Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1001-20003 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:53 AM To:Hill, Robert; Kevin Harris Subject:Fwd: Oak Tree questions FYI below. Another Q from Jan. Begin forwarded message: From: Chip Visci < Date: March 3, 2026 at 10:51:27 AM PST To: Jan Marx < Subject: Re: Oak Tree questions Hi Jan, If I understand your question below …. As I understand it, The tree is on the site that the city has agreed to lease to us. SLO REP will be paying the costs for all site preparation including tree removal. The fact that the lease is silent about the tree does not absolve us for paying for site preparation work. And We still need permission for all site plans. Does this answer your question? On Mar 3, 2026, at 10:41 AM, Jan Marx < wrote: Thank you. If the tree is not part of SLO Rep's leased land, why does the City think it should pay for its demolition? J On Mon, Mar 2, 2026 at 3:57 PM Chip Visci < wrote: Here’s a video I took the other day. My narration is purely my opinion. Also, ignore the word “period.” I thought I was dictating to Siri and was trying to end my sentences. 덵덱덲덳덴덶 > On Mar 2, 2026, at 3:20 PM, Jan Marx < wrote: 4 > > I will go look at the tree. Thanks for your message. > Jan > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Mar 2, 2026, at 3:04 PM, Chip Visci < wrote: >> >> Jan, >> Here’s what I know to be true, and Bob Hill is a walking encyclopedia of the facts so you might want to contact him. >> >> The tree was included in the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. It was not included in the Lease Agreement. I do not know why. >> We (City and SLO REP) have signed the lease. It’s the operating document. >> >> We have not argued that the lease “releases” us from any responsibility for the tree preferring instead to say what is true: We had always intended to do all that was reasonable to preserve the tree, which we have done. >> >> SLO REP pays for the tree removal once the City gives us “possession.” As I understand it - and Bob knows for sure - we won’t receive possession until we get a building permit. >> >> If you haven’t already walked the site around the tree, I encourage you to take a look. It surprised me how obvious it is that tree roots were severed during excavation for the garage foundation and/or the drain vault. A couple of severed roots are visible. Most likely a considerable portion of the lateral roots were also severed when you consider how much excavation was done for the garage foundation. If you then look at the tree’s proximity to the new sidewalk, you would think, YEOW! Clearly tree roots had to be impacted just as the staff report said. But I’m not an arborist. But I can see severed roots, and I know what happens when sidewalks and tree roots collide. >> >> I hear you on sparing the tree. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss further. >> >> Chip >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Mar 2, 2026, at 1:09 PM, Jan Marx < wrote: >>> >>> Hi Chip >>> Council is getting emails about the oak tree, as well as me personally. Is the tree included in the SLO Rep lease? Will your team have control over the tree after 5 you sign the lease? Who will have to pay for the tree being taken out? >>> If there is the slightest chance that SLO Rep could decide to try to save the tree, it would make your team heros, not villains. Even if the tree eventually could not survive construction of the theater, SLO Rep would have done all it could to say : “Woodsman, spare that tree”Thanks for getting back to me on this >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> 14 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:47 AM To:Marx, Jan Cc:Floyd, Aaron; McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Hi Jan, Director Floyd asked me to provide a response to you on this question. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. The SLO REP lease is in effect, however they do not take possession of the site itself until they complete their final prerequisites with us and until Swinerton Construction (the City’s contractor for the new parking structure) completes all of its final paperwork with us and formally relinquishes the site. Thank you, Bob Robert Hill Sustainability & Natural Resources Official City Administration Office of Sustainability & Natural Resources 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E rhill@slocity.org T 805.781.7211 slocity.org From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:53 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? From: Marx, Jan Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? Answering this question can wait till Monday. Thanks 15 Jan Get Outlook for iOS 22 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:13 AM To:Nicholas DePaoli Cc:Hermann, Greg; Stewart, Erica A Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Nicholas, Thank you – I have received your question. I will need to circulate this internally with folks in order to provide you with an answer. Thank you, Timmi Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Stewart, Erica A <estewart@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi again Timmi, I hope you’re well. I’m writing to follow up briefly on your note indicating that the City was discussing the ideas presented in my prior message. In the meantime, I received clarification from the SLO REP board about their limitations and that the site remains under City control until the garage is formally completed and permits are secured. Given that timing, I wanted to ask a narrow procedural question. If independent funding were secured to cover the full cost of a limited, non-invasive root investigation (for example, targeted air-spade exploration and/or GPR), would the City consider allowing short-term site access for that purpose while it retains control? 23 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, 24 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 25 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> 26 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 32 From:Nicholas DePaoli < Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:06 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Hermann, Greg; Stewart, Erica A 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, 33 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. 34 Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid- March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options 35 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> Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 36 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 37 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:07 AM To:Chip Visci; Kevin Harris Subject:RE: Oak Tree questions Thanks for the copy, Chip. I’ll give you a call. From: Chip Visci < Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 3:15 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: Fwd: Oak Tree questions FYI below. Start from bottom. Begin forwarded message: From: Chip Visci < Subject: Re: Oak Tree questions Date: March 2, 2026 at 3:04:00 PM PST To: Jan Marx < Jan, Here’s what I know to be true, and Bob Hill is a walking encyclopedia of the facts so you might want to contact him. The tree was included in the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. It was not included in the Lease Agreement. I do not know why. We (City and SLO REP) have signed the lease. It’s the operating document. We have not argued that the lease “releases” us from any responsibility for the tree preferring instead to say what is true: We had always intended to do all that was reasonable to preserve the tree, which we have done. SLO REP pays for the tree removal once the City gives us “possession.” As I understand it - and Bob knows for sure - we won’t receive possession until we get a building permit. If you haven’t already walked the site around the tree, I encourage you to take a look. It surprised me how obvious it is that tree roots were severed during excavation for the garage foundation and/or the drain vault. A couple of severed roots are visible. Most likely a considerable portion of the lateral roots were also severed when you consider how much excavation was done for the garage foundation. If you then look at the tree’s proximity to the new sidewalk, you would think, YEOW! Clearly tree roots had to be impacted just as the staff report said. But I’m not an arborist. But I can see severed roots, and I know what happens when sidewalks and tree roots collide. I hear you on sparing the tree. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss further. 38 Chip On Mar 2, 2026, at 1:09 PM, Jan Marx < wrote: Hi Chip Council is getting emails about the oak tree, as well as me personally. Is the tree included in the SLO Rep lease? Will your team have control over the tree after you sign the lease? Who will have to pay for the tree being taken out? If there is the slightest chance that SLO Rep could decide to try to save the tree, it would make your team heros, not villains. Even if the tree eventually could not survive construction of the theater, SLO Rep would have done all it could to say : “Woodsman, spare that tree”Thanks for getting back to me on this Jan Sent from my iPhone 39 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:12 AM To:Floyd, Aaron Cc:Hermann, Greg; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Good morning, Aaron. I will respond this morning – sorry for the delay while I was away. (The answer is that it will become SLO REP’s tree as their lease covers the entire site, however, they have not yet taken possession of the site) Bob From: Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 9:38 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Oak tree & SLO Rep Good morning, Bob. Hoping you can help us with this as it pertains to the lease. Thanks and let me know if you are not the person on this. Aaron From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:53 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? From: Marx, Jan Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? Answering this question can wait till Monday. Thanks Jan Get Outlook for iOS 40 From:Floyd, Aaron Sent:Monday, March 2, 2026 4:33 PM To:Marx, Jan; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Hello Jan, We’ve sent this over to the staff in Natural Resources that are handling the contract for this project. I believe we should hear a response soon. Thanks Aaron From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:53 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? From: Marx, Jan Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? Answering this question can wait till Monday. Thanks Jan Get Outlook for iOS 41 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Monday, March 2, 2026 3:15 PM To:Hill, Robert; Kevin Harris Subject:Fwd: Oak Tree questions FYI below. Start from bottom. Begin forwarded message: From: Chip Visci < Subject: Re: Oak Tree questions Date: March 2, 2026 at 3:04:00 PM PST To: Jan Marx < Jan, Here’s what I know to be true, and Bob Hill is a walking encyclopedia of the facts so you might want to contact him. The tree was included in the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement. It was not included in the Lease Agreement. I do not know why. We (City and SLO REP) have signed the lease. It’s the operating document. We have not argued that the lease “releases” us from any responsibility for the tree preferring instead to say what is true: We had always intended to do all that was reasonable to preserve the tree, which we have done. SLO REP pays for the tree removal once the City gives us “possession.” As I understand it - and Bob knows for sure - we won’t receive possession until we get a building permit. If you haven’t already walked the site around the tree, I encourage you to take a look. It surprised me how obvious it is that tree roots were severed during excavation for the garage foundation and/or the drain vault. A couple of severed roots are visible. Most likely a considerable portion of the lateral roots were also severed when you consider how much excavation was done for the garage foundation. If you then look at the tree’s proximity to the new sidewalk, you would think, YEOW! Clearly tree roots had to be impacted just as the staff report said. But I’m not an arborist. But I can see severed roots, and I know what happens when sidewalks and tree roots collide. I hear you on sparing the tree. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss further. Chip 42 On Mar 2, 2026, at 1:09 PM, Jan Marx < wrote: Hi Chip Council is getting emails about the oak tree, as well as me personally. Is the tree included in the SLO Rep lease? Will your team have control over the tree after you sign the lease? Who will have to pay for the tree being taken out? If there is the slightest chance that SLO Rep could decide to try to save the tree, it would make your team heros, not villains. Even if the tree eventually could not survive construction of the theater, SLO Rep would have done all it could to say : “Woodsman, spare that tree”Thanks for getting back to me on this Jan Sent from my iPhone 44 From:Floyd, Aaron Sent:Monday, March 2, 2026 9:38 AM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Hermann, Greg; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Subject:FW: Oak tree & SLO Rep Good morning, Bob. Hoping you can help us with this as it pertains to the lease. Thanks and let me know if you are not the person on this. Aaron From: Marx, Jan <jmarx@slocity.org> Sent: Monday, March 2, 2026 7:53 AM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? From: Marx, Jan Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? Answering this question can wait till Monday. Thanks Jan Get Outlook for iOS 45 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Monday, March 2, 2026 7:53 AM To:McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Floyd, Aaron Subject:RE: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? From: Marx, Jan Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Subject: Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? Answering this question can wait till Monday. Thanks Jan Get Outlook for iOS 46 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 3:46 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Kevin Harris Subject:Re: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Attachments:SLO REP TREE HISTORY - 2-25-26_review comments.docx Hi Bob, I believe (and cannot prove) that there is no way in hell this tree would survive any more construction. I think what you and I saw when walking the site strongly suggests this tree never had a chance. Don’t worry, I won’t put that in the copy :) :) :) That said, your edits look good to me. Will review more closely in the next day and let you know if I see any problems. But upon first glance, they all look good (one typo, but I can fix that). Chip On Mar 1, 2026, at 2:56 PM, Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Chip, Thanks for your patience in receiving back our review copy. Schedules didn’t line up as hoped over here. We do have some important, requested edits that are showing in the attached version in redline. We appreciate the opportunity to review and collaborate. I am on the road tomorrow, but please feel free to call or text. Bob From: Chip Visci < Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 1 PROPOSED WEBSITE COPY ON TREE Last edited 5:15PM 2/25 An Update on Our Downtown Theatre Project [POSTING DATE] By Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors Dear SLO REP Supporters, On February 3, 2026, the San Luis Obispo City Council granted SLO REP permission to move forward with our downtown theatre project, a decision that includes the difficult necessity of replacing the large oak tree currently on the site. I am writing to you because I know how much this tree means to our neighborhood. Many in our community have expressed their concerns, and I want you to know that we share those sentiments. Some residents objected to our request, and I understand why. We were equally disappointed. Seeking the Council’s permission to remove the tree was a step we took reluctantly and only after considering all of our redesign options. Unfortunately, no viable alternatives were found, due to three primary factors: • Root Location: The arborist’s assessment shows the tree’s shallow root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making it nearly impossible to complete the necessary foundation work without fatally damaging the tree. • Prior Impact: As noted in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the tree’s health had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure construction. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the probability of the tree surviving any major construction is low, unless changes were made to the building's footprint that would reduce the size of the theatre to a point it would no longer be viable. I firmly believe that SLO REP has acted in good faith and has exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. In the spirit of full transparency, we have documented the history of our preservation efforts and the technical findings that led to this conclusion. You may read that detailed history HERE. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the SLO REP staff, I extend our deepest gratitude for your ongoing support and look forward to the many cultural and economic benefits SLO REP’s new theatre will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors 2 Balancing Tree Presevation and Progress The Building Project Begins As far back as the early 1990s, the City Council gave direction to pursue plans for a new, expanded theatre near the corner of Monterey and Broad Street. In March 2000, the site was ‘conceptually approved’ for the SLO REP’s use. By 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO REP were finally ready to embark on a landmark journey: The creation of a new, state-of-the-art theatre in Downtown SLO. Situated on a City-owned parcel at the intersection of Monterey, Palm, and Nipomo streets – adjacent to the new Cultural Arts District Parking Structure – this project represents a historic public-private partnership. The City’s commitment includes a 99-year lease of the site at $1 per year. In response, the community has shown extraordinary resolve; as of February 2026, SLO REP has raised more than $22 million, fueled primarily by the generosity of private donors as well as a $6.7 million challenge grant from the City. This collaboration traces its origins to the visionary Downtown Concept Plan, which first imagined a thriving Cultural Arts District anchored by a professional theatre and enhanced public infrastructure. Tree Preservation as a Priority From the earliest sketches of the new theatre, the preservation of the onsite oak tree has been a core priority. Our design team deliberately established a safety zone around what was then understood to be the lateral extent of tree. This standard informed our architectural plans from the first sketch. During the City’s entitlement review process in 2018–2019, our plansets and renderings showed what we thought was the extent of the tree. Following a thorough public review, the City Council formally approved SLO REP’s plans in 2019, with the shared understanding that the tree would be preserved. The 2025 Surprise In July 2025, as construction of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure neared completion, it was time for SLO REP to prepare a formal tree-protection plan as required by the City. To meet the City’s standards, it was incumbent upon us to hire a professional arborist, who conducted a new study of the tree’s health and root structure. The results were unexpected and distressing. We learned that the tree’s critical root structure extends significantly further than the canopy dripline. After a comprehensive analysis, both our independent arborist and the City’s arborist reached a difficult consensus: The tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction activity. It is worth noting that the City has since updated its procedures to require these detailed reports earlier in the planning process to prevent such late-stage discoveries. 3 Exhausting All Alternatives Despite the arborist’s conclusion, we spent six weeks with our architects, engineers and consultants to explore redesign options. Ultimately, no viable path was found due to three primary factors: • Root Proximity: The shallow root system is now estimated to span nearly the entire building footprint, making it highly vulnerable to necessary foundation work. • Prior Root Zonel Impact: As detailed in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the roots had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive any major construction, without significant modifications to the building's footprint that would render the theatre economically unviable. The City Council’s Final Decision At the Feb. 3, 2026, meeting, the Council engaged in extensive deliberation, questioning City Staff and SLO REP Managing Artistic Director Kevin Harris. In addition to the aforementioned factors, the Council noted that the tree is not listed in the City’s official tree inventory as a Heritage or a Significant tree. In a 4-1 vote, the Council approved the request to remove the tree to allow the theatre project to proceed. The full deliberation can be viewed HERE beginning at the 46-minute mark. Memorializing the Oak Tree While we are saddened by the loss of the oak, we have shifted our focus toward a meaningful and responsible succession plan. Our Board of Directors has committed to a landscape plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing, drought-tolerant species designed to diversify and strengthen the City’s urban canopy. We also have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber. This will allow the wood from the oak tree to be salvaged and integrated into the new theatre’s interior, ensuring it maintains a permanent and honored presence within the building. Looking Ahead We expect to begin construction of the theatre this spring, with completion in late 2027. This milestone is the culmination of decades of work by visionary City Councils and the extraordinary generosity of nearly 500 private donors. We are grateful beyond words for the community’s trust as we build a home for the arts that will serve San Luis Obispo for generations to come. 48 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 3:05 PM To:Hill, Robert; Chip Visci Subject:RE: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Thank you, Bob! Happy Sunday! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Sunday, March 1, 2026 2:57 PM To: Chip Visci < Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Hi Chip, Thanks for your patience in receiving back our review copy. Schedules didn’t line up as hoped over here. We do have some important, requested edits that are showing in the attached version in redline. We appreciate the opportunity to review and collaborate. I am on the road tomorrow, but please feel free to call or text. Bob From: Chip Visci < Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM 49 To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 50 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 2:57 PM To:Chip Visci Cc:Kevin Harris Subject:RE: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Attachments:SLO REP TREE HISTORY - 2-25-26_review comments.docx Hi Chip, Thanks for your patience in receiving back our review copy. Schedules didn’t line up as hoped over here. We do have some important, requested edits that are showing in the attached version in redline. We appreciate the opportunity to review and collaborate. I am on the road tomorrow, but please feel free to call or text. Bob From: Chip Visci < Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 1 PROPOSED WEBSITE COPY ON TREE Last edited 5:15PM 2/25 An Update on Our Downtown Theatre Project [POSTING DATE] By Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors Dear SLO REP Supporters, On February 3, 2026, the San Luis Obispo City Council granted SLO REP permission to move forward with our downtown theatre project, a decision that includes the difficult necessity of replacing the large oak tree currently on the site. I am writing to you because I know how much this tree means to our neighborhood. Many in our community have expressed their concerns, and I want you to know that we share those sentiments. Some residents objected to our request, and I understand why. We were equally disappointed. Seeking the Council’s permission to remove the tree was a step we took reluctantly and only after considering all of our redesign options. Unfortunately, no viable alternatives were found, due to three primary factors: • Root Location: The arborist’s assessment shows the tree’s shallow root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making it nearly impossible to complete the necessary foundation work without fatally damaging the tree. • Prior Impact: As noted in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the tree’s health had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure construction. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the probability of the tree surviving any major construction is low, unless changes were made to the building's footprint that would reduce the size of the theatre to a point it would no longer be viable. I firmly believe that SLO REP has acted in good faith and has exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. In the spirit of full transparency, we have documented the history of our preservation efforts and the technical findings that led to this conclusion. You may read that detailed history HERE. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the SLO REP staff, I extend our deepest gratitude for your ongoing support and look forward to the many cultural and economic benefits SLO REP’s new theatre will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors 2 Balancing Tree Presevation and Progress The Building Project Begins As far back as the early 1990s, the City Council gave direction to pursue plans for a new, expanded theatre near the corner of Monterey and Broad Street. In March 2000, the site was ‘conceptually approved’ for the SLO REP’s use. By 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO REP were finally ready to embark on a landmark journey: The creation of a new, state-of-the-art theatre in Downtown SLO. Situated on a City-owned parcel at the intersection of Monterey, Palm, and Nipomo streets – adjacent to the new Cultural Arts District Parking Structure – this project represents a historic public-private partnership. The City’s commitment includes a 99-year lease of the site at $1 per year. In response, the community has shown extraordinary resolve; as of February 2026, SLO REP has raised more than $22 million, fueled primarily by the generosity of private donors as well as a $6.7 million challenge grant from the City. This collaboration traces its origins to the visionary Downtown Concept Plan, which first imagined a thriving Cultural Arts District anchored by a professional theatre and enhanced public infrastructure. Tree Preservation as a Priority From the earliest sketches of the new theatre, the preservation of the onsite oak tree has been a core priority. Our design team deliberately established a safety zone around what was then understood to be the lateral extent of tree. This standard informed our architectural plans from the first sketch. During the City’s entitlement review process in 2018–2019, our plansets and renderings showed what we thought was the extent of the tree. Following a thorough public review, the City Council formally approved SLO REP’s plans in 2019, with the shared understanding that the tree would be preserved. The 2025 Surprise In July 2025, as construction of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure neared completion, it was time for SLO REP to prepare a formal tree-protection plan as required by the City. To meet the City’s standards, it was incumbent upon us to hire a professional arborist, who conducted a new study of the tree’s health and root structure. The results were unexpected and distressing. We learned that the tree’s critical root structure extends significantly further than the canopy dripline. After a comprehensive analysis, both our independent arborist and the City’s arborist reached a difficult consensus: The tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction activity. It is worth noting that the City has since updated its procedures to require these detailed reports earlier in the planning process to prevent such late-stage discoveries. 3 Exhausting All Alternatives Despite the arborist’s conclusion, we spent six weeks with our architects, engineers and consultants to explore redesign options. Ultimately, no viable path was found due to three primary factors: • Root Proximity: The shallow root system is now estimated to span nearly the entire building footprint, making it highly vulnerable to necessary foundation work. • Prior Root Zonel Impact: As detailed in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the roots had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive any major construction, without significant modifications to the building's footprint that would render the theatre economically unviable. The City Council’s Final Decision At the Feb. 3, 2026, meeting, the Council engaged in extensive deliberation, questioning City Staff and SLO REP Managing Artistic Director Kevin Harris. In addition to the aforementioned factors, the Council noted that the tree is not listed in the City’s official tree inventory as a Heritage or a Significant tree. In a 4-1 vote, the Council approved the request to remove the tree to allow the theatre project to proceed. The full deliberation can be viewed HERE beginning at the 46-minute mark. Memorializing the Oak Tree While we are saddened by the loss of the oak, we have shifted our focus toward a meaningful and responsible succession plan. Our Board of Directors has committed to a landscape plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing, drought-tolerant species designed to diversify and strengthen the City’s urban canopy. We also have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber. This will allow the wood from the oak tree to be salvaged and integrated into the new theatre’s interior, ensuring it maintains a permanent and honored presence within the building. Looking Ahead We expect to begin construction of the theatre this spring, with completion in late 2027. This milestone is the culmination of decades of work by visionary City Councils and the extraordinary generosity of nearly 500 private donors. We are grateful beyond words for the community’s trust as we build a home for the arts that will serve San Luis Obispo for generations to come. 51 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Sunday, March 1, 2026 2:48 PM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Thanks, Greg. Sending now. See you Tuesday. From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 5:11 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: RE: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Thanks Bob and I’m good to go. Greg From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 5:18 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Hi Greg, Here’s the copy with redlines edits from me showing. Please have a look. Thanks! Bob From: Chip Visci < Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 52 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Friday, February 27, 2026 8:33 PM To:McDonald, Whitney; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Floyd, Aaron Subject:Oak tree & SLO Rep Who has control over the oak tree after SLO Rep takes over the theater building site? The city or SLO Rep? Answering this question can wait till Monday. Thanks Jan Get Outlook for iOS 53 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Friday, February 27, 2026 5:11 PM To:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Thanks Bob and I’m good to go. Greg From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 5:18 PM To: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Hi Greg, Here’s the copy with redlines edits from me showing. Please have a look. Thanks! Bob From: Chip Visci < Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 54 From:Yanez, James Sent:Friday, February 27, 2026 12:49 PM To:Christensen, Trae Subject:FW: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Attachments:25-007 SLO Rep - Traffic Control Plans - Bid Attachment.pdf For reference. James Yanez Construction Engineering Manager Public Works 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7314 E jyanez@slocity.org slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2026 12:26 PM To: Yanez, James <jyanez@slocity.org> Subject: FW: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics Do you know who will be inspecting this project? I have a feeling we are going to have some issues… can I steal a moment of your time when you have one? 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: Friday, February 27, 2026 9:57 AM 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> Subject: Re: SLOREP Theater - Encroachment And Site Logistics 55 Thanks for the quick response Madeline! 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 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. 56 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 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. 57 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, 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 58 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! 59 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: 60 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! 61 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 62 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 63 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, 64 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! 65 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 89 From:Stanley, Erin Sent:Friday, February 27, 2026 9:24 AM To:Vert, Nicole Subject:True North 2025 invoices - missed Attachments:25-05-050_2 TNC Invoice_May 2025 - Fire.pdf; 25-06-050_1 TNC Invoice_June 2025 - Fire.pdf; 25-08-050_2 TNC Invoice_August 2025 - Fire.pdf Hi Nicole, See the attached 2025 invoices from True North. These requisitions have failed funds. 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-1026-2025 560 Higuera St 25-050-024 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1048-2025 994 Mill St Unit 250 25-050-026 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1095-2025 848 Monterey St 25-050-029 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1128-2025 899 Pacific St Unit 100 25-050-032 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1130-2025 899 Pacific St Unit 100 25-050-033 1 Hourly 3 $130 $390.00 FIRE-1120-2025 4111 Broad St 25-050-034 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1143-2025 1132 Olive St 25-050-035 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 Total:$1,950.00 Date:June 1, 2025 Invoice #:25-05-050_2 Scope:Fire Review Begin Date:May 1, 2025 End Date:May 31, 2025 Invoice Total:$1,950.00 Please make checks payable to True North Compliance Service. 3355 E Spring Street # 302 Long Beach, CA 90806 Mailing Address 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 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 90 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Wednesday, February 25, 2026 5:18 PM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:FW: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Attachments:SLO REP TREE HISTORY - 2-25-26_review comments.docx Hi Greg, Here’s the copy with redlines edits from me showing. Please have a look. Thanks! Bob From: Chip Visci < Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Cc: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: SLO REP Tree Website Copy Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 1 PROPOSED WEBSITE COPY ON TREE Last edited 5:15PM 2/25 An Update on Our Downtown Theatre Project [POSTING DATE] By Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors Dear SLO REP Supporters, On February 3, 2026, the San Luis Obispo City Council granted SLO REP permission to move forward with our downtown theatre project, a decision that includes the difficult necessity of replacing the large oak tree currently on the site. I am writing to you because I know how much this tree means to our neighborhood. Many in our community have expressed their concerns, and I want you to know that we share those sentiments. Some residents objected to our request, and I understand why. We were equally disappointed. Seeking the Council’s permission to remove the tree was a step we took reluctantly and only after considering all of our redesign options. Unfortunately, no viable alternatives were found, due to three primary factors: • Root Location: The arborist’s assessment shows the tree’s shallow root structure is estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making it nearly impossible to complete the necessary foundation work without fatally damaging the tree. • Prior Impact: As noted in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the tree’s health had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure construction. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the probability of the tree surviving any major construction is low, unless changes were made to the building's footprint that would reduce the size of the theatre to a point it would no longer be viable. I firmly believe that SLO REP has acted in good faith and has exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. In the spirit of full transparency, we have documented the history of our preservation efforts and the technical findings that led to this conclusion. You may read that detailed history HERE. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the SLO REP staff, I extend our deepest gratitude for your ongoing support and look forward to the many cultural and economic benefits SLO REP’s new theatre will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors 2 Balancing Tree Presevation and Progress The Building Project Begins As far back as the early 1990s, the City Council gave direction to pursue plans for a new, expanded theatre near the corner of Monterey and Broad Street. In March 2000, the site was ‘conceptually approved’ for the SLO REP’s use. By 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo and SLO REP were finally ready to embark on a landmark journey: The creation of a new, state-of-the-art theatre in Downtown SLO. Situated on a City-owned parcel at the intersection of Monterey, Palm, and Nipomo streets – adjacent to the new Cultural Arts District Parking Structure – this project represents a historic public-private partnership. The City’s commitment includes a 99-year lease of the site at $1 per year. In response, the community has shown extraordinary resolve; as of February 2026, SLO REP has raised more than $22 million, fueled primarily by the generosity of private donors as well as a $6.7 million challenge grant from the City. This collaboration traces its origins to the visionary Downtown Concept Plan, which first imagined a thriving Cultural Arts District anchored by a professional theatre and enhanced public infrastructure. Tree Preservation as a Priority From the earliest sketches of the new theatre, the preservation of the onsite oak tree has been a core priority. Our design team deliberately established a safety zone around what was then understood to be the lateral extent of tree. This standard informed our architectural plans from the first sketch. During the City’s entitlement review process in 2018–2019, our plansets and renderings showed what we thought was the extent of the tree. Following a thorough public review, the City Council formally approved SLO REP’s plans in 2019, with the shared understanding that the tree would be preserved. The 2025 Surprise In July 2025, as construction of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure neared completion, it was time for SLO REP to prepare a formal tree-protection plan as required by the City. To meet the City’s standards, it was incumbent upon us to hire a professional arborist, who conducted a new study of the tree’s health and root structure. The results were unexpected and distressing. We learned that the tree’s critical root structure extends significantly further than the canopy dripline. After a comprehensive analysis, both our independent arborist and the City’s arborist reached a difficult consensus: The tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction activity. It is worth noting that the City has since updated its procedures to require these detailed reports earlier in the planning process to prevent such late-stage discoveries. 3 Exhausting All Alternatives Despite the arborist’s conclusion, we spent six weeks with our architects, engineers and consultants to explore redesign options. Ultimately, no viable path was found due to three primary factors: • Root Proximity: The shallow root system is now estimated to span nearly the entire building footprint, making it highly vulnerable to necessary foundation work. • Prior Root Zonel Impact: As detailed in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the roots had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive any major construction, without significant modifications to the building's footprint that would render the theatre economically unviable. The City Council’s Final Decision At the Feb. 3, 2026, meeting, the Council engaged in extensive deliberation, questioning City Staff and SLO REP Managing Artistic Director Kevin Harris. In addition to the aforementioned factors, the Council noted that the tree is not listed in the City’s official tree inventory as a Heritage or a Significant tree. In a 4-1 vote, the Council approved the request to remove the tree to allow the theatre project to proceed. The full deliberation can be viewed HERE beginning at the 46-minute mark. Memorializing the Oak Tree While we are saddened by the loss of the oak, we have shifted our focus toward a meaningful and responsible succession plan. Our Board of Directors has committed to a landscape plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing, drought-tolerant species designed to diversify and strengthen the City’s urban canopy. We also have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber. This will allow the wood from the oak tree to be salvaged and integrated into the new theatre’s interior, ensuring it maintains a permanent and honored presence within the building. Looking Ahead We expect to begin construction of the theatre this spring, with completion in late 2027. This milestone is the culmination of decades of work by visionary City Councils and the extraordinary generosity of nearly 500 private donors. We are grateful beyond words for the community’s trust as we build a home for the arts that will serve San Luis Obispo for generations to come. 121 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Tuesday, February 24, 2026 12:20 PM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Kevin Harris Subject:SLO REP Tree Website Copy Attachments:SLO REP TREE HISTORY - 2-24-26 .docx Bob, Here’s our latest draft of copy to post to the website. As you and I discussed, we (SLO REP) think we need to post on our website. The City can do its own version or point to our statement. Would welcome your suggestions. Feel free to call anytime today. On Wednesday, I’m unavailable until late afternoon. Chip 1 PROPOSED WEBSITE COPY ON TREE Last edited NOON 2/24 An Update on Our Downtown Theatre Project [POSTING DATE] By Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors Dear SLO REP Supporters, On February 3, 2026, the San Luis Obispo City Council granted SLO REP permission to move forward with our downtown theatre project, a decision that includes the difficult necessity of replacing the large oak tree currently on the site. I am writing to you because I know how much this tree means to our neighborhood. Many in our community have expressed their concerns, and I want you to know that we share those sentiments. Some residents objected to our request, and I understand why. We were equally disappointed. Seeking the Council’s permission was a step we took reluctantly and only after considering all of our redesign options. Unfortunately, no viable alternatives were found, due to three primary factors: • Root Location: New assessments show the tree’s shallow root structure is now estimated to extend under nearly our entire building footprint, making it nearly impossible to complete the necessary foundation work without fatally damaging the tree. • Prior Impact: As noted in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the tree’s health had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street related to the new parking structure construction. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the probability of the tree surviving any major construction is low, regardless of any changes we could make to the building's footprint. I firmly believe that SLO REP has acted in good faith and has exhausted every reasonable effort to preserve this tree. In the spirit of full transparency, we have documented the history of our preservation efforts and the technical findings that led to this conclusion. You may read that detailed history HERE. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the SLO REP staff, I extend our deepest gratitude for your ongoing support and look forward to the many cultural and economic benefits SLO REP’s new theatre will bring to our community. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors 2 Balancing Heritage and Progress The Building Project Begins In 2012 the City of San Luis Obispo invited SLO REP to embark on a landmark journey: The creation of a new, state-of-the-art theatre in Downtown SLO. Situated on a City-owned parcel on a City-owned parcel at the intersection of Monterey, Palm, and Nipomo streets – adjacent to the new Cultural Arts District Parking Structure – this project represents a historic public-private partnership. The City’s commitment includes a 99-year lease of the site at $1 per year. In response, the community has shown extraordinary resolve; as of February 2026, SLO REP has raised more than $22 million, fueled primarily by the generosity of private donors as well as a $6.7 million challenge grant from the City. This collaboration traces its origins to the visionary 1993 Downtown Concept Plan, which first imagined a thriving Cultural Arts District anchored by a professional theatre and enhanced public infrastructure. Tree Preservation as a Priority From the earliest sketches of the new theatre, the preservation of the onsite oak tree has been a core priority. Our design team deliberately established a safety zone around what was then understood to be the tree’s critical root system. During the City’s entitlement review process in 2018–2019, the prevailing "best practice" was to define the root zone by the canopy’s dripline. This standard informed our architectural plans from the first sketch. Following a thorough public review, the City Council formally approved SLO REP’s plans in 2019, with the shared understanding that the tree would be preserved. The 2025 Surprise In July 2025, as construction of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure neared completion, it was time for SLO REP to prepare a formal tree-protection plan as required by the City. To meet the City’s standards, it was incumbent upon us to hire a professional arborist, who conducted a new study of the tree’s health and root structure. The results were unexpected and distressing. We learned that the tree’s critical root structure extends significantly further than the canopy dripline. After a comprehensive analysis, both our independent arborist and the City’s arborist reached a difficult consensus: The tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction activity. It is worth noting that the City has since updated its procedures to require these detailed reports earlier in the planning process to prevent such late-stage discoveries. 