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. Long-term operational emissions attributable to the project are identified in Table 3 and are compared to the operational significance thresholds established by the SLOAPCD. As shown in Table 3, the Project’s emissions would not exceed any SLOAPCD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants, therefore impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
11 Discussion: According to the SLOAPCD, land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of obnoxious odorous emissions include wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, and fiberglass molding.
The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SLOAPCD as being associated with odors, therefore there is no impact related to other emissions.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion: A Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the Project site by Padre Associates, Inc. (Attachment 6). The field assessment was conducted in March 2022 during the typical blooming period for most special-status plant species known to occur in the Project region. The assessment did not identify any special status plants within the survey area. Based on the field survey observations and habitat conditions (periodic mowing, dominance of disturbance-adapted plant species) no special-status plant species are likely to occur within the Project Site. In addition, no special-status wildlife species or evidence of nesting birds were observed during the March 2022 field survey. However, the Project site may provide suitable habitat to support some special-status wildlife species, based on suitable habitat and regional (less than five miles) documented occurrences. These species include the Northern legless lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, and migratory nesting birds.
Although the BRA concluded that the potential for impacts to biological resources as a result of the proposed project is considered low, direct impacts to special-status wildlife could result if present during project construction. As noted above, specific wildlife species that could be potentially impacted include the Northern legless lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, and other migratory nesting birds. Any impacts to bird species are most likely to occur if construction activities take place during the typical avian nesting season, generally February 1 through September 15. Indirect impacts may occur due to habitat loss or construction-related disturbances.
Based on the potential impacts to occur to special-status biological resources, several mitigation measures are included for this project including the requirement for a pre-activity nesting bird survey and a pre-activity special-status species survey, both of which will help protect sensitive biological resources to the greatest extent feasible. 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
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Discussion: Wetlands or waters do not occur within the project site, as confirmed by the BRA based on the results of their literature review and field observations.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Discussion: See response IV.b above.
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: Due to the project site being surrounded by existing residential, commercial, and institutional 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: As identified by the Oak Tree Impact Report (Attachment 5) prepared by Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting, three oak trees were inventoried on the project site, one of which is proposed to be removed due to being in poor condition, structural issues, past failures, and the likelihood of future failure once frontage improvements for Rolling Hills Road are made which is within the tree’s critical root zone.
Any significant trees (oaks) will need to be protected or mitigated if removed pursuant to the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter
10.01) and as indicated in Section 21.16E.250 of the Municipal Code. Consistent with the City’s Ordinance, the Arborist’s report notes that tree replacements will be required to mitigate the loss of the oak tree to be removed.
In the event the tree is not approved for removal, mitigation measures are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Table, Attachment 9 to this Initial Study, to further protect the oak trees during construction and ongoing operations of the site. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures, this project’s impacts on oak trees will be 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 Habitat Conservation Plans or other related plans in the City of Paso Robles. No impact will occur.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 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 dedicated cemeteries?
Discussion (a-c):
The applicant reported that they performed a records search and literature review, with no cultural resources coming up in the search. In addition, the applicant provided a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission which was negative (See Attachment 7), meaning no sacred lands are recorded. Based on these searches, the potential for buried cultural resources is relatively low. There are no structures onsite to be eligible to meet historic eligibility criteria.
Although no significant potential archaeological or cultural resources have been identified which would be impacted by development of the plan area, there is a chance for cultural resources to be uncovered during initial earthwork. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been added to the project for there to be archaeological and tribal monitoring for the initial ground disturbance. With the mitigation, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Consultation with the Xolon Salinan Tribe and the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties resulted in a request for a Phase 1 be performed. Staff provided both tribes with the recommended mitigation measure, which was satisfactory in lieu of requiring a Phase 1. Mitigation is also included in the Tribal Cultural Resources section of this report.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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?
1
Discussion: The proposed project includes a multi-family development, consistent with the City’s General Plan and does not require rezoning. The existing land use and proposed development will not use or promote the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Further, the project is subject to air quality and energy efficiency requirements which are often referred to as the Green Building Standards or the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all of which are applicable standards to reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
1, 5
Discussion: 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. Additionally, as identified in Section VIII., since the Project would not exceed the Efficiency Threshold for operational emissions or operational emission plus the amortized construction emissions, the Project would not conflict with the CAP, Updated Strategic Action Plan Update, or City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan (PRCAP).
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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 Alquist-Priolo 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.
1, 2, 3
Discussion: The potential for and mitigation of impacts that may result from fault rupture in the project area are identified and addressed in the General Plan EIR, pg. 4.5-8. There are two known fault zones on either 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. The San Andreas Fault is on the east side of the valley and is situated about 30 miles east of Paso Robles. The City of Paso Robles recognizes these geologic influences in the application of the California Building Code (CBC) to all new development within the City. Review of available information and examinations indicate that neither of these faults is active with respect to ground rupture in Paso Robles. Soils and geotechnical reports and structural engineering in accordance with local seismic influences would be applied in conjunction with any new development proposal. 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? 1, 2, 3, 5
Discussion: The proposed project will be constructed to current CBC codes. The General Plan EIR identified impacts resulting from ground shaking as less than significant and provided mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the design of this project including adequate structural design and not constructing over active or potentially active faults. Therefore, impacts that may result from seismic ground shaking are considered less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
1, 2, 3
Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in an area with soil conditions that have a low to moderate potential for 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 condition to require submittal of soils and geotechnical reports, which include sitespecific 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. Impacts will be less than significant. iv) Landslides? 1
Discussion: Per the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is in an area that is designated a moderate-risk area for landslides. The Safety Element of the General Plan contains policy that prohibits construction activities in high landslide risk areas without site specific slop stability investigations. Since this site is not high risk, the investigation is not necessary. However, if it was determined to be required as part of the construction process, the investigation would incorporate recommendations into the design of the project and reduce potential impacts due to landslides to a less than significant level. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 3
Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR the soil condition is not erosive or otherwise unstable. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated. A geotechnical/ soils analysis will be required prior to issuance of building permits that will evaluate the site-specific soil stability and suitability of the development proposed. This study will determine the necessary grading techniques that will ensure that potential impacts due to soil stability will not occur. 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 item VII.a.iii above indicates that per the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in an area with soil conditions that have a low to moderate potential for liquefaction or other type of ground failure due to seismic events and soil conditions. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Discussion: See response to item VII.a.iii above. Additionally, the City has a standard condition to require submittal of soils and geotechnical reports with building permits, 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. The study’s recommended strategies will be required at the time of building permit submittal, therefore impacts are less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Discussion: The proposed project will be connected to the City’s sewer system; and therefore, the issue of site soil ability to support septic tanks is not applicable.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion: There are no known paleontological or unique geologic features identified on-site. However, as discussed in Section V, onsite monitoring will be required during initial earthwork activities. If cultural resources are found during grading activities, appropriate recommendations will be made regarding their treatment and/or disposition. Therefore, this project will result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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?
Discussion:
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). Table 4 from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment (Attachment 4) illustrates the specific construction-generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the project. Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 310.3 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction, which is below the SLOAPCD MTCO2E Bright Line Threshold. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.
Long term:
Operation of the project would result in GHG emissions predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Long-term operational GHG emissions attributable to the project as a whole (project site buildout) are identified in Table 5. Project operations would be expected to generate 1,421 metric tons of CO2e emissions annually.
The project is compared with the SLOAPCD efficiency-based threshold of 4.9 metric tons of CO2e per project service population (Project residents + employees) per year. The SLOAPCD’s approach is to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions.
Based on the assumptions used to determine operational GHG emissions, including a service population of 353, the Project would emit
4.0 MTCO2E per service population per year, which is below the SLOAPCD Efficiency Threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E per service population per year; therefore, Project operations would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the operational emissions plus the amortized construction emissions were also estimated to be 4.0 MTCO2E per service population per year and would not exceed the SLOAPCD Efficiency Threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E per service population per year. Since the Project would not exceed the Efficiency Threshold the Project for operational emissions or operational emission plus the amortized construction emissions the Project would not conflict with the CAP, Updated Strategic Action Plan Update, or City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan (PRCAP). Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the project’s cumulative GHG impacts would also be less than cumulatively considerable.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
1
Discussion: 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).
The City of Paso Robles is a member city of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). SLOCOG’s 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The project site is located within an existing and built-up community, consistent with the SCS. Thus, it is included in an area where urban development is both predicted and encouraged by the SLOCOG RTP/SCS. The project is considered infill development as it proposes to develop a property surrounded by urban uses with affordable housing, thereby enhancing the physical design of the urban environment by instigating land use diversity. The increases in land use diversity and mix of uses in the project area would reduce vehicle trips and VMT by encouraging walking and non-automotive forms of transportation, which would result in corresponding reductions in transportation-related emissions. The proposed project would provide a convenient proximity to transit options, a school, and retail uses for its residents. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to this environmental criterion.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Discussion: The proposed project does not include the use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials and will not result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on this environmental factor. 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: The proposed project does not include the use, transport, or storage of hazardous materials and will not result in a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. Therefore, the project will not have an impact on this environmental factor. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Discussion (c and d):
c) The project site is within a quarter mile of a school, however, there is no existing hazardous emissions currently on-site nor are there any proposed as part of the proposed development and/or construction activities. d) The proposed project is not located on a list of hazardous material sites, per State Codes, and the proposed development intent is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designations for the site, and therefore would no result in the creation of a health hazard to the public or the environment.
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: The proposed project is located over 4 miles away from the Paso Robles Municipal Airport and outside of the airport influence area, therefore, this issue does not directly impact the proposed development. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Discussion: The City does not have any adopted emergency response plans. As proposed, the development would not interfere with emergency response.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion: The proposed project is located in the City of Paso Robles and has development surrounded on all sides of the project site and therefore is not located in the wildland urban interface (WUI). The potential of wildland fires is the same as for any of the development in the vicinity and therefore the impact is less than significant.
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: Water use during construction would be limited to dust control measures for grading activities. The project will not result in releasing water or wastewater from the site. The proposed project is subject to several existing regulations and programs, including the City’s Storm Water Management Program and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Regulations. BMPs and PPMs are required to be incorporated into grading and construction plans for the short and long-term management and protection of water quality.
The proposed project’s Stormwater Management Plan includes the construction of subsurface storage chambers and disturbed soils would be stabilized by landscaping including trees, shrubs, and grasses. Therefore, considering these factors, impacts as a result of the development of this project on stormwater will be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
7 Discussion: The project site is within the City limits and it is zoned to allow for high density residential development. 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. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City of Paso Robles anticipates a water demand of 9,451 acre-feet/year at full buildout, with supply availability projected to be 15,088 acre-feet/year to serve development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
The City’s General Plan Housing Element identified this site for future availability for water and sewer service, with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) verifying there is adequate capacity to serve the project based on the number of units. Using estimates from a comparison of unit usage rates for five large cities, the multi-family sector is estimated to use approximately 153 gpd. The project has 135 units, equating to 20,682 gpd, which is about 23 acre-feet per year. Based on these factors, water use for this project has been accounted for and is a fraction of the water demand at full buildout. Therefore impacts to groundwater supplies are less than significant.
Lastly, standard conditions applied to all new development require the payment of development impact fees for water service expansion to mitigate its proportionate share of related impacts. 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:
10 Discussion: The proposed new/replaced impervious surface area is approximately 3.7-acres, which qualifies the project as Tier 4, per the City and Regional Water Quality Control Board Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCRs). Additionally, there is an off-site watershed that the project will account for in its stormwater design. The bypass system for off-site run-on was designed to direct off-site run-on away from the development, to defer having to mitigate the stormwater run-on for Post Storm Water Management Construction Requirements (PCRs) as outlined in the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Resolution No. R3-2013-0032. Off-site run-on is collected prior to entering the site through drain inlets located near the property lines and conveyed through storm drain pipe that forces the stormwater to bypass the site.
PCRs 1 through 4 will be satisfied by a variety of methods. Once the off-site stormwater run-on bypasses the site and the on-site stormwater runoff is treated, the stormwater leaves the site by drain inlets used as bubble up devices at either driveway, or it is concentrated and directed to a junction structure located near Buildings 1 and 2. Stormwater runoff from the eastern driveway will bubble up and be collected by a drain inlet on Rolling Hills Road that discharges across the road to an existing roadside stormwater basin. The existing 18-inch pipe will be upsized to 24 inches to account for additional runoff from the project site. The remaining stormwater runoff is eventually collected and then conveyed in storm drain pipe that runs under and across Creston Road. The pipe will discharge at an existing concrete channel south of Creston Road. In conclusion, the project’s drainage system was designed to meet minimum drainage requirements outlined in the City of Paso Robles Standard Specifications and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s PCRs. Based on the stormwater retention plan, the impact will be less than significant. i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;
Discussion: The proposed project, as discussed in Section VII. Geology/Soils, the site is generally flat, and therefore will not result in substantial erosion on or off-site. Additionally, in compliance with State and local regulations, during construction erosion and/or stormwater control measures will be implemented during site disturbance; therefore the project is not expected to result in substantial erosion or siltation.
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 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 (ii-iv): See the discussion in X.a (above) for discussion on the stormwater management approach. Measures and BMPs will be installed and implemented to decrease the amount/rate of surface runoff during storm events. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Discussion: The proposed project is located in a FEMA Flood Zone X, which is designated as an area of minimal flood hazard of 0.2% annual chance for flood hazard. The project is a residential development, so pollutants would be limited to those normally associated with oils on asphalt. Since the risk of flood is minimal, impacts related to pollutants will be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion: See the discussion in X.a for discussion on the stormwater management approach. Measures and BMPs will be installed and implemented to adhere to the City’s Stormwater Management Program, therefore impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2
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?
1, 2
Discussion (a and b):
a) The proposed project is located in the immediate City boundary, and has development surrounded on all edges, including single family residential uses to the north and west, a commercial shopping center to the east, and single-family residential and institutional uses to the south. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations. No impact will occur. b) The proposed project is subject to the City General Plan and Zoning Code. These documents and ordinances include standards to protect aesthetic quality and scenic viewsheds, biological resources, cultural resources, and public health and safety. Specific requirements or policies identified in these documents are discussed in specific resource sections. Based on project design and compliance with existing zoning and land use regulations, the project would be consistent with policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. No impact will occur.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state? 1
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
1 Discussion (a and b): There are no known mineral resources at this project site. No impacts will occur.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
1 Discussion: The City’s General Plan Noise Element acknowledges that although background ambient noise levels throughout the community have generally increased for all land uses, compatible land uses will not create noise in excess of the noise standards established. Noise generated from the project will consist of generally the same types of noise from the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the north and west. Noise resulting from vehicle trips and outdoor common areas present as normally accepted noise sources for this land use. Because the site is a compatible land use with its surrounding area, and has been designed with noise attenuation features in mind (building/common area setbacks, landscaping), the project would result in less than significant impacts.
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. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? 1
Discussion: The levels of groundborne noise and vibration generated by project construction would be low, and noise would only occur during daytime hours of construction and would cease upon completion of the project. Therefore, impacts from groundborne vibrations are considered to be 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 is not located within the geographic boundaries of the Airport Land Use Plan, therefore there is no impact.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned 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)?
2 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion (a and b):
a) The proposed project does not result in unplanned population growth. The site has been zoned for high-density development and therefore has been assumed in the City’s infrastructure, among other needs, such as, but not limited to school and park fees. The proposed development will be responsible for paying the required fees as part of the City’s entitlement process, therefore impacts are less than significant.
b) There is no housing being displaced as part of this project. No impact will occur.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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:
1, 10
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Discussion: The proposed project would not result in a significant impact to fire or police protection, as the project site is located in the current service area by the City of Paso Robles Police and Fire Department. Cal Fire, County Sheriff, and California Highway Patrol may also respond to emergencies in the area. The project site is within the Paso Robles Joint Unified School District. Solid waste is managed by the San Luis Obispo Regional Integrated Waste Management Authority. Several parks and public recreational facilities are located within proximity to the project site, including but not limited to Winifred Pifer Elementary School, Daniel Lewis Middle School, Centennial Park, Paso Robles Golf Club, and the regional Barney Schwartz Park is located northeast of the site, off State Highway 46.
The proposed project is consistent with the City General Plan and Zoning Code, and would not create significant impacts to local public services because it would not induce significant population growth and does not include a use that would significantly increase demand resulting in the requirement for new facilities. Regarding cumulative effects, the applicant is required to pay fees, which would go towards provision of municipal services. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XVI. RECREATION.
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?
1 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?
1 Discussion (a and b): The proposed project would not result in a significant population increase and is not anticipated to affect projected demand for parks and recreational facilities in the immediate area as the development plan demonstrates there will be on-site recreational facilities, including large central tot lot, clubhouse/gym, and pool. The City’s Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan dictates improvements of existing parks as well as periodically assessing usage of park facilities, and identifying physical changes needed to accommodate anticipated land use patterns. As a result, several renovation upgrades to existing parks have been made in the last several years. Based on these ongoing actions, impacts to recreational facilities is anticipated to be less than significant.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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 135-unit apartment project is consistent with the City’s R4 and RMF-20 zoning and land use designations in conjunction with the fractional density program. The impacts of the added traffic trips from this project on the circulation system are anticipated with the City’s 2019 Circulation Element, as well as the recent Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Corridor Plan (Corridor Plan).
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for this project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting, dated February 2023 (See Attachment 8). The purpose of the TIS is to provide the City with data that can be used to make decisions regarding potential traffic impacts of a proposed project, and any associated improvements that would be required to mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance as defined by the City’s General Plan Policies.
