Paso Robles City Council
April 18, 2023

Rolling Hills Rd
Creston Rd Creston Rd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0000001000000000
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0000000000000000
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0000000000000200
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0003000000000100
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0002000002000000
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0000000000000100
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0000000000000000
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0000000001000100
TOTAL 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0001000000010000
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0000000000000000
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0001000000000001
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0000000000000100
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0000000017000000
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0000000000000000
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0000100000000000
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0001000000000100
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0000000001000000
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0002000001020000
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0001000000000000
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0000000000000000
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0000000000000000
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0001000000000000
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0001000000000000
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0000000000000000
TOTAL 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 3 0 2 0 1
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0005000002000400
2:30 PM - 3:30 PM 0001000017000101
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 65 PM 0 0 0 1
PM Peak Total 9 2 AM 0005 Peds <>
10 AM PM
10 00
72 41
00 00
PM AM
Peds <> 00
Peds <>
0000 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Rolling Hills Rd @ Creston Rd 35.6235
San Luis Obispo -120.6641
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Rolling Hills Rd
Creston Rd Creston Rd
0 Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION N/S STREET

COUNTY E/W STREET

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER

CYCLE TIME CONTROL TYPE N/A
Turning Movement Report
Rolling Hills Rd @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Rolling Hills Rd
Creston Rd
Clear
One-Way Stop

COMMENTS

IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 16 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 6 5 1 65 0 2
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 21 2 7 112 0 1
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 61 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 114 60 1 8 164 0 1 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 68 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 89 4 19 139 0 5 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 72 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 149 76 3 15 133 0 5 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 44 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 89 25 2 10 91 0 1
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 16 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 9 5 1 90 0 2
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 16 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 8 2 4 80 0 5
TOTAL 304 0 74 4 0 0 0 0 0 757 294 24 65 874 0 22
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 17 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 24 5 6 81 0 0
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 34 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 28 2 7 104 0 2
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 48 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 91 19 0 7 146 0 4
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 18 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 39 1 7 153 0 1 3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 21 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 174 50 4 13 90 0 6 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 20 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 102 39 1 9 105 0 5 3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 56 0 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 97 32 2 15 111 0 0 3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 39 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 20 1 12 135 0 2 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 22 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 30 1 16 111 0 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 21 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 19 5 5 109 0 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 14 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 17 1 13 125 0 2 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 19 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 29 2 9 87 0 2
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 15 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 24 2 5 113 0 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 17 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 28 1 11 103 0 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 14 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 97 27 1 5 96 0 1
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 13 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 17 0 2 86 0 0 TOTAL 388 0 160 6 0 0 0 0 0 1729 442 29 142 1755 0 25
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 245 0 54 4 0 0 0 0 0 505 250 10 52 527 0 12 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 136 0 58 4 0 0 0 0 0 492 141 8 49 441 0 13 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.835 1.6%
PM 0 0 0 #####
PM 0.927 1.9%
AM 0 0 0 #####
PHF 0.706 0.78
AM PM
00 00
492 505 527 441
141 250 52 49
PM AM
PHF

0.842 0.833 PHF

0.84 245 0 54 AM

0.622 136 0 58 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Melody Dr @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
Eastbound

35.6232
-120.6627

Creston Rd Creston Rd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0000000300010003
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0000000000010000
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0000000300010005
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0000000100010007
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0000000000000000
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0000000000000000
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0000000000110002
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 20
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0000000000000000
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 1010000000010000
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0000000000011000
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0000000200010000
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0000000100040000
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0000000000110000
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0000000000020100
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0000000001000002
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0000000000000001
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0000000100000104
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0000000100100000
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0000000000000001
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0000000000000002
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0000000100010001
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0000000000000000
TOTAL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 0 9 2 11 1 2 0 21
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 15
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 8 1 7 0 1 0 10
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 0 33 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 10 30 AM 0000 Peds <>
10 15
AM PM
00 00
80 01
10 00
PM AM
Peds <> 47
Peds <>
14 0 0 0 AM
13 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Melody Dr @ Creston Rd 35.6232
San Luis Obispo -120.6627
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
0 Creston Rd Creston Rd
Melody Dr Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION N/S STREET

COUNTY E/W STREET

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
CYCLE TIME CONTROL TYPE 37 Seconds
Turning Movement Report
Melody Dr @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Melody Dr
Creston Rd
Clear
Signal
COMMENTS Westbound left turns are permitted.

IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 6 58 0 5 0 65 5 2
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 4 66 0 1 0 112 2 1
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 6 117 0 2 0 166 1 2
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 15 159 0 4 0 147 7 2
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 15 151 0 2 0 143 9 5
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 10 91 0 2 0 91 5 1
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 10 61 0 4 0 86 11 2
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 14 52 0 1 0 80 10 5
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 10 0 50 0 80 755 0 21 0 890 50 20
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 14 0 15 70 0 5 0 71 7 1
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 17 1 14 71 0 1 0 96 12 1
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 20 76 0 0 0 142 12 4 2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 20 0 19 89 0 1 0 144 12 1 3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 15 0 29 156 0 2 0 92 14 7 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 16 0 23 85 0 1 0 96 11 4
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 14 0 18 0 37 86 0 2 0 105 14 1 3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 14 0 23 0 30 107 0 0 0 125 10 1 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 25 0 32 88 0 1 0 103 10 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 19 0 38 106 0 4 0 92 10 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 17 0 24 100 0 2 0 117 9 2 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 15 1 25 102 0 2 0 84 16 1 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 21 0 26 85 0 2 0 100 9 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 18 0 27 100 0 1 0 99 7 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 15 0 20 84 0 1 0 80 10 1
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 8 0 9 0 23 92 0 0 0 84 10 1
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 109 0 275 2 402 1497 0 25 0 1630 173 25
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 25 0 46 518 0 10 0 547 22 10 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 36 0 72 0 119 434 0 5 0 418 49 13 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.861 1.7%
PM 72 0 36 0.73
PM 0.913 1.6%
AM 25 0 3 0.778
PHF 0.747 0.81
AM PM
119 46 22 49
434 518 547 418
00 00
PM AM
PHF

0.852 0.865 PHF
##### 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound

Shopping Center
Creston Rd Creston Rd
Northbound Westbound
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Shopping Center @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
Eastbound

35.6230
-120.6615
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0000000000000000
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0000000000000000
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0001001000000400
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0004000000000000
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0001000000000000
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0003001000000010
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0001000000000000
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0001000000000000
TOTAL 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0000000000000000
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0001000000000000
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0000001000000000
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0000001000000000
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0000000008000000
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0000000000000000
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0000000000000000
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0000000000000100
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0000000010000000
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0000000010000000
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0000001000000100
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0000000001000000
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0000000000000000
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0000000000000000
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0001000000000000
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0000000000000000
TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0009002000000410
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 0000000008000100
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 79 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 9 0 AM 2009 Peds <>
00 AM PM
00 10
80 41
00 00
PM AM
Peds <> 00
Peds <>
0000 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Shopping Center
Creston Rd Creston Rd
Shopping Center Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Turning Movement Report
Shopping Center @ Creston Rd 35.6230
San Luis Obispo -120.6615
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION N/S STREET

COUNTY E/W STREET

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER

CYCLE TIME CONTROL TYPE
Creston Rd
Clear
One-Way Stop

COMMENTS

N/A
Turning Movement Report
Shopping Center @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Shopping Center
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 26 0 7 2 6 52 0 3 0 64 24 1
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 48 0 11 2 10 55 0 3 0 101 48 2 7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 72 0 17 2 11 110 0 2 0 163 57 4 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 96 0 20 1 30 137 0 4 0 130 70 3 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 98 0 22 4 33 124 0 3 0 113 69 7 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 57 0 17 2 15 74 0 2 0 80 66 6 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 39 0 11 2 8 58 0 4 0 80 42 3
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 39 0 5 2 10 47 0 2 0 89 56 8
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 475 0 110 17 123 657 0 23 0 820 432 34
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 55 0 7 2 3 72 0 5 0 74 51 3
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 55 0 10 4 8 69 0 1 0 99 44 3
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 81 0 14 2 4 74 0 0 0 137 52 4 2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 63 0 15 3 7 91 0 1 0 148 53 2 3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 75 0 20 7 15 138 0 2 0 76 45 4 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 74 0 13 4 17 76 0 2 0 97 41 3 3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 67 0 26 0 15 82 0 2 0 102 64 4 3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 79 0 24 1 23 98 0 0 0 116 79 2 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 71 0 14 1 13 88 0 1 0 104 58 1 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 74 0 13 0 13 89 0 4 0 83 59 1 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 88 0 20 0 8 100 0 0 0 108 78 2 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 70 0 11 1 11 99 0 1 0 85 52 0 5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 89 0 9 1 5 88 0 2 0 98 53 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 56 0 16 0 11 93 0 1 0 94 64 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 65 0 15 1 11 88 0 1 0 76 51 1 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 47 0 8 1 6 92 0 0 0 84 60 1
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1109 0 235 28 170 1437 0 23 0 1581 904 31 PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 323 0 76 9 89 445 0 11 0 486 262 20 3:45 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 312 0 71 2 57 375 0 5 0 411 274 6 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.870 2.4%
PM 71 0 312 0.887
PM 0.895 0.9%
AM 76 0 323 0.831
PHF 0.893 0.799
AM PM
57 89 262 274
375 445 486 411
00 00
PM AM
PHF

0.85 0.878 PHF
##### 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 PM
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound

Golden Hill Rd
Creston Rd Creston Rd
Northbound Westbound
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Golden Hill Rd @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
Eastbound

35.6223
-120.6597
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0001000000000000
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0000000000010000
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0002001000040001
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0003000000010002
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0001000000000000
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0000000000000104
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0000000000000000
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0001000000000002
TOTAL 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 9
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0000000000000000
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0001000000000000
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0000000000000000
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0000000000000000
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0000000006060000
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0003000000000000
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0001000000000001
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0000000000000101
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0000000000000000
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0001000000000001
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0000000000000000
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0000000000000000
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0000000000000000
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0000000000000000
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0000000000010000
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0001000000000000
TOTAL 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 7 0 1 0 3
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0006001000050107
3:45 PM - 4:45 PM 0001000000000102
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 2 18 PM 0 0 0 1
PM Peak Total 1 3 AM 1006 Peds <>
27 AM PM
00 00
00 11
00 00
PM AM
Peds <> 50
Peds <>
0000 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Golden Hill Rd
Creston Rd Creston Rd
0 Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Turning Movement Report
Golden Hill Rd @ Creston Rd 35.6223
San Luis Obispo -120.6597
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION N/S STREET

COUNTY E/W STREET

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER

CYCLE TIME CONTROL TYPE
Creston Rd
Clear
Signal
COMMENTS Eastbound left turns are protected.

41 Seconds
Turning Movement Report
Golden Hill Rd @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Golden Hill Rd
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0 31 0 0 0 30 10 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 2 49 0 1 0 50 26 3 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 1 64 0 1 0 84 45 1 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 2 89 0 2 0 102 42 3 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 97 0 2 0 84 19 3 43 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 2 74 0 5 0 62 22 3 35 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 2 47 0 1 0 32 12 3 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 3 60 0 4 0 31 11 3 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 12 511 0 16 0 475 187 20 183 0 8 1 0 0 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0 51 0 1 0 51 13 4 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0 42 0 3 0 57 14 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0 48 0 1 0 74 32 2 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0 59 0 1 0 70 27 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 1 54 0 0 0 71 24 6 48 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0 38 0 0 0 73 27 4 18 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0 67 0 4 0 77 26 0 21 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 1 75 0 2 0 82 25 1 43 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 65 0 2 0 66 13 1 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 3 62 0 1 0 62 29 0 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 3 76 0 0 0 82 25 0 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 1 62 0 0 0 73 23 0 28 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 50 0 0 0 82 31 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 3 65 0 0 0 49 14 0 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 58 0 0 0 68 21 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 2 69 0 0 0 37 15 1 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 14 941 0 15 0 1074 359 26 356 0 19 40000
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks Left Thru Right Trucks 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 5 324 0 10 0 332 128 10 133 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 2 234 0 6 0 303 102 11 130 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.875 2.2%
PM 102 303 0 0.946
PM 0.856 2.7%
AM 128 332 0 0.799
PHF 0.68 0.772
AM PM
130 133 0 0
00 00
66 00
PM AM
PHF
##### ##### PHF

0.848 5 324 0 AM

0.776 2 234 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Golden Hill Rd @ Rolling Hills Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
Eastbound

35.6341
-120.6580

Golden Hill Rd
Rolling Hills Rd
Northbound Westbound
Southbound
Southbound Eastbound
Northbound Westbound
Northbound Eastbound Westbound
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION LATITUDE

COUNTY LONGITUDE

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 AM - 7:15 AM 0000000000000000
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0000000000000000
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0000000000000000
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0000010000000000
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0000000000000003
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0000000000000000
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0000000000000005
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0000000000000002
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0000000000000000
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0000000000000001
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0000000000000000
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0000000000000000
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0000000000000000
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0000000000000000
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0000000000000000
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0000000000000000
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0000001000000002
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0000000000000000
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0000000000000001
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0000000000000000
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0000000000000001
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0000000000000000
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0000000000000000
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0000000010000000
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0000010000000003
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM 0000000000000000
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 13 PM 0 0 0 0
PM Peak Total 0 0 AM 0100 Peds <>
03 AM PM
00 00
00 00
00 00
PM AM
Peds <> 00
Peds <>
0000 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Golden Hill Rd @ Rolling Hills Rd 35.6341
San Luis Obispo -120.6580
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes E.Leg
Peds
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes S.Leg
Peds
Eastbound Bikes
Westbound Bikes W.Leg
Peds
Golden Hill Rd
Rolling Hills Rd 0
Golden Hill Rd Page 2 of 3
Northbound Bikes N.Leg
Peds
Southbound Bikes
IS/MND Attachment 8

Metro Traffic Data Inc.
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20
Hanford, CA 93230 Prepared For:

Central Coast Transportation Consulting
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
www.metrotrafficdata.com Morro Bay, CA 93442

LOCATION N/S STREET

COUNTY E/W STREET

COLLECTION DATE WEATHER

CYCLE TIME CONTROL TYPE N/A
Turning Movement Report
Golden Hill Rd @ Rolling Hills Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Golden Hill Rd
Rolling Hills Rd
Clear
One-Way Stop

COMMENTS

IS/MND Attachment 8

Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2022
Rolling Hills
Draft Transportation Impact Study Appendices
Appendix B: Intersection Calculation Sheets

IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
1: Creston Rd & Orchard Dr HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 797 914 7 6 25
Future Vol, veh/h 24 797 914 7 6 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 00630
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 27 906 1039 8 7 28
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1053 0 - 0 2012 1049
Stage 1 - - - - 1049 -
Stage 2 - - - - 963 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 661 - - - 65 276
Stage 1 - - - - 337 -
Stage 2 - - - - 370 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 657 - - - 59 274
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 179 -
Stage 1 - - - - 307 -
Stage 2 - - - - 368 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 21.9

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 657 - - - 248
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 - - - 0.142
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 - - - 21.9
HCM Lane LOS B - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
2: Creston Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 169 741 710 70 20 209
Future Vol, veh/h 169 741 710 70 20 209
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 00500
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 0 100
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 190 833 798 79 22 235
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 882 0 - 0 2056 843
Stage 1 - - - - 843 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1213 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 767 - - - 61 364
Stage 1 - - - - 422 -
Stage 2 - - - - 281 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 763 - - - 45 362
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 45 -
Stage 1 - - - - 315 -
Stage 2 - - - - 280 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.1 0 41.7

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 763 - - - 45 362
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.249 - - - 0.499 0.649
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - - - 147.5 31.6
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F D
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - - 1.8 4.3
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 899 62 627 356
v/c Ratio 0.53 0.26 0.36 0.64
Control Delay 8.5 11.5 8.5 19.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.5 11.5 8.5 19.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 58 8 45 67
Queue Length 95th (ft) 123 33 94 155
Internal Link Dist (ft) 379 270 218
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 3267 486 3515 1360
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.13 0.18 0.26
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 505 250 52 527 245 54
Future Volume (vph) 505 250 52 527 245 54
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 3317 1760 3539 1741
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.27 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 3317 491 3539 1741
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Adj. Flow (vph) 601 298 62 627 292 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 72 00080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 827 0 62 627 348 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 14 15 4
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 22.9 22.9 22.9 14.6
Effective Green, g (s) 22.9 22.9 22.9 14.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1651 244 1761 552
v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.18 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.25 0.36 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 7.7 6.6 7.0 13.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 0.1 2.3
Delay (s) 8.0 7.2 7.2 15.7
Level of Service A A A B
Approach Delay (s) 8.0 7.2 15.7
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 505 250 52 527 245 54
Future Volume (veh/h) 505 250 52 527 245 54
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 601 298 62 627 292 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1149 569 381 1783 405 89
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.28 0.28
Sat Flow, veh/h 2383 1135 618 3647 1421 311
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 466 433 62 627 357 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1647 618 1777 1737 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 7.1 3.0 4.3 7.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 7.1 10.1 4.3 7.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.69 1.00 0.82 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 892 827 381 1783 495 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.52 0.16 0.35 0.72 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2675 2480 1001 5350 1482 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.7 6.7 10.1 6.0 12.8 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.6 1.5 0.3 0.9 2.6 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.2 7.2 10.3 6.1 14.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS AABABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 899 689 357
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.2 6.5 14.8
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 24.5 15.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 60.0 60.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 12.1 9.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.0 5.6 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.4
HCM 6th LOS A
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
4: Creston Rd/Creston Road & Shopping Center HCM 6th TWSC Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 46 518 547 22 3 25
Future Vol, veh/h 46 518 547 22 3 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 00900
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 60
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 53 602 636 26 3 29
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 671 0 - 0 1065 340
Stage 1 - - - - 658 -
Stage 2 - - - - 407 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 915 - - - 218 656
Stage 1 - - - - 477 -
Stage 2 - - - - 641 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 907 - - - 202 650
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 202 -
Stage 1 - - - - 446 -
Stage 2 - - - - 635 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 12.1