3 Exhausting All Alternatives Despite the arborist’s conclusion, we spent six weeks with our architects, engineers and consultants to explore redesign options. Ultimately, no viable path was found due to three primary factors: • Root Proximity: The shallow root system is now estimated to span nearly the entire building footprint, making it highly vulnerable to necessary foundation work. • Prior Environmental Impact: As detailed in the February 3 City Staff Report (p. 77), the roots had already been impacted by frontage improvements along Monterey Street. • Expert Consensus: Both our arborist and the City’s arborist concluded that the tree is unlikely to survive any major construction, regardless of modifications to the building's footprint. The City Council’s Final Decision At the Feb. 3, 2026, meeting, the Council engaged in extensive deliberation, questioning City Staff and SLO REP Managing Artistic Director Kevin Harris. In addition to the aforementioned factors, the Council noted that the tree is not listed in the City’s official tree inventory as a Heritage or a Significant tree. In a 4-1 vote, the Council approved the request to remove the tree to allow the theatre project to proceed. The full deliberation can be viewed HERE beginning at the 46-minute mark. Memorializing the Oak Tree While we are saddened by the loss of the oak, we have shifted our focus toward a meaningful and responsible succession plan. While we are saddened by the loss of the oak, we have shifted our focus toward a meaningful and responsible succession plan. Our Board of Directors has committed to a landscape plan that exceeds City requirements, featuring several fast-growing, drought- tolerant species designed to diversify and strengthen the City’s urban canopy. We also have engaged a firm that specializes in reclaiming urban timber. This will allow the wood from the oak tree to be salvaged and integrated into the new theatre’s interior, ensuring it maintains a permanent and honored presence within the building. Looking Ahead We expect to begin construction of the theatre this spring, with completion in late 2027. This milestone is the culmination of decades of work by visionary City Councils and the extraordinary generosity of nearly 500 private donors. We are grateful beyond words for the community’s trust as we build a home for the arts that will serve San Luis Obispo for generations to come. 122 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Friday, February 20, 2026 11:44 AM To:Hill, Robert Cc:Kevin Harris Subject:Tree replies Attachments:Schmidt Reply Draft Feb 19-2026.docx; DePaoli Reply as emailed - Feb 14-2026.pdf Hi Bob, Kevin and I like the idea of a joint statement for each of our websites. In the meanƟme, Mr. Schmidt has wriƩen to our board president. We intend to send this to him. I think this could be the basis of a website statement. Would you like me to take a stab at the website statement, or do you want to take first crack? If you have any ediƟng suggesƟons on the Schmidt reply, please let us know as soon as you can. We are trying to respond to people as quickly as we can. I am also aƩaching the reply we sent to Mr. DePaoli. I do not believe we (Kevin or our board president) has sent out any other messages. I have shared our DePaoli reply with Councilmembers Boswell, Francis, Marx and Shoresman. The only reason I didn’t send to th e Mayor is that I forgot. Sorry about that. Chip From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Date: February 14, 2026 at 12:59:45 PM PST To: Nicholas DePaoli < Dear Mr. DePaoli, Thank you for your thoughtful letter of February 11. I appreciate your cooperative and empathetic tone. I want to assure you that the decision to remove the tree was not based on "late-stage inconvenience." Preserving this oak tree has been a central focus of our design since 2012. Last July, as garage construction neared completion, our arborist visited the site to finalize our official tree-protection plan. We were devastated by his findings: the critical root system had sustained substantial damage during frontage improvements associated with the garage construction. City staff and the City arborist subsequently confirmed this assessment. In the hopes that we could avoid further damage during construction, SLO REP then spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. I’m sorry to report that we found no viable alternatives. These are the insurmountable facts: • The arborists say the tree’s root structure is so compromised that the tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction. • Most concerning of all is that the root structure extends from the tree almost to the garage’s foundation, meaning it extends nearly under our entire footprint. There is no way to avoid further damage to the tree by changing our footprint. • In discussions with the arborists, we learned there is a likelihood the tree will not survive much longer, regardless of whether we build. The inescapable reality is that altering the theatre’s footprint would be a futile exercise. It would not improve the tree’s odds, but it would seriously compromise our ability to operate viably. Delaying our project would risk San Luis Obispo having neither the tree nor the theatre. Our focus has now shifted to creating a responsible succession plan. Our Board is committed to paying for a landscaping plan more robust than City requirements; it introduces high-value, climate-forward species of trees that will thrive alongside our theatre for the next century. I promise you we have left no stone unturned in addressing this issue. I’m sorry the tree cannot be preserved, but I believe we have reached the most reasonable compromise. Sincerely, Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 11:36 AM To: Kevinharris@slorep.org Subject: Re: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Hi again Mr Harris, I wanted to follow up on the open letter I shared yesterday requesting a short 30-day pause before removal of the downtown oak. Since sending the letter and opening the discussion on social media, technical input from local professionals has begun to surface — including questions around root extent assumptions given site history and architectural feasibility alternatives. We are also exploring community or donor support that could contribute to independent technical evaluation or funding design alternatives in order to offset feasibility calculations. Given this emerging discussion, I’m wondering whether SLO REP would consider voluntarily pausing tree removal for 30 days to allow independent review and transparent evaluation of both technical and support/funding pathways. This request is not intended to contest the value of the theater but to ensure that all reasonably available options are responsibly and more publicly tested prior to an irreversible step. I appreciate your consideration and remain open to constructive dialogue. Respectfully, Nicholas On Feb 11, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Nicholas DePaoli < wrote: Dear Mr. Harris, I am writing as a downtown resident and land planning professional regarding the recently approved oak removal. Attached is an open letter being circulated requesting a short feasibility window to explore preservation alternatives that could maintain both the theater’s viability and the oak. If redesign cost exposure is the primary concern, I believe there may be community and professional resources willing to explore solutions collaboratively. My hope is that this moment could become one of creative problem-solving rather than loss. <Open_Letter_Downtown_Oak_Nicholas_DePaoli.pdf> Thank you for your time, Nicholas DePaoli Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Date: February 14, 2026 at 12:59:45 PM PST To: Nicholas DePaoli < Dear Mr. DePaoli, Thank you for your thoughtful letter of February 11. I appreciate your cooperative and empathetic tone. I want to assure you that the decision to remove the tree was not based on "late-stage inconvenience." Preserving this oak tree has been a central focus of our design since 2012. Last July, as garage construction neared completion, our arborist visited the site to finalize our official tree-protection plan. We were devastated by his findings: the critical root system had sustained substantial damage during frontage improvements associated with the garage construction. City staff and the City arborist subsequently confirmed this assessment. In the hopes that we could avoid further damage during construction, SLO REP then spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. I’m sorry to report that we found no viable alternatives. These are the insurmountable facts: • The arborists say the tree’s root structure is so compromised that the tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction. • Most concerning of all is that the root structure extends from the tree almost to the garage’s foundation, meaning it extends nearly under our entire footprint. There is no way to avoid further damage to the tree by changing our footprint. • In discussions with the arborists, we learned there is a likelihood the tree will not survive much longer, regardless of whether we build. The inescapable reality is that altering the theatre’s footprint would be a futile exercise. It would not improve the tree’s odds, but it would seriously compromise our ability to operate viably. Delaying our project would risk San Luis Obispo having neither the tree nor the theatre. Our focus has now shifted to creating a responsible succession plan. Our Board is committed to paying for a landscaping plan more robust than City requirements; it introduces high-value, climate-forward species of trees that will thrive alongside our theatre for the next century. I promise you we have left no stone unturned in addressing this issue. I’m sorry the tree cannot be preserved, but I believe we have reached the most reasonable compromise. Sincerely, Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 11:36 AM To: Kevinharris@slorep.org Subject: Re: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Hi again Mr Harris, I wanted to follow up on the open letter I shared yesterday requesting a short 30-day pause before removal of the downtown oak. Since sending the letter and opening the discussion on social media, technical input from local professionals has begun to surface — including questions around root extent assumptions given site history and architectural feasibility alternatives. We are also exploring community or donor support that could contribute to independent technical evaluation or funding design alternatives in order to offset feasibility calculations. Given this emerging discussion, I’m wondering whether SLO REP would consider voluntarily pausing tree removal for 30 days to allow independent review and transparent evaluation of both technical and support/funding pathways. This request is not intended to contest the value of the theater but to ensure that all reasonably available options are responsibly and more publicly tested prior to an irreversible step. I appreciate your consideration and remain open to constructive dialogue. Respectfully, Nicholas On Feb 11, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Nicholas DePaoli < wrote: Dear Mr. Harris, I am writing as a downtown resident and land planning professional regarding the recently approved oak removal. Attached is an open letter being circulated requesting a short feasibility window to explore preservation alternatives that could maintain both the theater’s viability and the oak. If redesign cost exposure is the primary concern, I believe there may be community and professional resources willing to explore solutions collaboratively. My hope is that this moment could become one of creative problem-solving rather than loss. <Open_Letter_Downtown_Oak_Nicholas_DePaoli.pdf> Thank you for your time, Nicholas DePaoli DRAFT FEB 19 Dear Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for your concern about the oak tree. You are quite right that the lease stipulates that “SLO REP shall take all reasonable efforts” to preserve the tree. If the city arborist and our arborist agreed with your hunch that there are reasonable steps we could take to protect the tree, we would certainly do so. But neither professional sees a reasonable alternative. It’s important to note that preservation of the oak tree has been a central focus of our design since 2012 when the City first invited us to build on the parcel. Working closely with the City, we settled on a footprint that everyone believed in good faith would protect the tree. All our planning since then has been about a design that adhered to that goal. As garage construction neared completion last July, the time had arrived for our arborist to assess the tree and finalize the tree-protection plan. Please know that the City required us to develop a plan, so it was incumbent upon us to hire a professional arborist. Protecting the tree was our sole assignment to him. We were devastated by his conclusion that the critical root system was substantially damaged. City staff and the City arborist subsequently confirmed this assessment. In the hopes that we could avoid further damage during construction, SLO REP then spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. I’m sorry to report that we found no viable alternatives. These are the insurmountable facts: • The arborists say the tree’s root structure is so compromised that the tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction. • We now know the root structure extends from the tree almost to the garage’s foundation, meaning it extends nearly under our entire footprint. The inescapable reality is that altering the theatre’s footprint would be a futile exercise. It would not improve the tree’s odds, but it would seriously compromise our ability to operate viably. • In discussions with the arborists, we learned there is a likelihood the tree will not survive much longer, regardless of whether we build. To leave the tree in place and hope it survives when we know that it is likely to die would mean missing an opportunity now to create and implement a long-lasting, robust landscaping plan, a plan that would not be possible after construction. Given these facts, our focus quite reasonably has now shifted to creating a responsible succession plan. Our Board is committed to paying for a landscaping plan that provides for more than the City is requiring; it introduces high-value, climate-forward species of trees that will thrive alongside our theatre for the next century. As the City Council also asked (but did not require), we are engaging the services of a firm that specializes in creating art out of fallen trees as a way of paying respect. I promise you: We have left no stone unturned in addressing this issue. Our board believes we have taken all reasonable steps. The Council also agrees that we have been responsible in dealing with the facts as they are. I hope you will also conclude that we have acted in good faith, and that our project will, in fact, deliver considerable long-term benefit to the entire city. Sincerely, Pam Nichter President, SLO REP Board of Directors 123 From:Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 20, 2026 11:30 AM To:Kevin Harris Cc:McCaffrey, Seano; Tyler Benson; Ryan Stefanek; Nick Cramer; Nic Slocum; Thom Jess; Jessica Gregory Subject:Re: SLO REP MEETING AVAILABILITY Attachments:PERMIT CORRECTIONS REPORT (BLDG-2740-2024) FOR CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLAN CHECK #2- Responses.pdf Attached are the Plan Check #2 Responses. I can see that this was uploaded on the portal. Bryce To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Bryce Engstrom- Architect 210 Traffic Way Suite E Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 235-3385 On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:13 AM Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> wrote: Thanks, Sean. EDWARDS, can you please send out an invite/meetings link and confirm that it will be recorded? I’m out of the office for the next 90 minutes or so and can’t do it. We should all be available from 2:00-3:30, so just choose a start time. Thank you! Sent from my iPhone On Feb 20, 2026, at 10:53 AM, McCaffrey, Seano <smccaffrey@slocity.org> wrote: Hello, We can meet today and go over process on how we move forward with addressing the building comments. This shouldn’t take over 30 minutes or so, but we will establish points of contacts and my working ability moving forward completing meetings. I can meet today from 2 to 3:30 As always I always suggest your side record the conversations with an AI meeting app so you can review conversations on any comments we go over. This will allow you to not have to take notes the entire time. 124 I have spoken with Tom Jess and stated they would have a decent grasp of the project by mid next week. Once this happens we can schedule another meeting to go over any question we might have to keep moving forward and okay with doing a re-occurring meeting if desired each week once or twice if needed. Again please use the word document provided as this allows you to put the comment responses within the word document under the actual comment. It seems like all comments responses for V2 were not used and V1 comments were re-responded to. This seems to have happened on the structural also as V3 comments all state no response or change on plans please re-submitt. If you could send me a invite for today that would be fantastic. From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 10:07 AM To: McCaffrey, Seano <smccaffrey@slocity.org> Cc: Bryce Engstrom <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; Tyler Benson <tyler@weareedwards.com>; Ryan Stefanek <ryans@weareedwards.com>; Nick Cramer <nick@weareedwards.com>; Nic Slocum <nic@arris-studio.com>; Thom Jess <tjess@arris-studio.com>; Jessica Gregory <jessica@weareedwards.com> Subject: RE: SLO REP MEETING AVAILABILITY Hi Sean, Just wanted to bump this in your inbox- please see the available times for SLO REP below- thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:07 PM To: 'McCaffrey, Seano' <smccaffrey@slocity.org> Cc: 'Bryce Engstrom' <brycethearchitect@gmail.com>; 'Tyler Benson' <tyler@weareedwards.com>; 'Ryan Stefanek' <ryans@weareedwards.com>; 'Nick Cramer' <nick@weareedwards.com>; 'Nic Slocum' <nic@arris- studio.com>; 'Thom Jess' <tjess@arris-studio.com>; 'Jessica Gregory' <jessica@weareedwards.com> Subject: SLO REP MEETING AVAILABILITY Importance: High 125 Hi Sean, Thanks for your patience as I reached out to everyone. We are available:  Friday, (tomorrow) 2/20 between 1:30-4:30 PM If that time slot doesn’t work, most of us are available on:  Monday, 2/23 between 9-11 AM and between 1:30-4:30 PM. Please let us know- thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org <image001.jpg> SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: <image002.jpg> <image003.jpg> <BLDG-2740-2024_Review_V2_Meeting_Minutes_CommentReview.docx> SLO REP Plan Check #2 Comment Responses Bldg (C) - New Comm/Mixed Use REVIEW ITEM STATUS REVIEWER Addressing v.1 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org 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. Acknowledged Addressing v.2 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org 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. Acknowledged See below for response concerning Urban Forestry Arborist v.1 Needs Resubmit Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org 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. 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 Needs Resubmit Walter Gault email: wgault@slocity.org 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. All of this mitigation is currently underway with the City Arborist. 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 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 we do not have to re-review items that have already been verified to be code compliant. This will help speed up the 2nd review process and as a check in case something changes that would trigger one of these items. Acknowledged 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 business within some of these spaces the code take note to. Okay. Since there are , apparently, no corrections markups on the plans themselves, can you be more specific of which spaces you are referring to? Happy to help explain anything. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) All sheets now stamped and signed. 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 The City changed the deferred submittals. They are now- 1. Fire Sprinklers 2. Solar/Battery 3. Technical Rigging System 4. Fire Alarm System 5. Drapery. This is now shown on the cover sheet of the plans 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. ***Verify before resubmit Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Note to review to review with BO Comment? . 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.Please review section drawings. No stage elevation changes are indicated. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Confirm please this is not required due to the design. No stage elevation changes are indicated in the drawings. Sections show this clearly. 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. Door Schedule indicates fire protection levels 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. The only doors “likely to be open during a performance”, are the light lock doors which create vestibules. Doors directly to exterior would not be open during performances. 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) Technical Rigging is now not on the Deferred Submittals list and is provided in the Theatre DNA drawings. 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 meets these specific UL listing (UL listing are for walls not doors). We agreed in our meeting that the large, hinged, 1-hour door shown would meet code. WAN door not required. 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) Every single wall on the Floor Plan is a minimum 1 hour wall as shown on the floor plans and by the Wall Legend on Sheet A-3.5. This particular wall is shown as “ 1 HOUR RATED 4” INTERIOR WALL+SOUND CONTROL” and the base fire detail is #4. 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. 1 Hour Ceiling previously shown in sections indicated Detail 13/A-10.1 707.5 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 Where is this not the case? Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 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 is just trying to capture the "Stage" area having over 50 people. Two exits are provided. 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. We had already resolved this with Michael Lowe, and in a meeting with you previously 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.Shown in Fire Sprinkler drawings (already approved). 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). All scenery, props, etc. are stored in our off site facility on Empleo Drive. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved No comment shown here Comments: Call out building address on elevation plans. (502 CBC) Previously shown on Elevation Note #23 sheet A-4.0 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide building height under project Data. (503 CBC) Previously shown on Sheet A-1.0 under Project Data 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) Shown previously 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) Now shown on sheet A-1.0 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Under building Data provide total height of building. (504.3 CBC) Previously shown per previous comment above. 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 mezzanine bellow. Please confirm you design does not incorporate these exemptions anywhere that I'm not seeing. No exceptions are being incorporated (b,c are not circled only the “1” is circled). Provide specific details for all the beam wraps with construction file on how to accomplish this design and intersection points. Now using intumescent paint per drawings Call out the (1) hour floor from electrical room / crawl space / under stairs & mezzanine. ** Note to reviewer cat walks are not required due to being a "Equipment Platform) Section F, Section note #49 previously called out as 1 hour floor 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) Ceraclad is not indicated on the 2 hour wall. The finish for the 2 hour wall is stucco. 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) From the EOR-”All studs have been assessed for applied axial stress with the worst case occurring at Grid 7 with fc = 212 psi. The applied axial stress is less than the limits stated in ICC ESR-1627. The applied axial stress is also less than the limits for 2hr wall construction per CBC table 721.1(2) 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) Acknowledged. 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. Resolved in a meeting with you previously 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) Confirmed previously in code analysis sheets . Even if not necessary code-wise, necessary for additional sound control given our proximity to the parking garage. 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). I can’t see where any of these requirements are not already met. No roofs slope toward parapets, only along or away. 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. Please see new ICC-ES Evaluation Report sheet A-9.9 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) I added a note at Detail 10/A-10.0 to ensure fire barrier is not penetrated. 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. See previously provided Floor Plan Note #5 indicating this wall is not required to be 1 hour rated for fire protection. Wall assembly is only being used for sound control. 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. Fire riser room was moved to front of building adjacent to Volunteer HQ. Seismic gap shown in fire sprinkler plans. 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. Added new Floor Plan Note #36 at multiple locations on the Floor Plan Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide fire detail for baby changing stations. New Floor Plan Note #36 is meant to cover all conditions. We already have our contractor in place and he is in the loop on all of this stuff. It will be taken care of. 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) I think we can adjust the imaginary line as necessary. I thought in the previous plan check you had proposed a meeting for this, and other items. I think that’s a good idea. 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) Acknowledged. Note in section drawing removed accordingly Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Fire detail for roof access through the (1) hour roof construction. 1 hour rated roof hatch now specified on Detail 16/A-10.1. Hatch guard rails detail 14/A-10.1 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) Don’t know what you mean here. Plan markup would help. 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) Don’t know what you're asking here. 4/A-9.6 shows installation requirements. 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) SLO City changed their minds about where they wanted this room. Shown on revised Floor Plan below Volunteer HQ. Approved fire sprinkler plans show this. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Where is the fire department connection? (912.2 CBC) SLO City decided to move this from opposite corner of the site. See lower right portion of revised Site Plan, Site Plan Note #17 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 an issue has occurred. Duplicate doors may have the same number, so there is more than one D19. This portion of the hallway has now been reconfigured. 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 This 4 ft dimension for the main theatre double doors is clearly shown on the Floor Plan 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? No. Per previous response, storage is all off site. Only items currently in use would be at the theatre facility. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Add volunteer room to total occupant load. (1004 CBC) Done. 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) Occupants per door previously shown on Occupant Load Main Level sheet A-1.1 Now also shown as requested on sheet A-8.1 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Please post an occupant load at each space over 50. (1004.9 CBC) Occupant load signs as required indicated by Floor Plan Note #3 above appropriate exit doors on Floor Plan sheet A-3.0 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. This door has been removed. 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 See revised electrical drawings. 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) The LEGEND on sheet A-8.1 indicates that path of travel need to be coordinated with the site plan, where paths shown to right of way. The PG&E vault was moved by the City, so is not in the exit path now. The civil engineer assures me that there are no cross slope issues. 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) See new Elevation Note #6 showing solid barrier under stair to 80 inches above finished surface. 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-504.5CBC) See separate response from structural engineer. 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) Per above, occupant loads previously shown on A-1.1, now also shown on A-8.1 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) 11’-11” shown in Section G sheet A-5.2 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. Revised landings now shown Sheet A-3.0 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. These are shown on Accessibility-Exiting Plan sheet A-8.1 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. Stair previously within 10 ft has now been moved to comply. 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. Reconfigured accordingly. Also, LULA and wheel chair lifts are not part of egress. 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. What passageways? Where in the plans? 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 passagewaysCorrection: 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 Fire riser room has been moved per previous comment. See previously approved Fire Sprinkler Plans. 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. 20 ft. wide clearly path from main entrance now shown on Sheet A-1.0 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: 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) See Theatre DNA drawings sheet T-TS000 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 does not 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 depicted accessible route and wheel chair spaces overlapping. (CBC 11B-802.1.4) See A-8.1 See revised T-TS sheets from Theatre DNA 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. Now shown in revised Theatre DNA T-TS sheets. 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. Now shown in revised Theatre DNA T-TS sheets. 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) Now shown in revised Theatre DNA T-TS sheets. 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) Now shown in revised Theatre DNA T-TS sheets. 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) Now shown in revised Theatre DNA T-TS sheets. 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. See revised Interior Elevation 23 sheet A-9.0 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 too 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. See revised Interior Elevation 23 sheet A-9.0 Civil engineer is confident that there aren’t cross slope issues in this area. 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) Interior Elevation Note #62 indicates baby changing station. See Interior Elevation 22 sheet A-9.0. 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. Interior elevation note #31 refers to Detail 9/A-10.0 which show drain pipe wrapping 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) Interior Elevation Note #90 refers to Detail 1/A-10.1 which indicates the voice hole /communicator. No handset devices. 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) Note added to Detail 9/A-10.0 Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Door 26 within Vestibule has an encroachment issue into the staircase width, handrail into the clear floor space for the door maneuver space. This has been resolved per revised floor plan. 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) I think you are confusing the boundary of the clear path vs. the actual edge of the sink. I have clarified the drawing accordingly. 2. Show the 12" max encroachment measurement into the turning space Now shown. 3. Clear door width for ADA stalls Shown on Floor Plan A-3.0 4. Show closers for the main restroom doors and ADA toilet compartments / ambulatory compartment (11B-802) Closers indicated on Door Schedule. 5. Enlarged view of the ambulatory toilet compartment. (11B-604) Now provided on Sheet A-3.0 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. Shown on interior elevations, Sheets A-9.0 and A-9.3 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. Shown in Interior Elevation 13, sheet A-9.2 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. No response. 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. Room is now a Break Room. 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. See Interior Elevation 2 sheet A-9.0, which references Interior Elevation Note #26 which references Detail 10/A-10.0 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) Detail 1/A-3.3 indicates a 1 hour door. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide protection for roof access. (1015.7 CBC) See details 14,15,& 16 Sheet a-10.1 referenced from Roof Plan. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Update mecahnical notes to 2022 code cycle year. This occurs multiple times through M sheets. (107 CBC) Resolved in this submittal. 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. No dampers required. 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. Previously referenced fire putty for all penetrations per Detail 11/A Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Coordinate with structural that mechanical attachment shown on 30/M2.1 is okay. (107 CBC) These have been coordinated. 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) Moved dryer vent accordingly. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (2/25/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Provide Commissioning report. (5.410.2 CGBC) Refer to Mechanical sheets and responses. 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) Please refer to revised Mechanical Drawings and responses under separate cover. 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) See revised electrical drawings and responses under separate cover. 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. See revised Civil drawings and responses under separate cover. 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 compliance 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 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. See revised electrical drawings and responses under separate cover. 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 OK 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) DATE CHANGE STARTS HERE. 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 business within some of these spaces the code take note to. Stamp all sheets and take of not for construction over stamps. (107 CBC) Done. 2nd Review Starts Here 2nd Review: All comments are on a word documents. If you do not receive 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 below 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 mezzanine 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 exterior 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 penetration 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) 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 an 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. 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. See revised Site Plan A-1.0 20 ft. side path now shown and code referenced. Correction: Building Code Compliance - Sean McCaffrey (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 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 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 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 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 (Consultant) v.1 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Building (Consultant) v.2 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org Fees v.1 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org 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. Now shown Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (2/24/25) - Not Resolved Comments: #3 Final fees pending response to comments and other department reviews. Fees v.2 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org 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 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. Still working on resolving this in the field. 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. Fire v.1 Needs Resubmit Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org General - Fire Fire v.2 Needs Resubmit Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org General - Fire Fire (Consultant) v.1 Needs Resubmit Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Fire (Consultant) v.2 Needs Resubmit Julianna Hutchinson email: jhutchin@slocity.org Health (Building) v.1 Not Required Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org I believe fire sprinkler plans have already been approved. General - Health Planning v.1 Needs Resubmit Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org 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). See new sheet A-1.4 which responds how each COA is being addressed. 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. Revised Color Elevation Note #5 Sheet A-2.0 to For Reference Only, Separate Permit 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? Electrochromic glass became prohibitively expensive. We had to fall back to traditional dual glazed. I don’t think the exterior architecture is really affected much at all. 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. Why was this not brought up in the first plan check? Everything is really, really tight in this building. I thought we had an agreement that we only need to have a few of the total inside the building (bike hooks in green room area. Bike racks and locker specs are on sheet A-1.5 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). See revised landscaping plans 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. See Detail 1/a-3.0 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). See Section 1/A-1.5 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). See Site Plan Note #17 East corner of site 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 Needs Resubmit Rachel Cohen email: rcohen@slocity.org General - Planning Noted 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). Now shown on sheet A-1.5 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). Now imprinted to sheet A-1.4 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. Color Elevation Note #5 sheet A-2.0 revised accordingly. 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. Electrochromic glass too expensive. Can’t see how this changes the exterior appearance appreciably. 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. I guess we need to talk about this. Why did COA #2 change this? I remember distinctly that some bike hangers could be inside, and some could be outside. Wall mounted bike hooks are noted on the Floor Plan in the Green Room adjacent the Black Box Theatre. 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). See revised landscape sheet in plans 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. See new Detail 1/A-3.0 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. See cross section 1/A-1.5, and I sent Rachel some 3D stuff too. We agreed the roof mechanical was sufficiently screened. 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). Now shown and coordinated. Site plan note #17 west corner of Site Plan. 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. Noted. 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. I don’t know what happened here. I may have just not sent the most current version of the architectural sheets. All previous and now current comments have been addressed in the plans. Private Sewer Lateral v.1 Ready for Action Ryan Beech email: rbeech@slocity.org Private Sewer Lateral Inspection requirements (per Muni Code section 13.08.395) Public Works Permit Review v.1 Needs Resubmit Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org General - Public Works Public Works Permit Review v.2 Needs Resubmit Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org General - Public Works Recycling v.1 Needs Resubmit Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org General - Recycling Not sure if this means you have what you need or not. 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 Needs Resubmit Rachelle Paris email: rparis@slocity.org General - Recycling Contractor to supply. Deferred? 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 Site Grading/PW v.1 Needs Resubmit Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org General - Site Grading/PW Contractor has completed this. Correction: Engineering Standards Compliance - Bridget Fraser (2/26/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Engineering Development Review Bridget Fraser bfraser@slocity.org 805-781-7192 I don’t know what is being asked here. 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. Contractor to address, deferred? See revised civil sheets 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. Pending per contractor 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 rate. 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. See revised Civil drawings 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 ControlPlan, 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. Notes now added Cover Sheet A-1.0 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 Needs Resubmit Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org 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. Pending per contractor. 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. See revised civil drawings. 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 andinverts/overflows set at correct elevations, permeable pavers are installed with rock storage per design, etc. Pending per Civil Engineer 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 Pending per contractor 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 rate. 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 Deferred? 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 (8/4/25) - Resolved Comments: 9. Please refer to the PW Redlines for additional comments. Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.1 Needs Resubmit Bridget Fraser Ph: 805 781 7192 email: bfraser@slocity.org General - Stormwater/PW Stormwater (Engineering-CDD) v.2 Needs Resubmit Gabriel Munoz-Morris email: gmunoz@slocity.org General - Stormwater/PW Transportation v.1 Ready for Action Luke Schwartz email: LSchwartz@slocity.org General - Transportation Utilities Project Manager (Building) v.2 Needs Resubmit Nico Gurney email: ngurney@slocity.org 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.1 Needs Resubmit Geraldine Seng email: gseng@slocity.org General - Utilities See revised Civil plans 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 Not Required Kellie Fortner email: Kfortner@slocity.org Utilities/Landscape Water (Building) v.1 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org General - Water Water (Building) v.2 Needs Resubmit Vanessa Nichols Ph: 8057817588 email: vnichols@slocity.org General - Water See revised Civil plans Correction: Administration - Vanessa Nichols (9/3/25) - Not Resolved Comments: Refer to plan comments under "Fees" 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 90 126 From:Daniel, Josh Sent:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 2:31 PM To:Vert, Nicole; Timpano, Mika; Stanley, Erin Subject:FW: True North Compliance - Outstanding Invoices Attachments:25-05-050_2 TNC Invoice_May 2025 - Fire.pdf; 25-06-050_1 TNC Invoice_June 2025 - Fire.pdf; 25-08-050_2 TNC Invoice_August 2025 - Fire.pdf Importance:High See attached. Josh From: TNC Invoices <invoices@tncservices.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 1:56 PM To: Daniel, Josh <JDaniel@slocity.org>; Bozzano, Jeanne <JBozzano@slocity.org> Cc: Nichols, Vanessa <vnichols@slocity.org> Subject: True North Compliance - Outstanding Invoices Importance: High Good afternoon Vanessa, Can you please provide me with a payment status update for the attached invoices? Thank you so much for your assistance! 덞덛덟덜덝 25-05-050_2 $1,950.00 25-06-050_2 $5,850.00 25-08-050_2 $4,550.00 Best, Armalen Geurkink Administrative Analyst True North Compliance Services, Inc. TNCServices.com Long Beach | San Diego | Redwood City 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-1026-2025 560 Higuera St 25-050-024 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1048-2025 994 Mill St Unit 250 25-050-026 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 BLDG-1095-2025 848 Monterey St 25-050-029 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1128-2025 899 Pacific St Unit 100 25-050-032 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1130-2025 899 Pacific St Unit 100 25-050-033 1 Hourly 3 $130 $390.00 FIRE-1120-2025 4111 Broad St 25-050-034 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 FIRE-1143-2025 1132 Olive St 25-050-035 1 Hourly 2 $130 $260.00 Total:$1,950.00 Date:June 1, 2025 Invoice #:25-05-050_2 Scope:Fire Review Begin Date:May 1, 2025 End Date:May 31, 2025 Invoice Total:$1,950.00 Please make checks payable to True North Compliance Service. 3355 E Spring Street # 302 Long Beach, CA 90806 Mailing Address 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 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 127 From:Cohen, Rachel Sent:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 11:21 AM To:Tyler Benson; Bryce Engstrom; Thom Jess; nick@weareedwards.com; Nic Slocum; Jessica Gregory; ryans@weareedwards.com; Kevin Harris Subject:SLO REP - EIR required project mitigations Attachments:R-10923 Final EIR for proposed Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project.pdf Hello all- Attached is a copy of the resolution adopting the EIR for SLO REP and the parking structure. The document includes all the required mitigation measures that will need to be met as the project moves forward in construction. As I mentioned in the meeting, one of my outstanding comments for the building plans is that the plans include a list of the mitigation measures and how the project intends to comply with them through construction. Projects in the past have created a matrix as a way to organize and provide the methods in which each mitigation will be covered. I am happy to meet and discuss. It would be helpful if you could provide a few available times that work for your team and go from there. Thank you, Rachel Cohen pronouns she/her/hers Principal Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E rcohen@slocity.org T 805.781.7574 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications RESOLUTION NO. 10923 (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROPOSED PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES FIVE LEVELS OF PARKING FOR UP TO 445 PARKING SPACES, S,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, A NON-PROFIT THEATRE WITH APPROXIMATELY 24,000 SQUARE FEET AND UP TO 290 THEATRE SEATS, A ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT OFFICE (0) ZONE AND MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) ZONE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 609, 610, 614, 630, 633 PALM STREET AND 970, 972 NIPOMO STREET (EID-0349-2017) WHEREAS, the City owns certain real property located at 609, 610, 614, 630 and 633 Palm Street and 970 and 972 Nipomo Street (the Property); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of constructing a 445-space parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 24,000 square feet of theatre space on the Property (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 22, 2018 to provide feedback and comments regarding the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2018 to provide an opportunity for public input and provide feedback and comment regarding the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: Final EIR, CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR State Clearinghouse Number 2017051011), adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopts the following CEQA Findings and Mitigation Measures related to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project: 1. The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project FEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 2 impacts associated with the proposed Project; and 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of the FEIR based on the attached Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093 and described more fully in the attached "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations" document (Exhibit A) which are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR, and reduced to the extent feasible, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4. Final EIR Mitigation Measures will be incorporated into design and conditions of final approval. 5. The project shall not be approved until such time that a general plan amendment and Zoning designation changes are approved by the City Council. FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics Mitigation AES-3(a). Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields c. Illumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls e. Any signage visible from offsite shall not be internally laminated AES-3(b). Glare Reduction. To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non-reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. Air Quality Mitigation AQ-1. Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PMlO emissions in accordance with San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) requirements. • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible • Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 3 whenever possible • All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) on any unpaved surface at the construction site • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. AQ-2(a). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road) • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance • All on-and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors • Electrify equipment when feasible • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page4 AQ-2(b). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: • Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible • Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available • Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters (these strategies are listed at: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm) AQ-2(c). Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. Biolo~ical Resources Mitigation BI0-1. Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i .e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buff er zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources CR-1. Historical Building Documentation Packages. Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the lead agency. CR-2(a). Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. A qualified principal investigator, defined as an R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 5 archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. CR-2(b ). City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations. Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include ( 1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City's Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; ( 4) the completion of special studies, such as faunal analysis, if appropriate, and the curation ofrecovered artifacts; and (5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. CR-2(c). Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project- related ground-disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be onsite on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. CR-2( d). Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of mitigation measures CR-2b or CR-2c, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist's direction and the testing plan outlined under MM CR-2b. Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. CR-3(a). Qualified Project Paleontologist. A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. CR-3(b ). Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. CR-3(c). Paleontological Monitoring. Ground-disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 6 paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. CR-3(d). Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils . The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. Geology and Soils Mitigation GE0-1. Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to onsite soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: • Use imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork • Provide a layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick • Use post-tensioned slabs-on-grade • Implement shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls • Use over-excavation and recompaction • Utilize a deep foundation system, such as caissons or rammed aggregate piers • A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 7 Hazardous Materials Mitigation HAZ-1. Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation ofremediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. Noise Mitigation N-l(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. N-l(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi-family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. N-l(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 8 • Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment • Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25 • All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers • For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities • Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools • The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday and no movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day) • Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses N-l(d). Neighborhood Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Development Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the City's Community Development Department. N-4. Coordination of Construction Timing. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. Transportation Mitigation T-1. Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. • Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site). • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 9 the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. • Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. • Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. • A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. • It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 10 T-3. Pedestrian Access . Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City's Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan (2017) and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider: • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest comer of the parking structure. • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street. • Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street. • Reduce the curb radii on the southwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. Upon motion of Council Member Gomez, seconded by Council Member Rivoire, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council Members Gomez, and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor Harmon None Council Member Pease The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of July 2018. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. C st ine Dietrick, City Attorney IN{wiT NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this ~ day of !.,J , 2 D I i . /' R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Page 11 EXHIBIT A The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Environmental Impact Report ([EIR] State Clearinghouse Number 2017051011) for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project in determining if it will carry out the project. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. The City Council has received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating agencies, the public, and other agencies and organizations. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) require a lead agency to adopt findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR; • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by that agency; or • Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The CCR Title 14, § 15091 (b) requires that the City's findings be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the lead agency's record consists of the following (on file at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo, California): • Documentary and oral evidence, testimony and staff comments and responses received and reviewed by the lead agency during public review and the public hearings on the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project • The City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project Final Environmental Impact Report (July 2018) In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a project without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding considerations that balances the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social, economic, or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts (14 CCR 15093, PRC §21081). This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the approval of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project and reflects the City's independent judgment. This document incorporates by reference the Final EIR. The EIR and other portions of the administrative record are available for review at the following location: R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Contact: Scott Lee, Parking Manager 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 781-7203 Page 12 EXHIBIT A Having received, reviewed, and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Public Resources Code §21081. SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Proposed Project The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project consists of a zone change and general plan amendment of five parcels from the Office (0-H) zone and one parcel from the Medium-High Residential (R-3) zone to the Public Facility (PF-H) zone. The project would include the removal of an existing 77-space surface parking lot and five existing residential structures, and construction of a five-level parking structure, commercial space, and non-profit theater. The parking structure would provide up to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be from Palm Street, with secondary access from Nipomo Street. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street, but a direct pedestrian connection would be provided from the structure to Monterey Street. The parking structure's maximum height would be 50 feet, excluding elevator towers. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two levels fronting Nipomo Street. The maximum height of the commercial space would be 41 feet above existing grade. In addition, the project would include a new structure for the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (now the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre or SLO REP) that would front Monterey Street. The theater would be a three-story structure with 290 seats and a gross floor area of roughly 23,841 square feet. Entry to the theater would be provided at the street level through a public plaza along Monterey Street. The street-level plaza would include a public seating area and incorporate public art. The maximum height of the theater would be approximately 43 feet above existing grade. Section 2.5 , Project Characteristics, of the Final EIR provides a detailed description of the project. 2.2 Project Objectives The City's objectives for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project include the following: 1. Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces 2. Accommodate cultural uses on Monterey Street in front of the parking structure 3. Include a pedestrian-level public use plaza area at the comer ofNipomo and Monterey Streets 4. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the parking structure to Monterey Street 5. Preserve the large oak tree on-site 6. Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (e.g., Lattimer-Hayes adobe) R 10923 Resolution No . 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.1 Background Page 13 EXHIBIT A The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR serves as an informational document for the public and City of San Luis Obispo decision makers. The Final EIR contains a project-level environmental review that fulfills the requirement of a project-level EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a project-level EIR: ... examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction , and operation. In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 78-day public review period that began December 14, 2017 and concluded on March 1, 2018; the City accepted comment letters through March 10, 2018. The City held a Cultural Heritage Committee hearing for the project on January 22, 2018 and a public Planning Commission hearing on February 28 , 2018 to receive public testimony in the form of verbal comments on the Draft EIR. The response to comments section of the Final EIR (Section 8, Response to Comments on the Draft EIR) includes each written and verbal comment received by the City. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. 3.2 Impact AnaJysis Three categories of impacts are identified in the Final EIR: Class I Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that "specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR." Class II Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures identified in the EIR. When approving a project with Class II impacts, the decision makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Class III Class III impacts are adverse but not significant. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 14 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION This section identifies impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, as identified in the Final EIR. 4.1 Aesthetics 1. Impact AES-3: Implementation of the project would result in an increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-3(a), Lighting Plan, and AES-3(b), Glare Reduction, that require preparation and approval of a comprehensive lighting plan consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance and use of non-reflective materials, the increase would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 56-57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce light and glare impacts from the project. Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views. b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields. c. Lumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards. d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls. e. Any signage visible offsite shall not be internally laminated. AES-3(b) Glare Reduction. To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non- reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 15 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Cumulative Impact-Light and Glare. Cumulative development would be subject to similar existing City regulations pertaining to light and glare as discussed under Impact AES-3. New sources of light and glare in the boundaries of the city would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. While the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare in the project area, implementation of mitigation measures AES-3(a), Lighting Plan, and AES-3(b ), Glare Reduction, would ensure lighting and glare would be compatible with surrounding uses and comply with existing policies. Design review procedures would reduce impacts on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, the project's impacts to light and glare would not be cumulatively considerable (refer to pages 56-57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AES-3(a) and AES-3(b) are required to reduce light and glare impacts from the project. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.2 Air Quality 1. Construction Emissions: Construction of the project would generate temporary increases in localized air pollutant emissions (fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions). The estimated construction emissions associated with the project and would be below the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds and would not introduce new hazardous air pollutants to the area, but in accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are required because sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because the South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment for PM10. Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, Fugitive Dust Control Measures, AQ-2(a), Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment, AQ-2(b), Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment, and AQ-2(c), Architectural Coating, are required to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions from the project in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. With implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2(a) through AQ-2(c), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 127-129 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to address project construction emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM 10 emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible • Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16 EXHIBIT A watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible • All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities • Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non- invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established • All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible • All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: • Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications • Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-road) • Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17 EXHIBIT A • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance • All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit • Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors • Electrify equipment when feasible • Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment. The following best available technology for diesel- fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: • Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible • Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available • Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm Mitigation Measure AQ-2(c) Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.3 Biological Resources 1. Wildlife Movement: Construction of the project would involve general construction activity and tree removal that may affect protected nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, Nesting Bird Protection, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 129 and 130 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to protected nesting birds. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure BI0-1 Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground-disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. b. Fi nding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Impact CR-2: Construction of the project would include ground disturbance that could result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources. Implementation of mitigation measures CR-2(a), Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator, CR-2(b), City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations, CR-2(c), Archaeological Monitoring, and CR-2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources, would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level (refer to page 75 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. A qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure CR-2(b) City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations. Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include (1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City's Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; (4) the completion of special studies, such as fauna! analysis, if appropriate, and the curation of recovered artifacts; and ( 5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. Mitigation Measure CR-2(c) Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project-related ground-disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities within native soils, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. Mitigation Measure CR-2(d) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(b) or CR-2(c), all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist's direction and the testing plan outlined under Mitigation Measure CR-2(b ). Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 2. Impact CR-3: Construction of the project would result in ground disturbance that could indirectly or directly destroy a unique paleontological resource. With implementation of mitigation measures CR-3(a), Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist, CR-3(b), R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20 EXHIBIT A Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program, and CR-2(d), Fossil Discoveries, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 77 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist. A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CR-3(b) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. Mitigation Measure CR-3(c) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground-disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. Mitigation Measure CR-3( d) Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils. The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21 EXHIBIT A Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils should be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 3. Impact CR-5: Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the project have the potential to disturb unidentified human remains. Discovery of human remains during project excavation would require compliance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and California PRC §5097.94 and §5097.98. PRC §5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes. Compliance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.94 and §5097.98 would ensure that unanticipated discovery of human remains during project excavation, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be addressed appropriately by the county coroner and the California Native American Heritage Commission (ifrequired). In addition, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Remains Resources, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 79 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Remains Resources, would ensure that potential impacts to human remains and burial grounds would be less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4. Cumulative Impact -Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources: Planned buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo under the General Plan would cumulatively increase the potential for adverse effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources in the city. The project would incrementally contribute to this cumulative effect. Generally, impacts to R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22 EXHIBIT A cultural and tribal cultural resources are site-specific. Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The project, along with other cumulative projects in the city, would be required to comply with existing state and local regulations that address the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources in the city. With implementation of mitigation measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), and CR-3(a) through CR-3(d), the project would reduce potential impacts to archaeological and/orpaleontological resources to less than significant levels. In addition, the project would result in a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to the cumulative loss of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources in the city. a. Mitigation: Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(d), and CR-3(a) through CR-3(d), would ensure the project's contribution to cumulative potential impacts would be less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.5 Geology and Soils 1. Expansive Soils: Implementation of the project would occur on soils that have moderate to high expansion potential. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-I, Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 130 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to expansive soils. Mitigation Measure GE0-1 Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to on-site soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: • Use of imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork • A layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick • Post-tensioned slabs-on-grade • Shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls • Overexcavation and recompaction • Utilization of a deep foundation system, such as caissons, driven piles, or rammed aggregate piers A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23 EXHIBIT A testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Hazardous Materials: Construction of the project would require excavation and removal of existing fill that has the potential to be contaminated. Therefore, construction activities could expose workers to contaminated soil on-site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 131-132 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with contaminated soils. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio- remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations, and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 24 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.7 Noise 1. Cumulative Impact -Construction Noise. Construction of the proposed project could overlap with the construction of other projects in the vicinity (Monterey Place and the Vesper Hotel at the Creamery) and result in cumulative construction noise. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-4, Coordination of Construction Timing, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 99-100 of the FEIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to cumulative construction noise. Mitigation Measure N-4 Coordination of Construction Timing. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.8 Transportation 1. Traffic Hazards: Construction of the project would result in short-term construction traffic, construction parking, and modifications to existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation during the construction period. The preparation of a construction management plan, as described in Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level (refer to pages 132-133 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce construction traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure T-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan should include at least the following items and requirements: • A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 25 EXHIBIT A detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. • Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. • Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site). • Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. • Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. • Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. • A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. • Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. • It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction on-site, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. b. Fi ndi ng: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 2. Impact T-3: Implementation of the project would result in pedestrian access impacts due to the difficulty of crossing Nipomo Street at an uncontrolled location. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 120 of the Final EIR). a. Mi tigat ion : The following mitigation measure is required to serve the added pedestrian demand associated with the project along Nipomo Street. Mitigation Measure T-3 Pedestrian Access. Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City's Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider: • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest corner of the parking structure. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 26 EXHIBIT A • High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street. • Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street. • Reduce the curb radii on the southwest comer of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast comer of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final BIR. 3. Impact T-4: Under Cumulative plus Project conditions, one study intersection (the project driveway at Nipomo Street) would operate at an unacceptable level of service for pedestrians during the evening peak hour. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 125-126 of the Final BIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final BIR. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE EFFECTS FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT MITIGATION IS NOT AVAILABLE Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CBQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that" ... specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the BIR ... " This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 15091 of the State CBQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an BIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: • Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final BIR; • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by that agency; or R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Pact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 27 EXHIBIT A • Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. This section identifies impacts that can be reduced, but not to a less-than-significant level, through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore, remain significant and unavoidable, as identified in the Final EIR. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear in the EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an impact or reducing it to a less-than-significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to the proposed project is considered in Section 7 of this document. 5.1 Aesthetics 1. Impact AES-2: The project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site because it would introduce new structures that are substantially different in terms of size, scale, and massing. The project includes various design features that would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible, but due to the size, scale, and massing of the project, impacts related to a change in visual character would remain significant and unavoidable (refer to page 54 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: No feasible mitigation is available. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. The project design features would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible; however, additional mitigation is not available to reduce the size, scale, and massing of the project while satisfying most of the project objectives. Therefore, impacts related the alteration of visual character would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 2. Cumulative Impact -Visual Character: Combined with approved, pending, and proposed development in San Luis Obispo, the project would contribute to increasing urbanization of the downtown area and would increase the intensity of development (size, scale, and massing) in the area. This includes altering the fundamental character from predominantly older one- to two-story structures to a mix of such older buildings interspersed with new taller structures of four to six stories. The project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the change in visual character due to the increase in size, scale, and massing of the proposed structures. In combination with other development, the project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable (refer to page 57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures are available. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 28 EXHIBIT A the Final EIR infeasible . No feasible mitigation measures are available for the project's contribution of cumulative impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 5.2 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Impact CR-1: Construction of the project would result in the demolition of two structures on the project site that are historic resources and adversely affect the Downtown Historic District. This would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Implementation of mitigation measure CR-1 is required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, but this impact is Class I, significant and unavoidable (refer to page 72 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Mitigation measure CR-1 is required to reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure CR-1 Historical Building Documentation Packages. Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. b. Fi nding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measure CR-l(a) is feasible and has been adopted. Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages. However, this measure would not eliminate the permanent irreversible impacts to the historic resources, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Therefore, the potential impact to the historic residences would remain significant and unavoidable, despite implementation R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 29 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations of the required mitigation. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 2. Cumulative Impact -Cultural Resources: In combination with buildout of the city under the General Plan, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources in the Downtown Historic District. Mitigation Measure CR-1, Historic Building Documentation Packages, would reduce the project's impact to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible; however, this measure would not eliminate the permanent cumulative or individual impacts to the identified historic resources, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Because of this, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the city. This would be a Class I, Significant and Unavoidable, cumulative impact to historical resources (refer to page 80 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-I would reduce the project's contribution to the cumulative impact to historic resources to the maximum extent feasible. No other feasible mitigation are available that would meet the project objectives. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures CR-I is feasible and has been adopted. No additional feasible mitigation is available for the cumulative loss of historic resources in the city, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section?. 5.3 Noise 1. Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulations. Required mitigation measures N-l(a) through N-1 ( d) require implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction, and would reduce noise associated with on-and off-site construction activity to the maximum extent feasible. Although mitigation measures N-l(a), Construction Vehicle Travel Route, N- l(b), Construction Activity Timing, N-l(c), Construction Equipment Best Management Practices, and N-l(d), Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints, would reduce impacts from haul trucks and construction equipment to the extent feasible, construction noise would continue to exceed thresholds. Therefore, construction- related noise impacts would be minimized, but not eliminated. As a result, temporary noise impacts associated with on-and off-site construction activity would be significant and unavoidable (refer to page 92 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of the following measures would reduce noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure N-l(a) Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall use roadways that avoid residential R I0923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Pact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 30 EXHIBIT A neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. Mitigation Measure N-l(b) Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi-family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi-family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. Mitigation Measure N-l(c) Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: • Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment. • Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25. • All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. • For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities. • Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools. • The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day). • Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 31 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure N-l(d) Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints~ The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Devel opment Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related complaints shall be directed to the City's Community Development Department. b. Finding: The City finds that specific e conomic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final E IR infeasible. Mitigation Measures N-l(a) through N-l(d) are feasible and have been adopted. A vailab]e mitigation would not reduce the noise below the applicable City standards for construction activity. Therefore temporary noise impacts associated with on-site and off-site construction activity would be significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. SECTION 6. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Introduction As identified in Section 5 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur: • Impact AES-2: Alteration of existing visual character • Cumulative aesthetic impact • Impact CR-1: Removal of historic resources • Cumulative historic resource impact • Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity noise Because the project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental effects. As such, the environmental superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is considered in this section. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. 6.2 Description of the Alternatives The Final EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project: (1) a no project, no development alternative; (2) an infused project and live/work units alternative· (3) an alternative R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 32 EXHIBIT A that would develop the parking structure and commercial plus residential units; and (4) an alternative that would preserve the historic resources on-site. 1. Alternative 1: No Project, No Development. As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the environmental consequences of not proceeding with the project. This alternative assumes the project is not approved, that none of the proposed entitlements are implemented, and that no further development would occur on the project site. 2. Alternative 2: Project Plus Live/Work Units. This alternative assumes the build out of the proposed project (parking structure, theater, and commercial space) except the 5,000 square feet of commercial space would be reduced to 2,500 square feet of commercial space and four residential units would be included on the second level. This alternative discusses the impact of the four residential apartments on the second story of the commercial area as opposed to the 2,500 square feet of commercial space. As with the proposed project, vehicle access would continue to be provided from Palm Street and Nipomo streets via the parking structure. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that this alternative would follow the same site plan/floor plan as the proposed project. 3. Alternative 3: Parking Structure, Comme:rcial and Residential. This alternative would include the five-level parking structure and 5,000 square feet of commercial space, consistent with the proposed project, but this alternative would include 22 two-bedroom apartments in place of the theater and plaza along Monterey Street. This alternative would include removal of the existing surface parking lot and aJl existing residential structures. As with the proposed project, vehicle parking/site access would continue to be provided from Palm Street and Nipomo Street via the parking structure. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the site plan would adhere to the basic layout and footprint of development as is contemplated in the proposed project for the parking structure and commercial space, with the direct replacement/addition of apartments in place of the theater. 4. Alternative 4: Historic Resource Preservation. This alternative would involve the construction of the five-level parking structure and 5,000 square feet of commerC'ial space, consistent with the proposed project, but this alternative would not include construction of the theater or plaza fronting Monterey Street. This alternative assumes the historic residences along Monterey Street ( 610 and 614) would remain intact and at their existing location; however, much of the backyards at these properties would be developed with the parking and commercial uses. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the site plan would adhere to the basic layout of development as is contemplated in the proposed project for the parking structure and commercial space and omit the theater. 6.3 Effectiveness of Alternatives in Avoiding Significant Project Impacts This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 33 EXHIBIT A 1. Significant and Unavoidable Aesthetic Impacts. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts related to the alteration of the visual character in the project vicinity. Under Alternative 1 (No Project No Development), no development would occur, therefore aesthetic impacts would not occur. Under Alternative 2 (Project Plus Live/Work Units), similar buildout would occur compared to the proposed project, which would result in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 3 (Parking Structure, Commercial, Residential) would also result in similar aesthetic impacts due to a similar site layout and footprint; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservatjon) would result in less overall development on-site as the historic residences on-site would be retained. Although these residences would remain, the project would still construct the parking structure and other uses on-site with the potential to block views in the area and alter the visual character in the vicinity. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impact regarding visual character would not be avoided. 2. Significant and Unavoidable Cultural Resource Impacts. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts to historic resources as a result of the removal of the residences at 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Alternative 1 and 4 would not remove the residences, as they would be preserved and retained ; therefore, the project-level and cumulative impact to historic resources would not occur. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the demolition of the on-site residences; therefore, impacts to historic resources would be similar in comparison to the project. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the project-level and cumulative impact to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Significant and Unavoidable Noise Impact. The proposed project would cause noise impacts as a result of construction activity associated with project development. Under Alternative l , no development would occur; therefore, the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact would be avoided. Alternatives 2 3, and 4 would result in a similar level of overall construction activity on the project site, in conjunction with other development in the vicinity, and would therefore result in similar project-level impacts associated with construction noise. 6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative and Feasibility of Project Alternatives 1. Alternative 1 Finding: Alternative l (No Project, No Development) could be considered the environmentally superior overall, since no development would occur and the site would remain as is , and would not result in any significant environmental impact. However, Alternative 1 fails to meet the City's objectives for the project area as well as any of the project objectives. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 1 would be infeasible to implement. 2. Alternative 2 Finding: Alternative 2 (Project Plus Live/Work Units) would result in similar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Nipomo Palm Parking Structure project. With a similar footprint as the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar impacts pertaining to aesthetics, cultural resources, and transportation. Although this alternative does meet some of the project objectives, Alternative 2 does not avoid any of the Class I impacts associated with the proposed project and would result in increased noise impacts. The addition of residences on the site would locate sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the parking structure. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 34 EXHIBIT A Therefore, this alternative would require additional mitigation to reduce interior noise levels below established thresholds. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 2 is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. 3. Alternative 3 Finding: Among the development scenarios, Alternative 3 (Parking Structure, Commercial, and Residential) would result in similar but increased environmental effects compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in increased environmental impacts pertaining to noise, as well as to several issues that were dismissed as less than significant or have no impact in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. This is due to the residences and commercial units on-site that would introduce new residents to the city, who would require utility services and recreational and public services, as well as generate new vehicle trips from new residents. Alternative 3 would not avoid the Class I impacts related to historical resources, cultural resources, and noise. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 3 would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 4. Alternative 4 Finding: Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) is environmentally superior to the proposed project because there would be a reduced overall site footprint. The impacts from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project in the areas of aesthetics, noise, and traffic. Alternative 4 would not reduce the project's Class I impacts in those categories to a level below significance thresholds. However, Alternative 4 would eliminate direct and indirect significant impacts to historical resources because the two contributing structures to the Downtown Historic District and the linkage between properties in the district they provide would remain in place. Alternative 4 would meet most of the project objectives by providing a minimum of 400 parking spaces, offering a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street, preserving the large oak tree on-site ,. and considering the contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i.e., Hays-Lattimer adobe). However, it would not meet the objective of providing the cultural use (theater). As a result, the City finds that Alternative 4 would not satisfy the project objectives. SECTION 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Introduction The Final EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of the project: 1. The project would alter the existing visual character of the project site, and surrounding vicinity. 2. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other development in the area , would increase the intensity of development and permanently alter the visual character of the surrounding area. 3. The project would result in the demolition of two structures on the project site that are historic resources, and adversely affect the Downtown Historic District. 4. The project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the City by removing two historic structures that contribute to the Downtown Historic District. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 35 EXHIBIT A 5. Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulations , and mitigation may not be feasible to reduce the impact to less than the applicable threshold. For projects that would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, CEQA requires that the lead agency balance the benefits of these projects against the unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines § 15093( a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such projects, the public agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects caused by the project. This statement is provided below. 7 .2 Required Findings The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these measures will lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above, the measures will not fully avoid these impacts. The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has determined that none of these alternatives is feasible or environmentally superior, nor would they satisfy the project objectives to the same extent or greater as the project. Alternative I would avoid all of the significant impacts of the project but would not achieve the City s objectives for the project and is not considered feasible. Alternative 2 would be environmentally similar to the project in most aspects but would result in greater impacts to noise and is therefore environmentally inferior to the proposed project. Alternative 3 is environmentally inferior to the proposed project, as it would result in increased impacts regarding noise and other impacts such as public services , recreation, utilities and service systems. Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the proposed project in that eliminates significant and unavoidable historic resources impacts related to demolition of the historic structures on-site. However, Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to achieve City objectives for the project, since the alternative would not include the theater building. In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks . For the reasons specified below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable environmental risks: I. New Parking Spaces. The Land Use Element of the General Plan addresses downtown development, parking, and the development of cultural facilities in the city. Specifically, Policy 4.14 states "the City shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commercial core so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core." Since the project would provide approximately 400 parking spaces in the downtown area, it would directly satisfy this goal and adhere to Policy 4.14. 2. Downtown Concept Plan. In 2017, the City updated the Downtown Concept Plan to provide a road map for future public projects and guidance for development in the downtown area. The R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 36 EXHIBIT A proposed project is located in Block 10 of the Plan, which states "a new parking structure on the comer of Palm and Nipomo Streets is envisioned to include office mixed use along Nipomo Street, the theater relocated along Monterey Street, and public use on a portion of the rooftop." The proposed project would directly follow the guidance included in the Downtown Concept Plan, by relocating the theater, constructing commercial use on the western boundary of the site along Nipomo Street, and evaluating whether rooftop viewing areas are feasible as part of the Planning Commission and Architectural Commission Review. 