The TIS estimated the project would generate 941 trips per weekday, including 65 trips during the AM peak hour and 79 trips during the PM peak hour. With construction of a single lane roundabout at Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2) all study locations would operate acceptably under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Under Cumulative Conditions, the intersection would operate acceptably; however, westbound queues are expected to reach the Creston Road/Melody Drive (#3) intersection during peak periods. However, no additional lanes are recommended as the entire corridor experiences congestion during the school drop off and pick up and congestion is minimal during off peak times. The study recommends the Creston Road driveway be limited to left-in, right-in, right-out only. The study also recommends 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. It also recommends the project construct the following improvements consistent with the Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Study:
• Extend curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on the north side of Creston Road from project frontage to Orchard Drive. • Install curb ramps and bulbouts on the north and south side of Creston Road at the existing Orchard Drive crosswalk. • 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 SW-24-3 (CA) sign in advance of the crosswalk. • Replace existing overhead flashing beacons with overhead and pole mounted rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB).
With the recommended improvements, the project will be consistent with the Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Study, City’s Circulation Element, and the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, therefore, impacts related to transportation will be less than significant.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Discussion: A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for this project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting, dated February 2023 (Attachment 8), 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. 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: There are no hazardous design features associated, with, planned for or will result from this project. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
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.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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: The applicant reported that they performed a records search and literature review, with no cultural resources coming up in the search. In addition, the applicant provided a search of the Sacred Lands File by the Native American Heritage Commission which was negative (See Attachment 7), meaning no sacred lands are recorded. Based on these searches, the potential for buried cultural resources is relatively low. There are no structures onsite to be eligible to meet historic eligibility criteria.
Although no significant potential archaeological or cultural resources have been identified which would be impacted by development of the plan area, there is a chance for cultural resources to be uncovered during initial earthwork. Therefore, a mitigation measure has been added to the project for there to be archaeological and tribal monitoring for the initial ground disturbance. With the mitigation, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Consultation with the Xolon Salinan Tribe and the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties resulted in a request for a Phase 1 be performed. Staff provided both tribes with the recommended mitigation measure, which was satisfactory in lieu of requiring a Phase 1. Mitigation is also included in the Cultural Resources section of this report.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
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 cause significant
environmental effects?
3, 7, 8
Discussion: There is existing water and sewer available along Creston Road that will serve this project. Per the City’s General Plan EIR, Urban Water Management Plan, and Sewer System Management Plan, the City’s water and wastewater treatment facilities are adequately sized, including planned facility upgrades, to provide water needed for this project and treat effluent resulting from this project. Therefore, this project will not result in the need to construct new facilities. There are plans to improve the Creston Road Corridor that include the installation of a roundabout at the southeast corner of the project site. The proposed drainage for Creston Road II was designed in a way that when the Creston Road Corridor project moves forward, Creston Road II drainage will be able to assimilate into the corridor project’s drainage.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
7 Discussion: The project site is within the City limits and it is zoned to allow for high density residential development. 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. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City of Paso Robles anticipates a water demand of 9,451 acre-feet/year at full buildout, with supply availability projected to be 15,088 acre-feet/year to serve development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
The City’s General Plan Housing Element identified this site for future availability for water and sewer service, with the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) verifying there is adequate capacity to serve the project based on the number of units. Using estimates from a comparison of unit usage rates for five large cities, the multi-family sector is estimated to use approximately 153 gpd. The project has 135 units, equating to 20,682 gpd, which is about 23 acre-feet per year. Based on these factors, water use for this project has been accounted for and is a fraction of the water demand at full buildout. Therefore impacts to groundwater supplies are less than significant.
Standard conditions applied to all new development require the payment of development impact fees for water service expansion to mitigate its proportionate share of related impacts.
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’s generated wastewater flows would ultimately flow to the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). In 2020 the average daily influent flow to the WWTP was 2.11 MGD and the maximum influent flow was 2.39 MGD in August, which is well below the WWTP design capacity of 4.9 MGD. As noted above in the amount of water used by the project, there is anticipated to be an equivalent amount of wastewater received by the project’s domestic water use. According to the design capacity of 4.9 MGD, the additional flow from the project would be able to be handled by the current treatment plant. 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 owns a fully permitted Class III non-hazardous solid waste landfill which is estimated to have sufficient airspace capacity to the year 2077, based on a 2021 Updated Joint Technical Document that was prepared for the landfill. The City generates 45,000 tons of solid waste annually. It dumps this waste into its own landfill. The landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 6,495,000 cubic yards and a maximum permitted throughput of 450 tons of solid waste per day and 75,000 tons per year, through October 1, 2051. As of December 31, 2017, the landfill had a remaining capacity of 4,216,402 cubic yards or approximately 65% of the maximum permitted capacity.
Solid waste data for this project has been extrapolated from the CalRecycle Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates webpage. Based on the available data, a multifamily use is expected to generate approximately 5 pounds of waste, per dwelling unit, per day. With 135 dwelling units, this results in approximately 675 pounds of solid waste per day, or 0.33 tons per day, or 123 tons per year. Based on the existing facility being able to take 75,000 tons per year, the amount of new waste is considered less than significant.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: The proposed project will comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Discussion: The City of Paso Robles does not have an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The site is zoned high density residential development, such as what is proposed. Therefore, the project could not impair emergency plans. 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?
Discussion (b and c): As previously identified, the site has development on all sides of the property and is not considered as being located within the wildland urban interface (WUI) and therefore would not need specific measures for fire-fighting purposes, beyond emergency vehicle access, clearance around buildings, and connection to water. The project has been reviewed by the City of Paso Robles Fire Department and designed with Fire Codes in mind. Given these considerations the impact will be less than significant. 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 site is relatively flat and not subject to landslide potential or significant drainage changes.
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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: As noted within this environmental document, and with the mitigation measures outlined in the document, the projects future development impacts related to habitat for wildlife species and oak tree preservation will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project would not result in impacts to fish habitat or impacts to fish and wildlife populations.
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, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
Discussion: Based on the location of the project being within the City’s limits, consistency with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and implementation of mitigation measures including contribution of fees to existing programs or monitoring activities, the project would not result in any impacts that are cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: Since the site is zoned for residential development which is anticipated by the existing General Plan and General Plan EIR, and since it would be developed at some point in the future with development that would have similar site disturbance such as grading and infrastructure for multiple-family development, and as a result of this study identifying mitigation measures for impacts created by the project, it is not anticipated that the project will result in substantial adverse environmental impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
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.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15152(b), (f).
Earlier Documents Prepared and 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
2 City of Paso Robles Zoning Code Same as above
3 City of Paso Robles Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Update
Same as above
4 2005 Airport Land Use Plan Same as above
5 City of Paso Robles Municipal Code Same as above
6 City of Paso Robles Water Master Plan Same as above
7 City of Paso Robles Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Same as above 8 City of Paso Robles Sewer Master Plan Same as above
9 City of Paso Robles Housing Element Same as above
10 City of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of
Approval for New Development
Same as above
11 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Impact Thresholds
APCD
3433 Roberto Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
12 San Luis Obispo County – Land Use Element San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
13 USDA, Soils Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County,
Paso Robles Area, 1983
Soil Conservation Offices
Paso Robles, Ca 93446
Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Perspective Renderings
4. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (February 2023) by Padre Associates, Inc.
5. Arborist Report (November 2022) by Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting
6. Biological Report (April 2022) by Padre Associates, Inc.
7. Sacred Lands File Search
8. Traffic Impact Study (February 2023) by Central Coast Transportation Consulting
9. Mitigation Monitoring & Report Plan
1000 Spring Street • Paso Robles, California 93446
IS/MND Attachment 1
Vicinity Map
1000 Spring Street • Paso Robles, California 93446
IS/MND Attachment 2
Site Plan
IS/MND Attachment 3
369 Pacific Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 786-2650 www.padreinc.com Febauray 14, 2023
Project No. 2202-0712
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
2082 Michelson Drive, 4th Floor
Irvine, California 92612
Attention: Ms. Kim Berry
Subject: Letter Report, Air Quality and Green House Gas Emissions Analysis for the Proposed Rolling Hills Apartment Project, Paso Robles, California Dear Ms. Berry:
Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), has prepared this letter-report documenting the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for the proposed residential development project (Project) at 1049 Creston Road (APN 009-641-010), Paso Robles, California (Project Site). The analysis has been prepared in accordance with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook (2012).
OVERVIEW
The purpose of the Analysis is to estimate the criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would be emitted by the Project and compare the estimates to the SLOAPCD air quality and greenhouse gas regulations.
Site Description and Background
The Project Site is located at 1049 Creston Road in the City of Paso Robles (City), San Luis Obispo County (County), California. The Project Site consists of a 6.21-acre parcel within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 009-641-010. Adjacent properties consist of single-family residential properties to the north, west, northeast and southeast, a preschool located to the east, religious institutions to the south and southwest, and commercial properties to the east.
The Project Site has been historically used for agricultural purposes and is currently vacant.
The Paso Robles Municipal Airport is located approximately 3.25 miles northeast of the Project Site.
Project Description and Schedule
Construction of the Project is anticipated to be completed over a period of approximately two months for grading and heavy equipment work and general construction for approximately 15 months. The Project consists of the development of a multifamily apartment site consisting of 135 dwelling units located within seven buildings oriented around a proposed 2,804 square IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 2 -
foot (SF) amenity building, a 1,184 SF pool, and landscaped common areas. Grading activities are proposed to disturb approximately 6.21 acres over the duration of the construction phase.
The grading schedule for Project could be subject to change due to permitting, field conditions and weather conditions but is currently anticipated to require a total of 17 months to complete.
Sensitive Receptors
The closest sensitive receptors to the Project Site consist of a preschool located on the adjacent property to the east, a preschool and kindergarten through 8th grade school located on the adjacent property to the southwest, residential properties located on adjacent properties to north, west, northeast, and southeast, and religious institutions located on adjacent properties to the south and southwest.
REGULATORY THRESHOLDS
The SLOAPCD has adopted two sets of criteria pollutant significance thresholds: one for project construction phase and one for project operational phase (see Table 1) (SLOAPCD, 2012a). According to the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a project would not be in conflict with an applicable clean air plan, nor violate an air quality standard and/or have a significant impact to air quality if the project’s criteria pollutant emissions were below the following thresholds.
Table 1. Criteria Pollutant Thresholds
Thresholds
ROG + NOx PM10 DPM Fugitive Dust
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Construction Phase
(Tier 1/ Tier 2)* 137 2.5/6.3 -- -- 7.0 0.13/0.32 -- 2.25 Operational Phase* 25 25 25 25 1.25 -- -- 25
Notes:
ROG – Reactive organic gases, NOx – Oxides of nitrogen, PM10 – Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, PM 2.5 – Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, CO – Carbon Monoxide, SO2 – Sulfur Dioxide
* SLOAPCD, 2012
-- Not applicable
The SLOAPCD has adopted GHG thresholds in an effort to meet the GHG reduction goals of AB 32 (SLOAPCD, 2012a and SLOAPCD, 2012b). The two GHG significance thresholds that have been established for residential and commercial projects are as follows:
• Bright Line Threshold of 1,150 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) per year; and
IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 3 -
• Efficiency Threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E/Service Population (residents + employees)/year (MTCO2E/SP/year).
Emissions from the construction phase of residential projects must be amortized over 50 years and added to the operational phase GHG emissions. The operational phase emissions plus the amortized construction emissions must be compared to the Bright Line Threshold or Efficiency Threshold.
Emissions Estimates
The primary sources of pollutant emissions for the Project’s construction phase would result from the use of internal combustion engines and soil disturbance during grading activities.
Specifically, conventional construction equipment such as backhoes, dozers, compactors, excavators, graders, loaders, paving machines, scrapers, and haul trucks will be utilized during grading and general construction activities. Additional sources of air pollutant emissions include emissions from on-road motor vehicles used to transport materials and personnel. Operational emissions would result primarily from emissions due to electrical consumption and from resident on-road motor vehicle use.
Emissions modeling was conducted to estimate the criteria pollutant and GHG emissions for the construction and operational phases of the Project. The emissions were estimated using the most recent emission factors and load factors obtained from the California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) User’s Guide (Environ, 2020), Emission Factors (EMFAC) model and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Detailed source information is provided in Appendix A.
Construction and operational equipment emissions were estimated using the engine horsepower, engine emission factors, engine load factors, and hours of engine use per day.
On-road vehicle emissions were estimated using the vehicle type (i.e., passenger gasolinepowered vehicle, heavy-duty diesel-powered vehicle), engine emission factors, and length of daily round trips. Operational emissions from resident on-road motor vehicle use were calculated using data from a traffic study provided by the client. Electricity use and associated emissions were estimated using estimated energy usage and emissions factors. Fugitive dust emissions from proposed soil disturbance activities related to the construction phase were calculated using emission factors, volumes of earth material disturbed, and areas of earth material disturbed. A tabulation of assumptions, references, and calculations for the project emission estimates are provided in Appendix A. Tables 2 and 3 list the estimated Project criteria pollutant emissions calculated by Padre for the Project construction and operational phases. Tables 4 and 5 list the yearly GHG emissions calculated by Padre for the Project construction and operational phases.
IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 4 -
Table 2. Estimated Project Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Peak Emissions
ROG + NOx PM10 DPM Fugitive Dust
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Thresholds
(Tier 1/ Tier 2)* 137 2.5/6.3 -- -- 7.0 0.13/0.32 -- 2.25 Project Construction
Emissions
91.7 0.85 3.02 0.058 5.58 0.001 -- 0.023
Threshold Exceeded
for Emissions? No No/No -- -- No No/No -- No
Notes:
ROG – Reactive organic gases, NOx – Oxides of nitrogen, PM10 – Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, PM 2.5 – Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, CO – Carbon Monoxide, SO2 – Sulfur Dioxide
* SLOAPCD, 2012
-- Not applicable
Table 3. Estimated Project Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Peak Emissions
ROG + NOx PM10 DPM Fugitive Dust
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Daily
(lbs.)
Quarterly
(tons)
Operational Phase* 25 25 25 25 1.25 -- -- 25
Project Operational
Emissions
5.9 0.41 0.27 0.02 0.55 0.034 0.00 0.00
Threshold Exceeded
for Emissions? No No No No No No No No
Notes:
ROG – Reactive organic gases, NOx – Oxides of nitrogen, PM10 – Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less, PM 2.5 – Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less, CO – Carbon Monoxide, SO2 – Sulfur Dioxide
* SLOAPCD, 2012
-- Not applicable
As shown in Tables 2 and 3, implementation of the Project is not expected to result in an exceedance of SLOAPCD construction or operational thresholds. The emissions analysis spreadsheets and the basis of criteria pollutant emissions analysis are provided in Appendix A.
IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 5 -
Table 4. Estimated Project Construction GHG Emissions
Phase N2O
(Tons/Year)
CH4
(Tons/Year)
CO2
(Tons/Year)
MTCO2E
(Per Year)
Construction Emissions 0.019 0.053 335.4 310.3
SLOAPCD MTCO2E Bright Line Threshold 1,150
Threshold Exceeded? No
Table 5. Estimated Project Operational GHG Emissions
Phase N2O
(Tons/Year)
CH4
(Tons/Year)
CO2
(Tons/Year)
MTCO2E
(Per Year)
Operational Emissions 0.123 12.85 1,174 1,421
SLOAPCD MTCO2E Bright Line Threshold 1,150
SLOAPCD MTCO2E Threshold Exceeded? Yes
Service Population 353
MTCO2E Emission Per Service Population Per Year 4.0
Efficiency Threshold per Service Population 4.9
Threshold Exceeded? No
MTCO2E Per Year (Operational + Amortized Construction) 4.0 Efficiency Threshold per Service Population 4.9
Threshold Exceeded? No
The Project’s GHG construction emissions do not exceed the SLOAPCD emissions threshold of 1,150 MTCO2E per year for the Project construction phase. The operational phase emissions do exceed the SLOAPCD Bright Line threshold of 1,150 MTCO2E per year, but do not exceed the SLOAPCD emissions threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E per service population.
Additionally, the operational phase emissions plus the amortized construction emissions do exceed the SLOAPCD Bright Line threshold of 1,150 MTCO2E per year, but do not exceed the SLOAPCD emissions threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E per service population. The emissions analysis spreadsheets and the basis of criteria pollutant emissions analysis are provided in Appendix A.
Required Construction Mitigation Measures
The Project is located within 1,000 feet of several sensitive receptors and is proposed to grade 6.21 acres. Per the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the construction phase of the Project would at a minimum be required to implement the following SLOAPCD Mitigation Measures:
Fugitive PM10 Mitigation Measures. The following measures shall be implemented during construction activities to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
• Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minue period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 6 -
be used whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an SLOAPCDapproved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control.
• All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
• Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
• Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
• All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. • “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified.
• Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water used where feasible.
Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 7 -
• All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans. • The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition.
CRITIERA POLLUTENT IMPACT ANALYSIS
Based on an analysis of the Project scope and the criteria pollutant emissions calculation results, the Project construction and operational phases would not conflict with the SLOAPCD’s 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP), violate any air quality standard, substantially contribute to any air current quality violation, or generate a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants O3 and PM10. The sections below provide a discussion of the results of the analysis.
Construction Phase
Criteria pollutant emissions would be generated by equipment used for the construction phase of the Project. These emissions include NOx and ROGs which are considered O3 precursors, potentially resulting in atmospheric O3 formation. The County is currently in nonattainment status for both the 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards (SLOAPCD, 2023).