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 907 - - - 202 650
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 - - - 0.017 0.045
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - - 23.1 10.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.1 0.1
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 511 860 371 87
v/c Ratio 0.32 0.27 0.67 0.49 0.21
Control Delay 42.1 11.9 24.5 34.6 10.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.1 11.9 24.5 34.6 10.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 31 103 53 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 133 153 355 190 42
Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 1125 505
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120
Base Capacity (vph) 746 3223 2731 2131 1005
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.16 0.31 0.17 0.09
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 89 445 486 262 323 76
Future Volume (vph) 89 445 486 262 323 76
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 3300 3361 1535
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 3300 3361 1535
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Adj. Flow (vph) 102 511 559 301 371 87
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 43 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 102 511 817 0 371 19
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6 5 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 40.6 28.1 16.6 16.6
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 40.6 28.1 16.6 16.6
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.54 0.37 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 209 1894 1234 742 339
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.15 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.27 0.66 0.50 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 30.9 9.3 19.6 25.6 23.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 31.6 9.3 20.6 25.8 23.1
Level of Service C A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 13.0 20.6 25.3
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.1 Sum of lost time (s) 14.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing AM
6: Golden Hill Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 133 6 5 324 332 128
Future Vol, veh/h 133 6 5 324 332 128
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 03003
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 200 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 151 7 6 368 377 145
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 649 264 525 0 - 0
Stage 1 453 -----
Stage 2 196 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.86 6.96 4.16 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.86 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.86 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 3.33 2.23 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 400 731 1031 - - -
Stage 1 604 -----
Stage 2 815 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 395 729 1028 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 486 -----
Stage 1 599 -----
Stage 2 813 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 15.7 0.1 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1028 - 493 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.32 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 15.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.4 - -
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
1: Creston Rd & Orchard Dr HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 674 736 15 9 22
Future Vol, veh/h 22 674 736 15 9 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 00310
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 23 709 775 16 9 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 794 0 - 0 1542 786
Stage 1 - - - - 786 -
Stage 2 - - - - 756 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 827 - - - 127 392
Stage 1 - - - - 449 -
Stage 2 - - - - 464 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 825 - - - 120 391
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 257 -
Stage 1 - - - - 427 -
Stage 2 - - - - 463 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 16.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 825 - - - 340
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - - 0.096
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - - 16.7
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.3
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
2: Creston Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 170 598 568 44 21 190
Future Vol, veh/h 170 598 568 44 21 190
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00101
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 0 100
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 195 687 653 51 24 218
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 705 0 - 0 1757 681
Stage 1 - - - - 680 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1077 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 893 - - - 93 450
Stage 1 - - - - 503 -
Stage 2 - - - - 327 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - - 72 449
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 72 -
Stage 1 - - - - 392 -
Stage 2 - - - - 327 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.2 0 26.2

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 892 - - - 72 449
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.219 - - - 0.335 0.486
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - - 78.4 20.4
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - - 1.3 2.6
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 681 53 474 208
v/c Ratio 0.39 0.15 0.26 0.43
Control Delay 7.4 8.8 7.3 12.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.4 8.8 7.3 12.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 5 23 33
Queue Length 95th (ft) 110 30 80 67
Internal Link Dist (ft) 379 270 218
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 3370 709 3539 1479
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.07 0.13 0.14
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 492 141 49 441 136 58
Future Volume (vph) 492 141 49 441 136 58
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 3388 1758 3539 1719
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.39 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 3388 713 3539 1719
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 529 152 53 474 146 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 31 0 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 650 0 53 474 192 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 13 10 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 11.1
Effective Green, g (s) 20.5 20.5 20.5 11.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1732 364 1809 475
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.13 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.07
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.26 0.40
Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 5.2 5.5 11.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6
Delay (s) 6.1 5.4 5.6 12.4
Level of Service A A A B
Approach Delay (s) 6.1 5.6 12.4
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 492 141 49 441 136 58
Future Volume (veh/h) 492 141 49 441 136 58
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 529 152 53 474 146 62
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1540 440 557 2026 224 95
Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 2795 772 757 3647 1194 507
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 347 334 53 474 209 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1697 757 1777 1710 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 3.7 1.4 2.3 4.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 3.7 5.1 2.3 4.0 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.45 1.00 0.70 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1013 967 557 2026 321 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.35 0.10 0.23 0.65 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3038 2902 1419 6077 1657 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.0 4.0 5.4 3.7 13.2 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.2 4.3 5.5 3.8 15.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 681 527 209
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.2 4.0 15.4
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 24.5 10.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 60.0 60.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 7.1 6.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.8 3.9 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.8
HCM 6th LOS A
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
4: Creston Rd/Creston Road & Shopping Center HCM 6th TWSC Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 119 434 418 49 36 72
Future Vol, veh/h 119 434 418 49 36 72
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 60
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 131 477 459 54 40 79
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 513 0 - 0 987 257
Stage 1 - - - - 486 -
Stage 2 - - - - 501 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1049 - - - 244 742
Stage 1 - - - - 584 -
Stage 2 - - - - 574 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1049 - - - 214 742
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 214 -
Stage 1 - - - - 511 -
Stage 2 - - - - 574 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0 15.5

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1049 - - - 214 742
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.125 - - - 0.185 0.107
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.9 - - - 25.6 10.4
HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - - 0.7 0.4
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 417 761 347 79
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.22 0.64 0.41 0.18
Control Delay 29.4 8.7 18.0 24.2 9.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.4 8.7 18.0 24.2 9.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 21 74 42 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 124 274 159 41
Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 1125 505
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120
Base Capacity (vph) 953 3454 3067 2642 1219
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.12 0.25 0.13 0.06
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 57 375 411 274 312 71
Future Volume (vph) 57 375 411 274 312 71
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3309 3433 1560
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3309 3433 1560
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 63 417 457 304 347 79
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 73 0 0 60
Lane Group Flow (vph) 63 417 688 0 347 19
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 29.7 18.7 13.5 13.5
Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 29.7 18.7 13.5 13.5
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.52 0.33 0.24 0.24
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 232 1840 1083 811 368
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.12 c0.21
v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.27 0.23 0.64 0.43 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 22.3 7.5 16.3 18.5 16.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 22.6 7.5 17.2 18.7 16.9
Level of Service C A B B B
Approach Delay (s) 9.5 17.2 18.3
Approach LOS A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 57.1 Sum of lost time (s) 14.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family Existing PM
6: Golden Hill Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 130 6 2 234 303 102
Future Vol, veh/h 130 6 2 234 303 102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 200 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 151 7 2 272 352 119
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 552 236 471 0 - 0
Stage 1 412 -----
Stage 2 140 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.86 6.96 4.16 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.86 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.86 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 3.33 2.23 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 461 763 1080 - - -
Stage 1 634 -----
Stage 2 869 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 460 763 1080 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 531 -----
Stage 1 633 -----
Stage 2 869 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.5 0.1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1080 - 538 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.294 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 - 14.5 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.2 - -
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
1: Creston Rd & Orchard Dr HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 24 805 942 7 6 25
Future Vol, veh/h 24 805 942 7 6 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 6 00630
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 27 915 1070 8 7 28
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1084 0 - 0 2052 1080
Stage 1 - - - - 1080 -
Stage 2 - - - - 972 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 643 - - - 61 265
Stage 1 - - - - 326 -
Stage 2 - - - - 367 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 639 - - - 55 263
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 174 -
Stage 1 - - - - 296 -
Stage 2 - - - - 365 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 22.6

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 639 - - - 239
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - - 0.147
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 - - - 22.6
HCM Lane LOS B - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
2: Creston Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8.9
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 171 741 712 72 33 223
Future Vol, veh/h 171 741 712 72 33 223
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 5 00500
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 0 100
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 192 833 800 81 37 251
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 886 0 - 0 2063 846
Stage 1 - - - - 846 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1217 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 764 - - - 60 362
Stage 1 - - - - 421 -
Stage 2 - - - - 280 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 760 - - - 44 360
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 44 -
Stage 1 - - - - 313 -
Stage 2 - - - - 279 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.1 0 60.3

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 760 - - - 44 360
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.253 - - - 0.843 0.696
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - - - 231.1 35
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 - - - 3.3 5
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 914 62 631 357
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.26 0.36 0.64
Control Delay 8.6 11.7 8.5 19.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 8.6 11.7 8.5 19.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 61 8 46 68
Queue Length 95th (ft) 126 33 95 159
Internal Link Dist (ft) 379 270 218
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 3261 474 3508 1354
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.13 0.18 0.26
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 514 254 52 530 246 54
Future Volume (vph) 514 254 52 530 246 54
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.98
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (prot) 3318 1760 3539 1742
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.96
Satd. Flow (perm) 3318 479 3539 1742
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Adj. Flow (vph) 612 302 62 631 293 64
RTOR Reduction (vph) 72 00080
Lane Group Flow (vph) 842 0 62 631 349 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 14 14 15 4
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 23.1 23.1 23.1 14.7
Effective Green, g (s) 23.1 23.1 23.1 14.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.32
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1655 238 1765 553
v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.18 c0.20
v/s Ratio Perm 0.13
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.26 0.36 0.63
Uniform Delay, d1 7.8 6.7 7.1 13.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 0.1 2.4
Delay (s) 8.0 7.3 7.2 15.8
Level of Service A A A B
Approach Delay (s) 8.0 7.2 15.8
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 46.3 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 514 254 52 530 246 54
Future Volume (veh/h) 514 254 52 530 246 54
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 612 302 62 631 293 64
Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1150 567 375 1782 406 89
Arrive On Green 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.29 0.29
Sat Flow, veh/h 2387 1131 609 3647 1422 311
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 474 440 62 631 358 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1648 609 1777 1737 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.2 7.2 3.1 4.3 7.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.2 7.2 10.3 4.3 7.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.69 1.00 0.82 0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 891 826 375 1782 496 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.53 0.17 0.35 0.72 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2673 2479 987 5346 1481 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.8 6.8 10.3 6.0 12.8 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 1.6 0.3 0.9 2.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.3 7.3 10.5 6.1 14.8 0.0
LnGrp LOS AABABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 914 693 358
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.3 6.5 14.8
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 24.5 15.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 60.0 60.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.2 12.3 9.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.2 5.6 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.4
HCM 6th LOS A
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
4: Creston Rd/Creston Road & Shopping Center HCM 6th TWSC Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 526 550 22 3 25
Future Vol, veh/h 47 526 550 22 3 25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 9 00900
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 60
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 55 612 640 26 3 29
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 675 0 - 0 1078 342
Stage 1 - - - - 662 -
Stage 2 - - - - 416 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - - 213 654
Stage 1 - - - - 475 -
Stage 2 - - - - 634 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 904 - - - 196 648
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 196 -
Stage 1 - - - - 442 -
Stage 2 - - - - 628 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 0 12.2

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 904 - - - 196 648
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 - - - 0.018 0.045
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.2 - - - 23.7 10.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - - 0.1 0.1
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 520 863 371 87
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.28 0.67 0.49 0.21
Control Delay 42.2 11.9 24.6 34.7 10.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.2 11.9 24.6 34.7 10.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 32 105 53 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 134 156 358 191 42
Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 1125 505
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120
Base Capacity (vph) 744 3220 2731 2126 1003
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.16 0.32 0.17 0.09
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 90 452 489 262 323 76
Future Volume (vph) 90 452 489 262 323 76
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1752 3505 3300 3361 1535
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1752 3505 3300 3361 1535
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
Adj. Flow (vph) 103 520 562 301 371 87
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 68
Lane Group Flow (vph) 103 520 821 0 371 19
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6 5 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Heavy Vehicles (%) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 9.0 40.8 28.3 16.7 16.7
Effective Green, g (s) 9.0 40.8 28.3 16.7 16.7
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.54 0.38 0.22 0.22
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 209 1896 1238 744 339
v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.15 c0.25
v/s Ratio Perm c0.11 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.49 0.27 0.66 0.50 0.06
Uniform Delay, d1 31.1 9.3 19.6 25.7 23.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0
Delay (s) 31.7 9.4 20.6 25.9 23.2
Level of Service C A C C C
Approach Delay (s) 13.1 20.6 25.4
Approach LOS B C C
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 19.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.4 Sum of lost time (s) 14.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
6: Golden Hill Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 142 6 5 325 332 131
Future Vol, veh/h 142 6 5 325 332 131
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 03003
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 200 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 161 7 6 369 377 149
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 652 266 529 0 - 0
Stage 1 455 -----
Stage 2 197 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.86 6.96 4.16 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.86 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.86 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 3.33 2.23 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 398 729 1027 - - -
Stage 1 603 -----
Stage 2 814 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 393 727 1024 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 484 -----
Stage 1 598 -----
Stage 2 812 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 16.1 0.1 0

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1024 - 491 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - 0.343 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - 16.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - C - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.5 - -
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
1: Creston Rd & Orchard Dr HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 22 701 752 15 9 22
Future Vol, veh/h 22 701 752 15 9 22
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 3 00310
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 23 738 792 16 9 23
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 811 0 - 0 1588 803
Stage 1 - - - - 803 -
Stage 2 - - - - 785 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 815 - - - 119 383
Stage 1 - - - - 441 -
Stage 2 - - - - 449 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 813 - - - 113 382
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 249 -
Stage 1 - - - - 419 -
Stage 2 - - - - 448 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 17.1

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 813 - - - 331
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - - 0.099
HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - - - 17.1
HCM Lane LOS A - - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.3
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
2: Creston Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 177 598 574 50 28 198
Future Vol, veh/h 177 598 574 50 28 198
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 00101
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 60 - - - 0 100
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 87 87 87 87 87 87
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 203 687 660 57 32 228
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 718 0 - 0 1783 691
Stage 1 - - - - 690 -
Stage 2 - - - - 1093 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 883 - - - 90 445
Stage 1 - - - - 498 -
Stage 2 - - - - 321 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 882 - - - 69 444
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 69 -
Stage 1 - - - - 383 -
Stage 2 - - - - 321 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.4 0 30.6

HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 882 - - - 69 444
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.231 - - - 0.466 0.513
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - - - 96.4 21.3
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.9 - - - 1.9 2.9
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBL
Lane Group Flow (vph) 688 53 483 213
v/c Ratio 0.40 0.15 0.27 0.43
Control Delay 7.5 8.9 7.4 12.9
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 7.5 8.9 7.4 12.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 33 5 24 34
Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 30 82 69
Internal Link Dist (ft) 379 270 218
Turn Bay Length (ft) 115
Base Capacity (vph) 3367 700 3539 1484
Starvation Cap Reductn 0000
Spillback Cap Reductn 0000
Storage Cap Reductn 0000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.08 0.14 0.14
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 497 143 49 449 140 58
Future Volume (vph) 497 143 49 449 140 58
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.96
Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (prot) 3388 1758 3539 1720
Flt Permitted 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.97
Satd. Flow (perm) 3388 705 3539 1720
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Adj. Flow (vph) 534 154 53 483 151 62
RTOR Reduction (vph) 31 0 0 0 16 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 657 0 53 483 197 0
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 13 13 10 7
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8
Turn Type NA Perm NA Prot
Protected Phases 2 6 8
Permitted Phases 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 20.4 20.4 20.4 11.2
Effective Green, g (s) 20.4 20.4 20.4 11.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.28
Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1723 358 1800 480
v/s Ratio Prot c0.19 0.14 c0.11
v/s Ratio Perm 0.08
v/c Ratio 0.38 0.15 0.27 0.41
Uniform Delay, d1 6.0 5.2 5.6 11.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6
Delay (s) 6.1 5.4 5.7 12.3
Level of Service A A A B
Approach Delay (s) 6.1 5.7 12.3
Approach LOS A A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 6.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 40.1 Sum of lost time (s) 8.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
3: Melody Dr & Creston Rd HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 497 143 49 449 140 58
Future Volume (veh/h) 497 143 49 449 140 58
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.98
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 534 154 53 483 151 62
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222
Cap, veh/h 1532 439 550 2017 231 95
Arrive On Green 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.19 0.19
Sat Flow, veh/h 2793 774 752 3647 1208 496
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 351 337 53 483 214 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1777 1696 752 1777 1711 0
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 3.8 1.4 2.4 4.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 3.8 5.2 2.4 4.1 0.0
Prop In Lane 0.46 1.00 0.71 0.29
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1009 963 550 2017 327 0
V/C Ratio(X) 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.24 0.65 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 3026 2889 1404 6051 1651 0
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 4.1 4.1 5.5 3.8 13.2 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.2 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 4.3 4.3 5.6 3.9 15.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS AAAABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 688 536 214
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 4.0 15.4
Approach LOS A A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 24.5 10.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 60.0 60.0 34.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 7.2 6.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 4.9 4.0 0.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 5.9
HCM 6th LOS A
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
4: Creston Rd/Creston Road & Shopping Center HCM 6th TWSC Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.4
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 119 439 426 49 36 72
Future Vol, veh/h 119 439 426 49 36 72
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 60
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 131 482 468 54 40 79
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 522 0 - 0 998 261
Stage 1 - - - - 495 -
Stage 2 - - - - 503 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1041 - - - 240 738
Stage 1 - - - - 578 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1041 - - - 210 738
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 210 -
Stage 1 - - - - 505 -
Stage 2 - - - - 573 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.9 0 15.7

HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 1041 - - - 210 738
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.126 - - - 0.188 0.107
HCM Control Delay (s) 9 - - - 26.1 10.5
HCM Lane LOS A - - - D B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - - 0.7 0.4
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road Queues
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 421 768 347 80
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.22 0.62 0.42 0.18
Control Delay 29.7 8.7 17.8 24.5 9.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 29.7 8.7 17.8 24.5 9.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 21 75 42 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 85 125 278 160 41
Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 1125 505
Turn Bay Length (ft) 125 120
Base Capacity (vph) 921 3450 3067 2632 1215
Starvation Cap Reductn 00000
Spillback Cap Reductn 00000
Storage Cap Reductn 00000
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.12 0.25 0.13 0.07
Intersection Summary
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
5: Creston Road & Golden Hill Road HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 58 379 418 274 312 72
Future Volume (vph) 58 379 418 274 312 72
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 3539 3311 3433 1560
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 3539 3311 3433 1560
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Adj. Flow (vph) 64 421 464 304 347 80
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 69 0 0 62
Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 421 699 0 347 18
Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 2
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1
Turn Type Prot NA NA Perm Perm
Protected Phases 5 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 4
Actuated Green, G (s) 7.6 30.8 19.7 13.3 13.3
Effective Green, g (s) 7.6 30.8 19.7 13.3 13.3
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.53 0.34 0.23 0.23
Clearance Time (s) 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 231 1879 1124 787 357
v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 0.12 c0.21
v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.01
v/c Ratio 0.28 0.22 0.62 0.44 0.05
Uniform Delay, d1 22.7 7.2 16.0 19.2 17.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0
Delay (s) 23.0 7.3 16.8 19.3 17.5
Level of Service C A B B B
Approach Delay (s) 9.3 16.8 19.0
Approach LOS A B B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 58.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
6: Golden Hill Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th TWSC
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 135 6 2 235 304 111
Future Vol, veh/h 135 6 2 235 304 111
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 200 - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 33333
Mvmt Flow 157 7 2 273 353 129
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 559 241 482 0 - 0
Stage 1 418 -----
Stage 2 141 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.86 6.96 4.16 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.86 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.86 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.53 3.33 2.23 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 457 757 1070 - - -
Stage 1 630 -----
Stage 2 868 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 456 757 1070 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 527 -----
Stage 1 629 -----
Stage 2 868 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 14.7 0.1 0

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1070 - 534 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.307 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 14.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 1.3 - -
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P AM
2: Creston Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th Roundabout
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.8
Intersection LOS C
Approach EB WB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 1025 881 288
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 1046 899 294
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 38 196 816
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 1072 888 279
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 5
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.1 18.5 14.3
Approach LOS C C B
Lane Left Left Left
Designated Moves LT TR LR
Assumed Moves LT TR LR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 1046 899 294
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1327 1130 600
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.980
Flow Entry, veh/h 1025 881 288
Cap Entry, veh/h 1301 1107 588
V/C Ratio 0.788 0.796 0.490
Control Delay, s/veh 16.1 18.5 14.3

LOS C C B
95th %tile Queue, veh 9 9 3
IS/MND Attachment 8

Creston Road Multi-Family EX+P PM
2: Creston Rd & Rolling Hills Rd HCM 6th Roundabout
Central Coast Transportation Consulting Synchro 11 Report

Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9
Intersection LOS B
Approach EB WB SB
Entry Lanes 1 1 1
Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 890 717 260
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 908 731 266
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 33 207 673
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 906 734 265
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 1 0 1
Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 1.000
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.8 12.5 10.5
Approach LOS B B B
Lane Left Left Left
Designated Moves LT TR LR
Assumed Moves LT TR LR
RT Channelized
Lane Util 1.000 1.000 1.000
Follow-Up Headway, s 2.609 2.609 2.609
Critical Headway, s 4.976 4.976 4.976
Entry Flow, veh/h 908 731 266
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 1334 1117 695
Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.981 0.977
Flow Entry, veh/h 890 717 260
Cap Entry, veh/h 1308 1096 679
V/C Ratio 0.681 0.654 0.383
Control Delay, s/veh 11.8 12.5 10.5

LOS B B B
95th %tile Queue, veh 6 5 2
IS/MND Attachment 8

Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2022
Rolling Hills
Draft Transportation Impact Study Appendices
Appendix C: Signal Warrant
IS/MND Attachment 8

Project Name
Project/File #
Scenario
Major Street (E/W Road) Minor Street (N/S Road)
Analyzed with  Analyzed with
Total Approach Volume Total Approach Volume
Total Ped/Bike Volume Total Ped/Bike Volume
Right turn reduction of  Right turn reduction of
No high speed or isolated community reduction applied to the Volume Warrant thresholds.

