments. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up to date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the Green room back stage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers shall extend from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that a exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over Page 9 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) 50. 410.5.1 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Technical area's will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) I alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? (413 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 (505.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under project data building is consider to be (2) stories. (504.4 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assembly's. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specfic details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzaine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ESR report for all exterior walls requires Denseglass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. (ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items requiring fire rated review individual encasement requirements and see if they pertain with proposed protection methods. (704 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exteiror wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passage way wall in regards to the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire-resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a specific fire detail for shower that shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for #24/A3.0 that shows how to address this membrane pentration within fire barrier. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Address fire riser through (1) hour floor as shown as note #3 as this goes through the crawl space. A3.0. Please make sure minimum free space is established for the seismic gap if required per NFPA 13. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide membrane penetrations' caused by plumbing pipes within (1) hour walls. Tub box, DWV lines, Water lines , toilet flanges, shower diverters Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 10 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. (718.2.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access. (902.1.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occured. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. (CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1 (1005 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please post a occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a emergency lighting / Normal photometerics plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting, (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Exiting plan shown on A8.1 needs to show accessible route from further building point to the ROW. Plans are only showing to the stairs. Show from stairs to sidewalk. From looking at your civil sheets it seems like you are going to have cross slope issues, PGE vault will be a issue as in the past the hinges give us issues and gap between door and casing, possible man hole cover issue EXT. (1003 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. (11B-504.5 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we cant go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance are not given. For instance if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. (1011.8 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 11 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passage ways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1030.2 Assembly Main Exit ** Show the 20' wide pathway. * Note to review check for one exit leads to another staircase. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one-half of the occupant load, but such capacity shall be not less than the total required capacity of all means of egress leading to the exit. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on not less than one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width that adjoins a street or public way. In a building, room or space used for assembly purposes where there is not a well-defined main exit or where multiple main exits are provided, exits shall be permitted to be distributed around the perimeter of the building provided that the total capacity of egress is not less than 100 percent of the required capacity and not less than one exit shall discharge on a street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in capacity that adjoins a street or publicway. Smoke-protected seating shall comply with Section 1029.6.2. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verifcaiton can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesnt meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. (1030.16) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depectived accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space Page 12 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6)Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. (CBC 11B-606.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has a encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Missing elevation view for the point of sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Not required, but in commercial kitchens ( Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disability's work in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair. Not a comment. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Kitchen is not a employee workstation. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. (707) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Update mechnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multipile times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code or California Residential Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 13 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Coordinate with ARCH as you are showing (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also you cannot terminate the dryer onto a exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that vents are missing or we are tyring to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Note to reviewer look back at feeder schedule and determine if neutral conductors are current carrying as this would require the feeders to be one size larger. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24, Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to be in complaince for total lighting wattage allowed. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire rated sub panels or provide approved 5 sided box out. Provide fire rating details for the conduit passing through fire rated walls. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Light lock room off the main theator and electrical plan sheet E-11 conflict. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided. Building v.3 Sean McCaffrey Ph: 805-440-6617 email: smccaffrey@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building Dept. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer not a comment. No emergency ventilation required due to the stage being under 1,000 Sq./Ft for both stages as backstage is not included into this area calculation due to the fire separation in chapter 4. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Lulu lift does not need to be a shaft. (712.1.11 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please remove all sheets that are referenced bellow and put them on a deferred submittal list 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar / Battery Page 14 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) 3. Technical Rigging System. 4. Vertical Egress elements (Lulu / Wheelchair lift) 5. Fire Alarm System (907.2.1 CBC) 6. Stage grandstand construction Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Due to the changes in sheet index please verify an up to date sheet index is submittal upon next review. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO. No elevation change from Stage #1 & # 2. Chapter 4 does not require elevation change just separate exiting for audience and performers. Chapter 4 does not require a elevation change just separation. Please confirm. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. 410.2.3 Exterior Stage Doors Where protection of openings is required, exterior exit doors shall be protected with fire door assemblies that comply with Section 716. Exterior openings that are located on the stage for means of egress or loading and unloading purposes, and that are likely to be open during occupancy of the theater, shall be constructed with vestibules to prevent air drafts into the auditorium. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: When Stage rigging is submitted as a deferred submittal please provide MSDS for all material that is combustible. (Stage curtain / Rigging that is not cable wire) 410.2.6 Scenery Combustible materials used in sets and scenery shall be flame resistant in accordance with the provisions set forth in CCR, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 8, in accordance with Section 806 and the California Fire Code. Foam plastics and materials containing foam plastics shall comply with Section 2603 and the California Fire Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (410.4 CBC) Fire Barriers shall be constructed to be minimum 1 hour between stages and backstage and backstage individual rooms. Stage #1 & Stage # 2 have more than 25% openings within the fire barrier itself. FYI the (707.6 CBC) Exemption # 3 will require a Won door that meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Specify which wall belongs at stage #1 light lock room to main stage dressing room #1 wall type. Call out (1) hour wall. (410 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Show fire barrier continuity within elevation view for the Green room back stage walls going from foundation to roof sheathing. Please address voids created at roof framing joist passing through members. You are a 5A building so calling out the ceiling already as (1) hour will address this intersection point. 707.5 Continuity Fire barriers shall extend from the top of the foundation or floor/ceiling assembly below to the underside of the floor or roof sheathing, slab or deck above and shall be securely attached thereto. Such fire barriers shall be continuous through concealed space, such as the space above a suspended ceiling. Joints and voids at intersections shall comply with Sections 707.8 and 707.9 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to Reviewer: Verify with BO that a exit is not required at the Black box theater due to only requiring one exit FROM the stage. (410.5.1 CBC) When you get off the stage you do require two exits due to the convergence with occupants within the green room and being over 50. 410.5.1 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Technical area's will require (2) means of egress due to the common path of egress from Catwalks. (410.5.3.3 CBC) I alternating tread device can be used as exit access at this location to the roof. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note to review. No standpipe required due to both stages being under 1,000 square foot. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the stage props and items used for the scenery of the play being stored when not in use? (413 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Little black theater provide the area calculation on sheet A1.1 (505.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under project data building is consider to be (2) stories. (504.4 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Call out the required (1) hour fire rating of All roof's and floors with GA file for the horizontal assembly's. I see the call out for double 5/8 type X in some locations, but no reference to assembly's instructions. (601 CBC). You are circling in table 601 items B/C but these will not be applicable as this 20' measurement is taken from a "Floor" which would include your mezzine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. Provide specfic details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzaine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ESR report for all exterior walls requires Denseglass Gold & is only okay to put over (1) layer of exterior drywall when the (2) hour exterior wall will require two layers. (ESR-1627) Page 15 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please have EOR state that Design stresses on studs is acceptable with their design. I did not do the structural review and i do not know if structural review looked over this wall application. (4.3.2.3 ESR-1627) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Note To reviewer / Designer: When chapter 601 items requiring fire rated review individual encasement requirements and see if they pertain with proposed protection methods. (704 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 503.1.2 Buildings on Same Lot Two or more buildings on the same lot shall be regulated as separate buildings or shall be considered as portions of one building where the building height, number of stories of each building and the aggregate building area of the buildings are within the limitations specified in Sections 504 and 506. The provisions of this code applicable to the aggregate building shall be applicable to each building. Provide parking structure plans that show code compliance between the two buildings for exteiror wall ratings / opening %'s / projections. Please make sure to address the exit passage way wall in regards to the parking structure staircase as the parking structure seems to wrap around. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Confirm a (2) hour exterior wall is needed between the parking structure and proposed building. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.11.1 Parapet Construction ** With the large amount of foam on the building roof the 30" min for parapet would not be able to be accomplished. See section A / A5.0 Parapets shall have the same fire-resistance rating as that required for the supporting wall, and on any side adjacent to a roof surface, shall have noncombustible faces for the uppermost 18 inches (457 mm), including counterflashing and coping materials. The height of the parapet shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm) above the point where the roof surface and the wall intersect. Where the roof slopes toward a parapet at a slope greater than 2 units vertical in 12 units horizontal (16.7-percent slope), the parapet shall extend to the same height as any portion of the roof within a fire separation distance where protection of wall openings is required, but the height shall be not less than 30 inches (762 mm). Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 705.9 Joints & Exterior walls. Joints made in or between exterior walls required by this section to have a fire-resistance rating shall comply with Section 715. Exception: Joints in exterior walls that are permitted to have unprotected openings. This means all walls that are closer than 3' have to address this fire concern all walls that are greater than 3' do not have to address this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a specific fire detail for shower that shows the (1) hour fire barrier continuity. (707 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for #24/A3.0 that shows how to address this membrane pentration within fire barrier. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Address fire riser through (1) hour floor as shown as note #3 as this goes through the crawl space. A3.0. Please make sure minimum free space is established for the seismic gap if required per NFPA 13. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide membrane penetrations' caused by plumbing pipes within (1) hour walls. Tub box, DWV lines, Water lines , toilet flanges, shower diverters Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Verify mechanical duct is okay as shown on low roof plan next to parking garage when imaginary property line is established as it may jog in this section. (705 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1 & 2 on sheet A-3.6 shall be fire blocked and draft stopped for the air space between the face layer drywall and 7/8" metal drywall space. (718.2.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide all special wall coverings (The Wave polyester acoustic panels ones only) as shown on A9.1. (806 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the Fire Riser Room? Fire to make final determination on location and access. (902.1.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D11 / D19 have an issue of D11 when fully open reducing the clear opening of D19. Please swing door other way. (1005.7 CBC). Okay with door D19 temporary blocking the lulu equipment room due to this space never being occupied or worked on unless a issue has occured. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: The distance between two hinged or pivoted doors in series and gates in series shall be 48 inches (1219 mm) minimum plus the width of doors or gates swinging into the space. (CBC 11B-404.2.6) D21 & D10 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Green room is being used as tables and chairs occupant load factor which is okay. Is it the intention of the theater people to store stuff in this area? Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Page 16 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Unable to determine means of egress sizing due to not shown on the plan. Please assign each exit a number of people that are assigned to this door. Show on sheet A8.1 (1005 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Please post a occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door # D04 may have to be moved once total number of occupants will pass through here for required egress sizing. Only 2'8" is present and also have another issue with swinging into the drinking fountain space. May want to have this door swing 90 degrees and go to other wall. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide a emergency lighting / Normal photometerics plan that shoes minimum foot candles are achieved for lighting, (1008.2.1 CBC / 1008.3 CBC / 1008.2.3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Exiting plan shown on A8.1 needs to show accessible route from further building point to the ROW. Plans are only showing to the stairs. Show from stairs to sidewalk. From looking at your civil sheets it seems like you are going to have cross slope issues, PGE vault will be a issue as in the past the hinges give us issues and gap between door and casing, possible man hole cover issue EXT. (1003 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Under all open stairs provide a barrier. Vertical clearance shall be 80 inches (2032 mm) high minimum. Guardrails or other barriers shall be provided where the vertical clearance is less than 80 inches (2032 mm) high. The leading edge of such guardrail or barrier shall be located 27 inches (686 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground. (CBC 11B-307.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 5/S9.3 shall show the maximum projection to be 1 1/4" for the stair nosing from edge of riser to the nosing projection. (11B-504.5 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Clear stairway width will be verified when total # of occupants to this staircase is established. (1005.3.1 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: For staircases that are very close to going over 12' vertical rise between landing please show max 12' at these sections. We are designing to the max which we cant go over by 1/8" as construction tolerance are not given. For instance if we have a grade bust and end up going lower by 1" we would need to re-fabricate the staircase to have a intermediate landing. (1011.8 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1011.6 Stairway Landings ** See Door D35 / D25 as when fully open they project into the required width (48") more than 7". There shall be a floor or landing at the top and bottom of each stairway. The width of landings, measured perpendicularly to the direction of travel, shall be not less than the width of stairways served. Every landing shall have a minimum depth, measured parallel to the direction of travel, equal to the width of the stairway or 48 inches (1219 mm), whichever is less. Doors opening onto a landing shall not reduce the landing to less than one-half the required width. When fully open, the door shall not project more than 7 inches (178 mm) into the required width of a landing. Where wheelchair spaces are required on the stairway landing in accordance with Section 1009.6.3, the wheelchair space shall not be located in the required width of the landing and doors shall not swing over the wheelchair spaces. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1009.7 Exterior Areas for Assisted Rescue ** when total # occupants are assigned to each staircase then we can determine sizing of assisted rescue. Please also call out signage at these locations. (1009.9 CBC) Exterior areas for assisted rescue shall be accessed by an accessible route from the area served. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1027.5 Location ** Please look at your exterior staircases Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire separation distance of 10 feet (3048 mm) measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to: Adjacent lot lines. Other portions of the building. Other buildings on the same lot unless the adjacent building exterior walls and openings are protected in accordance with Section 705 based on fire separation distance. For the purposes of this section, other portions of the building shall be treated as separate buildings. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.5 Openings Elevators (LULU Lift) shall not open into an exit passageway. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.1 General ** Remove all equipment from these passage ways. Also how is electrical room going to run their homeruns without going through this space? Exit passageways serving as an exit component in a means of egress system shall comply with the requirements of this section. An exit passageway shall not be used for any purpose other than as a means of egress and a circulation path. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.6 Penetrations * Remove MEP from this area that do not have to do with exit passageway Penetrations into or through an exit passageway are prohibited except for the following: Equipment and ductwork necessary for independent ventilation or pressurization. Page 17 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Fire protection systems. Security systems. Two-way communication systems. Electrical raceway for fire department communication. Electrical raceway serving the exit passageway and terminating at a steel box not exceeding 16 square inches (0.010 m2). Such penetrations shall be protected in accordance with Section 714. There shall not be penetrations or communicating openings, whether protected or not, between adjacent exit passageways. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1024.9 Standpipes ** Install standpipes in exit passageways. Standpipes and standpipe hose connections shall be provided where required by Section 905.4. under exit passageway section #3 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 1030.2 Assembly Main Exit ** Show the 20' wide pathway. * Note to review check for one exit leads to another staircase. A building, room or space used for assembly purposes that has an occupant load of greater than 300 and is provided with a main exit, that main exit shall be of sufficient capacity to accommodate not less than one-half of the occupant load, but such capacity shall be not less than the total required capacity of all means of egress leading to the exit. Where the building is classified as a Group A occupancy, the main exit shall front on not less than one street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width that adjoins a street or public way. In a building, room or space used for assembly purposes where there is not a well-defined main exit or where multiple main exits are provided, exits shall be permitted to be distributed around the perimeter of the building provided that the total capacity of egress is not less than 100 percent of the required capacity and not less than one exit shall discharge on a street or an unoccupied space of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in capacity that adjoins a street or publicway. Smoke-protected seating shall comply with Section 1029.6.2. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further drawings of grandstand with more information so verifcaiton can be made. Some information is shown on one theater but not the other. 1. Total seats each row and show calculations width meets aisle meets minimum standards. (1030.6 CBC) 2. Further explain elevation shots shown at these areas. I'm assuming top number is riser height and the second number is elevation change in regards to chair attachment above the floor elevation? 3. (1039.1) Aisle doesnt meet width with mid stair handrail. 4. Dead end Aisles are greater than 20' 5. 1030.9.6 CBC. Show this calc / dimension on plan. 6. Could not find (1030.10.3 CBC) 7. (1030.15 CBC) Seat stability. No seats depicted or shown to be attached. 8. Provide detail for mid aisle handrails. Do not just refer to the code. (1030.16) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wheelchair spaces shall adjoin accessible routes. Accessible routes shall not overlap wheelchair spaces. Please look at your depectived accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least one companion seat complying with Section 11B-802.3 shall be provided immediately adjacent to each wheelchair space required by Section 11B-221.2.1. (CBC 11B-221.3) Call out your companion seating. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: In row seating, companion seats shall be located to provide shoulder alignment with adjacent wheelchair spaces. The shoulder alignment point of the wheelchair space shall be measured 36 inches (914 mm) from the front of the wheelchair space. The floor surface of the companion seat shall be at the same elevation as the floor surface of the wheelchair space. (CBC 11B-802.3.1) Based on your seating it seems like the wheel chair person would be pushed forward compared to all other occupants. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 5 percent of the total number of aisle seats provided shall comply with Section 11B-802.4 and shall be the aisle seats located closest to accessible routes. (CBC 11B-221.4) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: At least 1 percent of the total number of seats, and no fewer than two, shall be semi-ambulant seats complying with Section 11B-802.5. (CBC 11B-221.6) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Semi-ambulant seats shall provide at least 24 inches (610 mm) clear leg space between the front of the seat to the nearest obstruction or to the back of the seat immediately in front. (CBC 11B-802.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Interior elevation #23 for ticket booth. Note 7 covers the counter height on this side, but you need to call out clear knee / toe space and counter depth. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6) Your speaking hole is two high for a person in a wheelchair. ** Verify this space has a good slope / cross slope to this space and to the front door as not shown on your accessibility plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide details and further information on the changing table. Is this an adult changing station or baby changing station. Please provide installation requirements for this as called on within the single user restroom. (11B-226.4 or 11B-813) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 18 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Call out sink within elevation #20 and call out wrapping the DWV lines. Where counters or teller windows have security glazing to separate personnel from the public, a method to facilitate voice communication shall be provided. Telephone handset devices, if provided, shall comply with Section 11B-704.3. (CBC 11B-904.6)Water supply and drain pipes under lavatories and sinks shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect against contact. There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under lavatories and sinks. (CBC 11B-606.5) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has a encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide restroom (Men's / Women's) layout with further dimensions. for the following; 1. Strike side clearance is overlapping the sink compartments. (shown on one sheet not the other) 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) 6. Geometric symbols complying with Section 11B-703.7.2.6 shall be provided at entrances to toilet and bathing rooms. (CBC 11B-216.8.1) put on door schedule and or show some other means. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Missing elevation view for the point of sale counter for the concessions stand. This is shown at #13 on floor plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Not required, but in commercial kitchens ( Which you are not) when serving elements from both sides you go with a 44" wide space. This helps people with disability's work in this space with a lot more ease as a 36" would be hard for person in a wheel chair. Not a comment. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Kitchen is not a employee workstation. EMPLOYEE WORK AREA - All or any portion of a space used only by employees and used only for work. Corridors, toilet rooms, kitchenettes and break rooms are not employee work areas. Design accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide roll in shower details and call this out on the floor plan where the details are located. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Door D22 (Roll up door) shall be fire rated as within a (1) hour fire barrier. (707) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Update mechnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multipile times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: (316.5 CMC) Please Review the plan for fire rating walls requirements as no fire dampers are shown on this plan. Pretty much every wall / roof is a (1) hour assembly. Piping, tubing, and duct system penetrations of fire-resistance-rated walls, partitions, floors, floor/ceiling assemblies, roof/ceiling assemblies, or shaft enclosures shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code or California Residential Code. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Cordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with ARCH as you are showing (2) dryers and he shows (1). Also you cannot terminate the dryer onto a exterior exit staircase / assisted rescue landing. (502.2.1 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide ventilation calculation for Little black theater / Main theater and lobby for minimum OA CFM. (402 CMC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: CEF-1.3 termination is within 10' of the RTU-2.1 unit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: ERV-1.1 intake is to close to Kitchen exhaust. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Venting of crawl space M6.0 is incorrect per the structural sheets. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Ducting cannot go over the electrical equipment. See if you can comply with the code by centering the ducting. (110.26.E.1.A CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Coordinate with mechanical on where plumbing vents can be. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Wet venting is only permitted for bathroom groups. Seems that vents are missing or we are tyring to wet vent several rooms into one vent. (908 CPC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Electrical room does not comply to only have (1) exit from this space. Please review code for door location and dimension this room out with equipment to make sure this works with equipment from both sides. (110.26,C.2.B CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: PG&E Vault and storm drain conflict with each other. When showing this vault on next review please show the vault door swing to make sure this does not obstruct the exit. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Page 19 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: Panic bar required for electrical room door with sticker on front stating "Electrical Room" (110.26.C.3 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Feeder # F08 sizing is incorrect as going to a 400 amp overcurrent device and 3/0 AWG is specified. (310.15 CEC Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: * Note to reviewer look back at feeder schedule and determine if neutral conductors are current carrying as this would require the feeders to be one size larger. (310.15.E.1 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Review feeds for correct conductor sizing for F22, f23, f24, Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Sheet E9 is calling out interior lighting at these locations with S4A & S4B. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide totals next to the light schedule so energy documents can be verified to be in complaince for total lighting wattage allowed. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide further information on the transformer so size / location / conductors / ventilation / overcurrent protection can be verified. (450 CEC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: No electrical equipment within the exit passageway. (1028 CBC) Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Provide fire rated sub panels or provide approved 5 sided box out. Provide fire rating details for the conduit passing through fire rated walls. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Light lock room off the main theator and electrical plan sheet E-11 conflict. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Conflict occurs with solar panel depiction and RTU on electrical sheets. Please have all MEP check this with the the required working clearance for equipment / fire access around the solar panels & size of array according to energy documents. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: Energy documents where not reviewed during this review due to the changes that may occur between this review and next as substantial comments where provided. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: When Reviewing this comments some items listed state "Note to Reviewer". This is not a comment, but a heads up in case reviewers change in the future we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code complaint. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Some items I'm asking you to verify that design on the plan set are code complaint as i'm not fully aware of the day to day bussiness within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) 2nd Review: All comments are on a word documents. If you do not recieve please contact smccaffrey@slocity.org or building@slocity.org for comments. 3rd Review: Again all comments are on the word document and during online meeting with client, arch, Arris and Edwards team is was conveyed not to complete the 3rd review. Please be aware structural comments are still outstanding and were completed by an outside review team. Building (Consultant) v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building (Consultant) v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Building (Consultant) v.3 Ilianna Silva email: isilva@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Fees v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fees Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/20/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Vanessa Nichols vnichols@slocity.org 805-748-4338 Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/20/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Please note the location and size of all existing and new water meters on Sheet C5. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/20/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #2 PV Solar, Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm should all be shown on cover plan sheet as Deferred Submittals. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fees v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fees Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Please note the location and size of all existing and new water meters on Sheet C5. PARTIAL COMMENT REMAINS: Please take another look at the water meter sizing for both landscape and the building. Impact fees for both water and wastewater are based off of the water meter size. I recommend having engineering done for both meters to have the minimum size meter needed. A 2" water meter for landscape Page 20 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) is very oversized as most likely you will find that a 3/4" meter will work for the landscaping meter. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this comment. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: #2 PV Solar, Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm should all be shown on cover plan sheet as Deferred Submittals. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fees v.3 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fees Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: #2 PV Solar, Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm should all be shown on cover plan sheet as Deferred Submittals. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: #1 Please note the location and size of all existing and new water meters on Sheet C5. PARTIAL COMMENT REMAINS: Please take another look at the water meter sizing for both landscape and the building. Impact fees for both water and wastewater are based off of the water meter size. I recommend having engineering done for both meters to have the minimum size meter needed. A 2" water meter for landscape is very oversized as most likely you will find that a 3/4" meter will work for the landscaping meter. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this comment. Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fire v.1 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fire Fire v.2 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fire Fire v.3 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Fire Fire (Consultant) v.1 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Fire (Consultant) v.2 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Fire (Consultant) v.3 Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Needs Resubmit Health (Building) v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Not Required General - Health Planning v.1 Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Planning Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Rachel Cohen (Planning Reviewer) rcohen@slocity.org 805-781-7574 Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please a separate, full-sized sheet within the building permit that includes a mitigation compliance table with applicable mitigation measures from Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and how those mitigation measures will be satisfied. Please identify on plans the all the qualified professionals or persons (and their contact information) who have been designated to ensure compliance with the various mitigation measures. (see City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series) COA #57). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Thank you for providing the Conditions of Approval (COA) for City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series). Please also include the COA from the letter of approval dated September 16, 2022, that includes the requested modification to the design of the SLO Rep Theatre (application no. ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please note on all applicable plan sheets (such as Sheet A 2.0) the wall sign (or any other signage) is for “reference only” unless you would like to include all final sign details (lighting, design, materials, etc.) as part of your building permit. If this is the case, the project description should state that the building plans include a sign permit and provide a separate sheet with all the sign details. You may also defer the sign permit and submit separately. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Approved plans (application no. ARCH-0221-2022) state the use of an electrochromic glazing system for the wall of windows, however sheets E1 and E2 show clear tempered glass. Please provide additional information about this change and a sample / cut sheets of this changed material. Will the lobby now have curtains or some other manner in which they will close off light / view from the windows? Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide more information about the proposed bicycle parking. Sheet L 1.0 shows PATTERSON-WILLAMS M1700 ROUND UP as the model of bike rack, however I am unable to find specifications for this model. Please provide cut sheets for this type of bike rack so that staff can verify that it complies with City Engineering Standards. In addition, outdoor bike lockers are not permitted for this project. COA #62 states that all long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located within the building. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide cut-sheets for all exterior landscape lighting (Sheet L 1.0) to show that they comply with the City’s standards (see COA #61). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Sheet C-2, construction note #16 states the trash enclosure is available on the architectural plans, but I am unable to find them. Page 21 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Please provide details for the trash enclosure including dimensions, colors and materials. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please demonstrate that mechanical and electrical equipment located on the roof is screened from view (see COA #64). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please show the location of the backflow preventer and double check assembly on the landscape plan (COA #62). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/11/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Note: Parking in-lieu fees will be required prior to building permit issuance. Planning v.2 Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Planning Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Rachel Cohen (Planning Reviewer) rcohen@slocity.org 805-781-7574 Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please a separate, full-sized sheet within the building permit that includes a mitigation compliance table with applicable mitigation measures from Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and how those mitigation measures will be satisfied. Please identify on plans the all the qualified professionals or persons (and their contact information) who have been designated to ensure compliance with the various mitigation measures. (see City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series) COA #57). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Thank you for providing the Conditions of Approval (COA) for City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series). Please also include the COA from the letter of approval dated September 16, 2022, that includes the requested modification to the design of the SLO Rep Theatre (application no. ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please note on all applicable plan sheets (such as Sheet A 2.0) the wall sign (or any other signage) is for “reference only” unless you would like to include all final sign details (lighting, design, materials, etc.) as part of your building permit. If this is the case, the project description should state that the building plans include a sign permit and provide a separate sheet with all the sign details. You may also defer the sign permit and submit separately. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Approved plans (application no. ARCH-0221-2022) state the use of an electrochromic glazing system for the wall of windows, however sheets A-4.0 notes the use of “Grey tint standard glazing per Kaweneer curtain wall system” and then refers to Sheet A-7.0 – A-12.0. I am unable to find any information in the plans about this window system and if it complies with the approved plans. Please provide additional information about why this is changing and sample / cut sheets of this changed material. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide more information about the proposed bicycle parking. Sheet L 1.0 shows PATTERSON-WILLAMS M1700 ROUND UP as the model of bike rack, however I am unable to find specifications for this model. Please provide cut sheets for this type of bike rack so that staff can verify that it complies with City Engineering Standards. In addition, outdoor bike lockers are not permitted for this project. COA #62 states that all long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located within the building. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide cut-sheets for all exterior landscape lighting (Sheet L 1.0) to show that they comply with the City’s standards (see COA #61). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Sheet C-2, construction note #16 states the trash enclosure is available on the architectural plans, but I am unable to find them. Please provide details for the trash enclosure including dimensions, colors and materials. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please demonstrate that mechanical and electrical equipment located on the roof is screened from view (see COA #64). Provide line of sight drawings showing that all rooftop equipment is screened from view. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please show the location of the backflow preventer and double check assembly on the landscape plan (COA #62). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Note: Parking in-lieu fees will be required prior to building permit issuance. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (8/21/25) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Planning staff reviewed the 2nd submittal on 8/21/2025. All of the above comments STILL REMAIN. Please revise the plans based on these comment and provide a response sheet noting where these changes are located in the plans. Planning v.3 Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Planning Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Rachel Cohen (Planning Reviewer) rcohen@slocity.org 805-781-7574 Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please a separate, full-sized sheet within the building permit that includes a mitigation compliance table with applicable mitigation measures from Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and how those mitigation measures will be satisfied. Please identify on plans the all the qualified professionals or persons (and their contact information) who have been designated to ensure compliance with the various mitigation measures. (see City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series) COA #57). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Thank you for providing the Conditions of Approval (COA) for City Council Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series). Please also Page 22 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) include the COA from the letter of approval dated September 16, 2022, that includes the requested modification to the design of the SLO Rep Theatre (application no. ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Please note on all applicable plan sheets (such as Sheet A 2.0) the wall sign (or any other signage) is for “reference only” unless you would like to include all final sign details (lighting, design, materials, etc.) as part of your building permit. If this is the case, the project description should state that the building plans include a sign permit and provide a separate sheet with all the sign details. You may also defer the sign permit and submit separately. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Approved plans (application no. ARCH-0221-2022) state the use of an electrochromic glazing system for the wall of windows, however sheets A-4.0 notes the use of “Grey tint standard glazing per Kaweneer curtain wall system” and then refers to Sheet A-7.0 – A-12.0. I am unable to find any information in the plans about this window system and if it complies with the approved plans. Please provide additional information about why this is changing and sample / cut sheets of this changed material. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide more information about the proposed bicycle parking. Sheet L 1.0 shows PATTERSON-WILLAMS M1700 ROUND UP as the model of bike rack, however I am unable to find specifications for this model. Please provide cut sheets for this type of bike rack so that staff can verify that it complies with City Engineering Standards. In addition, outdoor bike lockers are not permitted for this project. COA #62 states that all long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located within the building. COMMENT REMAINS. The location of the long-term bicycle parking is stated in COA #62 (RESOLUTION NO. 11059 (2019 SERIES)); also stated as COA #3 in the modification letter for the project (Approval Letter for Application ARCH-0221-2022). Note that U racks are not allowed per COA #3 (Approval Letter for Application ARCH-0221-2022). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please provide cut-sheets for all exterior landscape lighting (Sheet L 1.0) to show that they comply with the City’s standards (see COA #61). COMMENT REMAINS. The location of the lighting is shown, but what do the fixtures look like? Separately submitted cutsheets are acceptable. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Sheet C-2, construction note #16 states the trash enclosure is available on the architectural plans, but I am unable to find them. Please provide details for the trash enclosure including dimensions, colors and materials. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Please demonstrate that mechanical and electrical equipment located on the roof is screened from view (see COA #64). Provide line of sight drawings showing that all rooftop equipment is screened from view. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Please show the location of the backflow preventer and double check assembly on the landscape plan (COA #62). COMMENT REMAINS. Location is needed to verify that the backflow preventer is screened as required by the conditions of approval. Have left this comment in because the landscape plan will be revised and I want to make sure the new plans clearly show the location and screening of the backflow preventor. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: Note: Parking in-lieu fees will be required prior to building permit issuance. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (1/28/26) - Resolved Corrective Action: Planning staff reviewed the 2nd submittal on 8/21/2025. All of the above comments STILL REMAIN. Please revise the plans based on these comment and provide a response sheet noting where these changes are located in the plans. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Elevation note #2, Sheet A-4.0 states that the wall sconces are exempt from dark sky regulations. What does this mean? The light needs to meet the City’s night sky regulations (SLOMC Section 17.70.100(D)(1)). It does not appear the lighting is highlighting any specific architectural feature. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Please provide an exterior lighting photometric plan. Sheet E-22 shows only the interior photometric plan. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Update landscape plans and site plan to include the 2/3/2026 decision by Council to allow the removal of the oak tree (Resolution No. 11626 (2026 Series)). Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Please provide building distance from the back of sidewalk on the site plan. Correction: Planning and Zoning Compliance - Rachel Cohen (2/20/26) - Not Resolved Corrective Action: NEW COMMENT (2/20/2026): Is there a transformer needed for the project? If so, please show it on the site plan and landscape plan. Private Sewer Lateral v.1 Ryan Beech email: rbeech@slocity.org Ready for Action Private Sewer Lateral Inspection requirements (per Muni Code section 13.08.395) Public Works Permit Review v.1 Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Public Works Public Works Permit Review v.2 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Public Works Public Works Permit Review v.3 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Public Works Recycling v.1 Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Recycling Page 23 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Correction: Recycling - Rachelle Paris (1/30/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please submit your project's Recycle Plan online at https://forms.slocity.org/Forms/recyclingplan Corrective Action: Rachelle Paris - RecycleRight@slocity.org Recycling v.2 Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Recycling Correction: Recycling - Rachelle Paris (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please submit your project's Recycle Plan online at https://forms.slocity.org/Forms/recyclingplan Corrective Action: Rachelle Paris - RecycleRight@slocity.org Recycling v.3 Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org Ready for Action General - Recycling Correction: Recycling - Rachelle Paris (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: Please submit your project's Recycle Plan online at https://forms.slocity.org/Forms/recyclingplan Corrective Action: Rachelle Paris - RecycleRight@slocity.org Site Grading/PW v.1 Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Site Grading/PW Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Bridget Fraser bfraser@slocity.org 805-781-7192 Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1.A CAL-OSHA permit is required for excavations or trenching greater than 5 feet in depth. A copy of the annual, provisional, or temporary permit shall be provided to the Building Division prior to building, utility, and/or grading permit issuance if applicable. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 2.Provide a copy of the Storm water control Plan for this project. You can provide a copy of the SWCP submitted for the Parking Garage with notes indicating which portions apply specifically to this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 3.Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for all post construction storm water improvements BMPS on the project (drainage inlets and filters, roof drains and trash enclosure runoff, bioswales, bioretention and treatment planters, parking lot sweeping, detention/infiltration basin, storm underground storage chambers, etc.) The O&M Manual shall address maintenance, monitoring, inspections, cleanings, repairs, documentation, and reporting. It shall also include an overall plan showing where each of the subject features are located. Additionally, provide a discussion in the O&M manual that addresses the requirement for a “zero-year” inspection and report to be completed after completion of construction and prior to final inspection sign-off. The engineer of record shall perform an initial or “Zero-Year” inspection and report of all stormwater facilities as identified in the manual and project plans to verify functionality of the various BMPs at the completion of the work and ability to perform as designed. (For example: site is cleaned of trash, site is weeded and vegetation trimmed, flow into planters or drain inlets are free and clear of debris and vegetation, underground chambers are clean with no sediment and installed per design, MHs are clean and inverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 4.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) will be(might be) required for this project. Agreement will be prepared by the city and shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Provide a copy of the current property deed or a current title report, to verify the current ownership and legal description for this property so that the required agreement can be prepared by the city for recordation Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 5.Clarify with the City PW Department and City Engineer regarding who will be responsible for maintaining the underground chambers on this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 6.Add the following notes to C1 City of SLO Notes: a.Encroachment permits and parking meter bags will not be issued for new work in the public right-of-way in the Downtown Area during the holiday season. The holiday season commences with Thanksgiving and ends after New Year's Day. b.Metered parking spaces displaced during construction are limited to two spaces and shall be paid for by the contractor, owner, or operator at the current daily ratey. Parking bags are available from the Parking Division located at 1260 Chorro or the Engineering Division located at 919 Palm. c.Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and are in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. d.Contact the City Arborist at 781-7578 to review the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. Contact the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. e.Hand digging is required within the drip line of trees to remain; any exposed roots shall be observed by City Arborist before removing. Contact City Arborist before commencing with construction, grading, or excavations. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 7.Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the title sheet A-1.0 that identifies Performance Requirement (PR) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) used for compliance. Fill in the blanks with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Provide reference to the project’s Stormwater Control Plan, O&M Manual, and Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement, if applicable. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Page 24 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:  PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______  PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______  PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______  PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________ Operations and Maintenance Manual by__________________ dated__________ Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement dated__________________ City Field Verification. Contact the City for field verification of installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the project Stormwater Control Plan. For Performance Requirements 2 through 4, the following requirements apply: •Revisions. Prior to City field verification and final acceptance, revise Stormwater Control Plan and O & M Manual as needed to reflect final project •Inspection/Certification Requirements. Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the Building Division and the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall observe installation during construction and certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and installed in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. •Operations/Maintenance Report. After construction is complete and prior to final inspection approvals, the engineer of record shall perform a preliminary “year-zero” site inspection of the completed project site and stormwater facilities based on maintenance items identified in the approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. A report or checklist identifying the condition of the site and each stormwater facility shall be provided to the City. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 8.The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet A1.0 of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer. FLOOD ZONE NOTES: •Portions of this property are located in an AE Flood Zone, the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 188' (NGVD 88). The structure must be constructed and/or floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. •The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. •Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. •Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 9.Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Site Grading/PW v.2 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Site Grading/PW Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Gabriel Munoz-Morris gmunoz@slocity.org 805-781-7592 Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 1.A CAL-OSHA permit is required for excavations or trenching greater than 5 feet in depth. A copy of the annual, provisional, or temporary permit shall be provided to the Building Division prior to building, utility, and/or grading permit issuance if applicable. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 2.Provide a copy of the Storm water control Plan for this project. You can provide a copy of the SWCP submitted for the Parking Garage with notes indicating which portions apply specifically to this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 3.Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for all post construction storm water improvements BMPS on the project (drainage inlets and filters, roof drains and trash enclosure runoff, bioswales, bioretention and treatment planters, parking lot sweeping, detention/infiltration basin, storm underground storage chambers, etc.) The O&M Manual shall address maintenance, monitoring, inspections, cleanings, repairs, documentation, and reporting. It shall also include an overall plan showing where each of the subject features are located. Additionally, provide a discussion in the O&M manual that addresses the requirement for a “zero-year” inspection and report to be completed after completion of construction and prior to final inspection sign-off. The engineer of record shall perform an initial or “Zero-Year” inspection and report of all stormwater facilities as identified in the manual and project plans to verify functionality of the various BMPs at the completion of the work and ability to perform as designed. (For example: site is cleaned of trash, site is weeded and vegetation trimmed, flow into planters or drain inlets are free and clear of debris and vegetation, underground chambers are clean with no sediment and installed per design, MHs are clean and inverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 4.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) Page 25 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) will be(might be) required for this project. Agreement will be prepared by the city and shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Provide a copy of the current property deed or a current title report, to verify the current ownership and legal description for this property so that the required agreement can be prepared by the city for recordation Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 5.Clarify with the City PW Department and City Engineer regarding who will be responsible for maintaining the underground chambers on this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 6.Add the following notes to C1 City of SLO Notes: a.Encroachment permits and parking meter bags will not be issued for new work in the public right-of-way in the Downtown Area during the holiday season. The holiday season commences with Thanksgiving and ends after New Year's Day. b.Metered parking spaces displaced during construction are limited to two spaces and shall be paid for by the contractor, owner, or operator at the current daily ratey. Parking bags are available from the Parking Division located at 1260 Chorro or the Engineering Division located at 919 Palm. c.Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and are in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. d.Contact the City Arborist at 781-7578 to review the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. Contact the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. e.Hand digging is required within the drip line of trees to remain; any exposed roots shall be observed by City Arborist before removing. Contact City Arborist before commencing with construction, grading, or excavations. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 7.Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the title sheet A-1.0 that identifies Performance Requirement (PR) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) used for compliance. Fill in the blanks with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Provide reference to the project’s Stormwater Control Plan, O&M Manual, and Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement, if applicable. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:  PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______  PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______  PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______  PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________ Operations and Maintenance Manual by__________________ dated__________ Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement dated__________________ City Field Verification. Contact the City for field verification of installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the project Stormwater Control Plan. For Performance Requirements 2 through 4, the following requirements apply: •Revisions. Prior to City field verification and final acceptance, revise Stormwater Control Plan and O & M Manual as needed to reflect final project •Inspection/Certification Requirements. Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the Building Division and the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall observe installation during construction and certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and installed in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. •Operations/Maintenance Report. After construction is complete and prior to final inspection approvals, the engineer of record shall perform a preliminary “year-zero” site inspection of the completed project site and stormwater facilities based on maintenance items identified in the approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. A report or checklist identifying the condition of the site and each stormwater facility shall be provided to the City. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 8.The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet A1.0 of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer. FLOOD ZONE NOTES: •Portions of this property are located in an AE Flood Zone, the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 188' (NGVD 88). The structure must be constructed and/or floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. •The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. •Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Page 26 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) •Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 9.Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Site Grading/PW v.3 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Site Grading/PW Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 6.Add the following notes to C1 City of SLO Notes: a.Encroachment permits and parking meter bags will not be issued for new work in the public right-of-way in the Downtown Area during the holiday season. The holiday season commences with Thanksgiving and ends after New Year's Day. b.Metered parking spaces displaced during construction are limited to two spaces and shall be paid for by the contractor, owner, or operator at the current daily ratey. Parking bags are available from the Parking Division located at 1260 Chorro or the Engineering Division located at 919 Palm. c.Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and are in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. d.Contact the City Arborist at 781-7578 to review the proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. Any safety pruning or the cutting of substantial roots shall be approved by the city and completed by a city-approved arborist. Contact the City Arborist at least 48 hours prior to construction in areas where tree protection and inspection is required. e.Hand digging is required within the drip line of trees to remain; any exposed roots shall be observed by City Arborist before removing. Contact City Arborist before commencing with construction, grading, or excavations. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 9.Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Gabriel Munoz-Morris gmunoz@slocity.org 805-781-7592 Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 1.A CAL-OSHA permit is required for excavations or trenching greater than 5 feet in depth. A copy of the annual, provisional, or temporary permit shall be provided to the Building Division prior to building, utility, and/or grading permit issuance if applicable. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: 2.Provide a copy of the Storm water control Plan for this project. You can provide a copy of the SWCP submitted for the Parking Garage with notes indicating which portions apply specifically to this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: 3.Prepare an Operations and Maintenance Manual for all post construction storm water improvements BMPS on the project (drainage inlets and filters, roof drains and trash enclosure runoff, bioswales, bioretention and treatment planters, parking lot sweeping, detention/infiltration basin, storm underground storage chambers, etc.) The O&M Manual shall address maintenance, monitoring, inspections, cleanings, repairs, documentation, and reporting. It shall also include an overall plan showing where each of the subject features are located. Additionally, provide a discussion in the O&M manual that addresses the requirement for a “zero-year” inspection and report to be completed after completion of construction and prior to final inspection sign-off. The engineer of record shall perform an initial or “Zero-Year” inspection and report of all stormwater facilities as identified in the manual and project plans to verify functionality of the various BMPs at the completion of the work and ability to perform as designed. (For example: site is cleaned of trash, site is weeded and vegetation trimmed, flow into planters or drain inlets are free and clear of debris and vegetation, underground chambers are clean with no sediment and installed per design, MHs are clean and inverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: 4.A Private Stormwater Conveyance System Management and Maintenance Agreement (Operations and Maintenance Agreement) will be(might be) required for this project. Agreement will be prepared by the city and shall be recorded and shall reference any separate maintenance program documents and the approved building plans. Provide a copy of the current property deed or a current title report, to verify the current ownership and legal description for this property so that the required agreement can be prepared by the city for recordation Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 5.Clarify with the City PW Department and City Engineer regarding who will be responsible for maintaining the underground chambers on this project. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 7.Provide a Stormwater Compliance/Special Inspection Block on the title sheet A-1.0 that identifies Performance Requirement (PR) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) used for compliance. Fill in the blanks with the measure used for compliance such as, disconnecting roof drains, or permeable pavers or biofiltration planters, or underground chambers, etc. Provide reference to the project’s Stormwater Control Plan, O&M Manual, and Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement, if applicable. STORMWATER COMPLIANCE SUMMARY: The Project is subject to the following Performance Requirements (PR) of Regional Water Quality Control Board Resolution R3-2013-0032 “Post Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region”:  PR 1 Site Design/Runoff Reduction through use of (fill in the blank). Sheet ______  PR 2 Water Quality Treatment through use of ___________________ Sheet ______  PR 3 Runoff Retention through use of _________________________ Sheet ______  PR 4 Peak Management through use of _________________________ Sheet ______ Stormwater Control Plan by__________________ dated___________________ Page 27 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Operations and Maintenance Manual by__________________ dated__________ Private Stormwater Conveyance System Agreement dated__________________ City Field Verification. Contact the City for field verification of installed Structural Control Measures (SCMs) and/or other required elements as proposed in the project Stormwater Control Plan. For Performance Requirements 2 through 4, the following requirements apply: •Revisions. Prior to City field verification and final acceptance, revise Stormwater Control Plan and O & M Manual as needed to reflect final project •Inspection/Certification Requirements. Stormwater and drainage system certification is required from the Building Division and the engineer of record prior to final inspection approvals. The engineer shall observe installation during construction and certify that the drainage and stormwater system components have been inspected and installed in general conformance with the drainage report, system design, and the approved plans, including all final elevations, component sizing, detention basins, parking lot detention curb elevations, drainage piping, inlets, weir elevations, and orifices. •Operations/Maintenance Report. After construction is complete and prior to final inspection approvals, the engineer of record shall perform a preliminary “year-zero” site inspection of the completed project site and stormwater facilities based on maintenance items identified in the approved Operations and Maintenance Plan. A report or checklist identifying the condition of the site and each stormwater facility shall be provided to the City. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (1/28/26) - Resolved Comments: 8.The following notes shall be added to the cover sheet A1.0 of the plans and shall be signed by a licensed architect or registered civil engineer. FLOOD ZONE NOTES: •Portions of this property are located in an AE Flood Zone, the water surface or base flood elevation (BFE) of a 100-yr storm is 188' (NGVD 88). The structure must be constructed and/or floodproofed to an elevation that is at least one foot above the BFE. •The structural design and materials in these plans are in compliance with the Floodplain Management Regulations. •Any deviation or change of plan that may affect the floodproofing or flood-resistant design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. •Prior to occupancy or final inspection approval, a registered civil engineer or land surveyor shall complete a F.E.M.A. elevation certificate and submit the certificate to the City Engineer. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Gabriel Munoz-Morris (3/16/26) - Not Resolved Comments: This comment is added in response to project team's indication that additional site changes are pending in response to other department/division comments that may affect Engineering items. This comment will be resolved once project documents are resubmitted and either new comments are added in response to changed scope or lack of additional comments is confirmed. Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.1 Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Stormwater/PW Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.2 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Stormwater/PW Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.3 Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Stormwater/PW Transportation v.1 Luke Schwartz email: LSchwartz@slocity.org Ready for Action General - Transportation Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.2 Nico Gurney email: ngurney@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Utilities Correction: Utilities - Miguel Barcenas (8/4/25) - Not Resolved Comments: UT General Corrective Action: Nico Gurney - ngurney@slocity.org - 805-781-7508 Correction: Utilities - Nico Gurney (9/3/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Sheet C5: Please draw and label existing sewer mains on Monterey and Nipomo. SSMH are located but no main is shown. Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.3 Nico Gurney email: ngurney@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Utilities Correction: Utilities - Miguel Barcenas (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: UT General Corrective Action: Nico Gurney - ngurney@slocity.org - 805-781-7508 Correction: Utilities - Nico Gurney (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Sheet C5: Please draw and label existing sewer mains on Monterey and Nipomo. SSMH are located but no main is shown. Correction: Utilities - Nico Gurney (2/13/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide plumbing sheets P1-P5. Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.1 Geraldine Seng email: gseng@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Utilities Correction: Utilities - Miguel Barcenas (3/3/25) - Not Resolved Page 28 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Comments: See plan check #1 comments Corrective Action: See plan check #1 comments Utilities/Landscape v.1 Kellie Fortner email: Kfortner@slocity.org Not Required Utilities/Landscape Water (Building) v.1 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Water Water (Building) v.2 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Water Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (9/3/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Refer to plan comments under "Fees" Water (Building) v.3 Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Needs Resubmit General - Water Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (1/28/26) - Not Resolved Comments: Refer to plan comments under "Fees" Page 29 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) eReview Session for Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use v.2 FILES:BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V1- Responses-Architect.pdf BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V1-Electrical Responses.pdf BMA PLAN CHECK RESPONSE LETTER.pdf Civil Responses & Markups.pdf Inspection Form- SIGNED 8.6.25- SLO Rep.pdf SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf SLO Rep Theater_Structural Calcs_07-25-25.pdf Structural Plan Check Response V1_07-24-25.pdf REVIEWER MARKUP DATE/TIME FILE NAME PG # Seano 40.9 sf 09/17/2025 5:28 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 2 Seano 218.64 sf 09/17/2025 5:28 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 2 Seano 2,551.79 sf 09/17/2025 5:35 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 2 Seano 10'-3"09/18/2025 12:11 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 22 Seano 10'-4 3/4"09/18/2025 12:12 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 22 Seano 4'-11"09/18/2025 12:15 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 12 Seano 5'-0"09/18/2025 4:41 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 12 Seano 6'-1/4"09/18/2025 6:21 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 122 Seano 3'-1/2"09/18/2025 6:58 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 144 Seano 2'-1"09/18/2025 6:58 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 144 Seano 6'-0"09/18/2025 6:59 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 144 Seano over cross slope 09/18/2025 9:09 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano Design a ramp 09/18/2025 9:09 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano max 2%09/18/2025 9:13 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano No DG allowed 09/18/2025 9:16 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano Stairs need to be moved back so handrail does not go into ROW 09/18/2025 9:16 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 7 Seano 8'-8 1/4"09/19/2025 3:40 pm SLO Rep 100% Construction Permit Submittal Drawings 12-2-24.pdf 90 eReview Session for Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use v.3 FILES:20260122 SLO Repertory Theater - NRCC-PRF Report PC Resubmittal & RR Revisions.pdf 3_Geotech Report - Addendum 1.pdf 4_Geotech Report - Addendum 2.pdf BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V1- Electrical Responses.pdf BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V2_Meeting_Minutes_CommentReview.pdf BMA Permit Corrections Report_19-09-2025_10-02-54.pdf CAL- OSHA Permit App 1-25-26.pdf Construction and Demolition Recycling and Waste Pl.pdf FIRE-1729-2025_STAMPED PLANS.pdf PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLAN CHECK #2- Responses.pdf Plan Check Responses_ltr_Firma_110525_SLOREP.pdf PLREV-0533-2025_STAMPED REVISED PLANS.pdf Project Specifications - COMBINED.pdf RTC_ltr_Firma_110525_SLOREP- Plan Check Responses.pdf SLO Rep 3rd Building Submittal Full Planset 1-24-26.pdf Special Inspection Form- SIGNED 8.6.25- SLO Rep.pdf REVIEWER MARKUP DATE/TIME FILE NAME PG # Page 30 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) Seano These items are not to be added to this review & even though somehow the fire sprinkler permit got signed permited it belongs on the deffered submittal list as this serves as a final checklist for inspector for final close out that all specail features within a building are signed off. This is typicall for all jobs. Also i'm not seeing anything on this plan for the removed deffered submittal items. 02/20/2026 4:13 am PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLAN CHECK #2- Responses.pdf 4 Seano 136'-0"02/21/2026 2:18 am SLO Rep 3rd Building Submittal Full Planset 1-24-26.pdf 45 Page 31 of 31City of San Luis ObispoMarch 17, 2026 126 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Monday, March 16, 2026 2:54 PM To:Nicholas DePaoli Cc:Gault, Walter Subject:RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Thank you, Nicholas. I also spoke with Kevin Harris after our site meeting last week. He was going to confer with the SLO REP Board, but I now understand that he is out of office / out of pocket due to a family emergency, so I don’t know if that occurred or what the outcome may have been, nor if they have spoken about your proposal, either. I’ll continue to be in contact with you as I learn more. Thanks again, Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2026 3:00 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Hi Bob and Walter, Thank you again for taking the time Monday to walk the site and discuss the conditions around the Monterey Street oak. I appreciated the opportunity to hear your perspectives and to better understand the context of the arborist recommendations. Following that conversation, I shared a brief proposal with the SLO REP board suggesting a possible monitored stewardship period for the tree rather than immediate removal. The idea would be to allow the tree to remain under the existing design accommodation while an independent arborist monitors its condition and establishes clear trigger conditions for removal if decline or structural risk emerges. Several community members have already expressed interest in helping support monitoring and care so that the approach would not place additional burden on the organization. I wanted to keep you informed and thank you again for the thoughtful discussion and willingness to explore the issue on site. Best, Nicholas On Mar 6, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, 127 All set. We will see you this coming Monday at 10am on site. Appreciate you, as well. Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 3:00 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today 10am Monday works well for me. I appreciate it yall; hope to see you then Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 4:44 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Thanks for your patience while we work to put this together. Are you free this coming Monday from 10-11:00am or between 1:30 and 3:00PM? Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Subject: RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Ok, thanks, Nicholas. Friday is not a match for us, so let me get back to you with a few times early next week. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: 128 Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. 129 Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. 130 In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, 131 Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: 132 • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site- specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low- impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment 133 figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site- specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control 134 of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure 135 remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. 136 I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30- day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re- litigate the deliberation, but to propose a 137 constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 138 From:Kyle Blumer <kyle.blumer@weareedwards.com> Sent:Monday, March 16, 2026 1:43 PM To:Ebe, Dana Cc:Tyler Benson; Kacsinta, Madeline; LaFreniere, Matt; DeGiovanni, Stephanie; Ryan Stefanek; Nick Cramer; Wong, Justin; Clay Bragg; Hill, Robert; King, Donna; Edmunson, Morgan; Schwartz, Luke Subject:Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Attachments:SLO Rep TCP 03.16.26.pdf Good afternoon Dana, My name is Kyle Blumer, I will be the Superintendent overseeing this project in the field. Below are some rough timelines for the proposed traffic control and some of our justifications for the asks. Please see attached traffic control plan with phases as requested. Monterey Street and sidewalk closure (north lane only) - April 2026-August 2027. This is required to complete the earthwork and building foundations scopes of work as there is a requirement to over excavate outside the building foundations footprint. The southern most foundations will require the excavation to extend into the sidewalk along the north side of Monterey, thus the need for the north lane of Monterey to be closed during these activities. We can move barricades to open this lane for special events (holiday parade etc.), but doing so every Friday for the weekend would not be tenable. Nipomo sidewalk closure & pedestrian re-route - April 2026-April 2028 . Similar to Monterey, overex requirements, shoring and foundation activities will require us to be working in the sidewalk along the east side of Nipomo street. With pedestrian safety in mind, we’d recommend keeping this sidewalk closure/pedestrian re-route in place for the duration of the project to avoid any work above pedestrians during the exterior envelope and finishes phases. We believe the sidewalk closures are supported by the December 2025 SLO City Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards. Page 40 notes “At locations where adjacent alternate walkways are not practical, the Engineer may approve sidewalk closures. Appropriate signs and barricades must be installed at the limits of construction and in advance of the closure at the nearest crosswalk or intersection to divert pedestrians across the street.” Guidelines for Construction Zones - Appendix G Figure P, Detail 1 depicts what our sidewalk closures will look like: 139 140 Let me know if you have any questions or feedback. Thank you, To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Company logo Kyle Blumer Superintendent II | Site Supervision kyle.blumer@weareedwards.com | (805) 225-4573 Edwards Construction Group 991 Bennett Ave. Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 805-335-1161 www.WeAreEdwards.com On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 2:57 PM Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, We’ve taken an initial look at the site logistics plan. In order for our team to formally review and provide comments on the proposed traffic control, we will need additional information on the anticipated construction schedule and duration of each phase. Please provide a phasing plan that includes approximate timelines for major work activities and identifies when specific impacts (e.g., partial street closures, sidewalk closures, and parking structure access restrictions) would occur. At a high level, partial street and sidewalk closures along Nipomo and Monterey for the full anticipated construction duration (two years) would likely not be supported. We would expect most construction activities to occur within the site limits, with off-site impacts limited to shorter-duration work such as utility connections or frontage improvements. Once we receive a phasing schedule, we can conduct a more thorough review. We appreciate your coordination and look forward to your response. Thank you, Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II 141 Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 1:17 PM To: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org> Cc: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org>; LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com>; Wong, Justin <jwong@slocity.org>; Clay Bragg <clay@weareedwards.com>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; King, Donna <DKing@slocity.org>; Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Kyle Blumer <kyle.blumer@weareedwards.com> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Madeline, Following up on the correspondence below....any available meeting times in the near future? Thanks, 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 Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 9:57 AM Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> wrote: Thanks for the quick response Madeline! 