Emissions would also include PM10 for which the County is in non-attainment status (SLOAPCD, 2023). The construction phase would include diesel powered backhoes, bulldozers, compactors, cranes, excavators, graders, loader, lifts, paving machines, scrapers and a skid steer. All equipment used during the Project would have Tier 3 and Tier 4 compliant engines.
Emissions resulting from Project construction equipment would temporarily increase local pollutant concentrations. Daily or quarterly emissions would not exceed SLOAPCD thresholds; therefore, the incremental increases in NOx, ROGs, and PM10 that would contribute to non-attainment would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, the Project would implement the required Fugitive PM10 Mitigation Measures during construction activities to further minimize PM10 generation from fugitive dust at the Project site. Therefore, the Project construction activities would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the CAP, violate any emissions standards, or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Criteria pollutants and odors from fuel combustion would be generated by the construction equipment but would be temporary during construction activities. Odors would likely dissipate quickly in the open air. The contractor or builder will locate equipment staging area at locations on site that are furthest from adjacent sensitive receptors. Dust would be mitigated by implementation of the Fugitive PM10 Mitigation Measures. Therefore, the Project IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 8 -
would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Operational Phase
Criteria pollutant emissions during the operational phase would primarily be generated by resident vehicle trips. Daily or quarterly emissions would not exceed SLOAPCD thresholds; therefore, the incremental increases in NOx, ROGs, and PM10 that would contribute to nonattainment would not be cumulatively considerable. The Project operational phase would also not violate any emissions standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The SLOAPCD indicates that a Project is consistent with the CAP if it shows conformance with land use and transportation control measures and strategies. The control measures and strategies that are applicable to the Project consists of the following:
Local and Regional Transit System Improvements. The purpose of this measure is to encourage the use of public transportation. The area of the Project Site is serviced by the San Luis Obispo RTA. Access to the RTA is located within walking distance of the Project Site.
Easy access to the RTA would result in increased use of public transportation.
Bicycling and Bikeway Improvements. The purpose of this measure is to increase the County average use to bicycle modal share of five percent or more. The Project Site is located in an area of the City that has access to numerous Class II bicycle lanes.
Traffic Flow Improvements and Circulation Management. The purpose of this measure is to improve traffic flow to allow improved non-motorized transportation. The Project would include improvements to Creston Road to enhance traffic flow.
Compact Communities and Mixed Land Use Planning. The general purpose of these strategies is to regulate growth to reduce dependence on motorized transportation and provide a mix of compatible land uses that will encourage the use of non-motorized transportation. The area of the Project Site is located at a convenient proximity to public transportation, retail stores, private schools, public schools, and religious institutions, which will increase the likelihood the residents will use non-motorized transportation and public transportation.
Jobs and Housing Planning. The purpose of this strategy is to ensure that there is housing available near areas of potential employment opportunities. The Project proposes 135 affordable dwelling units. As indicated above the Project is located within close proximity to public transportation, retail stores, private schools, public schools, and religious institutions.
The Project would not conflict with any of the applicable control measures and strategies, therefore, would be consistent with the CAP.
Criteria pollutants and odors generated by the operational phase would be similar to the criteria pollutants and odors generated by the adjacent residential properties to the northwest, east and southeast of the Project Site; therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 9 -
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
GHG IMPACT ANALYSIS
Based on an analysis of the Project scope and the GHG emissions calculation results the Project construction and operational phases would not conflict with an applicable clean air plan or generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. The sections below provide a discussion of the results of the analysis.
Construction Phase
GHG emissions would be generated by equipment used for the construction phase of the Project. The construction phase would include diesel powered backhoes, bulldozers, compactors, cranes, excavators, graders, loader, lifts, paving machines, scrapers and a skid steer. All equipment used during the Project would have Tier 3 and Tier 4 compliant engines.
Based on the emissions calculations, Project construction activities would emit a total of approximately 310.3 MTCO2E for the Project, which is well below the SLOAPCD GHG Bright Line threshold of 1,150 MTCO2E. The Project construction activities would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment.
Since the Project would not exceed the Bright Line Threshold the Project would not conflict with the CAP.
Operational Phase
GHG emissions during the operational phase would primarily be generated by resident vehicle trips. Based on the emissions calculations, Project operations would emit a total of approximately 1,421 MTCO2E per year for the Project, which slightly exceeds the SLOAPCD GHG Bright Line threshold of 1,150 MTCO2E per year. However, based on a service population of 353 the Project would emit 4.0 MTCO2E per service population per year, which is below the SLOAPCD Efficiency Threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E per service population per year; therefore, Project operations would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. In addition, the operational emissions plus the amortized construction emissions were also estimated to be 4.0 MTCO2E per service population per year would exceed the SLOAPCD Efficiency Threshold of 4.9 MTCO2E per service population per year. Since the Project would not exceed the Efficiency Threshold the Project for operational emissions or operational emission plus the amortized construction emissions the Project would not conflict with the CAP, Updated Strategic Action Plan Update, or City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan (PRCAP).
IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 10 -
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of this analysis implementation of the Project will not result in the following:
• Conflict with applicable clean air plans;
• Violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.
• A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant (including ozone precursors) for which the County is in non-attainment status under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. • Generation of GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.
CLOSURE
If you have any questions or require additional information regarding the Analysis, please contact Mr. Robert Vander Weele at (805) 748-8605 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Padre Associates, Inc.
Robert Vander Weele, P.G.
Senior Geologist
Attachments:
References
Appendix A – Emissions Model Tables
IS/MND Attachment 4
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
Project Number 2202-0712
- 11 -
REFERENCES
Central Coast Transportation Consulting, 2022, Rolling Hills Draft Transportation Impact Study.
County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2001. 2001 Clean Air Plan. December 2001.
. 2012a. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review.
. 2012b. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence. . 2012c. 2012-2017 Strategic Action Plan Update.
. 2023. Attainment Status, Accessed on February 13, 2023 at:
https://www.slocleanair.org/air-quality/about.php.
Environ International Corporation (Environ). 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide, Appendix D, Default Data Tables.
IS/MND Attachment 4
APPENDIX A
EMISSIONS MODEL TABLES
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 DPM CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 DPM CO SO2 Fugitive Dust N2O CH4 CO2
87.30 4.36 5.13 3.02 5.58 101.71 0.48 5.23 4.73 48,749 0.774 0.071 0.058 0.039 0.001 1.352 0.003 0.023 0.019 0.053 335.4 310.3
5.13 3.02 5.58 101.71 0.48 5.23 4.73 48,749 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ‐‐ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.774 0.071 0.058 0.039 0.001 1.352 0.003 0.023 0.019 0.053 335.4 310.3 SLOAPCD Significance Thresholds -- -- 7.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.13/0.32 -- -- 2.25 -- -- -- --Threshold exceeded? -- -- No -- -- -- -- -- -- -- No/No -- -- No -- -- -- -- 273 28 1 --
- Global Warming Potentials (273 for N2O, 27.9 for CH4, and 1 for CO2, Table 7.SM.6, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Sixth Assessment Report SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control DistrictMTCO2e - Metric Tons if Carbon Dioxide Equivalent NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen ROG - Reactive Organic GasesPM2.5 - Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less PM10 - Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less
DPM - Diesel Particulate MatterCO - Carbon MonoxideSO2 - Sulfur Dioxide N2O - Nitrous Oxide
CH4 - Methane
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
2.5/6.3
No/No
Peak Day within San Luis Obispo County
1,150
Emissions within San Luis Obispo County
137
No
GHG - MTCO2 e conversions
Total MTCO 2 e Per Year
Notes:
Peak Day Emissions, lbs/day
310.3
No
Source
Construction Phase
91.7 SLOAPCD MTCO2e Per Year Significance Threshold
Threshold exceeded?
MTCO2e
Quarterly Emissions, tons Annual Emissions, tons/yr
--
Project Number: 2202-0712 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 2: OPERATION EMISSIONS SUMMARY NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 DPM CO SO2 Fugitive* Dust N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 DPM CO SO2 Fugitive Dust* N2O CH4 CO2 MTCO2e
3.50 2.45 0.27 0.27 0.55 103.73 0.07 0.000 0.50 0.36 7229 0.326 0.083 0.017 0.017 0.034 1.220 0.063 0.000 0.123 12.847 1174 1,421
0.27 0.27 0.55 103.73 0.07 0.00 0.50 0.36 7,229 ---- -- --- ‐ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.326 0.083 0.017 0.017 0.034 1.220 0.063 0.000 0.123 12.847 1,174 1,421 SLOAPCD Significance Thresholds 25 -- 1.25 550 -- -- -- -- 25 -- -- -- -- 25 -- -- -- --Threshold exceeded? No -- No No -- -- -- -- No -- -- -- -- No -- -- -- -- 273 28 1 --
- Global Warming Potentials (273 for N2O, 27.9 for CH4, and 1 for CO2, Table 7.SM.6, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. Sixth Assessment Report * No significant sources of fugitive dust are expected therefore fugitive dust emissions are assumed to be negligible.
MTCO2e - Metric Tons if Carbon Dioxide Equivalent SLOAPCD - San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control DistrictNOx - Oxides of Nitrogen ROG - Reactive Organic GasesPM2.5 - Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less Assumptions:
PM10 - Particulate Matter 10 Microns or Less Operations assumed 7 days per week.
DPM - Diesel Particulate MatterCO - Carbon MonoxideSO2 - Sulfur Dioxide N2O - Nitrous Oxide
CH4 - Methane
CO2 - Carbon Dioxide
Amortized Construction Emissions Per Year 6.2
Total MTCO 2 e Per Year (Operational + Amortized Construction) 1,427 Threshold exceeded? No
MTCO2e Emission Per Service Population Per Year 4.0
Emissions Threshold Per Service Population Per Year 4.9 353
Threshold exceeded?
Annual Emissions (tons/yr)
25 No
GHG - MTCO 2 e conversions
Annual Emissions within San Luis Obispo County
Source
Operation Phase
Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day)
Peak Day within San Luis Obispo County
--
5.9 25
No
Total MTCO 2 e Per Year
SLOAPCD MTCO2e Per Year Significance Threshold
1,4211,150
Yes
4.04.9 No
Notes:
Threshold Exceeded?
Service Population
MTCO2e Emission Per Service Population Per Year
Emissions Threshold Per Service Population Per Year
Project Number: 2202-0712 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 3: Grading Phase On-Site Sources
Source BHP Load Factor Number Hours/ Day* Duration (days) NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Asphalt Fugitive -- -- 1 0 0 -- 2.600 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0E+00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0E+00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Backhoe-1 97 37 1 8 40 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.154 475 0.165 0.038 0.005 0.005 2.342 0.003 0.003 0.097 300.8 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.002 6.015Backhoe-2 97 38 1 8 10 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.154 475 1.781 0.078 0.125 0.125 2.405 0.003 0.003 0.100 308.9 0.009 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.544Compressor 78 48 1 0 0 3.400 0.489 0.224 0.224 3.698 0.006 0.004 0.044 568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Crane 231 29 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dozer-1 247 43 1 8 40 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.487 0.112 0.015 0.015 4.121 0.009 0.008 0.287 885.9 0.010 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.006 17.72 Dozer-2 247 43 1 8 10 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.487 0.112 0.015 0.015 4.121 0.009 0.008 0.287 885.9 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.001 4.430 Dozer-3 247 43 1 8 10 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 4.346 0.225 0.165 0.165 4.870 0.009 0.008 0.287 885.9 0.022 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.001 4.430 Excavator-1 158 38 1 8 30 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.275 0.064 0.008 0.008 3.918 0.005 0.004 0.162 500.1 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.002 7.502 Excavator-2 158 38 1 8 39 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.275 0.064 0.008 0.008 3.918 0.005 0.004 0.162 500.1 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.003 9.752 Forklift-1 89 20 1 0 0 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Forklift-2 89 20 1 0 0 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Forklift-3 89 20 1 0 0 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Generator 84 74 1 0 0 3.173 0.364 0.179 0.179 3.380 0.006 0.004 0.032 568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Grader 187 41 1 8 30 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.154 475 0.352 0.081 0.011 0.011 2.975 0.007 0.006 0.208 642.7 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.003 9.641 Loader-1 97 36 1 8 40 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.151 466 0.160 0.037 0.005 0.005 2.279 0.003 0.003 0.093 286.8 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.002 5.736 Loader-2 97 36 1 8 10 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.151 466 1.688 0.074 0.118 0.118 2.279 0.003 0.003 0.093 286.8 0.008 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.434 Paving Equipment-1 132 36 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.152 471 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Paving Equipment-2 132 36 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.152 471 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Paving Machine-1 130 42 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Paving Machine-2 130 42 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Paving Roller-1 80 38 1 0 0 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 474 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Paving Roller-2 80 38 1 0 0 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 474 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Scraper-1 367 48 1 8 30 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 7.208 0.373 0.273 0.273 8.078 0.016 0.013 0.475 1,467 0.108 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.007 22.01 Scraper-2 367 48 1 8 30 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 7.208 0.373 0.273 0.273 8.078 0.016 0.013 0.475 1,467 0.108 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.007 22.01Water Truck-1 225 48 1 8 40 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.495 0.114 0.015 0.015 4.191 0.010 0.008 0.291 899.4 0.010 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.006 17.99Welders 46 45 1 0 0 4.304 0.937 0.238 0.238 4.840 0.007 0.004 0.084 568 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
24.93 1.745 1.038 1.038 53.57 0.099 0.083 3.018 9,317 0.299 0.023 0.012 0.012 0.749 0.001 0.001 0.042 130.2 On-Road Sources
Source
Peak
Round
Trips/Day
Average
Round
Trips/Day
Number of
Vehicles
Length
of
Round
Trip
(miles)
Duration
(days) NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Passenger Vehicle - LDA (offsite) 1 1 13 60 40 0.062 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.841 0.003 0.006 0.003 293 0.104 0.022 0.002 0.002 1.419 0.005 0.010 0.005 493.8 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.875 Light-Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite) 1 1 4 60 40 0.069 0.014 0.007 0.006 0.137 0.003 0.052 0.001 331 0.039 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.077 0.002 0.029 0.000 186.2 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 3.724Med-Heavy Duty - T6 Utility (offsite) 1 1 1 60 8 0.817 0.016 0.004 0.004 0.072 0.011 0.178 0.001 1128 0.108 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.024 0.000 149.2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.597Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 2 60 8 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1675 0.524 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.035 0.004 0.070 0.000 443.1 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.772Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 1 60 8 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1675 0.262 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.017 0.002 0.035 0.000 221.5 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.886Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 21 60 30 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1675 5.504 0.076 0.057 0.055 0.367 0.044 0.733 0.004 4,652 0.083 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.011 0.000 69.787Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 13 60 1 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1675 3.407 0.047 0.035 0.034 0.227 0.027 0.454 0.002 2,880 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.440Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 9 60 1 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1675 2.359 0.033 0.025 0.023 0.157 0.019 0.314 0.002 1,994 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.997
12.31 0.20 0.13 0.13 2.31 0.105 1.668 0.014 11,020 0.092 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.036 0.001 0.013 0.000 89.08 Notes:- Hours per day and durations estimated or provided by Project Applicant.- Round trips for supplies deliveries estimated from within the San Luis Obispo County (60-miles).- Round trips for LDA and LDT2 is estimated from within the San Luis Obispo County 60-miles).- Estimated trucks to transport of Rental Equipment from within San Luis Obispo County, 60 mile round trip.-Round trips to transport waste estimated from within the San Luis Obispo (60-miles)* asphalt in acres.