Warrant 2,  Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Required values reached for 0 hours 6 hours 0 (Cond. A) & 6 (Cond. B) Criteria ‐ Major Street (veh/hr) 500 750 400 (Cond. A) & 600 (Cond. B) Criteria ‐ Minor Street (veh/hr) 200 100 160 (Cond. A) & 80 (Cond. B) Figure 4C‐1 (Warrant 2) & Figure 4C‐3 (Warrant 3)
Condition A Condition B
Criteria See Figure Below
Creston Road & Rolling Hills Road
2022_249
Existing Weekday
Intersection Information
Condition Satisfied? Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Satisfied Creston Road Rolling Hills Road
1 approach lane 2 or more approach lanes
0 percent applied 40 percent applied
Warrant 1,  Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A Condition B Condition A+B*
7370 vehicles 1120 vehicles
13 crossings 4 crossings
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Required values reached for 1520 total, 219 minor, 2.5 delay 0 hours Condition Satisfied? Not Satisfied Not Satisfied
Criteria ‐ Total Approach Volume (veh in one hour) 650
Criteria ‐ Minor Street High Side Volume (veh in one hour) 150 See Figure Below Criteria ‐ Minor Street High Side Delay (veh‐hrs) 5
* Should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems.

Satisfied
4 hours
Condition Satisfied?
Required values reached for
Warrant 3,  Peak Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrants 1 ‐ 3 (Volume Warrants)
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Minor Street Volume (High Approach Only)
Major Street Volume (Both Approaches)
Warrant 2 Threshold Warrant 3 Threshold Intersection Volumes IS/MND Attachment 8

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 1 of 12
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Project File No./Name: Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Approving Resolution No.: by: Planning Commission City Council Date:

The following environmental mitigation measures were either incorporated into the approved plans or will be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Each and every mitigation measure listed below has been found by the approving body indicated above to lessen the level of environmental impact of the project to a level of non-significance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that it has been completed.

Explanation of Headings:

Type: ............................................................ Project, ongoing, cumulative Monitoring Department or Agency: ........ Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure Shown on Plans: .........................................When a mitigation measure is shown on the plans, this column will be initialed and dated.

Verified Implementation: ..........................When a mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.

Remarks: ...................................................... Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.

Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
BIO-1. Work Timing. All work activities shall be
completed during daylight hours (between sunrise and
sunset) and outside of rain events.

Project CDD /
Qualified
Biologist
X Notes shown on
construction
documents. Site
inspection as
needed.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

BIO-2. Work Limits. The Project impact area shall be
clearly marked or delineated with stakes, flagging, tape, or signage prior to work. Areas outside of work limits
shall be considered environmentally sensitive and shall not be disturbed.

Project CDD /
Qualified
Biologist
X Notes shown on
construction
documents. Site
inspection as
needed.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 2 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
BIO-3. Vehicles and Equipment. All equipment and
vehicles shall be checked and maintained daily to
prevent spills of fuel, oil, and other hazardous
materials. A designated staging area shall be
established for vehicle/equipment parking and storage
of fuel, lubricants, and solvents. All fueling and
maintenance activities shall take place in the staging
area.

Project CDD x Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Ongoing during
grading and
construction
BIO-4. Pre-Activity Nesting Bird Survey. If vegetation
removal (i.e., tree trimming/removal activities) is
scheduled between February 1 and August 31 (general
nesting bird season), nesting bird surveys shall be
completed by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to start of work. If any active nests are discovered
within or adjacent to work limits, an appropriate buffer (i.e., 500 feet for raptors and 250 feet for other birds, or at the discretion of a qualified biologist based on
biological or ecological reasons) shall be established to protect the nest until a qualified biologist has
determined that the nest is no longer active and/or the young have fledged.

Project CDD /
Qualified
Biologist
X Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Verification from
qualified biologist.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

BIO-5. Pre-Activity Special-Status Species Survey.

Within 30 days of the start of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-activity survey of the
Project Site for signs of San Joaquin kit fox and
American badger, including tracks, scat, or suitable
Project CDD /
Qualified
Biologist
X Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Verification from
qualified biologist.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 3 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
burrows (burrows four inches or greater in diameter).

Potential dens shall be tracked for a minimum of four
nights with motion-activated cameras to determine if
the burrow is actively being used by San Joaquin kit fox or badger. All potential dens shall be avoided by a
minimum of 50 feet until they have been determined to
be inactive. In the event San Joaquin kit fox is identified within the Project Site, the USFWS, CDFW, and all other appropriate agencies/government entities shall be
contacted for further consultation.

In conjunction with the badger and San Joaquin kit fox
survey, the qualified biologist will conduct a survey for Northern legless lizard. Hand search methods, including raking, will be used during the survey in areas where
legless lizards are expected to be found (e.g., under
shrubs/leaf litter, other vegetation, or debris). If
observed, the qualified biologist will relocate the lizard to nearby suitable habitat. The qualified biologist will prepare a completion letter-report to document the
pre-activity survey results.

BIO-6. Oak Tree Removal. If oak tree removal and/or
damage is unavoidable due to Project implementation,
the City may require mitigation for impacts to mature
oak trees. Mitigation may require preparation of an oak tree protection and replacement plan that would
provide guidance for onsite and/or offsite oak tree
replacement planting. Mitigation planting replacement
Project CDD X Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 4 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
ratio (oak trees removed to oak trees planted) would be determined by the County.

BIO-7. To fully mitigate proposed impacts to the native valley oak, the project owner(s) shall implement the
Mitigation Recommendations provided in the
November 2, 2022, Tree Evaluation Letter prepared by
Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting.

Project CDD/Project
Arborist
X Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Site inspection
prior to final.

BIO-7. Tree Protection Zone Restrictions for Trees No.
83 and 84 shall be as follows:
• Tree Protection During Construction - Tree
protection shall be provided during the entire
time construction activities occur. A Tree
Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established and
maintained to ensure protected roots remain
undisturbed.
• Tree Protection Fencing - Tree protection
fencing is required to be in place for the
duration of the construction project and shall be
installed before starting any ground disturbing
activities. Do not remove any tree protection
fencing or enter the TPZ without approval of the
project arborist. The fencing shall delineate and
protect the tree protection zone. The fencing
shall be 4 feet tall and made of orange, high
density, polyethylene with 3.5” x 1.5” openings.

Project CDD / Project
Arborist
X Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

Site inspection as
needed.

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 5 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
It shall be installed on steel posts 8 feet on
center and tightly stretched to prevent sagging.

See Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams -
Diagram 1 – Tree Protection Fencing.
• Trunk Protection - Tree protection fencing is
required See Appendix C of the Report - Tree
Protection Diagrams - Diagram 2 – Trunk
Protection.
• Tree Protection Signage - Weatherproof, tree
protection signs stating “Tree Protection Zone –
Do Not Enter” shall be placed on the fencing and
be spaced 10 feet apart. Signs shall also include
the project arborists and the project
forepersons contact information. Signs shall
remain in place until completion of the project
and the city has given a certificate of
occupation. See Appendix C of the Report - Tree
Protection Diagrams - Diagram 1 – Tree
Protection Fencing.
• Pre-Construction Meeting - A meeting with all
contractors involved in the project shall occur
with the project arborist before beginning
construction activities. Any new contractors
brought on site shall also meet or communicate

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 6 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
with the project arborist to ensure they are
aware of tree protection measures.
• Preparing Tree Protection Zone - If construction
occurs during the months of June through
November, the TPZ’s shall be irrigated to a
depth of 12 inches before construction begins.

This will ensure the trees are properly hydrated.

Additional irrigations during “heat-waves” may
be recommended by the project arborist.
• Root Protection - No grading, trenching, paving
or any other soil disturbance shall occur within
or adjacent to the TPZ of the tree without
permission and supervision by the project
arborist. No trenching or excavation for
footings, foundations, utilities or roadways shall
occur within or adjacent to the TPZ without first,
hand trenching the location and exposing roots.

If possible, conduit or other utilities shall be
“fished” below roots larger than 1-inch
diameter. Any roots 1-inch diameter or larger
that are approved for pruning shall be hand cut
with a clean pruning saw or Sawzall. Once roots
are hand cut, machinery can remove the
severed roots. Cutting any roots 1-inch diameter

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 7 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
or larger requires supervision by the project
arborist.

• Root Pruning - If the project arborist determines
that a root over 1-inch diameter needs to be cut,
it shall be cut by hand with a pruning saw or
reciprocating saw “Sawzall”. After cutting a root,
the area shall be backfilled as soon as possible
with moist soil or covered with wet burlap until
backfill can be completed. Burlap shall be kept
wet the entire time it is in use for cut-root
protection.
• Dumping, Cleanout or Storage of Materials - No
construction materials, soils, or debris shall be
stored in the TPZ. No concrete, plaster, paint or
chemical washout shall be allowed within the
TPZ or Critical Root Zone (CRZ).
• Monitoring - An initial inspection shall be
completed by the project arborist prior to
commencement of construction activities to
ensure that all tree protection measures have
been put in place. Weekly inspections of the TPZ
and associated fencing shall also be completed
by the project arborist until construction is
complete. Any root pruning, excavation, grading

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 8 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
or filling within 5 feet of the TPZ shall a be
monitored by the project arborist.

CUL-1. A trained and qualified archaeological monitor
and Native American tribal monitor should perform
cultural resources monitoring of initial ground
disturbing activities associated with the Project that has the potential to impact cultural resources (i.e. grading, trenching). Monitoring is not effective during activities where the soil matrix is not visually exposed (i.e. piledriving for installation of solar pylons). The monitors will have the ability to redirect construction activities to ensure avoidance of significant impacts to cultural
resources.

Project CDD / Project
Archaeologist
X Notes on
construction
documents.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

CUL-2. Training. Prior to any ground-disturbing
activities, the field archaeologist shall conduct
awareness training for the field crew and supervisors.

This will include a description of the types of artifacts that may be encountered and a discussion of why these
are of importance to the Native American community,
as well as for an understanding of local history.

Pertinent laws and regulations protecting
archaeological sites will be briefly reviewed and any
archaeologists monitoring methods will be explained.

Project CDD /
Archaeologist
X Notes on
construction
documents.

Prior to issuance of
grading permit.

CUL-3. In the event that these resources are
inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing
Project Project
Archaeologist,
SLO County
X As needed Ongoing during
grading and
construction.

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 9 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
activities, work must be halted within 50 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist.

Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation or fossil recovery, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation
with the appropriate regulatory agency(ies). Any
potentially significant artifacts, sites or features
observed shall be collected and recorded in conjunction with best management practices and professional
standards. Any cultural items recovered during
mitigation should be deposited in an accredited and
permanent scientific institution for the benefit of
current and future generations.

A report documenting the results of the monitoring
efforts, including any data recovery activities and the significance of any cultural resources will be prepared and submitted to the appropriate City and County
personnel.

Procedures of conduct following the discovery of
human remains on non-federal lands have been
mandated by California Health and Safety Code
§7050.5, PRC §5097.98 and the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) §15064.5(e). According to the
provisions in CEQA, should human remains be
Coroner,
Native
American
Heritage
Commission

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 10 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
encountered, all work in the immediate vicinity of the
burial must cease, and any necessary steps to
insure the integrity of the immediate area must be
taken. The Orange County Coroner will be immediately
notified. The Coroner must then determine whether
the remains are Native American. If the Coroner
determines the remains are Native American, the
Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who will, in
turn, notify the person they identify as the most likely descendent (MLD) of any human remains. Further
actions will be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations
regarding the disposition of the remains following
notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the
owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the
remains in an area of the property secure from further
disturbance. Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the
descendent may request mediation by the NAHC.

TR-1. The Creston Road driveway shall be limited to
left-in, right-in, right-out only.

Project CDD / City
Engineer
Shown on building
plans.

Before building
permit issuance.

TR-2. The project shall include a small median in the
two-way left turn lane to allow left turns into the site and the driveway across Creston Road but restrict
outbound left turns on to Creston Road.

Project CDD / City
Engineer
Shown on building
plans.

Before building
permit issuance.

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 11 of 12
Mitigation Measure
PD22-08 / OTR 22-16 Type
Monitoring
Department or
Agency
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
TR-3. The project shall construct the following
improvements consistent with the Creston Road
Complete and Sustainable Streets Study:

1. Extend curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements
on the north side of Creston Road from project
frontage to Orchard Drive.

2. Install curb ramps and bulbouts on the north
and south side of Creston Road at the existing
Orchard Drive crosswalk.

3. Replace existing school crossing signage at
Orchard Drive with CAMUTCD compliant signage.

Replace overhead sign with S1-1 sign, replace pole
mounted sign with SW24-2(CA) sign, and install SW24-3 (CA) sign in advance of the crosswalk.

4. Replace existing overhead flashing beacons with
overhead and pole mounted rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFB).

Project CDD / City
Engineer
Shown on building
plans.

Before building
permit issuance.

TR-4. The City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan
includes buffered Class II bike lanes on Creston Road
and Class II bike lanes on Rolling Hills Road adjacent to the project site. The project frontage improvements
shall incorporate the width to accommodate the future
Class II facilities.

Project CDD / City
Engineer
Shown on building
plans.

Before building
permit issuance.
(add additional measures as necessary)
Explanation of Headings:

Type: ............................................................ Project, ongoing, cumulative

IS/MND Attachment 9
Mitigation Monitoring Program – Page 12 of 12
Monitoring Department or Agency: ........ Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure Shown on Plans: .........................................When a mitigation measure is shown on the plans, this column will be initialed and dated.

Verified Implementation: ..........................When a mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.

Remarks: ...................................................... Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
“The Pass of the Oaks”
1000 SPRING STREET • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 • www.prcity.com

AFFIDAVIT

OF MAIL NOTICES

PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICING
I, Marci Reynoso , employee of the City of El Paso de Robles, California, do hereby certify that the mail notices have been processed as required for the April 18, 2023 public hearing for P22-0064 on this 4th day of April, 2023.

City of El Paso de Robles
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Signed:

Marci Reynoso

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Account # Order Number Identification Order PO Amount Cols Depth 18693 405796 Print Legal Ad-IPL01173250 - IPL0117325 Marci R. $217.26 2 50 L Attention: Vikki Kuntz
City of Paso Robles 893989
1000 SPRING ST.

PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
1 insertion(s) published on:
04/07/23
Legals Clerk

STATE OF TEXAS)
SS
County of Dallas)
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of The Tribune, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that
notice at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was published in the above-named newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof - on the following dates to wit; From 04/07/2023 To 04/07/2023 that said newspaper
was duly and regularly ascertained and established a
newspaper of general circulation by Decree entered in
the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of
California, on June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Gover I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Notary Public in and for the state of Texas, residing in Dallas County
Extra charge for lost or duplicate affidavits.

Legal document please do not destroy!
Attachment 7

Council Agenda Report
From: Lori Wilson, Assistant Planner
Subject: Nutwood RV and Self-Storage - Request for Approval of 155,000± square foot ministorage Development Plan (PD22-13), Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-13), and Oak Tree Removal (OTR23-01), at 65 Nutwood Circle (APN: 009-851-023) CEQA Determination: The City Council is being asked to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the project, which was circulated between Friday, March 24, 2023 and Tuesday, April 12, 2023.

Date: April 18, 2023
Facts

1. The project is located on an approximately 5.53-acre site at the 65 Nutwood Circle, east of Theatre Drive (See Vicinity Map, Attachment 1).

2. The General Plan designation is Regional Commercial (RC), and the zoning designation is Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (C2-PD). Since the project has a PD overlay, a development plan is required. In addition to the PD requirement, Table 21.16.200 of the Zoning Code requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for commercial storage/mini storage buildings.

3. The project proposes to construct an approximately 155,231 square self-storage facility and business office within four (4) buildings.

4. As part of the CUP application the applicant is requesting that the City Council approve a reduction to the number of parking spaces required. Table 21.22.01 allows for a CUP to reduce the number of parking spaces required for storage buildings that are 10,000 square feet or larger, if demonstrated that the parking demand is less than the required standard. The required parking for mini-storage buildings is one per 3,000 square feet, equaling a requirement of 52 parking spaces. The Planning Commission recommended a total of nine parking spaces be provided. The Planning Commission has consistently allowed reduced parking for mini storage.

5. There are five native oak trees located on the project site. The project has been designed to preserve and protect four of the trees and proposes to remove one tree (Tree No. 216). See further discussion of the oak tree removal request in the analysis and conclusion section of this report.

6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 28, 2023, and considered the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and accepted public testimony regarding the project, and voted 7-0 to recommend the City Council approve the project and associated environmental documents.

7. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an initial study and mitigated negative declaration (MND) were prepared for the project and circulated from March 24, 2023, through April 12, 2023.

Community Outreach
Before both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City sent notices to all owners and tenants of properties within 300 feet of the property and a notice was published in the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Options

1. Approve the project by:

a. Approving Resolution 23-XXX(A) (Attachment 2), certifying mitigated negative declaration, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring, and Reporting Plan; b. Approving Resolution 23-XXX(B) (Attachment 3), approving Planned Development 22-13, Conditional Use Permit 22-13, and Oak Tree Removal 23-01.

2. Amend and adopt the draft resolutions; or

3. Refer the project back to staff for additional analysis; or

4. Deny the draft resolution, based on a determination that the project does not meet one or more of the required findings.

Analysis and Conclusions
Project Summary
The project includes construction of an approximately 155,231 square foot RV and self-storage facility on a

5.35-acre site. The proposed facility will offer climate-controlled units for wine storage, 52 large units for RV storage, and traditional storage units spread amongst four buildings as shown in the site plan below. A preliminary unit mix is provided for on sheet A.3 of the project plans (see exhibit C, to attachment 3). Most units are comprised of standard indoor mini-storage buildings with leasable units. The main office is oriented towards the entrance of the facility on Nutwood Circle. The project also requests approval for the removal of one Valley Oak tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 46 inches.

General Plan Consistency
The project is in the Regional Commercial General Plan land use designation (RC). The purpose of the RC is to “provide for the retail and service uses that serve the region as a whole.” The site is in the Highway Commercial zoning district with a Planned Development overlay (C2 PD). The C2 PD zone requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a mini-storage facility. A Development Plan (PD) is also required since the project scope is greater than 10,000 square feet in size. With the approval of the project as conditioned, the storage facility would be consistent with land use and zoning designations.

The proposed mini-storage facility would be located within an area that is planned for commercial and light industrial development, with surrounding uses ranging from contractor storage yards to diesel truck repair.

Although there are residential uses in the vicinity, the purpose of the conditional use permit is to ensure it remains compatible in this area.

With the provision to require a conditional use permit it seems adequate landscaping and quality fencing is likely the best way to achieve a compatible use since mini-storage facilities do not create substantial noise. A detailed landscape plan (See Exhibit D, to Attachment 4) has been provided for all boundaries of the property. Overall, the plan demonstrates sufficient landscaping will be provided to enhance the project’s frontage, and screening for neighboring residences.

Architecture & Appearance
The materials for the individual mini-storage buildings would consist of architectural grade stacked stone, wood paneling, split-face and precision block masonry, and stucco finished siding and metal roofs. The proposed color palette would be a natural stone and tan stucco for the main siding, and wood paneling for the business office, a forest green color has been selected for the roll-up doors. A grey metal seam material is proposed for the roof. Based on the surrounding parcels building out in this area, the mini-storage facility would eventually blend in with the surrounding development. At a minimum, the plans show there will be an approximately 15- foot landscaped area with various trees and drought tolerant along the north elevation to help break up the long expanse of walls. Landscaping will continue along all sides of the project site.

View looking Southwest from Nutwood Circle
View looking Southeast from Nutwood Circle
Parking
Self-storage land use generates a lower level of traffic compared to commercial, retail, and other office projects.

Due to the unique nature of self-storage, parking needs are significantly less than traditional warehouse and storage uses. The project includes a request to reduce the parking requirements from 52 parking spaces to 9 spaces. Six spaces are provided for near the front gates along Nutwood to allow direct access to the office. As requested by the Planning Commission, an additional 3 parking space are to be added at the South end of the site. Additional parking for people who are accessing their storage unit would be within the facility adjacent to the unit within the drive aisle. The drive aisles are designed to be 30’ to 35’ feet wide, which would allow for adequate room for parallel parking and for vehicle circulation.

Table 21.22.01 allows for a CUP to reduce the number of parking spaces required for storage buildings that are 10,000 square feet or larger, if demonstrated that the parking demand is less than the required standard.

The Planning Commission has consistently allowed reduced parking for mini storage.

Neighborhood Compatibility
The main concern with any storage type use is that it be screened from adjacent uses. Considering the ministorage facility will be an indoor storage facility, and the property appears to have adequate landscaping and quality screening along the project’s boundaries, the use will be consistent with the surrounding area.

The proposed project provides the required building and landscape setbacks. The building setback along the rear property line which abuts to residential neighborhoods is setback at 20’ which is 10’ greater than required.

Environmental Determination
Pursuant to the Statutes and Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based on the information and analysis contained in the Initial Study, staff determined that the proposed project as designed, and with appropriate mitigation measures added as conditions of approval, will not result in significant environmental impacts, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and circulated for public review and comment in full compliance with CEQA. At the time of publishing this report, the City has not received any public comments on the MND.

Oak Tree Removal
There are five oak trees located on the project site. The applicant has applied to remove one 46-inch diameter valley oak (OTR 23-01) located on the site in the location of proposed building B. As identified by the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by Padre Associates and the Oak Tree Impact Report prepared by Kokers Demo & Tree Service (both reports available in Attachment 3), one mature oak tree, identified as tree #216, is located central to the project site and is in good health. The oak tree, identified as tree #216, is proposed to be removed during project implementation.

The Community Development Director could not make the determination that the tree is “clearly dead or diseased beyond correction,” based on the evaluation by arborist Hattie Koker, which indicated the tree was in good health. Therefore Section 10.01.050.C of the Oak Tree Ordinance would consider the tree “healthy” and require that the City Council make the determination of whether the tree should be removed or not, after consideration of the factors listed in Section 10.01.050.D.

The necessity of the requested action is to allow reasonable use of the property for which it has been zoned by allowing construction of the project. Alternate site plans were considered to preserve all oak trees on site. The arborist indicated that the alternate site plan would place construction within very close proximity to the tree and place buildings and pavement within the critical root zone (see Arborist Letter 10.14.22 Attachment 6). According to the arborist, special construction methods would not guarantee preservation of oak tree #216. Because the building has been considered for alternative designs (see alternate site plan, attachment 5) and the site plan has undergone changes to retain the four other oak trees on the property (Tree Nos. 215, 217, 218 and 220), every reasonable effort has been made to avoid impacting oak trees, consistent with Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 10.01.050.D. Additionally, The City’s Oak Tree Ordinance (PRMC 10.01.030) would require replacement of 25% of the total DBH of the oaks being removed and replaced, which is equivalent to 12-inches.

Tree proposed for removal & site plan identifying location of existing oak trees.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact from approving the recommended actions, however, the project is expected to have positive economic impacts to the City, which supports City Council’s overall economic development goals.

Recommendation
That the City Council take the following actions:
a. Approve Resolution 23-XXX(A) certifying the mitigated negative declaration and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan;
b. Approve Resolution 23-XXX(B) approving Planned Development 22-13, Conditional Use Permit 22-13 and Oak Tree Removal 23-01.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Resolution 23-XXX(A) – Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. Resolution 23-XXX(B) - PD 22-13 CUP 22-13 OTR 23-01

4. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A of Resolution 23-XXX(A))

5. Alternate Site Plan

6. Arborist Letter 10.14.22

7. Legal Notice

8. Mail Affidavit

Attachment 1
Vicinity Map

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 23-XXX (A)

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PLAN PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FOR NUTWOOD RV AND SELF STORAGE DEVELOPMENT (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 22-13, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 22-13 AND OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 23-01) (NUTWOOD RV AND SELF STORAGE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION) WHEREAS, the City of Paso Robles has received an application from DRA Commercial, LLC to construct an RV and self-storage facility of approximately 155, 231 square feet located within four (4) buildings; and WHEREAS, the project site is approximately 5.53-acres and is located at 65 Nutwood Circle, east of Theatre Drive; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation is Regional Commercial (RC), and the zoning designation is Highway Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (C2-PD). In addition to the PD requirement, Paso Robles Municipal Code (PRMC) Table 21.16.200 of the Zoning Code requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for commercial storage/mini storage buildings;
WHEREAS, the Project will require the following entitlements: Planned Development PD 22-13, CUP22-13 and Oak Tree Removal Permit 23-01; and
WHEREAS, Oak Tree Removal Permit 23-01 would remove one of the five native oak trees located on the parcel, totaling 46-inches of diameter removed; and
WHEREAS, as allowed by PRMC Table 21.22.01, CUP22-13 allows for a reduction of parking since it has been demonstrated that the parking demand is less than the required standard. Parking is reduced from the required 52 spaces to 9 parking spaces with CUP22-13; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Statutes and Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq., and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA, an Initial Study and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and is being circulated for a 20-day public review period beginning on March 24, 2023 and ending April 12, 2023 by: (1) filing an NOI with the San Luis Obispo County Clerk; (2) placing an NOI in the Tribune Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation; (3) mailing the NOI to various interested persons, agencies, and tribes; and (4) posting the NOI on the City website; and WHEREAS, the MND was made available during the public review period at the Paso Robles Community Development Department and on the City’s web page; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the MND and will be imposed on the project through the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d). These mitigation measures are imposed on the project to address potential environmental effects to:

Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. With the implementation of this mitigation, all potential environmental effects will be reduced to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are provided in the exhibits of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP are specific and enforceable. The MMRP adequately describes implementation procedures, monitoring responsibility, reporting actions, compliance schedule, and verification of compliance in order to ensure that the Project complies with the adopted mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP will also be imposed as enforceable conditions of approval; and

Attachment 2
WHEREAS, public review of the MND is ongoing and no written comments have been received, considered and responded to from the public, as well as any responsible, trustee, and interested agencies, on the MND thus far; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15025(c), the Planning Commission as the advisory body making a recommendation to City Council considered the MND in draft form, and recommended that the City Council approve it, subject to review of additional comments received after the Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”), the City prepared an MND that analyzed the proposed Project’s environmental impacts.

The MND is made available to the public for review from March 24, 2023 through April 12, 2023. On March 28, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and considered the entire administrative record (as of that date), including staff reports, the MND, MMRP, and oral and written testimony from interested persons, all of whom were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the MND is included in Exhibit A of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on March 28, 2023 and recommended on a vote of 7-0 the City Council adopt the MND and approve the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, based on the information and analysis contained in the MND prepared for this Project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council find there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that there would be a significant impact on the environment with mitigation measures imposed on the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA the City Council has independently reviewed the MND and, all comments received thus far regarding the MND, and neither additional information submitted to the City nor other circumstances have produced substantial new information requiring substantial revisions that would trigger recirculation of the MND or additional environmental review of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5, and based on the whole record before it, finds that the MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation, and the MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The matters set forth in the recitals to the Resolution are true and correct statements and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Resolution.

Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the MND and record of proceedings for the Project, including all oral and written comments received during the comment period, the MMRP, the staff report prepared for this City Council hearing, including all attachments, and this Resolution with its attachments. Based on the City’s independent review and analysis, the City Council finds that the MND and the record of proceedings contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project, and that the MND has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. Based on the MND and the record of proceedings, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the MMRP, the staff report prepared for this City Council hearing including all attachments, and this Resolution with its attachments, the City Council finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant with the mitigation set forth in the MND and the MMRP. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record of

Attachment 2
proceedings supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.

The City Council finds that the MND, MMRP, the staff report prepared for this City Council hearing with its attachments, and this Resolution with its attachments, all contain a complete, objective and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. No new significant environmental effects have been identified in the MND and any changes to the MND in response to comments or otherwise do not constitute substantial revisions requiring recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Based on these findings, the City Council approves and adopts the MND for this Project, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (c)(2).

Section 4. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the MMRP for the Project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and finds that such Plan is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation. The City Council therefore approves and adopts the MMRP for the Project, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “B” and made a condition of Project approval.

Section 5. The City Council directs Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of San Luis Obispo within five (5) working days of the Project approval.

Section 6. The custodian of records for the MND, MMRP, and all other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the Paso Robles Community Development Department, located at 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, California 93446.

The custodian of these documents is the City Clerk of the City of Paso Robles.

APPROVED this 18TH day of April 2023, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Steven W. Martin, Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Exhibit A – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (See attachment 4 to this report) B. Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (See Attachment 4 to this report)

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM
Public Review Period March 24, 2023 thru April 12, 2023

1. PROJECT TITLE: Nutwood RV and Self-Storage Facility
(P22-0065)
Entitlements: Development Plan (PD22-03)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-13)
Oak Tree Removal (OTR23-01)

2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Contact: Lori Wilson
Phone: (805) 237-3970
Email: [email protected]

3. PROJECT LOCATION: 65 Nutwood Circle
Paso Robles, CA 93446
APN: 009-851-023

4. PROJECT PROPONENT: DRA Commercial, LLC
Contact: Pamela Jardini
Phone: 805-801-0453
Email: [email protected]

5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Regional Commercial (RC)

6. ZONING: Commercial Highway with Planned
Development Overlay (C2 PD)

7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development plan for new construction of a 155,231 square-foot RV and self-storage facility
located within four buildings. The project
includes space for 52 RV’s. Six parking spaces
are provided for at the entrance of the facility. In
addition to the PD requirement, Table 21.16.200
of the Zoning Code requires the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for commercial
storage/mini storage buildings The application
request includes the removal of one 46-inch in
diameter breast height live oak tree.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The 5.23-acre property is nearly level. The site is Exhibit A
Attachment 2

undeveloped; vegetation is a mix of non-native
herbaceous plants and several native oak trees.

The Salinas River is located approximately 5,000
feet to the east of the property (east of Highway
101). The property is at the southern boundary of
the city. Properties to the north are developed
with commercial uses. Properties to the south and
west are developed with residential uses. The
property to the east is currently undeveloped, but
proposed for a semi-truck service, parts retailer,
and sales dealership. Highway 101 is located to
the east of the property.

9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with AB 52, the City provided formal notification on August 8, 2022, to the designated contact or tribal representative of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. Consultation with Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator with the Salinan tribe, resulted in a request for a Phase 1 survey to be done to determine if there were any cultural resources. A field reconnaissance of the project area was subsequently made on December 19, 2022 by Ron Rose and on December 26, 2022 by Nancy Farrell both of Cultural Resource Management Services (CRMS). No evidence of prehistoric or historic artifacts, features, or other indications of significant cultural resources were found during the survey.

In addition, CRMS conducted additional Native American outreach. A letter was sent on November 30, 2022, to the Project Analyst at the Native American Heritage Commission. The letter explained the proposed project and asked him to conduct a Sacred Lands Search. On December 8, 2022 a letter dated the same day, was received from Cody Campagne, Project Analyst, indicating that the Sacred Lands Search conducted at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded no evidence of Sacred Lands with the project.

At the time this report was published no further consultation or monitoring was requested.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture / Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature:

March 23, 2023
Date
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. “Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “"Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Discussion: The site is located at the southern boundary of the city adjacent to the southern Highway 101 Gateway to the City. The General Plan Conservation Element identifies the full length of Highway 101 as a visual corridor, where “development shall be designed to make a positive visual impression”. Action Item 2 of General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU-2B includes “Enhancing views along highways, roads, streets, and rail corridors with landscaping, building setbacks, enhanced architecture and signage/monuments.” The project would develop a currently vacant lot with a commercial use. Additionally, the project is set back approximately 600’ from Highway 101 with an additional development situated in between the site and the highway. Although it won’t be directly visible from the Highway 101 Gateway corridor a condition of approval for the project would require landscaping and street trees to support City gateway policies making the impact less then significant.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Discussion: The property includes several mature native oak trees, which all but one will be retained with the project. One 46-inch diameter valley oak is proposed for removal. Mitigation measure BIO-7 as well as project conditions of approval would require preparation of an oak tree protection and replacement plan. Oak trees will be required to be planted on-site. Based on the mitigation measure proposed, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Discussion: This site is in an urbanized area visible from Highway 101, Theatre Drive and Nutwood Circle.

The proposed development is in keeping with other commercial developments in the vicinity. Developments to the North and East of the project sight are also commercial uses. Conditions of approval requiring ample screening with landscape and quality building materials will address the visual impacts of the project. d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Discussion: Standard conditions of approval will require any exterior lights to be shielded to prevent offsite glare. A condition of receiving a final inspection on the building permit would require a nighttime inspection of all exterior lights before occupancy of the building to ensure light sources are properly shielded from neighboring residences. Therefore, this project’s impacts on day or nighttime views in the area will be less than significant.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The site is in an urbanized area and will not have an impact on agricultural resources. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has mapped one soil map unit on the site, the Lockwood channery loam, 0-2 percent slopes10, which is prime farmland if irrigated and land capability class of 3s (severe limitations) when not irrigated, however, the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency and the Open Space Element of the Paso Robles General Plan (Figure OS-1, Important Farmland) identify the site as Urban / Built-Up Land1, 12. The site is surrounded by urban uses and is not under cultivation, nor has it been for at least 20 years.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Discussion: The site is not under Williamson Act contract, nor is it currently used for agricultural purposes. c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest, land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 5114(g))?
Discussion: There are no forest land or timberland resources within the City of Paso Robles. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion: The City of Paso Robles does not contain forest land resources. e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion: The site is located within the city limits of Paso Robles and surrounded by urbanized uses. The project will have no impact on conversion of farmland.

III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the applicable air quality plan?
Discussion: An air quality study was prepared by Ambient Air Quality and Noise Consulting (Attachment 3). In terms of consistency with the SLOAPCD’s Clean Air Plan (CAP), which includes multiple transportation and land use control measures intended to reduce emissions through reductions in VMT and the promotion of alternative forms of transportation, the study indicates the project is consistent with both land use planning strategies and transportation control measures. However, the project does require mitigation to be consistent with the SLOAPCD’s Particulate Matter Report (PM Report), which identifies various measures and strategies to reduce public exposure to PM emitted from a wide variety of sources, including emissions from permitted stationary sources and fugitive sources, such as construction activities. As discussed in the study, uncontrolled fugitive dust generated during construction may result in localized pollutant concentrations that may result in increased nuisance concerns to nearby land uses. Therefore, construction generated emissions of PM would be considered to have a potentially significant impact with regard to air quality planning efforts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would include measures to reduce construction generated emissions.

Additional mitigation measures (AQ-3) have been included that would further reduce project related operational emissions. Such as limiting vehicle idling time and reducing fugitive dust from roads and parking areas with the use of paving or other materials (see attachment 3). ogether these measures would help to reduce PM emissions and provide consistency with SLOAPCD’s airborne PM-reduction efforts as well as measures identified in the SLOAPCD’s Clean Air Plan. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant. b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Discussion b-c:

The San Luis Obispo County area is a non-attainment area for the State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter. The SLO County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) administers a permit system to ensure that stationary sources do not collectively create emissions which would cause local and state standards to be exceeded. The CEQA thresholds of significance established by the SLOAPCD are designed to meet the objectives of the Clean Air Plan and in doing so achieve attainment status with state standards.

The potential for future project development to create adverse air quality impacts falls generally into two categories:
short term and Long term impacts. Short term impacts are associated with the grading and development portion of a project where earth work generates dust, but the impact ends when construction is complete. Long term impacts are related to the ongoing operational characteristics of a project and are generally related to vehicular trip generation and the level of offensiveness of the onsite activity being developed.

Short term impacts:

An air quality study was prepared by Ambient Air Quality and Noise Consulting (Attachment 3). Estimated maximum daily and quarterly emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are presented in Table 10 and Table 11, respectively. Construction generated emissions were compared to SLOAPCD’s recommended significance thresholds (Daily, Quarterly Tier 1, and Quarterly Tier 2). As depicted in Table 10, maximum daily emissions associated with project construction would total approximately 32.31 lbs/day of ROG+NOX, 1.3 lbs/day of exhaust PM10, and 1.2 lbs/day of exhaust PM2.5. As depicted in Table 11, maximum quarterly construction-generated emissions would total approximately 0.18 tons/quarter of ROG+NOX, 0.02 tons/quarter of fugitive PM10, and <0.01 tons/quarter of exhaust PM2.5. Maximum daily and quarterly Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
construction emissions would not exceed SLOAPCD’s daily or quarterly significance thresholds. Emissions would be largely a result of mobile-source emissions associated with construction vehicle and equipment operations anticipated to occur during the grading. However, if uncontrolled, fugitive dust generated during construction may result in localized pollutant concentrations that could exceed ambient air quality standards and result in increased nuisance concerns to nearby land uses. For this reason, construction-generated emissions would be considered to have a potentially significant impact and the study recommends Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 include SLOAPCD-recommended standard and best available control measures to reduce construction-generated emissions of fugitive dust, mobile-source emissions associated with construction vehicles and equipment, and evaporative emissions from architectural coasting (e.g. low VOC-emission paint). Mitigated daily and annual emissions are summarized in Table 13, respectively. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant.

As demonstrated by tables 10, 11 and 12, with the mitigation proposed the project would be less then significant to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Long term impacts:

Implementation of the project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, and CO as well as ozone precursors such as ROG and NOX. Project-generated increases in emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Unmitigated operational emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 13. As depicted, daily operational emission from non-permitted sources would total approximately 8.3 lbs/day of ROG+NOx, 13.6 lbs/day of CO, 0.4 lbs/day of fugitive PM10, and <0.1 lbs/day of exhaust PM2.5. Based on this, the study recommends implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 which includes SLOAPCD-recommended measures to reduce operational-generated emissions. Mitigated operational emissions are summarized in Table 14. With mitigation, operational emissions of ROG+NOX would not exceed SLOAPCD significance thresholds. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Discussion: The proposed project would not result in the installation of any equipment or processes that would be considered major odor-emission sources. In addition, no known odor sources are within one mile of the project site. However, construction of the proposed project would involve the use of a variety of gasoline or Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
diesel-powered equipment that would emit exhaust fumes. Exhaust fumes, particularly diesel-exhaust, may be considered objectionable by some people. In addition, pavement coatings and architectural coatings used during project construction would also emit temporary odors. However, construction-generated emissions would occur intermittently throughout the workday and would dissipate rapidly with increasing distance from the source. Mitigation measures identified above, such as implementation of idling restrictions for construction equipment and vehicles and use of newer, cleaner equipment and vehicles would further reduce construction-generated emissions. For these reasons, short-term construction activities would not expose a substantial number of people to frequent odorous emissions. For these reasons, potential exposure of sensitive receptors to odorous emissions would be considered less than significant.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion: A Biological Resources Assessment report was prepared for the project by Padre Associates (Attachment 4). The field assessment was conducted on September 30, 2022, focusing on the existing biological resources, presence/absence of special-status plant and wildlife species and habitats, as well as the suitability of habitat to support these species within the biological study area. Field surveys were conducted outside of the typical blooming period for most special-status plant species know to occur in the proposed Project region, therefore, a follow-up survey will be scheduled for rare plants as denoted in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.

As noted in the report, no special-status plant species were observed during the September 2022 field survey. Note that the survey was conducted outside of the blooming period for Lemmon’s jewelflower (March through May).

However, based on the field survey observations and habitat conditions including dominance of disturbance-adapted plant species and past and on-going mowing, no Lemon’s jewelflower or other potentially occurring special-status plant species are likely to occur within the Project Site.

Although no special-status wildlife species were observed during the September 2022 field survey, there are three special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project Site, based on suitable habitat and regionally (less than five miles) documented occurrences. These species include Northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra), American badger (Taxidea taxus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The Project Site may provide suitable habitat to support the special-status wildlife species listed above. Mitigation measures (BIO-4 through BIO-6) are provided to reduce potential impacts to the northern legless lizard, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox. Similarly, mitigation measure BIO-4 is provided to protect nesting birds that may be impacted if construction begins between February 1 and August 31.

Lastly, one mature valley oak (greater than six inches DBH) will be removed due to Project implementation.

Mitigation Measures BIO-4 would address pre-nesting bird surveys prior to the tree being removed as well as requiring replacement trees. Based on the mitigation measures proposed, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion: Based on the September 2022 field survey, a drainage basin was observed within the Biological Study Area (BSA). This man-made basin was constructed between 1994 and 2003 (Google Earth [n.d.]) and appeared to function as a detention basin to collect water run-off from a street drain on Nutwood Circle, as evidenced by a culvert leading into the basin. The approximately 0.47-acre basin was dry, shallow (approximately three feet deep), and contained vegetation similar to the surrounding mowed grassland including yellow star thistle and annual grasses. Based on the desktop review of the NWI, historical imagery, and Federal and State waters and wetland regulations, this feature is not considered to be a jurisdictional aquatic resource and as such, no further assessment of this feature is necessary and impacts are considered less than significant.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Discussion: See response (b) above. There are no wetlands on the site. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Discussion: There are no creeks or drainages leading to creeks on the site. The site is in an urbanized area.

Due to the project site being surrounded by existing development, the proposed project is not expected to increase the level of fragmentation in the region nor is it expected to create a barrier to wildlife movement. e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Discussion: The project protects the 5 mature oak trees on the property. One 46” DBH live oak is proposed for removal, it will be subject to oak tree mitigation (BIO-7) and project conditions of approval, reducing impacts to less than significant.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Discussion: There are no conservation plans adopted for the City of Paso Robles, therefore no impact is expected.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion (a-c): A Cultural Resources Inventory Survey (Attachment 5) was prepared which included a literature review, records search, and field survey. The study concluded that there was no evidence of prehistoric or historic artifacts, features, or other indications of significant cultural resources. Additionally, the Sacred Lands Search conducted at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded no evidence of Sacred Lands with the project.

Generally, the site is located in an area that is not considered culturally significant. Although no significant potential archaeological or cultural resources have been identified which would be impacted by development of the plan area, a condition of approval will be added to the project that would require that a qualified Archeologist be on site if cultural resources are found during grading activities and appropriate recommendations made regarding their treatment and/or disposition. Therefore, this project will result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources.

VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation?
Discussion (a): The proposed Project is four commercial buildings subject to air quality and energy efficiency requirements which are often referred to as the Green Building Standards or the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. An Air Quality Study was prepared for this project and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. For instance, although standard construction practices are expected to promote energy efficiency, the Project will be required to limit idling of trucks during construction and reduce fugitive dust. With implementation of these measures and compliance with applicable state and local regulations, the long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in consumption of energy resources that would be unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion (b): With regard to adopted energy conservation plans and compliance with the California Energy Code, the Project would be required to be in full compliance with the California Building Code, including applicable green building standards and building energy efficiency standards. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan and Conservation Element ensures the conservation and preservation of energy resources by increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, and buildings to the use of alternative forms of energy. The Project would not conflict with other goals and policies set forth in the general plan pertaining to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Furthermore, implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section III, Air Quality and Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emission would further ensure that the proposed Project meets or exceeds building code requirements related to building energy efficiency.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and potential impacts would be less than significant.

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

Discussion: The potential for and mitigation of impacts that may result from fault rupture in the project area are identified and addressed in the EIR for the 2003 update of the General Plan1 . There are two known nearby
fault zones, one on each side of the Salinas River Valley. The Rinconada Fault system runs on the west side of the valley, and grazes the City on its western boundary, but has been inactive for approximately 11,000 years.

The San Andreas Fault is on the east side of the valley and is situated about 23 miles northeast of Paso Robles.

The City of Paso Robles recognizes these geologic influences in the application of the Uniform Building Code to all new development within the City including the proposed project. Based on standard conditions of approval, the potential for fault rupture and exposure of persons or property to seismic hazards is not considered significant. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within City limits. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Discussion: The 2003 General Plan EIR identified impacts resulting from ground shaking as less than significant and provided mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the design of all construction projects including adequate structural design overactive or potentially active faults. These mitigation measures will be added as standard conditions of approval for this project. Therefore, impacts that may result from seismic ground shaking are considered less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
including liquefaction?
Discussion: The General Plan Safety Element includes Figure S-3, a map of citywide Liquefaction Risk, which classifies the site as high risk for potential liquefaction or other type of ground failure due to seismic events and soil conditions. To implement the EIR’s mitigation measures to reduce this potential impact, the City has a standard condition10 to require submittal of soils and geotechnical reports, which include site-specific analysis of liquefaction potential for all building permits for new construction, and incorporation of the recommendations of the reports into the design of the project. iv. Landslides?
Discussion: The General Plan Safety Element includes Figure S-4, a map of citywide Landslide Risk. The site has low potential for landslides. Landslides are generally associated with steep slopes and specific geologic formations not found in proximity to the Salinas River. The site is flat. No impact is anticipated. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Discussion: The site is flat with loamy soil. The Paso Robles Area Soil Survey Map prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicates the site’s soil is Lockwood shaly loam, which is highly erodible. A condition of approval would require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed by a Qualified SWPPP Developer to prevent significant erosion from the site. See teams language which would result in a less then significant impact.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion: See response to items a.iii. and a.iv. above. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Discussion: The Paso Robles Area San Luis Obispo County Soil Survey indicates the Lockwood shaly loam has moderate shrink swell potential. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant.
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Discussion: The project is required to connect to the City sewer. A 10-inch sewer main is located in Theatre Drive, and is available to the project. Therefore, the issue of site soil ability to support septic tanks is not applicable.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Discussion: No known paleontological resources or unique geological features are known to exist on the site.

No impacts are expected.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion (a): As discussed in Section III., the potential for future project development to create adverse air quality impacts falls generally into two categories: Short term and Long term impacts:

Short term:

Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the project site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Estimated increases in GHG emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 18. Based on the modeling conducted, construction-related GHG emissions would total approximately 382 MTCO2e. Amortized GHG emissions, when averaged over the assumed 25-year minimum life of the project, would total approximately 15.3 MTCO2e/year. There would also be a small amount of GHG emissions from waste generated during construction; however, this amount is speculative. Actual emissions may vary, depending on the final construction schedules, equipment required, and activities conducted.

Long term:

Operation of the project would result in GHG emissions predominantly associated with motor vehicle use.

Estimated long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project for future year 2030 conditions are summarized in Table 19. For informational purposes, opening year 2024 emissions were also calculated and included in Table 19. As depicted, operational GHG emissions for the proposed project, with the inclusion of amortized construction GHGs, would total approximately 1,164.6 MTCO2e/year under operational year 2030 conditions. A majority of the operational GHG emissions would be associated with motor vehicle use, energy use, and refrigerant. To a lesser extent, operational GHG emissions would also be associated with solid waste generation and water use. As depicted in Table 19, total emissions would equate Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
to 8.8 MTCO2e/SP, which would exceed the significance threshold of 1.9 MTCO2e/SP. As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 as noted in Section III. would require implementation of numerous measures to reduce long-term operational emissions. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would include additional measures that would result in substantial reductions in GHG emissions associated with energy use. With implementation of these measures, project generated emissions would be reduced to approximately 3.1 MTCO2e/SP under operational year 2030 conditions, which would still exceed the significance threshold of 1.9 MTCO2e/SP. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 would require carbon offsets sufficient to reduce project-generated GHG emissions to below applicable GHG thresholds, calculated over the estimated 25-year life of the project.

With the combination of the mitigation, this impact would be considered less than significant.

Discussion (b): The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation. Since the project is consistent with the General Plan it is also consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity in the General Plan, and as a result, the project would not conflict with the land use assumptions or exceed the population or job growth projections used by the City to develop the 2013 Climate Action Plan (CAP).

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would include various measures that would help to promote the use of alternative means of transportation along with reductions in GHG emissions associated with energy use, water use, waste generation, and mobile sources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 would result in further reductions in on-site and off-site GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to this environmental criterion.

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Discussion (a): The proposed project is a self-storage facility that does not involve the handling or disposal of hazardous materials. Hazardous construction involving the use of hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and cement products containing strong acidic chemicals are not typical construction methods. This project will just be using typical construction methods therefore there will be no impact. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Discussion (b): The proposed project is a self-storage facility that does not involve the handling or disposal of hazardous materials. Typical construction methods which do not involve the use of hazardous materials will be used therefore there is no impact.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Discussion (a-c): The project is not within a quarter mile of any school. The nearest school is Templeton Hills Adventist School located approximately 2 miles southwest of the project. d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Discussion (d) The proposed project is not listed on the Cortese List compiled by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control17.
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
Discussion (e): The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area. No impact is anticipated. f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
plan?
Discussion: The City of Paso Robles maintains a Multi-Hazard Emergency Response Plan, most recently updated in 2019. The project is on private land adjacent to an arterial road. The project would not interfere with the plan or impede emergency evacuation.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion: The city does not contain any very-high fire severity zones. The site is in an urbanized area and not adjacent to wildlands. The project would not create a significant impact.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
Discussion: The project is subject to stormwater management requirements both during construction and operation. The project will not impact water quality or significantly increase industrial waste discharged to the city sewer.
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Discussion: The project site is within city limits and is currently zoned to allow for highway-oriented commercial uses.

The project is consistent with the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)5 , which anticipates and plans
for buildout of the City. Since the UWMP has accounted for land uses at the project site, the project will have adequate water supply available, and will not further deplete or significantly affect, change or increase water demands planned for use in the basin. The site is not suitable for significant groundwater recharge. The impact of the project would be less than significant.
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
Discussion: The project is a commercial development in a commercial district. It is adjacent to Highway 101.

Separate neighborhoods are located to the west and south of the site, but no established community would be physically divided as a result of the project.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Discussion: The project is a highway-oriented commercial business in the Highway Commercial zoning district (C-2). As designed, the project is not in conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect including the Paso Robles Gateway Plan8 (see discussion in Aesthetics section above), Hillside Development District standards4 , and Purple Belt
Action Plan. Based on this, impacts to this environmental factor is less then significant. would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Discussion: The site is very flat with no significant drainage channels. a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an erosion control plan are required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of site grading, which will result in a less than significant impact. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Discussion: The project site is outside all local floodplains. The site is about 100 feet above the Salinas River. The risk of flood is less than significant.
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan
Discussion: The 2011 Central Coast Basin Water Quality Control Plan adopted by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board15 provides water quality regulations in the region through controls including waste discharge restrictions and stormwater management. Industrial waste discharges from the project will be managed through the City’s Industrial Waste program. The City’s Urban Water Master Plan5 is designed to serve all uses anticipated at full buildout. The City is a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for a portion of the Paso Robles Sub-Basin of the Salinas Basin. The commercial uses proposed by the project are consistent with the Paso Robles Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan18. The project does not conflict with the applicable water quality control plan or the sustainable groundwater management plan; impacts would be less than significant.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Discussion (a-b): No mineral resources are known to occur on the site.

XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
Discussion: The project is not expected to create noise beyond what is permitted by the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance so the impact would be less than significant. Construction of the project will result in short term, temporary increases in ambient noise during the daytime. Since standard conditions limit the hours of construction as 7 am to 7 pm, excludes construction on Sundays and Federal Holidays, and would be subject to a City permit, the impacts from the noise are considered less than significant. Noise from traffic generated from the use is less than other retail and commercial uses that the property is zoned for. Conditions of approval will limit hours of operation to be compatible with surrounding residential uses . Based on these.

Factors the impact is less then significant.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Discussion: Ground borne noise and vibration is expected only during construction of the project, however it will be short-lived and only during allowed construction hours (7am and 7pm, Monday-Saturday). The traffic of patrons using the facility would be limited via conditions of approval so that they are compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. For these reasons the expected impact is less than significant. c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion: The project site is not within the Airport Land Use Plan area. Therefore there is no impact potential impact.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Discussion (a-b): The project is on an infill site near the southern boundary of the City. Sewer is currently available to the site, however City water service will be extended to serve the project. Water service is currently available to adjacent residential neighborhoods outside the City from the Walnut Hills Mutual Water Company and Templeton Community Services District. City services are not available outside the City and due to current availability of water in the existing developments located in the County, the extension of the water main will not induce population growth.

The project will not displace any existing housing.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services?
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion: The project is not expected to significantly increase demands on the fire and police departments because it is a light industrial use with a low estimated employee count of two persons No significant increase in demand on school, parks and other public facilities is expected by commercial uses. The proposed project is subject to development impact fees and school fees, which address the incremental increase in demand on public services caused by the project.

XVI. RECREATION
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion (a-b): The project is a light industrial / commercial project, which will not create a significant demand on existing parks. No new parks are proposed as a part of the project.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Discussion: The project includes frontage improvements to be made along Nutwood Circle, consistent with Action Item 2 of the Circulation Element.
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Discussion: A transportation analysis was completed for the project (Attachment 7), which concluded the project will have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on the City’s 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines thresholds, which indicate, “Office and industrial projects may have a significant impact if the work VMT per employee exceeds 85 percent of the regional average”.

Therefore, the project would have a less-than significant impact to VMT. c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Discussion: The project is located on a private road, Nutwood Circle. The project transportation analysis states, “Collision data was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for Templeton CHP and City police on Theatre Drive in the vicinity of the project between 2017 and 2021. One injury collision occurred near Ranch Paso Road when a bicycle was traveling the wrong way. No collisions occurred at or near Nutwood Circle. There are no observed collision patterns and no recommendations.” The project is expected to add 235 vehicle trips per weekday, including 15 AM peak hour trips and 24 PM peak hour trips based on gross floor area, which is a less than significant impact consistent with the City’s 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the City’s Department of Emergency Services. The project will not impede emergency access and is designed in compliance with all emergency access safety features and to City emergency access standards.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a. Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code § 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources,
or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the
lead agency shall consider the significance
of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Discussion: Generally, the site is located in an area that is not considered culturally significant. Although no significant potential archaeological or cultural resources have been identified which would be impacted by development of the plan area, a condition of approval will be added to the project that would require that a qualified Archeologist be on site if cultural resources are found during grading activities and appropriate recommendations made regarding their treatment and/or disposition. Therefore, this project will result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources.

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
cause significant environmental effects?
Discussion: The project will have an incremental but individually insignificant impact on listed utilities.

Local planning for sewer and water utilities has anticipated a buildout for Paso Robles that includes commercial development on this site.
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Discussion: The project site is within the City limits and it is zoned to allow for commercial development.

Local planning for water supplies for buildout of the City include commercial development on the site. The proposed use is not a substantial user of water.

The City’s municipal water supply is composed of groundwater from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, an allocation of the Salinas River underflow, and a surface water allocation from the Nacimiento Lake pipeline project. The 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)5 indicates there is adequate capacity to serve all households and commercial users at build out. Water use for this project has been accounted for and therefore impacts to groundwater supplies are less than significant. c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Discussion: The project is not a significant water user or wastewater producer; no significant increase in wastewater production is expected. The City’s Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)6 identifies system upgrades needed to accommodate buildout of the city. Development impact fees and sewer rates are adopted to address the proportionate share of impact of each development project on the sewer system. d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
Discussion: The City’s Landfill Master Plan21 indicates the City’s landfill has adequate capacity for all projected waste generated within the city until at least 2051. Both construction and residential wastes are subject to diversion requirements for recyclable and compostable materials. The project will not impair the city’s ability to attain solid waste reduction goals.
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion: The proposed project will be required to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations.

XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Discussion: The project is not near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. The site is near the boundary of the City, but is surrounded by urban uses.

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Discussion: The project is located on an infill site. The project would continue the development pattern established on adjacent properties to the north and East. The site does not support significant habitat or contribute a migration corridor. The site does not contain significant historical resources or known tribal resources. Mitigation measures BIO-4-BIO-6 will require nesting bird surveys, pre-activity special status species surveys, and follow up special status spring botanical surveys. b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Discussion: The project is located within the City’s limits, where development has the least potential for significant impacts to the environment. The project will not induce additional development or future projects that would have a significant impact.
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion: The project does not include the use or handling of any hazardous materials.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

EARLIER ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND MATERIALS.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).

Documents utilized in this analysis and background / explanatory materials:

Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:
1 City of Paso Robles General Plan City of Paso Robles Community Development Department
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
https://www.prcity.com/313/Gen
eral-Plan
2 City of Paso Robles Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Update
City of Paso Robles
3 2007 Airport Land Use Plan https://www.prcity.com/354/Air port-Land-Use-Plan
4 City of Paso Robles Municipal Code https://library.municode.com/ca/ el_paso_de_robles/codes/code_o
f_ordinances
5 City of Paso Robles Urban Water Management Plan 2020 City of Paso Robles https://www.prcity.com/Docume
ntCenter/View/14827/UrbanWater-Management-Plan-PDF
6 City of Paso Robles Sewer System Management Plan City of Paso Robles https://www.prcity.com/Docume
ntCenter/View/15356/SewerSystem-Management-PlanPDF?bidId= 7 City of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of
Approval for New Development
City of Paso Robles
8 City of Paso Robles Gateway Plan: Design Standards, 2008 https://www.prcity.com/Docume ntCenter/View/14730/GatewayPlan-Design-StandardsPDF?bidId= 9 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Impact Thresholds
https://www.slocleanair.org/rule
s-regulations/land-use-ceqa.php
10 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS Offices Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County,
Paso Robles Area, 1983
Templeton, CA 93446
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.g
ov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
11 Regional Transportation Plan,
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, 2019 https://slocog.org/2019RTP 12 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
California Resources Agency
https://www.conservation.ca.gov
/dlrp/fmmp
13 Siting, Design, Operation and Maintenance of Onsite
Wastewater Treatments Systems (OWTS) Policy
California Water Boards
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
water_issues/programs/owts/
14 Underground Storage Tank Program
California Water Boards
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
water_issues/programs/ust/
15 Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
centralcoast/publications_forms/
publications/basin_plan/#:~:text
=The%20Water%20Quality%20
Control%20Plan,including%20s
urface%20waters%20and%20gr
oundwater.
16 Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
centralcoast/water_issues/progra
ms/stormwater/docs/lid/lid_hydr
omod_charette_index.html
17 Cortese List
California Department of Toxic Substance Control
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.g
ov/public/map/
18 Paso Robles Groundwater Basin Management Plan
City of Paso Robles
https://www.prcity.com/Docume
ntCenter/View/15348/Groundwa
ter-Basin-Management-PlanPDF?bidId=
19 Purple Belt Plan
City of Paso Robles
https://www.prcity.com/Docume
ntCenter/View/31945/PurpleBelt-Plan-PDF
20 Busch, Lawrence L. and Miller, Russel V. 2011. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for the Concrete-Grade
Aggregates in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara ProductionConsumption Region, California – North Half. 21 Master Plan of Sustainable Opportunities at the Paso Robles Landfill
City of Paso Robles
https://www.prcity.com/Docume
ntCenter/View/15350/LandfillMaster-Plan-PDF?bidId=
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Attachments:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Project Plans

3. CalEEmod Report

4. Biological Resources Assessment Report

5. Cultural Resources Inventory Survey

6. Transportation Analysis

7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
65 NUTWOOD CIRCLE
OWNER

DRA COMMERCIAL, LLC
355 BRISTOL STREET
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
CONTACT: DOUG AYRES
TELEPHONE: (714) 231-4230
EMAIL: [email protected]

ARCHITECT

BRUCE JORDAN ARCHITECT
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100,
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92673
TELEPHONE: (949) 388-8090
FACSIMILE: (949) 388-8290
CONTACT: MARCELO QUIROGA
E-MAIL: [email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

NCE NORTH COAST ENGINEERING
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C

PSAO ROBLES, CA
TELEPHONE: (805) 239-3127
CONTACT: ZECHARIAH SZWABOWSKI
E-MAIL: [email protected]

LANDSCAPE

JBLA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
979 OSOS ST., SUITE B6
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
TELEPHONE: (805) 235-2231
CONTACT: JIM BURROWS
E-MAIL: [email protected]

NUTWOOD SELF-STORAGE

DIRECTORY SHEET INDEX

VICINITY MAP
NORTH

PASO ROBLES, CA

ARCHITECTURAL
A.1 COVER SHEET
A.2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
A.3 PRELIMINARY UNIT MIX
A.4 ROOF PLAN
A.6 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
A.7 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
A.8 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
A.9 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
A.13 LIGHTING PLAN

LANDSCAPE
L-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
SCALE:

COVER SHEET
AS NOTED A.1
CIVIL
1 . PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
LC2 PLANTING CONCEPT AND WELO WORKSHEET
2 .
4 . SITE CROSS SECTIONS
3 . SITE CROSS SECTIONS

PRELIMINARY UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A.10 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
A.12 DETAILS
A.5 PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS
A.11 COLOR MATERIAL BOARD
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE: IB
OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: S-1.

BUILDINGS ARE EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13.

STORAGE BUILDING AREA TABULATIONS (SQUARE FEET)

BUILDING SELF STORAGE OFFICE TOTAL
BLDG. A - 2 STORY 37,395 1,390 38,785
BLDG. B - 2 STORY 97,432 0 97,432
BLDG. C - 1 STORY 17,596 0 17,596
BLDG. D - 1 STORY 22,396 0 22,396
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 174,819 1,390 176,209
ESTIMATED NET RENTABLE ±132,000

SITE DATA
LOT AREA ± 232,876 SQ. FT.
± 5.35 ACRES
ZONING C2-PD
TOTAL GROSS BLDG. AREA 155,231 SQ. FT.

FLOOR AREA RATIO N/A N/A
LOT COVERAGE ± 108,035 SQ. FT.

LOT COVERAGE % ± 46.39 %
MAX HEIGHT 50'-0"
TOTAL STORAGE PARKING 6 SPACES
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

1-STORY
2-STORY 1-STORY
Ø29'-0"

LABYRINTH
BLDG. 'D'
1-STORY
22,396 S.F.
4 10'

60.81'

70.79'
N 89° 43' 33" E 385.5' N 0° 00' 16" E 457.57' N 0° 38' 46" E 498.72' N 89° 59' 44" W 509.96'

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
5'-0"
SETBACK 20'-0" SETBACK
5'-0"
SETBACK 15'-0" SETBACK
6 3
1 BLDG. 'A'
37,395 S.F.
2-STORY
BLDG. 'B'
2-STORY
97,432 S.F.

OFFICE
1,390 S.F.

BLDG. 'C'
1-STORY
17,596 S.F.
5'-0"

LANDSCAPE
SETBACK 20'-0" EASEMENT
5'-0"

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
174'-0" 35'-0" 80'-0" 35'-0" 280'-0"20'-0" 30'-0" 35'-0" 30'-0" 80'-0" 37'-4" 37'-4"
120'-0" 280'-0" 35'-0" 30'-0" 5'-0"
40'-0" 40'-0" 40'-0" 145'-0" 5'-0"
2 5 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/ EVNO PARKING 35'-0"30'-0" 180'-0"
140'-0" 20'-0" 5'-0" 40'-0"
1'-10
1 2
"

RAMP UP

RAMP UP
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 E.R.
16 1
1 1
1 1
10 6
12 3
9 3
8 F.R.

F.R.

F.R.
15 15
1 35'-0"
8'-2"
17 15
45'-0"
NORTH

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 01/18/2023 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
1"=30'-0" A.2
1 CODED GATE ACCESS.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE &
FENCE. SEE DETAILS 1,2,3/A.12
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11

OAK TREE TO REMAIN
(TRUNK DIAMETER 52").

EXTENT OF SECOND FLOOR ABOVE.

REMOVE EXISTING OAK TREE (TRUNK DIAMETER 46").

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF
TRAVEL.

OAK TREE TO REMAIN (TRUNK DIAMETER 66").

RETENTION AREA
±17,698 S.F.

EASEMENT.

RAMP RETAINING WALL.

SEE CIVIL.

ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL.
12 EXISTING VACANT LAND.
13 6'-0" HIGH W.I. FENCE. SEE DETAILS 2,3,4/A.12
14 TRASH ENCLOSURE.SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
15 FIRE RISER ROOM.
16 ELECTRICAL ROOM.
17 6'-0" HIGH W.I. GATE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ACCESS ONLY. FENCE TO CONTINUE AT RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR SECURITY. 1 CODED GATE ACCESS.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE &
FENCE. SEE DETAILS 1,2,3/A.12
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11

OAK TREE TO REMAIN
(TRUNK DIAMETER 52").

EXTENT OF SECOND FLOOR ABOVE.

REMOVE EXISTING OAK TREE (TRUNK DIAMETER 46").

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF
TRAVEL.

OAK TREE TO REMAIN (TRUNK DIAMETER 66").

RETENTION AREA
±17,698 S.F.

EASEMENT.

RAMP RETAINING WALL.

SEE CIVIL.

ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL.
12 EXISTING VACANT LAND.
13 6'-0" HIGH W.I. FENCE. SEE DETAILS 2,3,4/A.12
14 TRASH ENCLOSURE.SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
15 FIRE RISER ROOM.
16 ELECTRICAL ROOM.
17 6'-0" HIGH W.I. GATE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ACCESS ONLY. FENCE TO CONTINUE AT RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR SECURITY.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

OFFICE
1,383 SQ. FT.

F.R. STAIRS
10X19 10X19 10X19 10X19 10X19 10X19 10X19
5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X55X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X5
5X5
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
10X10
5X10
10X10
10X10
10X15
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
10X10
10X10
10X15
10X10
10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5
F.R.

STAIRS
STAIRS
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10
10X10
10X15 10X15
10X14
5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X9 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10
5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X9 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X9
10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10
10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X20 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14 10X10
10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 9X10
9X10
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X40 14X40
14X35 14X45
14X30 14X50
14X30 14X50
14X30 14X50
14X30 14X50
14X30 14X50
14X30 14X50
14X35 14X45
14X35 14X45
14X35 14X45
14X35 14X45

FAUX UNITS
F.R.
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10
10X35 10X15 10X15 10X10 10X15 10X10 5X10 5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X5 5X5 5X5
5X5 5X10
10X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10

LABYRINTH
4 6
3 1
5'-0"

LANDSCAPE

SETBACK
2 5 VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/ EVNO PARKING E.R.

F.R.

F.R.

F.R. 35'-0" STAIRS

FAUX UNITS
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X15
10X10
10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X10 5X10
10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 10X15 5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X55X10
5X10 5X10 5X10
5X5
10X15
10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10
10X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
20X20
STAIRS
STAIRS
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X25
10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
5X10 5X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
5X10 5X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
10X20
5X5 5X5 5X5
9X10
9X10
5X10 5X9
5X5
5X5
5X9
5X9
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X5 5X5 5X10 5X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X10 10X10
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X10
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X15
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X14
10X10 10X14
10X15 10X15 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X14
10X10
F.R.

F.R.
1,200 SF

OPTIONAL

WINE STORAGE
10X20 10X20 10X20 10X20 10X20 10X20 10X20
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 10X10 5X10 5X5
5X5 5X5
OFFICE
1,383 SQ. FT.
5X5 5X5 5X5 5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5 5X5 5X5 5X5 5X5 5X5
5X5
5X5
5X55X55X55X55X55X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5
5X5 5X10
5X5 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10 5X10
NORTH

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 01/18/2023 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY UNIT MIX
1"=30'-0"
1" = 30'-0" 1 UNIT MIX PLAN - 1ST FLOOR1" = 30'-0" 2 UNIT MIX PLAN - 2ND FLOOR 1" = 30'-0" 3 OPTIONAL WINE STORAGE
A.3
NORTH
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

RAMP UP RAMP UP RAMP UP RAMP UP

BUILDING A

FIRST LEVEL

±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±18'-0"
T.O.P.
±18'-0"
±16'-8" T.O.P.

T.O.P.
±12'-0"
T.O.M.
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±12'-0"
T.O.M.
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±16'-8"
±16'-8" T.O.P.

T.O.P.
±12'-0"
T.O.M.
±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±30'-0"
T.O.P. ±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±22'-8"
T.O.M.
±22'-8"
T.O.M.
±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±30'-0"
T.O.P.
±22'-0"
T.O.C.
±22'-0"
T.O.C.
±22'-0"
T.O.C.
±18'-0"
T.O.P.
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±18'-0"
T.O.P.
±22'-0"
T.O.C.
±12'-0"
T.O.M.
±20'-8"
T.O.M.
±12'-0"
T.O.M.
±28'-0"
T.O.C.
±28'-0"
T.O.C.
±23'-4"
T.O.P.
±28'-0"
T.O.C.
±28'-0"
T.O.C.
±28'-0"
T.O.C.
±26'-0"
T.O.P.
±26'-0"
T.O.P.
±26'-0"
T.O.P.
±26'-0"
T.O.P.
±26'-0"
T.O.P.
±20'-8"
T.O.P.
±12'-0"
T.O.M.

ROOF STEP
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12

ROOF STEP
ROOF STEP ROOF STEP SLOPE 3/8:12
SLOPE
1/4:12
SLOPE
1/4:12
SLOPE
1/4:12
SLOPE
1/4:12
SLOPE
1/4:12 SLOPE 3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±16'-8"
T.O.P. ROOF STEP ROOF STEP ROOF STEP ROOF STEP ROOF STEP

ROOF STEP

ROOF STEP
ROOF STEP SLOPE 3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12 SLOPE 3/8:12 SLOPE 3/8:12 SLOPE 3/8:12 SLOPE 3/8:12 SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12 SLOPE 3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
SLOPE
3/8:12
±16'-8"
T.O.P.
±23'-4"
T.O.P.
6 4
9 9
3 6
11 1
3 9
10 5
10 10
9 3
1 6 11
11 3
11 3
3 3
3 11
1 1
2 6
9 10
5 11
9 9
8 7
7 8
8 7
7 8
2 1
1 4
1 1

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ROOF PLAN
1"=30'-0" A.4

KEY NOTES
1 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF.
2 T.P.O. ROOFING SYSTEM.
3 GUTTER & DOWNSPOUTS. TYP.
4 ROOF DRAIN. TYP.
5 CORNICE.
6 ROOF CRICKET TYP.
7 ROOF HATCH TYP.

ROOF MOUNTED MECHANICAL UNITS. SCREENED FROM
HORIZONTAL LINE OF SIGHT BY BUILDING PARAPET. 8
9 PARAPET.
10 WALL BELOW.
11 ROOF STEP.

NORTH
1" = 30'-0" 1 PRELIMINARY ROOF PLAN
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
A
B
D
C

NORTH ARROW
808.2 FF2
796.8 FS
OFFICE
803.9 FS
797.5 FF1 11'-4" 11'-4" 11'-4"
13'-6" 1'-3" 1'-3"
13'-6" 1 11 3 2 4 5 12 6 7 12 14 8 13 13'-4"13'-4"
12 2 10 15 11 12 1
C5 C5 C5 C6 C5 C1
C5 C5 C5
C3
C3
C8 C2
C4 C5
9 C5
+22'-0"
T.O.C.
+28'-0"
T.O.C.
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
+16'-8"
T.O.P. +18'-0"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
808.2 FF2
797.5 FF1
814.3 FS
803.9 FS 7'-4" 7'-4" 7'-4"13'-4" 13'-4"
12 13 8
17 14 16 9
8 1 11 12
12 14
C6 C1
C1
C5 C5
C5
C5 C3 C5
C2
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+17'-6"
+23'-4"
T.O.P.
+28'-0"
T.O.C. 7'-4"
+26'-0"
T.O.P.
+17'-6"
808.2 FF2
+10'-8"
2ND FLR.
797.5 FF1
0'-0"
1ST FLR.

PARAPET
BEYOND
7'-4" 7'-4"
18 23
C7
12 C5
14 C1
16 +18'-0"
T.O.PARAPET
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+22'-0"
T.O.C.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+22'-0"
T.O.C.
12 C5
11 C3
1 C1
3 C1
5 4
C8
808.2 FF2
797.5 FF1
T.O.P.
+22'-0"
+10'-8"
2ND FLR.
1ST FLR.
0'-0"

PARAPET
BEYOND

PARAPET
BEYOND

UP RAMP
SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE 9'-4" 11'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 11'-4" 7'-4" 7'-4" 7'-4" 7'-4" 8 C2
14 C1
18 22
C7
23 21
C4
18 C7
24 C7
9 C5
1 C5
11 C3
11 C3
14 C1
12 C5

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ELEVATION
1"=10'

KEY NOTES

KEYPLAN

COLOR MATERIAL
2 1
1"=10' 3 PARTIAL BLDG. A. NORTH ELEVATION
4 1"=10' 2 PARTIAL BLDG. A. NORTH ELEVATION
A.5
1"=10' 4 PARTIAL BLDG. A. NORTH INTERIOR ELEVATION
1"=10' 1 OFFICE EAST ELEVATION
3 1"=10' 5 PARTIAL BLDG. A. NORTH INTERIOR ELEVATION
5 1 PRE-FINISHED METAL CORNICE.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 WINE AND SELF-STORAGE SIGNAGE
BY OTHERS. SEE DETAILS 9,10/A.12

METAL ACCENT AND PARAPET
AT OFFICE.

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE.

STOREFRONT GLAZING.

FAKE DECORATIVE BARRELS
STORAGE EXIT ONLY.

STUCCO FINISH.

PRE-FINISHED METAL PARAPET.

FAUX UNITS BEHIND GLAZING.

WOOD PANELING.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE LIGHTING PLAN.

STUCCO CONTROL JOINT.

STONE MASONRY.

PRE-FINISHED METAL ACCENT.

FLOOR LINE BELOW GRADE.
17 STORAGE EGRESS AT SECOND
FLOOR EXIT ONLY.
18 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM.
19 TRASH ENCLOSURE.

SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
20 FIRE RISER ROOM.
21 EXTERIOR ROLL-UP DOORS.
22 MECHANICAL UNITS.
23 EXTERIOR STORAGE EGRESS.
24 ELECTRIC ROOM.
25 STAIR EGRESS.

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FIELD EDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STUCCO FINISH
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

FAUX UNITS/ ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE:

JANUS INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK-TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STORAGE EGRESS/

EGRESS DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C1
C2
C5
C6

GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8
C3
C4
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
A
B
D
C

NORTH ARROW
813.4 FS 814.3 FS
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2
+28'-0"
T.O.C.
+17'-6"
9 C5
11 C3
14 C1
9 C5
8 C2
16 13 16
+26'-0"
T.O.P.
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+4'-6" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"

PARAPET
BEYOND
21 C4
14 C1
18 C7
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1

PARAPET
BEYOND
+17-6"
+28'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
18 C7
21 C4
14 C1
12 C5
13 +26'-0"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+26'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-6"
8 13
C2
14 C1
20 C6
9 12
C5
23 C5
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
808.2 FF2
797.5 FF1
803.1 FS
+4'-6"
801.3 FS
+26'-0"
T.O.P.
9 C5
8 C2
13 16

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ELEVATION
1"=10'

KEY NOTES

KEYPLAN

COLOR MATERIAL
1"=10' 4 PARTIAL BLDG. A. WEST ELEVATION
5 4 3
1"=10' 2 PARTIAL BLDG. A. EAST ELEVATION
1"=10' 3 PARTIAL BLDG. A. EAST ELEVATION
2 A.6
1"=10' 1 BLDG. A. EAST ELEVATION
1 1"=10' 5 PARTIAL BLDG. A. WEST ELEVATION
1 PRE-FINISHED METAL CORNICE.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 WINE AND SELF-STORAGE SIGNAGE
BY OTHERS. SEE DETAILS 9,10/A.12

METAL ACCENT AND PARAPET
AT OFFICE.

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE.

STOREFRONT GLAZING.

FAKE DECORATIVE BARRELS
STORAGE EXIT ONLY.

STUCCO FINISH.

PRE-FINISHED METAL PARAPET.

FAUX UNITS BEHIND GLAZING.

WOOD PANELING.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE LIGHTING PLAN.

STUCCO CONTROL JOINT.

STONE MASONRY.

PRE-FINISHED METAL ACCENT.

FLOOR LINE BELOW GRADE.
17 STORAGE EGRESS AT SECOND
FLOOR EXIT ONLY.
18 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM.
19 TRASH ENCLOSURE.

SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
20 FIRE RISER ROOM.
21 EXTERIOR ROLL-UP DOORS.
22 MECHANICAL UNITS.
23 EXTERIOR STORAGE EGRESS.
24 ELECTRIC ROOM.
25 STAIR EGRESS.

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FIELD EDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STUCCO FINISH
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

FAUX UNITS/ ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE:

JANUS INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK-TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STORAGE EGRESS/

EGRESS DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C1
C2
C5
C6

GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8
C3
C4
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
A
B
D
C

NORTH ARROW
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
808.2 FF2
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
+26'-0"
T.O.P.
808.2 FF2
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+6'-4"

PARAPET
BEYOND

UP RAMP SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE
+26'-0"
T.O.P.
7'-4"
7'-4"
7'-4"
7'-4"
C5
18 C7
8 C2
13 12
C5
14 C1
18 C7
9 22 22 16 23 7'-4" 7'-4"
808.2 FF2
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+26'-0"
T.O.P.
+4'-6"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
808.2 FF2
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
+26'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-4"
9 8 13
C5
14 C2 C1
16 14
C1
12 C5
797.5 FF1
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
808.2 FF2
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR

UP RAMP

SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE
+30'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-3
8 7
" 9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4" 9'-4"
12 C5
9 8 13
C5
14 C2 C1
16 0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2

UP RAMP

SEE CIVIL FOR SLOPE
+30'-0"
T.O.P.
9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4"
9'-4"
13 8
C2 C5
12 C1
14 C5
9 8
C2 C5
12 C5
9 16 9'-4" 9'-4"

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ELEVATION
1"=10'

KEY NOTES

KEYPLAN

COLOR MATERIAL
1 4
A.7
2 1"=10' 2 BLDG. A. INTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATION
1"=10' 1 BLDG. A. SOUTH ELEVATION
1"=10' 3 BLDG. B. SOUTH ELEVATION
1"=10' 4 BLDG. B. NORTH ELEVATION
3 1 PRE-FINISHED METAL CORNICE.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 WINE AND SELF-STORAGE SIGNAGE
BY OTHERS. SEE DETAILS 9,10/A.12

METAL ACCENT AND PARAPET
AT OFFICE.

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE.

STOREFRONT GLAZING.

FAKE DECORATIVE BARRELS
STORAGE EXIT ONLY.

STUCCO FINISH.

PRE-FINISHED METAL PARAPET.

FAUX UNITS BEHIND GLAZING.

WOOD PANELING.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE LIGHTING PLAN.

STUCCO CONTROL JOINT.

STONE MASONRY.

PRE-FINISHED METAL ACCENT.

FLOOR LINE BELOW GRADE.
17 STORAGE EGRESS AT SECOND
FLOOR EXIT ONLY.
18 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM.
19 TRASH ENCLOSURE.

SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
20 FIRE RISER ROOM.
21 EXTERIOR ROLL-UP DOORS.
22 MECHANICAL UNITS.
23 EXTERIOR STORAGE EGRESS.
24 ELECTRIC ROOM.
25 STAIR EGRESS.

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FIELD EDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STUCCO FINISH
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

FAUX UNITS/ ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE:

JANUS INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK-TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STORAGE EGRESS/

EGRESS DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C1
C2
C5
C6

GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8
C3
C4
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

+25'-7"
T.O.R.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2
+30'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
9 12
C5 C5
8 C2
25 23
C6
18 13
C7
21 C4
8 C2
23 21
C4
12 C5
8 13
C2

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
A
B
D
C

NORTH ARROW
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+30'-0"
T.O.P.
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2
+30'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
13 20
C6
23 8
C2
25 C6
9 C5
18 C7
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+10'-8"
2ND FLOOR
808.2 FF2
+14'-11"
T.O.R.
+30'-0"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ELEVATION
1"=10'

KEY NOTES

KEYPLAN

COLOR MATERIAL
1"=10' 3 PARTIAL BLDG. B. WEST ELEVATION
4 3
A.8
1"=10' 1 PARTIAL BLDG. B. EAST ELEVATION
1"=10' 2 PARTIAL BLDG. B. EAST ELEVATION
1"=10' 4 PARTIAL BLDG. B. WEST ELEVATION
1 2
1 PRE-FINISHED METAL CORNICE.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 WINE AND SELF-STORAGE SIGNAGE
BY OTHERS. SEE DETAILS 9,10/A.12

METAL ACCENT AND PARAPET
AT OFFICE.

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE.

STOREFRONT GLAZING.

FAKE DECORATIVE BARRELS
STORAGE EXIT ONLY.

STUCCO FINISH.

PRE-FINISHED METAL PARAPET.

FAUX UNITS BEHIND GLAZING.

WOOD PANELING.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE LIGHTING PLAN.

STUCCO CONTROL JOINT.

STONE MASONRY.

PRE-FINISHED METAL ACCENT.

FLOOR LINE BELOW GRADE.
17 STORAGE EGRESS AT SECOND
FLOOR EXIT ONLY.
18 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM.
19 TRASH ENCLOSURE.

SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
20 FIRE RISER ROOM.
21 EXTERIOR ROLL-UP DOORS.
22 MECHANICAL UNITS.
23 EXTERIOR STORAGE EGRESS.
24 ELECTRIC ROOM.
25 STAIR EGRESS.

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FIELD EDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STUCCO FINISH
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

FAUX UNITS/ ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE:

JANUS INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK-TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STORAGE EGRESS/

EGRESS DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C1
C2
C5
C6

GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8
C3
C4
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
A
B
D
C

NORTH ARROW
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+18'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4"
19 C4
9 C5
8 C2
12 C5
14 C1
13 797.5 FF1
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+18'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+18'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
+18'-8"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR
+18'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+18'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+18'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ELEVATION
1"=10'

KEY NOTES

KEYPLAN

COLOR MATERIAL
6 3
A.9
1"=10' 6 BLDG. D. NORTH ELEVATION
1"=10' 1 PARTIAL BLDG. D. WEST ELEVATION
1"=10' 2 PARTIAL BLDG. D. WEST ELEVATION
1"=10' 5 BLDG. D. SOUTH ELEVATION
1"=10' 4 PARTIAL BLDG. D. EAST ELEVATION
1"=10' 3 PARTIAL BLDG. D. EAST ELEVATION
4 1
2 5
1 PRE-FINISHED METAL CORNICE.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 WINE AND SELF-STORAGE SIGNAGE
BY OTHERS. SEE DETAILS 9,10/A.12

METAL ACCENT AND PARAPET
AT OFFICE.

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE.

STOREFRONT GLAZING.

FAKE DECORATIVE BARRELS
STORAGE EXIT ONLY.

STUCCO FINISH.

PRE-FINISHED METAL PARAPET.

FAUX UNITS BEHIND GLAZING.

WOOD PANELING.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE LIGHTING PLAN.

STUCCO CONTROL JOINT.

STONE MASONRY.

PRE-FINISHED METAL ACCENT.

FLOOR LINE BELOW GRADE.
17 STORAGE EGRESS AT SECOND
FLOOR EXIT ONLY.
18 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM.
19 TRASH ENCLOSURE.

SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
20 FIRE RISER ROOM.
21 EXTERIOR ROLL-UP DOORS.
22 MECHANICAL UNITS.
23 EXTERIOR STORAGE EGRESS.
24 ELECTRIC ROOM.
25 STAIR EGRESS.

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FIELD EDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STUCCO FINISH
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

FAUX UNITS/ ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE:

JANUS INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK-TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STORAGE EGRESS/

EGRESS DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C1
C2
C5
C6

GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8
C3
C4
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NUTWOOD CIRCLE
A
B
D
C

NORTH ARROW
+16'-8"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+16'-8"
T.O.P.
14 C1
8 C2
9 C5
13 0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+16'-8"
T.O.P. +16'-8"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+18'-0"
T.O.P. 7'-4" 7'-4"
14 1
C5
9 C5
8 13
C2
18 C1
12 C5
18 C7 C7
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1
+18'-0"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
797.5 FF1

PARAPET
BEYOND +16'-8"
T.O.P. 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4" 9'-4"
1 C5
14 C1
23 12 21
C5
18 C7
20 23
C6
9 C5
18 C4 C7 7'-4" 7'-4" 7'-4"
C6
12 7 8 14 13 12 14 11 4 1 10 12 14 9 13
C5 C2 C1 C5 C1 C3 C8 C5 C4 C5 C1 C5 7'-4"12'-8"
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR
+16'-8"
T.O.P.
+18'-0"
T.O.P.
+16'-8"
T.O.P.
0'-0"
1ST FLOOR

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY ELEVATION
1"=10'

KEY NOTES

KEYPLAN

COLOR MATERIAL
1 2
A.10
3 4
1"=10' 3 BLDG. C. SOUTH ELEVATION
1"=10' 4 BLDG. C EAST ELEVATION
1"=10' 2 BLDG. C. WEST ELEVATION
1"=10' 1 BLDG. C. NORTH ELEVATION
1 PRE-FINISHED METAL CORNICE.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 WINE AND SELF-STORAGE SIGNAGE
BY OTHERS. SEE DETAILS 9,10/A.12

METAL ACCENT AND PARAPET
AT OFFICE.

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE.

STOREFRONT GLAZING.

FAKE DECORATIVE BARRELS
STORAGE EXIT ONLY.

STUCCO FINISH.

PRE-FINISHED METAL PARAPET.

FAUX UNITS BEHIND GLAZING.

WOOD PANELING.

EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE.

SEE LIGHTING PLAN.

STUCCO CONTROL JOINT.

STONE MASONRY.

PRE-FINISHED METAL ACCENT.

FLOOR LINE BELOW GRADE.
17 STORAGE EGRESS AT SECOND
FLOOR EXIT ONLY.
18 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM.
19 TRASH ENCLOSURE.

SEE DETAILS 5,6,7,8/A.12
20 FIRE RISER ROOM.
21 EXTERIOR ROLL-UP DOORS.
22 MECHANICAL UNITS.
23 EXTERIOR STORAGE EGRESS.
24 ELECTRIC ROOM.
25 STAIR EGRESS.

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FIELD EDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STUCCO FINISH
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

FAUX UNITS/ ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE:

JANUS INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK-TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)

STORAGE EGRESS/

EGRESS DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C1
C2
C5
C6

GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT
SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE (DE 6221)
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8
C3
C4
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

COLOR MATERIAL BOARD
NTS
C1

STACKED FIELD STONE
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

ELDORADO STONE, FEILDLEDGE
COLOR: ANDANTE
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C2

STUCCO FINISH
MANUFACTURE: N/A
COLOR: FLINTSTONE
(DE 6221) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C3

WOOD PANELING
MANUFACTURE: EL DORADO STONE

VINTAGE RANCH
COLOR: PARCHWOOD
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C4

FAUX UNITS/ EXTERIOR

ROLL-UP DOORS
MANUFACTURE: JANUS

INTERNATIONAL
COLOR: LG (FOREST) GREEN
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
C5

METAL PARAPET/ CORNICE/

EXTERIOR LIGHTS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: BLACK TIE
(DE 6357) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C6

STORAGE EGRESS/

EXTERIOR DOORS
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: GRAY PEARL
(DEC 795) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C7

GUTTER AND

DOWNSPOUT SYSTEM
MANUFACTURE: DUNN-EDWARDS
COLOR: FLINTSTONE
(DE 6221) (OR APPROVED EQ.)
C8

BRISE-SOLEIL FACADE
MANUFACTURE: FIBERDECK

WEO BRISE-SOLEIL
(OR APPROVED EQ.)
A.11
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

1'-0" 1'-4" 4'-0"
11'-0"
11'-0" 1'-4" 1'-0" 1'-8" 1'-8" 4'-0"
13'-6" 1'-3" 1'-3"
13'-6"
SCALE:

FENCE, TRASH ENCLOSURE & SIGNAGE PLAN

AS NOTED
1 2 3
- ALL WELDS SHALL BE GROUND SMOOTH.
- GATE SHALL MEET UL 325 STANDARDS.
- ALL METAL SURFACES PAINTED
- SEE SITE PLAN SHEET FOR TOTAL DIMENSIONS.
- ALL METAL SHALL BE TREATED WITH 2 COATS RUST-O-LEUM PAINT PRIMER TO BE FACTORY APPLIED.

SCALE:

TYPICAL GATE / FENCE ELEVATION
3/8"=1'-0"
SLIDING GATE 6" 3'-4" 4'-8" 8'-0"

FINISH GRADE
PAINTED 3/4" SQ.

METAL PICKETS @ 4"
O/C.
2" SQUARE PAINTED METAL TUBE
RAILS (VERT. & HORIZ.)
6" HIGH CURB

WHERE APPLICABLE
WHEEL PER MANUF. SPECS.
4" SQUARE METAL TUBE POST TO WELD METAL
FENCE OR GATE. SEE STRUCTURAL FOR
FOUNDATION. 4 HINGES MIN. 8'-0" 4"
SCALE:

PEDESTRIAN GATE
3/8"=1'-0"
OUTSIDE: DEAD BOLT W / LEVER.

INSIDE: PANIC HARDWARE
FINISH: BRUSHED S. ST.

STEEL SECURITY MESH IN SOLID
FRAME 2'-6" 1'-6" 8'-0"
6" HIGH CURB

WHERE APPLICABLE
3'-0" CLR.
3/4" SQ. STEEL PICKETS @ 4" O.C.
2" SQUARE METAL TUBE VERT. AND HORIZ. RAIL 4"
4 HINGES MIN.
8" SQUARE METAL TUBE POST.

VERIFY WITH GATE MANUFACTURER

AND STRUCT, FOR FOUNDATION
- ALL WELDS SHALL BE GROUND SMOOTH.
- GATE SHALL MEET UL 325 STANDARDS.
- ALL METAL SURFACES PAINTED
- SEE SITE PLAN SHEET AND ENLARGED SITE PLAN SHEET FOR TOTAL DIMENSIONS. - ALL METAL SHALL BE TREATED WITH 2 COATS RUST-O-LEUM PAINT PRIMER TO BE FACTORY APPLIED.

PROVIDE SECURITY MESH

ELEVATION SECTION
SCALE:

C.M.U. PIER
3/8"=1'-0" 2'-0" SQ. 2'-4" SQ. 10'-8" 6"
PLAN

SEE STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTING
CONCRETE CURB.

CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
8" X 8" X 16" SPLIT-FACE CMU
PIER
CONCRETE CAP.

EDGE OF CONCRETE CAP
ABOVE
A.12

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
SCALE:

TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN
1/4"=1' 8'-8"
9'-0" 10'-0"

CONCRETE APRON WITH
MEDIUM BROOM FINISH.

SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 8" PRECISION CMU WALL.

INTERIOR PAINTED P-1.

EXTERIOR PER ELEVATIONS.

TWO 3 CUBIC YDS.

ROLLING DUMPSTERS.
6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB.

SIGN. SEE DETAIL 7/A.11
8 A.11
15" MINIMUM

MANAGEMENT USE ONLY

THIS TRASH ENCLOSURE IS INTENDED FOR
APPROVED WASTE MATERIALS ONLY. DO NOT
DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THIS 12" MINIMUM
RECEPTACLE.

MOUNT SIGN WHERE INDICATED IN
ELEVATIONS @ 60" ABOVE FINISH
FLOOR
SCALE:

TRASH SIGN
3' = 1'-0" SCALE:

BUMPER @ TRASH ENCLOSURE
2" = 1'-0" VERIFY HEIGHT WITH ROLLING DUMPSTER
PROVIDE AT 3 SIDES 4x8 PRESSURE

TREATED WOOD BUMPER ATTACHED W/
ANCHOR BOLTS TO EXISTING CMU WALL.

CONCRETE SLAB
8" CMU WALL
6" HIGH CONCRETE CURB
ANODIZED ALUMINUM FENCE, COLOR BLACK.

SCALE:

TYPICAL PERIMETER FENCE
3/8"=1'-0" 6" 6'-0"

FINISH GRADE
RAILS 2"X3" TUBE LAID FLAT
PICKETS 1"X1" TUBE @ 6" O.C.

POST SEPARATION PER

MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
4"X4" ANODIZED ALUMINUM POST
4 SCALE:

TRASH ENCLOSURE ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 5 6 7 8
SCALE:

WINE & SELF STORAGE SIGNAGE BY OTHERS
1" = 1'-0" 9 SCALE:

SELF STORAGE SIGNAGE BY OTHERS
3/4" = 1'-0"
10 Exhibit A
Attachment 2

VAN ACCESSIBLE PARKING CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/ EVNO PARKING SCALE:

PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN
AS NOTEDA.13

THIS DRAWING AND ITS CONTENTS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF

SERVICE AND ARE THE COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF JORDAN
ARCHITECTS, INC. THE USE IS EXPRESSLY INTENDED FOR THE

PROJECT NOTED ABOVE AND MAY NOT BE REUSED OR

REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT THE WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. "COPYRIGHT"
YEAR OF FIRST PUBLICATION 2020 JORDAN ARCHITECTS, INC. 09/12/2022 JOB NUMBER:

DATE:

NUTWOOD SS

PASO ROBLES, CA
21-1228
JORDAN

A R C H I T E C T S
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672
949.388.8090
NORTH

LIGHT FIXTURE MOUNTED ON BUILDING WALL, HEIGHT
VARIES. REFER TO BUILDING ELEVATIONS. 1
NOTE:

1. ALL LIGHT FIXTURES TO CONFORM TO ZONING CODE

REQUIREMENTS
1" = 30'-0" 1 PRELIMINARY LIGHTING PLAN
2 EXTERIOR LED ACCENT LIGHT FIXTURE 3 EXTERIOR LEED WALL PACK LIGHT FIXTURE

KEY NOTES
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

X
NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. copyright c 2022 NCE
PAGE 1 OF 4
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C

PASO ROBLES, CA
805.239.3127

NUTWOOD RV AND

SELF-STORAGE

PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN

PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE LEGEND
X
SITE

LOCATION MAP

SITE STATISTICS - OVERVIEW

TOTAL AREA

TOTAL LOTS

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL/CONDOMINIUM
RECORD OWNER:

APPLICANT

ENGINEER

ARCHITECT
A.P.N.

PROPOSED USE OF

PROPERTY

5.3 ACRES (232,639 SQ FT)
1 N/A
1 LOT (4 BUILDINGS, 108,461 SF)

DOUG AYRES
2700 BUENA VISTA DRIVE

PASO ROBLES, CA
93446

DOUG AYRES
2700 BUENA VISTA DRIVE
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446
NORTH COAST ENGINEERING, INC.
725 CRESTON RD., STE. C,
PASO ROBLES, CA 93446

JOHN LUTTMAN
R.C.E. 71787
CONTACT: (805) 239-3127

JORDAN ARCHITECTS
131 CALLE IGLESIA, SUITE 100
SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672

DAVID MEINECKE
(949) 388-8090
009-851-023

COMMERCIAL STORAGE UNIT

1. PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

2. PRELIMINARY UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENT PLAN

3. SITE CROSS SECTIONS

4. SITE CROSS SECTIONS

SHEET INDEX

NUTWOOD CIR

BUILDING B BUILDING D

BUILDING A

BUILDING A

BUILDING A

BUILDING C
OFFICE R:\PROJ\21159\Design\Plan Set\Prelim\21159 Prelim Plan Set.dwg, GRADING, 1/25/2023 9:32:23 AM, SJJ, 1:1 Exhibit A
Attachment 2

X
NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. copyright c 2022

PRELIMINARY UTILITY LEGEND
PAGE 2 OF 4
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C

PASO ROBLES, CA
805.239.3127

NUTWOOD RV AND

SELF-STORAGE

PRELIMINARY UNDERGROUD PLAN NCE

NUTWOOD CIR

BUILDING B BUILDING D

BUILDING A OFFICE

BUILDING A

BUILDING A
BUILDING C R:\PROJ\21159\Design\Plan Set\Prelim\21159 Prelim Plan Set.dwg, UG, 1/25/2023 9:28:20 AM, SJJ, 1:1 Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. copyright c 2022
PAGE 3 OF 4
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C

PASO ROBLES, CA
805.239.3127

NUTWOOD RV AND SELF

STORAGE

SITE SECTIONS

SITE CROSS SECTION A
SITE CROSS SECTION B R:\PROJ\21159\Design\Plan Set\Prelim\21159 Prelim Plan Set.dwg, SEC_DETAILS, 1/25/2023 9:28:25 AM, SJJ, 1:1 Exhibit A
Attachment 2

NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. copyright c 2022
PAGE 4 OF 4
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C

PASO ROBLES, CA
805.239.3127

NUTWOOD RV AND SELF

STORAGE

SITE SECTIONS

SITE CROSS SECTION C
SITE CROSS SECTION D R:\PROJ\21159\Design\Plan Set\Prelim\21159 Prelim Plan Set.dwg, SEC_DETAILS (2), 1/25/2023 9:28:30 AM, SJJ, 1:1 Exhibit A
Attachment 2

AI R QU AL IT Y &

GR E E N H O U S E GAS

I M P A C T AS S ES SM E N T
F O R

T HE NU T W O O D SE L F -ST O R A G E

P R O J E C T

P ASO R O B L E S , CA
JANUARY 2023
PREPARED BY:
75 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 105
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Air Quality......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Setting............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Topography............................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Local and Regional Meteorology ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Atmospheric Stability and Dispersion ................................................................................................................................... 3 Criteria Air Pollutants.............................................................................................................................................................. 5 Human Health & Welfare Effects.......................................................................................................................................... 5 Odors...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Toxic Air Contaminants ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Asbestos ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Ambient Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Air Quality Index..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10 State...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Local ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Thresholds of Significance................................................................................................................................................... 13 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................................... 15 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.................................................................................................................................. 28 Existing Setting........................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................................................................. 32 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................................. 32 State...................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Thresholds of Significance................................................................................................................................................... 37 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................................... 38 References..................................................................................................................................................................................... 45

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Common Pollutants & Adverse Effects............................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ......................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Air Quality Index Summary for Ozone & Related Health Effects................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Air Quality Index Summary for Fine Particulate Matter & Related Health Effects ...................................................... 9 Table 5. Air Quality Index Annual Historical Summary .................................................................................................................. 9 Table 6. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designations ................................................................... 12 Table 7. SLOAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Project-Level Construction Impacts ........................................................... 14 Table 8. SLOAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Project-Level Operational Impacts ............................................................ 14 Table 9. Project Consistency with SLOAPCD’s CAP Transportation and Land Use Control Measures................................... 16 Table 10. Daily Construction Emissions without Mitigation.......................................................................................................... 18 Table 11. Quarterly Construction Emissions Without Mitigation.................................................................................................. 19 Table 12. Summary of Construction Emissions without Mitigation.............................................................................................. 19 Table 13. Operational Emissions Without Mitigation ................................................................................................................... 22 Table 14. Operational Emissions With Mitigation......................................................................................................................... 25 Table 15. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases..................................................................................................... 29 Table 16. City of Paso Robles GHG Emissions Inventories........................................................................................................... 30 Table 17. Project-Level GHG Efficiency Threshold Calculation.................................................................................................. 38 Table 18. Construction-Generated GHG Emissions Without Mitigation..................................................................................... 39 Table 19. Operational GHG Emissions Without Mitigation.......................................................................................................... 39 Table 20. Operational GHG Emissions With Mitigation ............................................................................................................... 41 Table 21. Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan........................................................................................... 43

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proposed Site Plan............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Paso Robles Municipal Airport Wind Rose Plot............................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. California GHG Emissions Inventory by Sector & Subsector (2019) ............................................................................ 30 Figure 4. California Black Carbon Emissions Inventory (Year 2013) ........................................................................................... 31 Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Emissions Modeling
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023

LIST OF COMMON TERMS & ACRONYMS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
ARB California Air Resources Board
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
C2F6 Perfluoroethane
C4F10 Perfluorobutane
C4F8 Perfluorocyclobutane
C5F12 Perfluoropentane
C6F14 Perfluorohexane
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CF4 Perfluoromethane
CH4 Methane
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
DPM Diesel-Exhaust Particulate Matter or Diesel-Exhaust PM EV Electric Vehicle
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LOS Level of Service
MMT Million Metric Tons
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for HAPs
NF3 Nitrogen Trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOA Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
O3 Ozone
Pb Lead
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 μm)
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
PM2.5 Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 μm)
ppb Parts per Billion
ppm Parts per Million
PV Photovoltaic
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
SLCP Short-lived Climate Pollutant
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SP Service Population
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
U.S. EPA United State Environmental Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
μm Micrometer
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
1 INTRODUCTION
This report provides an analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of the proposed Nutwood Self-Storage Project (project). This report also provides a summary of existing conditions in the project area and the applicable regulatory framework pertaining to air quality and climate change.

PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project includes development of a 125,234 square foot (sf) refrigerated warehouse for wine storage, 49,585 sf unrefrigerated warehouse for self-storage, and approximately 1,390 sf of office space. The proposed project’s site plan is depicted in Figure 1.

AIR QUALITY
Existing Setting
The project is located in the City of Paso Robles, within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) and within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). Air quality in the SCCAB is influenced by a variety of factors, including topography, local and regional meteorology.

Topography
The City of Paso Robles sits on the rolling hills of the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. It is bounded on the northwest by the Santa Lucia Mountain Range, which extends almost the entire length of the county. Rising sharply to about 3,000 feet at its northern boundary, the Santa Lucia Range gradually winds southward away from the coast, finally merging into a mass of rugged features on the north side of Cuyama Canyon. Point Buchon juts into the Pacific just south of Morro Bay to form the protective harbor of San Luis Obispo Bay. The Irish Hills are the dominant feature on this knob of land, rising abruptly from the shore to form steep cliffs and generally complex terrain from the Los Osos/Montana de Oro State Park area to Pismo Beach. These headlands have a pronounced influence on local wind flow patterns.

Estuaries are also a notable feature of the coastal areas, occurring wherever flowing streams meet the ocean. Morro Bay contains the region's largest estuary, with a saltwater marsh located on the east side where Chorro and Los Osos creeks enter the bay. This is one of the most significant wetlands remaining on the California coast and has been designated part of the National Estuary Program. It provides nesting habitat for blue herons, cranes and other important types of woodland birds and wildlife. Smaller coastal lagoons and marshes are also scattered along the county's shoreline.

Local and Regional Meteorology
The climate of the county can be generally characterized as Mediterranean, with warm, dry summers and cooler, relatively damp winters. Along the coast, mild temperatures are the rule throughout the year due to the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean. This effect is diminished inland in proportion to the distance from the ocean or by major intervening terrain features, such as the coastal mountain ranges. As a result, inland areas are characterized by a considerably wider range of temperature conditions. Maximum summer temperatures average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit near the coast, while inland valleys are often in the high 90s. Minimum winter temperatures average from the low 30s along the coast to the low 20s inland (SLOAPCD 2001).

Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high-pressure area which commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean. Seasonal variations in the strength and position of this pressure cell cause seasonal changes in the weather patterns of the area. The Pacific High remains generally fixed several hundred miles offshore from May through September, enhancing onshore winds and opposing offshore winds.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
2 Figure 1. Proposed Site Plan
Source: Jordan Architects
Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
3 During spring and early summer, as the onshore breezes pass over the cool water of the ocean, fog and low clouds often form in the marine air layer along the coast. Surface heating in the interior valleys dissipates the marine layer as it moves inland (SLOAPCD 2001).

From November through April the Pacific High tends to migrate southward, allowing northern storms to move across the county. About 90 percent of the total annual rainfall is received during this period. Winter conditions are usually mild, with intermittent periods of precipitation followed by mostly clear days. Rainfall amounts can vary considerably among different regions in the county. In the Coastal Plain, annual rainfall averages 16 to 28 inches, while the Upper Salinas River Valley generally receives about 12 to 20 inches of rain. The Carrizo Plain is the driest area of the county with less than 12 inches of rain in a typical year (SLOAPCD 2001).

Airflow around the county plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of pollutants. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by the location and strength of the Pacific High-pressure system and other global patterns, by topographical factors, and by circulation patterns resulting from temperature differences between the land and sea. In spring and summer months, when the Pacific High attains its greatest strength, onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail during the day. At night, as the sea breeze dies, weak drainage winds flow down the coastal mountains and valleys to form a light, easterly land breeze (SLOAPCD 2001).

In the Fall, onshore surface winds decline and the marine layer grows shallow, allowing an occasional reversal to a weak offshore flow. This, along with the diurnal alternation of land-sea breeze circulation, can sometimes produce a "sloshing" effect. Under these conditions, pollutants may accumulate over the ocean for a period of one or more days and are subsequently carried back onshore with the return of the sea breeze. Strong inversions can form at this time, "trapping" pollutants near the surface (SLOAPCD 2001).

This effect is intensified when the Pacific High weakens or moves inland to the east. This may produce a "Santa Ana" condition in which air, often pollutant-laden, is transported into the county from the east and southeast.

This can occur over a period of several days until the high-pressure system returns to its normal location, breaking the pattern. The breakup of a Santa Ana condition may result in relatively stagnant conditions and a buildup of pollutants offshore. The onset of the typical daytime sea breeze can bring these pollutants back onshore, where they combine with local emissions to cause high pollutant concentrations. Not all occurrences of the "post-Santa Ana" condition lead to high ambient pollutant levels, but it does play an important role in the air pollution meteorology of the county (SLOAPCD 2001).

Predominant wind flow in the project area, based on historical meteorological data from the Paso Robles Municipal Airport, is depicted in Figure 2. As depicted, wind flow in the project area is predominantly from the northwest, averaging approximately 6.5 mph. Calm winds are present an average of approximately 27.3 percent of the time.

Atmospheric Stability and Dispersion
Air pollutant concentrations are primarily determined by the amount of pollutant emissions in an area and the degree to which these pollutants are dispersed into the atmosphere. The stability of the atmosphere is one of the key factors affecting pollutant dispersion. Atmospheric stability regulates the amount of vertical and horizontal air exchange or mixing, that can occur within a given air basin. Restricted mixing and low wind speeds are generally associated with a high degree of stability in the atmosphere. These conditions are characteristic of temperature inversions (SLOAPCD 2001).

In the atmosphere, air temperatures normally decrease as altitude increases. At varying distances above the earth's surface, however, a reversal of this gradient can occur. This condition termed an inversion, is simply a warm layer of air above a layer of cooler air, and it has the effect of limiting the vertical dispersion of pollutants. The height of the inversion determines the size of the mixing volume trapped below. Inversion strength or intensity is measured by the thickness of the layer and the difference in temperature between the base and the top of the inversion. The strength of the inversion determines how easily it can be broken by winds or solar heating (SLOAPCD 2001).

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
4 Figure 2. Paso Robles Municipal Airport Wind Rose Plot Several types of inversions are common to this area. Weak, surface inversions are caused by radiational cooling of air in contact with the cold surface of the earth at night. In valleys and low lying areas, this condition is intensified by the addition of cold air flowing downslope from the hills and pooling on the valley floor. Surface inversions are a common occurrence throughout the county during the winter, particularly on cold mornings when the inversion is strongest. As the morning sun warms the earth and the air near the ground, the inversion lifts, gradually dissipating as the day progresses. During the late spring and early summer months, cool air over the ocean can intrude under the relatively warmer air over land, causing a marine inversion. These inversions can restrict dispersion along the coast, but they are typically shallow and will dissipate with surface heating (SLOAPCD 2001).

In contrast, in the summertime, the presence of the Pacific high-pressure cell can cause the air mass aloft to sink. As the air descends, compressional heating warms it to a temperature higher than the air below. This highly stable atmospheric condition, termed a subsidence inversion, is common to all of coastal California and can act as a nearly impenetrable lid to the vertical mixing of pollutants. The base of the inversion typically ranges from 1000 to 2500 feet above sea level; however, levels as low as 250 feet, among the lowest anywhere in the state, have been recorded on the coastal plateau in San Luis Obispo county. The strength of these inversions makes them difficult to disrupt. Consequently, they can persist for one or more days, causing air stagnation and the buildup of pollutants. Highest or worst-case ozone levels are often associated with the presence of this type of inversion (SLOAPCD 2001).

Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
5 Criteria Air Pollutants
For the protection of public health and welfare, the Clean Air Act (CAA) required that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various pollutants. These pollutants are referred to as "criteria" pollutants because the US EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. These standards define the maximum amount of an air pollutant that can be present in ambient air without harm to the public’s health. An ambient air quality standard is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time period, such as one hour, eight hours, 24 hours, or one year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. The CAA allows states to adopt additional or more health-protective standards. The air quality regulatory framework and ambient air quality standards are discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Human Health & Welfare Effects
Common air pollutants and associated adverse health and welfare effects are summarized in Table 1. Within the SCCAB, the air pollutants of primary concern, with regard to human health, include ozone, particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO). As depicted in Table 1, exposure to increased pollutant concentrations of ozone, PM and CO can result in various heart and lung ailments, cardiovascular and nervous system impairment, and death.

Table 1. Common Pollutants & Adverse Effects
Pollutant Human Health & Welfare Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 & PM2.5)
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

Ozone
(O3)
Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing, coughing and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield. Damages rubber, some textiles, and dyes.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can damage marble, iron and steel; damage crops and natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. A precursor to acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. A precursor to ozone and acid rain.

Contributes to global warming, and nutrient overloading which deteriorates water quality.

Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and kidney damage, neurological disorders, cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants, and aquatic ecosystems.

Source: ARB 2018
Odors
Typically, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from the psychological (i.e. irritation, anger, or anxiety) to the physiological, including circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache.

Neither the state nor the federal governments have adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources. The SLOAPCD does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be applicable to SLOAPCD’s Rule 402, Nuisance. Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to local governments and the SLOAPCD. The SLOAPCD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such analysis shall determine if the project results in Exhibit A
Attachment 2

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Nutwood Self-Storage Project January 2023
6 excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California Code of Regulations, Health & Safety Code Section 41700, air quality public nuisance.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air, but due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are thus not subject to National or State AAQS. TACs are not considered criteria pollutants in that the federal and California Clean Air Acts do not address them specifically through the setting of National or State AAQS. Instead, the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with District rules, these federal and state statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national levels, the U.S. EPA has established National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs), in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.

Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

At the state level, the ARB has authority for the regulation of emissions from motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products. Most recently, Diesel-exhaust particulate matter (DPM) was added to the ARB list of TACs. DPM is the primary TACs of concern for mobile sources. Of all controlled TACs, emissions of DPM are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient TAC risk. The ARB has made the reduction of the public’s exposure to DPM one of its highest priorities, with an aggressive plan to require cleaner diesel fuel and cleaner diesel engines and vehicles (ARB 2005).

At the local level, air districts have authority over stationary or industrial sources. All projects that require air quality permits from the SLOAPCD are evaluated for TAC emissions. The SLOAPCD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. The SLOAPCD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources, based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. The SLOAPCD requires a comprehensive health risk assessment for facilities that are classified in the significant-risk category, pursuant to AB 2588. No major existing sources of TACs have been identified in the project area.

Asbestos
Asbestos is the common name for a group of naturally-occurring fibrous silicate minerals that can separate into thin but strong and durable fibers. Naturally-occurring asbestos, which was identified as a TAC in 1986 by ARB, is located in many parts of California and is commonly associated with ultramafic rock. The project site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for naturally-occurring ultramafic rock and serpentine soils.

Asbestos-containing material may be present in existing structures. The demolition of existing structures may be subject to regulatory requirements for the control of ACM.

Exhibit A
Attachment 2