142 See attached site logistics plan, which indicates the proposed partial Monterey Street and parking structure access closures, and pedestrian routing. We plan to close pedestrian access to the parking structure from Monterey St., but access will remain open leading out to Nipomo St. No vehicular access to the parking structure will be impacted. We previously discussed maintaining pedestrian access along Nipomo St. but due to construction activities, this is proving cost-prohibitive and poses significant safety concerns. We can review this in more detail with you and your team. Other topics we would like to review are:  New storm drain system impacts, Removal and Reconstruction  New Frontage improvement impacts, Removal and Reconstruction  Access to parking structure for construction parking and storage  Temporary power from parking structure  Temporary water for construction operations  Temporary shoring  Existing ground coverings  Street lighting temporary removals during construction  Parking structure path lighting removal and salvage  Water and fire water utility tie-ins Please let us know your earliest availability. Thanks, 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 143 On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 8:06 PM Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, I hope you’re doing well! Has your team had a chance to draft any pedestrian control plans based on our last discussion? It would also be really helpful if you could outline any impacts to the Parking Structure that we might expect or that you’d like us to consider or discuss. We’d be happy to meet to go over this, but having something to review and react to beforehand will help make the meeting more productive. I’ll likely loop in our Parking Manager as well to discuss logistics and access to the structure, so having this information in advance will help us coordinate more effectively. Once we have your input, we can confirm a time to meet that works for everyone. Since this involves a larger group from the City, we may need a little more lead time to get everyone on the calendar. Thanks so much, and looking forward to your thoughts! Bests, Madeline Kacsinta Assistant Director of Public Works Public Works 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E MKacsint@slocity.org T 805.781.7094 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 5:17 PM To: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com>; Wong, Justin <jwong@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Clay Bragg <clay@weareedwards.com>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics 144 Hello all! I wanted to revive this communication chain now that the parking structure is completed. We’d like to request an on-site meeting to review pedestrian traffic control needs, logistics, as well discuss impacts to newly placed city infrastructure that will need to be coordinated as part of the theater build. Would it be possible to meet Monday morning? Thanks much! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2025, at 5:35 PM, Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, Apologies for my delay in getting back to you. We’d be happy to meet and discuss traffic control strategies. Would you prefer to meet in one of our conference rooms at 919 Palm Street or via Microsoft Teams? Please let me know if any of the times below work for you. If not, I’m happy to provide additional options later in the week. 1. Monday 10/13 8-11 am 2. Tuesday 10/14 9-11 am or 1-2 pm Thank you, 145 Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 1:34 PM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Liz Cuara <liz@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Hello all! I wanted to continue this correspondence around the City street and sidewalk impacts related to this project. I have not been able to connect successfully with the developer of the adjacent site but with that build happening concurrently with the theater build it would be advisable to close a portion of Monterey Street for the project duration, approximately 2 years, commencing around March of 2026. We would also advise a closure to public pedestrian access to the parking structure from the future courtyard area due to its proximity to primary construction activities. We believe these closures will be necessary to ensure public safety during the build. Please let us know a good time to meet to review this proposal. Your time is much appreciated! 146 Thanks, 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 Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:51 AM LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, Here is the developer’s contact information: 147 Marshall Ochylski 805-441-4466 mochylski@slolegal.com Thank you, Matt LaFreniere pronouns he/him/his Engineering Technician III Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mlafreni@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 10:41 PM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> Cc: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org>; DeGiovanni, Stephanie <sdegiova@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Matt, Would you be able to share the developer's contact information? I'd like to reach out and try to coordinate our efforts. Thanks! 148 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 Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:51 PM LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Tyler, We do not have an encroachment permit application in yet for the project across the street, 667 Monterey, but the project’s grading and utility improvements permit is nearing approval with only minor comments/requirements and fee payment left. We can coordinate with you as each of the encroachment permit applications are submitted. Please visit: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/engineering-development-review/encroachment-permits for the Encroachment Permit Application and related documents. Thank you, Matt LaFreniere pronouns he/him/his Engineering Technician III Community Development Engineering Development Review 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E mlafreni@slocity.org T 805.781.7015 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 149 From: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 2:09 PM To: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Traffic <traffic@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Hi Tyler, Thanks for the update, and no problem at all. I’ll be heading out of the office after tomorrow for the remainder of August, but someone from our Transportation team would be happy to discuss traffic control strategies ahead of your formal traffic control application submittal. If possible, could you share a general idea of the anticipated work areas and timeline? That will help us prepare on our end. As for other construction activity in the area, there are a few City Capital Improvement Projects nearby, including the Mill Street Sewer Replacement and City Hall renovations, along with various utility-related encroachment projects. However, I’m not personally aware of any upcoming private development projects. Could you clarify which property you’re referring to? Also, Matt LaFreniere (cc’ed) oversees encroachment permits and may have more information on any private work that’s been reviewed or approved in the area. Thank you, Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 150 Upcoming leave: 08/06/25 – 09/02/25 From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 8:41 AM To: Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Traffic <traffic@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Good morning all! Apologies, intended to reach out sooner. We have an idea of the laydown and staging areas we will need for this project. Maintaining public access to the parking structure will be tricky. We will put this to paper for discussion. We were told there is another private project across across the street that will be in construction at the same time as SLOREP Theater. Has this project been reviewed for street closures and pedestrian controls? Be good to coordinate now. Thanks, 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 Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 8:39 AM Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> wrote: Good morning Tyler, 151 Thanks for reaching out! I’d be happy to touch base and discuss traffic control strategies before the formal submittal of the traffic control application. Feel free to send your availability for next week and I’ll let you know what time works best for us. If possible, could you provide more details on the work area, timeline, and any other relevant information? That will help ensure the right people are on the call. Although if you're still in the early stages of planning, no problem at all. Also, I wanted to mention that there will be work on Morro Street between Palm and Mill for the City’s Mill Street Sewer Replacement Project, which is set to begin next month. We'll need to coordinate the schedule with the City Construction Inspector. Thanks, Dana Ebe Transportation Planner / Engineer II Public Works 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E debe@slocity.org T 805.781.7310 C 805.781.7310 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 6:30 AM To: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Ebe, Dana <debe@slocity.org> Cc: Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com> Subject: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Good morning Matt and Dana! 152 It was recommended to me by Madeline to reach out to you directly to discuss impacts to pedestrian and vehicular traffic around the SLOREP Theater build site adjacent to the parking structure. We’d like to be proactive in the approach to this as the site constraints are considerable. There is also another private build occurring across the street from the SLOREP theater that will be under construction concurrently. Can we meet virtually to preliminarily review and discuss? Thanks! 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 Our Emails are changing! Please update my contact information. Jonata HVAC & Restroom Modernization Site Logistics Plan 5/13/25 Phase 1 Buildings B & G Restrooms A & E Phase 2 Buildings E & H Phase 3 Buildings MPR, D & F Phase 4 Building A Legend:Worker Path of travel Fence Location Work Hours M-F 7am-3:30pm [ [ ] (E) TOW AWAY I SIGNAGE o _ a v vor I JI J < erks6912) N03 0 \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ 2 A1.02 2 A1.02 Laydown Area Pedestrian Control Plan Jonata HVAC & Restroom Modernization Site Logistics Plan 5/13/25 Phase 1 Buildings B & G Restrooms A & E Phase 2 Buildings E & H Phase 3 Buildings MPR, D & F Phase 4 Building A Legend:Worker Path of travel Fence Location Work Hours M-F 7am-3:30pm [ [ ] (E) TOW AWAY I SIGNAGE o _ a v vor I JI J < erks6912) N03 0 \\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\ 2 A1.02 2 A1.02 Laydown Area Pedestrian Control Plan 153 From:Nicholas DePaoli < Sent:Wednesday, March 11, 2026 3:00 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Gault, Walter Subject:Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Hi Bob and Walter, Thank you again for taking the time Monday to walk the site and discuss the conditions around the Monterey Street oak. I appreciated the opportunity to hear your perspectives and to better understand the context of the arborist recommendations. Following that conversation, I shared a brief proposal with the SLO REP board suggesting a possible monitored stewardship period for the tree rather than immediate removal. The idea would be to allow the tree to remain under the existing design accommodation while an independent arborist monitors its condition and establishes clear trigger conditions for removal if decline or structural risk emerges. Several community members have already expressed interest in helping support monitoring and care so that the approach would not place additional burden on the organization. I wanted to keep you informed and thank you again for the thoughtful discussion and willingness to explore the issue on site. Best, Nicholas On Mar 6, 2026, at 3:33 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, All set. We will see you this coming Monday at 10am on site. Appreciate you, as well. Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 3:00 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today 10am Monday works well for me. I appreciate it yall; hope to see you then Nicholas 154 On Mar 5, 2026, at 4:44 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Thanks for your patience while we work to put this together. Are you free this coming Monday from 10-11:00am or between 1:30 and 3:00PM? Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Subject: RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Ok, thanks, Nicholas. Friday is not a match for us, so let me get back to you with a few times early next week. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg 155 <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, 156 Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City 157 consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> 158 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site- specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically 159 occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low- impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site- specific basis. 160 Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon 161 receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 162 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> 163 <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30- day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re- litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. 164 Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 165 From:Zion, Sarah Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 5:36 PM To:Symens, Sadie; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); City_Attorney Subject:RE: Letter Delivered to Office Attachments:20260310_Letter from Jesse Arnold.pdf Hi all, We have received another letter from Jesse Arnold, attached. Sarah Zion pronouns she/her/hers Legal Assistant II City Attorney's Office 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E szion@slocity.org T 805.783.7856 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the CONFIDENTIAL use of the designated addressee named above. The information transmitted is subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represents confidential attorney work product. Recipients should not file copies of this email with publicly accessible records. If you are not the designated addressee named above or the authorized agent responsible for delivering it to the designated addressee, you received this document through inadvertent error and any further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONING THE SENDER NAMED ABOVE AT (805) 781-7140. Thank you. From: Symens, Sadie <ssymens@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 11:46 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Letter Delivered to Office Hi Timmi – the Clerk’s office received this letter addressed to our office today. The questions raised are not really legal ones. I’m happy to prepare a response to come from your office? From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 11:38 AM To: City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Letter Delivered to Office Hello, 166 Please see attached letter dropped off at our office earlier today. I have the physical copy as well if you would like to pick it up/it be dropped off. Thanks, Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk II City Administration 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E SArmas@slocity.org T 805.781.7110 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications Dear Kevin Harri s, M anaging artistic director, SLOREP: Regarding the Coast Live Oak tree which you plan to rem ove at the site of the fu ture SLO REP Theatre at 614 M onterey St: The tree rem oval application, which you signed, gave two reasons fo r rem oval which w e re : 1 . R o o t sy s te m dam age due to widening of the sidewalk on M onterey St. in front of the oak. S o m e ro o ts m ay w e ll h a v e b e e n c u t w hen the sidewalk was widened. How ever, tree ro ots gr o w b a c k a ft e r th e y a r e c u t, th e sa m e a s gr a s s in a la w n gr o w s b a c k a ft e r it is m o w e d . P e r fe c tly n o rm a l. N o t a r e a so n to r e m o v e a tre e . 