Total
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) Emissions (lb/day) Total Emissions (tons) Total
Emission Factors (g/mile) Peak Day Emissions (lb/day) Total Emissions (tons) Project Number: 2202-0712 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 4: Building Construction and Paving Phase On-Site Sources
Source BHP Load Factor Number Hours/ Day* Duration (days) NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Asphalt Fugitive -- -- 1 0.145 15 -- 2.600 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.3E-06 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.2E-08 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Backhoe-1 97 37 1 8 333 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.154 475 0.165 0.038 0.005 0.005 2.342 0.003 0.003 0.097 300.8 0.027 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.390 0.001 0.000 0.016 50.08Backhoe-2 97 38 1 0 0 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.154 475 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Compressor 78 48 1 6 333 3.400 0.489 0.224 0.224 3.698 0.006 0.004 0.044 568 1.684 0.242 0.111 0.111 1.831 0.003 0.002 0.022 281.4 0.280 0.040 0.018 0.018 0.305 0.000 0.000 0.004 46.86 Crane 231 29 1 7 333 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 2.398 0.124 0.091 0.091 2.688 0.005 0.004 0.158 488.9 0.399 0.021 0.015 0.015 0.448 0.001 0.001 0.026 81.41 Dozer-1 247 43 1 0 0 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dozer-2 247 43 1 0 0 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Dozer-3 247 43 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Excavator-1 158 38 1 0 0 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Excavator-2 158 38 1 0 0 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Forklift-1 89 20 1 8 333 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.082 0.019 0.003 0.003 1.162 0.002 0.001 0.048 148.0 0.014 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.008 24.65 Forklift-2 89 20 1 8 333 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.860 0.038 0.060 0.060 1.162 0.002 0.001 0.048 148.0 0.143 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.008 24.65 Forklift-3 89 20 1 8 333 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.860 0.038 0.060 0.060 1.162 0.002 0.001 0.048 148.0 0.143 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.193 0.000 0.000 0.008 24.65 Generator 84 74 1 8 333 3.173 0.364 0.179 0.179 3.380 0.006 0.004 0.032 568 3.479 0.399 0.196 0.196 3.706 0.007 0.005 0.035 623.0 0.579 0.066 0.033 0.033 0.617 0.001 0.001 0.006 103.7 Grader 187 41 1 0 0 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.154 475 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Loader-1 97 36 1 8 333 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.151 466 0.160 0.037 0.005 0.005 2.279 0.003 0.003 0.093 286.8 0.027 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.379 0.001 0.000 0.015 47.75 Loader-2 97 36 1 8 333 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.151 466 1.688 0.074 0.118 0.118 2.279 0.003 0.003 0.093 286.8 0.281 0.012 0.020 0.020 0.379 0.001 0.000 0.015 47.75 Paving Equipment-1 132 36 1 8 15 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.152 471 1.944 0.101 0.094 0.094 3.101 0.004 0.004 0.127 394.5 0.015 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.001 2.959 Paving Equipment-2 132 36 1 8 15 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.152 471 1.944 0.101 0.094 0.094 3.101 0.004 0.004 0.127 394.5 0.015 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.001 2.959 Paving Machine-1 130 42 1 8 15 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 2.234 0.116 0.108 0.108 3.563 0.005 0.004 0.147 455.3 0.017 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.001 3.415 Paving Machine-2 130 42 1 8 15 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 473 2.234 0.116 0.108 0.108 3.563 0.005 0.004 0.147 455.3 0.017 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.001 3.415 Paving Roller-1 80 38 1 8 15 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 474 1.469 0.064 0.103 0.103 1.984 0.003 0.002 0.082 254.1 0.011 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.905 Paving Roller-2 80 38 1 8 15 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.004 0.153 474 1.469 0.064 0.103 0.103 1.984 0.003 0.002 0.082 254.1 0.011 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.001 1.905Scraper-1 367 48 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Scraper-2 367 48 1 0 0 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000Water Truck-1 225 48 1 8 333 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.004 0.153 472 0.495 0.114 0.015 0.015 4.191 0.010 0.008 0.291 899.4 0.082 0.019 0.003 0.003 0.698 0.002 0.001 0.049 149.7Welders 46 45 1 8 333 4.304 0.937 0.238 0.238 4.840 0.007 0.004 0.084 568 1.571 0.342 0.087 0.087 1.767 0.003 0.002 0.031 207.5 0.262 0.057 0.014 0.014 0.294 0.000 0.000 0.005 34.54
24.737 2.026 1.361 1.361 41.86 0.064 0.052 1.678 6,026 2.323 0.248 0.130 0.130 4.220 0.007 0.006 0.166 652.4 On-Road Sources
Source
Peak
Round
Trips/Day
Average
Round
Trips/Day
Number of
Vehicles
Length
of
Round
Trip
(miles)
Duration
(days) NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Passenger Vehicle - LDA (offsite) 1 1 20 60 333 0.062 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.841 0.003 0.006 0.003 293 0.160 0.034 0.004 0.003 2.170 0.007 0.015 0.008 755.2 0.027 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.361 0.001 0.003 0.001 125.7 Light-Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite) 1 1 7 60 333 0.069 0.014 0.007 0.006 0.137 0.003 0.052 0.001 331 0.059 0.012 0.006 0.006 0.117 0.003 0.045 0.001 284.8 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.020 0.000 0.007 0.000 47.42Med-Heavy Duty - T6 Utility (offsite) 1 1 2 60 67 0.817 0.016 0.004 0.004 0.072 0.011 0.178 0.001 1,128 0.216 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.019 0.003 0.047 0.000 298.3 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.000 9.935Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 5 60 333 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1,675 1.310 0.018 0.014 0.013 0.087 0.010 0.175 0.001 1,108 0.218 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.015 0.002 0.029 0.000 184.4Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 35 60 15 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1,675 9.173 0.127 0.095 0.091 0.61 0.073 1.222 0.006 7,754 0.069 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.009 0.000 58.16Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 20 60 15 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1,675 5.242 0.073 0.054 0.052 0.35 0.042 0.698 0.003 4,431 0.039 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.005 0.000 33.23Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 1 60 67 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1,675 0.262 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.017 0.002 0.035 0.000 222 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 7.378Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 15 60 1 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1,675 3.931 0.054 0.041 0.039 0.262 0.031 0.524 0.003 3,323 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.662Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) 1 1 19 60 1 1.981 0.027 0.021 0.020 0.132 0.016 0.264 0.001 1,675 4.980 0.069 0.052 0.050 0.332 0.040 0.663 0.003 4,209 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.105
25.33 0.40 0.27 0.26 3.96 0.212 3.423 0.025 22,385 0.383 0.013 0.005 0.005 0.404 0.005 0.057 0.002 470.1 Notes:- Hours per day and durations estimated or provided by Project Applicant.- Round trips for supplies deliveries estimated from within the San Luis Obispo County (60-miles).- Round trips for LDA and LDT2 is estimated from within the San Luis Obispo County 60-miles). 17.2- Estimated trucks to transport of Rental Equipment from within San Luis Obispo County, 60 mile round trip.-Round trips to transport waste estimated from within the San Luis Obispo (60-miles)* asphalt in acres.
Total
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) Emissions (lb/day) Total Emissions (tons) Total
Emission Factors (g/mile) Peak Day Emissions (lb/day) Total Emissions (tons) Project Number: 2202-0712 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 5: Construction Phase / Operation Phase - Fugitive Dust Emissions Grading
PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5
Site Grading 4.0 acres/day 40 0.429 lbs PM10/day/acre 1.716 0.156 0.034 0.003 Truck Loading & Dumping (Grading Phase) 477 tons/day 40 1.72E‐04 lbs/ton 0.082 0.012 0.002 0.000 Vehicle Miles Off‐Road 2 vehicle‐miles/day 40 1.17 lbs/vehicle‐mile 2.331 0.233 0.047 0.005
2.331 0.233 0.083 0.008
Fugitive Dust Emissions: Inputs for the Table
Emission factors based on following inputs
Mean number of rain days per year 0 worst case
Silt content of soil, fill storage pile, % 1.5 SCAQMD default value Roadway inputs (paved and unpaved, as per URBEMIS)
Roads mean vehicle weight, tons 20.61 based on project description, HHDT + LDT and vehicles weight (average of full and empty) unpaved dirt road silt content, % 8.4 AP‐42 construction sites Truck Loading inputs
k, particle size multiplier, default=0.35 fpr pm10 0.35 U, mean wind speed, mph range 1.3‐15 8.15M, moisture content, default=12% 12PM2.5/PM10 ratio truck loading 0.15 Site grading emissions from CalEEMod for grading 0.091 ratio of PM2.5/PM10 CalEEModDemolition materials, tons/yds3 1.000 estimated for concrete debrisFill materials, tons/yds3 1.000 estimated for soilsMitigation: demolition area watering (fraction reduction) 0.61 0.61 for watering every 3 hours (SCAQMD)Mitigation: grading/dist area watering (fraction reduction) 0.61 0.61 for watering every 3 hours (SCAQMD)Mitigation: dumping soil moisture (fraction reduction) 0.69 0.69 for minimum 12% soil moisture (SCAQMD) Mitigation: storage piles (fraction reduction) 0.90 0.90 for watering by hand and covering (SCAQMD) Mitigation: roads (fraction reduction) 0.55 0.55 for watering 3X per day (SCAQMD), 0.80 for soil binders applied monthly (AP‐42) Notes:
PM2.5/PM10 ratio as per AP‐42 k factor for PM10 and PM2.5Demolition dust calculations as per EPA AP‐42 11.19 and 13.2.4 Truck loading dumping cut/fill based on CalEEModStorage pile emissions based on SCAQMD Handbook (URBEMIS does not address emissions from storage piles) Paved and unpaved road dust emissions based on AP‐42 2006 (unpaved) Chapt 13. EPA AP‐42 2006 is the same as URBEMS and CalEEMod One month assumes 22 days of activity, as per URBEMIS
Number of
Days Emission Factor
Emission Factor,
Units
Peak Day Emissions (lbs/day) Total Emissions (tons)
Max/Total
Activity Source Source Units
Project Number: 2202-0712 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 6: Operations Landscaping Equipment Sources
Source BHP Load Factor Number Hours/ Day Duration (days) NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Ridding Lawn Mower 25 33 1 4 26 5.430 7.641 0.370 0.370 543.131 0.021 0.004 0.429 858.879 0.395 0.556 0.027 0.027 39.51 0.002 0.000 0.031 62.48 0.005 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.514 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.812 Trimmer 5 91 1 3 26 8.589 19.581 0.338 0.338 380.309 0.029 0.004 1.101 858.879 0.258 0.589 0.010 0.010 11.44 0.001 0.000 0.033 25.85 0.003 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.149 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.336Leaf Blower 5 94 2 4 26 2.987 12.022 1.861 1.861 480.736 0.029 0.004 0.676 858.880 0.248 0.997 0.154 0.154 39.85 0.002 0.000 0.056 71.20 0.003 0.013 0.002 0.002 0.518 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.926
0.901 2.142 0.191 0.191 90.8 0.005 0.001 0.120 159.5 0.012 0.028 0.002 0.002 1.181 0.0001 0.000 0.002 2.074 On-Road Sources
Source Peak Round Trips/Day Average Round Trips/Day Number of Vehicles Length of Round Trip (miles) Duration (days) NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Passenger Vehicle - LDA (offsite) 1 1 653 10 365 0.062 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.841 0.003 0.006 0.003 293 0.891 0.190 0.020 0.018 12.10 0.042 0.085 0.0467 4,212 0.163 0.035 0.004 0.003 2.209 0.008 0.016 0.009 768.6 Light-Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite) 1 1 218 10 365 0.069 0.014 0.007 0.006 0.137 0.003 0.052 0.001 331 0.329 0.069 0.032 0.031 0.655 0.015 0.250 0.0032 1,588 0.060 0.013 0.006 0.006 0.120 0.003 0.046 0.001 289.9Med-Heavy Duty - T6 Utility (offsite) 1 1 2 10 26 0.817 0.016 0.004 0.004 0.072 0.011 0.178 0.001 1,128 0.036 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.008 0.0000 49.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.646 Heavy Duty Trucks - T7TC (offsite) 1 1 2 22 52 10.10 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.041 0.039 0.649 0.001 4,121 0.979 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.004 0.063 0.0001 399.8 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 10.39
2.235 0.261 0.054 0.051 12.76 0.061 0.406 0.0500 6,249.4 0.249 0.047 0.010 0.009 2.328 0.010 0.063 0.009 1,069.5 Land Use Sources
Electricity Use
Source Units or Sq Feet Electricity Use kW/units/yr Electricity Lighting Use kW/units/yr Electricity Water Use kW/yr N2O CH4 CO2 N2O CH4 CO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Residential Areas 135 295.03 810.36 8.695 0.000004 0.00003 0.5279 0.0016 0.0135 215.8 0.0003 0.0025 39.39 Notes:Clubhouse 2,804 5.31 5.51 0.549 0.000004 0.00003 0.5279 0.0003 0.0027 43.89 0.0001 0.0005 8.010 - Equipment, number of personnel, hours and days of operation were estimated.Pool 1,184 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.000004 0.00003 0.5279 0.0000 0.0000 0.013 0.0000 0.0000 0.002 - Square footage and number of units provided by clientParking Lot 43,092 0.000 0.880 0.000 0.000004 0.00003 0.5279 0.0004 0.0034 54.86 0.0001 0.0006 10.01 - Occupancy rate of approximately 100% usedExterior Lighting 6,908 0.000 0.880 0.000 0.000004 0.00003 0.5279 0.0001 0.0006 8.805 0.0000 0.0001 1.607 - Round trips for LDA and LDT2 were estimated.
0.00245 0.02022 323.4 0.00045 0.00369 59.0
Natural Gas
Source kBtu/Unit or SF Units or SF NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Natural Gas Residential 10,164 135 0.042 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.018 0.000 0.001 0.001 53 0.346 0.041 0.028 0.028 0.147 0.002 0.008 0.008 442.3 0.063 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.027 0.000 0.057 0.007 0.005Natural Gas NonResidential 20 2,804 0.044 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.037 0.000 0.001 0.001 53 0.015 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.08 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000
0.362 0.042 0.029 0.029 0.160 0.002 0.008 0.009 460.3 0.066 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.029 0.000 0.060 0.007 0.005 Wastewater Treatment Source
Wastewater
Generated
(gallons/yr)
N2O CH4 CO2 N2O CH4 CO2 N2O CH4 CO2
Project Site 15,359,293 0.0000019 0.0000030 0.00086 0.079 0.125 36.18 0.00004 0.00006 0.01809 Total 0.079 0.125 36.18 0.00004 0.00006 0.01809
Solid WasteSource
Solid Waste
Generated
(tons/yr/unit)
CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2 CH4 CO2
Residential Unit 301.3 0.04257 0.14307 0.0387 0.1302 12.83 43.11
0.0387 0.1302 12.83 43.11
Emission Factor
(tons/ton)
Emissions
(tons/year) Emissions (pound/day)
Emissions
(metric tons/kWh/yr)
Total
Total
Emission Factor
(lb/kWh)
Emission Factor (lb/gal) Emissions (pound/day) Emissions (metric tons/year) Emissions
(lb/kWh/day)
Total
Total Emissions (tons)Total Emissions (tons)
Emission Factors, g/kBTU Emissions (lb/day) Total Emissions (tons) Total Emissions (metric tons) Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) Emissions (lb/day)
Total
Emission Factors (g/mile) Peak Day Emissions (lb/day)
Total
Project Number: 2202-0712 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS & GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - REVISEDTABLE 7: Emission Factors and Assumptions Onsite Construction
Source Tier Operational Horsepower Load Factor NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Asphalt Fugitive EF = lb/acre -- -- -- 2.600 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0057 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Backhoe-1 4 97 37 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.154 475 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0475 Backhoe-2 3 97 38 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.154 475 0.0060 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0475Compressor -- 78 48 3.400 0.489 0.224 0.224 3.698 0.006 0.0042 0.044 568 0.0075 0.0011 0.0005 0.0005 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00010 1.2529 Crane 3 231 29 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.0042 0.153 473 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0057 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0427 Dozer-1 4 247 43 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.0042 0.153 473 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0427 Dozer-2 4 247 43 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.0042 0.153 473 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0427 Dozer-3 3 247 43 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.0042 0.153 473 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0057 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0427 Excavator-1 4 158 38 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0412 Excavator-2 4 158 38 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0412 Forklift-1 4 89 20 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0395Forklift-2 3 89 20 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0060 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0395Forklift-3 3 89 20 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0060 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0395Generator -- 84 74 3.173 0.364 0.179 0.179 3.380 0.006 0.0042 0.032 568 0.0070 0.0008 0.0004 0.0004 0.0075 0.00001 0.00001 0.00007 1.2529Grader 4 187 41 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.0042 0.154 475 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0479 Loader-1 4 97 36 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.151 466 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00033 1.0266 Loader-2 3 97 36 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.151 466 0.0060 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00033 1.0266Paving Equipment-1 3 132 36 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.152 471 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0378Paving Equipment-2 3 132 36 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.152 471 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0378Paving Machine-1 3 130 42 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 473 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0423Paving Machine-2 3 130 42 2.320 0.120 0.112 0.112 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 473 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0423Paving Roller-1 3 80 38 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 474 0.0060 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0447 Paving Roller-2 3 80 38 2.740 0.120 0.192 0.192 3.700 0.005 0.0042 0.153 474 0.0060 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0082 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0447Scraper-1 3 367 48 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0057 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0410 Scraper-2 3 367 48 2.320 0.120 0.088 0.088 2.600 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0051 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0057 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0410 Water Truck-1 4 225 48 0.260 0.060 0.008 0.008 2.200 0.005 0.0042 0.153 472 0.0006 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.00001 0.00001 0.00034 1.0410Welders -- 46 45 4.304 0.937 0.238 0.238 4.840 0.007 0.0042 0.084 568.3 0.0095 0.0021 0.0005 0.0005 0.0107 0.00002 0.00001 0.00019 1.2529Onsite Construction Source Tier Operational Horsepower Load Factor NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Ridding Lawn Mower -- 25 33 5.430 7.641 0.370 0.370 543 0.021 0.0042 0.429 859 0.0120 0.0168 0.0008 0.0008 1.1974 0.00005 0.00001 0.00095 1.8935 Trimmer -- 5 91 8.589 19.581 0.338 0.338 380 0.029 0.0042 1.101 859 0.0189 0.0432 0.0007 0.0007 0.8384 0.00006 0.00001 0.00243 1.8935 Leaf Blower -- 5 94 2.987 12.022 1.861 1.861 481 0.029 0.0042 0.676 859 0.0066 0.0265 0.0041 0.0041 1.0598 0.00006 0.00001 0.00149 1.8935Onsite Source Tier Operational Horsepower Load Factor NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Natural Gas Residential -- -- -- 0.041802 0.004892 0.003380 0.003380 0.017788 0.000267 0.000978 0.001023 53.363808 0.000092 0.000011 0.000007 0.000007 0.000039 0.000001 0.000002 0.000002 0.117647 Natural Gas NonResidential -- -- -- 0.044470 0.004892 0.003380 0.003380 0.037355 0.000267 0.000978 0.001023 53.363808 0.000098 0.000011 0.000007 0.000007 0.000082 0.000001 0.000002 0.000002 0.117647Offsite Source Tier NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2 N2O CH4 CO2 Passenger Vehicle - LDA (offsite) -- 0.0619 0.0132 0.0014 0.0013 0.8413 0.0029 0.0059 0.0032 293 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0019 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.6455 Light-Duty Truck - LDT2 (offsite) -- 0.0687 0.0144 0.0068 0.0065 0.1367 0.0031 0.0522 0.0007 331 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.00001 0.00012 0.00000 0.7303 Med-Heavy Duty - T6 Utility (offsite) -- 0.8171 0.0159 0.0043 0.0041 0.0716 0.0107 0.1777 0.0007 1128 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.00002 0.00039 0.00000 2.4862 Heavy Duty Haul Truck - T7T (offsite) -- 1.9814 0.0274 0.0206 0.0197 0.1320 0.0159 0.2639 0.0013 1675 0.0044 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.00003 0.00058 0.00000 3.6925Heavy Duty Trucks - T7TC (offsite) -- 10.0957 0.0149 0.0150 0.0144 0.0414 0.0390 0.6493 0.0007 4121 0.0223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.00009 0.00143 0.00000 9.0859 Electricity Emission Factors
Source N2O CH4 CO2
Electricity Usage 0.000004 0.00003 0.5279Electricity Use by Land Use Electricity Lighting Electricity
295 810 Notes:
5.31 5.51 - Equipment list and engine sizes estimated. 0.00 0.00 - Equipment criteria pollutant emission factors and load factors were obtained from CalEEMod, Appendix D 2021.0.00 0.88 - Landscape equipment load factors obtained from Median Life, Annual Activity, and Load Factor Values for Nonroad Engine Emissions Modeling, 2010, EPA0.00 0.88 - Electricity and Natural Gas Emission Factors were obtained from CalEEMod, Appendix D 2021. - Electricity Use by Land Use obtained from CalEEMod, Appendix D 2021.
Natural Gas Use by Land Use - N2O emission factors for equipment were obtained from CFR Part 98 Table C-2 and CalEEMod Appendix D- 20164. Kg/mmbtu was converted to kg/bhp-hr using a diesel energy density of 7000 btu/hp-hr. kBtu/Unit
8,907 - Vehicle emissions factors obtained from EMFAC-2021 - Solid waste and waste water emission factors and waste disposal rates obtained from CalEEMod Appendix D 2021 Solid Waste Disposal Rate - Water use rates and wastewater treatment rates obtained from CalEEMod Appendix D 2021 Source Region Rate (tons/yr) - Waste disposal rates obtained from CalRecycle’s estimated solid waste generation rates Residential Unit Statewide 2.2
Solid Waste Emissions FactorsLandfill Type CH4 (tons/ton) CO2 (tons/ton) No Landfill Gas Collection 0.042565854 0.143068564 Yes
Water Use RatesSource Units or Square Feet
Indoor Water
Use (gal/unit or
gal/Square Feet
per yr)
Outdoor
Water Use (gal/unit or
gal/Square
Feet per yr)
Total Indoor
Water Use
(gal)
Total
Outdoor
Water Use
(gal)
Total
Water Use
(gal)
Low Rise Apartments 135 65,154 41,075 8,795,790 5,545,125 14,340,915Clubhouse 2,804 304 19 851,109 54,325 905,434Pool 1,184 59 36 70,025 42,919 112,944 9,716,925 5,642,369 15,359,293
Wastewater Treatment Source N2OCH4 CO2Project Site 0.0000019 0.000003 0.00086Climate Zone 4 Yes
0 Exterior Lighting
Recycling and Composting
Program
Percentage of
Waste Recycled or
Composted
Residential AreasParking Lot
SLO CountySLO County
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) Emission Factors (lb/bhp-hr) Emission Factors (g/mile) Emission Factors (lb/mile)
Emission Factor (lb/gal)
California
Emission Factors (lb/kWhr)
kWhr/Unit per SQF)
Source
Total
Electricity Use Region
Water Use
- CO2 and CH4 emission factors for construction equipment were obtained from CalEEMod Appendix D 2021.
Emission Factors, g/kBTU Emission Factors (lb/kBTU)
Emission Factors (g/bhp-hr) Emission Factors (lb/bhp-hr) Recycling and Composting
Region
Residential Natural Gas Use
SLO County
Source
ClubhousePool
SLO CountySLO County
Project Number: 2202-0711 Page 1 of 1
IS/MND Attachment 4
.010
# !$"$'
%
#
#! '601-.
(5-2/01543-
(" &*"
$$" #%
$
)
)0 '
,G5GEGG
*
#' ,,3>
#&
+/#-#.#)(-5
>
)(-/&.#(!5
(
8
GEMG#
" &-)(,#0 H,
&)),
,0#( 5NGKFG
!
*)
( 3"/,'(= ,#.! , ,
),#
/&./,&)(-/&.#(!
**
. ) %,
'*
.A, ,).
.#)( *),. ),)&&#(! #&&-*,.' (.-&)
.
.."
(),."1 -.
),( ,) , -.)()
(
)&&#(! #&&-)
#(5-))
& -58
-8 ,,35
(, -*)(- .)3)/,, +/ -. ),(/*
.
%,
'*
.A, ,).
.#)( *),., !,
#(!3)/,
, 0#-
-#. *&(-.)
)(-.,/
.'/&.#= '#&3")/-#(!
)'*& 2.LEN)&&#(! #&&-)
5
"0 *,)
/
." )&&)1#(!, *),.8" *, 0#)/-%,
'*
.A, ,).
.#)( *),.-
*,)0#
.)3)/)(
,/,3FEGEGG(
3FEGEGG5-"&&()&)(! ,
, , (
8
!!
"
,)
/
1,#.. ()%., #'*
.(
., *,).
.#)(, *),.
-
)(
(. ,(.#)(&)
# .3)
,
),#
/&./,
-.'(! ' (.*,
.#
- ),., *,).
.#)(
/,#(!
)(-.,/
.#)((
#.3) -)
)
& -%, ,
#((
MHJ88
*),..)#(
&/
7
oĀ
(0 (.),3) &&)%., -1#."
#' . ,-) K#(
" -),!, . ,
oĀ )(
#.#)(-- --' (.) &&#(0 (.),#
(.#0 )%-
oĀ ,#.#
&,)).4)(
&
/&.#)(-
oĀ , *,).
.#)(4)(
&
/&.#)(-
oĀ , #'*
.-- --' (.
oĀ , *,).
.#)(, +/#, ' (.-(
-.(
,
-
oĀ #. '*-1#."., &)
.#)(-
oĀ ").)!,*"-
# &
" *,)*)-
*,)$
.#- ),."
)(-.,/
.#)() '/&.#= '#&3*,.' (.
)'*& 28
"0 *,)*)-
."
, ')0&) F(.#0 )%.,
/ .),)
)(-.,/
.#)((
/(
,!,)/(
/.#&#.3#'*
.-#(
#.#)(.)#
#(!#(*)),
)(
#.#)(8
,
)'' (
.1)(.#0 )%-.)
, .#(
(
*,).
.
8 , , *&
' (.-1#&&
, +/#,
),&&(.#0 )%., -, ')0
."., -#2?K@#(
"
#' . ,
(
&,! ,8
IS/MND Attachment 5
),."#-*,)$
.5 #!".?M@(.#0 )%., -.F8J=#(
"
&#* ,5.1 (.3= )/,=#(
"
)2-#4 ),-#2?K@
(.#0 )%-.G=#(
"
&#* ,5.1 (.3= )/,=#(
"
)2-#4 51#&&
, +/#,
.)
*&(.
# ."
,
)'' (
)%., , ')0&#-**,)0
8
(
(. ,(.#)(&)
# .3) ,
),#
/&./, ,.# #
,
),#-.-"&&)
- ,0 (
**,)0 &&
)(-.,/
.#)(
.#0#.# -*,)*)-
#(),1#."#(J .) ."
,#.#
&,)).4)( ?@) (3(.#0 )%.,
#(!
, .#(
8(31),%)/.-#
." 1#&&()., +/#, ,
),#-.)0 ,-#. 8
*, =
)(-.,/
.#)(' .#(!-"&&
" &
1#."." *,)$
.,
),#-.(
&&*,.# -#(0)&0
#(." *,)$
.8
&&., *,).
.#)( (
#(!5(
., *,).
.#)(' -/, --"&&
#(*&
), (3
)(-.,/
.#)(
.#0#.3
!#(-8
"
#"
" *,)* ,.3#-
)'
#(.#)() - 0 ,&
$
(.&).-1" , -#(!& = '#&3")' - ),' ,&3-.))
8"
&(
"-'(3) #.-),#!#(&
)(.)/,-(
1#&&(
.)
!,
5 #&&
(
)'*
.
#(),
,.)
/#&
)(." -#. 8
,." #.3) -))
& -%, - ,0.#)(,
#((
5&&(.#0 )%., -K=#(
" -#(
#' . ,(
!, . ,5.".1#&&"0
)(-.,/
.#)(#'*
.-#(." ),1#."#(J .) ." '/-.
#(0 (.),#
8
" (.#0 )%., --"&&
, .#(
(
*,).
.
# *)--#
& 8" '$),#.3) ." ., -)(-#. 1 ,
()(=(.#0 -*
# -.".1 , *,.) ),' ,&(
-
* ),1 , 0)&/(. ,-
&#(!-8" , 1 , H
(.#0 &# ),(#)%-1#."
#' . ,-K=#(
" -),!, . ,5!,)1#(!)(." -#. 81)1 , 0&& 3)% ?
@(
F1-
)-.� )%?
** (
#2=,
(0 (.),3(
, ,).
.#)(8 &-)** (
#2=#. *-=*F=,
(0 (.),38
"
&
#' . ,..(
,
#!".? @1-' -/,
.I8J9
)0 !,)/(
8),'/&.#=-. '., -
.".
#0#
&)1I8J95
' -/,
&)1."
#0#-#)(.." (,,)1 -.*)#(.)(." .,/(%8
#.
1-().*)--#
& .)' -/,
&)1."
#0#-#)(5
' -/,
"-. '#(
#0#
/&&35." (
-+/,
."
#' . ,)
"-. '8#(&&35
-/''
." -+/,
#' . ,-(
.))%."
-+/, ,)).) ." -/'.)! .."
#' . ,) ." ., 8
9-1 ,
. ,'#(
3!#0#(!,
#/-) F= )).* , 0 ,3#(
") .,
#' . ,88!85FG=
#(
"
#' . ,., 1)/&
"0 FG= )).,
#/-' -/,
,)'." )/.-#
) ." .,/(%8
( ,&&35., *,).
.#)(4)( ?@
#-.(
- )&&)1."
#-.(
-&#-.
),-8"
2 *.#)(#-# ." , , *,)*)-
., =,)). (
,)
"' (.-#(.)." ) GJQ),& --8
(')-.
- - (
,)
"' (.-) & --."(GJQ
(
&&)1
/(& --." -.,/
./, )," &.") ." .,
1)/&
)'*,)'#-
8
IS/MND Attachment 5
&&., -#(." #(0 (.),31 , !#0 (
)(
#.#)(,.#(!8" ,.#(!1-
-
)(." " &."5
-.,/
./, (
*, - (
)
#- - (
#(-
.-8 ." )&&)1#(!
#(#.#)(-7
•Ā R 0 , &3
&#(#(!),() )&#! 5&,!
,(
" -5
3
0#.# -5&)--)
,%5
,)).-
3
),
8
•Ā !(
!R0#
(
) '/&.#*& &,! *-. #&/, -5
0(
#- - 5/(
)(.,)&&
& * -.
#( -..#)(-),
#- - #(
.#)(8, #(- 0 ,
&#( 8
•Ā
!R, '3
-/**, --
5
,)/!".-., --
5),"
.& -.F&,!
,(
" #&/, 8
#- - ),* -.#( -..#)(-'3
*, - (.8(*). (.#&&3
, .#(
1#.".. (.#)(.)
'#.#!.#)(*,/(#(!5
/&./,&
,
"(! -5* -.(
#- -
)(.,)&8
•Ā !R3"0 "
'#(),*-. #&/, -8)' * -.-),-.,/
./,&
.-'3
*, - (.5
-'&&
1))
8#(),.)')
,.
,)/!".-., --*, - (.8
.-'3
'#.#!.
1#."
*,/(#(!(
* -.-
(
)(.,)&&
8
•Ā R, &.#0 &3" &."3., 1#."'#(),.)()-.,/ ./,&
.-1#."'#(#'&.)()* -.
)
- ,0
8
.-
(
'#.#!.
1#."*,/(#(!(
* -.-
(
)(.,)&&
8
•Ā !( R, -."."0 "
*,) --#)(&,
),#
/&./,&
, 8)-.,/
./,&
.-5
#- - ),* -.-#
(.# #
8
•Ā '
#R*
#' (., 1#."-/* ,#), ),'5,)).-.,/
./, (
" &."8, "-
(
, !/&,&3
,
),
3*,) --#)(&,
),#-.-)0 ,#.-&# .#' 58!85 -.. ),,
), ./'., 8
!
$
"
(.).&5
#(0 (.),#
H(.#0 )%., -1#." -' -/,#(!K#(
" -),!, . ,(
"0#(!
-1#."#(),
$
(..)." *,)*)-
/#&
#(! )).*,#(.-(
)(-.,/
.#)(#'*
., -8"
)'*& . #(0 (.),35#(
&/
#(!., (/'
,-5-*
# -5(
' -/, ' (.-5#-*,)0#
#(
** (
#2=,
(0 (.),3(
, ,).
.#)(8
(/'
,
&&., -#(." # &
1#."' .&
.!1"#
"
..
"
.)." .,/(%.**,)2#'. &3I= .
)0 !,)/(
8!(/'
,---#!(
1 , MG5MHAMI8&&#(0 (.),#
., -1 , *&)..
)(." ,
(0 (.),3*#(
&/
#(
** (
#2#. *->*F8
II=#(
"
#' . ,0&& 3)%&)
.
&)(!)&&#(! #&&-)
5**,)2#'. &3FJE .
(),.") ." #(. ,-
.#)() , -.)()
8 ** (
#2=#. *->*F8" .,
** ,
.)
!,)1#(!#(."
#.3=)1(
,#!".) 13**,)2#'. &3G= . -.) ." *,)* ,.3 &#( 8" .,/(%) ." ., 1-FL= . ,)'."
/,, (.1"#. &#( .."
! ) )&&#(! #&&-
)
8 ** (
#2=").)!,*"-=").)-F=I8
" ., 1-#(
)(
#.#)( ),." )&&)1#(!, -)(-8
•Ā , 1-
,)/!".-., --
1"#
"1-#(
#
.
3
1))
#(#.-
()*3
•Ā , "
.1)&,! 5*, 0#)/-5
,(
" #&/, -
/ .) 2
--#0 (
=1 #!".
•Ā
)1 -.5&,! 5
,
%
(
3
,(
")((),."-#
) ., 1--.,/
./,&&3
/(-.
&
•Ā /' ,)/-5&,!
#' . ,
,(
" -1 , )0 , 2. (
•Ā , "-
(*,/(
),/.#&#.3&#(
& ,(
1"#
""-, ')0
()& --."(GJQ)
." �
()*3)0 ,." 3 ,-8 ** (
#2=").)!,*"->").)-F=I8
IS/MND Attachment 5
FG=#(
"
#' . ,
)-.� )%1-&)
.
.." (
&#( - *,.#(!3)/,
*,)* ,.3 ,)'." LFF)&&#(! #&&-)
*,)* ,.38
),
#(!.)." ., -/,0 3'*5." .,
** ,-.".#.'3
$)#(.&3)1(
3." ( #!"
),#(!*,)* ,.3)1( ,8 ** (
#2=#.
*->*F=,
(0 (.),38 ** (
#2=").)!,*"->").)J8
" ., 1-#(
)(
#.#)( ),." )&&)1#(!, -)(-8
•Ā " ., 1-3)/(!(
"
!))
0#!),
•Ā )().
&
#- - ),* -.#--/ -
•Ā .,/
./,&&35#.1--3'' .,#
&(
"
& (.)." 1 -.1"#
"1-
/-
3
)'* .#.#)( ,)'
$
(.&,! ,., -8
GI=#(
"
#' . ,0&& 3)%1-&)
.
#(." (),." -.-
.#)() ." *,)* ,.3
**,)2#'. &3JE= .1 -.) ." (
&#( 8 ** (
#2=#. *->*F8 ** (
#2
=").)!,*"->").)K8
" ., 1-#(
)(
#.#)( ),." )&&)1#(!, -)(-8
•Ā " ., 1-3)/(!(
"
!))
0#!),
•Ā )().
&
#- - ),* -.#--/ -
•Ā .,/
./,&&35." ., "
-)' '#(),#--/ -1#."
)'* .#(!
,(
" -5
/.." 3
(
'#.#!.
.",)/!"*,/(#(!8
$!
II=#(
"
#' . ,0&& 3)%1#&&, +/#, , ')0&# ."#-*,)$
.#-**,)0
8
"
" !
%
*
•Ā " ., 1-#(*)),
)(
#.#)(8
."-"
.1)'$),
,(
" #&/, -(
()." ,&,!
,(
"
)(." (),."-#
) ." ., #-
,
%
5
3
(
"-"#!"*). (.#&.) #&8/,." ,'), 5
'/&.#*&
,(
" -#(."
()*3, )0 , 2. (
/ .)/.#&#.3*,/(#(!8 ** (
#2=
").)!,*"-=").)-F=I
•Ā ')0#(!." &,!
,(
")(." (),."-#
) ." ., (
,
/
#(!." (/' ,)/-
)0 , 2. (
,(
" -.)'#.#!.
,(
" #&/, "4,
-1)/&
&#'#(. **,)2#'. &3JEQ
) #.-�
()*38" -.(
,
'2#'/' ),�
()*3, ')0&#-GJQ* ,*,/(#(! 0 (.8
')0#(!/*.)JEQ) ."
()*31)/&
/- 2., ' -., --.)." ., 8
•Ā -
)(." -#. (
!,
#(!*&(."#-., 1#&&"0 #'*
.-1#."#(L9) #.-.,/(%8,#.#
&(
-.,/
./,&,)).-1#&&(
.)
/.8*.)JEQ) ." ., 9-1#&&
#'*
.
/ .)
/,
5
!/.. ,(
-., .#'*,)0 ' (.-, +/#,
3."
#.38" ., 1#&&().-/,0#0 ." #'*
.-(
#.-,)).-.
#&#.31)/&
&#% &3
)'*,)'#-
8 ** (
#2=#. *->*-GAH+ &-)
** (
#2=").)!,*"->").)G8
•Ā #0#&*&(--")1
)(0 ,! (
) -.),'
,#(! *#* -.)
#(-.&&
( ."." ., 8"#-
1)/&
)(.,#
/. /,." ,.)."
'! ) ." ,)).-(
." ., -
&#( 8 ** (
#2=#.
*->*H+
IS/MND Attachment 5
•Ā "
)'
#(.#)() ,)). (
,)
"' (.- ,)',)
1#
(#(!(
-#
1&%#(-.&&.#)(-1 &&-
/(
,!,)/(
,#(! #(-.&&.#)((
-#!(# #
(.
()*3,
/
.#)(51)/&
/- #'*
.-.".
."#-., 1)/&
().-/,0#0 8"),.) ."
#.31#0#(!." , +/#, ' (. ),,)
1#
(#(!5
/,
5
!/.. ,(
-#
1&%#'*,)0 ' (.-(
,
-#!(#(!-.),'
,#(! 5
)(9.- 13.)*,).
.
(
*, - ,0 ."#-., 8
""
,#.#
&)).)( -1 ,
. ,'#(
3!#0#(!,
#/-) F= )).* , 0 ,3#(
") .,
#' . ,88!85
FG=#(
"
#' . ,., 1)/&
"0 FG= )).,
#/-' -/,
,)'." )/.-#
) ." .,/(%8
#-.(
- ),-, &#-.
#(." ,
(0 (.),3A, ,).
.#)(.
& #(
&/
#(** (
#28, -
, +/#,#(!,
),#-.-/* ,0#-#)(, &-)
&&
)/.#(." ,
(0 (.),3A, ,).
.#)(.
& 8
(
#(!-"&&
*,)0#
),&&., -&#-.
),., *,).
.#)(#(." #(0 (.),3*,)0#
#(** (
#2
(
-"&&
- .
),
#(!.)-*
# #
.#)(-&#-.
8
." , #-(3
)( /-#)(
)/.1" , .)*&
(
#(!5
)(.
.." *,)$
.,
),#-.5)
( 3"/,'(.MEJGHIMLKE8
, *,).
.#)(-#!(--"&&
*&
)(." (
#(!(
-*
FE .*,.8#!(--"&&
1 ." ,*,)) 5(
-.. 5:, ,).
.#)()( >)).(. ,;8" -#!(--"&&&-)#(
&/
." *,)$
.
'(! ,9-(
*,)$
.,
),#-.9-*")( (/'
,-8#!(--"&&, '#(#(*&
/(.#&
)'*& .#)() ."
*,)$
.8 ** (
#2>, ,).
.#)(#!,'-=#!,'F>, ,).
.#)( (
#(! ), /,." ,
.#&8
)
)(-.,/
.#)(),!,)/(
#-./,
(
-"&&
&&)1
#(-#
." (
1#.")/.." *,)$
.
,
),#-.9-* ,'#--#)((
<),)0 ,-#. 8
3)/, /(-/, 1" ." ,(
.#0#.3#-&&)1
5, ,.) ** (
#2
=, ,).
.#)( +/#, ' (.->/#
% , (
#-.),
)(.
.." *,)$
.,
),#-.8
!"
""
"0 ,
)'' (
, -MHAMI ),*,).
.#)(8" 31#&&, +/#, ., *,).
.#)( (
#(!(
.,/(%
*,).
.#)(
),
#(!.)." -*
# #
.#)(-*,)0#
&)18/* ,0#-#)() (3
)(-.,/
.#)(1),%#(),
$
(..)." -"&&
)(
/
.
3." *,)$
.,
),#-.8
, MH"-*,)*)-
-.),'
,#(! *#* FJ9.)." (),."1 -.) ." .,/(%) ." ., -1 &&-,)
*0#(!1#."#(FH9) ." ., 8
"0 - .." (
#(!&#'#..FF9(),."1 -.) ." .,/(%) ." .,
(
FI9(),." -.(
-)/."1 -.) ." .,/(%5)(." *,)$
.-#
) ." ., 51"#
"1#&&&&)1 ),
)(-.,/
.#)(
.#0#.# -(
-.#&&*,).
.." ., 8),
&#( .#)(-5- ** (
#2=#. *->*
I8
" .,/(%-"&&&-)
*,).
.
3#(-.&&#(!G2I9-!#(-.." .,/(%(
-
/,#(!." '1#."4#*=.# -),
1#, 8)().(
"),1))
),1#,
#,
.&3.).,/(%8 ** (
#2=, ,).
.#)(#!,'->
#!,'G ), /,." ,#(-.,/
.#)(8
&)
%1&&),*)/,
)(
, . *,)* ,.3&#( (
#(!#-&-)*,)*)-
$
(..)." ., (
1#&&&#% &3
#(. ,-
.#.-.,/(%8)0)#
'! .)." ., 5." (
1#."#(." FI9-"&&
)(-.,/
.
)
1))
*( &-')/(.
)(
,#0 (5-. &*)-.-,." ,."(
&)
%),
)(
, . 8
IS/MND Attachment 5
&&1),%1#."#(),
$
(..)." ) , MH1#&&, +/#, (,
),#-.9--/* ,0#-#)(.) (-/, .".&&
., *,).
.#)(' -/, -, #'*& ' (.
8)&#'#.
'! .)
,#.#
&,)).-5
&#
!
## #!
"
! !
(
8
,)).F;
#' . ,),&,! ,#- 2*)-
5#.-"&&().
/.1#.")/.." *,)$
.,
),#-.9-* ,'#--#)(8
." *,)$
.,
),#-.
. ,'#( -.".,)).)0 ,F=#(
"
#' . ,(
-.)
/.5#.-"&&
/.
3
"(
1#."*,/(#(!-1),,
#*,)
.#(!-1:14&&;8(
,)).-, - 0 ,
5." *,)$
.,
),#-.
'3**,)0 /- ) '
"#( ,3.)
)'*& . 2
0.#)((
!,
#(!8
!:6#-*,)*)-
.)
#(!, (-*
, 8)/,!,
#(!*&("-&&)1
),(
+/. 8
)' ,)).-5")1 0 ,51#&&&#% &3(
.)
/.)(." (),."(
(),."1 -.-#
-) ." ., .)&&)1 ),
." , .#(#(!1&&.)
/#&.8" 1&&1#&&
, ()/!" ,)'." ., .".-.
#&#.31#&&().
)'*,)'#-
5(
., " &."1#&&().
-/
-.(.#&&3#'*
.
8
, MI"-
#' . ,) GI=#(
" -6." , ), 5#.1#&&"0 ,
#/-) GI .8
"0 &&)1
),."
, ,).
.#)()( ?@.)
-.
&#-"
.GG= )).,
#/- ,)'." .,/(%) ." ., 8,
*,).
.#)( (
#(!-"&&
- ..GG . ,)'." $#") ." ., .,/(%.) ),'( ( &)-
5
#,
/&,
( ."." ., 8),
&#( .#)(-5- ** (
#2=#. *->*J+
" .,/(%-"&&&-)
*,).
.
3#(-.&&#(!G2I9-!#(-.." .,/(%(
-
/,#(!." '1#."4#*=.# -),
1#, 8)().(
"),1))
),1#,
#,
.&3.).,/(%8 ** (
#2=, ,).
.#)(#!,'->
#!,'G ), /,." ,#(-.,/
.#)(8
, .#(#(!1&&-"&&
#(-.&&
,)/(
." (),."(
(),."1 -.-#
-) ." ., .
#-.(
) GG9
' -/,
,)'." $#") ." ., .,/(%.)*, 0 (. #&&-)#& ,)'-')." ,#(!,)).-), ( ,)
"#(!
/*)(." .,/(%8)/,*&(&,
3#(
&/
-*,)0#-#)( ),." 1&&8" *&(-*
# # -1&&().&& ,
."(I .8".1#&&
-/ #
# (." #!"..), .#( #&&8" 1&&'3
/#&./-#(!, #( ),
)(
, .
*)/,
#(*&
),'),.,
(
, #( ),
)(
, .
&)
%-8 ** (
#2=, ,).
.#)(#!,'-
>#!,'H ),'),
.#&8
&&1),%1#."#(),
$
(..)." ) , MI1#&&, +/#, (,
),#-.9--/* ,0#-#)(.) (-/, .".&&
., *,).
.#)(' -/, -, #'*& ' (.
8)&#'#.
'! .)
,#.#
&,)).-5
&#
!
## #!
"
! !
(
8
,)).F;
#' . ,),&,! ,#- 2*)-
5#.-"&&().
/.1#.")/.." *,)$
.,
),#-.9-* ,'#--#)(8
." *,)$
.,
),#-.
. ,'#( -.".,)).)0 ,F=#(
"
#' . ,(
-.)
/.5#.-"&&
/.
3
"(
1#."*,/(#(!-1),,
#*,)
.#(!-1:14&&;8(
,)).-, - 0 ,
5." *,)$
.,
),#-.
'3**,)0 /- ) '
"#( ,3.)
)'*& . 2
0.#)((
!,
#(!8
IS/MND Attachment 5
#
%., -
#(!, .#(
#(."#-*,)$
.1#&&, +/#, -)' *,/(#(!'#(. ((
.)!#0
& ,(
),
0 "#
& -.)*--
( ."),
-#
." '1" (." *,)$
.#-
)'*& . 8
(! ( ,&5
& ,(
), #, 5
!,
! (
� ,3.,/
%-, +/#, FH8J .) 0 ,.#
&
& ,(
)0 ." ,)
138
,!
,(
" -
2. (
#(!#(.)." ,)
13-")/&
.,#''
.)."
! ) ." ,)
13),, ')0
.." .,/(%
)((
.#)(.)!#0 &)(!. ,'- .3
& ,(
8(3
1))
G9
#' . ,(
&,! ,),-.,/
./,&&3
/(-.
&
,(
" --")/&
&-)
, ')0
8&&*,/(#(!1),%-"&&
* , ),'
), (3*,)$
.
)(-.,/
.#)(-.,.-8
"!
" #.3) -))
& -, +/#, -, *&
' (.- ),(3(.#0 )%, ')0
.".#-K=#(
" -#(
#' . ,
),!, . ,8"#-, +/#, ' (.#-.."
#-
, .#)() ." #,
.),) /
&#
),%-8" )&&)1#(!#-
2 ,*.
,)'."
#.39-%, ,
#((
MHJ887
# !'"
&
!$(
) !''"'*!',1
)#%!'"'
'%"'% ")'%3&4.
3"% + # - ' %# !' %$(
% !' "% % ") " '*" '%& "
'!1
! 3'
%', '"'
'%
!&4-*"( &)!! "!1
!& 3'
%',
!& % ") ( '
#
, '*!',1
)
(!%'&%# !''"%4.
&%$(
% !'"( &'
&
,# !'
!
)-"!!"!1
!
#%'%&-"%'%-'*"1!
"!1 1
!
#%'%&"%!,"'%"
!'
"!'"'
!&)!!"!1
!&4.
!
( "'*"-'*!',1"(%1
!"+-"!!"!1
!
!
( '%(!
#% &(% !''%&
& %$(
%"%"
'%% ").
# !''%&& "'"!'& #%"#%',&*%''% &##%")"%% ") "%-
&(
''"##%") "'
%'"%-%%! !'&! '" "''%# !''%&"!#(
#%"#%',.
!'
! &'!%& "% %# !' '%& & "!& &'!' *
'
', '!% '
& !
#
'
"!
1:+#'''#%""'%%
%&& !"'%$(
%
''%&%!"'
!''"&
*
%&.
'% #%&%)'
"!!
!'!! &(%& & "!&
&'!'*
' ' #%")
&
"!& " '
&
#'%.
"
)'
#(
#' . ,) )%., -*,)*)-
),, ')0&1#."#(3)/,*,)$
.#-II#(
" -81 (.3= #0
* ,
(.) II#(
" -#-FF#(
" -8" , ), 5 #!".?M@(.#0 )%-.." '#(#'/'F8J=#( "
&#* ,5
.1 (.3= )/,=#(
"
)2-#4 ),-#2?K@(.#0 )%-.G=#(
"
&#* ,5.1 (.3= )/,=#(
"
)2-#4 51)/&
, +/#,
.)
*&(.
)(." *, '#- -),-)' 1" , #(."
#.35/*)(." /
&#
),%-#,
.),9-
**,)0&8
" (#(
),*),.#(!( 1)%., -#(.)3)/,&(
-
* 53)/1#&&(
.)&&)1 ),.& -.(M92M9
*&(.#(!, 8/,
#(! ),." *&(.#(!, -"&&().
)/(.-*,.) ." *&(.#(!,
#' (-#)(-8
&(.#(!, --'&& ,."(M92M91#&&, -/&.#(-#
1&%(
/,
/
%&#(!1" (., ,)).-'./, 8
#-.(
-
.1 ()%., --")/&
()& --."(GJ .8
)%., -
(
#(
),*),.
#(.))* (5
()(=",
-
* , -5." 31#&&"0 "#!" ,-/
--,. 8
IS/MND Attachment 5
(
!" #"
"
,#),.)(3
)(-.,/
.#)(),!,)/(
#-./,
#(!
.#0#.# - ),."#-*,)$
.5." *,)$
.,
),#-.-"&&' .
1#."&&
)(.,
.),-#(0)&0
1#."."
)(-.,/
.#)() ." ")' .), 0# 1., *,).
.#)(' -/, -8(3
( 1
)(.,
.),-
,)/!".)(-#. -"&&&-)' .),
)''/(#
. 1#."." *,)$
.,
),#-..) (-/, ." 3
, 1, ) &&., *,).
.#)(' -/, -8
#!
" , 1 , .", ?H@(.#0 )%-)(." -#. 3)/, *&((#(!.) 0 &)*8)/"0
-#!(
."
*,.' (.
)'*& 2.), .#(., -MHAMI51"#
", ." "#!" -.+/&#.3)%-)(-#. 8, MG5
/ .)
,)
1#
(#(!#'*,)0 ' (.--1 &&--.),'
,#(! #(-.&&.#)(51)/&
- 0 , &3#'*
.
(
().
&#% &3-/,0#0 80 (# 3)/1 ,
& .)
-#!(,)/(
." ., 5#.1-#(*)),
)(
#.#)((
1)/&
().
1,,(.."
#.#)(& ),.(
2* (- ),." &#'#.
3 ,-#.1)/&
)(.#(/ .)� 8
-*
. /&&3/
'#..
5
(+$!
),
,.# #
-. ,,
),#-.=GKMI
/(#
#*&*
#&#-.
.#&#.3,
),#-.
, #-%-- --),/&# #
.#)(
IS/MND Attachment 5
%)
$
"
&*
""
"
!
<8 (%(&
"'
) ,
"
::0 #""% ::/ ;6? !"!
2&"!&
'!%
!# !-
'
&'%*
)
#'&"' &';6?
'"
'&('"(%-(''%-&'%'!
('
',
#%") !'&.%*
!"'&(%)
)
#'&.
<9 (%(&
"( &
"&'
)"
780
% 78/
&&
'!
;?
77/
!"%'*&'-
7:/
"'%
%'
"!
"!#%"
'
&
"
'%.
1&"!&
'!%
!# !'
'%!%'
!
'%#%"''
"!
&(%&%" "*.
!
<: (%(&
"'
) ,
"
8:0 "" 8:/
&&
'!
;?
88/
%'
"!&
1&"!&
'!%
!# !'
'%!%'
!
'%#%"''
"!
&(%&%" "*. !&' '
"!"
%'
!
!* "!!"%'&
"'%*
!.
!
IS/MND Attachment 5
% ) "
!
CIVIL SHEET INDEX
CRESTON ROAD
ROLLING HILLS ROAD
MAX DEPTH CUT
CUT
FILL
FT
CU YD
CU YD
MAX DEPTH FILL FT
EARTHWORK QUANTITY:
AREA OF DISTURBANCE ACRES 6.2
10.4'
5.3'
17,841
1,579
&#
&%
3 - !
%
# !(
. 0 ,&&#. &( - , ("#!"&#!".
#,
& -#(
#
. &)
.#)()
(.#0 )%., -K9
#' . ,(
!, . ,8, (/'
,-
),, &. 1#."(/'
,-*,)0#
#(
** (
#2= ,
(0 (.),3(
,).
.#)(8
&$
IS/MND Attachment 5
NORTH COAST ENGINEERING INC. copyright c 2022
PRELIMINARY UTILITY LEGEND
PAGE 3 OF 5
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C
PASO ROBLES, CA
805.239.3127
725 CRESTON ROAD, SUITE C
PASO ROBLES, CA
805.239.3127
CRESTON ROAD II
PRELIMINARY UNDERGROUND
PLAN
ROLLING HILLS RD
LAURA WAY
CRESTON ROAD
R:\PROJ\21164\Design\Plan Set\Preliminary\21164 Preliminary UG.dwg, TM-UG, 10/26/2022 4:31:45 PM, TEM, 1:1
4- !