3. Increased Economic Activity. Development of the parking structure would generate an economic benefit to the City via increased revenue from vehicle parking fees, which would then be used to fund needed services in the city. 4. Downtown Residential. The project will support Program 6.12 of the Housing Element that promotes downtown residential by allowing " ... flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or wbo provide proof ofreserved, off-site parking. The structure will be part of the City's Downtown Residential Overnight Program (Drop) that allows residents in the downtown area access to the structures to park vehicles and promote affordability by design of residential units . 5. Public Use Plaza and Pedestrian Connection. The project includes a public use plaza area at the comer ofNipomo and Monterey Streets. This plaza would be pedestrian-friendly and provide a social use area for residents and tourists in the downtown area. In addition, the project would provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street, allowing users to easily navigate from the parking structure and theater to other downtown uses, consistent with Circulation Element Policies 5.1.3 , 5.1.5 and 5.1.6. 6. San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre. The project would support the development of an arts and cultural center within the Downtown. Land Use Elements policies 5.2.1, 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 discuss that the City will work with community groups to secure facilities for cultural and arts program needs in the Downtown area. The project includes a portion of the site that would be utilized by the SLO Repertory Theatre (formerly the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre) to construct a new theatre space. Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits. Dated: ,Avi ,. / '2018 R 10923 128 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 5:19 PM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project Thanks, Greg. I had a call (over the weekend as it happens) where he asked for feedback on their response to another community member. I corrected him on a few facts and have a pretty good idea where the slipping of the narrative is coming from… From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:02 AM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project FYI and something I’d like to follow up on with SLO REP. Greg From: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:53 AM To: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project FYI, Madeline, Forwarding as there is mention that SLO REP said the garage project had damaged the tree. That is not my understanding after talking with you. Can you please verify? Thanks! -Scott From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. 129 Thank you...Bruce Judson 130 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:56 PM To:sanluisreviewstoday@gmail.com Cc:CityClerk Subject:Records Request Response - PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Attachments:PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project.pdf; SLO REP Final EIR and Advisory Body Staff reports.pdf SLO Reviews, The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public Records Act delivered via email on February 5, 2026. Today’s production will complete our processing of the responsive documents and close the request. - SLO REP Final EIR and Advisory Body Staff reports.pdf Please note the following: There are no reports, surveys or arborist assessments that were submitted as part of the project planning entitlement in 2019. All tree information (size, species, retention, and removal) was provided on the project plans. The attached document includes all links to the advisory body staff reports that also include the SLO REP project plans as part of the report. Please be advised that every effort has been made to search for all records which may fall within the scope of your records request, and, as such, we believe our search is quite thorough. However, if you have knowledge of a specific document which has not been provided in response to your request, please notify us, and we will be happy to provide the document(s) to you unless, of course, it is exempt from disclosure pursuant to California Government Code §7921.000 et seq. 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 SLO Rep Final EIR and Advisory Hearing Staff Reports Final EIR: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder- 1903#docfold_14_4356_1767_1903 CC (July 17, 2018) (Review of the EIR): https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=78862&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk CHC (September 23, 2019): https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=97408&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&searc hid=a366d5b3-3777-4b2a-ba13-0c5a7546e176 ARC (August 19, 2019): https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=95940&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&searc hid=fde33327-6269-4704-bc3d-53a6142902fd ARC (September 19, 2019): https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=97289&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&searc hid=fde33327-6269-4704-bc3d-53a6142902fd PC (October 23, 2019): https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=98467&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&searc hid=0109207f-b084-4be1-86ce-6c60c1701d24&cr=1 CC (November 12, 2019): https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=99173&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&searc hid=eb9bdfb1-ba1e-4485-9abc-70ebf6b297b3 131 From:Colunga-Lopez, Andrea Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:48 PM To:Stowe, Lala Cc:LaFreniere, Matt; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); CityClerk Subject:RE: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Thanks Lala! From: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 12:29 PM To: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Hi, Per Rachel Cohen: "There are no reports, surveys or arborist assessments that were submitted as part of the project planning entitlement in 2019. All tree information (size, species, retention and removal) was provided on the project plans. I have attached a document that includes all links to the advisory body staff reports that also include the SLO REP project plans as part of the report." The document she references is this: SLO REP Final EIR and Advisory Body Staff reports.docx Thank you, Lala Stowe pronouns she/her/hers Supervising Administrative Assistant Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E lstowe@slocity.org T 805.783.7870 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:11 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project 132 Hello all, Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 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 133 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:16 PM To:McDonald, Whitney; Hermann, Greg Subject:Fw: SLO REP reply to Nicholas DePaoli Appreciated Chip sharing with me the email SLOREP sent to our passionate community member. See below: Subject: SLO REP reply to Nicholas DePaoli Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Date: February 14, 2026 at 12:59:45 PM PST To: Nicholas DePaoli < Dear Mr. DePaoli, Thank you for your thoughtful letter of February 11. I appreciate your cooperative and empathetic tone. I want to assure you that the decision to remove the tree was not based on "late- stage inconvenience." Preserving this oak tree has been a central focus of our design since 2012. Last July, as garage construction neared completion, our arborist visited the site to finalize our official tree-protection plan. We were devastated by his findings: the critical root system had sustained substantial damage during frontage improvements associated with the garage construction. City staff and the City arborist subsequently confirmed this assessment. In the hopes that we could avoid further damage during construction, SLO REP then spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. I’m sorry to report that we found no viable alternatives. These are the insurmountable facts:  The arborists say the tree’s root structure is so compromised that the tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction.  Most concerning of all is that the root structure extends from the tree almost to the garage’s foundation, meaning it extends nearly under our entire footprint. There is no way to avoid further damage to the tree by changing our footprint.  In discussions with the arborists, we learned there is a likelihood the tree will not survive much longer, regardless of whether we build. 134 The inescapable reality is that altering the theatre’s footprint would be a futile exercise. It would not improve the tree’s odds, but it would seriously compromise our ability to operate viably. Delaying our project would risk San Luis Obispo having neither the tree nor the theatre. Our focus has now shifted to creating a responsible succession plan. Our Board is committed to paying for a landscaping plan more robust than City requirements; it introduces high-value, climate-forward species of trees that will thrive alongside our theatre for the next century. I promise you we have left no stone unturned in addressing this issue. I’m sorry the tree cannot be preserved, but I believe we have reached the most reasonable compromise. Sincerely, Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 11:36 AM To: Kevinharris@slorep.org Subject: Re: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Hi again Mr Harris, I wanted to follow up on the open letter I shared yesterday requesting a short 30-day pause before removal of the downtown oak. Since sending the letter and opening the discussion on social media, technical input from local professionals has begun to surface — including questions around root extent assumptions given site history and architectural feasibility alternatives. We are also exploring community or 135 donor support that could contribute to independent technical evaluation or funding design alternatives in order to offset feasibility calculations. Given this emerging discussion, I’m wondering whether SLO REP would consider voluntarily pausing tree removal for 30 days to allow independent review and transparent evaluation of both technical and support/funding pathways. This request is not intended to contest the value of the theater but to ensure that all reasonably available options are responsibly and more publicly tested prior to an irreversible step. I appreciate your consideration and remain open to constructive dialogue. Respectfully, Nicholas On Feb 11, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Nicholas DePaoli < wrote: Dear Mr. Harris, I am writing as a downtown resident and land planning professional regarding the recently approved oak removal. Attached is an open letter being circulated requesting a short feasibility window to explore preservation alternatives that could maintain both the theater’s viability and the oak. If redesign cost exposure is the primary concern, I believe there may be community and professional resources willing to explore solutions collaboratively. My hope is that this moment could become one of creative problem-solving rather than loss. <Open_Letter_Downtown_Oak_Nicholas_DePaoli.pdf> Thank you for your time, Nicholas DePaoli 136 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:02 AM To:Hill, Robert Subject:FW: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project FYI and something I’d like to follow up on with SLO REP. Greg From: Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:53 AM To: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Floyd, Aaron <afloyd@slocity.org> Cc: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project FYI, Madeline, Forwarding as there is mention that SLO REP said the garage project had damaged the tree. That is not my understanding after talking with you. Can you please verify? Thanks! -Scott From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. Thank you...Bruce Judson 137 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:57 AM To:Gault, Walter; Hill, Robert; Hermann, Greg Subject:FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi, Looping everyone in here…this is partially the information we will discuss tomorrow. thanks Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: 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 138 may be significant asymmetry in actual root distribution and disturbance implications, even maintaining current building footprint design. Before irreversible action occurs, is there a mechanism for the City to accept or consider supplemental technical clarification within the current window prior to mid-March? Specifically: 1. Differentiation of disturbance by type (structural excavation vs. potentially low-impact hardscape) 2. Focused root mapping at key locations to better understand actual root context 3. An updated arborist interpretation if hardscape construction methods are adjusted to minimize excavation and compaction. The intent is not to invalidate the existing report, but to determine whether the 86% encroachment figure may overstate destructive impact by combining materially different construction activities into a single disturbance classification. If further clarification confirms that viability remains unlikely, that conclusion would be strengthened by a more site-specific basis. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Nicholas On Feb 13, 2026, at 10:37 AM, Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> wrote: BCC: CC Nicholas, Thank you for your email and associated letter regarding the Oak tree at the future SLO REP site. I appreciate the time that went into the letter and your interest in this topic. The City Council’s decision last Tuesday night to adopt a Resolution approving the removal of the tree is a final action of the City Council and cannot be amended, delayed, or changed by staff. Regarding the timing of the removal of the tree - the tree removal will not take place within the next 30 days. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal, which is not expected to take place until around mid-March, at the earliest. While not included in the staff report for the tree removal item, there were a few elements of the public comment during the hearing from SLO REP’s Managing Artistic Director, Kevin Harris, that may provide additional context regarding the tree removal. Importantly, upon receiving the arborist’s report, SLO REP did explore different options and consulted with their architect, theatre design consultants, structural engineer, and civil engineer to determine how the tree may be able to remain on the site. As described by Kevin, the options included: 139 1. Modify the design of the building to protect the minimum amount of critical root structure recommended. The design team noted that this would represent nearly starting from scratch and redesigning the building would cost approximately $550,000. SLO REP reports that they have already spent over $800,000 on design expenses and now have final construction documents complete. Although a redesigned theatre would necessarily be smaller, the construction cost estimator concluded that protecting the critical root structure remaining after redesign would add approximately $225,000 to $250,000 in overall expenses. This option is estimated to delay the project 6-10 months and would likely result in a theatre design that is economically infeasible because there would be a reduced number of seats, and therefore ticket sales. 2. Move forward with the current design but take additional measures to protect critical root zones through modified foundation construction. This option was estimated to result in cost increases of approximately $500,000 to $600,000 and a project delay of 2.5-3 months. In this case, there is still a strong possibility that the tree may not survive; construction requires both trenching and construction of foundations, as well as partial removal of overhead tree canopy. While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. 140 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 141 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:47 AM To:Nicholas DePaoli Cc:Hermann, Greg; Stewart, Erica A Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay 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 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: 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 142 • 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 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. 143 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 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, 144 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 145 From:Collins, Scott Sent:Tuesday, February 17, 2026 6:53 AM To:Kacsinta, Madeline; Floyd, Aaron Cc:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Hermann, Greg Subject:FW: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project FYI, Madeline, Forwarding as there is mention that SLO REP said the garage project had damaged the tree. That is not my understanding after talking with you. Can you please verify? Thanks! -Scott From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. Thank you...Bruce Judson 156 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Monday, February 16, 2026 6:30 PM To:Bruce Judson Subject:RE: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project Fair enough. But, you might ask SLO REP how they feel about staying in their current place. 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 One more thing, in case you weren’t aware…part of the development plans require that SLO REP “compensate” for the removal of the tree, if that’s what needs to happen, by planting four trees. One to replace the oak (which is of a variety better suited for an urban environment…and that tree is supposed to be a very large tree at planting, so less time to reach maturity and nice canopy), and 3 others along Nipomo Street. I know this might be of little comfort. But, I felt it was worth sharing that information, in case you weren’t aware. Have a good evening. From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 4:26 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project Thank you Michelle, For the record, I’d rather give the tree a chance rather than another downtown building. I’m happy with the REP where it is. On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:57 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: I just asked a similar question yesterday. I don’t know if that has been done already, and recently, or not. The assessment, to my understanding, that we are operating under, was conducted by an independent arborist that SLO REP needed to hire to evaluate the health of the tree as part of their permitting process. Our arborist seemed to be in agreement with their assessment, but I don’t know for sure what due diligence has been done recently. I can say, that we were all very sorry to hear that the tree would likely not survive the construction. It was everyone’s assumption all along that it would. We are all learning, staff too, about how to do this process better in the future. On the flip side, this week we are looking at a construction project that is being modified to preserve several heritage trees on the other side of town. So, we are doing our best. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:51:37 PM 157 To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project Thanks Michelle, I will definitely watch the video. Is there a reason the city Arborist isn’t doing an assessment as well? On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:38 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Bruce, Thanks for writing in. We are all very sad and conflicted about the tree. It is actually a more complicated situation than just what you were told. I would invite you to go to YouTube and watch the full deliberations from our meeting two weeks ago when this was discussed, to understand all the intricacies. I am still holding out hope for the tree, but I am not sure what SLO REP’s continued assessment and determination of the tree will be. Thanks again for writing in and for caring about our urban forest. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43:20 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. Thank you...Bruce Judson 158 From:Marx, Jan Sent:Monday, February 16, 2026 4:59 PM To:Marx, Jan Subject:FW: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. Thank you...Bruce Judson 159 From:Bruce Judson < Sent:Monday, February 16, 2026 4:26 PM To:Shoresman, Michelle Subject:Re: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project Thank you Michelle, For the record, I’d rather give the tree a chance rather than another downtown building. I’m happy with the REP where it is. On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:57 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: I just asked a similar question yesterday. I don’t know if that has been done already, and recently, or not. The assessment, to my understanding, that we are operating under, was conducted by an independent arborist that SLO REP needed to hire to evaluate the health of the tree as part of their permitting process. Our arborist seemed to be in agreement with their assessment, but I don’t know for sure what due diligence has been done recently. I can say, that we were all very sorry to hear that the tree would likely not survive the construction. It was everyone’s assumption all along that it would. We are all learning, staff too, about how to do this process better in the future. On the flip side, this week we are looking at a construction project that is being modified to preserve several heritage trees on the other side of town. So, we are doing our best. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:51:37 PM To: Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> Subject: Re: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project Thanks Michelle, I will definitely watch the video. Is there a reason the city Arborist isn’t doing an assessment as well? On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 3:38 PM Shoresman, Michelle <mshoresm@slocity.org> wrote: Hi Bruce, Thanks for writing in. We are all very sad and conflicted about the tree. It is actually a more complicated situation than just what you were told. I would invite you to go to YouTube and watch the full deliberations from our meeting two weeks ago when this was discussed, to understand all the intricacies. 160 I am still holding out hope for the tree, but I am not sure what SLO REP’s continued assessment and determination of the tree will be. Thanks again for writing in and for caring about our urban forest. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Bruce Judson < Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43:20 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. Thank you...Bruce Judson 161 From:Bruce Judson < Sent:Monday, February 16, 2026 2:43 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Beautiful Oak Tree and the SLO Rep project I was very disappointed to hear the counsel approving the remove of the magnificent oak tree for the SLO REP project. I contacted the REP and was told by Pam Nichter that the tree was damaged by the SLO Garage expansion, and they have no choice. Is this true, if so, why didn't the city Arborist catch this. I recommend holding off on the expansion project to see if the tree can recover and, in the meantime, look for other options. With all the vacancy in downtown SLO seems like an option may be out there. Personally, I am happy with where the REP is now and think it wise to wait and see if our beautiful Oak can recover with some TLC. I strongly oppose removing the Oak. If given the choice, I would be happy attending REP performances using their existing venues and also sit in the shade of this beautiful tree. To me, this tree represents the core values of SLO, another new building does not. Thank you...Bruce Judson 170 From:Chip Visci < Sent:Saturday, February 14, 2026 1:46 PM To:Boswell, Mike Subject:Fwd: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Begin forwarded message: From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Date: February 14, 2026 at 12:59:45 PM PST To: Nicholas DePaoli < Dear Mr. DePaoli, Thank you for your thoughtful letter of February 11. I appreciate your cooperative and empathetic tone. I want to assure you that the decision to remove the tree was not based on "late-stage inconvenience." Preserving this oak tree has been a central focus of our design since 2012. Last July, as garage construction neared completion, our arborist visited the site to finalize our official tree-protection plan. We were devastated by his findings: the critical root system had sustained substantial damage during frontage improvements associated with the garage construction. City staff and the City arborist subsequently confirmed this assessment. In the hopes that we could avoid further damage during construction, SLO REP then spent six weeks with architects, engineers and consultants exploring redesign options. I’m sorry to report that we found no viable alternatives. These are the insurmountable facts:  The arborists say the tree’s root structure is so compromised that the tree is unlikely to survive any significant construction.  Most concerning of all is that the root structure extends from the tree almost to the garage’s foundation, meaning it extends nearly under our entire footprint. There is no way to avoid further damage to the tree by changing our footprint.  In discussions with the arborists, we learned there is a likelihood the tree will not survive much longer, regardless of whether we build. The inescapable reality is that altering the theatre’s footprint would be a futile exercise. It would not improve the tree’s odds, but it would seriously compromise our ability to operate viably. Delaying our project would risk San Luis Obispo having neither the tree nor the theatre. 171 Our focus has now shifted to creating a responsible succession plan. Our Board is committed to paying for a landscaping plan more robust than City requirements; it introduces high-value, climate-forward species of trees that will thrive alongside our theatre for the next century. I promise you we have left no stone unturned in addressing this issue. I’m sorry the tree cannot be preserved, but I believe we have reached the most reasonable compromise. Sincerely, Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 11:36 AM To: Kevinharris@slorep.org Subject: Re: Constructive Proposal Regarding Oak Preservation Hi again Mr Harris, I wanted to follow up on the open letter I shared yesterday requesting a short 30-day pause before removal of the downtown oak. Since sending the letter and opening the discussion on social media, technical input from local professionals has begun to surface — including questions around root extent assumptions given site history and architectural feasibility alternatives. We are also exploring community or donor support that could contribute to independent technical evaluation or funding design alternatives in order to offset feasibility calculations. Given this emerging discussion, I’m wondering whether SLO REP would consider voluntarily pausing tree removal for 30 days to allow independent review and transparent evaluation of both technical and support/funding pathways. 172 This request is not intended to contest the value of the theater but to ensure that all reasonably available options are responsibly and more publicly tested prior to an irreversible step. I appreciate your consideration and remain open to constructive dialogue. Respectfully, Nicholas On Feb 11, 2026, at 12:21 PM, Nicholas DePaoli < wrote: Dear Mr. Harris, I am writing as a downtown resident and land planning professional regarding the recently approved oak removal. Attached is an open letter being circulated requesting a short feasibility window to explore preservation alternatives that could maintain both the theater’s viability and the oak. If redesign cost exposure is the primary concern, I believe there may be community and professional resources willing to explore solutions collaboratively. My hope is that this moment could become one of creative problem-solving rather than loss. <Open_Letter_Downtown_Oak_Nicholas_DePaoli.pdf> Thank you for your time, Nicholas DePaoli 173 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Friday, February 13, 2026 7:08 PM To:Hermann, Greg Cc:McDonald, Whitney Subject:RE: End of Week Update Can I have a few minutes of your time (whichever of you think is best given Whitney’s absence this week) to talk about SLO REP and the mediation center request? Tomorrow or Sunday or Monday evening, if possible? Thanks and sorry. I just have no time on Tuesday and I know that will be busy for you too. Michelle From: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 6:38 PM To: McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Collins, Scott <SCollins@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Subject: End of Week Update BCC: City Council Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I wanted to add a few items to Whitney’s mid-week update to cover the last few days of the week.  Upcoming Storm o We are continuing to monitor the storm expected to arrive on Sunday. While we expect relatively consistent rain for several days, the total amount and rate of rainfall are not concerning at this time. Any storm-related issues will be addressed by maintenance staff during business hours and by standby staff after hours. o The current forecast shows rain ending Thursday morning, and the Lunar New Year event is expected to move forward as planned.  Cal Poly Civic Engagement Day o I was happy to attend Cal Poly’s Civic Engagement Day yesterday with Mayor Stewart and Chief Scott. We were able to speak with quite a few students, who generally expressed how happy they were with their San Luis Obispo experience and their appreciation for the services provided by the City. They did, however, need to speak with us if they wanted a free donut. :)  Citywide Single Vote o We published an updated landing page for Citywide Single Vote this week. The page reinforces the key messages we will be using throughout our community engagement efforts, contains helpful FAQs, and will include upcoming events for the community to learn more and ask questions. The hope is that this page will be a helpful reference point for everyone in the community to access information and resources as we move toward the election.  Community Mediation Services o As you’re aware, the City received a grant request today from the newly formed Center for Dispute Resolution (CDRSLO) at the San Luis Obispo College of Law for one-time start-up funding. I also wanted to provide context on related work happening in parallel regarding ongoing mediation services. o First, the Police Department is working to secure interim services from local mediators for referrals as needed. CDRSLO has indicated it is not interested in providing interim services at this time and is instead focused on launching the center and preparing to respond to future RFPs for ongoing services. o Second, in coordination with Cal Poly and Cuesta, the City is working to finalize a new scope of services for ongoing community mediation support to be included in a subsequent joint RFP. This 174 process is still underway, with a check-in meeting scheduled for the end of the month, and we’ll provide additional updates to Council as that scope comes together.  SLO Rep Theatre Tree Removal o We provided additional information today to several community members inquiring about the timeline for removing the tree at the property and specifically about efforts to explore alternatives. To ensure that information is also broadly available, we’ll be updating the Council Meeting Recap news item from the February 3 meeting, when this item was discussed, and also asking SLO REP to make that information available on its website. Hope everyone has a great weekend, and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg Greg Hermann pronouns he/him/his Deputy City Manager City Administration 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E ghermann@slocity.org T 805.781.7194 C 805.440.1330 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 180 From:Nicholas DePaoli < Sent:Friday, February 13, 2026 12:58 PM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Cc:Hermann, Greg; E-mail Council Website; Stewart, Erica A 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. 181 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 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 182 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. 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 183 From:Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent:Friday, February 13, 2026 10:51 AM To:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak - Request for 30-Day Delay Attachments:Response to Nicholas DePaoli Tree Letter Feb 2026.docx Thank you, Bob! I’m attaching a DRAFT of the response that SLO REP is working on for Nicholas. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing Artistic Director www.slorep.org To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 10:41 AM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Kevin, I wanted you to be aware of this email and response. Thank you, Bob From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 10:37 AM To: 184 Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay 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 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org 185 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 Response to DePaoli Letter Feb. 12, 2026 Dear Mr. DePaoli, Thank you for your thoughtful letter of February 11. I personally appreciate the cooperative and empathetic tone of your outreach. Please know that our decision to remove the tree was not based on "late-stage inconvenience." On the contrary, preserving this oak has been a central focus of our design plans since this project’s inception 14 years ago. Everyone at SLO REP—and our partners at City Hall—sincerely wish this outcome could have been avoided. We have explored every alternative, but we are faced with two insurmountable facts: 1. Irreversible Damage: The oak’s root structure is already severely compromised and unlikely to survive any significant construction project. 2. Limited Lifespan: Independent arborists conclude the tree is already dying and likely has less than a decade of life remaining, regardless of whether the theatre is built. As noted in the staff report, the tree’s ability to heal is exhausted. Because the tree cannot survive the impact of any significant construction, altering the theatre’s footprint would be a futile exercise. A redesign would not improve the tree’s survivability, but it would incur substantial costs and delays that we simply cannot afford. Our Board is already concerned about "donor fatigue.” Two major contributors have already told me they will rescind their support if the project is stalled. Given the tree’s precarity, a significant delay risks a future where San Luis Obispo has neither the tree nor the theatre. Because this legacy tree is failing due to external factors, our focus has shifted to responsible succession. Our Board is committed to funding a landscaping plan more robust than the City requires – one that introduces high-value native species in a location where they can thrive for the next century. I realize this response may be unsatisfying, but it would be disingenuous to suggest a viable path forward for preservation. We appreciate your concern and your passion for our local environment. Sincerely, Kevin Harris 189 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Friday, February 13, 2026 10:41 AM To:Kevin Harris Subject:FW: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Hi Kevin, I wanted you to be aware of this email and response. Thank you, Bob From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 10:37 AM To: Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay 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. 190 While the City is not in possession of any studies or analysis regarding the cost estimates above, the City Council based their decision on an arborist report prepared by a Certified Arborist, Rodney Thurman, which is attached to the City Council staff report here. Your email and letter have been provided to the City Council and SLO REP for their awareness. I hope this information is helpful, Thank you, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. 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 191 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Friday, February 13, 2026 10:37 AM To: Cc:Hermann, Greg Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay 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 192 Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04:11 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. 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 199 From:Hermann, Greg Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 4:05 PM To:McDonald, Whitney Cc:Collins, Scott; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Hill, Robert Subject:RE: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay BCC: City Council Hello Mayor and Council Members, We are working on responding to the inquiries we’ve received regarding the request for a 30-day delay of the tree removal at the SLO REP Theater site, and I wanted to provide some additional context for awareness. SLO REP will need to take control of the property before they are able to move forward with the tree removal. We don’t anticipate turning the property over to them until we have fully closed out the parking garage project. That is currently expected to happen on March 16th, so there would be at least 30 days before SLO REP takes any action on the site. When responding, we will also briefly summarize the due diligence shared by SLO REP during public comment on this item, including the assessment of the tree by an independent, certified arborist, as well as their efforts to explore feasible design alternatives, as that is the focus of their interest. Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. Greg From: Nicholas DePaoli < Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 12:04 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Open Letter Regarding Downtown Oak – Request for 30-Day Delay Mayor and Council Members, Following the February 3rd vote, I have written the attached open letter requesting a brief 30-day delay to explore preservation alternatives for the downtown oak at the performance art theater site. My intention is not to re-litigate the deliberation, but to propose a constructive, technically grounded feasibility review before irreversible removal proceeds. I am circulating this to a small group of architects, arborists, and community stakeholders in hopes of identifying viable pathways. Thank you for taking the time to review. Respectfully, Nicholas DePaoli 204 From:Paonessa, Kelly Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 1:48 PM To:Armas, Sara Subject:RE: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Hey Sara! I’m being told this records request was completed this morning – did you receive a response to this already? Just wanting to make sure we’re not missing anything. 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 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 From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:12 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hello all, Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers 205 Deputy City Clerk I 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 206 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 1:34 PM To:Paonessa, Kelly; Edmunson, Morgan Cc:Kacsinta, Madeline; Weidler, Hayley; Hix, Kathleen Subject:RE: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance:High Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Thank you Morgan and Kelly, The records request was completed this morning. The EIR was determined to be the only relevant document for the request. Thank you, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 1:32 PM To: Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Hix, Kathleen <khix@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Hi all, Just wanting to send out a reminder here – these documents are due by Monday, 2/16 and I will be OOO tomorrow (my flex day) and Monday is an office holiday. Is there anyway to be able to get the necessary info over before the end of today? If not, would someone be able to respond to the Clerk’s Office in my absence tomorrow? Please let me know. Thank you, Kelly Paonessa pronouns She/Her/Hers Administrative Assistant III 207 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 From: Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 5:27 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Hix, Kathleen <khix@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hi Walter, The only CADPS information I can find that may include the tree mentioned in the letter is in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) attached. I wanted to forward this document to you to see if the tree mentioned actually is the tree in the letter. From what I can see in the EIR, preserving a “large oak tree on-site” is mentioned. I also don’t think this is the information the public records request is looking for, but I’m hoping you can help provide some guidance. Thank you, Morgan Edmunson Engineer I Public Works 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E medmunso@slocity.org T 805.783.7745 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 10:51 AM To: Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Hix, Kathleen <khix@slocity.org> Cc: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hi ladies! Would you be able to help me locate the following information regarding the tree removal at the new SLO Rep space? (see below) Let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to reach out to others. I’m not sure who all would/could be involved in getting this information. 208 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 From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:12 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hello all, Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 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 210 From:Stowe, Lala Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 12:29 PM To:Armas, Sara Cc:LaFreniere, Matt; Tway, Timothea (Timmi); CityClerk Subject:Re: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Hi, Per Rachel Cohen: "There are no reports, surveys or arborist assessments that were submitted as part of the project planning entitlement in 2019. All tree information (size, species, retention and removal) was provided on the project plans. I have attached a document that includes all links to the advisory body staff reports that also include the SLO REP project plans as part of the report." The document she references is this: SLO REP Final EIR and Advisory Body Staff reports.docx Thank you, Lala Stowe pronouns she/her/hers Supervising Administrative Assistant Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E lstowe@slocity.org T 805.783.7870 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:11 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Hello all, Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. 211 Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 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 215 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 9:38 AM To:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Cohen, Rachel; Gault, Walter Cc:Hermann, Greg; Kacsinta, Madeline Subject:RE: SLO Rep Tree question Attachments:San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Lease Agreement (Final).pdf Hi Timmi, The lease agreement we have SLO REP states that they can take possession of the site when Swinerton relinquishes the site back to us and closes out the CADPS project. I checked in with Madeline earlier this week (copied) and learned that Swinerton has not yet filed a Notice of Completion and there are still final documents out there that need to be completed / accepted. She indicated to me that March 16th might be a good date to plan for. SLO REP’s lease also states that they have a 60-day period, from the date that they take possession, to inspect the site and let us know if they are unsatisfied with the condition of the site for some reason. In addition, SLO REP also needs to furnish us with evidence of the required insurance outlined in Exhibit B. I’ve attached a copy of the lease here – see paragraphs 2 and 3. So, while the City Council’s Resolution approving removal of the tree is their “permit” (thanks, Walter, for helping me understand that nuance), SLO REP does not yet have possession of the site, and we think that’s at least 30+ days from now. Thanks, Bob From: Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:37 AM To: Cohen, Rachel <rcohen@slocity.org>; Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: Hermann, Greg <GHermann@slocity.org> Subject: SLO Rep Tree question Hi Friends, Does anyone have an idea of when SLO Rep is planning on removing the tree (general timeline?) Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org 216 Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications - 1 - LEASE AGREEMENT City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Lease”) is entered into between the City of San Luis Obispo a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “City” or “Lessor”) and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, Inc., a California non-profit corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee” or “SLO REP”) and will replace and supersede all previous agreements between City and Lessee with respect to the Premises hereinafter described. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City owns certain real property located at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets in the City of San Luis Obispo, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”); and WHEREAS, Lessee is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission is to strengthen theatre’s cultural influence and enrich the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults; and WHEREAS, the location of the Premises is ideal for the development of a new live performance theatre contiguous with the City’s planned Cultural Arts District Parking Structure; and WHEREAS, development of the Premises in accordance with Lessee’s existing conceptual plan into a premiere live performance venue (the “Downtown Theatre”) will require substantial grant and private donor funding; and WHEREAS, a stable Lease with a 99-year term will help to ensure the longevity of the Downtown Theatre and will provide the opportunity for the Downtown Theatre to qualify for a broader array of funding; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the public benefit associated with the development of the Downtown Theatre; and WHEREAS, on the City completed environmental review as lead agency for both its Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and the Downtown Theatre and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report by Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and subsequently approved the architectural designs and related improvements, with conditions, made by Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2019, the City and SLO REP entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) to set the parameters and conditions for SLO REP’s long-term use of a portion of the City property for construction and operation of a new live performance venue where the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure will also be located; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, SLO REP submitted to the City Council a formal Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 2 - “Challenge Grant” request for funding in the amount of $ 3,940,000 towards construction of the Downtown Theatre project. At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 15, 2022, the City Council appropriated the requested funding as part of the FY 2021-2022 Mid-Year Budget Review. On April 21, 2022, the City and SLO REP entered into a Grant Agreement for funding in the aggregate amount of $3,940,000; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the City Council made findings pursuant to the California Surplus Land Act, declaring the subject property surplus exempt under California Government Code sections 54221 and 54234 (Resolution No. 11471 (2024 Series); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the City and SLO REP entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to extend the term for up to a one-year term in total, with additional provisions that require a written document that demonstrates an operating reserve of 20% for the first year of operating the new theatre and a three-year operating plan, including the establishment of a fund for building and facilities maintenance and repair; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2024, the City Council received from SLO REP an update to their Challenge Grant request. In making its request for additional funding, SLO REP’s letter describes the following investment rationale: 1. Direct economic impact of more than $4 million annually once fully operational. 2. Attraction of 50,000 people annually to the downtown area. 3. Consistency with Major City Goals for arts and culture, as well as relevant DEI activities through multi-cultural programming, diverse casting, theatre offerings, and support of other local non-profits / community-based organizations. 