2 . "Tre e w o u ld a lm o st c e rt a in ly n o t su rv iv e d u rin g /a ft e r c o n s tru c tio n o f n e w S L O R E P th e a tre w ith o u t c o m p le te r e d e s ig n o f th e b u ild in g/p roj e c t." T h is is p ur e speculation. M o r e im p o rt a n tl y it is a c o m p le te c o n tr a d ic tio n o f y o u r sta te m e n t in y o u r le tte r to m e o n F e b . az=; 2026, in which you said, "Preserving this oak tree has been a central focus of our design since 2012." If that was true your architect would have designed a building that would have accommodated and protected the tree, as your lease contract with our city asked you to do. You have presented no reasonable reasons for the proposed tree removal, only flimsy excuses. The Live Oak Tree, in its wisdom, knows better. For your information, I support the building of the theatre. If you believe that saving the healthy oak tree stands in the way of the building, then you didn't hire an architect to accommodate and preserve our oak tree. That was your responsibility, not mine. Thank you, Mr. Jesse Arnold P.S. I will be circulating this letter as widely as possible -I.A. Jesse Arn old Q;t;; J OO@@~0W[§@ i MAR 1 O 2026 SLO CITY CLERK RECEIVED MAR l O 2026 SLO CITY ATTORNEY • 167 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 3:41 PM To:CityClerk Cc:McDonald, Whitney; Edmunson, Morgan; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:Letter to the City Council & key staff Attachments:SLOUNIFLOW_990 Clerk Copier iRC3926i Color_2103_001.pdf BCC: Council All Dear City Council and City Manager, Please see the attached correspondence received today in person from Mr. Jesse Arnold, March 10, 2026. Mr. Arnold delivered a hardcopy to each Council Member, and the letters have been placed in your mailboxes. Additional copies were delivered to our office for Timmi Tway, Morgan Edmunson, and the City Attorney. They have been delivered to the mailroom. 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 ^i3fl00Dear Kevin Ha:ris, Managing artistic director, SLOREP:Regarding the Coast Live Oak tree which you plan to remove at the site of the future SLO REPTheatre at 614 Monterey St:The tree removal application, which you signed, gave two reasons for removal whichwere:1. Root system damage due to widening of the sidewalk on Monterey St. in front of the oak.Some roots may well have been cut when the sidewalk was widened. However, tree rootsgrow back after they are cut, the same as grass in a lawn grows back after it is mowed.Perfectly normal. Not a reason to remove a tree.2. "Tree would almost certainly not survive during/after construction of new SLO REPtheatre without complete redesign of the building/project." This is pure speculation.More importantly it is a complete contradiction of your statement in your letter to me on Feb.22"d,2026,in which you said, "Preserving this oak tree has been a central focus of our designsince2072."If that was true your architect would have designed abuildingthatwould haveaccommodated and protected the tree, as your lease contract with our city asked you to do.You have presented no reasonable reasons for the proposed tree removal, only flimsyexcuses. The Live Oak Tree, in its wisdom, knows better.For your information, I support the building of the theatre. If you believe that saving thehealthy oak tree stands in the way of the building, then you didn't hire an architect toaccommodate and preserve our oak tree. That was your responsibility, not mine.Thank you,Mr. JesseAmold259 Ramona Dr.San Luis ObispocA9340sP.S. I will be circulating this letter as widely as possible_J.A.tr[\ttrDt{AR 10 2020SLO CITY CLERKI,]iIlI 168 From:Kenia Joachin <kenia@csgengr.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 11:32 AM To:Nichols, Vanessa Cc:Steven Kanning Subject:February Plan Review Invoice Attachments:B260294-SLO-B.pdf Good morning, Attached is the February plan review invoice. Thank you, Kenia Joachin Regional Operations Director CSG Consultants, Inc. 550 Pilgrim Drive, Foster City, CA 94404 www.csgengr.com kenia@csgengr.com 650.522.2500 main 650.522.2539 direct 650.522.2599 fax Bay Area Green Business Certified _______________________ 550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA 94404 _______________________ INVOICE Date:3/2/2026 Mike Loew Invoice No.:B260294 Deputy Building Official City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street Period:2/1/2026 - 2/28/2026 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 FED ID:91-2053749 Billing Type: Building Plan Review Services Account No.: CSG No City PC No Job Address Description City Fee CSG Fee 4500931 BLDG-2740-2024 614 Monterey St Structural review only – New performing arts theatre Hourly $255.00 4510027 PLREV-0629-2025 1422 Monterey St.*EXPEDITED* *DEFERRED SUBMITTAL TO CSG #4403990* Elevator & Connections Deferred Submittal. Hourly $924.75 4514256 PLREV-0948-2025 609 Palm St.(New) *Deferred submittal for 4212123 (orig) * Stainless Steel vertical Mesh & Suspension cables. (Old) *Revision 4212123 (orig) & 4415749 (netting)* Stainless Steel vertical Mesh & Suspension cables. Hourly $172.50 4514858 PLREV-0985-2025 609 Palm St Reference to CSG #4212123 (original parking garage approval), Deferred Submittal- Distributed Antenna System Hourly $138.00 Total:$1,490.25 Please remit payment to: CSG Consultants, Inc. PO Box 8485, Pasadena, CA 91109-8485 CSG Consultants 1Page 1 of 650-522-2500 | csgstaff@csgengr.com | www.csgengr.com 169 From:Stanley, Erin Sent:Tuesday, March 10, 2026 8:52 AM To:Accounts Payable Subject:True North - PO# 624978 - Inv# 25-08-050_2 - $4550.00 Attachments:25-08-050_2 TNC Invoice_August 2025 - Fire.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Thank you! Erin Stanley Administrative Assistant II Fire Department Fire Prevention 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7389 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications True North Compliance Services, Inc. 3355 E Spring Street # 302 Long Beach, CA 90806 Email: Amar@tncservices.com San Luis Obispo FIRE REVIEW Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Permit #Address True North # Review # City Fee Hours Rate True North Fee BLDG-1601-2025 3977 S. Higuera St 25-050-128 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1670-2025 3981 Steel Way 25-050-134 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1607-2025 1210 Higuera St 25-050-143 1 Hourly 1 $130 $130.00 FIRE-1739-2025 1192 Tiburon 25-050-147 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1740-2025 1198 Tiburon 25-050-148 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1741-2025 1194 Tiburon 25-050-149 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1742-2025 1196 Tiburon 25-050-150 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1728-2025 3885 S. Higuera 25-050-151 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1729-2025 614 Monterey St 25-050-152 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 EPM-1738-2025 3981 Steel Way 25-050-154 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1743-2025 187 Tank Farm Rd Suite 110 25-050-156 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1778-2025 11343 Los Osos Valley 25-050-160 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1779-2025 11343 Los Osos Valley 25-050-161 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1796-2025 1531 Monterey 25-050-177 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1818-2025 1540 Froom Ranch Way 25-050-185 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1758-2025 2030 Rachel St 25-050-188 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1737-2025 3981 Steel Way 25-050-193 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1857-2025 263 N. Chorro 25-050-194 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 Total:$4,550.00 Date:September 1, 2025 Invoice #:25-08-050_2 Scope:Fire Review Begin Date:August 1, 2025 End Date:August 31, 2025 Invoice Total:$4,550.00 Please make checks payable to True North Compliance Service. 3355 E Spring Street # 302 Long Beach, CA 90806 Mailing Address 170 From:Stanley, Erin Sent:Monday, March 9, 2026 2:44 PM To:Accounts Payable Subject:True North - PO# 624958 - Inv# 25-06-050_2 - $5850.00 Attachments:25-06-050_1 TNC Invoice_June 2025 - Fire.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Thank you! Erin Stanley Administrative Assistant II Fire Department Fire Prevention 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E EStanley@slocity.org T 805.781.7389 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications True North Compliance Services, Inc. 3355 E Spring Street # 302 Long Beach, CA 90806 Email: Amar@tncservices.com San Luis Obispo FIRE REVIEW Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Permit #Address True North # Review # City Fee Hours Rate True North Fee FIRE-1154-2025 260 Westmont 25-050-037 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1185-2025 1000 Olive St 25-050-038 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1157-2025 3427 Roberto Ct 25-050-039 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1200-2025 614 Monterey St 25-050-041 1 Hourly 4 $130 $520.00 BLDG-1204-2025 1450 Madonna Rd 25-050-043 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1219-2025 1957 San Luis 25-050-044 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1217-2025 3000 Broad St 25-050-045 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1237-2025 1321 Garden St 25-050-047 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-0720-2025 4051 Broad St Suite 120 25-050-008 2 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1244-2025 848 Monterey St 25-050-048 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1283-2025 2474 Augusta St 25-050-051 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1287-2025 11560 Los Osos Valley Rd 25-050-052 1 Hourly 3 $130 $390.00 FIRE-1294-2025 1422 Monterey St 25-050-055 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1263-2025 1321 Osos St 25-050-056 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1303-2025 313 Madonna Rd 25-050-057 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1336-2025 990 Palm St 25-050-058 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 EPM-1333-2025 3810 Broad St 25-050-060 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 EPM-1332-2025 3940 Broad St 25-050-063 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-0719-2025 4051 Broad St 25-050-010 2 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1352-2025 3850 Long St 25-050-064 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 EPM-1400-2025 3750 Bullock Ln 25-050-069 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 Total:$5,850.00 Date:July 1, 2025 Invoice #:25-06-050_2 Scope:Fire Review Begin Date:June 1, 2025 End Date:June 30, 2025 Invoice Total:$5,850.00 Please make checks payable to True North Compliance Service. 3355 E Spring Street # 302 Long Beach, CA 90806 Mailing Address 171 From:Stuckenberg, Serenity Sent:Monday, March 9, 2026 10:31 AM To:Lopez, Berenice Subject:FW: 02/03/2026 and 2/24/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence From: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2026 10:29 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Amini, David <DAmini@slocity.org> Subject: 02/03/2026 and 2/24/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence 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 after the meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Brigham - Christianson -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 24, 2026 City Council Special Meeting after the meeting. Item 4a. RENTAL HOUSING REGISTRY STUDY SESSION - Petrovich (2) - Brigham (2) - Lassiter (2) - Johnson (2) 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 172 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, March 9, 2026 10:29 AM To:CityClerk Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter; Amini, David Subject:02/03/2026 and 2/24/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence 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 after the meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Brigham - Christianson -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 24, 2026 City Council Special Meeting after the meeting. Item 4a. RENTAL HOUSING REGISTRY STUDY SESSION - Petrovich (2) - Brigham (2) - Lassiter (2) - Johnson (2) 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 173 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Monday, March 9, 2026 10:05 AM To:Carlyn Christianson Cc:CityClerk Subject:RE: SLO Rep Tree Hi Carlyn, Thank you for your input, it has been sent to the City Council members. It is now placed in the public archive for the February 3, 2026 City Council 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: Carlyn Christianson < Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:52 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Greetings Council, Having learned that there is a movement afoot to pressure the Council to demand a design change from SLO Rep for their new theater in order to save the oak tree on the property--well, this is what I replied to one of my friends asking me to sign their petition: "I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this one. SLO Rep cannot change the design without sacrificing crucial elements of their program (not to mention that change costing even more precious dollars), and supporting a nonprofit art org that contributes so much to our city's cultural vitality, including the thousands of kids who've gone through their summer programs, is paramount here... while yes, it's always better to save a tree--trees do get old and die, they get diseased, more trees can be planted, and it's one tree." Please be sensible and do not require SLO Rep to change their design (if that is even possible in the legal sense.) Thank you for all you do, Carlyn 174 -- Carlyn Christianson 175 From:Boswell, Mike Sent:Monday, March 9, 2026 9:17 AM To:Carlyn Christianson Subject:Re: SLO Rep Tree Carlyn: I had not heard that a petition was circulating. Not suprising. I've spoken with SLOREP and city staff about any other possibility for saving the tree. Barring any new information, I will be sticking with my vote. Mike Mike Boswell Council Member Office of the City Council E MBoswell@slocity.org C 805.748.8178 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Carlyn Christianson < Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:51 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Greetings Council, Having learned that there is a movement afoot to pressure the Council to demand a design change from SLO Rep for their new theater in order to save the oak tree on the property--well, this is what I replied to one of my friends asking me to sign their petition: "I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this one. SLO Rep cannot change the design without sacrificing crucial elements of their program (not to mention that change costing even more precious dollars), and supporting a nonprofit art org that contributes so much to our city's cultural vitality, including the thousands of kids who've gone through their summer programs, is paramount here... while yes, it's always better to save a tree--trees do get old and die, they get diseased, more trees can be planted, and it's one tree." Please be sensible and do not require SLO Rep to change their design (if that is even possible in the legal sense.) Thank you for all you do, Carlyn -- 176 Carlyn Christianson 181 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Saturday, March 7, 2026 12:15 PM To:Carlyn Christianson Subject:Re: SLO Rep Tree Thank you for your message, Carlyn. As you know better than most, we were promised that the tree would be saved. That said, the arborists are advising us that the root system has been compromised, and the tree will not survive. I am a long time supporter of SLO Rep and agree with you that the new theatre design cannot be changed, so practically speaking the tree must be taken out. I am deeply disappointed about these false promises to Council and the community over the years. Best wishes Jan Get Outlook for iOS From: Carlyn Christianson < Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:51:37 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Greetings Council, Having learned that there is a movement afoot to pressure the Council to demand a design change from SLO Rep for their new theater in order to save the oak tree on the property--well, this is what I replied to one of my friends asking me to sign their petition: "I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this one. SLO Rep cannot change the design without sacrificing crucial elements of their program (not to mention that change costing even more precious dollars), and supporting a nonprofit art org that contributes so much to our city's cultural vitality, including the thousands of kids who've gone through their summer programs, is paramount here... while yes, it's always better to save a tree--trees do get old and die, they get diseased, more trees can be planted, and it's one tree." Please be sensible and do not require SLO Rep to change their design (if that is even possible in the legal sense.) Thank you for all you do, Carlyn -- Carlyn Christianson 182 183 From:Stewart, Erica A Sent:Saturday, March 7, 2026 11:28 AM To:Carlyn Christianson Subject:Re: SLO Rep Tree Thank you, Carlyn! I always appreciate your input. All the best, Erica Erica A. Stewart pronouns she/her/hers Mayor Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E estewart@slocity.org C 805.540.1154 slocity.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 l 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 l 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 l Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Carlyn Christianson < Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:51 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Greetings Council, Having learned that there is a movement afoot to pressure the Council to demand a design change from SLO Rep for their new theater in order to save the oak tree on the property--well, this is what I replied to one of my friends asking me to sign their petition: "I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this one. SLO Rep cannot change the design without sacrificing crucial elements of their program (not to mention that change costing even more precious dollars), and supporting a nonprofit art org that contributes so much to our city's cultural vitality, including the thousands of kids who've gone through their summer programs, is paramount here... while yes, it's always better to save a tree--trees do get old and die, they get diseased, more trees can be planted, and it's one tree." Please be sensible and do not require SLO Rep to change their design (if that is even possible in the legal sense.) Thank you for all you do, Carlyn -- 184 Carlyn Christianson 185 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Saturday, March 7, 2026 11:05 AM To:Carlyn Christianson Subject:Re: SLO Rep Tree Thank you for your support Carlyn. Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Carlyn Christianson < Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:51:37 AM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree Greetings Council, Having learned that there is a movement afoot to pressure the Council to demand a design change from SLO Rep for their new theater in order to save the oak tree on the property--well, this is what I replied to one of my friends asking me to sign their petition: "I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this one. SLO Rep cannot change the design without sacrificing crucial elements of their program (not to mention that change costing even more precious dollars), and supporting a nonprofit art org that contributes so much to our city's cultural vitality, including the thousands of kids who've gone through their summer programs, is paramount here... while yes, it's always better to save a tree--trees do get old and die, they get diseased, more trees can be planted, and it's one tree." Please be sensible and do not require SLO Rep to change their design (if that is even possible in the legal sense.) Thank you for all you do, Carlyn -- Carlyn Christianson 186 From:Carlyn Christianson < Sent:Saturday, March 7, 2026 10:52 AM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:SLO Rep Tree Greetings Council, Having learned that there is a movement afoot to pressure the Council to demand a design change from SLO Rep for their new theater in order to save the oak tree on the property--well, this is what I replied to one of my friends asking me to sign their petition: "I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you on this one. SLO Rep cannot change the design without sacrificing crucial elements of their program (not to mention that change costing even more precious dollars), and supporting a nonprofit art org that contributes so much to our city's cultural vitality, including the thousands of kids who've gone through their summer programs, is paramount here... while yes, it's always better to save a tree--trees do get old and die, they get diseased, more trees can be planted, and it's one tree." Please be sensible and do not require SLO Rep to change their design (if that is even possible in the legal sense.) Thank you for all you do, Carlyn -- Carlyn Christianson 187 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Friday, March 6, 2026 3:33 PM To:Nicholas DePaoli Cc:Gault, Walter Subject:RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Hi Nicholas, All set. We will see you this coming Monday at 10am on site. Appreciate you, as well. Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, March 6, 2026 3:00 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today 10am Monday works well for me. I appreciate it yall; hope to see you then Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 4:44 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Thanks for your patience while we work to put this together. Are you free this coming Monday from 10-11:00am or between 1:30 and 3:00PM? Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Subject: RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Ok, thanks, Nicholas. Friday is not a match for us, so let me get back to you with a few times early next week. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM 188 To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. 189 My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. 190 In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org 191 T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance 192 implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, 193 Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible 194 because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> 195 Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 196 From:Nicholas DePaoli < Sent:Friday, March 6, 2026 3:00 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Gault, Walter Subject:Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today 10am Monday works well for me. I appreciate it yall; hope to see you then Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 4:44 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Thanks for your patience while we work to put this together. Are you free this coming Monday from 10-11:00am or between 1:30 and 3:00PM? Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Subject: RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Ok, thanks, Nicholas. Friday is not a match for us, so let me get back to you with a few times early next week. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, 197 Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas 198 On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the 199 City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> 200 Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 201 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they 202 are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as 203 well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401- 3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. 204 My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 205 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2026 4:44 PM To: Gault, Walter Subject:RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Hi Nicholas, Thanks for your patience while we work to put this together. Are you free this coming Monday from 10-11:00am or between 1:30 and 3:00PM? Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Subject: RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Ok, thanks, Nicholas. Friday is not a match for us, so let me get back to you with a few times early next week. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott 206 <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site- specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, 207 Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air- spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, 208 Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: 209 • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid- March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: 210 BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and 211 construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. 212 I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 213 From:Banker-Hix, Wyatt Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2026 10:10 AM To:Gault, Walter Subject:RE: 02/03/2026 and 2/24/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence Found Josephine’s comments, what a treat! Wyatt Banker-Hix, PE Supervising Civil Engineer Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 T 1-805-295-1609 E wbanker@slocity.org slocity.org From: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 3:43 PM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Amini, David <DAmini@slocity.org> Subject: 02/03/2026 and 2/24/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence 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 after the meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Pellemeier - Laing - Genasci - Garrett -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 24, 2026 City Council Special Meeting after the meeting. Item 4a. RENTAL HOUSING REGISTRY STUDY SESSION - Daane - Long - Lewis - Silloway (2) 214 - Davis - Spanos - Judson - Wahouske (2) 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 215 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To: Subject:SLOREP Oak Tree Hi Mr. Arnold, Thank you for your voicemail. Here is the link to staff report regarding the SLO Rep tree removal request that was presented to City Council. It includes the tree removal application and arborist report. https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220700&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk Please let me know if you have any further questions. 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 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 216 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:06 AM To:Nicholas DePaoli Subject:RE: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Ok, thanks, Nicholas. Friday is not a match for us, so let me get back to you with a few times early next week. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay 217 Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site- specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> 218 Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air- spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development 219 <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. 220 Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid- March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. 221 Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, 222 Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 223 From:Nicholas DePaoli < Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:04 AM To:Hill, Robert Subject:Re: SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today I’ll be out of town this afternoon until tomorrow morning, so you’ll have to let me know if anything Friday works. Otherwise I will be here next week. Nicholas On Mar 5, 2026, at 8:59 AM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. 224 Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site- specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, 225 I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air- spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org 226 T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid- March? Specifically: 227 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is 228 not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> 229 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e- notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 230 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:00 AM To:Nicholas DePaoli Cc:Gault, Walter Subject:SLO REP Oak – Site Visit at 4:15pm today Hi Nicholas, Does a site visit at 4:15pm work for you today, by chance? I realize it’s short notice. If not, we can look to next week. Thank you, Bob From: Hill, Robert Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To: 'Nicholas DePaoli' < Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. 231 Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. 232 If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non- invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website 233 <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. 234 Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a 235 project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. 236 Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 239 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 3:43 PM To:CityClerk Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter; Amini, David Subject:02/03/2026 and 2/24/2026 City Council Meeting - Agenda Correspondence 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 after the meeting. Item 5g – Review of a request to Remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street - Pellemeier - Laing - Genasci - Garrett -------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the agenda correspondence folder to read the submissions below, received for the February 24, 2026 City Council Special Meeting after the meeting. Item 4a. RENTAL HOUSING REGISTRY STUDY SESSION - Daane - Long - Lewis - Silloway (2) - Davis - Spanos - Judson - Wahouske (2) 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 240 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 2:14 PM To:Nicholas DePaoli Cc:Gault, Walter; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Collins, Scott; Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Thanks, Nicholas. I will reach out to Walter and get back to you with a few times to consider shortly. More soon… Bob From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. 241 I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non- invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. 242 Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. 243 The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC 244 Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, 245 Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 246 From:Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent:Wednesday, March 4, 2026 11:11 AM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Gault, Walter; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Collins, Scott; Hermann, Greg Subject:Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Bob, Thank you for reaching out, and please thank Director Tway for the follow-up as well. Yes, I would be happy to meet in the field with you and Arborist Gault to discuss the site conditions and the request I outlined. I appreciate the opportunity to look at the tree together and better understand the City’s perspective. My intent is simply to explore whether there may be any way to verify site-specific root conditions before any irreversible action is taken. I’m glad to discuss that in person and hear your thoughts. Please let me know what times might work for you and Walter, and I’ll do my best to accommodate. Best, Nicholas On Mar 3, 2026, at 5:00 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official <image001.png> City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 247 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non- invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, 248 Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low-impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. 249 Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. 250 While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> 251 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 252 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 6:42 PM To:McDonald, Whitney Cc:Hermann, Greg; Collins, Scott; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:SLO REP website oak tree statement BCC: Council All Dear Mayor & Council, As City Manager McDonald mentioned this evening, SLO REP’s statement regarding the oak tree published on their website this afternoon. Please see: https://www.slorep.org/a-new-stage/a-message-from-our-president/ In addition, staff had a follow up conversation with the arborist to let them know about the ongoing community conversation, for their awareness, and also inquired about the requests we’ve been receiving for additional root zone analysis. It is our understanding that this would take time and expense but not yield a different finding than the conclusion that the tree is unlikely to survive the cumulative impacts of construction activities. Respectfully submitted, 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 259 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:01 PM To: ; Gault, Walter Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Collins, Scott; Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. 260 If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, 261 Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low- impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas 262 On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> 263 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 264 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:01 PM To: ; Gault, Walter Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Collins, Scott; Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Nicholas, Director Tway asked me to follow up with you. I am wondering if you might be available to meet with City Arborist Walter Gault and me in the field so that we can discuss site conditions and learn more about your request? Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. 265 If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? The intent would not be to reopen the Council’s decision or require redesign, but simply to obtain site-specific data before irreversible action occurs. All coordination, professional services, and associated costs would be independently arranged. If this is not something the City would be able to permit, I appreciate that clarity as well. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas DePaoli On Feb 17, 2026, at 9:47 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC:Council_All Hello Nicholas, Thank you for your email, it has been received. We are discussing some of the ideas presented and will get back to you shortly. Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Timothea, 266 Thank you for providing the arborist report and for clarifying the anticipated timeline. After reviewing the report and associated plan sheet, I wanted to ask a focused procedural question given the window we are already working with. The CRZ encroachment percentage appears to aggregate all “disturbance” into a single category. However, the plan suggests that the disturbance zone includes both: • deep structural excavation (foundations, footings, trenching), and • surface hardscape or entry areas that may potentially be constructed using low- impact or no-dig methods. Additionally, the CRZ radius appears to be based on a standard diameter formula rather than site-specific root mapping. Given the former structure historically occupying part of the site, there may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas 267 On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development <image001.png> 268 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> <image006.png> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli