Agenda packet — San Luis Obispo City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 4 of 4)

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A20

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING C ELEVATIONS
LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT CALC:

LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'
HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5'
AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210' MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’ MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’*FF = 158.0’ (BUILDING #7)*FF = 154.0’ (BUILDING #3)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT* *NOTE:PROVIDING HEIGHT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE OF BUILDING TYPE AT HIGHEST AND LOWEST LOCATIONS ON SITE.

AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 188.0’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)184.0’ (BUILDING #14) BLDG MAX. HT*199.71’ (BUILDING # 24 & 25)195.71’ (BUILDING #14)

Page 422 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
5' - 11" 52' - 10"
63' - 1"
3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

678',2

3/$17<3(
&'

678',2

3/$17<3(
&'

678',2

3/$17<3(
&'

678',2

85' - 4"
'(&. '(&.
'(&. '(&. '(&.
'(&.
3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

'(&. '(&.
'(&. '(&.
75' - 9 1/2"
3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
&'

%(')/$7

51' - 10"
60' - 6"
85' - 4"
'(&. '(&.
'(&. '(&.
6&$/(

%8,/',1*' *5281')/225 6&$/(

%8,/',1*' 6(&21')/225 6&$/(

%8,/',1*' 7+,5')/225
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A21

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING D FLOOR PLANS
PLAN TYPE - CD31/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - CD11/8" = 1'-0" 2 BEDROOM 2 BATH FLAT
APPROX. 950 SF
STUDIO
APPROX. 565 SF

SECOND BIKE
PARKING @
GROUND

UNITS ONLY

SECOND BIKE
PARKING @
GROUND

UNITS ONLY

BIKE PARKING

Page 423 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A22

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING D ELEVATIONS
LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT CALC:

LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'
HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5'
AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210' MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’ MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’*FF = 157.0’ (BUILDING #6)*FF = 155.0’ (BUILDING #5)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT* *NOTE:PROVIDING HEIGHT INFORMATION FOR INSTANCE OF BUILDING TYPE AT HIGHEST AND LOWEST LOCATIONS ON SITE.

AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 187.0’ (BUILDING #6)185.0’ (BUILDING #5)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT198.71’ (BUILDING #6)196.71’ (BUILDING #5)

Page 424 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
&200(5&,$/63$&(
&200(5&,$/63$&(
81,76725$*(
(/(&75,&$/
5(6,'(17
6(175<
/2%%<
7494 SF
572 SF
459 SF
641 SF
5295 SF
(/(95220
200' - 4"
212' - 3"
51' - 4"
57' - 0" 155' - 3"
149' - 1"
6+2:(56
/2&.(56 3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2
3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

452 SF
453 SF
613 SF
612 SF
'(&.
'(&.'(&.
'(&.'(&.
'(&.'(&.
'(&.
'(&.
3/$17<3(
(

678',2

'(&.
'(&.
3/$17<3(
(

678',2

528 SF
'(&.
452 SF
'(&.
'(&. '(&. 456 SF
456 SF
'(&. '(&. '(&. '(&. '(&.
6&$/(

%8,/',1*( *5281')/225 6&$/(

%8,/',1*( 6(&21')/225
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A23

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING E FLOOR PLANS

Page 425 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

%(')/$7

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

612 SF
3/$17<3(
(

678',2
3/$17<3(
(

678',2

3/$17<3(
(

678',2

'(&.
'(&. '(&. '(&. '(&. '(&.
'(&.
'(&.
'(&.'(&.
'(&.
'(&.
'(&.
'(&.
'(&.
'(&.
3/$17<3(
(

678',2

'(&. '(&. '(&.
'(&.
3/$17<3(
(

678',2

6&$/(

%8,/',1*( 7+,5')/225
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A24

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING E FLOOR PLANS
PLAN TYPE - E21/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TYPE - E11/8" = 1'-0"
1 BEDROOM 1 BATH FLAT
APPROX. 615 SF
STUDIO
APPROX. 450 SF
BIKE PARKING. (2) VERTICAL
BIKE PARKING. (2) VERTICAL

Page 426 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A25

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING E ELEVATIONS
FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT CALC:

LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'
HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5'
AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210' MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’ MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’FF = 154.0’ (BUILDING #1-2)BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT*AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’ 190.0’ (BUILDING #1-2) BLDG MAX. HEIGHT200.0’ (BUILDING #1-2)

Page 427 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A26

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING E ELEVATIONS
REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"

Page 428 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
/281*(63$&( 287'225%%4$5($
.,7&+(1
%86,1(66$5($ (175<
55 55
322/(48,30(17 55
(/(&7
(;(5&,6(5220
6+2:(5 6+2:(5
6&$/(

*5281')/2253/$1
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A27

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING F FLOOR PLANS

Page 429 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A28

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BUILDING F ELEVATIONS
LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
HEIGHT CALC:

LOW POINT OF SITE: 148.5'
HIGH POINT OF SITE: 199.5'
AVG. NATURAL GRADE: (148.5' + 199.5') / 2 = 174'
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (OCCUPIED)= 36'-0" ń174' + (36)' = 210' MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED (UNOCCUPIED)= 46’-0” ń174’ + (46)’ = 220’ MAX. HT (UNOCCUPIED SPACES)220.0’MAX. HT (OCCUPIED SPACES)210.0’FF = 163.0’ (BUILDING #10) BLDG MAX. PLATE HEIGHT
AVG. NATURAL GRADE174.0’
173.0’ (BUILDING #10)BLDG MAX. HT183.25’ (BUILDING #10)

MAILBOX LOCATION

Page 430 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021

COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING TYPES A & B

2. BOARD & BATTEN F I B E R C E M E N T B O A R D & B A T T S I D I N G

3. HORIZ. SIDING F I B E R C E M E N T 8” LAP SIDING

4. PAINT COLOR S H E R W I N W I L L I A M S WHITE SNOW SW 9541

5. PAINT COLOR S H E R W I N W I L L I A M S GRAY SHINGLE SW 7670 5 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A29

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE
COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 1A

CHARACTER SKETCH
1 5
1 2 3 4 6 7
1 . A S P H A L T S H I N G L E R O O F I N G : OWENS CORNING OAKRIDGE T W I L I G H T B L A C K

6. METAL ROOFING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFING, - DARK GRAY 8 8 . L I G H T F I X T U R E S T Y L E : M A X I M M O D E L 8 6 3 9 3 B Z (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT) 3 6
7 . S T O R E F R O N T : M I L G A R D W I N D O W S B L A C K F R A M E 2 3
6 2
2 3
4 2 4 2 5
4

Page 431 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A30

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE
COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 1B

Page 432 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021

COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING TYPES C & D

3. BOARD & BATTEN F I B E R C E M E N T B O A R D & B A T T S I D I N G COLOR:

SHERWIN WILLIAMS
WHITE SNOW SW 9541

4. HORIZ. SIDING F I B E R C E M E N T 8” LAP SIDING COLOR:

SHERWIN WILLIAMS
WHITE SNOW SW 9541

5. BOARD & BATTEN F I B E R C E M E N T B O A R D & B A T T S I D I N G COLOR:

SHERWIN WILLIAMS
LIVEABLE GREEN SW6176
6 . C E M E N T P L A S T E R : S H E R W I N W I L L I A M S GREEN EARTH SW 7748 4 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A31

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE
COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 2A

CHARACTER SKETCH
1 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 . M E T A L R O O F I N G : M C A R T H Y W H O L S A L E S T A N D I N G S E A M M E T A L S H A K E G R A Y 5 3
5 9 . L I G H T F I X T U R E S T Y L E :

M A X I M M O D E L 8 6 3 9 3 B Z (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT) 1 . A S P H A L T S H I N G L E R O O F I N G : OWENS CORNING OAKRIDGE T W I L I G H T B L A C K 9 2
6 6
5 4
3 3 4
4 2
7 . S T O R E F R O N T : M I L G A R D W I N D O W S B L A C K F R A M E 8

Page 433 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A32

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE
COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 2B

Page 434 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
zz

COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING E (MIXED USE)

5. BRICK VENEER T R A I N S T A T I O N THIN BRICK BRICK VENEER

3. PAINT COLOR S H E R W I N W I L L I A M S WHITE SNOW SW 9541 3 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A33

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE
COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 3

CHARACTER SKETCH
3 1 2 4 5 6
1 . M E T A L R O O F I N G : MCARTHY WHOLSALE S T A N D I N G S E A M M E T A L S H A K E G R A Y

4. PAINT COLOR: LEVEL 4 SMOOTH TROWEL FINISH COLOR: S H E R W I N W I L L I A M S SAGE GREEN LIGHT 1 6

2. HORIZ. SIDING F I B E R C E M E N T 8” LAP SIDING
7 7
7 . S T O R E F R O N T : S T O R E F R O N T W I N D O W SYSTEM - BLACK

6. WAINSCOT: P R E C A S T C O N C R E T E
3 5
3 1
5 2
2 2
7 8
8 . L I G H T F I X T U R E S T Y L E : M A X I M M O D E L 8 6 3 9 3 B Z (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT) 4 4
4 6

Page 435 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021

COLOR AND MATERIALS PALETTE FOR BUILDING F (CLUBHOUSE)

4. PAINT COLOR S H E R W I N W I L L I A M S WHITE SNOW 9541 4 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A34

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE
COLORS AND MATERIALS SCHEME 4

CHARACTER SKETCH
1 2
1 2 3 5 6 7
1 . M E T A L R O O F I N G : M C A R T H Y W H O L S A L E S T A N D I N G S E A M M E T A L S H A K E G R A Y

2. BOARD & BATTEN F I B E R C E M E N T B O A R D & B A T T S I D I N G

3. HORIZ. SIDING F I B E R C E M E N T 8” LAP SIDING
5 5 . W O O D P L A N K S I D I N G : HORIZ. CEDER PLANK

6. BRICK VENEER T R A I N S T A T I O N THIN BRICK BRICK VENEER 8 . L I G H T F I X T U R E S T Y L E : M A X I M M O D E L 8 6 3 9 3 B Z (NIGHT SKY COMPLIANT)C 3 6
8 7 . S T O R E F R O N T : S T O R E F R O N T W I N D O W SYSTEM - BLACK 4 4
1

Page 436 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021

A C A C I A C R E E K
26 26
26 13B
33 DESIGN KEY
CLUBHOUSE - SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET 40PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, TYP.SHORT-TERM BIKE PARKING, TYP. (63 MIN.)SEE SHEET A43COMMUNITY MAILBOXES - SEE ARCH SHEETS 1 1
1 5
5 5
5 5 5
5 5
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
7 7
2 MULTI-USE PATH
2 2
2 2
3 FLEXIBLE USE DECK AT BIORETENTION AREA
3 3
4 ENTRY NODE AT MULTI-USE PATH WITH SEATING
4 6
6 NATURAL PLAY AREA - SEE ENLARGEMENTDECORATIVE PERMEABLE PAVERS, TYP.PEDESTRIAN CROSSING, TYP.

LOADING ZONE
TRASH ENCLOSURE, TYP. - SEE SHEET A45EXISTING ROCK OUTCROP 9 9
9 8
8 8
8 8
12 12
13 13
13 13
13 13
13B
13 13
13 14
14 14
14 14
14 14
14 10 COMMUNITY PICNIC AREAS
10 10
10 11 BIORETENTION AREA, TYP. - SEE CIVIL SHEETS
11 11
11 11
11 15 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS - NOT A PART
16 15
15 LONG TERM BIKE PARKING BARNS, TYP. (5)SEE SHEET A43 35’ ACACIA CREEK SETBACK 16 16
16 16
17 17
17 18 RETAINING WALL, TYP. - SEE CIVIL SHEETS & A44
18 18 18
18 18
18 19 FUTURE BIKE/ PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE - NOT A PART
19 20 ACACIA CREEK BUFFER
20 20

BICYCLE REPAIR STATION WITH SEATING
DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGSEE SHEET A47 FOR LANDSCAPE PLANFENCING - 6’H POOL FENCING - 6’H PRIVACY ENTRY MONUMENT LOCATION - SEE SHEET A43
FENCING - 42”H ON WALL - SEE SHEET A44

EARTH MOUNDS

PUBLIC ART LOCATION
22 22
22 21
21 23
23 23
23 23
F1
F1
F2
F3
F3
24 25
F2 F
26 F3
25 24
EXISTING EUCALYPTUS CANOPY TYP.SEE SHEET A48 FOR TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALS

SANTA FE ROAD

TANK FARM ROAD
0’ 80’ 20’ 75’ 40’
SCALES: 1” = 80’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 0’ 40’ 320’ 80’ 160’ 1”=40’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)
NORTH
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A35

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Page 437 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A36

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

PEDESTRIAN LINKAGES & TRAFFIC CALMING EXHIBIT

Page 438 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A37

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT - BIKE NODE

Page 439 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A38

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

LANDSCAPE AREAS AT MIXED USE BUILDING EXHIBIT

Page 440 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A39

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

OUTDOOR SPACES - ENLARGEMENTS EXHIBITS

Page 441 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
COVERED OUTDOOR PATIOPOOL / SPAOVERHEAD STUCTURE - SEE A42OUTDOOR SEATING, TYP. - SEE A41-42, A44SYNTHETIC TURF EXERCISE AREA - SEE A42FIRE TABLES WITH SEATINGTIMBERSTACKS CLIMBING LOGS - SEE A41FLEXIBLE USE DECK OVER BIORETENTION AREAEXERCISE E UIPMENTWATER TROUGH ENTRY FEATURECENTRAL BOARDWALK6’ H PERIMETER POOL FENCE - SEE A44CLIMBER PLAY FEATURE - SEE A4130-42”H LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLS, TYP. SEE A44CABANAS WITH RAISED PLANTERS 1 1
2 2
2 3
3 3
4 4
4 4
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
11 12
12 13
13 14
14 14
15 15
16 18-30”H SEATWALL, TYP. - SEE A44
1616
16 16
17 ART / MURAL
17 17
18 BARBECUE AND COUNTER
18 DRAGONFLY PLAY ELEMENTOUTDOOR PING PONG TABLE

FIREPLACE
1920
21 21
20 19

CLUBHOUSE DESIGN KEY
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A40

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

SITE PLAN ENLARGEMENT

Page 442 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021

OUTDOOR AMENITIES &NATURAL PLAY
SEE SHEETS A35 & A40 FOR LOCATIONS OF

ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A41

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

LANDSCAPE CHARACTER & AMENITIES

Page 443 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
600 TANK FARM ROAD SITE FURNISHINGS AND MATERIALS 36
WALL LIGHTSLITHONIA WM1925850 LUMEN LED
WASTE RECEPTACLESVICTOR STANLEYRB-36 AND SD 242
PEDESTRIAN LIGHTSLITHONIA W527 WITH PM30POST MOUNT - 12’ HIGH, LED

BOLLARDLITHONIA RADEAN LEDSEE ARCH AND V
SIGN LIGHTSLITHONIA M707 & E12 ARM850 LUMEN LED

ALL LIGHTS AND BOLLARDS IN COLOR BLACK OR BRONZE

SITEFURNISHINGS AND MATERIALS
SEE SHEETS A35 & A40 FOR LOCATIONS OF ELEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET, EXCLUDING LIGHT FIXTURES 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A42

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

SITE FURNISHINGS AND MATERIALS

Page 444 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
6$1/8,62%,632&$
6&$/(
,1&+(6 '$7(
'5$:1%<

&0+
(0$,/

LQIR#3HDN5DFNVFRP
3+21(

0$7(5,$/6 ),1,6+

0$7(5,$/6
+2752//('5281'%$5+2752//('5281'%$5 [[$1*/(
),1,6+
67$1'$5'+27',33('*$/9$1,=('237,21$/
32:'(5&2$7
%$6,&&2/256

%,.(6,1*/(6,'('
:+((/63$&,1*

127(
'5$:,1*12
66&5
6$1/8,62%,632&$
0$,/

IR#3HDN5DFNVFRP
3+21(

42-60 H ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNAGE - WOOD OPTIONSCEDAR WOOD SLAT MATERIAL WITH CONCRETE ACCENTSALUMINUM LETTERING, 24 S FT LETTERING MAX.DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF SLO STD.SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS, SHEET A3542-60 H ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNAGE - GABION OPTIONSSTONE GABION WITH STEEL ACCENTS ALUMINUM LETTERING, 24 S FT LETTERING MAX.DIMENSIONS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY OF SLO STD.SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS, SHEET A35 SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING PEAK CAMPUS’ RACKS, GALVANIZED POWDER COATED STEEL IN COLOR BRONZESURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONSSEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS AND UANITITIES, SHEET A35LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING SEE SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS AND UANITITIES, SHEET A35SEE TITLE SHEET FOR BIKE PARKING STATISTICS, SHEET A1MATERIAL AND FINISH TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE * PROJECT SIGNAGE DESIGN AND DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED IN FUTURE ‘SIGNAGE PROGRAM’ SUBMITTAL 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A43

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

BICYCLE PARKING AND MONUMENT SIGNAGE

Page 445 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 December 21, 2021
18"
1 P.I.P. CONCRETE WALL
2 ADJACENT PAVING, SEE PLAN
3 COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE

PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
4 CONCRETE FOOTING
5 EXPANSION JOINT
6 #4 REBAR HORIZONTAL AS SHOWN
7 #4 REBAR @16" O.C. VERT
9 HOOK TAILS INTO FOOTING, TYP.
6 7
2 1
3 5
9 5
8 8 1/2" CHAMFER ALL EDGES, TYP.
3'-6"
1" MIN.
6’ WOOD SLAT PRIVACY FENCE AND GATE 42 METAL FENCE ON WALL 4-6’ METAL PICKET GATE
30-42 LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLCONCRETE BOARDFORM FINISH, IN COLOR GREYSEE EXAMPLE IMAGERY AT RIGHT, THIS SHEET 6’ METAL PICKET FENCE

SEE CIVIL SHEETS FOR RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS SEE SITE PLAN SHEET A35 FOR FENCING LOCATIONS
SEE SITE PLAN SHEET A35 & ENLARGEMENT SHEET A40 FOR LANDSCAPE WALL LOCATIONS CMU RETAINING WALLSHEIGHT VARIES, SEE CIVIL PLANSCOLOR, TYPE AND FINISH TO MATCH TRASH ENCLOSURES, SHEET A4530-42 LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLSCONCRETE BOARDFORM FINISH, IN COLOR GREY 18-30 SEATWALLSFINISH TO MATCH LANDSCAPE ACCENT WALLS WITHWOOD SLAT INSETS * FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE SUBMITTAL 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A44

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

SITE WALLS AND FENCING

Page 446 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 D 21, 2021

SIDE ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE
NOTES:

1. FINISHES OF CMU WALL, WOOD, ROOF, AND HARDWARE TO
MATCH CORRESPONDING ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES.

2. ENTRANCE TO SIDE ACCESS ENCLOSURE WILL OCCUR ON
EITHER SIDE DEPENDING ON SITE LOCATION.

FRONT ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE

SLIDE BOLT AND SLEEVE

DROP BOLT AND SLEEVE
6'-0"
8'-0"
10'-0"

PRECAST CONCRETE CAP

WOOD POST

CORRUGATED

METAL ROOF

CMU BLOCK WALL
4 CU YD BIN

WOOD POST

CORRUGATED

METAL ROOF

PRECAST CONCRETE CAP

CMU BLOCK B

SPLIT-FACE BLOCK
8x8x16 HALF-SCORE
9'-1"
6" ALL SIDES

STEEL GATE FRAME

BARREL HINGE

WOOD PANELS

CMU BLOCK A

PRECISION BLOCK
8x8x16 STANDARD
4 CU YD BIN

ORGANICS ORGANICS
18'-5"
10'-7"
(2) DOUBLE SWING GATES

ROOF POST
3'-5"

PLAN VIEW - TRASH ENCLOSURE (SIDE ACCESS OPTION)

CMU WALL ROOF OUTLINE

GATE POST
6'-7"
10'-7"
(2) DOUBLE SWING GATES

ROOF POST

CMU WALL ROOF OUTLINE

GATE POST
6'-7" 5'-4"
4 CU YD BIN 4 CU YD BIN

PLAN VIEW - TRASH ENCLOSURE (REAR ACCESS OPTION)
8'-0"

3. REFER TO CIVIL SITE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS OF TRASH ENCLOSURES.

4. TRASH ENCLOSURES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH VEGETATION PER CITY OF SLO STD. 600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A45

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

TRASH ENCLOSURES

Page 447 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 D 21, 2021

SENECIO SERPENS

KNIPHOFIA UVARIA LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA
ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP.

LEUCADENDRON SAFARI GOLD STRIKE’

DECOMPOSED GRANITE
ALOE POLYPHYLLA AGAVE BLUE GLOW’ &AGAVE ATTENUATA
FURCREA FOETIDA MEDIOPICTA’
OLEA EUROPEA FRUTILESS’
ECHEVERIA SPP.

DWARF CITRUS
COTINUSCOGGRYIA ASST. CITRUS

PLANT PALETTE

ASST SUCCULENTS DROUGHTTOLERANT MASSING

LID MEADOW MIX
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A46

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIALS

Page 448 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 D 21, 2021

A C A C I A C R E E K

SANTA FE ROAD

TANK FARM ROAD
600 TANK FARM ROAD PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN 41

PLANTING LEGEND

T E ES TE
THE PLANT PALETTE IS COMPRISED OF SPECIES KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL MEDITTERAENEAN CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF AREAS ALLOCATED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WILL RE CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF AREAS ALLOCATED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WILL RE UIRE LOW TO VERY LOW WATER ONCE ESTABLISHED. THIS PLANT PALETTE COUPLED WITH THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FOR WATER CONSERVATION BASED ON THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE PER SLOMC 17.70.220A WEATHER SENSING, SMART CONTROLLER’ WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE PROVISION OF IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE MINIMUM RE UIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE. ALL TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BE REGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER. TREES WILL BE IRRIGATED BY BUBBLERS. ALL ORNAMENTAL PLANTING WILL RECEIVE DRIP IRRIGATION OR OTHER HIGHLY EFFICIENT IRRIGATION. ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH VEGETATION.

SUCH ASACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLEALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA WHITE ALDERGLEDITSIA TIACANTHOS INERMIS SHADE MASTER’ THORNLESS LOCUSTGINGKO BILOBA AUTUMN GOLD’ GINGKO KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREELOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOXLIRIODENRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREECERCIDIUM PARKINSONIA DESERT MUSEUM’ PALO VERDE TREEPISTACHIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHEPLATANUS X ACERIFLOIA (HISPANICA) LONDON PLANE TREE

UERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK UERCUS TOMENTELLA ISLAND OAK SH E ST EET T EES (1 24” X) T 161
SH S SSES E S (1 1 ) T 6 83 S
SUCH ASARBUTUS X MARINA’ MARINA ARBUTUSARCHONTOPHOENIX CUNNINGHAMIANA KING PALMBAUHINIA BLAKEANA HONG KONG ORCHID TREEBRACHYCHITON SPP. PINK BOTTLE TREEBRAHEA EDULIS GUADALUPE PALMCASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA GOLDEN MEDALLION TREECERCIS X HEARTS OF GOLD’ GOLDEN REDBUDHYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEETSHADELAGERSTROEMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLEMYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLEOLEA EUROPEA SWAN HILL’ - STERILE FRUITLESS OLIVEPYRUS CALLERYANA FLOWERING PEAR E T T EES (1 ) T 6

SUCH ASCHORISIA SPECIOSA (CIEBA) FLOSS SILK TREE

ACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA ACARANDA MULTI-TRUNK

PLATANUS RACEMOSA MULTI-TRUNK CALIFRONIA SYCAMORE

UERCUS AGRIFOLIA MULTI-TRUNK COAST LIVE OAK
S E E T EES (24 36” X) T 1
TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA 56, 835 SFESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / YR.MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / 0 YR.AREAS WITHIN THE PRO ECT SITE THAT ARE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND ALL AREAS THAT WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH RECLAIMED WATER ARE CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS. SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS AND ARE REFLECTED IN THE MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE PER CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS AND THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. TOTAL TREES TO BE PLANTED ON THE PROJECT SITE = 236SEE EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION TABLE SHEET A48 FOR SPECIES, SIZE, QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF (E) TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT, AND TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

ACACIA COGNATA COUSIN ITT RIVER WATTLE
ADENANTHOS SERICEUS COASTAL WOOLLYBUSHAEONIUM CANARIENSE AEONIUMAGAVE ATTENUATA NOVA BLUE CLONEAGAVE DESMETTIANA VARIEGATA VARIEGATED AGAVEAGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVEAGAVE X BLUE GLOW BLUE GLOW AGAVEALOE POLYPHYLLA SPIRAL ALOEALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOEALYOGYNE HUEGELII SANTA CRUZ BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. MANZANITA BACCHARIS PILULARIS PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSHBULBINE FRUTESCENS STALKED BULBINE CAESALPINIA SPP. YELLOW/RED BIRD OF PARADISECAREX PRAEGRACILIS CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGECAREX TUMULICOLA BERKELEY SEDGECEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS YANKEE POINT CALIFORNIA LILAC CERCIS CANADENSIS RISING SUN RISING SUN REDBUDCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSHCISTUS PULVERULENTUS SUNSET ROCKROSECLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES VIOLET TRUMPET VINECOTINUS COGGYGRIA ROYAL PURPLE ROYAL PURPLE SMOKE TREE DIANELLA CAERULEA CASSA BLUE CASSA BLUE FLAX LILYDIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILYECHEVERIA X AFTERGLOW AFTERGLOW ECHEVERIAFURCRAEA FOETIDA MEDIOPICTA MAURITIUS HEMP HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA HAPPY WANDERER LILAC VINEHESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCAHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYONHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLS JUNCUS EFFUSUS OCCIDENTAL BLUE OCCIDENTAL BLUE RUSH
KNIPHOFIA UVARIA ECHO MANGO REBLOOMING TORCHLILY
LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA PROVENCE PROVENCE LAVENDRT
LEUCADENDRON SPP. CONEBUSHLEUCOSPERMUM CORDIFOLIUM NODDING PINCUSHIONLEYMUS CONDENSATUS CANYON PRINCE NATIVE BLUE RYELOMANDRA SPP. MAT RUSH

MIMULUS AURANTIACUS STICKY MONKEY FLOWERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS NEPETA X FAASSENII WALKERS LOW WALKERS LOW CATMINT
OLEA EUROPAEA LITTLE OLLIE TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE
PENNISETUM SPATHIOLATUM RYE PUFFSPENSTEMON X FIREBIRD FIREBIRD BEARD TONGUEPHLOMIS FRUTICOSA JERUSALEM SAGEPHORMIUM X SEA JADE NEW ZEALAND FLAXPITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM SILVER SHEEN SILVER SHEEN TAWHIWHIPODOCARPUS X ICEE BLUE ICEE BLUE PODOCARPUS

RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRYRIBES SANGUINEUM RED FLOWERING CURRANTRIBES SPECIOSUM FUCHSIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY SALVIA GREGGII RASBERRY DELIGHT AUTUMN SAGESALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGESALVIA X POZO BLUE POZO BLUE SAGESENECIO MANDRALISCAE BLUE FINGERSESLERIA AUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASSSTRELITZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE VERBENA BONARIENSIS PURPLETOP VERVAINVERBENA LILACINA DE LA MINA LILAC VERBENAVERBENA X BALENDAKLE TM ENDURASCAPE PURPLE VERBENAVITIS CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPE

INDICATES SPECIES IS ALSO SUITABLE USE IN BIORETENTION AREASINDICATES SPECIES IS ALSO SUITABLE FOR USE IN ACACIA CREEK BUFFERPROPOSED STREET TREES PER CITY OF SLO STREET TREE MASTER PLAN PL NORTH 0’ 80’ 20’ 75’ 40’
SCALES: 1” = 80’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 0’ 40’ 320’ 80’ 160’ 1”=40’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A47

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN

Page 449 of 505 ends

1622-02-RS20 D 21, 2021
76 77
71 74
70 69 68
72 73
75 67
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 85
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 5
4 3
2 1
84 81
82 83
79 80
78 TANK FARM RD
EXISTING TREEDRIPLINE, TYPICAL.

TOP OF BANK PER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT BY KEVIN

MERK ASSOCIATES, LLC,
DATED 8-14-20, TYPICAL
600 TANK FARM ROAD
APN: 053-421-001,
053-421-006

PROPERTYLINE, TYPICAL
650 TANK FARM ROAD
APN: 053-421-005

ACACIA CREEK

ACACIA CREEK
SCALE: 1" = 80'

1. TREE INVENTORY, LOCATIONS, AND TAG NUMBERS PER ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED BY RRM DESIGN GROUP, DATED 08/06/2021.

2. ALL TREES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST DESIGNATED

RIPARIAN AREAS DEFINED IN THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT BY KEVIN MERK ASSOCIATES, DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2020, ARE TO REMAIN.

3. NESTING RAPTORS ARE KNOWN TO INHABIT THE STAND OF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS LOCATED ALONG ACACIA CREEK. PLEASE CONSULT WITH

THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO ANY TREE MAINTENANCE OR
REMOVAL OPERATIONS.

4. SEE SHEET A39 IN THE ENTITLEMENT DRAWING PACKAGE AND/OR C7 OF

THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP DRAWING PACKAGE FOR SPECIES,
LOCATION, AND SIZE OF PROPOSED TREE PLANTINGS.

NOTS
ISTIN SIT PLAN
Tree Tag Botanical Name Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (in.) Approx. Dripline Ø Disposition 1 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta' blue gum 98.5 45'
2 blue gum 72.5 50'
3 blue gum 33.5 20' Remove4 blue gum 53.5 35'
5 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 115.5 50'
TREE TAG 6 NOT USED
7 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 71.0 60' Protect8 blue gum 112.5 55' Protect9 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 65.5 40' Protect 10 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 60.5 60'
11 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 39.5 50' Protect
12 blue gum 54.0 20' Protect
13 blue gum 60.0 55' Protect
14 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 33.0 40' Protect
15 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 58.0 60' Protect16 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 55.0 60' Protect 17 blue gum 64.0 50'18 blue gum 49.5 30' Protect19 blue gum 52.0 30' 20 blue gum 52.0 30'
21 blue gum 71.5 30'
22 blue gum 38.5 20' Remove23 blue gum 38.5 20'
24 blue gum 50.0 20' Remove25 blue gum 62.0 20'
TREE TAG 26 NOT USED
27 blue gum 50.0 20'28 blue gum 49.5 20' Remove29 blue gum 30.5 40'30 blue gum 48.5 20' Remove 31 blue gum 53.0 20'
32 blue gum 26.0 20' Remove
33 blue gum 32.0 20'
34 blue gum 22.5 20' Remove35 blue gum 16.0 20' Remove
36 blue gum 17.5 20' Remove37 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 80.5 60'38 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 70.0 60'39 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 53.0 60' 40 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 44.0 60'
41 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 61.0 60'
42 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 82.0 60'
43 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 42.0 25'
TREE TAGS 44-66 NOT USED
Existing Tree Inventory
Prepared By: Jake Minnick, PLA, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-11830A DBH Measurement Height: 54"
Date of Evaluation: 06/01/2021
68 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 49.5 30' Remove69 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 27.0 20' Remove70 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 21.5 30' Remove 71 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 54.0 20' Remove
72 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 69.0 30' Remove
73 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 67.0 35' Remove
74 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 48.5 25' Remove75 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 3.0 3' Remove 76 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 48.5 25' Remove77 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 53.5 25' Remove78 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 35.5 30'79 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 20.0 20' Remove 80 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 7.5 10' Remove
81 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 8.5 6' Remove
82 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 5.0 5' Remove
83 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 11.0 15' Remove
84 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 54.0 25' Protect85 blue gum 47.5 30' Protect Existing Tree Inventory Continued

INDICATES AN EXISTING TREE TO REMAININDICATES AN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED

TREE TAG NUMBER
LEGEND

QUANTITY
60 34
26 91 MIN.

3.5:1 MIN.

TREE DISPOSITION TABLE

EXISTING

PROTECT

TOTAL REMOVALS

PROPOSED

PROPOSED MITIGATION RATIO
74 TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE IN POOR HEALTH, ARE OVERCROWDED, EXHIBIT STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, OR

CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS BUILDING LOCATIONS, A STORMWATER BASIN, A MULTI-USE PATH, AND ASSOCIATED GRADING. THESE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ENCROACH INTO THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE (CRZ) OF TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. ALL TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE RECOGNIZED AS INVASIVE SPECIES BY

THE CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL (CAL-IPC), AND EACH SPECIES HAS NATURALIZED ONSITE AND SPREAD TO OFFSITE LOCATIONS NEARBY.

TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ONSITE SHOULD BE REMOVED, AND THEIR STUMPS GROUND DOWN TO A DEPTH OF 24".SEVERAL TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE LOCATED OFFSITE, ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN ACACIA CREEK TOP OF BANK BOUNDARY. THESE TREES SHOULD BE CUT FLUSH NEAR THE TOP OF THE ROOT COLLAR AND THE STUMPS AND ROOTSLEFT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE INTERIM STABILIZATION OF THE CREEK BANKS WHILE SUITABLE REPLACEMENT RIPARIAN SPECIESESTABLISH. THE PROJECT ARBORIST WILL FLAG TREES WITH STUMPS AND ROOTS THAT ARE TO REMAIN PRIOR TO THE INITIATION ANY TREE WORK.

OFFSITE TREES PROPOSED TO REMAIN ALONG ACACIA CREEK SHOULD BE PRUNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT ALL TREES TO REMAIN CAN BE PRUNED TO ACCOMMODATE THEPROPOSED PROJECT. IN GENERAL, TREES TO REMAIN HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED IN MANY YEARS. MANY HAVE LARGE AMOUNTS OF DEAD WOOD THROUGHOUT THE CROWN, AND SEVERAL HAVE UNBALANCED CROWNS. MOST WILL

REQUIRE A CROWN CLEANING TO REDUCE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH DEAD LIMB DROP AND SEVERAL WILL REQUIRE A CROWN REDUCTION TO ENSURE A BALANCED CROWN.

A TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN IS PROPOSED FOR BOTH ONSITE AND OFFSITE TREE REMOVALS AT A MINIMUM 3.5:1 REPLACEMENT RATIO. THIS EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED 1:1 REPLACEMENT RATIO SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 12.24 TREE REGULATIONS OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE BY 3.5X. ONSITE REPLACEMENT TREE SPECIES ARE PROPOSED AS A MIXTURE OF NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SELECTIONS BASED ON THEIR PROVEN SUCCESS UNDER LOCAL CLIMATICAND SOIL CONDITIONS.

PRUNING, REMOVAL, AND REPLACEMENT PLAN
ProtectProtectProtectProtectProtect ProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtect Remove
ProtectProtectProtect
Remove
ProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtectProtect
Tree Tag Botanical Name Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (in.) Approx. Dripline Ø Disposition 67 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 55.5 45' Protect

ONSITE REMOVALS

OFFSITE REMOVALS
1610
(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'(XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta' (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta'
A47
600 TANK FARM600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 A48

ENTITLEMENTS

PACKAGE

EXISTING TREE INVENTORY & REMOVALS

Page 450 of 505 ends

DENSE TREE COVER

DENSE TREE
COVER
COVER

DENSE TRE
E

DENSE TREE
COVER5 14 150
160
5 150
165

EE OVER C
D
CN
OV
SEV O
145 55 1
^
^
^
^^
^ ^
^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
X
X
/// ///
X
X X X
X
///
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXX
XX
X
X
XX
X
X
XXXX
XXXXX
XXX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
X
XXXXXX
XXXX
XX
X
XX
X
XXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX
XX

X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
XXX
X
X
X X
X
X
X

X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XXXX
XX
XX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XXXX
XXXX
XX
XX

XXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
XX

X X X X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
145 150 551
160
5 50
165
11 XXXXXX
X
X
XX
X
X
X
XX
X
XXXXXX
X
X
XXX
XXX
XX
XX
X
X
X
XX
XXXX
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
XXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

XXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X
X X
5 RE V O CEER NSE E D RE V OCEER NSE E D R VE O CEE NS DE

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
1 17 ACRES 1 17 ACR S
159.0
FS
153.5
FS
A-A

BB XB-B X

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
X

PRELIMINARY PROPOSEDRIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION

FUTURE ADDITIONAL PAVE OUTFOR TRUCK TURNAROUND

PROPOSED SANTA FE INTERIMIMPROVEMENTS

RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS FOR

TANK FARM ROAD

IMPROVEMENTS INTERIM BIKE LANE
IMPROVEMENTS ONLY — NO

SIDEWALK SOUTH SIDE ONLY

PROPOSED BIKE AND PED

IMPROVEMENTS

RIGHT TURN IN AND RIGHT

TURN OUT MOVEMENTS ONLY
05 1
55 1
06 1
165
07 1
57 1
57 1
8 1494 1
15 1 25 1 15325
53151
252
135
11252115115
1 5211511151251125112515215152152152152 111512 1511512
541451545145 1
56 175 1 85 1
95 116 1X 26 1 63 1
64 1
166
76 186 196 117 1 72 1 73 1
73 1
37 1 37 1
47 1
47 1

EXISTING TOP

OF BANK
35' TOP OF BANK AND EDGE

OF RIPARIAN SETBACK

PROPOSED INTERIM BULB-OUTIMPROVEMENTS
PHASE 2
PHASE 2
PHASE 1

0.45 ACRES
LOT 4

1.17 ACRES 1.17 ACRE 1 17 ACR 1 17 ACRES 1.17 ACRES
LOT LOT 5 5

0.44 ACRES 0 ACRES
LOT 9
1 40 ACR 1.40 AC 1.40 ACRES
LOT 7

0.93 ACRES
LOT 1

1.52 ACRES
LOT 532

1.90 ACRES
LOT 3

0.92 AC 0. RES
LOT 10

07.9 ACRES
LOT 8
0 82 ACRES 0.82 ACRES 0 82 ACRES
LOT 11 LOT 11

0.46 ACRES 46
LOT 6
FF = 177.0± FF = 180.0±
FF = 174.5± FF = 170.0± FF = 171.0± FF = 173.0±
FF = 165.5±
FF = 166.0± FF = 170.0± FF = 174.0± FF = 163.0±
FF = 172.5±
FF = 163.0± FF = 172.5±
FF = 163.0±
FF = 177.5± FF = 180.0±
FF = 163.0±
FF = 160.0±
FF = 157.0±
FF = 157.0±
FF = 158.0±
FF = 155.0±
FF = 154.0±
FF = 154.0±
FF = 154.0±
FF = 179.0±
X
F
X

X X X X X
F

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
XXXX
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XX
X
XXX
X
XX
X
X
XX
X
XXXX
X
X
XXXX

X X X X
N:\1600\1622-01-LP19-600-Tank-Farm-Road-Due-Diligence-Assistance\Engineering\DesDev\Exhibits\SitePlan_021320.dwg, SHEET TITLE, Jun 08, 2021 11:43am, ngwalters 0 100 feet 1"=50' 50 150 June 8, 2021

PRELIMINARY CIVIL SITE PLAN
600 TANK FARM C2

PHASING TABLE
PHASE 1 (LOTS 3-7)PHASE 2 (LOTS 1-2, 7-11)

Page 451 of 505 ends

W
W
W W W
W
W

SD SD SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS SS
^
^
BUILDING #1
BUILDING #2
BUILDING #3
BUILDING #4
BUILDING #5
BUILDING #6
BUILDING #7
BUILDING #8
BUILDING #9
BUILDING #11 BUILDING #12
BUILDING #13
BUILDING #14
BUILDING #15
BUILDING #16
BUILDING #17 BUILDING #18
BUILDING #19
BUILDING #20
BUILDING #21
BUILDING #22 BUILDING #23
BUILDING #24
BUILDING #25
BUILDING #26
BUILDING #27
BUILDING #10
S
W
SS
PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATER
LEGEND
PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC SEWERPROPOSED PRIVATE 12" HDPE STORM DRAIN SS EXISTING 18" PUBLIC SEWER MAIN
W EXISTING 12" PUBLIC WATER MAIN

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
SD

RW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER MAIN
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C4_Site Plan.dwg, C4, Jun 01, 2021 8:36am, ngwalters June 1, 2021 600 TANK FARM0 80 feet 1"=40' 40 120 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C4 1. SEE SHEET C5 FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS NOTE: DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE & METER FW FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE (1) 2-bed unit, 2nd Floor (1) 1-bed unit, 3rd Floor
(1) 2-bedunit
(1) 1-bed unit, 3rd Floor
(1) Studio unit, Ground Floor
(1) Studio unit, 2nd Floor
(1) Studio unit, Ground Floor
(1) 1-bed unit, 2nd Floor (1) 1-bed unit, 3rd Floor (1) 1-bed unit, 2nd Floor (1) 1-bed unit, 2nd Floor

Page 452 of 505 ends

S P R R

SOUTH STREET

HIGHWAY BROAD STREET

TANK FARM ROAD HIGUERA STREET HIGHWAY PROJECT
Vesting Common Interest Tentative Parcel Map No. SLO 21-0015

IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA

UTILITIES
BEING A PORTION OF LOT 57 OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
SUBURBAN TRACT AS SHOWN IN BOOK 1, PAGE 92 OF

RECORDS OF SURVEY
ELECTRIC.............. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
TELEPHONE.......... AT&T
CABLE.................. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
GAS...................... SOCAL GAS COMPANY
SEWER.................. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WATER.................. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
RECYCLED............ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL

TOPOGRAPHY

TOPOGRAPHY AND MAPPING PROVIDED BY RRM DESIGN
GROUP, MAY 2016

VICINITY MAP

SHEET INDEX

NOT TO SCALE
C1..............TITLE SHEETC2..............EXISTING CONDITIONS MAPC3..............VESTING PARCEL MAPC4..............SITE PLANC5..............GRADING PLANC6..............STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANC7..............PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLANC8..............TREE INVENTORY A1..............BUILDING SECTIONSA2-A8........FLOOR PLANS

THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS MAP THE BASIS OF

BEARINGS IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TANK FARM, ROAD,
BEARING BEING SOUTH 65°07'52" WEST PER 67/RS/93.

THE BENCHMARK FOR THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO BENCHMARK NO. 47, BEING USG&GS
E-910 AT THE EASTERLY END OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE

BRIDGE ABUTMENT OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK ON PRADO
ROAD WEST OF S. HIGUERA STREET, ELEVATION OF 138.88'.

OWNER

COVELOP HOLDINGS, LLC
P.O. BOX 12910
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401

REPRESENTATIVE

RRM DESIGN GROUP
3765 S. HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 543-1794

LAND USE

THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE

EXISTING C-S-SP ZONING AND APPLICABLE SPECIFIC
PLAN AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS FOR (11)

COMMERCIAL MIXED USE PARCELS AS A SUBDIVISION
OF (2) BP-SP PARCELS (UNDER REVIEW FOR ZONE
CHANGE TO C-S-SP).

TITLE SHEET N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C1_Title.dwg, C1, Sep 02, 2021 3:56pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM C1

Page 453 of 505 ends

^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^

OH OH OH
OH OH OH OH PTN LOT 57 SLO SUBURBAN TRACT 2/RS/55 1009/OR/474 APN 053-421-002 EXISTING FEMA FLOOD ZONE A, PER FIRM PANEL 06079C1332G EXISTING TOP OF BANK AND/OR EDGE OF RIPARIAN EXISTING 35' ACACIA CREEK SETBACK EXISTING 50' ACCESS EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED EXISTING 20' PRIVATE UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED REMOVE EXISTING MATERIAL STORAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS REMOVE EXISTING BASE ACCESS ROAD REMOVE EXISTING AC AND CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS REMOVE EXISTING UNDERDRAIN AND STORM DRAIN PROTECT EXISTING 18" CCFRPM SEWER (S = 0.0040) N1°20'06"E 1260.68' N87°55'14"W 449.10'
N1°23'43"E 189.14'
N14°00'29"W 200.10'
N19°40'58"W 125.76' N8°53'28"E 445.94'
N4°13'36"W 358.80'
N88°36'26"W 375.24' REMOVE EXISTING BASE ACCESS ROAD

UNDERGROUND EXISTING

OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES

EX SSMH
150.8± RIM131.3± INV

REMOVE EXISTING GRAVEL

PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS

REMOVE EXISTING FENCING

AND MISC STORAGE

IMPROVEMENTS
(TYP)

REMOVE EXISTING FENCING

AND MISC STORAGE

IMPROVEMENTS

TANK FARM ROAD

PROTECT EXISTING FENCE

ACACIA CREEK (SECONDARY WATERWAY)
SEE C9 FOR TREE

INVENTORY AND

DISPOSITION
(TYP)
SEE C9 FOR TREE

INVENTORY AND

DISPOSITION
(TYP)
SEE C9 FOR TREE

INVENTORY AND

DISPOSITION
(TYP)
PTN LOT 57 SLO SUBURBAN TRACT
2/RS/55
APN 053-421-006
N19°33'43"W 124.20'
N36°15'34"W 150.03'
N53°14'05"W 110.02'
S79°41'29"W 128.82'

UNDERGROUND EXISTING

OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES ALONG

PROPERTY FRONTAGE
LEGEND
SS EXISTING 18" PUBLIC SEWER MAIN
W EXISTING 12" PUBLIC WATER MAIN

EXISTING EASEMENT
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C2_Existing.dwg, C2, Sep 02, 2021 3:56pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021
0 80 feet
1"=40'
40 120
600 TANK FARM

EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
EXISTING CONDITIONS C2

Page 454 of 505 ends

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^

0.92 ACRES
LOT 10

0.79 ACRES
LOT 8

0.82 ACRES

0.45 ACRES LOT 11
LOT 6 1.41 ACRES
LOT 7

0.93 ACRES
LOT 1

1.56 ACRES
LOT 2

1.83 ACRES
LOT 3
N1°20'06"E 99.61'
N88°39'54"W 156.42'
N1°20'06"E 147.27'
N88°39'54"W 82.44'
N1°20'06"E 153.56'
N55°19'18"E 88.80'
N88°39'54"W 188.67'
N88°39'54"W 45.37'
N88°39'54"W 130.61'
N1°26'06"E 149.61'
N1°20'06"E 149.61'
N88°39'54"W 130.35'
N88°39'54"W 102.00'
N88°39'54"W 181.82'
N1°26'06"E 29.17'
N1°23'34"E 178.34'
N88°39'54"W 153.36'
N1°20'06"E 28.36'
N88°39'54"W 93.26'
N88°39'54"W 231.83'
N1°23'34"E 159.61'
N73°16'16"E 13.24'
N88°39'54"W 45.25'

0.50 ACRES
LOT 4

EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
(WIDTH VARIES)

PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAYDEDICATION
N1°23'43"E 189.14'
N14°00'29"W 200.10'
N19°40'58"W 125.76'
N8°53'28"E 445.94'
N4°13'36"W 358.80'
N88°36'26"W 375.24'
N1°20'06"E 1260.68'
Δ=6°56'58"
R=767.00'
L=93.03'
Δ=1°28'20"
R=433.00'
L=11.13'
Δ=15°30'41"
R=433.00'
L=117.22'
Δ=9°42'42"
R=50.00'
L=8.47'
N87°55'14"W 449.10'
Δ=20°55'56"
R=169.00'
L=61.74'
Δ=46°15'20"
R=56.00'
L=45.21'
Δ=4°45'22" R=101.50' L=8.43'
Δ=37°43'04"
R=101.00'
L=66.49'
N5°21'40"W 18.32'
Δ=11°43'40"
R=469.00'
L=96.00'
Δ=5°01'54"
R=50.00'
L=4.39'
N1°20'06"E 50.51' N1°20'06"E 174.33'
Δ=13°05'14"
R=50.00'
L=11.42'
Δ=59°39'17"
R=27.00'
L=28.11'
Δ=6
R=6
4°37'52"
L=

9.00' 77.83'
Δ=82°22'25" R=69.00' L=99.20'

EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT TO REMAIN
EXISTING 12' PGE EASEMENT TO REMAIN

TANK FARM ROAD

SANTA FE ROAD
EXISTING 35' TOP OF BANK AND/OREDGE OF RIPARIAN SETBACK

1.16 ACRES
LOT 5

0.44 ACRES
LOT 9
N1°20'06"E 338.00'
N88°39'54"W 56.75' PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (WIDTH VARIES)

PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESSEASEMENT (WIDTH VARIES)
PROPOSED 24' EMERGENCY

ACCESS EASEMENT
ABANDON EXISTING 20' UTILITY EASEMENT
10'
10'

48.9'
36'

34.2'
34'
33'
46'
27'

17.5'

7.5'

2.8'
16' 16'
16' 16'
16' 16'
61'

49.9'

5.9'

23.5' 16' 16' 32' 18.4'

6.8'

15.8'

22.9'

27.2'
18' 19.4'
18'

17.5'

5.8'

29.9'
16'

42.9'

28.8'
46'

16.7'
16'

16.7'
PROPOSED 100-YR FLOOD LIMITS;
SEE SHEET C5 FOR PROPOSED

GRADING
EXISTING 100-YR FLOOD LIMITS
N88°39'54"W 13.61'
N88°39'54"W 9.95'
S88°39'54"E 5.00'

5.9'

50.9'

7.78'
10' 6.8'

28.8'

28.7'
16'

24.1'

20.2'

20.1'

20.1'
16'
S1°20'06"W 34.02'
S1°20'06"W 99.40'
S88°39'54"E 5.00'
17'

23.1'

8.9'
10'
10' 10'
N1°26'06"E 111.00'
N88°39'54"W 63.00'
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C3_VPM.dwg, C3, Sep 02, 2021 3:56pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 0 80 feet
1"=40'
40 120
600 TANK FARM

TRACT BOUNDARY
LEGEND

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED EASEMENT/SETBACKPROPOSED RW

PRIVATE VEHICULAR ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS,PARKING, DRAINAGE, STORM DRAIN, SEWER,

RECYCLED WATER, AND WATER EASEMENTS OVER
LOTS 1 THROUGH 11 EXCLUDING BUILDINGLOCATIONS.

PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) OVER LOTS 1
THROUGH 11 EXCLUDING BUILDING LOCATIONS.

EASEMENTS NOTE
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP C3

Page 455 of 505 ends

^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
W W
W
W
W W
SD SD
FW FW
FW
FW
FW
FW FW
SD
SD SD
SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS
SD
SD
W
W W W
W W
W W
W
W W
FW

FW FW FW FW FW FW
FW FW
FW FW
FW

FW FW FW
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS SS
SS

W W W W W W

RW RW RW RW RW RW

SS SS SS SS

W W W W W

RW RW RW RW RW
W
FW
FW
W
W
SS
SS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

OH OH OH

OH OH OH OH
7+00
SS
SD
SS
BUILDING #1
BUILDING #2
BUILDING #3
BUILDING #4
BUILDING #5
BUILDING #6
BUILDING #7
BUILDING #8
BUILDING #9
BUILDING #11 BUILDING #12
BUILDING #13
BUILDING #14
BUILDING #15
BUILDING #16
BUILDING #17 BUILDING #18
BUILDING #19
BUILDING #20
BUILDING #21
BUILDING #22 BUILDING #23
BUILDING #24
BUILDING #25
BUILDING #26
BUILDING #27
BUILDING #10

TANK FARM ROAD

SANTA FE ROAD
EXISTING FEMA FLOOD ZONE APER FIRM PANEL 06079C1332G
PROPOSED BIORETENTION AREA; SEE
SHEET C6 FOR STORMWATER DETAILS
(TYP)
ACACIA CREEK 35' ACACIA CREEK SETBACK PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE (TYP) SSMH
169.42 RIM
163.42 INV
SSMH
174.25 RIM
168.25 INV
SSMH
179.08 RIM
173.08 INV
SSMH
174.69 RIM
168.69 INV
SSMH
170.08 RIM
164.08 INV
SSMH
164.37 RIM
158.37 INV
SSMH
159.18 RIM
153.18 INV
SSMH
157.41 RIM
151.41 INV
SSMH
153.51 RIM
147.51 INV

CONNECT TO EXISTING
18" CCFRPM SEWER MAIN
(INV = 132.4±)

PROPOSED SEWER LATERAL
(TYP)

PROPOSED WATER

SERVICE AND METER
(TYP)

PROPOSEDPERMEABLE PAVERS

PROPOSEDPERMEABLE PAVERS
(TYP)

8.6' (TYP)
61'
TYP
24'
TYP
61'
9'
8'
PROPOSED RW IRRIGATIONPOC, SERVICE, & METER.
16' BUILDING SETBACK

PROPOSED BACK OF

SIDEWALK AND RIGHT OF WAY

PROPOSED FIRE AND DOMESTIC

WATER DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY
PROPOSED 8"PUBLIC WATER MAIN

PROPOSED PUBLIC

RECYCLED WATER MAIN
R50'
R50'
R83'
R63'
R120'
R75'
R35'
R15' (TYP)
R15' (TYP)
R412'
R35'
R47'

PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE
(TYP)
24'
TYP
24'
TYP
R46'
R50'

PROPOSED EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS

ONLY AND REMOVABLE BOLLARDS

PROPOSED EMERGENCY

VEHICLE ACCESS ONLY AND

REMOVABLE BOLLARDS

OVERLAND RIVER ROCK
SWALE TO BASIN; SEE C4

FOR GRADING

OVERLAND RIVER ROCK
SWALE TO BASIN; SEE C4

FOR GRADING

PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE
(TYP)

PROPOSED FIRE AND DOMESTIC

WATER DOUBLE CHECK ASSEMBLY

MATCH EXISTING

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

PROPOSED PUBLICRECYCLED WATER MAIN
PROPOSED 8"PUBLIC WATER MAIN

PROPOSED POOL AND FLATWORK
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL;
SEE SHEET C4 FOR GRADING
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL;
SEE SHEET C4 FOR GRADING
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL;
SEE SHEET C4 FOR GRADING
PROPOSED 12'

MULTI-USE PATH
INTERIM TURNAROUND;

FUTURE INTERSECTION

IMPROVEMENTS BY OTHERS

EXISTING ACACIA CREEK FLOWLINE
SSMH
158.2± RIM
150.20 INV
SSMH
149.9± RIM
131.9± INV
PROPOSED 100-YR FLOODLIMITS
B
A
4'

8.6'
10' x 36' COMMERCIAL

LOADING ZONE

PROPOSED

BUILDING

SECTION B
NTS

SANTA FE ROAD (INTERIM)

PL PROPOSED ROW
12'
LANE

6.5'
BIKE
12'
LANE
9'

PARKWAY
7'

CL IV BIKE
5'
SW
15'

SETBACK
2'

EXISTING
GRADE
CL

PROPOSED

BUILDING

EXISTING ROW EXISTING ROW
12'
LANE
VARIES
MEDIAN

12.62'

EXISTING
13'
LANE
13'
LANE
8'

BIKE LANE

SECTION A
NTS

TANK FARM ROAD
9'

PARKWAY
7'
SW
5' 15'

SECTION C
NTS

TYPICAL BIKE PATH SECTION

PL PROPOSED

BUILDING
14' VARIES

BIKE LANE
VARIES 4'

PROPOSED

RETAINING
WALL
ACACIA

FLOW LINE

ACACIA TOP

OF BANK

EXISTING
GRADE
10' AC BIKE LANE WITH
2' MIN CLASS II BASE

SHOULDERS

PORCHES

PER PLAN
14'
LANE
13'
LANE

WESTERLY

PROPERTY LINE
13'
LANE
7' 2'
BIKE
7'

PARKWAY
5'
WALK

SECTION B
NTS

SANTA FE ROAD (ULTIMATE)

FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS

BY OTHERS
7'

CL IV BIKE
5'
SW
9'

PARKWAY
PL CL
S
W
SS
PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC WATER
LEGEND
PROPOSED PRIVATE 8" PVC SEWERPROPOSED PRIVATE 12" HDPE STORM DRAIN SS EXISTING 18" PUBLIC SEWER MAIN
W EXISTING 12" PUBLIC WATER MAIN

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT
SD

RW PROPOSED RECYCLED WATER MAIN
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C4_Site Plan.dwg, C4, Sep 02, 2021 3:56pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM 0 80 feet
1"=40'
40 120

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

1. SEE SHEET C5 FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS

2. INTERIM SANTA FE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN; FUTURE

IMPROVEMENTS/WIDENING BY OTHERS

3. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATE UNLESS NOTED

OTHERWISE
NOTE:

DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE & METER

FW FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE
C4

Page 456 of 505 ends

^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

OH OH OH

OH OH OH OH
RW
W
W W
W
W
W W
SD SD
FW FW
FW
FW
FW
FW FW
SD
SD SD
SS SS
SS
SS
SS SS
SD
SD
W
W W W
W W
W W
W
W W
FW
FW

FW FW FW FW
FW
FW FW
FW FW
FW

FW FW FW
SS
SS

SS SS SS
SS SS
SS
SS SS
SS

W W W W W W

RW RW RW RW RW RW

SS SS SS SS

W W W W W

RW RW RW RW RW
W
FW
FW
W
SS
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
BUILDING #1
BUILDING #2
BUILDING #3
BUILDING #4
BUILDING #5
BUILDING #6
BUILDING #7
BUILDING #8
BUILDING #9
BUILDING #11 BUILDING #12
BUILDING #13
BUILDING #14
BUILDING #15
BUILDING #16
BUILDING #17 BUILDING #18
BUILDING #19
BUILDING #20
BUILDING #21
BUILDING #22 BUILDING #23
BUILDING #24
BUILDING #25
BUILDING #26
BUILDING #27
BUILDING #10
2% 3%
TYP
3%
TYP
3%
TYP
3%
TYP
3%
TYP
3%
TYP
1%
TYP
1%
TYP

0.5%
TYP

3.5%
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP 2%
TYP
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
TYP
2%
3%
TYP
FF=177.00 FF=180.00
FF=174.50 FF=170.00 FF=171.00 FF=173.00
FF=165.50
FF=166.00 FF=170.00 FF=174.00 FF=163.00
FF=172.50
FF=163.00 FF=172.50
FF=163.00
FF=177.50 FF=180.00
FF=163.00
FF=160.00
FF=157.00
FF=157.00
FF=158.00
FF=155.00
FF=154.00
FF=154.00
FF=154.00
165
170
175
160
160
165
170
175
155
154.36 RIM
151.37 INV
151.82 RIM
149.20 INV

BASIN BOT
FG=151.0

BASIN BOT
FG=149.0

BASIN BOT
FG=156.0

BASIN BOT
FG=158.0

BASIN BOT
FG=163.0
159.19 RIM
153.93 INV
156.99 RIM
153.03 INV
154.89 RIM
152.20 INV
160.66 RIM
154.33 INV
163.80 RIM156.80 INV
167.45
FS
170.98
FS
175.10
FS 171.68
FS
174.58
FS
179.78
FS
177.42
FS
FF=179.00
169.65
FS
150
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
150
150
155
160
165
170
175
175
155
155
160
160
165
170
155
155
160
155
155
150
150
155
155
150
150
155
155

CONSTRUCT EXPOSED ROCKCUT PER GEOLOGY REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS

PROPOSED RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIES

SEE SITE PLAN FOR BIKE PATHTYPICAL SECTION

NO PROPOSED GRADING

WITHIN EXISTING ACACIA CREEK

TOP OF BANK
CONNECT TO EXISTING 650

TANK FARM IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED BIORETENTIONBASIN; SEE STORMWATER

CONTROL PLAN FOR DETAILS
(TYP)
EXISTING FEMA FLOOD ZONE APER FIRM PANEL 06079C1332G

PROPOSED RETAINING WALLHEIGHT VARIES
(4' MAX)
164.05
FS
159.34
FS
158.06
FS
155.95
FS
153.48
FS
153.56
FS/HP

PROPOSED BASIN
SLOPE 3:1 MAX
(TYP)

PROJECT OUTLET

THRU EXISTING

OUTLET AT ACACIA

HEADWALL
153.18
FS
159.01
FS
159.87
FS
158.31
FS
153.42
FS
149.96
FS
151.98
FS

CONSTRUCT

OVERLAND SWALE TO

BIORETENTION BASIN
(S = 0.01 FT/FT MIN)
35' CREEK SETBACK
154.36
FS

NO PROPOSED GRADING

WITHIN EXISTING ACACIA CREEK

TOP OF BANK
152.0
TOP
155.0
TOP
160.0
TOP
165.8
TOP
154.81 TC
154.31 FS
155.39 TC
154.89 FS
154.12 TC153.62 FS
154.90 TC154.40 FS
156.12 TC155.62 FS
157.52 TC
157.02 FS
158.97 TC158.47 FS
159.93 TC159.43 FS
159.45 TC158.95 FS161.16 TC160.66 FS
163.47 TC162.97 FS
164.56 TC164.06 FS
165.49 TC164.99 FS
170.31 TC169.81 FS
174.10 TC
173.60 FS
173.59
FS
179.61 TC179.11 FS
174.57 TC174.07 FS
153.46 TC152.96 FS
154.50 TC
154.00 FS
152.97 TC152.47 FS
154.39 TC153.89 FS
163.40 TC162.90 FS 164.81 TC
164.31 FS
156.02
FS
SEE SHEET C6 FOR WATER

QUALITY BASIN
161.43 TC
160.93 FS
160.99 TC
160.49 FS
161.72 TC161.22 FS
PROPOSED 100-yr FLOOD LIMITS

CONSTRUCT OFF-SITE AC PATH

TO DAMON-GARCIA

CONCRETE PATH

CONSTRUCT RETAINING
WALL (H = 6' MAX)

SECTION A-A
NTS

EXISTING METAVOLCANICROCK

ROCK CUT PER SOILSREPORT

CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN

SIDEWALK

PORCH PER ARCH PLANS

PROPOSED

GARAGE FLOOR
(FF PER PLAN)

FIRST FINISHED
FLOOR

PROPOSED STEM WALL

CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
APRON (3.5' TYP)
6" MOUNTABLE CURB

AC DRIVE AISLE PER PLAN

TRACT BOUNDARY

PROPOSED

GARAGE FLOOR
(FF PER PLAN)

PORCH PER ARCH PLANS

CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN

SIDEWALK

PROPOSED RETAINING
WALL (4' MAX)

FENCING PER LANDSCAPEPLANS

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
BUFFER

AC BIKE PATH PER PLAN

EXISTING TOP OF BANK/EDGE

OF RIPARIAN HABITAT PER

PROJECT BIOLOGIST
VARIES

LIMITS OF PROPOSED

GRADING

SECTION B-B
NTS
LEGEND
PROPOSED PRIVATE 12" HDPE STORM DRAIN
SS SEWER MAIN (SEE SITE PLAN - C4)
W WATER MAIN (SEE SITE PLAN - C4)
RW RECYCLED (SEE SITE PLAN - C4)
SD
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C5_Grading.dwg, C5, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN RAW CUT: 16,700 cu yd RAW FILL: 28,700 cu yd RAW NET: 12,000 cu yd <IMPORT> AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 14.3 ac QUANTITY ESTIMATES ON THESE PLANS ARE TO BE USED FOR BONDING AND PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ACTUAL QUANTITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES 0 80 feet
1"=40'
40 120
C5

Page 457 of 505 ends

^
^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^
^
^
OH OH
OH OH
SD
SD
SD
SD
^
^
^
^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^
^
^ ^ ^
^
ADA
ADA

EXISTING PROPERTY LINE

PRELIMINARY PROPOSED

RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION

EXISTING TOP

OF BANK
35' TOP OF BANK AND EDGE OF

RIPARIAN SETBACK
SCM 2: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 121,100 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 11,415 cfV from SCM 5: 3,279 cf
SCM AREA: 2,800 sf
SCM 6: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 25082 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 3,015 cf
SCM AREA: 1,005 sf
SCM 4: PIPsTRIB AREA: 23,062 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 3,171 cf
SCM AREA: 1,057 sf
SCM 5: PRIVATE
TRIB AREA: 110,268 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 6647 cf
SCM AREA:1,187 sf
V to SCM 2: 3279 cf
650 TANK FARM IMPROVEMENTS BY ACACIA CREEK OTHERS

ACACIA CREEK

SANTA FE ROAD
TANK FARM ROADDMA 2 DMA 1
DMA 5

RELOCATE EXISTING

OUTLET FOR PROJECT

DISCHARGE TO ACACIA

PROPOSED PRIVATE

STORM DRAIN
SCM 1: PIPsTRIB AREA: 50,500 sf
C i: 0.81 (95%)
V: 6,625 cf
SCM AREA: 5,300 sf
DMA 7
SCM 7: WATER QUALITY TREATMENT ONLY; SIZED
4% OF DMA 7 PER PCR RECOMMENDATIONS
(4,800 sf)
DMA 4

EXISTINGPROPERTY LINE
SD
SD
SD
SD
DMA 6
DMA 8 DMA 9
DMA 3
DMA 10
SCM 3: PRIVATE
TRIB AREA: 111,640 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 12,780 cf
SCM AREA: 12,780 sf SCM 8: PRIVATE TRIB AREA: 11,396 sf C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 2,600 cf
SCM AREA: 2,600 sf
SCM 3: PRIVATETRIB AREA: 11,250 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 2,600 cf
SCM AREA: 2,600 sf
SCM 8: PRIVATE
TRIB AREA: 20000 sf
C i: 0.54 (75%)
V: 3,305 cf
SCM AREA: 3,305 sf

EXISTINGPROPERTY LINE
EXISTING 35' TOP

OF BANK SETBACK

EXISTING CREEKFLOWLINE
^
^
^
^
^
4+00
5+00
6+00
7+00
8+00
9+00
SS SD
W
W
W
RW RW
RW RW
RW
RW
RWFW
FW
FW
SS
JT
10' PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND MAINTENANCE

EASEMENT
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\C6_Stormwater.dwg, SW1, Sep 03, 2021 10:45am, ngwalters September 3, 2021 600 TANK FARM 0 120 feet 1"=60' 60 180

DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
PAVING AREA/SIDEWALK: 50640 sf
BUILDINGS: 133,320 sf
HARDSCAPE: 38,970 sf
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS = 384,460
TOTAL AREA: 10.5 ACRES

PROPOSED TREATMENT

BIORETENTION AREA

PERVIOUS PAVERS
TIER 1- RUNOFF REDUCTION
x ROOF DRAIN DISCONNECTx MINIMIZE IMPERVIOUS AREAS
TIER 2 - WATER QUALITY (85th PERCENTILE = 1.15")
x ON-SITE RETENTION-BASED TREATMENT AND INFILTRATION
TIER 3 - RETAIN 95TH PERCENTILE STORM EVENT (1.95")
x BASINS WILL RETAIN AND INFILTRATE THE REQUIRED
95TH PERCENTILE RETENTION VOLUME WHERE:

VOLUME (cf) = (1.95" / 12")* C i * A
C i = 0.858i 3 - 0.78i 2 + 0.774i + 0.04
A = TRIBUTARY AREA (sf)
TIER 4 - PEAK MANAGEMENT
x PEAK MANAGEMENT FOR THE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT IS
PROVIDED IN THE RETENTION BASINS AS SHOWN.
x OFF-SITE RETENTION IS PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY BY THE AVOCET AND PADRE GRADING ACTIVITIES COMPLETED IN 2019 IN
RESERVOIR 4 AND THE NORTH MARSH RETENTION BASIN.
24"
VARIES

COBBLE OR SPLASH

BLOCK WHERE STORM

WATER ENTERS
FLAT
BOTTOM

NO SLOPES
MAX 3:1

GRAVEL STORAGE

BIORETENTION SOIL MIX

DEPTH VARIES

OVERFLOW /OUTLET STRUCTURE

TO POINT OF DISCHARGE

OR ADJACENT STORM
DRAIN
LEGEND

TYPICAL BIORETENTION AREA
NTS

HOA MAINTAINED

WATER QUALITY

TREATMENT AREA

REQUIRED STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES
CONCRETE PAVERS TYP.

AGGREGATE IN
OPENINGS, TYP.

GRAVEL

CONCRETE EDGE

SOIL SUBGRADE

CONCRETE PAVEMENT
VARIES

TYPICAL PERMEABLE PAVERS AREA
NTS
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C6

Page 458 of 505 ends

YIELD
YIELD
BUILDING #6
BUILDING #7
BUILDING #9
B

PROPOSED ROUNDABOUTBACK OF SIDEWALK

COLINEAR WITH PROPOSED

VPM IMPROVEMENTS
R69'

PROPOSED PROJECT RIGHT

OF WAY DEDICATION PER
VPM
R50'
R30'
R47'

PROPOSED VPM INTERIM
IMPROVEMENTS; DRIVEWAY

ACCESS TO REMAIN AS PART

OF FUTURE ROUNDABOUT'
(TYP)
18'

PROPOSED VPM INTERIM EDGE

OF PAVEMENT
7' PARKWAY
18'
R18.25'
R28.25'
14'

TRANSITION TO SANTA FE

TYPICAL SECTION NOT
SHOWN

EXISTING TRACT BOUNDARY

LANDSCAPED
MEDIAN

FUTURE SANTA FE

CONTINUATION AND

ALIGNMENT BY OTHERS
R56'
R61' WB-50 DESIGN VEHICLE (NB-LEFT TURN)
WB-50 DESIGN VEHICLE
(EB-RIGHT TURN)

MOUNTABLE CURB OR

STRIPING MODIFICATIONS
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Exhibits\RB1_Santa Fe Roundabout Exhibit_072421.dwg, SHEET TITLE, Sep 02, 2021 3:28pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM 0 40 feet
1"=20'
20 60
SANTA FE ROUNDABOUT EXHIBIT RB2

Page 459 of 505 ends

BUILDING #1
BUILDING #2
BUILDING #3
BUILDING #4
BUILDING #5
BUILDING #6
BUILDING #7
BUILDING #8
BUILDING #9
BUILDING #11 BUILDING #12
BUILDING #13
BUILDING #14
BUILDING #15
BUILDING #16
BUILDING #17 BUILDING #18
BUILDING #19
BUILDING #20
BUILDING #21
BUILDING #22 BUILDING #23
BUILDING #24
BUILDING #25
BUILDING #26
BUILDING #27
BUILDING #10
^
^
^
40 8 22
Pumper Fire Truck Overall Length 40.000ft Overall Width 8.167ftOverall Body Height 7.745ft Min Body Ground Clearance 0.656ft Track Width 8.167ftLock-to-lock time 5.00sMax Wheel Angle 45.00° N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Exhibits\TR-1_Truck Turning_072721.dwg, ngw, Jul 28, 2021 9:23am, ngwalters July 28, 2021 0 80 feet 1"=40' 40 120 600 TANK FARM0 40 feet 1"=20' 20 60 FIRE TRUCK TURNING EXHIBIT TR1

Page 460 of 505 ends

1622-01-LP19 MAY 2021
600 TANK FARM ROAD600 TANK FARM ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 L

ENTITLEMENT

PACKAGE

PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN

PLANTING LEGEND

IRRIGATION COMPLIANCE & DESIGN CRITERIA
THE PLANT PALETTE IS COMPRISED OF SPECIES KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL MEDITTERAENEAN CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL OUTSIDE OF AREAS ALLOCATED FOR RECREATIONAL USE WILL REQUIRE LOW TO VERY LOW WATER ONCE ESTABLISHED. THIS PLANT PALETTE COUPLED WITH THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FOR WATER CONSERVATION BASED ON THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE PER SLOMC 17.70.220A WEATHER SENSING, ‘SMART CONTROLLER’ WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE PROVISION OF IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE. ALL TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BE REGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER. TREES WILL BE IRRIGATED BY BUBBLERS. ALL ORNAMENTAL PLANTING WILL RECEIVE DRIP IRRIGATION OR OTHER HIGHLY EFFICIENT IRRIGATION. ALL ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH VEGETATION.

SUCH AS:ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLEGLEDITSIA TIACANTHOS INERMIS ‘SHADE MASTER’ THORNLESS LOCUSTGINGKO BILOBA ‘AUTUMN GOLD’ GINGKO KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREELOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOXLIRIODENRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREECERCIDIUM PARKINSONIA ‘DESERT MUSEUM’ PALO VERDE TREEPISTACHIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHEPLATANUS X ACERIFLOIA (HISPANICA) LONDON PLANE TREEQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK SHADE & STREET TREES (15 GAL - 24” BOX) QTY 132
SHRUBS, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVERS (1, 5, 15 GAL) QTY 56,835 SF SUCH AS:ARBUTUS X ‘MARINA’ MARINA ARBUTUSARCHONTOPHOENIX CUNNINGHAMIANA KING PALMBAUHINIA BLAKEANA HONG KONG ORCHID TREEBRACHYCHITON SPP. PINK BOTTLE TREEBRAHEA EDULIS GUADALUPE PALMCASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA GOLDEN MEDALLION TREECERCIS X ‘HEARTS OF GOLD’ GOLDEN REDBUDCITRUS SPP. CITRUSHYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEETSHADELAGERSTROEMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLEOLEA EUROPEA ‘SWAN HILL’ - STERILE FRUITLESS OLIVEPYRUS CALLERYANA FLOWERING PEAR ACCENT TREES (15 GAL) QTY 45
SUCH AS:CHORISIA SPECIOSA (IEBA) FLOSS SILK TREEJACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MULTI-TRUNKPLATANUS RACEMOSA MULTI-TRUNK CALIFRONIA SYCAMOREQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAKSPECIMEN TREES (24-36” BOX) QTY 10 TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA: 56, 835 SFESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / YR.MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / 0 YR.AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE THAT ARE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND ALL AREAS THAT WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH RECLAIMED WATER ARE CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS. SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS AND ARE REFLECTED IN THE MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE PER CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS AND THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. SEE EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION TABLE SHEET A32 FOR SPECIES, SIZE, QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF (E) TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT, AND TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

ACACIA COGNATA `COUSIN ITT` RIVER WATTLE
ADENANTHOS SERICEUS COASTAL WOOLLYBUSHAEONIUM CANARIENSE AEONIUMAGAVE ATTENUATA `NOVA` BLUE CLONEAGAVE DESMETTIANA `VARIEGATA` VARIEGATED AGAVEAGAVE VILMORINIANA OCTOPUS AGAVEAGAVE X `BLUE GLOW` BLUE GLOW AGAVEALOE POLYPHYLLA SPIRAL ALOEALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOEALYOGYNE HUEGELII `SANTA CRUZ` BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. MANZANITA BACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` COYOTE BRUSHBULBINE FRUTESCENS STALKED BULBINE CAESALPINIA SPP. YELLOW/RED BIRD OF PARADISECAREX PRAEGRACILIS CALIFORNIA FIELD SEDGECAREX TUMULICOLA BERKELEY SEDGECEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS `YANKEE POINT` CALIFORNIA LILACCERCIS CANADENSIS `RISING SUN` RISING SUN REDBUDCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM CAPE RUSHCISTUS PULVERULENTUS `SUNSET` ROCKROSECLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES VIOLET TRUMPET VINECOTINUS COGGYGRIA `ROYAL PURPLE` ROYAL PURPLE SMOKE TREE DIANELLA CAERULEA `CASSA BLUE` CASSA BLUE FLAX LILYDIETES BICOLOR FORTNIGHT LILYECHEVERIA X `AFTERGLOW` AFTERGLOW ECHEVERIAFURCRAEA FOETIDA `MEDIOPICTA` MAURITIUS HEMP HARDENBERGIA VIOLACEA `HAPPY WANDERER` LILAC VINEHESPERALOE PARVIFLORA RED YUCCAHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA TOYONHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLS JUNCUS EFFUSUS `OCCIDENTAL BLUE` OCCIDENTAL BLUE RUSH
KNIPHOFIA UVARIA `ECHO MANGO` REBLOOMING TORCHLILY
LAVANDULA X INTERMEDIA `PROVENCE` PROVENCE LAVENDRT
LEUCADENDRON SPP. CONEBUSHLEUCOSPERMUM CORDIFOLIUM NODDING PINCUSHIONLEYMUS CONDENSATUS `CANYON PRINCE` NATIVE BLUE RYELOMANDRA SPP. MAT RUSH

MIMULUS AURANTIACUS STICKY MONKEY FLOWERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS NEPETA X FAASSENII `WALKERS LOW` WALKERS LOW CATMINT
OLEA EUROPAEA `LITTLE OLLIE` TM LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE
PENNISETUM SPATHIOLATUM RYE PUFFSPENSTEMON X `FIREBIRD` FIREBIRD BEARD TONGUEPHLOMIS FRUTICOSA JERUSALEM SAGEPHORMIUM X `SEA JADE` NEW ZEALAND FLAXPITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM `SILVER SHEEN` SILVER SHEEN TAWHIWHIPODOCARPUS X `ICEE BLUE` ICEE BLUE PODOCARPUS

INDICATES SPECIES IS SUITABLE USE IN BIORETENTION AREASPROPOSED STREET TREES PER CITY OF SLO STREET TREE MASTER PLAN(PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA/HISPANICA) *****
**
*
**
*
*
June 7, 2021 600 TANK FARM
STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN C6 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
0’ 80’ 20’ 75’ 40’
SCALES: 1” = 80’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 0’ 40’ 320’ 80’ 160’ 1”=40’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)
NORTH
SEPTEMBER 2021 C7

A C A C I A C R E E K

SANTA FE ROAD

TANK FARM ROAD

PLANTING LEGEND

SUCH AS:ACER MACROPHYLLUM BIGLEAF MAPLEALNUS RHOMBIFOLIA WHITE ALDERGLEDITSIA TIACANTHOS INERMIS ‘SHADE MASTER’ THORNLESS LOCUSTGINGKO BILOBA ‘AUTUMN GOLD’ GINGKO KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA CHINESE FLAME TREELOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOXLIRIODENRON TULIPIFERA TULIP TREECERCIDIUM PARKINSONIA ‘DESERT MUSEUM’ PALO VERDE TREEPISTACHIA CHINENSIS CHINESE PISTACHEPLATANUS X ACERIFLOIA (HISPANICA) LONDON PLANE TREEQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS TOMENTELLA ISLAND OAK SHADE & STREET TREES (15 GAL - 24” BOX) QTY 161
SHRUBS, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVERS (1, 5, 15 GAL) QTY 56,835 SF SUCH AS:ARBUTUS X ‘MARINA’ MARINA ARBUTUSARCHONTOPHOENIX CUNNINGHAMIANA KING PALMBAUHINIA BLAKEANA HONG KONG ORCHID TREEBRACHYCHITON SPP. PINK BOTTLE TREEBRAHEA EDULIS GUADALUPE PALMCASSIA LEPTOPHYLLA GOLDEN MEDALLION TREECERCIS X ‘HEARTS OF GOLD’ GOLDEN REDBUDHYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEETSHADELAGERSTROEMIA SPP. CRAPE MYRTLEMYRICA CALIFORNICA PACIFIC WAX MYRTLEOLEA EUROPEA ‘SWAN HILL’ - STERILE FRUITLESS OLIVEPYRUS CALLERYANA FLOWERING PEAR ACCENT TREES (15 GAL) QTY 65
SUCH AS:CHORISIA SPECIOSA (CIEBA) FLOSS SILK TREEJACARANDA MIMOSIFOLIA JACARANDA MULTI-TRUNKPLATANUS RACEMOSA MULTI-TRUNK CALIFRONIA SYCAMOREQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA MULTI-TRUNK COAST LIVE OAKSPECIMEN TREES (24-36” BOX) QTY 10 TOTAL ON-SITE LANDSCAPE AREA: 56, 835 SFESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / YR.MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE: 1,543,411.3 GAL / 0 YR.AREAS WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE THAT ARE TO BE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND ALL AREAS THAT WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH RECLAIMED WATER ARE CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS. SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS AND ARE REFLECTED IN THE MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE PER CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS AND THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE. TOTAL TREES TO BE PLANTED ON THE PROJECT SITE = 236SEE EXISTING TREE DISPOSITION TABLE SHEET A40 FOR SPECIES, SIZE, QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF (E) TREES TO REMAIN, PROTECT, AND TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA LEMONADE BERRYRIBES SANGUINEUM RED FLOWERING CURRANTRIBES SPECIOSUM FUCHSIA FLOWERING GOOSEBERRY SALVIA GREGGII `RASBERRY DELIGHT` AUTUMN SAGESALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGESALVIA X `POZO BLUE` POZO BLUE SAGESENECIO MANDRALISCAE BLUE FINGERSESLERIA AUTUMNALIS AUTUMN MOOR GRASSSTRELITZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE VERBENA BONARIENSIS PURPLETOP VERVAINVERBENA LILACINA `DE LA MINA` LILAC VERBENAVERBENA X `BALENDAKLE` TM ENDURASCAPE PURPLE VERBENAVITIS CALIFORNICA CALIFORNIA WILD GRAPEINDICATES SPECIES IS ALSO SUITABLE USE IN BIORETENTION AREASINDICATES SPECIES IS ALSO SUITABLE FOR USE IN ACACIA CREEK BUFFERPROPOSED STREET TREES PER CITY OF SLO STREET TREE MASTER PLAN *****
**
*
**
**
*
PL NORTH 0’ 80’ 20’ 75’ 40’
SCALES: 1” = 80’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 0’ 40’ 320’ 80’ 160’ 1”=40’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)
***
*
**
*
*
*
******
*
*
*
*
*

Page 461 of 505 ends

76 77
71 74
70 69 68
72 73
75 67
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26 (DEAD)
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
85 17
16 15
14 13
12 11
10 9
8 7
6 (DEAD)
5 4
3 2
1 84
81 82
83 79
80 78

TANK FARM RD
EXISTING TREEDRIPLINE, TYPICAL.

EXISTING TREE,

TYPICAL

TOP OF BANK PER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT BY KEVIN
MERK ASSOCIATES, LLC,DATED 8-14-20, TYPICAL
600 TANK FARM ROAD
APN: 053-421-001,
053-421-006

PROPERTYLINE, TYPICAL
650 TANK FARM ROAD
APN: 053-421-005

ACACIA CREEK

TREE TAG

NUMBER, TYPICAL

EXISTING TREE

APPROXIMATE
TRUNK LOCATION,TYPICAL OF 10
SCALE: 1" = 80'

1. ALL EXISTING TREE RELATED INFORMATION PER ARBORIST REPORT BY RRM DESIGN GROUP, DATED 06/09/2021.

2. PROPOSED SITE PLAN INCLUDES REPLACEMENT TREE QUANTITIES EXCEEDING A 1:1 MITIGATION RATIO TO THE TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL.

3. ALL TREES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST DESIGNATED RIPARIAN AREAS DEFINED IN THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT BY KEVIN MERKASSOCIATES, DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2020, ARE TO REMAIN.

NOTES

EXISTING SITE PLAN
Tree Tag Botanical Name Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (in.) Approx. Dripline Ø Disposition 1 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 98.5 45' Remove
2 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 72.5 50' Remove
3 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 33.5 20' Remove4 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 53.5 35' Remove 5 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 115.5 50' Remove
TREE TAG 6 NOT USED
7 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 71.0 60' Protect8 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 112.5 55' Protect9 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 65.5 40' Protect 10 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 60.5 60' Remove
11 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 39.5 50' Protect
12 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 54.0 20' Protect
13 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 60.0 55' Protect
14 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 33.0 40' Protect
15 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 58.0 60' Protect16 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 55.0 60' Protect 17 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 64.0 50' Remove18 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 49.5 30' Protect19 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 52.0 30' Remove 20 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 52.0 30' Remove
21 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 71.5 30' Remove
22 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 38.5 20' Remove23 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 38.5 20' Remove 24 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 50.0 20' Remove25 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 62.0 20' Remove TREE TAG 26 NOT USED
27 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 50.0 20' Remove28 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 49.5 20' Remove29 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 30.5 40' Remove30 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 48.5 20' Remove 31 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 53.0 20' Remove
32 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 26.0 20' Remove
33 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 32.0 20' Remove
34 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 22.5 20' Remove35 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 16.0 20' Remove 36 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 17.5 20' Remove37 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 80.5 60' Remove38 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 70.0 60' Remove39 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 53.0 60' Remove 40 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 44.0 60' Remove
41 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 61.0 60' Remove
42 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 82.0 60' Remove
43 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 42.0 25' Remove
TREE TAGS 44-66 NOT USED
Existing Tree Inventory
Prepared By: Jake Minnick, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-11830A DBH Measurement Height: 54"
Date of Evaluation: 06/01/2021
67 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 55.5 45' Protect68 Schinus molle California pepper 49.5 30' Remove69 Schinus molle California pepper 27.0 20' Remove70 Schinus molle California pepper 21.5 30' Remove 71 Schinus molle California pepper 54.0 20' Remove
72 Schinus molle California pepper 69.0 30' Remove
73 Schinus molle California pepper 67.0 35' Remove
74 Schinus molle California pepper 48.5 25' Remove75 Schinus molle California pepper 3.0 3' Remove 76 Schinus molle California pepper 48.5 25' Remove77 Schinus molle California pepper 53.5 25' Remove78 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 35.5 30' Remove79 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 20.0 20' Remove 80 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 7.5 10' Remove
81 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 0.0 6' Remove
82 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 5.0 5' Remove
83 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 11.0 15' Remove
84 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 54.0 25' Protect85 Eucalyptus globulus blue gum 47.5 30' Protect Existing Tree Inventory Continued
N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Xrefs\XLT-1622-02-RS20.dwg, TREE MAP 24x36, Jun 09, 2021 3:32pm, jrminnick June 9, 2021 600 TANK FARM TREE PLAN C8 76 77
71 74
70 69 68
72 73
75 67
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 25
24 23
22 21
20 19
18 85
17 16
15 14
13 12
11 10
9 8
7 5
4 3
2 1
84 81
82 83
79 80
78 TANK FARM RD
EXISTING TREEDRIPLINE, TYPICAL.

TOP OF BANK PER

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ASSESSMENT BY KEVIN

MERK ASSOCIATES, LLC,
DATED 8-14-20, TYPICAL
600 TANK FARM ROAD
APN: 053-421-001,
053-421-006

PROPERTYLINE, TYPICAL
650 TANK FARM ROAD
APN: 053-421-005

ACACIA CREEK

ACACIA CREEK
SCALE: 1" = 80'

1. TREE INVENTORY, LOCATIONS, AND TAG NUMBERS PER ARBORIST REPORT PREPARED BY RRM DESIGN GROUP, DATED 08/06/2021.

2. ALL TREES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST DESIGNATED

RIPARIAN AREAS DEFINED IN THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT BY KEVIN MERK ASSOCIATES, DATED NOVEMBER 4, 2020, ARE TO REMAIN.

3. NESTING RAPTORS ARE KNOWN TO INHABIT THE STAND OF BLUE GUM EUCALYPTUS LOCATED ALONG ACACIA CREEK. PLEASE CONSULT WITH

THE PROJECT BIOLOGIST PRIOR TO ANY TREE MAINTENANCE OR
REMOVAL OPERATIONS.

4. SEE SHEET A39 IN THE ENTITLEMENT DRAWING PACKAGE AND/OR C7 OF

THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP DRAWING PACKAGE FOR SPECIES,
LOCATION, AND SIZE OF PROPOSED TREE PLANTINGS.

NOTES

EXISTING SITE PLAN
Tree Tag Botanical Name Common Name Diameter at Breast Height (in.) Approx. Dripline Ø Disposition 1 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV'Compacta' blue gum 98.5 45'
2 blue gum 72.5 50'
3 blue gum 33.5 20' Remove4 blue gum 53.5 35'
5 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 115.5 50'
TREE TAG 6 NOT USED
7 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 71.0 60' Protect8 blue gum 112.5 55' Protect9 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 65.5 40' Protect 10 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 60.5 60'
11 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 39.5 50' Protect
12 blue gum 54.0 20' Protect
13 blue gum 60.0 55' Protect
14 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 33.0 40' Protect
15 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 58.0 60' Protect16 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 55.0 60' Protect 17 blue gum 64.0 50'18 blue gum 49.5 30' Protect19 blue gum 52.0 30' 20 blue gum 52.0 30'
21 blue gum 71.5 30'
22 blue gum 38.5 20' Remove23 blue gum 38.5 20'
24 blue gum 50.0 20' Remove25 blue gum 62.0 20'
TREE TAG 26 NOT USED
27 blue gum 50.0 20'28 blue gum 49.5 20' Remove29 blue gum 30.5 40'30 blue gum 48.5 20' Remove 31 blue gum 53.0 20'
32 blue gum 26.0 20' Remove
33 blue gum 32.0 20'
34 blue gum 22.5 20' Remove35 blue gum 16.0 20' Remove
36 blue gum 17.5 20' Remove37 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 80.5 60'38 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 70.0 60'39 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 53.0 60' 40 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 44.0 60'
41 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 61.0 60'
42 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 82.0 60'
43 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 42.0 25'
TREE TAGS 44-66 NOT USED
Existing Tree Inventory
Prepared By: Jake Minnick, PLA, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-11830A DBH Measurement Height: 54"
Date of Evaluation: 06/01/2021
68 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 49.5 30' Remove69 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 27.0 20' Remove70 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 21.5 30' Remove 71 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 54.0 20' Remove
72 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 69.0 30' Remove
73 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 67.0 35' Remove
74 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 48.5 25' Remove75 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 3.0 3' Remove 76 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 48.5 25' Remove77 6FKLQXVPROOH California pepper 53.5 25' Remove78 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 35.5 30'79 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 20.0 20' Remove 80 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 7.5 10' Remove
81 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 8.5 6' Remove
82 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 5.0 5' Remove
83 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 11.0 15' Remove
84 (XFDO\SWXVJOREXOXV blue gum 54.0 25' Protect85 blue gum 47.5 30' Protect Existing Tree Inventory Continued

INDICATES AN EXISTING TREE TO REMAININDICATES AN EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED

TREE TAG NUMBER
LEGEND

QUANTITY
60 34
26 91 MIN.

3.5:1 MIN.

TREE DISPOSITION TABLE

EXISTING

PROTECT

TOTAL REMOVALS

PROPOSED

PROPOSED MITIGATION RATIO
74 TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL ARE IN POOR HEALTH, ARE OVERCROWDED, EXHIBIT STRUCTURAL DEFECTS, OR

THE CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL (CAL-IPC), AND EACH SPECIES HAS NATURALIZED ONSITE AND SPREAD TO OFFSITE LOCATIONS NEARBY.

REQUIRE A CROWN CLEANING TO REDUCE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH DEAD LIMB DROP AND SEVERAL WILL REQUIRE A CROWN REDUCTION TO ENSURE A BALANCED CROWN.

ONSITE REMOVALS

Page 462 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A1, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A1 BUILDING SECTIONS

Page 463 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A2, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A2 FLOOR PLANS

Page 464 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A3, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A3 FLOOR PLANS

Page 465 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A4, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A4 FLOOR PLANS

Page 466 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A5, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A5 FLOOR PLANS

Page 467 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A6, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A6 FLOOR PLANS

Page 468 of 505 ends

N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A7, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwalters September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM A7 FLOOR PLANS

Page 469 of 505 ends

FLOOR PLANS N:\1600\1622-02-RS20-600-Tank-Farm-Entitlements\Engineering\TTM\Sheet-Files\CA_Floor Plans.dwg, A8, Sep 02, 2021 3:57pm, ngwal A8 ters
September 2, 2021 600 TANK FARM

Page 470 of 505 ends

MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 10, 2022
TO: City Council
BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Item #1 ARCH-0406-2021; SBDV-0407-2021; GENP-0814-2019; SPEC0407-2020; EID-0608-2020 (600 Tank Farm Road) – A summary and evaluation of the comments from the Council initiation and conceptual review and previous advisory body reviews.

DISCUSSION
On April 21, 2020 the City Council provided the following direction to assist staff with the processing of the application for the project (Council Initiation and Minutes of 4.21.20):
 Proceed the processing of the Project through the entitlement process;  Authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and related entitlements;  Authorize the City Manager to enter into a consultant services agreement with the consultant that best responds to the RFP in terms of qualifications, cost, and approach, that is funded (consultant and staff costs) solely by the Applicant;  Include requested changes by the Applicant;
 Staff to work toward a Development Agreement or other enforceable mechanism, with the applicant to accomplish the infrastructure scope, the local’s preference and other areas as determined by staff; and
 Include early feedback from the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) and Planning Commission (PC) for the conceptual review and scoping.

Based on that direction, City staff began processing the application, and initiated an RFP process to prepare an EIR for the project, ultimately selecting Rincon Consultants in a competitive bid process. Staff also began discussions with the applicant toward a possible Development Agreement, later determining a more effective mechanism to achieve City goals would be through project conditions that included various public

Page 471 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 2 ends

infrastructure to be built by the applicant where possible. The City is not proposing a development agreement because: 1) the developer currently intends to start construction soon and does not need a vested right that would last longer than the life of the tentative map (16.12.050.A); and 2) staff did not identify any specific needed consideration that was non-nexus based and therefore could use a combination of project design, conditions of approval, and mitigation measures to secure the City’s desired public benefits. As appropriate, the City would enter into a reimbursement agreement with the applicant for improvements that go beyond the applicant’s fair share in the context of possible project impacts.

Conceptual Review
The applicant’s plan was presented to the Active Transportation Committee (ATC), Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and PC for additional input, with the intent of incorporating their comments into the project for further processing as appropriate. The following discusses that input and how the application responded to each directional item.

The applicant also provided responses to each of the recommendations, (see Exhibit 1 of this memo).

ATC Conceptual Review Directional Items
On July 16, 2020, the ATC reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided 21 recommendations regarding the proposed bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, as well as consistency with the latest updates to the City’s Active Transportation Plan for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Conceptual ATC Report and Minutes 7.16.20), which are summarized into the following directional items.

ATC Directional Item #1: The project should consider bicycle and pedestrian connections along Tank Farm Road to improve east‐ west connections between Higuera and Broad Streets.

Response: This issue was considered and addressed in the EIR, with mitigation provided to address possible impacts. Other project conditions require planning and design to facilitate offsite connections along Tank Farm Road as appropriate, and in coordination with the Public Works Department.

ATC Directional Item #2: The project should study bicycle and pedestrian impacts to the Broad/Tank Farm Road intersection.

Response: This issue was addressed in the traffic study for the project, and the project incorporates the study’s recommendations.

ATC Directional Item #3: Concerned about connecting the Acacia Creek Path to a wrong way Class IV bikeway.

Page 472 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 3 ends

Response: This issue is no longer applicable to the project. The connection was revised to provide direct bicycle access to Santa Fe Road.

ATC Directional Item #4: Consider the potential of connecting Clarion Court to Fiero Lane as an alternative to Tank Farm Road for bikes and pedestrians.

Response: This is outside the project area and therefore not part of the project. In addition, this improvement was not included as a mitigation measure to address potential impacts identified in the EIR, or from any multi-modal impacts identified in the traffic impact study.

ATC Directional Item #5: If Hawthorne Elementary is the designated school for this site, consider how children will walk and bike there.

ATC Directional Item #6: Consider what possible role a bridge across the Railroad Safety Trail at Industrial Way could do to provide access to the east side of the railroad tracks.

ATC Directional Item #7: Consider the role that bike lanes on Industrial Road could play to improve access to the site and avoid busy arterial streets like Tank Farm.

ATC Directional Item #8: Concerned about the impact widening Tank Farm Road to 5 lanes would have on bicycle and pedestrian comfort levels.

Response: Potential improvements to Tank Farm Road have been directed by City staff, and the project is designed to address potential safety impacts through the EIR mitigation and conditions of approval.

ATC Directional Item #9: Suggests the design of roundabout at Tank Farm / Santa Fe should separate bike and ped modes.

Page 473 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 4 ends

Response: This can be considered by City staff through the design process for that facility.

ATC Directional Item #10: Requests that the Acacia Creek Path have adequate connections to other bikeway and pedestrian facilities.

Response: The Acacia Creek crossing has been coordinated with the adjacent project at 650 Tank Farm Road, Santa Fe Road, and Damon-Garcia Sports Fields.

ATC Directional Item #11: Suggests considering other options before using bollards on the bike/ped bridge across creek to 650 Tank Farm. If bollards are the only option, make safe as possible.

Response: The proposed bollards have been set back from the Class I path to limit vehicle access only and not impede pedestrian bicycle circulation.

ATC Directional Item #12: Avoid bike facility designs that encourage wrong way riding.

Response: The circulation design, which was developed in coordination with City staff, discourages wrong way riding.

ATC Directional Item #13: Recommends avoiding multilane road on Tank Farm to minimize bike/ped impacts. Consider not widening Tank Farm Road for multilanes.

Response: The circulation design was developed in coordination with City staff to minimize safety impacts and maximize functionality. The traffic impact study for the project did not recommend multilane improvements for Tank Farm Road.

ATC Directional Item #14: Ensure adequate sidewalk connections throughout internal development.

Response: Appropriate pedestrian connectivity was incorporated in the project, as coordinated with City staff. The project accommodates possible pedestrian links to offsite locations, including to Tank Farm Road, the bridge to neighboring development at 650 Tank Farm Road, and along Acacia Creek.

ATC Directional Item #15: Suggests more separation than 2 feet between Class IV bikeway and motor traffic. Suggests adding a parkway between the bike and motor vehicle modes.

Response: Circulation design was coordinated with City staff. A conceptual design for project circulation is included in Figure 2-6 of the Final EIR, but a final design has not yet been determined. As proposed, there is no parkway between the bike lane

Page 474 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 5 ends

and motor vehicles just east of the roundabout on Tank Farm Road. The comment may be considered by the PC and City Council in their review of the project.

ATC Directional Item #16: Recommends that pathways for pedestrians throughout the development are direct.

ATC Directional Item #17: Please look for ways to incorporate design elements of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan as much as possible into the project Response: Circulation design was coordinated with City staff, with an eye toward incorporating the elements of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Based on coordinated review with City Transportation staff, the project is consistent with the ATP.

ATC Directional Item #18: Recommends to incorporate slower roadway speeds where possible.

Response: The circulation design was developed in coordination with City staff to minimize safety impacts and maximize functionality. Internal privately maintained roadways will be limited to low speeds based on recommendations from City transportation staff to maintain safe pedestrian circulation and because of parking movements within the project.

ATC Directional Item #19: Consider locating the bridge to 650 Tank Farm farther north.

Response: The Acacia Creek crossing has been coordinated with the adjacent project at 650 Tank Farm Road, and is outside of the scope of this project; however, the bridge has been designed to minimize safety impacts and maximize functionality in accordance with the mitigation measures per the 650 Tank Farm Mixed-use Mitigated Negative Declaration.

ATC Directional Item #20: Please provide more separation between ped/bike/motor vehicle modes on Tank Farm Road cross section
Response: The circulation design, which was developed in coordination with City staff to minimize safety impacts and maximize functionality. A conceptual design for project circulation is included in Figure 2-6 of the Final EIR, but a final design has not yet been determined. As proposed, there is no parkway between the bike lane and motor vehicles just east of the roundabout on Tank Farm Road.

Page 475 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 6 ends

ATC Directional Item #21: Suggests that a lot of thought be put into how the project will provide good bike/ped connectivity to destinations outside of the project.

Response: The circulation design, which was developed in coordination with City staff to minimize safety impacts and maximize functionality. The project accommodates possible pedestrian links to offsite locations, including to Tank Farm Road, the bridge to neighboring development at 650 Tank Farm Road, and along Acacia Creek. Refer to the Site Circulation exhibit included in the ARC application package.

ARC Conceptual Review Directional Items
On August 17, 2020, the ARC reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided nine recommendations regarding building orientation in relation to site access and private/common open space areas, and provided comments on the architectural style of the project in terms of compatibility between the different uses for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Conceptual ARC Report and Minutes 8.17.20), which are summarized into the following directional items.

ARC Directional Item #1: Incorporate more open space between the parking area and the commercial building creating a plaza for patrons of the commercial businesses.

Response: The project design does not include additional open space because of tradeoffs in project design, balancing housing, parking, circulation, and infrastructure requirements.

ARC Directional Item #2: Incorporate more recessed windows to add articulation.

Response: The applicant did not include more recessed windows after considering the need for additional waterproofing and fiber cement siding; however, window trims have been incorporated into the design to provide greater shadow variation on the building facades in order to provide additional articulation.

ARC Directional Item #3: Identify fencing along Acacia Creek, promote Acacia Creek to be accessible to residents as open space.

Response: The project is not proposing fencing along Acacia Creek in order to provide residences better access to the open space associated with the creek.

ARC Directional Item #4: Consider ways to engage the street along the commercial building to encourage exterior space along Tank Farm.

Response: No additional exterior public space was provided along Tank Farm Road, in large part because of concerns about noise. At this time, the tenants of the commercial shell building are unknown, and future tenants may apply for

Page 476 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 7 ends

improvements to provide amenities along Tank Farm Road on an individual case by case basis.

ARC Directional Item #5: Consider adding small patios that relate to the retail use.

Response: This idea was considered by the applicant, but ultimately not included because of other design considerations due to noise exposure along Tank Farm Road, and other viable locations would further reduce the amount of required parking.

ARC Directional Item #6: The residential and retail buildings would benefit from a common color palette or more compatible architectural styles.

Response: Proposed color schemes 2 and 3 have been updated to respond to this concern by providing more compatible and complementary color palettes.

ARC Directional Item #7: Incorporate a serpentine pattern to the drive aisles on the site plan.

Response: The applicant has incorporated a serpentine design between Tank Farm Road and the woonerf street from Santa Fe Road, however, other drive aisles were unable to support a more serpentine design without reducing the number of residential units and required parking.

ARC Directional Item #8: Create an interfacing element between the wood siding and the shed roof on the residential units.

Response: The elevation design has been updated to reflect a more consistent relationship between the various building types.

ARC Directional Item #9: Incorporate a pronounced rafter tail (similar to the SESLOC building) on the edges of the buildings to tie the commercial space with the residential.

Response: The project has incorporated some shed roof and wood corbels into the Mixed Use building as well as the two building types (C & D) to better reflect the architecture of the SESLOC building and provide more visual cohesiveness.

PC Conceptual Review Directional Items
On September 23, 2020, the PC reviewed the conceptual design of the project and by consensus provided seven directional items regarding building orientation in relation to Tank Farm Road, mixed-use development compatibility, and on-site and off-site pedestrian and bicycle circulation for the applicant to incorporate into the project design and associated materials (Conceptual PC Report and Minutes 9.23.20), which are summarized into the following directional items.

Page 477 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 8 ends

PC Directional Item #1: Consider the circulation interrelationship of this and other nearby developments as a whole and their impact on bicycling and pedestrian connectivity in the immediate area as well as to further destinations in the City.

Response: This concept was considered in the project design. The applicant worked closely with City staff on a variety of circulation and land use issues, the impacts of which were examined in the EIR for the project. The project accommodates possible pedestrian links to offsite locations, including to Tank Farm Road, the bridge to neighboring development at 650 Tank Farm Road, and along Acacia Creek. Please also refer to the responses to issues raised by the ATC, previously discussed in this memorandum.

PC Directional Item #2: Consider increasing the number of units.

Response: This concept was considered by the applicant who determined that various site constraints precluded additional housing units from being proposed.

PC Directional Item #3: Ensure compatibility of the commercial services for this project and adjacent sites.

Response: The mixed use development will likely attract businesses that are compatible with neighboring residential uses within the framework of the proposed square footage and other site constraints, such as parking.

PC Directional Item #4: Design of building adjacent to Tank Farm should be oriented to Tank Farm if they serve the general public rather than just the development.

Response: The applicant worked closely with staff to implement this direction. The commercial aspect of this project is conceived being oriented to the public rather than inward to serve only the residents of the site.

PC Directional Item #5: Provide a more prominent direct pedestrian connection between the residential and commercial areas – minimize crossing of parking areas.

Response: Various site constraints make achieving this goal somewhat difficult.

However, various landscaping cues and paseos provide for some degree of physical and visual connectivity between residents on one side of the project and commercial uses on the other.

PC Directional Item #6: Consider broadening the proposed 1.5‐ mile local preference zone.

Response: The applicant considered this concept, but is currently not proposing to expand the 1.5-mile local preference zone.

Page 478 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 9 ends

PC Directional Item #7: Consider opportunities to enhance connectivity across the emergency bridge.

Response: As proposed, the bridge would be for pedestrian or bike access, as well as emergency vehicles.

EIR Scoping and Draft EIR Review
On December 9, 2020, the PC reviewed the scope of the EIR for the purpose of receiving public testimony, to provide input to City Staff and consultants on any additional scope items or environmental issues. No action was taken at this meeting (PC Scoping and Minutes 12.9.20).

On July 14, 2021, the PC received an overview of the Draft EIR and received public testimony and provided input to City staff and EIR consultants regarding any additional analysis to adequately evaluate environmental issue areas within the Draft EIR. No action was taken at this meeting (PC DEIR Review and Minutes 7.14.21). FEIR Chapter 8 (Response to Comments) includes responses to public and Planning Commission comments received during the July 2021 meeting.

Advisory Body Review
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Referral
On August 18, 2021, the ALUC reviewed the referral by the City of San Luis Obispo and provided conditions and a determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the proposed AASP amendments, General Plan Map Amendment, Rezoning, and the mixed-use development plan (ALUC Report and Minutes 8.18.21). See further discussion in the February 1, 2022, Council Agenda Report Consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan.

Tree Committee (TC) Review
On September 27, 2021, the TC reviewed the proposed 26 tree removals and replanting plan for 236 trees for consistency with the City’s Tree Removal Regulations. The TC recommended that the PC find the proposed tree removal plan and replanting plan consistent with the City’s Tree Removal Regulations § 12.24 (TC Report and Minutes

9.27.21).

ARC Review
On October 4, 2021, the ARC reviewed the proposed project design for consistency with the CDG and AASP Design Standards. During their review the ARC provided six recommendations to the applicant to address specific concerns related to building and site design, and recommended that the PC find the project consistent with the CDG and AASP (ARC Report and Minutes 10.4.21). The applicant’s response to ARC’s recommendations is included in Table 1 below.

Page 479 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 10 ends

Table 1. Response to ARC Direction
ARC Direction Applicant/Staff Response
ARC Directional Item #1: Provide one more color
scheme for Building A types.

Response: The applicant has revised the design
to include an additional color scheme for Building
types A and B, and an additional scheme for
Building types C and D (Attachment H, Sheet X1
and Sheet X2).

Staff Analysis: The applicant’s revised design
substantially addresses ARC’s recommendation,
and the Planning Commission concurred in its
recommendation to City Council.

ARC Directional Item #2: Incorporate balcony
railings that provide more privacy; 66%-75% solid
panels to screen views.

Response: The applicant has revised the design
of the balconies to provide approximately 75%
screening of balcony railing to screen storage and
improve privacy between structures (Attachment
H, Sheet X2).

Staff Analysis: The applicant’s revised design
substantially addresses ARC’s recommendation,
and the Planning Commission concurred in its
recommendation to City Council.

ARC Directional Item #3: On the Building B rear
elevation provide white garage doors rather than
gray to blend in more.

Response: The applicant has modified the
designs of Building B and the new color scheme
for Building types C and D, to include white
garage doors to correspond with the alternating
colors on the rear elevations (Attachment H,
Sheet X1).

Staff Analysis: The applicant’s revised design
substantially addresses ARC’s recommendation,
and the Planning Commission concurred in its
recommendation to City Council.

ARC Directional Item #4: Provide more planting or
other visual indicators for pedestrians and traffic
calming (referencing the red arrow shown on
sheet A10 descending from Santa Fe Road).

Response: The applicant has revised the design
of the project to provide additional traffic calming
measures along the drive isle, by providing
alternative pavement for pedestrian crossings and
additional parking planters (Attachment H, Sheet
X3).

Staff Analysis: The applicant’s revised design
substantially addresses ARC’s recommendation,
and the Planning Commission concurred in its
recommendation to City Council.

ARC Directional Item #5: Use landscaping to
reduce massing of Building E.

Response: The applicant has revised the project
plans to provide greater landscaping along Tank
Farm Road and Santa Fe Road to reduce the
mass of Building E as seen from the public rightof-way (Attachment H, Sheet X5).

Page 480 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 11 ends

Table 1. Response to ARC Direction
ARC Direction Applicant/Staff Response
Staff Analysis: The applicant’s revised design
substantially addresses ARC’s recommendation,
and the Planning Commission concurred in its
recommendation to City Council.

ARC Directional Item #6: Provide well thought out
pedestrian-scale elements.

Response: The applicant has provided enhanced
exhibits of the pedestrian-scale elements
throughout the site, to provide greater context of
amenities and pedestrian linkages (Attachment H,
Sheets X3-X6).

Staff Analysis: The applicant’s revised design
substantially addresses ARC’s recommendation,
and the Planning Commission concurred in its
recommendation to City Council.

PC Review
On November 17, 2021, the PC reviewed the modified project plans based on the ARC comments above. The PC reviewed the project and recommended approval to the City Council with minor including minor modification to Conditions 68 and 115 but not otherwise recommending changes to the project (PC Report and Minutes 11.17.21), the modifications are identified as follows:
 Condition No. 68: Revisions shown in strikeout or underlined text: “Unless otherwise waived by the City, the use of pervious pavers or alternate paving materials as visual cues for pedestrians should be expanded to include some of the more extensive parking areas serving the commercial lease spaces, common area/Club House, the central pedestrian crossroads area, and the northerly shared parking area on Lots 9 and 11 and the central area.”
Response: This condition will improve pedestrian safety by providing better visual cues indicating the presence of pedestrians.
 Condition No. 115: Revisions shown in underlined text: “Tank Farm Road Frontage Improvements. Project applicant shall reconstruct the Tank Farm Road project frontage to current City Engineering Standards. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director, plans submitted for Public Improvement Plans shall include widening the northern side of Tank Farm to a cross section that substantially conforms with the Airport Area Specific Plan and Active Transportation Plan, which includes the following typical cross section elements on the north half of the street:
5’ sidewalk / 7’ protected bike lane / 9’ parkway / curb and gutter / two westbound 12’-13’ auto lanes / raised median / one existing eastbound auto lane / existing eastbound bike lane. Designs shall be developed in coordination with the frontage improvements currently in development for the adjacent 650 Tank Farm Road development to ensure that appropriate geometric transitions. Improvements shall

Page 481 of 505 ends

600 Tank Farm - ARCH-0406-2021, SBDV-0407-2021;
GENP-0814-2019, SPEC-0407-2020 & EID-0608-2020
Memorandum: Previous Council and Advisory Body Review and Comment Summary

Page 12 ends

be approved or substantially approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to issuance of any building permits and improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of first occupancy permits.” Response: This condition will improve pedestrian safety by providing adequate widths to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles on Tank Farm Road adjacent to the project site.

Page 482 of 505 ends

# Directional Item Response
1 include requested changes by the Applicant, staff to work toward a Development Agreement or other enforceable
mechanism, with the applicant to accomplish the infrastructure scope, the locals preference and other areas as determined by staff and to include early feedback from the Active
Transportation Committee and Planning Commission for the conceptual review and scoping.

No longer applicable
2 The project should consider bicycle and pedestrian connections along Tank Farm Rd to improve east‐west connections between Higuera and Broad Streets
Considered. Refer to the mitigation in the DEIR
3 The project should study bicycle and pedestrian impacts to the Broad/Tank Farm Rd intersection Refer to Traffic Study
4 Concerned about connecting the Acacia Creek Path to a wrong way Class IV bikeway
No longer applicable. The connection has been
revised to direct bicycle circulation to Santa Fe
Road
5 Consider the potential of connecting Clarion Court to Fiero Lane as an alternative to Tank Farm Road for bikes and peds This request is outside the scope of this project 6 If Hawthorne Elementary is the designated school for this site, consider how children will walk and bike there This request is outside the scope of this project 7 Consider what possible role a bridge across the Railroad Safety Trail at Industrial Way could do to provide access to the east side of the railroad tracks
This request is outside the scope of this project
8 Consider the role that bike lanes on Industrial Road could play to improve access to the site and avoid busy arterial streets like Tank Farm
This request is outside the scope of this project
9 Concerned about the impact widening Tank Farm Road to 5 lanes would have on bicycle and pedestrian comfort levels.

Noted. The design of the Tank Farm Road
improvements have been directed by City
staff.
10 Suggests the design of roundabout at Tank Farm / Santa Fe should separate bike and ped modes Noted
City Council ‐ Rezone Initiation (April 21, 2020)
ATC ‐ Conceptual Review (July 17, 2020)
600 Tank Farm - Conceptual City Comments

Page 483 of 505 ends

11 Requests that the Acacia Creek Path have adequate connections to other bikeway and pedestrian facilities
The Acacia Creek crossing has been
coordinated with thew adjacent project for
pedestrian and bicycle use.
12 Suggests considering other options before using bollards on the bike/ped bridge across creek to 650 Tank Farm. If bollards are the only option, make safe as possible.

The proposed bollards have been set back
from the Class I path to limit vehicle access
only and not impede pedestrian bicycle
circuilation
13 Avoid bike facility designs that encourage wrong way riding. Agreed 14 Recommends avoiding multilane road on Tank Farm to minimize bike/ped impacts. Consider not widening Tank Farm Road for multilanes
Noted. The design of the Tank Farm Road
improvements have been directed by City
staff.
15 Ensure adequate sidewalk connections throughout internal development Provided in project design
16 Suggests more separation than 2 feet between Class IV bikeway and motor traffic. Suggests adding a parkway between the bike and motor vehicle modes.

Understood. The design of the road
improvements have been directed by City
staff.
17 Recommends that pathways for pedestrians throughout the development are direct Provided in project design
18 Please look for ways to incorporate design elements of the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan as much as possible into the project
Provided in project design
19 Recommends to incorporate slower roadway speeds where possible
The road speed is dictated by the width of the
roadway improvements and City staff.
20 Consider locating the bridge to 650 Tank Farm farther north The proposed bridge crossing at Acaia Creek is
located per the previous crossing location and
the Environmental Analysis that was certified
for the adjacent project (650 Tank Farm)
21 Please provide more separation between ped/bike/motor vehicle modes on Tank Farm Road cross section
Understood. The design of the road
improvements have been directed by City
staff.
22 Suggests that a lot of thought be put into how the project will provide good bike/ped connectivity to destinations outside of the project
Agreed. Please refer to the Site Circulation
exhibit included in the ARC package

Page 484 of 505 ends

23 Incorporate more open space between the parking area and the commercial building creating a plaza for patrons of the commercial businesses.

The design of the project was not able to
accommodate this request.
24 Incorporate more recessed windows to add articulation.

Concidered, but given the extensive amount of
fiber cement siding, recessed windows are not
recommended based on waterproofing
concerns.
25 Identify fencing along Acacia Creek, promote Acacia Creek to be accessible to residents as open space.

This project is not proposing fencing along
Acacia Creek, thus residences would have
access to the open space.
26 Consider ways to engage the street along the commercial building to encourage exterior space along Tank Farm.

Providing exterior use spaces along Tank Farm
Road is not desirable given the concerns
regarding noise.
27 Consider adding small patios that relate to the retail use.

Considered but felt they would not be
approporiate
28 The residential and retail buildings would benefit from a common color pallet or more compatible architectural styles. Agreed. Refer to scheme 2 & 3 29 Incorporate a serpentine pattern to the drive aisles on the site plan.

Refer to pavers in the main intersection off
Santa Fe Road
30 Create an interfacing element between the wood siding and the shed roof on the residential units.

The elevation design has been updated to
reflect a more consistant relationship between
the various building types.
31 Incorporate a pronounced rafter tail (similar to the SESLOC building) on the edges of the buildings to tie the commercial space with the residential.

We have incorporated some shed roof and
wood corbels into the Mixed‐Use building as
well as the two buldings types (C & D) as a
knod to SESLOC without matches their design
ARC ‐ Conceptual Review (August 17, 2020)

Page 485 of 505 ends

32 Consider the circulation interrelationship of this and other nearby developments as a whole and their impact on bicycling and pedestrian connectivity in the immediate area as well as to further destinations in the City.

Considered.
33 Consider increasing the number of units. Unable to acheieve this due to site constraints. 34 Ensure compatibility of the commercial services for this project and adjacent sites. Understood.
35 Design of building adjacent to Tank Farm should be orientated to Tank Farm if they serve the general public rather than just the development.

Agreed. The Mixed‐Use building addresses
Tank Farm and Santa Fe.
36 Provide a more prominent direct pedestrian connection between the residential and commercial areas – minimize crossing of parking areas.
37 Consider broadening the proposed 1.5‐mile local preference zone.

Considered and not currently planning on
broadening.
38 Consider opportunities to enhance connectivity across the emergency bridge.

Bridge to be used for ped and bike access, or
emergency vehicles only.

PC ‐ Conceptual Review (September 23, 2020)

Page 486 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 2/1/2022
Placement: Study Session
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager; Bob Hill, Sustainability & Natural Resources Official; Teresa McClish, Housing Policy & Programs Manager SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION: CLEAN ENERGY CHOICE PROGRAM FOR NEW BUILDINGS - 2022 STRATEGIC DIRECTION

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the first phase of the Clean Energy Choice Program and provide strategic direction to staff ahead of the 2022 program update.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
In 2020, Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings. The program encourages all-electric new buildings by placing additional efficiency and building performance requirements on mixed fuel buildings (those that include natural gas) in support of Council’s adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. The program is tied to the California Energy Code and must be updated when the statewide code is updated every three years. The 2020 Climate Action Plan and 2021-23 Financial Plan anticipated this need and directed staff to update the Clean Energy Choice Program in 2022.

In support of this update, staff conducted a review of the first year of program performance and found that when project applicants had the choice, less than half chose to build allelectric. This rate is not sufficient to accomplish City-wide objectives for greenhouse gas reductions. Substantial progress in this area is necessary in the immediate future to accomplish program goals for emissions reductions from the built environment if the City is to accomplish adopted City Council policies and goals.

The report provides two approaches for Council feedback to inform staff’s approach to the 2022 program update. Approach #1 is to remove the natural gas compliance option for new buildings. Approach #2 is to continue with the current “electric-preferred” program while working to identify other opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Council could also provide strategic direction on a combined approach that adopts the “electric preferred” option with subsequent phased in removal of the natural gas compliance pathway at a later date.

Page 487 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Based on contents of this Council Agenda Report, staff recommends Approach #1. In any case, staff will continue to conduct research and work with stakeholders to identify reasonable exemptions and to ensure a cost effective, equitable, and effective program.

DISCUSSION
The discussion section of this report provides historical background for the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, including an overview of program performance during the past year, an update on statewide building climate policy, and options available to the City for the 2022 Energy Code and Clean Energy Choice Program update.

Background
Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery
On August 19, 2020, Council approved the City’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, and adopted Resolution 11159 (2020 Series), which includes the goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 and a building sector goal of zero operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new buildings.

The Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery forecasts annual community emissions to be approximately 397,710 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2035.

The plan provides a trajectory to reducing these emissions towards net zero by 2035, with approximately seven percent of total reductions coming from new and existing building decarbonization (26,750 MTCO2e). Of that, a projected 6,250 MTCO2e in reductions are expected to come from all-electric new buildings permitted between 2020 and 2035.

Although the emissions reductions from new buildings is small relative to existing buildings, all-electric new buildings provide a least-cost approach to avoiding the addition of new emissions sources while the community works to achieve its climate goals.1 Allelectric new buildings are cost effective, highly efficient, provide cleaner indoor air quality, and provide substantially lower operational emissions than buildings that use natural gas appliances.
2 1
It is important to note that in the Climate Action Plan, a total of 111,030 MTCO2e remain unaccounted for, with reductions for these emissions needing to emerge in future planning updates. 2 See previous findings regarding cost effectiveness, building efficiency, and operational emissions in the September 3, 2019 Council Agenda Report.

Page 488 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Climate Action Plan Commitment to Equity
The Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery includes a commitment to implement actions through an equity lens.3 The relationship between energy and equity is a key focus area for the City and its sustainability work moving forward. The following are examples of how staff is integrating equity considerations into the update:

1. Meeting with local affordable housing providers and developers to learn from their experience building and managing all-electric projects.

2. Closely evaluating the pending cost-effectiveness studies (see below) to understand the projected utility bill cost differences between all-electric and mixed fuel buildings built under the 2022 California Energy Code that would be occupied by low- and moderate- income households.

3. Facilitate enrollment in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and the Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs, both of which provide reduced electricity rates for low-income households.4

4. Continuing to advocate for and facilitate access to Central Coast Community Energy’s all-electric affordable housing unit incentive program (see below).

5. Understanding how all-electric buildings (which typically have lower construction and offsite infrastructure costs and require less energy utility coordination) can support the City’s ambitious housing production goals.

The City’s Current Approach to All-Electric New Buildings The City has discussed all electric buildings as far back as the public process for the Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch Development Agreements. Since then, the topic has been presented to the City Council and community on numerous occasions. The topic has also gained statewide relevance with over 50 other local governments in California adopting similar regulations to encourage or require all-electric new buildings.5 As a primary implementing action, Council unanimously approved the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings (Program) on June 16, 2020. The Program includes (among other things):6

3 See Administrative Action 1.1 of the Climate Action Plan:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/27891/637339848339500000. The action directs staff to integrate multiple equity considerations into implementation action project plans. 4 More information about CARE and FERA is available here:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/save-energy-money/help-paying-your-bill/longer-termassistance/care/care.page?cid=em_PSPS_PSPSMonthlyNL_20200306_Care_email_na_na 5 The Sierra Club maintains a list of adopted policies here. 6 Note that although the Climate Action Plan was adopted after the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings (adopted June 16, 2020), the two items had been seen is integral to each other’s success since as early as Fall of 2018.

Page 489 of 505 ends

Item 7a
 Resolution 11133 (2020 Series) stating that, “it is the Policy of the City that new buildings should be all-electric.”
 Ordinance 1684 (2020 Series) which requires that mixed-fuel buildings be substantially higher performing than all-electric buildings and requires solar installations on nonresidential buildings.
 Incentives including funding for technical assistance to builders to help them successfully process permits for all-electric buildings and advocacy for financial incentives.
7  Ordinance 1685 (2020 Series) allowing limited term regulatory flexibility in certain cases where mechanical equipment may be allowed in setbacks.8 At that time, the City Council also considered a Carbon Offset Program to further incentivize all-electric development. The Offset Program would have required any developer choosing to build a mixed-fuel building instead of all-electric to pay an in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fees would then be used by the City to support electrification of existing residential buildings in the City. The Carbon Offset Program was a unique, market-based solution to accomplish the objective of reducing emissions from buildings. However, local offset programs have not been adopted elsewhere and the Carbon Offset Program as previously conceived would be staff time intensive to administer.

The June 16, 2020, Council action also included direction for “Staff to return to Council in June 2021 with a summary of program performance and the Carbon Offset Program for deliberation and action.” Due to scheduling conflicts, this action was completed as a memo to Council in December 2021, which is included as Attachment A and summarized below.

Coordination with Building Code Updates
The local amendments to the California Energy Code made via Ordinance 1864 apply to the 2019 version of the triennial statewide code and will be enforceable and valid through December 31, 2022. The approach taken under the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings is referred to as “electric-preferred,” meaning that the more stringent regulations for mixed-fuel buildings are intended to encourage all-electric buildings as the preferred option.

7 Staff successfully supported the creation of a program at Central Coast Community Energy to provide direct incentives to developers of multi-family and affordable housing units to choose all-electric buildings.

Of the $1.2 million set aside for the program in Fiscal Year 2020-21, $844,000 in incentives supporting 502 units across 8 projects in the City of San Luis Obispo were awarded and reserved. 8 At the time of report publication, there are no known instances of a project seeking to use the flexibility provisions provided by Ordinance.

Page 490 of 505 ends

Item 7a
The City must update and adopt standards if they are to be enforceable as part of the 2022 statewide code (which will be valid January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025).

The need to update the Clean Energy Choice Program was known in advance and is included in the 2021-23 Climate Action Major City Goal and explicitly contemplated in Climate Action Plan Green Buildings Action 1.1 (Adopt and implement the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings and review opportunities for improvement in the 2022 code cycle). This report and presentation to Council officially kicks off the update process, which will continue through September 2022 as described below.

Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings – Program Performance Program Participation
The Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings went into effect on September 1, 2020. In December 2021, staff provided a progress memo to Council summarizing one year of program performance (Attachment A).

The City began implementing the program on September 1, 2020. Between then and August 31, 2021, the City received 255 building permit applications for new buildings for single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects. In total, the submitted permit applications include 333 residential units, and approximately 7,050 square feet of nonresidential space.

Over the one-year study period, the program has led to a substantial number of new allelectric residential units (204 out of 333 units, 61 percent of total).9 It is important to note,
though, that 153 all-electric units submitted as part of the San Luis Ranch project were subject to a Development Agreement requiring all electric new building. Another consideration is that 68 mixed-fuel units built in the Righetti Ranch subdivision were exempt from the program because of the effective date of the ordinance.

For an apples-to-apples comparison, staff has removed San Luis Ranch and the Righetti Ranch/Orcutt Area Specific Plan permit applications from the analysis to reflect only those permits that were subject to the program and where the developer had the option to choose between fuel types.

Of these remaining 112 units, 51 are all-electric and 61 are mixed-fuel (46 percent and 54 percent, respectively). Table 1 provides a summary of the residential permit data.

9 The program is tracked through the City’s Energov permit system.

Page 491 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Table 1: Mixed-fuel and All-Electric Units in Building Permits Submitted 9/1/2020-9/2/2021
Location
AllElectric Mixed Fuel Total% allelectric
Righetti Ranch/Orcutt
Area (Exempt) Multi-Family 0 68 68 0%
San Luis Ranch (AllElectric Required)
Single Family 51 0 51 100%
Multi-Family 102 0 102 100%
Location
AllElectric Mixed Fuel Total% allelectric
Other - Subject to
Clean Energy Choice
Program
Single Family 14 10 24 58%
Accessory
Dwelling Unit 8 14 22 36%
Multi-Family 29 37 66 44%
Total 51 61 112 46%
Over the one-year study period, the City also received permit applications for two commercial projects and two mixed-use projects with commercial components. Of these permit applications, three projects totaling 3,950 square feet are mixed-fuel. The one project that is going all electric has an estimated 3,100 square feet of commercial space.

It is important to note that these findings have limitations including: 1) the data only provides one year of permits, and 2) the data does not have details about which appliances were natural gas and electric in the mixed-fuel cases.

Incentives and Technical Support
As mentioned above, the program was also supported with technical assistance and direct financial incentives. These incentives may have improved program performance.

The resources were well utilized and have facilitated successful permit review. Notable findings include:
 In addition to technical support, City staff successfully supported the creation of a program at Central Coast Community Energy to provide direct incentives to developers of multi-family and affordable housing units to choose all-electric buildings. Of the $1.2 million set aside for the program in Fiscal Year 2020-21, $844,000 in incentives supporting 502 units across 8 projects were awarded and reserved. This program continues and is now exclusively focused on affordable housing.
 The City’s Energy Reach Code Virtual Help Desk launched on September 1, 2020, in parallel with the Clean Energy Choice Program effective date. Since the launch of the help desk, 89 visitors used the help desk as a compliance resource.

Page 492 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Based on an analysis of program results to date, when provided a choice, developers are selecting a mixed-fuel option about half of the time. Even though the results are preliminary, this rate is not sufficient to accomplish City-wide objectives for greenhouse gas reductions. Substantial progress in this area is necessary in the immediate future to accomplish program goals for emissions reductions from the built environment if the City is to accomplish adopted City Council policies and goals.

Statewide Updates for Climate Action and Low Carbon Buildings 2022 California Energy Code
As mentioned above, one of the variables influencing the City’s update to the Clean Energy Choice Program is how the California Energy Commission updates the statewide energy code. In December of 2021, the California Energy Commission unanimously adopted the 2022 California Energy Code.10 The 2022 Code reflects a desire by the California Energy Commission to improve indoor air quality in buildings, reduce emissions, and move towards all-electric new buildings. According to the California Energy Commission, the 2022 Energy Code focuses on four key areas in newly constructed buildings:11
 Encouraging electric heat pump technology for space and water heating, which consumes less energy and produces fewer emissions than gas-powered units.  Establishing electric-ready requirements for single-family homes to position owners to use cleaner electric heating, cooking and electric vehicle (EV) charging options whenever they choose to adopt those technologies.  Expanding solar photovoltaic (PV) system and battery storage standards to make clean energy available onsite and complement the state’s progress toward a 100 percent clean electricity grid.
 Strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality.

The California Energy Code is updated every three years. Since the City’s current approach to all-electric new buildings builds on amendments to the California Energy Code, the City’s approach will need to be updated prior to implementation of the new energy code in January 2023.

10 The 2022 California Energy Code is available here: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency 11 https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2021-08/energy-commission-adopts-updated-building-standardsimprove-efficiency-reduce0#:~:text=The%202022%20Energy%20Code%20focuses,emissions%20than%20gas%2Dpowered%20u nits.

Page 493 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Cost Effectiveness Studies
In support of local energy policy development, The California Energy Codes and Standards Team, composed of staff at the Investor-Owned Utilities operating in California (PG&E and SoCal Gas, respectively, in San Luis Obispo’s service territory), is currently working on updating the statewide cost effectiveness studies to reflect the changes to the 2022 California Energy Code.12 The City used the 2019 Cost Effectiveness Studies to make findings related to cost effectiveness of the current program and will use the 2022 update in the same way.13 Given the changes to the 2022 California Energy Code, staff expects the cost effectiveness studies to be more favorable for all-electric buildings than the cost parity generally reported in the 2019 studies.14 Staff expects to receive initial findings of the report by March of 2022 and the full report to be published by late spring.

More Local Governments Leading the Way
The City of San Luis Obispo was one of the first to pursue an all-electric new buildings policy. This leadership has inspired countless others to move forward. Since the City adopted its “electric preferred” approach, more direct and effective approaches that eliminate natural gas as a compliance option have become the preferred approach.

To-date, 54 California local governments have adopted building electrification ordinances to either encourage or require all-electric new buildings. Based on review of the approaches, approximately 45 of those approaches outright prohibit natural gas in new buildings in one or more building sectors.15
Two examples of this updated approach to the policy include the City of Santa Barbara, and the City of Santa Cruz:16

1. City of Santa Barbara - In July of 2021, Santa Barbara City Council adopted an Ordinance that prohibits the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings as part of its efforts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035.

The ordinance applies to all building permits submitted after January 1, 2022 and

12 For more information about the California Energy Codes and Standards Team, see:
https://localenergycodes.com/
13 The statewide study includes information for every climate zone and utility; the City is in Climate Zone 5 and received utility services from Pacific Gas & Electric, and SoCal Gas. 14 For more information about the 2019 Cost Effectiveness Studies and how they informed the City’s policy, see June 16, 2020 Clean Energy Choice Program Council Agenda Report:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=122344&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk&searchid=dec3cc 80-f51d-4826-bc4d-acf9f39433e5
15 The Sierra Club maintains a comprehensive list of California building electrification policies, here:
https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/07/californias-cities-lead-way-gas-free-future 16 Notably, the approach taken by Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz are amendments to the municipal code (not local amendments to the California Energy Code) that preclude mixed-fuel buildings as a legal compliance pathway. Since those cities still allow an all-electric compliance path consistent with State law, they are able to adopt the policy once and will not have to update it every time the triennial California Energy Code is adopted.

Page 494 of 505 ends

Item 7a
only applies to newly constructed buildings. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that are completely new buildings must be all-electric. Exemptions are allowed for restaurants, clean rooms, laboratories, and projects where electrification is not feasible.

2. City of Santa Cruz – After declaring a climate action emergency in early July of 2020, the City of Santa Cruz adopted new municipal code to prohibit the installation of natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. Existing buildings undergoing alterations, additions, or tenant improvements are exempt. Other limited exemptions include: restaurants, facilities employing industrial process heat, ADUs ≤ 750SF, contrary to public interest, and demonstration of infeasibility.

Central Coast Community Energy
Since summer of 2020, Central Coast Community Energy has made a number of policy changes and improvements that support building electrification including expanded program budget and staff and a new procurement policy that seeks to achieve 100 percent renewable resources balanced on a monthly basis by 2030.17 This commitment will ensure that all-electric new buildings continue to reduce their operational emissions impact to near zero by 2030. The additional programming and staffing commitments are supportive of all-electric new buildings and include ongoing direct incentives for all-electric new affordable housing units.
2022 Program Update Options
Staff’s intent with this Study Session is to present the information described above and receive strategic direction ahead of the 2022 update process. Given the updated information, staff have identified two approaches for the update and several additional items for consideration.

Please note that in all cases, staff will ensure proposals coming before Council are cost effective, equitable, and aligned with the other current Major City Goals including housing, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and fiscal health and responsibility. In instances where, through further research and due diligence, staff finds an approach is misaligned with current Major City Goals or is no longer cost effective, the approach will be amended accordingly. Any amendments of this nature will be highlighted when staff returns to Council for policy adoption. Based on the contents of this Council Agenda Report and as reflected in the summary of key evaluative criteria provided by Table 2, staff recommends Approach #1.

17 For more information, see https://3cenergy.org/understanding-clean-energy/.

Page 495 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Approach #1 – Remove the natural gas compliance pathway This approach would remove natural gas as a compliance option for new buildings in one or more sectors. This approach provides several benefits, including:
 Avoids emissions from new mixed-fuel buildings,
 Provides a simpler and more straightforward approach for designers, developers, and staff,
 Avoids the need to potentially retrofit “new” buildings in the future,  Honors the commitments to all-electric buildings made by San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, and other early adopters, and
 Aligns with adopted Council goals.

Should Council direct staff to pursue this option, staff would spend the public outreach period clarifying if the approach should be achieved through local amendments to the 2022 California Energy Code or should be adopted by ordinance in the City’s municipal code on a permanent basis, identifying exemptions where all-electric options aren’t currently viable, and advocating for incentives and technical assistance to support local projects.

Approach: #2 – Continue with the Electric Preferred Path This approach would retain the current method, allowing all-electric buildings that are minimally compliant with the State code and requiring additional efficiency and/or energy/carbon performance standards for mixed-fuel buildings. The primary benefit of this approach is that it is consistent with the City’s current approach and retains choice.

Should Council provide strategic direction to pursue this approach, staff would spend the public outreach period fine tuning exemptions, reviewing the cost effectiveness studies to identify optimal additional efficiency and building performance requirements for each building sector, and advocating for incentives and technical assistance to support local projects.

To stay on track to achieve Council’s adopted goals, the emissions from new mixed-fuel buildings would need to be offset or reduced elsewhere. Possible options for additional emissions reductions would be to increase the City’s existing building retrofit goals or to further develop the previously mentioned Carbon Offset Program.

It should be noted that retrofits are complicated and expensive and the City’s current approach to existing buildings is already highly ambitious. The City’s previously contemplated “Carbon Offset Program” could provide a path to allow natural gas (retain choice) while also achieving Council’s emissions reduction goals (by funding additional building retrofit projects). However, this approach would necessarily involve establishment of substantial administrative and bureaucratic processes to support success.

Page 496 of 505 ends

Item 7a
In addition, building emissions reductions through the program would have to be made above and beyond the current existing building emissions reductions goals. Finally, the cost of administering a carbon offset program and the effectiveness of such a program is currently unknown. Should Council direct staff to pursue this path, staff would also spend the public outreach period researching program cost and feasibility.

Combining Approaches
An alternative approach, should Council wish to consider it, is to develop a program that implements Approach #2 (Continue with the Electric Preferred Path) as part of the 2022 update and phases in Approach #1 (Remove the natural gas compliance pathway) over time. Under this combined approach, staff would develop and propose an update in 2022, that would put an “electric-preferred” policy in place starting January 1, 2023 and would include a phased in removal of the natural gas compliance pathway at a later date (e.g., January 1, 2024). The combined approach would provide additional time for land owners, developers, and builders to prepare for all-electric requirements. This approach has several downsides, including 1) allowing for the growth of new onsite natural gas emissions for another year, 2) requiring that staff concurrently develop two code updates, and 3) introducing two separate energy codes in the 2022 Building Code cycle for applicants and staff to keep track of (e.g., there would be one energy code for permit applications submitted in 2023 and another energy code for permit applications submitted in 2024 and 2025).

Table 2: Program Update Options by Key Evaluative Criteria Consistent
with Adopted
Goals and
Policy
Consistent with
Major City
Goals
Requires
Substantial
Additional
Staff Time
Creates
Certainty for
the
Development
Community
Approach #1 – Remove
the natural gas
compliance pathway
Yes Yes No Yes
Approach #2 – Continue
with the “Electric
Preferred” pathway
Maybe18 Yes Yes Maybe19

18 This box is marked “maybe” because the feasibility of implementation of a carbon offset program and the feasibility of achieving enhanced retrofit goals are unknown, as described above. 19 This box is marked “maybe” because, depending on how Approach #2 is implemented, the process could be more administratively burdensome, complex, or time consuming.

Page 497 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The topic of all-electric new buildings has been considered by Council on numerous occasions including:
 October 3, 2017 and August 21, 2018 – Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch Development Agreements consider all-electric new units.  September 18, 2018 – Carbon neutrality and direction to research possibility of requiring carbon neutral buildings as part of the City’s building codes  February 2019, unanimous direction to develop an approach to carbon neutral new development.
 June 4, 2019 – The Climate Action MCG is adopted with a reach code as an item in the work program.
 September 3, 2019 – The City adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings.
 June 16, 2020 – The City rescinded portions of the September 3 action and readopted the Clean Energy Choice Program.
 July 7, 2020 – Council conducted the second reading of Clean Energy Choice Program ordinances.
 August 18, 2020 – The City adopted the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, which included building sector goals and explicitly identifies the need to update the Clean Energy Choice Program in 2022.
 May 18, 2021 – Staff provided a Climate Action Plan update to Council, which included an update on building electrification progress.  June 1, 2021- Council adopted the 2021-23 Financial Plan with the Climate Action MCG that called for the Clean Energy Choice Program update.

Policy Context
As mentioned above, the information presented in this report is grounded in standing policy, including:
 Resolution 11159 (2020 Series), which includes the goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 and a building sector goal of zero operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new buildings.
 Resolution 11133 (2020 Series) stating that, “it is the Policy of the City that new buildings should be all-electric.”

Page 498 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Approach to Existing Buildings
This report focuses on the update to the City’s energy policy for new buildings. However, existing buildings are the major source of greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment. For the purpose of sharing progress and to clearly delineate the existing and new buildings programs, this Council Agenda Report provides a brief status update on the current approach to existing buildings.

The City is concurrently working on developing a building retrofit program to achieve the Council adopted goal of a 50 percent reduction in existing building emissions by 2030.

The City’s approach is to (1) research the community building stock to understand priority building types and to understand cost effective retrofit, (2) complete pilot retrofits to confirm research and learn more about how retrofits could work in the City, and (3) research and present policy approaches to supporting equitable retrofit options at scale.

Notable work in progress includes:
 Modelling the emissions profile of all single-family homes using the XeroHome model.20
 Modelling the emissions profile of all other buildings using the BlocPower model.21  Initiating a pilot program to retrofit affordable housing units. Current proposed retrofits include replacing natural gas water and space conditioning equipment with electric heat pump appliances. As a result of this innovative work, the City and its partner BlocPower have been awarded a $200,000 grant to establish a community retrofit working group and to directly invest in additional pilot projects.

In addition to this work in progress, the City has also been invited along with RACE Matters SLO to participate in the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Equitable Building Decarbonization California learning cohort. Staff will co-learn with RACE Matters SLO staff and eight other California jurisdictions and their equity partners about equitable building electrification retrofits throughout 2022.

With this “existing buildings” work effort happening on a parallel path, staff does not currently recommend that the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings expand its applicability to include substantial renovations and remodels.

20 See the Santa Monica XeroHome portal for an example of what community members will have access to: https://my.xerohome.com/. The XeroHome platform also allows the City staff to understand the cost effectiveness of certain decarbonization measures in different subsets of buildings based on local conditions.
21 See the Oakland BlocMaps portal for an example of what community members will have access to:
http://blocmaps.blocpower.io/oakland. BlocPower is the City’s primary partner in understanding local building emissions and developing a path to equitably addressing them.

Page 499 of 505 ends

Item 7a
Public Engagement
In December 2021, staff sent the 2020-21 Clean Energy Choice Program Performance Memo to City Council. In December of 2021, City Staff also provided a note about the update at the Developers’ Roundtable meeting. Following that action, City Staff reached out via email to all builders and developers known to be practicing in the City, as well as to key community based organizations and business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and SLO Climate Coalition.

In early January 2022, staff met with several builders and developers to identify how the current program was going for them and to discuss areas of improvement. Staff received feedback about possible exemptions and suggestions for process improvements. Of the builders that responded to the invitation, the general feedback was that all-electric new buildings have not been disruptive to the standard design, permitting, utility coordination, or construction processes.

Staff has drafted a 2022 public engagement calendar and will begin implementing it following Council’s direction on approach at the February 1, 2022, strategic direction meeting. The current engagement plan includes a virtual workshop tentatively scheduled for March 30, 2022, that is intended for all stakeholder groups, including the business community, environmental advocates, technical building electrification experts, and community members.

Additional stakeholder meetings for specific audiences, such as technical experts, may be held on an as-needed basis in April of 2020. Content from these virtual workshops will be shared on social media and available for viewing on the City’s website. Following this engagement, community members will be invited to offer their input on the draft code amendments via the City’s Open City Hall platform for the entire month of May. After the Open City Hall feedback period ends, staff will review comments and integrate them into a revised draft of code amendments that will be presented to City Council in September of 2022.

CONCURRENCE
City Administration and Community Development concur on the contents of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15238. Environmental impacts will be considered as part of the public process when the policy is brought to Council for adoption.

Page 500 of 505 ends

Item 7a

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $59,000 $0 $0 $0
State -- -- -- --
Federal -- -- -- --
Fees -- -- -- --
Other: -- -- -- --
Total $59,000 $0 $0 $0
The Clean Energy Choice Program update will be completed by staff. The project is included in the 2021-23 Climate Action Major City Goal and Office of Sustainability and Community Development Department work programs with appropriate budget allocations. The “total budget available” figure of $59,000 in the Fiscal Analysis table refers to the expected value of already budgeted staff time based on current fully burdened hourly rates. Should Council provide strategic direction to pursue Approach #2, additional funding for program development would likely need to be identified and requested at a future Council meeting.

Several external resources exist to support the effort including: California Public Utility Commission’s Statewide Codes and Standards team, which will provide technical assistance and cost effectiveness studies. The City is also currently also working with the Tri-County Regional Energy Network (3C-REN) and Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) to establish additional technical support for purpose of adopting electrification and efficiency reach codes in the 2022 code cycle. Both organizations have had budgets approved for this effort and will be initiating their support programs in early 2022.

KEY QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL

1. What observations and feedback does Council have about the two approaches presented in this report?

2. Does Council prefer one of the approaches?

3. If Council has a mixed preference, is there information or considerations you’d like staff to consider as it updates the program? Are there any specific timelines or engagement efforts that staff should concentrate on?

4. Are there other items Council would like staff to consider including (e.g., specific exemptions, resilience components, additional efficiency or performance requirements, additional incentives, additional technical assistance, etc.)?

Page 501 of 505 ends

Item 7a

NEXT STEPS
Following receipt of strategic direction from Council, work is expected to proceed on the following schedule:

Task Timeframe
Initiate public engagement program February 2022
Statewide Codes and Standards Team
releases cost effectiveness studies
March 2022
Staff develops proposed policy and code
amendments based on technical information
and responses from the public engagement
program.

March – May 2022
Seek feedback via Open City Hall on draft
code amendments and programming needs
May 2022
Staff amends update based on community
feedback
June 2022
Staff presents Program update to Council
for adoption.

September 2022
If Council’s preferred approach is local
amendments to the California Energy Code,
submit to the California Energy Code for
approval.

October-December 2022
Begin program update implementation. January 2023

ALTERNATIVES
Council could direct staff to not pursue an update to the Clean Energy Choice Program, which would cause the program to expire on December 31, 2022. Under this alternative, the City would allow the Clean Energy Choice Program to expire at the end of 2022 and would adopt the statewide code for implementation beginning in 2023.

Staff does not recommend this alternative as it is inconsistent with adopted Council policy and the City's climate action goals.

ATTACHMENTS
A – 2021 Council Memo - Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings Update

Page 502 of 505 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
DATE: December 13, 2021
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Department Director VIA: Chris Read, Sustainability Manager
Teresa McClish, Housing Policy and Programs Manager
SUBJECT: Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings Status Update Purpose
This memo provides a status update on the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, summarizing permit data after one year of implementation. The memo is intended to provide context for the City Council and community as we move into the process of preparing our local amendments to the California Building Code (CBC). The next code cycle is starting, and local amendments need to be adopted in 2022 to coincide with CBC updates that will go into effect on January 1, 2023. This memo is for informational purposes with no action required by Council.

Background
On August 19, 2020, Council approved the City’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery, and adopted Resolution 11159 (2020 Series), which includes the goal of carbon neutrality by 2035.

An important part of this strategy is to accomplish zero operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new buildings.1 This goal can be achieved through all-electric new buildings.

Contemporary all-electric new buildings are cost effective, highly efficient, and provide substantially lower operational emissions that buildings that use fossil/natural gas for building systems such as heating and cooling.2
The City has aggressively pursued increased energy efficiency in the built environment and the Development Agreements for both Avila Ranch and San Luis Ranch include a provision that requires them to comply with city-wide energy policy. Both projects are under construction and will be all-electric. These developments consist of at least 1,300 homes, plus commercial buildings, office buildings and a hotel. Since then, the topic has been presented to the City Council and community on numerous occasions. The topic has also gained statewide relevance with 50 other local governments in California adopting similar regulations to support or require all-electric new buildings.3

1 The Resolution also includes the goal of reducing emissions from existing builds 50 percent by 2030. The City is currently working on achieving this goal through the development of a building retrofit program. Currently, the program is in the pilot phase with initial electrification retrofits expected to occur in 2022. 2 See previous findings regarding cost effectiveness, building efficiency, and operational emissions in the September 3, 2019 Council Agenda Report. 3
The Sierra Club maintains a list of adopted policies here.

Page 503 of 505 ends

Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings Status Update Page 2 As the primary implementing action for the City’s emissions goals for new buildings, Council unanimously approved the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings which includes (among other things):4
 Resolution 11133 (2020 Series) stating that, “it is the Policy of the City that new buildings should be all-electric.”
 Ordinance 1684 (2020 Series) which requires that mixed-fuel buildings be substantially higher performing than all-electric buildings and requires solar installations on nonresidential buildings.
 Incentives including funding for technical assistance to builders to help them successfully process permits for all-electric buildings and direction to advocate for financial incentives.
5,6
 Ordinance 1685(2020 Series) allowing for temporary regulatory flexibility to allow certain types of mechanical equipment in setbacks upon Community Development Director Approval.7
Findings
The City began implementing the program on September 1, 2020. Between then and August 31, 2021, the City received 255 building permit applications for new buildings for single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, and mixed-use projects. In total, the submitted permit applications include 333 residential units, and approximately 7,050 square feet of nonresidential space.

Over the one year study period, the program has led to a substantial number of new all-electric residential units (204 out of 333 units, 61 percent of total).8 It is important to note, though, that 153 all-electric units submitted as part of the San Luis Ranch project were subject to a Development Agreement requiring all electric new buildings, and the 68 mixed-fuel units submitted as part of the Righetti Ranch/Orcutt Area Specific Plan were exempt from the program because of the effective date of the ordinance.

It is important to remove San Luis Ranch and the Righetti Ranch/Orcutt Area Specific Plan permit applications from the analysis to reflect only those permits that are subject to the program and where the developer had the option to choose between fuel types. Of these remaining 112 units, 51 are all-electric and 61 are mixed-fuel (46 percent and 54 percent, respectively). Table 1 provides a summery of the residential permit data.
4 Note that although the Climate Action Plan was adopted after the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings (adopted June 16, 2020), the two items had been seen is integral to each other’s success since as early as Fall of 2018.
5 The City’s Energy Reach Code Virtual Help Desk launched on September 1, 2020, in parallel with the Clean Energy Choice Program effective date. Since the launch of the help desk, 89 visitors used the help desk as a compliance resource.
6 Staff successfully supported the creation of a program at Central Coast Community Energy to provide direct incentives to developers of multi-family and affordable housing units to choose all-electric buildings. Of the $1.2 million set aside for the program in Fiscal Year 2020-21, $844,000 in incentives supporting 502 units across 8 projects in the City of San Luis Obispo were awarded and reserved. 7 No projects utilized this regulatory flexibility.
8 The program is tracked through the City’s Energov permit system.

Page 504 of 505 ends

Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings Status Update Page 3 Table 1: of Mixed-fuel and All-Electric Units in Building Permits Submitted 9/1/2020-9/2/2021 Location
AllElectric Mixed
Fuel Total
% allelectric
Righetti Ranch/Orcutt Area (Exempt) Multi-Family 0 68 68 0% San Luis Ranch (All-Electric
Required)
Single Family 51 0 51 100%
Multi-Family 102 0 102 100%
Location
AllElectric Mixed
Fuel Total
% allelectric
Other - Subject to Clean Energy
Choice Program
Single Family 14 10 24 58%
Accessory
Dwelling Unit 8 14 22 36%
Multi-Family 29 37 66 44%
Total 51 61 112 46%
Over the one-year study period, the City also received permit applications for two commercial projects and two mixed-use projects with commercial components. Of these permit applications, 3 projects totaling 3,950 square feet are mixed-fuel. The one project that is going all electric has an estimated 3,100 square feet of commercial space.

It is important to note that these findings have limitations including: 1) the data only provides one year of permits, and 2) the data does not have detail about what appliances were natural gas and electric in the mixed-fuel cases.

Analysis
Based on an analysis of program results to date, when provided a choice, developers are selecting a mixed-fuel option about half of the time. Even though the results are preliminary, this rate is not sufficient to accomplish City-wide objectives for greenhouse gas reductions. As a result, staff will be identifying potential changes to the program for the City Council to consider during a Study Session scheduled for February 1, 2022. At the Study Session, the Council will have the ability to direct staff to work on program changes to increase the percentage of new buildings that are allelectric buildings. Substantial progress in this area is necessary to accomplish program goals for emissions reductions from the built environment.

Next Steps
Staff will return to Council at the February 1, 2022 City Council meeting to provide additional update information and to seek strategic direction as it updates the program to reflect changes in the 2022 California Building and Energy codes.

Please feel free to be in touch with Sustainability Manager Chris Read at [email protected] to schedule additional Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings briefing time.

Page 505 of 505 ends

San Luis Obispo City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

San Luis Obispo City Council
February 1, 2022