4. Activation of “Theatre in the Park” events to reach new audiences at no-cost or low-cost at staged outdoor venues such as Mission Plaza or Mitchell Park. WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11501 (2024 Series) approving the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget, including an additional $2.76 million in grant funding to SLO REP towards the project, and on October 1, 2024, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Grant Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 11471 (2024 Series) declaring pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that certain real property owned by the City, and specifically the Downtown Theatre site, is not necessary for the City’s use and is exempt surplus pursuant to Government Code Section 54234. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals. Each and every recital above is true and correct and hereby incorporated into this Lease. 2. Premises: City hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby hires and takes from City, for the term and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, the Premises which shall be vacant and unimproved as of the commencement of the term. Any objection by Lessee to the Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 3 - condition, improvements, or prior occupancy of the Premises shall be deemed waived if not made within sixty (60) days following the City’s delivery of possession of the Premises to Lessee following completion of the construction of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure (“Completion of the City Project.”) 3. Quiet Possession: City shall place Lessee in quiet possession of the Premises following Completion of the City Project, and subject to Lessee performing and observing all applicable conditions and covenants as contained in this Lease, City shall secure to Lessee the quiet possession of the Premises during the term hereof against all persons claiming the same. 4. Term: The term of this Lease shall be for a period of ninety-nine (99) years, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Lease. The term shall commence upon Completion of the City Project and delivery of the Premises to Lessee following the execution of this Lease by the San Luis Obispo City Manager and shall terminate ninety-nine (99) years thereafter. In accordance with California Government Code Section 37380, as may be amended from time to time, Sections 5 and 15 of this Lease shall be subject to review every twenty (20) years by the City and shall take into consideration the then current market conditions and industry standards. 5. Consideration: As consideration for the use and occupancy of the Premises, Lessee shall establish, construct and hereafter maintain a venue for live performances. In further consideration for the use and occupancy of the Premises as identified in Paragraph 7 herein, the use of said Premises shall be for the benefit of the public and shall serve the cultural, educational, and recreational needs of the City’s residents, their families and out-of- town visitors. Lessee shall pay rent of $1.00/year, which in the event of a material and uncured breach by Lessee, at City’s option, City may increase to an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the improved Premises as determined by averaging a qualified appraiser's appraisal selected by City with such appraisal selected by Lessee, or at the City’s option, the City may pursue termination of the Lease for such material breach pursuant to Section 34. In further consideration of City’s grant funds awarded towards construction of the Downtown Theatre, Lessee has offered to conduct new “Theatre in the Park” events at staged, outdoor venues, the terms and conditions of which shall be documented under separate agreement between Lessee and City. 6. Construction of Theatre: Lessee shall commence construction of the Downtown Theatre no later than one (1) year after delivery of possession of the Premises to Lessee and following the completion of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and Lessee shall complete construction of the Downtown Theatre within the three (3) years thereafter, unless extended by mutual agreement in writing by the parties, notwithstanding any conflicting prior term agreed upon by the parties. Lessee shall not commence construction of the Downtown Theatre unless Lessee demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction prior to commencement of construction, that Lessee has all of the funds necessary to design and construct the Theatre, plus a 15% construction contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”), and Lessee shall also submit to the City Manager (or their delegate) a written document that demonstrates a 20% operating reserve for the first year of operating the Downtown Theatre together with a three year operating plan including the establishment of a building and facilities maintenance and repair reserve fund. Lessee’s failure Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 4 - to comply with this term upon requisite notice and opportunity to cure as stated in Section 34 would be considered a material breach of the Lease. 7. Use of Premises: The Premises shall be used for the primary purpose of establishing, constructing, managing, operating, and maintaining facilities for live performances that will serve the cultural, educational and recreational needs of local residents and out- of-town visitors and guests. Lessee shall also have the right to conduct and/or provide other related activities and events such as festivals, workshops, public speakers, educational outreach programs and special events (e.g., festivals, concerts, weddings, comedy nights, fund raisers, etc.), provided such uses are consistent with applicable City ordinances and regulations and Lessee complies with all applicable City permit requirements and processes, including but not limited to special event and use permitting requirements. Activities beyond those described above are subject to the prior written approval of the City Manager or their designee (hereinafter collectively referred to as “City Manager”). In the event that any activity or special event causes or creates an objective concern for life, health, safety or compatibility with the surrounding City facilities and adjacent private and public properties, City shall have the right to terminate authorization for such activity or event. 8. Admission Fees: Lessee shall have the right to charge admission or other fees for access to, and use of, the Premises as may from time to time be determined by Lessee. All admission, access and use fees charged by Lessee shall be retained by Lessee to offset operating and maintenance costs, or for such other purposes as may from time to time be designated by Lessee in the sole discretion of Lessee. City shall have a right to make use of the Downtown Theatre on two (2) one (1) day occasions per year with advance, reasonable notification and accommodation of SLO REP’s then existing scheduling and calendar of events, at no cost to City. 9. Utilities: City shall not be required to furnish any service to the Premises, including but not limited to heat, water, electrical, natural gas and garbage disposal, and shall not be liable for any failure of water supply or of any service by any utility. Lessee shall be responsible for establishing all required utilities and all costs relative to the installation and use of such utility services. Lessee shall place all utilities in the name of Lessee, and Lessee agrees to promptly pay all charges for all utilities and services used or charges imposed in or about or supplied to the Premises, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any and all liability on such account. 10. Maintenance: Lessee, at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, shall maintain and keep the Premises and every structural portion thereof, including all interior and exterior features, in a good state of repair during the term of this Lease and shall not, at any time, commit or suffer to be committed any waste, nuisance, or unlawful act thereon. City shall have the right to inspect the Premises at any reasonable time to protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals using the Premises. Lessee shall promptly repair or correct any such maintenance or repair problem(s) identified in writing by the City Manager. Should Lessee fail or neglect to make such repairs as necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of individuals using the Premises, the City Manager may, after thirty (30) calendar days written notice to Lessee, make said repairs and charge Lessee for same, except in the event that such repairs cannot reasonably be completed within said thirty days, and Lessee timely commences such repairs and diligently Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 5 - pursues completion of the same thereafter. Following completion of any such repairs by the City, Lessee shall reimburse City for said costs upon demand. City shall not forfeit any right under this Lease if it does not elect to make said repairs. 11. Signs: Lessee, at its sole cost, shall have the right to place, construct and maintain signs on the Premises, advertising the Theatre, as well as events and performances at the Theatre. However, no permanent signage, structures, or improvements shall be so placed without the prior written consent of the City Manager. Notwithstanding consent of the City Manager, any sign that Lessee has the right to place, construct, and maintain shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances, and Lessee shall obtain any approval required by such laws and ordinances prior to such placement or construction. City makes no representation with respect to Lessee’s ability to obtain such approval. Lessee agrees to place signage acknowledging City’s financial contributions to the Downtown Theatre, which may be included with any other acknowledgement of major donors. 12. Construction on Premises: All construction on the premises shall be conducted and carried out in accordance with the certified Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and the Downtown Theatre approved by City Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and the subsequent approval of the architectural designs and related improvements, with conditions, made by Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series), as has been and may be amended or addended from time to time. All structural: (i) construction, (ii) capital improvements, or (iii) alteration made to the Premises, other than those that are incident to the maintenance and care of the Premises, or construction activities related solely to specific uses which do not require a building permit, shall be administered as follows: A. Subject to subsection (C), Lessee shall have the right, at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, to construct structural improvements and/or alterations of the Premises, or any portion thereof, in a manner consistent with the use of the Premises as set forth herein, subject to the prior review and written approval of the City Community Development Department. B. Prior to such structural construction, improvements, and/or alterations, Lessee shall acquire all necessary building and construction permits including, but not limited to, required permits from the City Community Development Department and other applicable licenses through normal governmental procedures. C. No such structural construction, improvements or alterations shall be made to the Premises or any portion thereof without the submission to, and prior written approval of, the plans by the City Manager. Lessee shall also submit such other documents, including, but not limited to, specifications, working drawings, and other information required by the City Manager covering the project to be constructed by Lessee. Lessee shall submit the plans to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the application for permits for any such projects. If the City Manager objects to all or any portion of such plans, the City Manager shall state the objections specifically and in writing, and the Lessee shall make the changes specified and resubmit the plans as revised for the City Manager’s approval as herein provided. The approval of any Plans by the City Manager shall constitute an action of the City in its proprietary capacity Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 6 - only and shall in no way be construed as an approval of the development or building permit application as required by the Community Development Department or excuse Lessee from complying with any laws, rules, regulations and ordinances regarding the development and use of the Premises. D. Nothing herein shall be construed to be a waiver of formal City building and land use review procedures and Lessee shall comply fully with same at Lessee’s sole cost and expense. E. The plans shall comply with industry standards for such construction, alterations, and/or improvements, and shall conform to such rules and regulations necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. F. Any contractor or subcontractor responsible to Lessee shall at all times be in compliance with the insurance requirements specified in Section 15. 13. Ownership of Improvements: The ownership of all approved improvements constructed by the Lessee shall remain vested in Lessee until expiration or sooner termination of the term of this Lease. At the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, all alterations, modifications, or improvements upon the Premises (except those “tenant improvements” referenced below), whether made by City or Lessee shall, absent any agreement between the City and Lessee to the contrary, or unless City otherwise elects, which election shall be made by giving a notice in writing not less than fifteen (15) working days prior to the expiration or other termination of this Lease, become the property of City and shall, without compensation to Lessee, become City property free and clear of all claims to or against the improvements by Lessee or any third person. Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against all liability and loss arising from such claims or from the City’s exercise of the rights conferred by this paragraph; in the event the City so elects, City shall be responsible for the removal of said improvements after the termination of the expiration of the tenancy. With respect to Lessee owned tenant improvements (such as signage) or fixtures, at the termination of this Lease, City may notify Lessee to remove any or all of the alterations, additions, fixtures, or tenant improvements made by Lessee. Lessee shall do so, at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, and shall promptly repair any damage caused by such removal in a first-class manner. Removal is to be completed no later than sixty (60) days from the date of said notice or at such further time as City may agree to in writing. In the event Lessee fails to remove any or all of the alterations, additions, fixtures, or tenant improvements required by City, City may remove same and charge Lessee for the cost of such removals and Lessee hereby agrees to pay any and all such costs upon demand. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City and SLO REP acknowledge that, once the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and the Downtown Theatre construction is complete, that two (2) subterranean stormwater facilities will be in place below the Premises. One of the stormwater facilities is in service to the Cultural Arts District Parking structure and all maintenance and ownership responsibilities thereof shall be borne by City. The City shall have the right, upon Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 7 - reasonable notice to the Lessee, or immediately in emergent situations, to enter the Premises as necessary to access such stormwater facility for annual inspection and maintenance or other legitimate purposes. The other stormwater facility is in service to the Downtown Theatre and all maintenance and ownership responsibilities thereof shall be borne by SLO REP. 14. Protection on Premises: Lessee agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the Premises from damage, theft, vandalism and other such hazards. Reasonable precautions include but are not limited to Lessee consulting with the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department regarding increasing safety through environmental design. 15. Insurance: Lessee shall obtain and maintain for the entire term of this Lease insurance complying with the provisions of this paragraph. Lessee shall furnish to City a certificate from the insurance carrier showing insurance covering this Lease to be in full force and effect as a condition precedent to this Lease becoming effective. Said policies shall be issued by companies authorized to do business in the State of California, and Lessee shall provide annual updates of its current Certificate of Insurance. Lessee shall provide the following coverage with the following features in accordance with Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. If Lessee fails or refuses to procure or maintain the insurance required by this Lease or fails or refuses to furnish City with the certifications required herein, City shall have the right, at its option, to terminate this Lease in accordance with Section 34. 16. Subordination: The City will not subordinate its interest in the Premises to any Lessee mortgages, deeds of trusts, or other financing that may be recorded against the Premises. Lessee shall not enter into any instrument or agreement purporting to subordinate the City’s interest in the Premises. 17. Mechanic’s Liens: Lessee shall keep the Premises free of mechanics and materialmens’ liens and other liens of like nature other than liens created or claimed by reason of any work done by or at the insistence of the City, pursuant to the City’s ability to do so under Section 10. 18. Indemnification: Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, and employees from any and all claims and demands, costs, expenses, judgments, attorney fees or liabilities that may be asserted by any person or entity that arise out of or in connection with the acts or omissions relating to the performance of any obligation or duty provided for or relating (directly or indirectly) to this Lease, the tenancy created under this Lease, or the Premises hereunder. However, this indemnity will not extend to any claims or losses arising out of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers and employees. Furthermore, any deficiency for which the City is threatened or assessed with respect to the construction of the Downtown Theatre by Lessee, pursuant to Section 1720 of the California Labor Code (or its successor) shall be indemnified, defended, held harmless by Lessee. The preceding paragraph applies to any theory of recovery relating to said act or omission by the Lessee, or its agents, employees or other independent contractors directly responsible to Lessee, including, but not limited to, the following: Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 8 - A. Violation of statute, ordinance, or regulation. B. Professional malpractice. C. Willful, intentional or other wrongful acts, or failures to act. D. Negligence or recklessness. E. Furnishing of defective or dangerous products. F. Premises liability. G. Strict liability. H. Violation of civil rights. I. Violation of any federal or state statute, regulation, or ruling resulting in a determination by the Internal Revenue Service, California Franchise Tax Board or any other California public entity responsible for collecting payroll taxes, when the Lessee is not an independent contractor. It is the intent of the parties to provide the City the fullest indemnification, defense, and hold harmless rights allowed under the law. If any word(s) contained herein are deemed by a court to be in contravention of applicable law, said word(s) shall be severed from this Lease and the remaining language shall be given full force and effect. 19. Taxes: During the term of this Lease, Lessee hereby agrees to pay, prior to delinquency, all taxes and assessments, including both general and special, properly levied or assessed against the Premises and in connection with the Premises and Lessee’s operation thereof, including without limitation, taxes on Lessee’s possessory interest hereunder or in the Premises, and taxes or assessments on all structures, improvements, and fixtures now or hereinafter existing on the Premises, and on any personal property situated in, on, or about the Premises, or in, on or about any structures or improvements thereon. Lessee is hereby informed that a possessory interest subject to property taxation may be created by this Lease and that the party to whom the possessory interest is vested may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. Lessee hereby agrees to pay such taxes prior to delinquency. 20. Assignment/Subletting/Short-Term Rental: Except as otherwise herein specifically provided, Lessee shall neither transfer nor execute an assignment of this Lease for the Premises, nor grant any interest or privilege whatsoever in connection with this Lease without the prior written consent of the City Council. An “assignment” or “transfer” is defined herein to mean the complete transfer of the leasehold interest and rental rights from Lessee to a third-party renter. Lessee shall have the right at all times to sublet the Premises to other entities with the consent of the City Manager, for a term not to exceed one (1) year, provided that the subletting entity’s proposed uses comply with the Lessee’s uses as provided herein and that the sublease contains insurance, defense and indemnification in substantial conformance with the terms of this Leases and the City is made an express beneficiary of such provisions. “Sublet” is defined herein to mean the partial transfer of rental rights under this Lease from Lessee to a third-party renter, for a temporary period of more than 30 days and for only a portion of the Premises. Lessee shall have the right, at all times, and in its sole discretion, to rent the Premises to other entities, on a short-term basis not to exceed 30 days, provided Lessee maintains all responsibilities and obligations of this Lease during such short-term rental. 21. Environmental Matters/Covenants Regarding Hazardous Materials: Lessee and Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 9 - City shall at all times and in all respects comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations (“Hazardous Materials Laws”) relating to industrial hygiene, environmental protection or the use, analysis, generation, manufacture, storage, disposal or transportation of any oil, flammable explosives, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, radioactive materials or waste, or other hazardous, toxic, contaminated or polluting materials, substances or wastes, including without limitation, any “hazardous substances,” “hazardous wastes,” “hazardous materials,” or “toxic substances” under such laws, ordinances or regulations (collectively, “Hazardous Materials”). Lessee shall, except in the event of City’s negligence or intentional wrongdoing, indemnify, defend, protect, and hold City and each of City’s officers, City Manager, employees, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns, free and harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses or expenses or death of or injury to any person or damage to any property whatsoever, arising from or caused in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by: A. The discharge in or from the Premises of any Hazardous Materials or Lessee’s use, analysis, storage, transportation, disposal, release, threatened release, discharge or generation of Hazardous Materials to, in, on, under, about or from the Premises, or B. Lessee’s failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law. Lessee’s obligations hereunder shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary repair, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Premises, and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans in connection therewith associated with conditions caused by Lessee shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of the term of this Lease. For purposes of the release and indemnity provisions hereof, any acts or omissions of Lessee, or by employees, agents, assignees, contractors or subcontractors of Lessee or others acting for or on behalf of Lessee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Lessee. 22. Condemnation: If the whole of the Premises shall be taken or condemned by any competent authority under power of eminent domain for a public or a quasi-public use or purpose, then the leasehold estate hereby created shall cease and terminate as of the date actual physical possession of the Premises is taken by the condemnor. All compensation and damages awarded for such total taking shall belong to and be the sole property of City, provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive a sum attributable to the taking of: (i) the remaining value of the Premises’ improvements constructed by Lessee, adjusted for depreciation and less total grants provided by the City to Lessee towards construction of the same; and (ii) the damage to Lessee’s equipment, fixtures, or any improvements to the Premises which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove on expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. Upon termination of the Lease by a total taking all rental and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of City under the provisions of this Lease shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession of the leased Premises shall be taken by the condemnor, and the parties hereto shall thereafter be released from all further liability in relation thereto. In the event that there shall be partial taking of the leased Premises during the lease term under the power of eminent domain, this Lease shall terminate as to the portion of the released premises so taken on the date when actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 10 - condemnor. At Lessee’s option, this Lease shall continue in force and effect as to the remainder of the leased Premises. In the event of such partial taking, all compensation and damages for such partial taking shall belong to and be the sole property of City, provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive any award made for (i) the remaining value of the portion of the Premises’ improvements constructed by Lessee, adjusted for depreciation and less total grants provided by the City to Lessee towards construction of the same; and (ii) the taking of, or damage to, Lessee’s equipment, fixtures, and any improvements made by Lessee to the leased Premises which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove on expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. In the event that this Lease is retained as to the portion of the leased Premises not condemned, any award made for alteration, modifications or repairs which may be reasonably required in order to place the remaining portion of the leased Premises not taken in a suitable condition for the continuance of Lessee’s tenancy shall belong to and be the sole property of City, but shall be utilized by the City to perform such necessary alterations, modifications and repairs. 23. Destruction of Premises: Should any matter or condition beyond the control of the parties hereto, such as war, public emergency, or calamity, data breach or similar event, fire, earthquake, flood, act of God, strike, pandemic, or any other labor disturbance, prevent performance of this Lease in accordance with the rights and privileges granted herein, this Lease shall, at Lessee’s option, be immediately be terminated and neither party shall be under any further legal obligation to the other by reason of said matter or condition. Should any aforementioned matter or condition create eligibility for Federal, State, or any other governmental jurisdictional relief assistance and/or aid, both parties agree to take all reasonable steps necessary to procure such assistance and/or aid, in their respective capacities at the time of such application. 24. Law: This Lease has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, enforceability and interpretation of any of the clauses of this Lease shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. 25. Lessee’s Responsibility for Compliance: Lessee shall at all times observe and comply with, and shall cause all their agents, employees and sub-contractors to observe and comply with all present and future laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, resolutions, or other binding enactments of any governmental authority, now or at any time during this Lease and any extensions thereof. If any future laws, rules, regulations or ordinances are passed by the City and said legislative enactment has any impact fiscal or otherwise on Lessee, and if Lessee does not make a timely objection to City during the course of legislative process, Lessee will be deemed to have waived any right to object at a later time and waives all damages flowing therefrom. 26. Venue: The duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in San Luis Obispo County, and such County shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of or in connection with or by reason of this Lease. 27. Surrender: Lessee hereby acknowledges that upon expiration of the term of this Lease, neither Lessee or the City shall not be under any obligation to operate the Theatre or Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 11 - provide any of the services mentioned in this Lease. 28. Employment Status: Neither Lessee nor any of Lessee’s agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be employees or agents of City in connection with the performance of Lessee’s rights and obligations under this Lease. 29. Non-Discrimination: Lessee and City shall not discriminate against any person or class of persons in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended or any other applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in the use of the Premises. 30. Drug Free Workplace: Lessee and Lessee’s employees shall comply with City’s policy of a drug free workplace. Neither Lessee nor Lessee’s employees shall unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, or use controlled substances, including but not limited to marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or amphetamines at any of Lessee’s facilities or City facilities or work sites. If any employee of Lessee is found to be under the influence of or in possession of any illegal substance at or on City’s premises, that employee may not return to any of City’s premises. If Lessee becomes aware that any of Lessee’s employees, during the course of their employ with Lessee, are convicted or plead nolo contendere to a criminal substance-abuse statute, Lessee shall be responsible for notifying the City Manager within seventy-two (72) hours of becoming aware of said conviction or plea. Violation of this notification provision shall constitute grounds for termination of this Lease. 31. Americans with Disabilities Act: The Lessee acknowledges the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sect. 12101 et seq., (“ADA”). Lessee, as required bylaw, hereby agrees and is required to install any and all equipment, perform any and all alterations, improvements or modifications to the Premises such that the Premises are in strict compliance with ADA requirements. 32. Holding Over: In the event that Lessee shall hold over after expiration of the term of this Lease or any extension or renewal thereof, with the consent, express or implied, of City, such holding over shall be deemed merely a tenancy from month-to-month on the terms, covenants, and conditions, so far as applicable, and subject to the same exceptions and reservations, as herein contained, until such tenancy is terminated in a manner prescribed by law. 33. Notices: All notices to Lessee shall be given in writing personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to Lessee at: San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre 3533 Empleo Street San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 Attention: Managing Artistic Director All notices to City shall be given in writing personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to: Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 12 - City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 Attention: City Manager Either party can change address by notifying the other party in writing. 34. Breach: Notwithstanding any other provisions contained herein, City may cancel and terminate this Lease or, at the City’s option, raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses if Lessee shall fail, neglect, or refuse to perform and obey any material term or condition set forth in this Lease, including but not limited to, failure to construct and thereafter operate the Premises as a live performance venue for the benefit of the public as herein provided, failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax- exempt status under applicable state and federal law, and failure to commence and complete construction of the Theatre as specified herein, or failure to comply with paragraph 15, provided the City Manager has given to Lessee written notice of thirty (30) days to do so, unless such failure, neglect, or refusal by nature cannot be remedied within thirty (30) days following said notice and Lessee has within thirty (30) days following the notice commenced and does thereafter continue diligent efforts to remedy such failure, neglect, or refusal. Minor administrative errors, oversights, or omissions related to the performance of this Lease shall not constitute a material breach but shall be subject to a thirty (30) day notice to correct. Any waiver by City of any failure by Lessee to comply with the terms and conditions of this Lease shall not be construed to be a waiver by City of any similar or other failure by Lessee to comply with any other term or condition hereof. 35. Waiver of Claim: Lessee hereby waives any claim against the City, its officers, agents or employees for damage or loss caused by any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Lease, or any part thereof or by any judgment or award in any suit or proceeding declaring this Lease null, void or voidable, or delaying the same or any part thereof from being carried out. 36. Provisions Deemed Covenants and Conditions: The parties hereto agree that all the provisions hereof are to be construed as covenants and conditions as though the words importing such covenants and conditions are used in each instance, and that all of the provisions hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representative, successors and assigns. 37. Severability: The invalidity of any provision of this Lease shall not affect the validity, enforceability of any other provision of this Lease. 38. Entire Agreement and Modifications: This Lease embodies the whole Lease between the parties hereto as it pertains to the subject real property and there are no promised terms, conditions, or obligations referring to the subject matter hereof, other than as contained herein. Any alterations, changes or modifications to this Lease must be in writing and executed by both Lessee and City. Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 13 - 39. Lessee’s Termination Rights: If, during the term of this Lease, Lessee is no longer financially capable of conducting the agreed uses at the Premises, or the Premises are no longer of a sufficient size for Lessee’s projected agreed use of the Premises, Lessee shall have the right to surrender the Premises to the City upon one hundred and eighty (180) days written notice to the City, and shall thereafter have no further obligations to the City under the terms of this agreement, provided that the Premises are timely surrendered to the City in accordance with the terms of the notice, in a broom clean condition subject only to reasonable wear and tear. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease this day of 2024. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION By: ___________________________ Whitney McDonald, City Manager SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE, A CALIFORNIA NON- PROFIT CORPORATION By: _______________________ Kevin Harris, Managing Artistic Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ___________________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney 10th December Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 Exhibit A Lease Area Certain real property located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, a portion of 972 Nipomo Street, and a portion of City Parking Lot No. 14 identified as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 002-412-011, 002- 412-012, 002-412-002 (portion) and 002-412-004 (portion), as depicted below. San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre – Lease Area Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 1 EXHIBIT B Lease Agreement City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Without limiting San Luis Repertory Theatre’s (“SLO REP”) indemnification of the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), and prior to commencement of the term of the Lease, SLO REP shall obtain, provide, and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Lease Agreement (“Agreement”), policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below in a form satisfactory to City. General liability insurance. SLO REP shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted. Workers’ compensation insurance. SLO REP shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000). SLO REP shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. Property insurance. Upon commencement of construction of SLO REP’s improvements and betterments, or installation of equipment, with approval of City, SLO REP shall obtain and maintain insurance on SLO REP’s improvements and betterments. Policy shall be provided for replacement value on an “all risk” basis. There shall be no coinsurance penalty provision in any such policy. Commercial property insurance covering the leased premises, fixtures, equipment, building, all property situated in, on, or constituting a part of the premises and any improvements. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Offices broad causes of loss form CP 10 20 and approved of in writing by City. Coverage shall be sufficient to insure 100% of the replacement value and there shall be no coinsurance provisions. The policy shall include an inflation guard endorsement, 100% rents coverage, contents coverage, coverage for personal property of others, ordinance or law and increased cost of construction coverage. City shall be included as an insured and as loss payee on any such insurance. City shall not be liable for any business income or other consequential loss sustained by SLO REP. City shall not be liable for any loss of SLO REP’s personal property even if such loss is caused by negligence of City, City’s employees, or agents. Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 2 Proof of insurance. SLO REP shall provide certificates of insurance and required endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of the term of the Lease. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City for the contract period and any additional length of time required thereafter. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Duration of coverage. SLO REP shall procure and maintain for the contract period, and any additional length of time required thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, or financial loss which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the activities allowed by the Lease by SLO REP, their agents, representatives, employees, or subconsultants. Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by SLO REP shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non -contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self- insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by SLO REP. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyhold ers’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager. Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees, and volunteers or shall specifically allow SLO REP or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. SLO REP hereby waives its own right of recovery against City and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). SLO REP acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform SLO REP of non-compliance with any Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 3 requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the SLO REP maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the SLO REP. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. Notice of cancellation. SLO REP agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide the City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. If any of the SLO REP’s insurers are unwilling to provide such notice, then SLO REP shall have the responsibility of notifying the City immediately in the event of SLO REP’s failure to renew any of the required insurance coverages or insurer’s cancellation or non-renewal. Additional insured status. General liability, automobile liability, and umbrella/excess liability insurance policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that SLO REP’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. Pass-through clause. SLO REP agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, assignees, sublessees, permittees, and any other party who is brought onto or involved in the project/service by SLO REP (hereinafter collectively “subcontractor”), provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of SLO REP. SLO REP agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. However, in the event SLO REP’s subcontractor cannot comply with this requirement, which proof must be submitted to the City, SLO REP shall be required to ensure that its subcontractor provide and maintain insurance coverage and endorsements sufficient to the specific risk of exposure involved with subcontractor’s scope of work and services, with limits less than required of the SLO REP, but in all other terms consistent with the SLO REP’s requirements under this agreement. This Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 4 provision does not relieve the SLO REP of its contractual obligations under the agreement and/or limit its liability to the amount of insurance coverage provided by its subcontractors. This provision is intended solely to provide SLO REP with the ability to utilize a subcontractor who may be otherwise qualified to perform the work or services but may not carry the same insurance limits as required of the SLO REP under this agreement given the limited scope of work or services provided by the subcontractor. SLO REP agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors, and others engaged in the project, will be submitted to City for review. City’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving SLO REP ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to the Lease, SLO REP’s insurance obligations as set forth in Section 15 of the Lease and as more fully discussed herein will be subject to review every twenty (20) years by the City taking into account market conditions and industry standards. Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention through confirmation from the underwriter. Timely notice of claims. SLO REP shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from SLO REP’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. Additional insurance. SLO REP shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection. SLO REP’s personal property, fixtures, equipment, inventory, and vehicles are not insured by City against loss or damage due to fire, theft, vandalism, rain, water, criminal or negligent acts of others, or any other cause. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage, as well as endorsements effecting general liability coverage. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 217 From:Tway, Timothea (Timmi) Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:37 AM To:Cohen, Rachel; Hill, Robert; Gault, Walter Cc:Hermann, Greg Subject:SLO Rep Tree question Hi Friends, Does anyone have an idea of when SLO Rep is planning on removing the tree (general timeline?) Thanks, Timothea (Timmi) Tway Director of Community Development Community Development 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E TTway@slocity.org T 805.781.7187 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications 218 From:Edmunson, Morgan Sent:Wednesday, February 11, 2026 5:27 PM To:Gault, Walter Cc:Kacsinta, Madeline; Weidler, Hayley; Hix, Kathleen; Paonessa, Kelly Subject:RE: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Attachments:R-10923 Final EIR for proposed Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project.pdf Hi Walter, The only CADPS information I can find that may include the tree mentioned in the letter is in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) attached. I wanted to forward this document to you to see if the tree mentioned actually is the tree in the letter. From what I can see in the EIR, preserving a “large oak tree on-site” is mentioned. I also don’t think this is the information the public records request is looking for, but I’m hoping you can help provide some guidance. Thank you, Morgan Edmunson Engineer I Public Works 919 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E medmunso@slocity.org T 805.783.7745 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 10:51 AM To: Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Hix, Kathleen <khix@slocity.org> Cc: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hi ladies! Would you be able to help me locate the following information regarding the tree removal at the new SLO Rep space? (see below) Let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to reach out to others. I’m not sure who all would/could be involved in getting this information. Thank you, Kelly Paonessa pronouns She/Her/Hers Administrative Assistant III 219 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 From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:12 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hello all, Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 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 RESOLUTION NO. 10923 (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL EIR FOR THE PROPOSED PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES FIVE LEVELS OF PARKING FOR UP TO 445 PARKING SPACES, 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, A NON-PROFIT THEATRE WITH APPROXIMATELY 24,000 SQUARE FEET AND UP TO 290 THEATRE SEATS, A ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE CURRENT OFFICE (0) ZONE AND MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONE TO PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) ZONE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 609, 610, 614, 630, 633 PALM STREET AND 970,972 NIPOMO STREET (EID-0349-2017) WHEREAS, the City owns certain real property located at 609, 610, 614, 630 and 633 Palm Street and 970 and 972 Nipomo Street (the Property); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of constructing a 445 -space parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space and 24,000 square feet of theatre space on the Property (the Project"); and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 22, 2018 to provide feedback and comments regarding the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2018 to provide an opportunity for public input and provide feedback and comment regarding the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: Final EIR, CEQA Findings Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitorin and Reporting_Fro rgram,. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR State Clearinghouse Number 2017051011), adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopts the following CEQA Findings and Mitigation Measures related to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project: 1. The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project FEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) impacts associated with the proposed Project; and Page 2 2. The proposed Project is consistent with the requirements of the FEIR based on the attached Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093 and described more fully in the attached "Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations" document (Exhibit A) which are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIR, and reduced to the extent feasible, provided the following mitigation measures are incorporated into the project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 4. Final EIR Mitigation Measures will be incorporated into design and conditions of final approval 5. The project shall not be approved until such time that a general plan amendment and Zoning designation changes are approved by the City Council. FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics Mitigation AES -3(a). Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields c. Illumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls e. Any signage visible from offsite shall not be internally laminated AES -3(b). Glare Reduction. To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non -reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. Air Quality Mitigation AQ -1. Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PM 10 emissions in accordance with San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) requirements. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water shall be used R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 3 whenever possible All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) on any unpaved surface at the construction site All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition. AQ -2(a). Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed version suitable for sue off-road) Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off- road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off -Road Regulation Use on -road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on -road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On -Road Regulation Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g., captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors Electrify equipment when feasible Substitute gasoline -powered in place of diesel -powered equipment, where feasible Use alternatively fueled construction equipment onsite where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 4 AQ -2(b). Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The following BACT for diesel -fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: Further reduce emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on -road compliant engines where feasible Repower equipment with the cleanest engines available Install California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters (these strategies are listed at: www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm) AQ -2(c). Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. Blolodeal Resources Mitigation BI0-1. Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special -status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre -construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300 -foot buffer (500 -foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground -disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources CR -1. Historical Building Documentation Packages. Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the lead agency. CR -2(a). Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. A qualified principal investigator, defined as an R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 5 archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. CR -2(b). City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations. Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include (1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City's Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; (4) the completion of special studies, such as faunal analysis, if appropriate, and the curation of recovered artifacts; and (5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. CR -2(c). Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project - related ground -disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be onsite on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. CR -2(d). Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of mitigation measures CR -2b or CR -2c, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist's direction and the testing plan outlined under MM CR -2b. Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. CR -3(a). Qualified Project Paleontologist. A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. CR -3(b). Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. CR -3(c). Paleontological Monitoring. Ground -disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 6 paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. CR -3(d). Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils. The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. Geology and Soils Mitigation GEO-1. Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design -level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to onsite soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: Use imported non -expansive materials combined with pre -moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork Provide a layer of non -expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick Use post -tensioned slabs -on -grade Implement shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler -braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls Use over -excavation and recompaction Utilize a deep foundation system, such as caissons or rammed aggregate piers A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design -level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 7 Hazardous Materials Mitigation HAZ-1. Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio -remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. Noise Miti ation N -1(a). Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall utilize roadways which avoid residential neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. N -1(b). Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi -family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi -family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. N -1(c). Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 8 Sound blankets on noise -generating equipment Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25 All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory -recommended mufflers For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools The movement of construction -related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday and no movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day) Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses N -1(d). Neighborhood Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Development Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise -related complaints shall be directed to the City's Community Development Department. N-4. Coordination of Construction Timing. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. Transportation Mitigation T-1. Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles (must be located on the project site). Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 9 the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 10 T-3. Pedestrian Access. Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City's Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan (2017) and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider: High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest corner of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest corner of the parking structure. High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast corner of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street. Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street. Reduce the curb radii on the southwest corner of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast corner of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. Upon motion of Council Member Gomez, seconded by Council Member Rivoire, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Gomez, and Rivoire, Vice Mayor Christianson and Mayor Harmon NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Pease The foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of July 2018. r May r H idi Harmo ATTEST: l Teresa Purrington, City Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dietrick, City Attorney IN(WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, this 2-r` ' day of 2011 f Teresa Purrington, City Clerk R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 11 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT A SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Environmental Impact Report ([EIR] State Clearinghouse Number 201705 1011) for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project in determining if it will carry out the project. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. The City Council has received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information contained in the Final EIR, as well as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony from official participating agencies, the public, and other agencies and organizations. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) require a lead agency to adopt findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR; Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by that agency; or Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The CCR Title 14, § 15091(b) requires that the City's findings be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the lead agency's record consists of the following (on file at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo, California): Documentary and oral evidence, testimony and staff comments and responses received and reviewed by the lead agency during public review and the public hearings on the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project The City of San Luis Obispo Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project Final Environmental Impact Report (July 2018) In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a project without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding considerations that balances the benefits of the project against the unavoidable environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social, economic, or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts (14 CCR 15093, PRC §21081). This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the approval of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project and reflects the City's independent judgment. This document incorporates by reference the Final EIR. The EIR and other portions of the administrative record are available for review at the following location: R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 12 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT A City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Contact: Scott Lee, Parking Manager 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805) 781-7203 Having received, reviewed, and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Public Resources Code §21081. SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Proposed Project The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project consists of a zone change and general plan amendment of five parcels from the Office (O -H) zone and one parcel from the Medium -High Residential (R-3) zone to the Public Facility (PF -H) zone. The project would include the removal of an existing 77 -space surface parking lot and five existing residential structures, and construction of a five -level parking structure, commercial space, and non-profit theater. The parking structure would provide up to 445 parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be from Palm Street, with secondary access from Nipomo Street. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street, but a direct pedestrian connection would be provided from the structure to Monterey Street. The parking structure's maximum height would be 50 feet, excluding elevator towers. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two levels fronting Nipomo Street. The maximum height of the commercial space would be 41 feet above existing grade. In addition, the project would include a new structure for the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (now the San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre or SLO REP) that would front Monterey Street. The theater would be a three-story structure with 290 seats and a gross floor area of roughly 23,841 square feet. Entry to the theater would be provided at the street level through a public plaza along Monterey Street. The street -level plaza would include a public seating area and incorporate public art. The maximum height of the theater would be approximately 43 feet above existing grade. Section 2.5, Project Characteristics, of the Final EIR provides a detailed description of the project. 2.2 Proieet Obiectives The City's objectives for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project include the following: 1. Provide a minimum of 400 parking spaces 2. Accommodate cultural uses on Monterey Street in front of the parking structure 3. Include a pedestrian -level public use plaza area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets 4. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the parking structure to Monterey Street 5. Preserve the large oak tree on-site 6. Consider contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (e.g., Lattimer-Hayes adobe) R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 13 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT A SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3.1 Background The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15121 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR serves as an informational document for the public and City of San Luis Obispo decision makers. The Final EIR contains a project -level environmental review that fulfills the requirement of a project -level EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a project -level EIR: examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation. In accordance with Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 78 -day public review period that began December 14, 2017 and concluded on March 1, 2018; the City accepted comment letters through March 10, 2018. The City held a Cultural Heritage Committee hearing for the project on January 22, 2018 and a public Planning Commission hearing on February 28, 2018 to receive public testimony in the form of verbal comments on the Draft EIR. The response to comments section of the Final EIR (Section 8, Response to Comments on the Draft EIR) includes each written and verbal comment received by the City. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and technical appendices. 3.2 Impact Analysis Three categories of impacts are identified in the Final EIR: Class I Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that "specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR." Class II Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by mitigation measures identified in the EIR. When approving a project with Class II impacts, the decision makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Class III Class III impacts are adverse but not significant. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 14 EXHIBIT A SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION This section identifies impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, as identified in the Final EIR. 4.1 Aesthetics 1. Impact AES -3: Implementation of the project would result in an increase in nighttime lighting and daytime glare. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AES -3(a), Lighting Plan, and AES -3(b), Glare Reduction, that require preparation and approval of a comprehensive lighting plan consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance and use of non -reflective materials, the increase would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 56-57 of the Final EIR). a. Miti atm The following mitigation measures are required to reduce light and glare impacts from the project. Mitigation Measure AES -3(a) Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive lighting plan for Architectural Review Committee review and approval. The lighting plan shall be consistent with the Municipal Code Night Sky Ordinance, and prepared using guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of the lighting, including but not limited to all buildings, infrastructure, driveways, paths, plazas, safety, and signage. The lighting plan must include identification of all types, sizes, and intensities of wall mounted building lights and landscape accent lighting, and a photometric map must be provided. The lighting plan shall include the following: a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from offsite views. b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields. c. Lumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public safety standards. d. Exterior lighting shall be designed to not focus illumination onto exterior walls. e. Any signage visible offsite shall not be internally laminated. AES -3(b) Glare Reduction. To minimize impacts on residential development in proximity to the project site, roof and building materials shall be non - reflective, and shall be muted in hues consistent with standards in the Community Design Guidelines, Section 6.1-C. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 15 EXHIBIT A 2. Cumulative Impact - Light and Glare. Cumulative development would be subject to similar existing City regulations pertaining to light and glare as discussed under Impact AES -3. New sources of light and glare in the boundaries of the city would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. While the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare in the project area, implementation of mitigation measures AES -3(a), Lighting Plan, and AES -3(b), Glare Reduction, would ensure lighting and glare would be compatible with surrounding uses and comply with existing policies. Design review procedures would reduce impacts on a project -by -project basis. Therefore, the project's impacts to light and glare would not be cumulatively considerable (refer to pages 56-57 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AES -3(a) and AES -3(b) are required to reduce light and glare impacts from the project. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.2 Air Ouality 1. Construction Emissions: Construction of the project would generate temporary increases in localized air pollutant emissions (fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions). The estimated construction emissions associated with the project and would be below the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) thresholds and would not introduce new hazardous air pollutants to the area, but in accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are required because sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because the South Coast Air Basin is in non -attainment for PMIo. Implementation of mitigation measures AQ -1, Fugitive Dust Control Measures, AQ -2(a), Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment, AQ -2(b), Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment, and AQ -2(c), Architectural Coating, are required to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions from the project in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. With implementation of mitigation measures AQ -I and AQ -2(a) through AQ -2(c), this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 127-129 of the Final EIR). a. 'Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to address project construction emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the following dust control measures so as to reduce PMIo emissions in accordance with SLOAPCD requirements. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 16 EXHIBIT A watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water shall be used whenever possible All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non- invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114 Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used where feasible All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition Mitigation Measure AQ -2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site: Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non -taxed version suitable for sue off-road) Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off -Road Regulation R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 17 EXHIBIT A Use on -road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB's 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on -road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On -Road Regulation Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors Electrify equipment when feasible Substitute gasoline -powered in place of diesel -powered equipment, where feasible Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel Mitigation Measure AQ -2(b) Best Available Control Technology for Construction Equipment. The following best available technology for diesel - fueled construction equipment shall be implemented during construction activities at the project site, where feasible: Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on -road compliant engines where feasible Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as level 2 diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm Mitigation Measure AQ -2(c) Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOx levels during the architectural coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L or less. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.3 Biolop-icai Resources 1. Wildlife Movement: Construction of the project would involve general construction activity and tree removal that may affect protected nesting birds. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, Nesting Bird Protection, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 129 and 130 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts to protected nesting birds. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 18 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure BIO -1 Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special -status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre -construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300 -foot buffer (500 -foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground -disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Impact CR -2: Construction of the project would include ground disturbance that could result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources. Implementation of mitigation measures CR -2(a), Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator, CR -2(b), City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations, CR -2(c), Archaeological Monitoring, and CR -2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources, would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level (refer to page 75 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources. Mitigation Measure CR -2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. A qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 19 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure CR -2(b) City of San Luis Obispo Consolidated Approach for Archaeological Investigations. Mitigation of archaeological resources within the project area shall follow the Consolidated Approach as outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The Consolidated Approach shall include (1) the preparation of a Research Design and Mitigation Plan prepared by the qualified archaeologist and submitted for written approval to the City's Community Development Director (Director), which shall include but not be limited to the research design, laboratory and field methods, public interpretation, and location of curation; (2) monitoring of demolition and clearing of pavement within the project area; (3) fieldwork after the removal of pavement consisting of a Phase I inventory, Phase 2 Testing and Evaluation, and Phase 3 Data Recovery aimed at locating archaeological remains, evaluating their significance and integrity, and mitigating impacts through data recovery excavation; (4) the completion of special studies, such as faunal analysis, if appropriate, and the curation of recovered artifacts; and (5) the completion of a technical report documenting the results of the consolidated approach prepared in accordance with current professional standards and submitted to the Director. Mitigation Measure CR -2(c) Archaeological Monitoring. An archaeological monitor shall be present for all project -related ground -disturbing construction activities. The monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities within native soils, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. Under consultation between the qualified archaeologist and the City, monitoring may be reduced or eliminated based on observed conditions. Mitigation Measure CR -2(d) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that cultural resources are encountered during the implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -2(b) or CR -2(c), all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the resource. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or mitigated pursuant to the qualified archaeologist's direction and the testing plan outlined under Mitigation Measure CR -2(b). Mitigation may involve preservation in place or documentation and excavation of the resource. A report by the archaeologist evaluating the find and identifying mitigation actions taken shall be submitted to the City. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 2. Impact CR -3: Construction of the project would result in ground disturbance that could indirectly or directly destroy a unique paleontological resource. With implementation of mitigation measures CR -3(a), Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist, CR -3(b), R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 20 EXHIBIT A Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program, and CR -2(d), Fossil Discoveries, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 77 of the Final EIR). a. Mites: The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure CR -3(a) Retain a Qualified Project Paleontologist. A qualified project paleontologist, defined as a paleontologist who meets the standards of the SVP (2010), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure CR -3(b) Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the project paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend. Mitigation Measure CR -3(c) Paleontological Monitoring. Ground -disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) in previously undisturbed sediments that exceed 10 feet in depth shall be monitored on a full-time basis during initial ground disturbance. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the project paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the project paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring is not necessary in artificial fill or for activities that do not reach 10 feet in depth. Mitigation Measure CR -3(d) Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. The project paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the project paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources: 1) Salvage of Fossils. The project paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover significant fossils following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological resources, as described by the SVP (2010). R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 21 EXHIBIT A Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. 2) Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils should be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the project paleontologist. b. Findin : The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 3. Impact CR -5: Ground -disturbing activities associated with construction of the project have the potential to disturb unidentified human remains. Discovery of human remains during project excavation would require compliance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and California PRC §5097.94 and §5097.98. PRC §5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the Native American Heritage Commission to resolve any related disputes. Compliance with Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.94 and §5097.98 would ensure that unanticipated discovery of human remains during project excavation, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be addressed appropriately by the county coroner and the California Native American Heritage Commission (if required). In addition, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Remains Resources, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 79 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Compliance with existing regulations and implementation of Mitigation Measure CR -2(d), Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Remains Resources, would ensure that potential impacts to human remains and burial grounds would be less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4. Cumulative Impact — Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources: Planned buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo under the General Plan would cumulatively increase the potential for adverse effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources in the city. The project would incrementally contribute to this cumulative effect. Generally, impacts to R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 22 EXHIBIT A cultural and tribal cultural resources are site-specific. Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The project, along with other cumulative projects in the city, would be required to comply with existing state and local regulations that address the protection of cultural and tribal cultural resources in the city. With implementation of mitigation measures CR -2(a) through CR -2(d), and CR -3(a) through CR -3(d), the project would reduce potential impacts to archaeological and/or paleontological resources to less than significant levels. In addition, the project would result in a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to the cumulative loss of archaeological, paleontological, or tribal cultural resources in the city. a. Mitigation: Compliance with existing regulations and mitigation measures CR -2(a) through CR -2(d), and CR -3(a) through CR -3(d), would ensure the project's contribution to cumulative potential impacts would be less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.5 Geology and Sails 1. Expansive Soils: Implementation of the project would occur on soils that have moderate to high expansion potential. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 130 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to expansive soils. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the project have been determined, a design -level geotechnical report shall be prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to on-site soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following: Use of imported non -expansive materials combined with pre -moistening of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork A layer of non -expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick Post -tensioned slabs -on -grade Shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled caissons, whaler -braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging walls Overexcavation and recompaction Utilization of a deep foundation system, such as caissons, driven piles, or rammed aggregate piers A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 23 EXHIBIT A testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design -level geotechnical report, and to provide site-specific guidance as subsurface materials are encountered. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Hazardous Materials: Construction of the project would require excavation and removal of existing fill that has the potential to be contaminated. Therefore, construction activities could expose workers to contaminated soil on-site. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 131-132 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with contaminated soils. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City shall review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area does not warrant any additional action. If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction. Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation, disposal, bio- remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations, and permits shall be followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency. The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation, including all waste disposal or treatment manifests. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 24 EXHIBIT A b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.7 Noise 1. Cumulative Impact — Construction Noise. Construction of the proposed project could overlap with the construction of other projects in the vicinity (Monterey Place and the Vesper Hotel at the Creamery) and result in cumulative construction noise. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-4, Coordination of Construction Timing, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 99-100 of the FEIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce impacts related to cumulative construction noise. Mitigation Measure N-4 Coordination of Construction Timing. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall review and coordinate the construction schedules of any other projects within 300 feet of the project to ensure that construction schedules do not overlap. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 4.8 Transportation 1. Traffic Hazards: Construction of the project would result in short-term construction traffic, construction parking, and modifications to existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation during the construction period. The preparation of a construction management plan, as described in Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level (refer to pages 132-133 of the Final EIR). a. Mitig tion: The following mitigation measure is required to reduce construction traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure T-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan should include at least the following items and requirements: A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 25 EXHIBIT A detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur. Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles must be located on the project site). Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant. Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which would address other issues such as hours of construction on-site, limitations on noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 2. Impact T-3: Implementation of the project would result in pedestrian access impacts due to the difficulty of crossing Nipomo Street at an uncontrolled location. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to page 120 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure is required to serve the added pedestrian demand associated with the project along Nipomo Street. Mitigation Measure T-3 Pedestrian Access. Subject to approval of the Public Works Director, the City shall incorporate improvements to the intersections of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and Monterey Street/Nipomo Street to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. The improvements shall be consistent with the City's Circulation Element and Downtown Physical Concept Plan and shall balance the needs of each mode of use. At a minimum the project should consider: High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Nipomo Street from the northwest corner of Dana Street/Nipomo Street to the southwest corner of the parking structure. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 26 EXHIBIT A High visibility crosswalk, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps from the southeast corner of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street across Nipomo Street. Standard crosswalks, or other intersection enhancements, with directional curb ramps across Monterey Street and Dana Street where they intersect with Nipomo Street. Reduce the curb radii on the southwest corner of Dana Street/Nipomo Street and the northeast corner of Monterey Street/Nipomo Street. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. 3. Impact T-4: Under Cumulative plus Project conditions, one study intersection (the project driveway at Nipomo Street) would operate at an unacceptable level of service for pedestrians during the evening peak hour. With implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level (refer to pages 125-126 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-3, Pedestrian Access, is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. b. Finding: The City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or lessen to a less than significant level the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS FOR WHICH SUFFICIENT MITIGATION IS NOT AVAILABLE Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding consideration that "... specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR..." This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact, the lead agency must find that: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR; Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by that agency; or R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 27 EXHIBIT A Specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. This section identifies impacts that can be reduced, but not to a less -than -significant level, through the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore, remain significant and unavoidable, as identified in the Final EIR. The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear in the EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an impact or reducing it to a less -than -significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to the proposed project is considered in Section 7 of this document. 5.1 Aesthetics 1. Impact AES -2: The project would permanently alter the existing visual character of the site because it would introduce new structures that are substantially different in terms of size, scale, and massing. The project includes various design features that would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible, but due to the size, scale, and massing of the project, impacts related to a change in visual character would remain significant and unavoidable (refer to page 54 of the Final EIR). a. Miti on: No feasible mitigation is available. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. The project design features would reduce visual impacts to the extent feasible; however, additional mitigation is not available to reduce the size, scale, and massing of the project while satisfying most of the project objectives. Therefore, impacts related the alteration of visual character would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 2. Cumulative Impact - Visual Character: Combined with approved, pending, and proposed development in San Luis Obispo, the project would contribute to increasing urbanization of the downtown area and would increase the intensity of development (size, scale, and massing) in the area. This includes altering the fundamental character from predominantly older on- to two-story structures to a mix of such older buildings interspersed with new taller structures of four to six stories. The project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the change in visual character due to the increase in size, scale, and massing of the proposed structures. In combination with other development, the project's contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable (refer to page 57 of the Final EIR). a. Miti ation: No feasible mitigation measures are available. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 28 EXHIBIT A the Final EIR infeasible. No feasible mitigation measures are available for the project's contribution of cumulative impacts, which would remain significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 5.2 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 1. Impact CR -1: Construction of the project would result in the demolition of two structures on the project site that are historic resources and adversely affect the Downtown Historic District. This would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Implementation of mitigation measure CR -1 is required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, but this impact is Class I, significant and unavoidable (refer to page 72 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Mitigation measure CR -1 is required to reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure CR -1 Historical Building Documentation Packages. Impacts to historical resources shall be minimized through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages for both 610 and 614 Monterey Street. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of San Luis Obispo shall ensure that documentation of both properties is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements and include high-quality digital photographic recordation of the buildings and their overall setting, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Individual archival documentation packages shall be completed for both properties and offered as donated material to the San Luis Obispo Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, where it would be available to local researchers. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measure CR -1(a) is feasible and has been adopted. Mitigation Measure CR -1 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible through the preparation of archival historic building documentation packages. However, this measure would not eliminate the permanent irreversible impacts to the historic resources, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Therefore, the potential impact to the historic residences would remain significant and unavoidable, despite implementation R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 29 EXHIBIT A of the required mitigation. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. 2. Cumulative Impact - Cultural Resources: In combination with buildout of the city under the General Plan, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources in the Downtown Historic District. Mitigation Measure CR -1, Historic Building Documentation Packages, would reduce the project's impact to historical resources to the maximum extent feasible; however, this measure would not eliminate the permanent cumulative or individual impacts to the identified historic resources, and no other feasible mitigation measures are available. Because of this, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the city. This would be a Class I, Significant and Unavoidable, cumulative impact to historical resources (refer to page 80 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR -1 would reduce the project's contribution to the cumulative impact to historic resources to the maximum extent feasible. No other feasible mitigation are available that would meet the project objectives. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures CR -1 is feasible and has been adopted. No additional feasible mitigation is available for the cumulative loss of historic resources in the city, which would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in SectionT 5.3 Noise 1. Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code regulations. Required mitigation measures N -1(a) through N- I (d) require implementation of noise reduction devices and techniques during construction, and would reduce noise associated with on- and off-site construction activity to the maximum extent feasible. Although mitigation measures N -1(a), Construction Vehicle Travel Route, N- 1 (b), Construction Activity Timing, N -I (c), Construction Equipment Best Management Practices, and N -1(d), Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints, would reduce impacts from haul trucks and construction equipment to the extent feasible, construction noise would continue to exceed thresholds. Therefore, construction - related noise impacts would be minimized, but not eliminated. As a result, temporary noise impacts associated with on- and off-site construction activity would be significant and unavoidable (refer to page 92 of the Final EIR). a. Mitigation: tion: Implementation of the following measures would reduce noise impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Mitigation Measure N -1(a) Construction Vehicle Travel Route. Construction vehicles and haul trucks shall use roadways that avoid residential R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 30 EXHIBIT A neighborhoods and sensitive receptors where possible. The applicant shall submit a proposed construction vehicle and hauling route for City review and approval prior to grading/building permit issuance. The approved construction vehicle and hauling route shall be used for all construction vehicles and hauling trips during the duration of construction. Mitigation Measure N -1(b) Construction Activity Timing. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities or where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or anytime on Sundays, holidays, or after sunset, where that operation creates a noise disturbance that exceeds 75 dBA for single family residential, 80 dBA for multi -family residential, and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line for a maximum of 10 days. For construction activities lasting more than 10 days, noise from construction equipment shall not exceed 60 dBA for single family residential, 65 dBA for multi -family residential, and 70 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land uses across a residential or commercial property line. Mitigation Measure N -1(c) Construction Equipment Best Management Practices (BMPs). For all construction activity at the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed to reduce noise levels to extent feasible in accordance with the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include: Sound blankets on noise -generating equipment. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory -recommended mufflers. For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated location throughout construction activities. Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools. The movement of construction -related vehicles, with the exception of passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day). Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Page 31 EXHIBIT A Mitigation Measure N -1(d) Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The contractor shall inform residents and business operators at properties within 300 feet of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction noise. Proof of mailing the notices shall be provided to the Community Development Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before beginning of and throughoutgradingandconstructionactivities. Noise -related complaints shall be directed to the City's Community Development Department. b. Finding: The City finds that specific economic, social, legal, technological, or otherconsiderationsmakethemitigationmeasuresorprojectalternativesidentifiedin the Final EIR infeasible. Mitigation Measures N -1(a) through N -1(d) are feasible and have been adopted. Available mitigation would not reduce the noise below the applicable City standards for construction activity. Therefore temporary noise impacts associated with on-site and off site construction activity would be significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations for this impact is made in Section 7. SECTION 6. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 Introduction As identified in Section 5 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur: Impact AES -2: Alteration of existing visual character Cumulative aesthetic impact Impact CR -1: Removal of historic resources Cumulative historic resource impact Impact N-1: Temporary construction activity noise Because the project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental effects. As such, the environmental superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is consideredinthissection. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. 6.2 Description of the Alternatives The Final EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project: (1) a no project, no development alternative; (2) an infused project and live/work units alternative; (3) an alter 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 32 EXHIBIT A that would develop the parking structure and commercial plus residential units; and (4) an alternative that would preserve the historic resources on-site. 1. Alternative i. No Project, No Development. As required by CEPA, this EIR evaluates the environmental consequences of not proceeding with the project. hs alternative assumesimplemented, and hat project is not approved, that none of the proposed entitlements are further development would occur on the project site. ld out of the 2. Alternative 2: Project Plus LivelWork Units. space), ea except the S, Ossumes the t00 square Feet proposed project (parking structure, theater, and commercialp ) of commercial space would be reduced to 2,5 esquare el This feet aiternfive d scusses he impactercial sace and oof residential units would be included on the seconv as osed the four residential apartments on the second story osed commercial area acres pp oudto the ,500 square feet of commercial space. As with the prop project, e to be provided from Palm Street and Nipomo streets the parking structure. For the follow the same site planlfloor plan asthe of this analysis, it is assumed that this alternative would proposed project. 3. Alternative 3: Parldng Structure, Commercial square R sidential. This et of commercial spaceticonsistenincludethefive -leve]. parking structure and 5,000withtheproposedpraject, but this alternative would include 22 two-bedroom apartments in placeofthetheaterandplazaalongMontereyStreet. This alternative would include removal of theexistingsurfaceparkinglotandallexistingresidentialstructures. As with the proposed project, vehicle parking/site access would continue to be provided from Palm Street and Nipomo Street via the parking structure. For the purpose of this analysis is contemplated n the proposed pro] ect is assumed that the site plan dt adhere to the basic layout and footprint of development for the parking structure and commercial space, with the direct replacement/addition of apartments in place of the theater. 4. Alternative 4: Historic Resource Preservation. Tfeet l f commercial rnative spaceinvolve consist nt construction h the of the five -level parking structure and 5,000 squareproposedproject, but this alternative would not include construction of the theater or plazafrontingMontereyStreet. This alternative assumes the historic residences along Monterey Street610and614) would remain intact and at their existing location; however, much of the backyardsatthesepropertieswouldbedevelopedwiththeparkingandcommercialuses. For the purposeofthisanalysis, it is assumed that the site plan would adhere to the basic layout of developmentasiscontemplatedintheproposedprojectfortheparkingstructureandcommercialspaceand omit the theater. 6.3 Effectivelicss of Alternatives in Avoiding Significant Proiect Impacts This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations Page 33 EXHIBIT A 1. Significant and Unavoidable Aesthetic Impacts. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts related to the alteration of the visual character in the project vicinity. Under Alternative 1 (No Project, No Development), no development would occur, therefore aesthetic impacts would not occur. Under Alternative 2 Project Plus LivelWork Units), similar buildout would occur compared to the proposed project, which would result in a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 3 (Parking Structure, Commercial, Residential) would also result in similar aesthetic impacts due to a similar site layout and footprint; therefore, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) would result in less overall development on-site as the historic residences on-site would be retained. Although these residences would remain, theprojectwouldstillconstructtheparkingstructureandotheruseson-site with the potential to dock views in the area and alter the visual character in the vicinity. Therefore, the significantandunavoidableprojectandcumulativeimpactregardingvisualcharacterwouldnotbeavoided. 2. Significant and Unavoidable Cultural Resource Impacts. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable project -level and cumulative impacts to historic resources as aresultoftheremovaloftheresidencesat610and614MontereyStreet. Alternative 1 and 4 wouldnotremovetheresidences, as they would be preserved and retained; therefore, the project -levelandcumulativeimpacttohistoricresourceswouldnotoccur. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the demolition of the on-site residences; 2 and 3the project level and cumulative o S to historic resources would be similar in comparison to the project. Under impact to historic resources would remain significant and unavoidable. 3. Significant and Unavoidable Noise Impact. The proposed project would cause noise impactsasaresultofconstructionactivityassociatedwithprojectdevelopment. Under Alternative 1, nodevelopmentwouldoccur; therefore, the significant and unavoidable construction noise impact would be avoided. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in a similar level of overall construction activity on the project site, in conjunction with other development in the vicinity, and wouldthereforeresultinsimilarproject -level impacts associated with construction noise. 6.4 Environmentally Su erior Alternative and Feasibility of Project Alternatives 1. Alternative 1 FindjM Alternative I (No Project, No Development) could be considered the environmentally superior overall, since no development would occur and the site would remain as is, and would not result in any significant environmental area asweli as anyct. of the projectlobj ct objtive ectives. Asfails a to meet the City's objectives for the project result, the City finds that Alternative I would be infeasible to implement. 2. Alteative 2 n : FindiAlternative 2 (Project Plus Live/Work Units) would result in simi rnlar environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Niporno Palm Parking Structure Project. With a similar footprint as the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar impactspertainingtoaesthetics, cultural resources, and transportation. Although this alternative doesmeetsomeoftheprojectobjectives, Alternative 2 does not avoid any of the Class I impactsassociatedwiththeproposedprojectandwouldresultinincreasednoiseimpacts. The addition of residences on the site would locate sensitive receptors directly adjacent to the parking structure. 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Page 34 EXHIBIT A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Therefore, this alternative would require additional mitigation to reduce interior noise levels below established thresholds. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 2 is not environmentally superior to the proposed project. 3. Alternative 3 Findin . Among the development scenarios, Alternative 3 (Parking Structure, Commercial, and Residential) would result in similar but increased environmental effects compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in increased environmental impacts pertaining to noise, as well as to several issues that were dismissed as less than significantorhavenoimpactintheInitialStudypreparedfortheproposedproject. This is due to theresidencesandcommercialunitson-site that would introduce new residents to the city, who would require utility services and recreational and public services, as well as generate new vehicletripsfromnewresidents. Alternative 3 would not avoid the Class I impacts related to historicalresources, cultural resources, and noise. As a result, the City finds that Alternative 3 would not be environmentally superior to the proposed project. 4. Alternative 4 Finding Alternative 4 (Historic Resource Preservation) is environmentally superiortotheproposedprojectbecausetherewouldbeareducedoverallsitefootprint. The impacts fromposedprojectintheareasofaesthetics, noise, andthisalternativewouldbesimilartotheprotraffic. Alternative 4 would not reduce the project's Class I impacts in those categories to a levelbelowsignificancethresholds. However, Alternative 4 would eliminate direct and indirectsignificantimpactstohistoricalresourcesbecausethetwocontributingstructurestothe Downtown Historic District and the linkage between properties in the district they provide would remain in place. Alternative 4 would meet most of the project objectives by providing a minimumof400parkingspaces, offering a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to MontereyStreet, preserving the large oak tree on-site, and considering the contextual sensitivity of surrounding properties (i.e., Hays-Lattimer adobe). However, it would not meet the objective of providing the cultural use (theater). As a result, the City finds that Alternative 4 would not satisfy the project objectives. SECTION 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Introduction The Final EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of the project: 1. The project would alter the existing visual character of the project site, and surrounding vicinity. 2. Implementation of the project, in conjunction with other development in the area, would increase the intensity of development and permanently alter the visual character of the surrounding area. the demolition otHistoricstructures Districtthe project site that are historic 3. The project would result in resources, and adversely affect the Downtown 4. The project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the City by removing two historic structures that contribute to the Downtown Historic District. R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 35 EXHIBIT A 5. Temporary construction activity would create noise that could exceed City of San LuisObispoMunicipalCoderegulations, and mitigation may not be feasible to reduce the impact to less than the applicable threshold. For projects that would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, CEQA requires that the lead agency balance the benefits of these projects against the unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines 15093[a]). CEQA requires that, before adopting such projects, the public agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the agency finds that the benefits of theprojectoutweighthesignificantenvironmentaleffectscausedbytheproject. This statement is provided below. 7.2 Req iced Findings The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although these measureswilllessentheunavoidableimpactslistedabove, the measures will not fully avoid these impacts. The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project and has determined thatnoneofthesealternativesisfeasibleorenvironmentallysuperior, nor would they satisfy the project objectives to the same extent or greater as the project. Alternative 1 would avoid all of the significant impacts of the project but would not achieve the City's objectives for the project and is not considered feasible. Alternative 2 would be environmentally similar to the project in most aspects but would result in greater impacts to noiseandisthereforeenvironmentallyinferiortotheproposedproject. Alternative 3 is environmentally inferior to the proposed project, as it would result in increased impacts regarding noise and other impacts such as public services, recreation, utilities and service systems. Alternative 4 is environmentally superior to the proposed project in that eliminates significant and unavoidable historic resources impacts related to demolition of the historic structures on-site. However, Alternative 4 is inferior to the proposed project in terms of its ability to achieve City objectives for the project, since the alternative would not include the theater building. In preparing this Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City has balanced the benefits of theproposedprojectagainstitsunavoidableenvironmentalrisks. For the reasons specified below, the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's unavoidable environmental risks: 1. New Parking Spaces. The Land Use Element of the General Plan addresses downtowndevelopment, parking, and the development of cultural facilities in the city. Specifically, Policy 4.14 states "the City shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edgesofthecommercialcore, so people can walk rather than drive between points within the core." Since the project would provide approximately 400 parking spaces in the downtown area, it would directly satisfy this goal and adhere to Policy 4.14. de a 2. Downtown Concept Plan. In 20c ' Cl updatedtfor deveowntowConcept Plan to lopmenttnn the downtown area. The road map for future public prod andguidance R 10923 Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 36 EXHIBIT A proposed project is located in Block 10 of the Plan, which states "a new parking structure on the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets is envisioned to include office mixed use along Nipomo Street, the theater relocated along Monterey Street, and public use on a portion of the rooftop." The proposed project would directly follow the guidance included in the Downtown Concept Pian, by relocating the theater, constructing commercial use on the western boundary of the sitealongNipomoStreet, and evaluating whether rooftop viewing areas are feasible as part of the Planning Commission and Architectural Commission Review. 3. Increased Economic Activity. Development of the parking structure would generate an economic benefit to the City via increased revenue from vehicle parking fees, which would then be used to fund needed services in the city. 4. Downtown Residential. The project will support Program 6.12 of the Housing Element that promotes downtown residential by allowing "...flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C -D Zone), including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motorvehiclesorwhoprovideproofofreserved, off-site parking. The structure will be part of the City's Downtown Residential Overnight Program (Drop) that allows residents in the downtown area access to the structures to park vehicles and promote affordability by design of residential units. 5. Public Use Plaza and Pedestrian Connection. The project includes a public use plaza area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. This plaza would be pedestrian -friendly and provide a social use area for residents and tourists in the downtown area. In addition, the project wouldprovideadirectpedestrianconnectionfromthestructuretoMontereyStreet, allowing users to easily navigate from the parking structure and theater to other downtown uses, consistent with Circulation Element Policies 5.1.3, 5.1.5 and 5.1.6. 6. San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre. The project would support the development of an arts andculturalcenterwithintheDowntown. Land Use Elements policies 5.2.1, 5.2.3 and 5.2.5 discuss that the City will work with community groups to secure facilities for cultural and arts programneedsintheDowntownarea. The project includes a portion of the site that would be utilized by the SLO Repertory Theatre (formerly the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre) to construct a new theatre space. Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are outweighed by these considerable benefits. Dated:il--,All 2018 R 10923 220 From:Purrington, Teresa Sent:Wednesday, February 11, 2026 8:50 AM To:Odile Ayral Subject:RE: A Venerable Tree Ms. Ayral, Thank you for reaching out to City Council on this topic. Your correspondence has been delivered directly to them and your comment is being placed in the Public Archive for the February 3, 2026 meeting. City Clerk’s Office City Administration City Clerk's Office 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 From: Odile Ayral < Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:53 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: A Venerable Tree Mayor Stewart and Council Members, I am sending this note to express my bewilderment at the decision taken by the Council to kill a magnificent old oak tree simply because of various “human mistakes”. Since the tree had been there for a very long time, probably a couple centuries, it should have received precedence over developers, architects and city staff, especially in view of all the promises made by both the city and SLO Rep, that this venerable tree would be protected. We heard it repeatedly: don’t worry, the oak tree will be part of the plans, it will not be touched. You lied. SLO Rep lied. And if you believe you did not lie, then you were incompetent and easily manipulated. We are presently living in a sea of lies. They come from all directions. We are bombarded. Our attention turns in hundreds of directions: Good, Pretti, little Liam, little Diana and all the kids in Minneapolis, in Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine. It is like a constant panic, so we overlook the tree for a short time, and before we know it, it is gone. It may seem unimportant in view of the rest, but it’s not because it is a symbol of life. A symbol of light in a time of darkness. Something we can believe in when everything else is turning to dread. Can you understand this? You can change the plans. Sure, it will cost money, but if you call for a fundraising to save the oak tree, I believe enough people will contribute to pay for new plans drawn by a different architect. You may say the roots have already been damaged, but only one arborist wrote a report. Why not hire another arborist who may come up with a different viewpoint? Don’t just sigh and say, “we goofed.” DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Odile Ayral 221 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Wednesday, February 11, 2026 7:25 AM To:Hill, Robert Subject:RE: Tree Removal timeline/permit Attachments:R-11626 approving the removal of (1) Coast Live Oak tree at 614 Monterey and Subsequent Replanting o.pdf Hi Bob, The resolution adopted by Council is the approval to the tree removal request. It’s available in the archive here: https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=218335&cr=1, and I’ve attached a copy for reference as well. Thank you, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:55 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Tree Removal timeline/permit Hey Walter, Can you confirm you’re issuing a separate tree removal permit and what the timing will be? Thanks! Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:26 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Tree Removal timeline/permit Hi Bob, Per our last conversation, I’m assuming that the tree removal permit will be issued separately than any other building permits for the site. Do you have any sort of expected timeline for us to receive it? I’m trying to schedule Deadwood Revival and the team to meet and would like to get our ducks in a row. Thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) 222 Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: R 11626 RESOLUTION NO. 11626 (2026 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF ONE (1) COAST LIVE OAK TREE AT 614 MONTEREY AND SUBSQUENT REPLANTING OF ONE (1) TREE ON-SITE AND FOUR (4) TREES OFFSITE WITH AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS REPRESENTED IN THE COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED FEBRUARY 3, 2026 (TREE-0827-2025). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on November 12, 2019, for the purpose of approving the architectural design of a new performing arts facility and a new parking structure, a deviation in the height and Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) for the parking structure, use permits to allow the SLO Rep Theatre and a parking structure within the Downtown Commercial Zone and adopt a General Plan Amendment changing the project site from Office and medium-high density residential to General Retail; and WHEREAS, San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, the applicant, has requested to remove one (1) existing 48-inch DBH Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) tree and replant one (1) 60-inch box tree on-site in the same area of the existing oak tree and four (4) 24- inch box trees off-site to accommodate the construction of the approved SLO REP Theatre; and WHEREAS, pursuant to San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.24.090.F(5), the City Council is the appropriate approval authority to review the requested removal of the Coast Live Oak tree; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including recommendations by staff; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council hereby grants approval for the tree removal request (TREE-0827-2025), based on the following findings: 1. The proposed tree removal request is consistent with Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(G) because the proposed removal includes a compensatory replanting plan that exceeds the minimum one for one requirement by planting a total of five (5) new trees. Docusign Envelope ID: 6D0AF81B-32F0-4DA0-8017-6F17C8E04668 Resolution No. 11626 (2026 Series) Page 2 R 11626 2. The proposed tree removal request is consistent with Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(G) and Conservation and Open Space Policy 7.5.3 because the proposed removal is not a Heritage Tree and is not protected. 3. As conditioned, the proposed tree removal request is consistent with Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(J) because the proposed tree removal will be compensated by planting one (1) new tree onsite and four (4) new trees offsite. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On July 17, 2018, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR State Clearinghouse Number 2017051011), adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, adopted the following CEQA Findings and Mitigation Measures related to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project, and made a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The adopted FEIR identified that the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to: 1) Aesthetics – The scale and massing of the parking structure interrupting the transition from the Dana Street grouping of historic resources from the remainder of the Downtown Historic District to the east; 2) Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources – Removal of two historic resources from the project site; and 3) Noise – Short- term construction noise. The FEIR also found that there would be significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant in the categories of aesthetics, cultural and tribal cultural resources, transportation, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, and hazardous materials. Some impacts related to aesthetics, cultural resources, noise, and transportation were found to be less than significant. An addendum to the previously certified EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Section 15164(a) that states, “The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred”. This Addendum incorporates additional analysis for inclusion in the environmental record. The updated analysis does not materially change the findings and conclusions of the Final EIR, making a Subsequent EIR unnecessary pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Palm Nipomo Parking Structure project is proposed to remain the same as the project assessed in the adopted FEIR; however, the project now proposes to remove one existing, 48-inch DBH Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) that was originally to be retained and replant one (1) tree onsite in the same area of the existing oak and four (4) trees offsite in the immediate vicinity to allow the theatre to be constructed as intended. The oak tree has not been identified as a ‘significant tree’ and is therefore not subject to the requirements set forth in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element. The change in the project to remove the oak tree would not alter any of the impacts as compared to the approved project covered in the Final EIR and would not result in new or significantly increased environmental impacts. Thus, the potential biological resources impacts associated with the tree removal would be less than significant. Docusign Envelope ID: 6D0AF81B-32F0-4DA0-8017-6F17C8E04668 Resolution No. 11626 (2026 Series) Page 3 R 11626 SECTION 3. Action. The City Council hereby grants final approval to the request with incorporation of the following conditions: 1. The tree removal(s) for the site shall include one (1) 48-inch DBH Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) requested by the applicant in application TREE-0827- 2025. 2. The replanting plan shall consist of, at a minimum, five (5) trees and at least one 1) tree shall be planted onsite and at least four (4) trees shall be planted and established offsite in a location to the satisfaction of the City Arborist . The replanted trees shall be 24-inch box or larger. The tree species shall be in accordance with the City Approved Tree List, Major Streets Tree List, or to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 3. Tree removal shall be completed in compliance with all appropriate mitigation measures contained in the 2018 Certified FEIR. Building plans shall include the contact information for the certified arborist involved with the removal and replanting of the new tree on-site. The building plans shall also include landscape plans showing the location of the new trees to be replanted, species and size to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. 4. All trees shall be planted per the City’s Engineering Standards for Street Trees prior to final building permit approval. All trees planted as part of the replanting plan shall survive and any trees that do not survive shall be replanted. Docusign Envelope ID: 6D0AF81B-32F0-4DA0-8017-6F17C8E04668 Resolution No. 11626 (2026 Series) Page 4 R 11626 Upon motion of Council Member Boswell, seconded by Mayor Stewart, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Member Boswell, Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and Mayor Stewart NOES: Council Member Marx ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was adopted this 3rd day of February 2026. Mayor Erica A. Stewart ATTEST: Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. Teresa Purrington City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 6D0AF81B-32F0-4DA0-8017-6F17C8E04668 2/9/2026 | 9:38 AM PST 223 From:Hill, Robert Sent:Tuesday, February 10, 2026 4:02 PM To:Kevin Harris Subject:RE: Tree Removal timeline/permit Attachments:San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre Lease Agreement (Final).pdf Ok, so I am checking now with Walter about the permit and with Madeline about taking possession of the site. I am not sure if Swinerton has relinquished the site back to us. Please see paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lease and that note y’all have 60 days to let us know if you’re satisfied with the site conditions. SLO REP is also going to need to get us the insurance requirements that are Exhibit B when you take possession – which might be something you want to work ahead on. When the site is ready and when you’re ready, we are also going to need a dollar from you 뇤눎눐눑눒눏 Thanks again, Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:47 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: RE: Tree Removal timeline/permit For sure- thank you! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: 224 From: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:46 PM To: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Subject: RE: Tree Removal Ɵmeline/permit Hi Kevin, I will follow up with Walter and confirm. I am pretty sure Deadwood Revival will want to be involved with how the tree is removed and where the actual cuts take place, etc. The other thing I need to confirm is what needs to happen for SLO REP to formally take possession / control of the site. More soon… Bob From: Kevin Harris <kevinharris@slorep.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 3:26 PM To: Hill, Robert <rhill@slocity.org> Subject: Tree Removal Ɵmeline/permit Hi Bob, Per our last conversation, I’m assuming that the tree removal permit will be issued separately than any other building permits for the site. Do you have any sort of expected timeline for us to receive it? I’m trying to schedule Deadwood Revival and the team to meet and would like to get our ducks in a row. Thanks! Kevin Harris (he/him/his) Managing ArƟsƟc Director www.slorep.org SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE Unforgettable Characters. Extraordinary Stories. Since 1947. Facebook | Instagram | Blog | Twitter | YouTube SLO REP is a proud member of: - 1 - LEASE AGREEMENT City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre THIS LEASE AGREEMENT (the “Lease”) is entered into between the City of San Luis Obispo a political subdivision of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as “City” or “Lessor”) and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre, Inc., a California non-profit corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee” or “SLO REP”) and will replace and supersede all previous agreements between City and Lessee with respect to the Premises hereinafter described. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City owns certain real property located at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets in the City of San Luis Obispo, as shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”); and WHEREAS, Lessee is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission is to strengthen theatre’s cultural influence and enrich the Central Coast by producing professional theatre, nurturing artists and providing theatre education for children and adults; and WHEREAS, the location of the Premises is ideal for the development of a new live performance theatre contiguous with the City’s planned Cultural Arts District Parking Structure; and WHEREAS, development of the Premises in accordance with Lessee’s existing conceptual plan into a premiere live performance venue (the “Downtown Theatre”) will require substantial grant and private donor funding; and WHEREAS, a stable Lease with a 99-year term will help to ensure the longevity of the Downtown Theatre and will provide the opportunity for the Downtown Theatre to qualify for a broader array of funding; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the public benefit associated with the development of the Downtown Theatre; and WHEREAS, on the City completed environmental review as lead agency for both its Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and the Downtown Theatre and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report by Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and subsequently approved the architectural designs and related improvements, with conditions, made by Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2019, the City and SLO REP entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) to set the parameters and conditions for SLO REP’s long-term use of a portion of the City property for construction and operation of a new live performance venue where the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure will also be located; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022, SLO REP submitted to the City Council a formal Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 2 - “Challenge Grant” request for funding in the amount of $ 3,940,000 towards construction of the Downtown Theatre project. At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 15, 2022, the City Council appropriated the requested funding as part of the FY 2021-2022 Mid-Year Budget Review. On April 21, 2022, the City and SLO REP entered into a Grant Agreement for funding in the aggregate amount of $3,940,000; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the City Council made findings pursuant to the California Surplus Land Act, declaring the subject property surplus exempt under California Government Code sections 54221 and 54234 (Resolution No. 11471 (2024 Series); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2024, the City and SLO REP entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement to extend the term for up to a one-year term in total, with additional provisions that require a written document that demonstrates an operating reserve of 20% for the first year of operating the new theatre and a three-year operating plan, including the establishment of a fund for building and facilities maintenance and repair; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2024, the City Council received from SLO REP an update to their Challenge Grant request. In making its request for additional funding, SLO REP’s letter describes the following investment rationale: 1. Direct economic impact of more than $4 million annually once fully operational. 2. Attraction of 50,000 people annually to the downtown area. 3. Consistency with Major City Goals for arts and culture, as well as relevant DEI activities through multi-cultural programming, diverse casting, theatre offerings, and support of other local non-profits / community-based organizations. 4. Activation of “Theatre in the Park” events to reach new audiences at no-cost or low-cost at staged outdoor venues such as Mission Plaza or Mitchell Park. WHEREAS, on June 4, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11501 (2024 Series) approving the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget, including an additional $2.76 million in grant funding to SLO REP towards the project, and on October 1, 2024, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Grant Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 11471 (2024 Series) declaring pursuant to Government Code Section 54221 that certain real property owned by the City, and specifically the Downtown Theatre site, is not necessary for the City’s use and is exempt surplus pursuant to Government Code Section 54234. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Recitals. Each and every recital above is true and correct and hereby incorporated into this Lease. 2. Premises: City hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby hires and takes from City, for the term and upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, the Premises which shall be vacant and unimproved as of the commencement of the term. Any objection by Lessee to the Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 3 - condition, improvements, or prior occupancy of the Premises shall be deemed waived if not made within sixty (60) days following the City’s delivery of possession of the Premises to Lessee following completion of the construction of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure (“Completion of the City Project.”) 3. Quiet Possession: City shall place Lessee in quiet possession of the Premises following Completion of the City Project, and subject to Lessee performing and observing all applicable conditions and covenants as contained in this Lease, City shall secure to Lessee the quiet possession of the Premises during the term hereof against all persons claiming the same. 4. Term: The term of this Lease shall be for a period of ninety-nine (99) years, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Lease. The term shall commence upon Completion of the City Project and delivery of the Premises to Lessee following the execution of this Lease by the San Luis Obispo City Manager and shall terminate ninety-nine (99) years thereafter. In accordance with California Government Code Section 37380, as may be amended from time to time, Sections 5 and 15 of this Lease shall be subject to review every twenty (20) years by the City and shall take into consideration the then current market conditions and industry standards. 5. Consideration: As consideration for the use and occupancy of the Premises, Lessee shall establish, construct and hereafter maintain a venue for live performances. In further consideration for the use and occupancy of the Premises as identified in Paragraph 7 herein, the use of said Premises shall be for the benefit of the public and shall serve the cultural, educational, and recreational needs of the City’s residents, their families and out-of- town visitors. Lessee shall pay rent of $1.00/year, which in the event of a material and uncured breach by Lessee, at City’s option, City may increase to an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the improved Premises as determined by averaging a qualified appraiser's appraisal selected by City with such appraisal selected by Lessee, or at the City’s option, the City may pursue termination of the Lease for such material breach pursuant to Section 34. In further consideration of City’s grant funds awarded towards construction of the Downtown Theatre, Lessee has offered to conduct new “Theatre in the Park” events at staged, outdoor venues, the terms and conditions of which shall be documented under separate agreement between Lessee and City. 6. Construction of Theatre: Lessee shall commence construction of the Downtown Theatre no later than one (1) year after delivery of possession of the Premises to Lessee and following the completion of the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and Lessee shall complete construction of the Downtown Theatre within the three (3) years thereafter, unless extended by mutual agreement in writing by the parties, notwithstanding any conflicting prior term agreed upon by the parties. Lessee shall not commence construction of the Downtown Theatre unless Lessee demonstrates, to the City’s Finance Director’s reasonable satisfaction prior to commencement of construction, that Lessee has all of the funds necessary to design and construct the Theatre, plus a 15% construction contingency, available in cash or approved financing (the “Required Funds”), and Lessee shall also submit to the City Manager (or their delegate) a written document that demonstrates a 20% operating reserve for the first year of operating the Downtown Theatre together with a three year operating plan including the establishment of a building and facilities maintenance and repair reserve fund. Lessee’s failure Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 4 - to comply with this term upon requisite notice and opportunity to cure as stated in Section 34 would be considered a material breach of the Lease. 7. Use of Premises: The Premises shall be used for the primary purpose of establishing, constructing, managing, operating, and maintaining facilities for live performances that will serve the cultural, educational and recreational needs of local residents and out- of-town visitors and guests. Lessee shall also have the right to conduct and/or provide other related activities and events such as festivals, workshops, public speakers, educational outreach programs and special events (e.g., festivals, concerts, weddings, comedy nights, fund raisers, etc.), provided such uses are consistent with applicable City ordinances and regulations and Lessee complies with all applicable City permit requirements and processes, including but not limited to special event and use permitting requirements. Activities beyond those described above are subject to the prior written approval of the City Manager or their designee (hereinafter collectively referred to as “City Manager”). In the event that any activity or special event causes or creates an objective concern for life, health, safety or compatibility with the surrounding City facilities and adjacent private and public properties, City shall have the right to terminate authorization for such activity or event. 8. Admission Fees: Lessee shall have the right to charge admission or other fees for access to, and use of, the Premises as may from time to time be determined by Lessee. All admission, access and use fees charged by Lessee shall be retained by Lessee to offset operating and maintenance costs, or for such other purposes as may from time to time be designated by Lessee in the sole discretion of Lessee. City shall have a right to make use of the Downtown Theatre on two (2) one (1) day occasions per year with advance, reasonable notification and accommodation of SLO REP’s then existing scheduling and calendar of events, at no cost to City. 9. Utilities: City shall not be required to furnish any service to the Premises, including but not limited to heat, water, electrical, natural gas and garbage disposal, and shall not be liable for any failure of water supply or of any service by any utility. Lessee shall be responsible for establishing all required utilities and all costs relative to the installation and use of such utility services. Lessee shall place all utilities in the name of Lessee, and Lessee agrees to promptly pay all charges for all utilities and services used or charges imposed in or about or supplied to the Premises, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City against any and all liability on such account. 10. Maintenance: Lessee, at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, shall maintain and keep the Premises and every structural portion thereof, including all interior and exterior features, in a good state of repair during the term of this Lease and shall not, at any time, commit or suffer to be committed any waste, nuisance, or unlawful act thereon. City shall have the right to inspect the Premises at any reasonable time to protect the health, safety and welfare of individuals using the Premises. Lessee shall promptly repair or correct any such maintenance or repair problem(s) identified in writing by the City Manager. Should Lessee fail or neglect to make such repairs as necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of individuals using the Premises, the City Manager may, after thirty (30) calendar days written notice to Lessee, make said repairs and charge Lessee for same, except in the event that such repairs cannot reasonably be completed within said thirty days, and Lessee timely commences such repairs and diligently Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 5 - pursues completion of the same thereafter. Following completion of any such repairs by the City, Lessee shall reimburse City for said costs upon demand. City shall not forfeit any right under this Lease if it does not elect to make said repairs. 11. Signs: Lessee, at its sole cost, shall have the right to place, construct and maintain signs on the Premises, advertising the Theatre, as well as events and performances at the Theatre. However, no permanent signage, structures, or improvements shall be so placed without the prior written consent of the City Manager. Notwithstanding consent of the City Manager, any sign that Lessee has the right to place, construct, and maintain shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances, and Lessee shall obtain any approval required by such laws and ordinances prior to such placement or construction. City makes no representation with respect to Lessee’s ability to obtain such approval. Lessee agrees to place signage acknowledging City’s financial contributions to the Downtown Theatre, which may be included with any other acknowledgement of major donors. 12. Construction on Premises: All construction on the premises shall be conducted and carried out in accordance with the certified Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and the Downtown Theatre approved by City Council Resolution No. 10923 (2018 Series) and the subsequent approval of the architectural designs and related improvements, with conditions, made by Resolution No. 11059 (2019 Series), as has been and may be amended or addended from time to time. All structural: (i) construction, (ii) capital improvements, or (iii) alteration made to the Premises, other than those that are incident to the maintenance and care of the Premises, or construction activities related solely to specific uses which do not require a building permit, shall be administered as follows: A. Subject to subsection (C), Lessee shall have the right, at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, to construct structural improvements and/or alterations of the Premises, or any portion thereof, in a manner consistent with the use of the Premises as set forth herein, subject to the prior review and written approval of the City Community Development Department. B. Prior to such structural construction, improvements, and/or alterations, Lessee shall acquire all necessary building and construction permits including, but not limited to, required permits from the City Community Development Department and other applicable licenses through normal governmental procedures. C. No such structural construction, improvements or alterations shall be made to the Premises or any portion thereof without the submission to, and prior written approval of, the plans by the City Manager. Lessee shall also submit such other documents, including, but not limited to, specifications, working drawings, and other information required by the City Manager covering the project to be constructed by Lessee. Lessee shall submit the plans to the City Manager at least thirty (30) days in advance of the application for permits for any such projects. If the City Manager objects to all or any portion of such plans, the City Manager shall state the objections specifically and in writing, and the Lessee shall make the changes specified and resubmit the plans as revised for the City Manager’s approval as herein provided. The approval of any Plans by the City Manager shall constitute an action of the City in its proprietary capacity Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 6 - only and shall in no way be construed as an approval of the development or building permit application as required by the Community Development Department or excuse Lessee from complying with any laws, rules, regulations and ordinances regarding the development and use of the Premises. D. Nothing herein shall be construed to be a waiver of formal City building and land use review procedures and Lessee shall comply fully with same at Lessee’s sole cost and expense. E. The plans shall comply with industry standards for such construction, alterations, and/or improvements, and shall conform to such rules and regulations necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. F. Any contractor or subcontractor responsible to Lessee shall at all times be in compliance with the insurance requirements specified in Section 15. 13. Ownership of Improvements: The ownership of all approved improvements constructed by the Lessee shall remain vested in Lessee until expiration or sooner termination of the term of this Lease. At the expiration or earlier termination of this Lease, all alterations, modifications, or improvements upon the Premises (except those “tenant improvements” referenced below), whether made by City or Lessee shall, absent any agreement between the City and Lessee to the contrary, or unless City otherwise elects, which election shall be made by giving a notice in writing not less than fifteen (15) working days prior to the expiration or other termination of this Lease, become the property of City and shall, without compensation to Lessee, become City property free and clear of all claims to or against the improvements by Lessee or any third person. Lessee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City against all liability and loss arising from such claims or from the City’s exercise of the rights conferred by this paragraph; in the event the City so elects, City shall be responsible for the removal of said improvements after the termination of the expiration of the tenancy. With respect to Lessee owned tenant improvements (such as signage) or fixtures, at the termination of this Lease, City may notify Lessee to remove any or all of the alterations, additions, fixtures, or tenant improvements made by Lessee. Lessee shall do so, at Lessee’s sole cost and expense, and shall promptly repair any damage caused by such removal in a first-class manner. Removal is to be completed no later than sixty (60) days from the date of said notice or at such further time as City may agree to in writing. In the event Lessee fails to remove any or all of the alterations, additions, fixtures, or tenant improvements required by City, City may remove same and charge Lessee for the cost of such removals and Lessee hereby agrees to pay any and all such costs upon demand. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City and SLO REP acknowledge that, once the Cultural Arts District Parking Structure and the Downtown Theatre construction is complete, that two (2) subterranean stormwater facilities will be in place below the Premises. One of the stormwater facilities is in service to the Cultural Arts District Parking structure and all maintenance and ownership responsibilities thereof shall be borne by City. The City shall have the right, upon Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 7 - reasonable notice to the Lessee, or immediately in emergent situations, to enter the Premises as necessary to access such stormwater facility for annual inspection and maintenance or other legitimate purposes. The other stormwater facility is in service to the Downtown Theatre and all maintenance and ownership responsibilities thereof shall be borne by SLO REP. 14. Protection on Premises: Lessee agrees to take all reasonable precautions to protect the Premises from damage, theft, vandalism and other such hazards. Reasonable precautions include but are not limited to Lessee consulting with the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department regarding increasing safety through environmental design. 15. Insurance: Lessee shall obtain and maintain for the entire term of this Lease insurance complying with the provisions of this paragraph. Lessee shall furnish to City a certificate from the insurance carrier showing insurance covering this Lease to be in full force and effect as a condition precedent to this Lease becoming effective. Said policies shall be issued by companies authorized to do business in the State of California, and Lessee shall provide annual updates of its current Certificate of Insurance. Lessee shall provide the following coverage with the following features in accordance with Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. If Lessee fails or refuses to procure or maintain the insurance required by this Lease or fails or refuses to furnish City with the certifications required herein, City shall have the right, at its option, to terminate this Lease in accordance with Section 34. 16. Subordination: The City will not subordinate its interest in the Premises to any Lessee mortgages, deeds of trusts, or other financing that may be recorded against the Premises. Lessee shall not enter into any instrument or agreement purporting to subordinate the City’s interest in the Premises. 17. Mechanic’s Liens: Lessee shall keep the Premises free of mechanics and materialmens’ liens and other liens of like nature other than liens created or claimed by reason of any work done by or at the insistence of the City, pursuant to the City’s ability to do so under Section 10. 18. Indemnification: Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, and employees from any and all claims and demands, costs, expenses, judgments, attorney fees or liabilities that may be asserted by any person or entity that arise out of or in connection with the acts or omissions relating to the performance of any obligation or duty provided for or relating (directly or indirectly) to this Lease, the tenancy created under this Lease, or the Premises hereunder. However, this indemnity will not extend to any claims or losses arising out of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers and employees. Furthermore, any deficiency for which the City is threatened or assessed with respect to the construction of the Downtown Theatre by Lessee, pursuant to Section 1720 of the California Labor Code (or its successor) shall be indemnified, defended, held harmless by Lessee. The preceding paragraph applies to any theory of recovery relating to said act or omission by the Lessee, or its agents, employees or other independent contractors directly responsible to Lessee, including, but not limited to, the following: Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 8 - A. Violation of statute, ordinance, or regulation. B. Professional malpractice. C. Willful, intentional or other wrongful acts, or failures to act. D. Negligence or recklessness. E. Furnishing of defective or dangerous products. F. Premises liability. G. Strict liability. H. Violation of civil rights. I. Violation of any federal or state statute, regulation, or ruling resulting in a determination by the Internal Revenue Service, California Franchise Tax Board or any other California public entity responsible for collecting payroll taxes, when the Lessee is not an independent contractor. It is the intent of the parties to provide the City the fullest indemnification, defense, and hold harmless rights allowed under the law. If any word(s) contained herein are deemed by a court to be in contravention of applicable law, said word(s) shall be severed from this Lease and the remaining language shall be given full force and effect. 19. Taxes: During the term of this Lease, Lessee hereby agrees to pay, prior to delinquency, all taxes and assessments, including both general and special, properly levied or assessed against the Premises and in connection with the Premises and Lessee’s operation thereof, including without limitation, taxes on Lessee’s possessory interest hereunder or in the Premises, and taxes or assessments on all structures, improvements, and fixtures now or hereinafter existing on the Premises, and on any personal property situated in, on, or about the Premises, or in, on or about any structures or improvements thereon. Lessee is hereby informed that a possessory interest subject to property taxation may be created by this Lease and that the party to whom the possessory interest is vested may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. Lessee hereby agrees to pay such taxes prior to delinquency. 20. Assignment/Subletting/Short-Term Rental: Except as otherwise herein specifically provided, Lessee shall neither transfer nor execute an assignment of this Lease for the Premises, nor grant any interest or privilege whatsoever in connection with this Lease without the prior written consent of the City Council. An “assignment” or “transfer” is defined herein to mean the complete transfer of the leasehold interest and rental rights from Lessee to a third-party renter. Lessee shall have the right at all times to sublet the Premises to other entities with the consent of the City Manager, for a term not to exceed one (1) year, provided that the subletting entity’s proposed uses comply with the Lessee’s uses as provided herein and that the sublease contains insurance, defense and indemnification in substantial conformance with the terms of this Leases and the City is made an express beneficiary of such provisions. “Sublet” is defined herein to mean the partial transfer of rental rights under this Lease from Lessee to a third-party renter, for a temporary period of more than 30 days and for only a portion of the Premises. Lessee shall have the right, at all times, and in its sole discretion, to rent the Premises to other entities, on a short-term basis not to exceed 30 days, provided Lessee maintains all responsibilities and obligations of this Lease during such short-term rental. 21. Environmental Matters/Covenants Regarding Hazardous Materials: Lessee and Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 9 - City shall at all times and in all respects comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations (“Hazardous Materials Laws”) relating to industrial hygiene, environmental protection or the use, analysis, generation, manufacture, storage, disposal or transportation of any oil, flammable explosives, asbestos, urea formaldehyde, radioactive materials or waste, or other hazardous, toxic, contaminated or polluting materials, substances or wastes, including without limitation, any “hazardous substances,” “hazardous wastes,” “hazardous materials,” or “toxic substances” under such laws, ordinances or regulations (collectively, “Hazardous Materials”). Lessee shall, except in the event of City’s negligence or intentional wrongdoing, indemnify, defend, protect, and hold City and each of City’s officers, City Manager, employees, agents, attorneys, successors and assigns, free and harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses or expenses or death of or injury to any person or damage to any property whatsoever, arising from or caused in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by: A. The discharge in or from the Premises of any Hazardous Materials or Lessee’s use, analysis, storage, transportation, disposal, release, threatened release, discharge or generation of Hazardous Materials to, in, on, under, about or from the Premises, or B. Lessee’s failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law. Lessee’s obligations hereunder shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary repair, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Premises, and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans in connection therewith associated with conditions caused by Lessee shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of the term of this Lease. For purposes of the release and indemnity provisions hereof, any acts or omissions of Lessee, or by employees, agents, assignees, contractors or subcontractors of Lessee or others acting for or on behalf of Lessee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Lessee. 22. Condemnation: If the whole of the Premises shall be taken or condemned by any competent authority under power of eminent domain for a public or a quasi-public use or purpose, then the leasehold estate hereby created shall cease and terminate as of the date actual physical possession of the Premises is taken by the condemnor. All compensation and damages awarded for such total taking shall belong to and be the sole property of City, provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive a sum attributable to the taking of: (i) the remaining value of the Premises’ improvements constructed by Lessee, adjusted for depreciation and less total grants provided by the City to Lessee towards construction of the same; and (ii) the damage to Lessee’s equipment, fixtures, or any improvements to the Premises which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove on expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. Upon termination of the Lease by a total taking all rental and other charges payable by Lessee to or on behalf of City under the provisions of this Lease shall be paid up to the date on which actual physical possession of the leased Premises shall be taken by the condemnor, and the parties hereto shall thereafter be released from all further liability in relation thereto. In the event that there shall be partial taking of the leased Premises during the lease term under the power of eminent domain, this Lease shall terminate as to the portion of the released premises so taken on the date when actual physical possession of said portion is taken by the Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 10 - condemnor. At Lessee’s option, this Lease shall continue in force and effect as to the remainder of the leased Premises. In the event of such partial taking, all compensation and damages for such partial taking shall belong to and be the sole property of City, provided, however, that Lessee shall be entitled to receive any award made for (i) the remaining value of the portion of the Premises’ improvements constructed by Lessee, adjusted for depreciation and less total grants provided by the City to Lessee towards construction of the same; and (ii) the taking of, or damage to, Lessee’s equipment, fixtures, and any improvements made by Lessee to the leased Premises which Lessee would have had, but for the condemnation, the right to remove on expiration or sooner termination of this Lease. In the event that this Lease is retained as to the portion of the leased Premises not condemned, any award made for alteration, modifications or repairs which may be reasonably required in order to place the remaining portion of the leased Premises not taken in a suitable condition for the continuance of Lessee’s tenancy shall belong to and be the sole property of City, but shall be utilized by the City to perform such necessary alterations, modifications and repairs. 23. Destruction of Premises: Should any matter or condition beyond the control of the parties hereto, such as war, public emergency, or calamity, data breach or similar event, fire, earthquake, flood, act of God, strike, pandemic, or any other labor disturbance, prevent performance of this Lease in accordance with the rights and privileges granted herein, this Lease shall, at Lessee’s option, be immediately be terminated and neither party shall be under any further legal obligation to the other by reason of said matter or condition. Should any aforementioned matter or condition create eligibility for Federal, State, or any other governmental jurisdictional relief assistance and/or aid, both parties agree to take all reasonable steps necessary to procure such assistance and/or aid, in their respective capacities at the time of such application. 24. Law: This Lease has been executed and delivered in the State of California and the validity, enforceability and interpretation of any of the clauses of this Lease shall be determined and governed by the laws of the State of California. 25. Lessee’s Responsibility for Compliance: Lessee shall at all times observe and comply with, and shall cause all their agents, employees and sub-contractors to observe and comply with all present and future laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, resolutions, or other binding enactments of any governmental authority, now or at any time during this Lease and any extensions thereof. If any future laws, rules, regulations or ordinances are passed by the City and said legislative enactment has any impact fiscal or otherwise on Lessee, and if Lessee does not make a timely objection to City during the course of legislative process, Lessee will be deemed to have waived any right to object at a later time and waives all damages flowing therefrom. 26. Venue: The duties and obligations of the parties created hereunder are performable in San Luis Obispo County, and such County shall be the venue for any action or proceeding that may be brought or arise out of or in connection with or by reason of this Lease. 27. Surrender: Lessee hereby acknowledges that upon expiration of the term of this Lease, neither Lessee or the City shall not be under any obligation to operate the Theatre or Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 11 - provide any of the services mentioned in this Lease. 28. Employment Status: Neither Lessee nor any of Lessee’s agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be employees or agents of City in connection with the performance of Lessee’s rights and obligations under this Lease. 29. Non-Discrimination: Lessee and City shall not discriminate against any person or class of persons in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended or any other applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in the use of the Premises. 30. Drug Free Workplace: Lessee and Lessee’s employees shall comply with City’s policy of a drug free workplace. Neither Lessee nor Lessee’s employees shall unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, possess, or use controlled substances, including but not limited to marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or amphetamines at any of Lessee’s facilities or City facilities or work sites. If any employee of Lessee is found to be under the influence of or in possession of any illegal substance at or on City’s premises, that employee may not return to any of City’s premises. If Lessee becomes aware that any of Lessee’s employees, during the course of their employ with Lessee, are convicted or plead nolo contendere to a criminal substance-abuse statute, Lessee shall be responsible for notifying the City Manager within seventy-two (72) hours of becoming aware of said conviction or plea. Violation of this notification provision shall constitute grounds for termination of this Lease. 31. Americans with Disabilities Act: The Lessee acknowledges the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sect. 12101 et seq., (“ADA”). Lessee, as required bylaw, hereby agrees and is required to install any and all equipment, perform any and all alterations, improvements or modifications to the Premises such that the Premises are in strict compliance with ADA requirements. 32. Holding Over: In the event that Lessee shall hold over after expiration of the term of this Lease or any extension or renewal thereof, with the consent, express or implied, of City, such holding over shall be deemed merely a tenancy from month-to-month on the terms, covenants, and conditions, so far as applicable, and subject to the same exceptions and reservations, as herein contained, until such tenancy is terminated in a manner prescribed by law. 33. Notices: All notices to Lessee shall be given in writing personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to Lessee at: San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre 3533 Empleo Street San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 Attention: Managing Artistic Director All notices to City shall be given in writing personally or by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, and addressed to: Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 12 - City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 Attention: City Manager Either party can change address by notifying the other party in writing. 34. Breach: Notwithstanding any other provisions contained herein, City may cancel and terminate this Lease or, at the City’s option, raise the rent to fair market rates for neighboring commercial uses if Lessee shall fail, neglect, or refuse to perform and obey any material term or condition set forth in this Lease, including but not limited to, failure to construct and thereafter operate the Premises as a live performance venue for the benefit of the public as herein provided, failure to maintain its non-profit corporate status in good standing or its tax- exempt status under applicable state and federal law, and failure to commence and complete construction of the Theatre as specified herein, or failure to comply with paragraph 15, provided the City Manager has given to Lessee written notice of thirty (30) days to do so, unless such failure, neglect, or refusal by nature cannot be remedied within thirty (30) days following said notice and Lessee has within thirty (30) days following the notice commenced and does thereafter continue diligent efforts to remedy such failure, neglect, or refusal. Minor administrative errors, oversights, or omissions related to the performance of this Lease shall not constitute a material breach but shall be subject to a thirty (30) day notice to correct. Any waiver by City of any failure by Lessee to comply with the terms and conditions of this Lease shall not be construed to be a waiver by City of any similar or other failure by Lessee to comply with any other term or condition hereof. 35. Waiver of Claim: Lessee hereby waives any claim against the City, its officers, agents or employees for damage or loss caused by any suit or proceeding directly or indirectly attacking the validity of this Lease, or any part thereof or by any judgment or award in any suit or proceeding declaring this Lease null, void or voidable, or delaying the same or any part thereof from being carried out. 36. Provisions Deemed Covenants and Conditions: The parties hereto agree that all the provisions hereof are to be construed as covenants and conditions as though the words importing such covenants and conditions are used in each instance, and that all of the provisions hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representative, successors and assigns. 37. Severability: The invalidity of any provision of this Lease shall not affect the validity, enforceability of any other provision of this Lease. 38. Entire Agreement and Modifications: This Lease embodies the whole Lease between the parties hereto as it pertains to the subject real property and there are no promised terms, conditions, or obligations referring to the subject matter hereof, other than as contained herein. Any alterations, changes or modifications to this Lease must be in writing and executed by both Lessee and City. Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 - 13 - 39. Lessee’s Termination Rights: If, during the term of this Lease, Lessee is no longer financially capable of conducting the agreed uses at the Premises, or the Premises are no longer of a sufficient size for Lessee’s projected agreed use of the Premises, Lessee shall have the right to surrender the Premises to the City upon one hundred and eighty (180) days written notice to the City, and shall thereafter have no further obligations to the City under the terms of this agreement, provided that the Premises are timely surrendered to the City in accordance with the terms of the notice, in a broom clean condition subject only to reasonable wear and tear. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease this day of 2024. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION By: ___________________________ Whitney McDonald, City Manager SAN LUIS OBISPO REPERTORY THEATRE, A CALIFORNIA NON- PROFIT CORPORATION By: _______________________ Kevin Harris, Managing Artistic Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ___________________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney 10th December Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 Exhibit A Lease Area Certain real property located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, a portion of 972 Nipomo Street, and a portion of City Parking Lot No. 14 identified as Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 002-412-011, 002- 412-012, 002-412-002 (portion) and 002-412-004 (portion), as depicted below. San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre – Lease Area Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 1 EXHIBIT B Lease Agreement City of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Repertory Theatre INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Without limiting San Luis Repertory Theatre’s (“SLO REP”) indemnification of the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”), and prior to commencement of the term of the Lease, SLO REP shall obtain, provide, and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Lease Agreement (“Agreement”), policies of insurance of the type and amounts described below in a form satisfactory to City. General liability insurance. SLO REP shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. The policy must include contractual liability that has not been amended. Any endorsement restricting standard ISO “insured contract” language will not be accepted. Workers’ compensation insurance. SLO REP shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer’s Liability Insurance (with limits of at least $1,000,000). SLO REP shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. Property insurance. Upon commencement of construction of SLO REP’s improvements and betterments, or installation of equipment, with approval of City, SLO REP shall obtain and maintain insurance on SLO REP’s improvements and betterments. Policy shall be provided for replacement value on an “all risk” basis. There shall be no coinsurance penalty provision in any such policy. Commercial property insurance covering the leased premises, fixtures, equipment, building, all property situated in, on, or constituting a part of the premises and any improvements. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the Insurance Services Offices broad causes of loss form CP 10 20 and approved of in writing by City. Coverage shall be sufficient to insure 100% of the replacement value and there shall be no coinsurance provisions. The policy shall include an inflation guard endorsement, 100% rents coverage, contents coverage, coverage for personal property of others, ordinance or law and increased cost of construction coverage. City shall be included as an insured and as loss payee on any such insurance. City shall not be liable for any business income or other consequential loss sustained by SLO REP. City shall not be liable for any loss of SLO REP’s personal property even if such loss is caused by negligence of City, City’s employees, or agents. Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 2 Proof of insurance. SLO REP shall provide certificates of insurance and required endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates and endorsements must be approved by City’s Risk Manager prior to commencement of the term of the Lease. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City for the contract period and any additional length of time required thereafter. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Duration of coverage. SLO REP shall procure and maintain for the contract period, and any additional length of time required thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, or financial loss which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the activities allowed by the Lease by SLO REP, their agents, representatives, employees, or subconsultants. Primary/noncontributing. Coverage provided by SLO REP shall be primary and any insurance or self-insurance procured or maintained by City shall not be required to contribute with it. The limits of insurance required herein may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non -contributory basis for the benefit of City before the City’s own insurance or self- insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured. City’s rights of enforcement. In the event any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary, and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by SLO REP. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement. Acceptable insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance or is on the List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers in the State of California, with an assigned policyhold ers’ Rating of A- (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Risk Manager. Waiver of subrogation. All insurance coverage maintained or procured pursuant to this agreement shall be endorsed to waive subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, agents, officials, employees, and volunteers or shall specifically allow SLO REP or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. SLO REP hereby waives its own right of recovery against City and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. Enforcement of contract provisions (non estoppel). SLO REP acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform SLO REP of non-compliance with any Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 3 requirement imposes no additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights hereunder. Requirements not limiting. Requirements of specific coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits or other requirements, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue and is not intended by any party or insured to be all inclusive, or to the exclusion of other coverage, or a waiver of any type. If the SLO REP maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the SLO REP. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. Notice of cancellation. SLO REP agrees to oblige its insurance agent or broker and insurers to provide the City with a thirty (30) day notice of cancellation (except for nonpayment for which a ten (10) day notice is required) or nonrenewal of coverage for each required coverage. If any of the SLO REP’s insurers are unwilling to provide such notice, then SLO REP shall have the responsibility of notifying the City immediately in the event of SLO REP’s failure to renew any of the required insurance coverages or insurer’s cancellation or non-renewal. Additional insured status. General liability, automobile liability, and umbrella/excess liability insurance policies shall provide or be endorsed to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be additional insureds under such policies. Prohibition of undisclosed coverage limitations. None of the coverages required herein will be in compliance with these requirements if they include any limiting endorsement of any kind that has not been first submitted to City and approved of in writing. Separation of insureds. A severability of interests provision must apply for all additional insureds ensuring that SLO REP’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limits of liability. The policy(ies) shall not contain any cross-liability exclusions. Pass-through clause. SLO REP agrees to ensure that its subconsultants, subcontractors, assignees, sublessees, permittees, and any other party who is brought onto or involved in the project/service by SLO REP (hereinafter collectively “subcontractor”), provide the same minimum insurance coverage and endorsements required of SLO REP. SLO REP agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. However, in the event SLO REP’s subcontractor cannot comply with this requirement, which proof must be submitted to the City, SLO REP shall be required to ensure that its subcontractor provide and maintain insurance coverage and endorsements sufficient to the specific risk of exposure involved with subcontractor’s scope of work and services, with limits less than required of the SLO REP, but in all other terms consistent with the SLO REP’s requirements under this agreement. This Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 4 provision does not relieve the SLO REP of its contractual obligations under the agreement and/or limit its liability to the amount of insurance coverage provided by its subcontractors. This provision is intended solely to provide SLO REP with the ability to utilize a subcontractor who may be otherwise qualified to perform the work or services but may not carry the same insurance limits as required of the SLO REP under this agreement given the limited scope of work or services provided by the subcontractor. SLO REP agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors, and others engaged in the project, will be submitted to City for review. City’s right to revise specifications. The City reserves the right at any time during the term of the contract to change the amounts and types of insurance required by giving SLO REP ninety (90) days advance written notice of such change. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to the Lease, SLO REP’s insurance obligations as set forth in Section 15 of the Lease and as more fully discussed herein will be subject to review every twenty (20) years by the City taking into account market conditions and industry standards. Self-insured retentions. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. City reserves the right to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention through confirmation from the underwriter. Timely notice of claims. SLO REP shall give City prompt and timely notice of claims made or suits instituted that arise out of or result from SLO REP’s performance under this Agreement, and that involve or may involve coverage under any of the required liability policies. Additional insurance. SLO REP shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection. SLO REP’s personal property, fixtures, equipment, inventory, and vehicles are not insured by City against loss or damage due to fire, theft, vandalism, rain, water, criminal or negligent acts of others, or any other cause. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing maintenance of the required insurance coverage, as well as endorsements effecting general liability coverage. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. Docusign Envelope ID: 460EBFC4-B29D-4519-9261-60321E9964C7 225 From:Hix, Kathleen Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 4:19 PM To:Hix, Kathleen Subject:FW: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Attachments:PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project.pdf Importance:High New SLO REP space?? Is this by CADPS? From: Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 10:51 AM To: Edmunson, Morgan <medmunso@slocity.org>; Hix, Kathleen <khix@slocity.org> Cc: Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hi ladies! Would you be able to help me locate the following information regarding the tree removal at the new SLO Rep space? (see below) Let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to reach out to others. I’m not sure who all would/could be involved in getting this information. 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 From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:12 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> 226 Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hello all, Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 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 227 From:Vert, Nicole Sent:Monday, February 9, 2026 1:45 PM To:Stanley, Erin Cc:Timpano, Mika Subject:FW: January Plan Review Invoice Attachments:F260065-SLO-F.pdf Hi Erin, Will you please make a PO and then pay this invoice? Account #8503-61013 Thank you! Nicole Vert pronouns she/her/hers Business Analyst Fire Department 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-5240 E nvert@slocity.org T 805.781.7184 slocity.org Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications From: Kenia Joachin <kenia@csgengr.com> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 1:31 PM To: Vert, Nicole <nvert@slocity.org>; Bozzano, Jeanne <JBozzano@slocity.org>; Timpano, Mika <mtimpano@slocity.org> Cc: Steven Kanning <stevenk@csgengr.com> Subject: January Plan Review Invoice Good afternoon, Attached is the January 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 228 Bay Area Green Business Certified _______________________ 550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA 94404 _______________________ INVOICE Date:2/2/2026 Invoice No.:F260065 Fire Marshal City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street Period:1/1/2026 - 1/31/2026 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 FED ID:91-2053749 Billing Type: Fire Plan Review Services Account No.: CSG No City PC No Job Address Description Hour CSG Fee 25F-00470 BLDG-2740-2024 614 Monterey St New performing arts theatre-Structural review only – CSG Consultant – please review hourly 3.00 $414.00 Total:$414.00 Please remit payment to: CSG Consultants, Inc. PO Box 8485, Pasadena, CA 91109-8485 550 Pilgrim Drive Foster City, CA 94404 Phone: 650-522-2500 Fax: 650-522-2599 Email: csgstaff@csgengr.com Online at www.csgwebsite.com 229 From:Shoresman, Michelle Sent:Sunday, February 8, 2026 11:54 AM To:Allan Cooper Subject:Re: Letter To The SLO City Council Addressing An Item That Is Not On Any Upcoming Meeting Agenda Hi Allan, I do truly appreciate your attempts to brainstorm solutions to this really unfortunate problem. Although not discussed in detail on the dais, it is important to remember that SLO REP are really the builders of this project and in discussing at length with them, the redesign and costs of which you mention would have rendered the project unable to be completed. The cost and potential loss of size for the structure would have resulted in abandonment of the project that has been in the works for over 14 years. That said, if you want to explore this further with SLO REP, they could probably provide more details. Thanks again. It was a truly heartbreaking situation. Michelle Michelle Shoresman Council Member City of San Luis Obispo From: Allan Cooper < Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 11:16:09 AM To: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Subject: Letter To The SLO City Council Addressing An Item That Is Not On Any Upcoming Meeting Agenda Dear City Clerk - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the SLO City Council? This letter pertains to their February 3, 2026 meeting when they had the opportunity to review Consent Agenda Item 5G "Review of a Request to remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street". We would also like this letter to be placed in the City's Correspondence File. Thank you! - Allan Cooper 230 From:Sharon Whitney < Sent:Friday, February 6, 2026 1:57 PM To:Marx, Jan Subject:Thank you for your vote and comments on tree removal viz SLO rep and parking structure I appreciate your comments and vote. They hold planners accountable for their oversights. I wish Dad was alive to offer his opinion on this. Sharon Whitney We are all teachers and students for each other. 231 From:Will Powers < Sent:Friday, February 6, 2026 1:10 PM To:E-mail Council Website Subject:Fwd: Letter To The SLO City Council Addressing An Item That Is Not On Any Upcoming Meeting Agenda Attachments:102_06_26...lettertothecouncil.pdf ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Cooper < Date: Fri, Feb 6, 2026, 11:27 AM Subject: Fwd: Letter To The SLO City Council Addressing An Item That Is Not On Any Upcoming Meeting Agenda To: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Cooper < Date: Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 11:16 AM Subject: Letter To The SLO City Council Addressing An Item That Is Not On Any Upcoming Meeting Agenda To: <cityclerk@slocity.org>, <emailcouncil@slocity.org> Dear City Clerk - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the SLO City Council? This letter pertains to their February 3, 2026 meeting when they had the opportunity to review Consent Agenda Item 5G "Review of a Request to remove one tree associated with the SLO Rep Theatre Project located at 614 Monterey Street". We would also like this letter to be placed in the City's Correspondence File. Thank you! - Allan Cooper Save Our Downtown ______________________________________________________________________________ Seeking to protect and promote the historical character, design, livability and economic success of downtown San Luis Obispo. To: San Luis Obispo City Council Re: February 3, 2026 Council Meeting Consent Agenda Item 5G) “A request to remove a 48 inch diameter oak tree associated with the SLO Rep Theater project located at 614 Monterey Street. From: Allan Cooper, Secretary Save Our Downtown Date: February 6, 2026 Honorable Mayor and Council Members -  Thank you, for pulling Item 5G (i.e.,the proposed removal of a Coastal Live Oak) from your February 3, 2026 Consent Agenda. As you well know, there were 30 letters in your correspondence file ardently opposing the removal of this legacy oak tree. However, missing from your very thorough and heartfelt oral testimony last Tuesday was a serious discussion of any architectural design mitigations that could result in Michael Boswell’s “win-win” approach to this challenging problem. Also missing in this discussion was the architect of record, Bryce Engstrom. As a retired practicing architect and educator, it pains me to see how the role of the architect has been diminished over the past several decades. Possibly Bryce, with his additional expertise, might have brought up the following: Mr. Engstrom might have mentioned a redesign involving a raised foundation instead of slab on grade placed over the root structure. It is well known that an oak tree can survive a building on pilings over its roots, as this method is less invasive than slab construction. Survival depends on minimizing root cutting, maintaining soil oxygen/moisture levels, and using careful construction methods like helical piles. Understandably, building a foundation on piers (pier and beam/crawl space) generally costs $2 to $15 more per square foot than a slab-on- grade, depending on soil and site conditions. While slab-on- grade averages $4−$14 per square foot, pier foundations are typically $6−$15 per square foot due to higher labor for elevated framing and excavation. While piers have higher upfront costs, they provide easier access to plumbing and structural repairs, potentially lowering long-term maintenance costs compared to fixing a broken pipe under a concrete slab. Though the City staff report does not reveal a floor plan (which would have been helpful), it is entirely feasible that the necessary excavation for a raked seating auditorium could take place entirely outside the critical root zone. As I stated in my previous letter to you, reducing the foliage of a mature oak tree at one time by more than 15% could compromise its health. But several prunings of 15% over the course of two or three years (say, July 2026 and July 2027) will likely insure the health of this magnificent tree.  Please do not rush to a decision before you have explored all of these alternative approaches. Thank you for your time and deliberations. 233 From:Paonessa, Kelly Sent:Friday, February 6, 2026 10:51 AM To:Edmunson, Morgan; Hix, Kathleen Cc:Kacsinta, Madeline; Weidler, Hayley Subject:FW: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Attachments:PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project.pdf Importance:High Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi ladies! Would you be able to help me locate the following information regarding the tree removal at the new SLO Rep space? (see below) Let me know if you have any questions or if you need me to reach out to others. I’m not sure who all would/could be involved in getting this information. 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 From: Armas, Sara <SArmas@slocity.org> Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 8:12 AM To: Stowe, Lala <lstowe@slocity.org>; Paonessa, Kelly <KPaoness@slocity.org>; Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Cc: LaFreniere, Matt <mlafreni@slocity.org>; Tway, Timothea (Timmi) <TTway@slocity.org>; Weidler, Hayley <hweidler@slocity.org>; Nelson, Brian <BNelson@slocity.org>; Kacsinta, Madeline <MKacsint@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Subject: Public Records Request – PRR26056 SLO REVIEWS - Records regarding tree associated with SLO REP Theatre Project Importance: High Hello all, 234 Attached is a Public Records request for “any and all reports, surveys, arborist assessments, root studies, or professional evaluations that justify the claim that the tree’s root system would not affect the construction of the new theatre”, due by 02/16/2026. I’ve included staff from both CDD and PW just to cover all bases. If you are not able to meet that deadline, please advise. Otherwise, please send the requested responsive documents to cityclerk@slocity.org. Thanks! Sara Armas pronouns she/her/hers Deputy City Clerk I 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 235 From:City of San Luis Obispo <communications@slocity.org> Sent:Friday, February 6, 2026 9:53 AM To:Anastasia, David Subject:Council Meeting Recap View this email in your browser To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Feb 3 Council Meeting Recap From replacing a decades old tree to increasing campaign contribution limits, the City Council made several important decisions this week. Post Date: 02/06/2026 9:35 AM The San Luis Obispo City Council met on Tuesday, February 3, 2026. Below are highlights from the meeting. Review the full meeting video recording and agenda with attachments. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Watch the recording of this week's City Council meeting. Presentations & Consent Agenda The meeting started with several presentations:  Mayor Stewart presented a proclamation declaring February 2026 as Black History Month in San Luis Obispo.  Department directors introduced newly promoted staff: Police Chief Rick Scott introduced Deputy Police Chief Aaron Schafer and Public Works & Utilities Director Aaron Floyd introduced Assistant Public Works Director Madeline Kascinta and Assistant Utilities Director Shawna Scott.  City Manager Whitney McDonald then presented a brief report on City programs, projects, and upcoming events. The City Council then pulled the following two items from the Consent Agenda for discussion: 236 SLO Rep Theatre Tree Replacement Request The City Council discussed a request to remove a large oak tree to allow construction of the new SLO Repertory Theatre to move forward as designed. While the project originally planned to keep the tree, an arborist determined the tree would not survive the damage caused by the construction. The Council discussed balancing the City’s commitment to protecting its urban forest with moving forward with a long-planned cultural arts facility that supports downtown vitality and community life. Ultimately, the Council approved the request. To offset this loss, the project will replace the tree with one new tree on-site and four additional trees nearby, exceeding City requirements. Diablo Canyon Legislative Advocacy Letter The City Council approved sending a letter to state legislators outlining San Luis Obispo’s priorities related to the continued operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The letter does not take a position on extending the plant’s license, but instead focuses on protecting public safety, restoring lost tax revenues for local governments and schools, and conserving coastal lands around the facility. These issues directly affect local services, emergency preparedness, and long-term planning for the community. The letter ensures the City’s perspective is clearly represented as the State makes decisions that impact the region through 2030 and beyond. It also thanks Senator John Laird and Assemblymember Dawn Addis, who represent our region in the State Legislature, and shows the City’s support for the work they are doing on this issue. The Council approved all other items on the Consent Agenda with one vote, including updating the City’s annual recruitment of Advisory Body members, which will begin this month. Public Hearings & Business Items The City Council also held a public hearing and study session. Recaps of these discussions are below. Campaign Contribution Limits to Increase The City Council held a public hearing to discuss updating San Luis Obispo’s local election campaign contribution limit from $250 to $500 per person, aligning the City’s rules with recent changes in state law. This update reflects new state requirements under the Political Reform Act that raised the threshold for when campaign donations require officials to step back from certain decisions, helping ensure consistency, clarity, and fairness in how local elections are regulated. The change does not increase overall campaign 237 spending limits or reduce transparency; instead, it modernizes the City’s code to match current state standards while maintaining strong safeguards against conflicts of interest. Study Session: Laguna Lake Golf Course The City Council held a study session to take a closer look at how the Laguna Lake Golf Course operates, how much it costs to maintain, and what options exist for its future. Staff shared that the public course is a long-standing community asset that supports youth programs, seniors, schools, and affordable recreation, but it also requires ongoing General Fund support and has aging facilities/infrastructure that need investment, especially the closed Pro Shop and the pedestrian/cart bridge. The Council and staff heard from a variety of community members who support the golf course. Ultimately, the Council directed staff to move forward with planned repairs, explore new programming to increase community use and revenue. Discussions of the possibility of future housing at the site will be assessed in future updates to the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. Looking Ahead The City Council will hold its next meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible for one hour of complimentary parking in designated City garages. Learn more at Parking for Public Meetings. To provide input or view upcoming agendas, visit www.slocity.org/agendas. To receive updates from the City, sign up at www.slocity.org/subscribe or follow us on social media. Media Contact: Whitney Szentesi, Public Communications Manager 805.783.7716, wszentes@slocity.org To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Instagram To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.YouTube To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.LinkedIn To help protect y our privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Website Copyright © 2026 City of San Luis Obispo, All rights reserved. You are receiving this message because you provided your email address via a city service, event, or program. Our mailing address is: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 238 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. 240 From:stacy l henderson < Sent:Thursday, February 5, 2026 9:14 AM To:Francis, Emily Subject:Re: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 Thank you Emily! Yes , SLO is very important to me! If there is anything else I can be a part of for you not hesitate to make contact! Best, Stacy Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2026, at 12:14 PM, Francis, Emily <EFrancis@slocity.org> wrote: Dear Stacy, Thank you so much for taking the time to write and share your perspective on the heritage oak at 614 Monterey Street. I truly appreciate hearing from community members like you who have such deep roots in San Luis Obispo and who care so passionately about preserving our natural heritage for future generations. You're absolutely right that this ancient oak is an honorable member of our community, and the microclimate and ecological benefits it provides are irreplaceable. I have asked the arborist to provide me with additional information about whether it's feasible to save this tree. I'm hopeful there's a path forward that allows us to preserve this incredible Coastal Live Oak for future generations to enjoy. Thank you again for your advocacy and for caring so deeply about our community's natural treasures. Your voice matters in this process. Take care, Emily Emily Francis pronouns she/her/hers Council Member <untitled> Office of the City Council 990 Palm, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 E EFrancis@slocity.org On Tue, Feb 03, 2026 at 12:45 AM, stacy l henderson < wrote: 241 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 3, 2026 at 12:44:52 AM PST To: Whitney Szentesi <communications@slocity.org> Subject: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 2, 2026 at 8:42:14 PM PST To: Norma Jean Hoffman MY Mom < Subject: Fwd: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 This is the email I sent to city council Mom :) From: stacy l henderson < Date: February 2, 2026 at 8:26:09 PM PST To: emailcouncil@slocity.org Subject: "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026 G’day honorable members of SLO City Council. Please consider this email as a comment for: item # "5.g - tree removal at 614 Monterey Street". Feb 3, 2026. I’m Stacy Henderson. I’ve been a ( grateful) resident ( with in the city limits) of SLO for 55 of my 62 years. It is my privilege to be able to voice my concerns to our elected officials. I OPPOSE the removal of this tree! I would imagine /surmise that the reason you all have run for the honorable seats on our City Council… (& subsequently were elected by us , the good citizens of SLO ) 242 …is because we ALL SHARE the same love for the environmental beauty and unique diversity that SLO has. I want to remind the honorable council members that we are very fortunate to be able to SUPPORT this kind of environmental benefit within our city limits ! Very few places on the planet have the kind of micro climates we do! I hope the Council WILL NOT remove this ancient and yes “honorable”member of our community and the thew it’s brings in her silent standing! Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Best, Stacy L Henderson 243 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Wednesday, February 4, 2026 4:35 PM To:Karson Wells Subject:RE: KSBY Interview request regarding SLO Rep tree removal Hi Karson, Thank you for reaching out. I’m sorry, but I’m not available. The information you’re looking for is available in the recording from last night’s City Council meeting and as well as the Staff Report. Once you’ve reviewed this information, I’m happy to answer any questions on the material. For personal thoughts, I would point you to the applicant. Best regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: City of San Luis Obispo, CA <slocitywebmaster@enotify.visioninternet.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 3:45 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org> Subject: KSBY Interview request regarding SLO Rep tree removal Message submitted from the <City of San Luis Obispo, CA> website. Site Visitor Name: Karson Wells Site Visitor Email: Karson.Wells@ksby.com Hi Walter, I was wondering if you'd be available for a quick on camera interview sometime tomorrow (ideally before 12pm) to talk about the tree that will be removed at the SLO Rep site? I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how Tuesday nights city council meeting went, and what tree's will be replacing the one that will be removed. I'd also love to learn more about what rules and regulations there are for situations like this. The interview would take about 5 minutes of your time, and maybe we could meet near the tree? Thank you! Feel free to give me a call if you have questions. Karson Wells (805)441-0942 1 Subject:SLO Rep _ Downtown Oak Location:Microsoft Teams Meeting Start:Wed 2/18/2026 4:00 PM End:Wed 2/18/2026 4:50 PM Show Time As:Tentative Recurrence:(none) Organizer:Hermann, Greg Required Attendees:Tway, Timothea (Timmi); Gault, Walter; Hill, Robert Call Handling Mode 2:2 ________________________________________________________________________________ Microsoft Teams meeting Join: Need help? | System reference Dial in by phone +1 209-645-4165,,675805355# United States, Stockton Find a local number Phone conference ID: For organizers: Meeting options | Reset dial-in PIN ________________________________________________________________________________ 1 From:Gault, Walter Sent:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:13 AM To:Hermann, Greg Subject:Accepted: SLO Rep _ Downtown Oak