. /,, (./(
,!,)/(
*&( -")1#(! *,)*)-
-.),'
,#(! *#* ,)/. 8
&#
&$
&%
IS/MND Attachment 5
ROLLING HILLS RD
5. #
!
/%
! %
#"!0:4 . 0 ,&&" &.")
., #-)),8,)*)-
,)
13 #'*,)0 ' (.-5 -#
1&%(
-.),'
,#(! *#*
,)/. && (
,)
"(
#'*
.., 9-JEQ),'), 8
)
+1.
IS/MND Attachment 5
+1/
6. #
!
/%
! %
#"! 0:5 . .),'
,#(!
*#* "-
(, =,)/.
,)/(
." ., .)!#0 FJ9
#-.(
(),."1 -.) ." ., 8
'*
..)
,#.#
&,)).-1#&&
( !&#!#
& 8 ,)0#
FF9.*45(
FI9 (
8
+1/ "%
""
IS/MND Attachment 5
+10
7. #
!
&#
#"
#- !0:6.
(
#(!.)
- ..GG9 ,)'.,/(%) ., 8 ,(! "#!"&#!".-")1- ( #(!
&#'#.8 .#(#(!1&&.)
)(-.,/
.
)(." (),."(
(),."1 -.-#
) .,
-
,1(8
##
IS/MND Attachment 5
%(
""
!
0OLTKĀBOGMĀIGKCĀLOĀLQFCOĀIGJGQĀLDĀ=OCCĀ:OLQCAQGLKĀ?OC?#Ā<CC QOCCĀMOCPCOS?QGLKĀMI?KĀDLOĀDCKACĀ?IGEKJCKQ#
( "$Ȁ
7?GKQ?GKĀCUGPQGKE
EO?BCĀTGQFĀQFCĀQOCC
MOLQCAQGLKĀDCKAC
RKICPPĀLQFCOTGPC
GKBGA?QCBĀLKĀQFC
MI?KP#
&ȀĀUĀ* ĀPQCCIĀMLPQP
LOĀ?MMOLSCBĀCNR?I#
=OCCĀ:OLQCAQGLK
DCKAC,Ā4GEFĀBCKPGQV
MLIVCQFVICKCĀDCKAGK E
TGQFĀ'#)ȀĀUĀ%#)Ȁ
LMCKGKEP-Ā0LILO"
LO?KEC#Ā<QCCIĀMLPQP
GKPQ?IICBĀ?QĀ+ ĀL#A#
)ȀĀQFGAH
I?VCOĀLDĀJRIAF#
8LQCP,
%"Ā<CCĀPMCAGDGA?QGLKPĀDLOĀ?BBGQGLK?IĀQOCC
MOLQCAQGLKĀOCNRGOCJCKQP#
&"Ā5DĀQFCOCĀGPĀKLĀCUGPQGKEĀGOOGE?QGLK!ĀPCC
PMCAGDGA?QGLKPĀDLOĀT?QCOGKEĀOCNRGOCJCKQP#
'"Ā8LĀMORKGKEĀPF?IIĀ@CĀMCODLOJCBĀCUACMQ
@VĀ?MMOLSCBĀ?O@LOGPQ#
("Ā8LĀCNRGMJCKQĀPF?IIĀLMCO?QCĀGKPGBCĀQFC
MOLQCAQGSCĀDCKAGKEĀGKAIRBGKEĀBROGKEĀDCKAC
GKPQ?II?QGLKĀ?KBĀOCJLS?I#
)"Ā<CCĀPGQCĀMOCM?O?QGLKĀMI?KĀDLOĀ?KV
JLBGDGA?QGLKPĀTGQFĀQFCĀ=OCCĀ:OLQCAQGLK
?OC?#
$ Ȁ%!#"Ā&! '
622:Ā9>=
=;22
:;9=20=598
.;2.
+#)ȀĀUĀ%%Ȁ
PGEK
I?JGK?QCBĀGK
MI?PQGAĀPM?ACB
CSCOVĀ)$
?ILKEĀQFC
DCKAC#
>;/.8Ā=;22Ā39>81.=598Ā © 2014
9:28Ā<9>;02Ā3;22Ā=9Ā><2
!
3., ,).
.#)( (
#(!
IS/MND Attachment 5
!
4>,/(%,).
.#)(>
/, 1))
.)., /-#(!4#*.# -),1#, 8)().(
"),1))
),1#,
#,
.&3.).,/(%8
IS/MND Attachment 5
!
5>I9'2#'/'" #!"., .#(#(!1&&.)
#(-.&&
.GG9 ,)'.,/(%) ., )((),."(
(),."1 -.-#
-) ., .)*, 0 (. #&&-)#& ,)'-/ )
.#(!
,#.#
&,)).-8
GG9
6,
IS/MND Attachment 5
%
""
#
"!(
#
!"
•Ā !
! ##
$!
"#!$#
-, *,).
.#)(-"&&
*,)0#
/,#(!." (.#, .#'
)(-.,/
.#)(
.#0#.# -)
/,8, ,).
.#)()( ?@-"&&
-.
&#-"
(
'#(.#(
.) (-/, *,).
.
,)).-, '#(/(
#-./,
8
•Ā !
! ##
-, *,).
.#)( (
#(!#-, +/#,
.)
#(*&
),."
/,.#)()
."
)(-.,/
.#)(*,)$
.(
-"&&
#(-.&&
), -.,.#(!(3!,)/(
#-./,
#(!
.#0#.# -8
)()., ')0 (3., *,).
.#)( (
#(!), (. ,." 1#.")/.**,)0&) ." *,)$
.
,
),#-.8" (
#(!-"&&
&#( . (
*,).
.." ., *,).
.#)(4)( 8" (
#(!-"&&
I
..&&(
'
) ),(! 5"#!"
(-#.35*)&3 ."3& ( 1#."H8J;2F8J;)* (#(!-8
.-"&&
#(-.&&
)(-. &*)-.-M .)(
(. ,(
.#!".&3-., .
"
.)*, 0 (.-!!#(!8 ** (
#2
=, ,).
.#)(#!,'-=#!,'F>, ,).
.#)( (
#(!8
•Ā !$
! ##
-, *,).
.#)( (
#(!#-, +/#,
** (
#2=, ,).
.#)(
#!,'-=#!,'G>,/(%,).
.#)(8
•Ā !
! ##
= ." ,*,)) 5., *,).
.#)(-#!(--..#(!:, ,).
.#)()( >
)).(. ,;-"&&
*&
)(." (
#(!(
-*
FE .*,.8#!(--"&&, '#(#(
*&
/(.#&
)'*& .#)() ." *,)$
.8 ** (
#2=, ,).
.#)(#!,'-=#!,'F>
, ,).
.#)( (
#(!8
•Ā
!-
"#!$#
#
=' .#(!1#."&&
)(.,
.),-#(0)&0
#(." *,)$
.-"&&)
/,
1#."." *,)$
.,
),#-.
),
!#((#(!
)(-.,/
.#)(
.#0#.# -8(3( 1
)(.,
.),-
,)/!".
)(-#. -"&&&-)' .),
)''/(#
. 1#."." *,)$
.,
),#-..) (-/, ." 3, 1, )
., *,).
.#)(' -/, -8
•Ā
! !
!
! ##
=
)(-.,/
.#)()
/,-
/,#(!." ')(."-)
/( .",)/!"
)0 '
,5." 9--"&&
#,,#!.
.)
*.") FG#(
" -
),
)(-.,/
.#)(
!#(-8"#-
1#&& (-/, ." ., -, *,)* ,&3"3
,.
8
#.#)(&#,,#!.#)(-
/,#(!:" .=10 -;'3
,
)'' (
3." *,)$
.,
),#-.8
•Ā
#
! ##
-)!,
#(!5., (
"#(!5*0#(!),(3)." ,-)#&
#-./,
(
-"&&)
/,1#."#(
),
$
(..)." ) ." ., 1#.")/.* ,'#--#)((
-/* ,0#-#)(
3." *,)$
.,
),#-.8)
., (
"#(!), 2
0.#)( ), )).#(!-5 )/(
.#)(-5/.#&#.# -),,)
13--"&&)
/,1#."#(),
$
(..)." 1#.")/. #,-.5"(
., (
"#(!." &)
.#)((
2*)-#(!,)).-8
*)--#
& 5
)(
/#.),)." ,/.#&#.# --"&&
: #-"
;
&)1,)).-&,! ,."(F=#(
"
#' . ,8
(3,)).-F=#(
"
#' . ,),&,! ,."., **,)0
),*,/(#(!-"&&
"(
/.1#."
& (
*,/(#(!-1),14&&8(
,)).-, "(
/.5'
"#( ,3
(, ')0 ." - 0 ,
,)).-8
/..#(!(3,)).-F=#(
"
#' . ,),&,! ,, +/#, --/* ,0#-#)(
3." *,)$
.,
),#-.8
•Ā
#
!$
-
." *,)$
.,
),#-.
. ,'#( -.".,)).)0 ,F=#(
"
#' . ,(
-.)
/.5#.-"&&
/.
3"(
1#."*,/(#(!-1),,
#*,)
.#(!-1:14&&;8 . ,
/..#(!
,)).5." , -"&&
% #&&
--))(-*)--#
& 1#."')#-.-)#&),
)0 ,
1#."1 .
/,&*
/(.#&
% #&&
(
)'*& .
8/,&*-"&&
% *.1 .." (.#, .#' #.#-#(/- ),
/.=,)).
*,).
.#)(8
IS/MND Attachment 5
•Ā $
)
$# !
# !
#!
"=)
)(-.,/
.#)('. ,#&-5-)#&-5),
,#--"&&
-.),
#(." 8)
)(
, . 5*&-. ,5*#(.),
" '#
&1-")/.-"&&
&&)1
1#."#(."
),,#.#
&)).)( ?@8
•Ā
# !
=(#(#.#&#(-*
.#)(-"&&
)'*& .
3." *,)$
.,
),#-.*,#),.)
)'' (
' (.)
)(-.,/
.#)(
.#0#.# -.) (-/, .".&&., *,).
.#)(' -/, -"0
(
*/.#(*&
8 %&3#(-*
.#)(-) ." (
--)
#.
(
#(!-"&&&-)
)'*& .
3
." *,)$
.,
),#-./(.#&
)(-.,/
.#)(#-
)'*& . 8(3,)).*,/(#(!5 2
0.#)(5!,
#(!),
#&&#(!1#."#(J .) ." -"&&
')(#.),
3." *,)$
.,
),#-.8
•Ā
! #! !"#
##
!
#
=)
( 3"/,'(> ,#.! , ,
),#
/&./,&
)(-/&.#(!> &&7MEJGHIMLKE>'#&7,)
( 3B" ,#.! .,
)(-/&.#(!8
)'
%)
"
!
# 3=# 1) , MG ,)')&&#(! #&&-)
8
IS/MND Attachment 5
# 4=# 1) , MG ,)'
),( ,) , -.)()
8.#&#.3&#(
& ,(
*,/(#(!5)0 , 2. (
,(
" -8,)*)-
,)
#'*,)0 ' (.-1#."#(L9) .,/(%) ., 8.),'
,#(-*,)*)-
( ."., 8
# 5=# 1)
,)% (
,(
"1 -.
-#
) .,
#,
&
#(3 &&)18
# 6=# 1)
3
(
,
%
-
)&
(),."-#
) .,
#,
&
#(3 &&)18
9,
IS/MND Attachment 5
# 7=# 1) , MH8,)*)-
-.),'
,#(*#* -(
*0#(!1#&&().-#!(# #
(.&3#'*
.., 8 . (
.FF9.)
(),."1 -.5(
FI9.)." (),." -.(
-)/."1 -.8, 1#&&
(
*,/(
),0 "#
&
& ,(
8 +1/
--' -0'
IS/MND Attachment 5
# 8= # 1) , MI > GG9,
#/-' -/,
,)'
)/.-#
) .,/(%8 . (
.GG98 (
#!)(&3 = , +/#,
1" (
)(-.,/
.#(!, .#(#(!1&&8
44,
44,
IS/MND Attachment 5
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT REPORT
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT
1049 CRESTON ROAD
PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA
Project No. 2202-0711
Prepared for:
Red Tail Multifamily Land Development
2082 Michelson Drive, 4th Floor
Irvine, California 92612
Prepared by:
Padre Associates, Inc.
369 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
APRIL 2022
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- ii -
Authenticity and Signature Page
Padre Associates, Inc.
369 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Padre Associates, Inc. hereby certifies that all statements furnished in the following Biological Resources Assessment Report and all supporting information acquired for this biological assessment are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief. Further, we certify that the field survey associated with this report was performed by Padre and that the report accurately represents all information retained from the field visit. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Christina Santala Shannon Gonzalez
Project Biologist Project Biologist
___________________________________
Alyssa Berry
Senior Biologist
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- iii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK....................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Endangered Species Act of 1972. ........................................................................ 2-1
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 STATE REGULATIONS .............................................................................................. 2-2
2.2.1 California Fish and Game Code. .......................................................................... 2-2
2.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS.............................................................................................. 2-2
3.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 DESKTOP REVIEW .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 FIELD SURVEYS........................................................................................................ 3-1
4.0 FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ..................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Botanical .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.3 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........................................................ 4-3
4.3.1 Special-Status Habitats ........................................................................................ 4-6
4.3.2 Special-Status Botanical....................................................................................... 4-6
4.3.3 Special-Status Wildlife.......................................................................................... 4-7
5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS.................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................. 6-1
7.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Project Location .....................................................................................................1-2 Figure 4-1. Biological Assessment Survey Results ..................................................................4-4 Figure 4-2. Regional Special-Status Biological Resources.......................................................4-5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Oak Trees Observed..............................................................................................4-2
APPENDICES
Appendix A Site Photographs
Appendix B Vascular Plant List
Appendix C Wildlife List
Appendix D CNDDB Results
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 1-1 -
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment Report (Report) on behalf of Red Tail Multifamily Land Development (Client) to document the results of a biological resources assessment completed in support of the environmental review process for the proposed Rolling Hills Apartment Project (Project) at 1049 Creston Road, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California (Project Site) (Figure 1-1 – Project Location). The Project Site consists of one parcel of land approximately 6.21-acres in size. This Report documents the results of a desktop review and field survey, and includes a discussion of existing biological resources, special-status biological resources that have the potential to occur within the proposed Project Site, potential Project impacts to these resources, and recommendations for impact avoidance and minimization measures.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Project Location
PROJECT LOCATION
Source: Esri Online Basemap, DOGGR
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet Notes: This map was created for informational and display purposes only.
LEGEND:
Project Boundary
2202-0711 April 2022
FIGURE
1-1
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT1049 CRESTON ROAD, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CA PROJECT NUMBER: DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
0 2,000 4,000
FEET
MAP EXTENT:
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
COUNTY
Z:\GIS Projects\GIS Maps\Map Project\Rolling Hills Apartment Project- 1049 Creston Road, Paso Robles, CA\Project Location.mxd 4/7/2022 IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 2-1 -
2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The regulatory framework identifies policies and plans administered by resource agencies pertaining to biological resources that are known to exist and/or have the potential to occur within the Project region.
2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
2.1.1 Endangered Species Act of 1972.
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), provides protection to species listed as Threatened or Endangered, and critical habitat designated for the protection of such species. The FESA prohibits “take” of Threatened and Endangered species (including plants) except under certain circumstances and only with authorization from the USFWS through a permit under sections 4(d), 7, or 10(a) of the FESA. Under the FESA, take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
Critical Habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the FESA as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that are essential for the conservation of a listed species.
The FESA also provides protection to those species proposed to be listed under FESA or critical habitats proposed to be designated for such species. In addition to the listed species, the federal government also maintains lists of species that are neither formally listed nor proposed but could potentially be listed in the future. These federal candidate species include taxa for which substantial information on biological vulnerability and potential threats exist and are maintained to support the appropriateness of proposing to list the taxa as an Endangered or Threatened species.
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The USFWS also administers the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711). Under the MBTA, it is unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts of birds, nests, eggs or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). In 2017, Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued a legal opinion (M-37050 or M-Opinion) stating that “The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take” which in effect revoked take protections under the MBTA. On January 5, 2021, the USFWS published a final rule that defined the scope of the MBTA stating that incidental take of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds. On May 6, 2021, the USFWS announced a proposed rule to revoke the January 7 final regulation that limited the scope of the MBTA, in an effort to reinstate federal MBTA protections. The proposed rule is pending as of June 2021.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 2-2 -
In the interim, migratory birds are protected (for take) through AB 454 California Migratory Bird Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code 3513).
2.2 STATE REGULATIONS
2.2.1 California Fish and Game Code.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect plants, fish, and wildlife resources. Principal of these is the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA - Fish and Game Code Section 2050) that regulates the listing and take of State Endangered and Threatened species. CDFW also maintains lists of Candidate-Endangered species and Candidate-Threatened species. California candidate species are afforded the same level of protection as listed species. CDFW manages the California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (Fish and Game Code Section 1900, et seq.), which was enacted to identify, designate, and protect rare plants. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) operates under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the CDFW which outlines broad cooperation in rare plant assessment and protection and formalizes cooperative ventures such as data sharing and production of complementary information sources for rare plants.
2.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS
San Luis Obispo County (County) incorporates all USFWS, CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) standards when assessing project impacts to vegetation, wildlife, and wetland habitats, as well as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation process, when applicable. The County has developed a framework of land use policies and recommendations intended to reduce impacts to sensitive biological resources.
Oak trees are protected under San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance, Title 22; Chapters 22.56 (Tree Preservation) and 22.58 (Oak Woodland Ordinance) (San Luis Obispo County, 2021).
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 3-1 -
3.0 METHODS
Methods to collect biological resources information included a desktop review and field survey of the Biological Study Area (BSA), which encompassed the entire Project Site.
3.1 DESKTOP REVIEW
Prior to conducting the field survey, a query of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) was conducted to identify documented occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, and sensitive habitats within the vicinity of the BSA. The CNDDB is a continually refined and updated computerized inventory of rare animals, plants, and natural community location information in California, including species that are listed as federally and/or State endangered/threatened. All wildlife taxa listed with the CNDDB are considered “special animals” in which the CDFW is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal protection status.
The Project Site is located within both the Paso Robles and Templeton 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle, and the CNDDB search was focused on these and seven adjacent quadrangles within approximately ten miles of the BSA, including Templeton, Adelaida, York Mountain, Estrella, Creston, San Miguel, Atascadero, and Santa Margarita. The USFWS Critical Habitat database was also investigated to identify critical habitat for federally listed species within the BSA or surrounding region. In addition, the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was accessed to identify previously documented wetlands within the BSA or surrounding area.
3.2 FIELD SURVEYS
On March 24, 2022, Padre Biologists, Christina Santala and Shannon Gonzalez completed a field survey within the BSA focused 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 BSA.
Field survey methods consisted of walking paths of opportunity throughout the BSA and recording wildlife species observed by visual observation using binoculars, indirect signs (e.g., tracks, scat, skeletal remains, and burrows), and/or auditory cues (i.e., calls and songs). Field notes on botanical resources and vegetation communities/habitats were also recorded. Field surveys were conducted in March, within the typical blooming period for most special-status plant species know to occur in the proposed Project region. All oak trees (Quercus sp.) within the Project Site were documented (e.g., diameter at breast height [DBH] and overall health) and mapped using GPS in the field.
Vegetation within the BSA was divided and classified into vegetation types based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2) (Sawyer, et. al., 2009), or described as site-specific vegetation and/or land use cover types not treated in the MCV2 (i.e., ruderal). All identifiable plant species observed within the BSA were documented. Plant specimens that were not positively identified in the field were further examined using appropriate botanical keys, including The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et. al., 2012).
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 4-1 -
4.0 FINDINGS
The following discussion of biological resources includes those that were observed within the BSA, those identified in the desktop review, and resources that have the potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat. Supporting documentation includes Figure 4-1 – Biological Resources Assessment Results, Figure 4-2 – Regional Special-Status Biological Resources, Appendix A – Site Photographs, Appendix B – Plant List, Appendix C – Wildlife List, and Appendix D – CNDDB Results.
4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Project Site is located on the corner of Creston Road and Rolling Hills Road, approximately 1.2 miles east of Highway 101 within the City of Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California. The Project Site is a vacant lot surrounded by residential and commercial development and infrastructure. The topography of the area is level to moderately sloping and is situated approximately 2.5 miles east of the Santa Lucia Range and approximately 9.5 miles southeast of the Cholame Hills.
4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.2.1 Botanical
A list of plant species identified in the BSA during the March 2022 field survey is provided in Appendix B – Plant List. Vegetation communities documented to occur within the Project Site are described in the following paragraphs.
Wild oats and annual brome grassland (Avena spp. – Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance). The Wild oats and annual brome grassland alliance occurs in all topographic settings in foothills, waste places, rangelands, and openings in woodlands. This alliance is characterized by presence of slender wild oats (Avena barbata), wild oats (Avena fatua), false brome (Brachypodium distachyon), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus) and/or foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum) as dominant or co-dominant with other non-natives in the herbaceous layer; cover is open to continuous (Sawyer et. al., 2009). As observed during the field survey, this alliance occurred throughout the BSA, and appeared to be periodically mowed and/or disked, likely for fire fuel reduction purposes. Dominant to co-dominant species included slender wild oats, wild oats, ripgut brome, red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), fiddleneck (Amsinckia sp.), with sparse to moderate occurrences of telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), miniature lupine (Lupinus bicolor), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum) and Mediterranean vetch (Vicia benghalensis). Intermittent occurrences of mature trees and shrubs included Valley oak (Quercus lobata), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), cultivated almond (Prunus sp.), Western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and planted yucca (Yucca sp.). This alliance is not considered sensitive by the CDFW and is not protected under CEQA.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 4-2 -
Ornamental. Within this Report Ornamental is a site-specific vegetation classification that describes the planted landscape trees that overlap a portion of the western boundary of the Project Site. Tree species included blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), pine (Pinus sp.) and Coast live oak. Ornamental trees may provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for fauna. This vegetation community is not considered sensitive by the CDFW and is not protected under CEQA.
Ruderal. Within this Report, Ruderal is a term used to describe the unpaved access roads and parking areas within the BSA. Disturbed areas that are not paved can support vegetative cover consisting primarily of disturbance adapted plant species (ruderal species). As observed during the field survey, ruderal areas ranged from bare ground to moderate vegetative cover comprised of non-native species including remnant wild oats (Avena spp.), ripgut grass, English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and red-stem filaree. This vegetation community is not considered sensitive by the CDFW and is not protected under CEQA.
4.2.2 Wildlife
Wildlife was identified during the survey through indirect sign and direct observations of individuals. Species observed and detected included western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), A complete list of observed wildlife species can be found in Appendix C – Wildlife Species Observed within the BSA.
4.2.3 Aquatic Resources
Based on the results of the desktop review and field observations, no aquatic resources were identified within the BSA, however, several aquatic features were identified within one mile outside of the BSA. The NWI recorded features include a Riverine unnamed drainage approximately 0.2 miles southwest and the Salinas River approximately 0.9 miles west, a Freshwater Pond approximately 0.73 miles south, and a Freshwater/Forested /Shrub Wetland approximately 0.76 miles southwest of the BSA (USFWS, 2022b).
4.2.4 Oak Trees
Two valley oak tree (Quercus lobata) and two coast live oak trees were observed within the BSA. Table 4-1 lists the species and Diameter at Breast Height (DBH).
Table 4-1. Oak Trees Observed
Oak Species DBH Notes
Valley oak 1 24 inches Mature, healthy; located on southwestern perimeter of Project limits along Rolling Hills Road
Valley oak 2 43 inches Mature, healthy; located near unpaved driveway in western portion of the Project Site.
Coast live oak 1 3 inches Sapling, healthy, situated in small group of cottonwood saplings.
Coast live oak 2 3 inches Sapling, healthy, situated in clump of coyote brush and ornamental vegetation.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 4-3 -
4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Results of the nine-quadrangle (approximately ten miles surrounding the Project Site) CNDDB query for regional occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, and sensitive vegetation communities can be found in Appendix D (CDFW, 2022a). This Report focuses on the special-status plants and wildlife biological resources within five miles of the BSA (Project region) that have a greater potential to occur within the Project Site based on proximity of documented occurrences and suitable habitat. Figure 4-2 depicts CNDDB occurrences and USFWS Critical Habitat within five miles of the Project Site.
IS/MND Attachment 6
!(
!(
!(
!(
43” DBH
3” DBH
3” DBH
24” DBH
HACIENDA CIR
ROLLING
HILLS RD
CRESTON RD
LAURA WAY
UNNA M ED
RD
TRANQUIL HILLS CT
ORCHARD DR
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
ASSESSMENT RESULTS MAP
Source: Esri Onlline Imagery Basemap, County of San Luis Obispo Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet Notes: This map was created for informational and display purposes only.
LEGEND:
Project Boundary
!( Coast live oak
!( Valley oak
Vegetation Communities
Wild oats and annual brome grassland
Ruderal
Ornamental
0 100 200
Feet
2202-0711 April 2022
FIGURE
4-1
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT1049 CRESTON ROAD, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA PROJECT NUMBER: DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
COUNTY
MAP EXTENT:
Z:\GIS Projects\GIS Maps\Map Project\Rolling Hills Apartment Project- 1049 Creston Road, Paso Robles, CA\Biological Resources Assessment Results Map.mxd 4/13/2022 IS/MND Attachment 6
Project Location
Vernal pool
fairy shrimp
Lemmon's
jewelflower
Northern
California
legless lizard
Atascadero
June beetle
Santa Lucia
dwarf rush
San Joaquin
kit fox
western
spadefoot
western
pond turtle
vernal pool
fairy shrimp
American
badger
least
Bell's
vireo
San Luis Obispo
owl's-clover
golden
eagle
Sal inas River
REGIONAL SPECIAL-STATUS
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Source: Esri Online Imagery Basemap, County of San Luis Obispo,
CNDDB, USFW
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet Notes: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database,
USFW = United States Fish and Wildlife,
This map was created for informational and display purposes only.
LEGEND:
Project Boundary
Buffer- 5 miles
USFWS Critical Habitat
CNDDB Occurrences
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Multiple (circular)
2202-0711 April 2022
FIGURE
4-2
ROLLING HILLS APARTMENT PROJECT1049 CRESTON ROAD, PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA PROJECT NUMBER: DATE:
PROJECT NAME:
01,0002,000
FEET
MAP EXTENT:
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
COUNTY
Z:\GIS Projects\GIS Maps\Map Project\Rolling Hills Apartment Project- 1049 Creston Road, Paso Robles, CA\Regional Special-Status Biological Resources.mxd 4/7/2022 IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 4-6 -
4.3.1 Special-Status Habitats
No USFWS-Designated Critical Habitat overlapped the BSA. The nearest occurrence was vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) USFWS-Designated Critical Habitat approximately two miles northwest of the BSA (USFWS, 2022a).
No sensitive natural communities as defined by CDFW were documented within five miles of the BSA. The nearest occurrence was Valley Oak Woodland, approximately eight miles west of the BSA (CDFW, 2022a).
4.3.2 Special-Status Botanical
Special-status plants are either listed as Endangered or Threatened under FESA or CESA, considered Rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act, or considered rare (but not legally listed) by resources agencies, professional organizations, and the scientific community under the following categories:
1. Plants listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.12 for listed plants and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species,).
2. Plants that are candidates for possible future listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Federal Register October 10, 2019).
3. Plants that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under the CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380).
4. Plants considered by the CNPS to be "Rare, Threatened, or Endangered" in California (Ranks 1B and 2 in CNPS, 2020).
5. Plants listed by CNPS as plants about which we need more information and plants of limited distribution (Ranks 3 and 4 in CNPS, 2020).
6. Plants listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as Threatened or Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5).
7. Plants listed under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code 1900 et seq.).
8. Plants considered sensitive by other Federal agencies (i.e., U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management), state and local agencies or jurisdictions.
9. Plants considered sensitive or unique by the scientific community or occurring at the limits of their natural range (State CEQA Guidelines).
Based on the CNDDB query completed as part of the desktop review, there were 37 special-status plant species documented within approximately ten miles of the BSA (Appendix D).
Of these species, two have a greater potential to occur within the Project Site based on proximity of documented occurrences (less than five miles) and presence of generally suitable habitat (grassland) within the BSA including San Luis Obispo owl's-clover (Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis), and Lemmon's jewelflower (Caulanthus lemmonii).
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 4-7 -
No special-status plant species were observed during the March 2022 field survey. The survey was conducted within the typical blooming period for potentially occurring special-status plant species of the region and would be identifiable in March. Based on the field survey observations and habitat conditions (periodic mowing, dominance of disturbance-adapted plant species) no special-status plant species are likely to occur within the Project Site.
4.3.3 Special-Status Wildlife
Special-status wildlife species are either listed as Endangered or Threatened under FESA or CESA, or considered rare (but not formally listed) by resources agencies, professional organizations, and the scientific community under the following categories:
• Animals listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species).
• Animals that are candidates for possible future listing as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (Federal Register October 10, 2019). • Animals that meet the definitions of rare or endangered species under the CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380)
• Animal considered Species of Special Concern (SSC) by CDFW (Shuford and Gardali, 2008 for birds; Williams, 1986 for mammals; Moyle et al., 2015 for fish; and Thomson et al., 2016 for amphibians and reptiles).
• Animals listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as Threatened and Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (14 CCR 670.5). • Animal species that are fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]). • Animal species protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (as amended in 1994).
• Birds of Conservation Concern. Migratory and nonmigratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally Threatened or Endangered) that represent the USFWS highest conservation priorities in effort to draw attention to species in need of conservation action (Shuford and Gardali, 2008).
• Birds on the CDFW Watch List include “Taxa to Watch” (Shuford and Gardali, 2008) 1) not on the current Special Concern list but were on previous lists and they have not been state listed under CESA; 2) were previously state or federally listed and now are on neither list; or 3) are on the list of “Fully Protected” species.
Based on the CNDDB query completed as part of the desktop review, there were 32 special-status wildlife species documented within approximately ten miles of the BSA. Of those 32, there are three special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Project Site based on suitable habitat and regional (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).
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 4-8 -
No special-status wildlife species were observed during the March 2022 field survey.
However, the Project Site may provide suitable habitat to support the special-status wildlife species listed above. The following sections provide an overview of the general habitat requirements for these species and further detail on the potential for each of these species to occur in the Project Site.
4.3.3.1 Reptiles
Northern legless lizard is a predominantly subterranean lizard that occupies moist, warm, and loose soils with vegetative cover (Stebbins, 2003). It has the potential to utilize areas of the Project Site that have dense leaf litter. Refer to Section 6.0 for recommended mitigation measures for protection of Northern legless lizard during Project activities.
4.3.3.2 Mammals
American badger is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and San Joaquin kit fox is listed as federally Endangered and State Threatened. The annual grassland habitat, and presence of small mammal (ground squirrel) burrows indicate that general conditions within the Project Site are suitable for both species. No large burrows or sign (i.e., scat, tracks, prey remains, etc.) were identified during the March 2022 survey. Further, the Project Site is situated within a highly populated area and surrounded by dense residential and commercial development that creates a dispersal barrier for these species. However, because there are documented occurrences less within five miles (approximately one mile for San Joaquin kit fox), and there is generally suitable grassland habitat, there is a low potential for American badger and San Joaquin kit fox to occur within the Project Site. Refer to Section 6.0 for recommended mitigation measures for protection of these species during Project activities.
4.3.3.3 Nesting Birds
No evidence of prior bird nesting was observed within the BSA during the March 2022 field survey. Trees and vegetation present within or adjacent to the Project Site provide suitable nesting habitat for a variety of bird species. Nesting birds and their nests/eggs are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and California Fish and Game Code. Nesting bird season generally occurs between February 1 and August 31. Refer to Section 6.0 for recommended mitigation measures for protection of potentially nesting birds during Project activities.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 5-1 -
5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
The proposed Project proposes to develop the entire Project Site. Grading and construction activities have the potential to impact special-status biological resources that have the potential to occur within the Project Site.
Potential impacts to special-status biological resources are construction-related, including mortality or injury from equipment operations, vehicle traffic, and loss of habitat. Project-related noise also has the potential to negatively affect nesting bird activity within or adjacent to the Project Site. Refer to Section 6.0 for recommended mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to special-status biological resources.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 6-1 -
6.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to protect sensitive biological resources to the greatest extent feasible during proposed Project activities:
1. Work Timing. All work activities shall be completed during daylight hours (between sunrise and sunset) and outside of rain events;
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;
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;
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;
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 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.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 6-2 -
6. Oak Tree Removal. If oak tree removal and/or damage is unavoidable due to Project implementation, the County 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 ratio (oak trees removed to oak trees planted) would be determined by the County.
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
April 2022 (2202-0711)
- 7-1 -
7.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, Bruce G., Goldman, Douglas H., Keil, David J., Rosatti, Thomas J. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press.
Berkeley, California.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rare Find Paso Robles, Templeton, Adelaida, York Mountain, Estrella, Creston, San Miguel, Atascadero, Santa Margarita 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles.
------ 2022b. Special Animals List. State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). October 2021.
Calflora. 2022. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2022. Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization].
Available: https://www.calflora.org/ (Accessed March 2022).
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed March 2022].
San Luis Obispo County. 2021. San Luis Obispo County Municipal Code; Title 22 –Land Use Ordinance; Article 5 – Site Development Standards; Title 22; Chapter 22.56 Tree Preservation and Chapter 22.58 Oak Woodland Ordinance. April 30, 2021.
Sawyer, John O., Keeler-Wolf, Todd, Evens, Julie. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Berkeley, California.
Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition.
Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, NY.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Critical Habitat Portal. Retrieved from https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. ------ 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.
IS/MND Attachment 6
APPENDIX A
Site Photographs
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
March 2022 (2202-0711)
Site Photographs
Photo 1. Representative view of grassland habitat and mature valley oak within the BSA (aspect northeast; 3/24/22).
Photo 2. View of site conditions within the BSA (aspect northwest; 3/24/22).
IS/MND Attachment 6
Rolling Hills Apartment Project
Biological Resources Assessment Report
March 2022 (2202-0711)
Site Photographs
Photo 3. View of northeast portion of the BSA with level to minimally rolling topography (aspect northeast; 3/24/22).
Photo 4. Sapling coast live oak tree within the BSA (aspect northwest; 3/24/22).
IS/MND Attachment 6
APPENDIX B
Plant List
IS/MND Attachment 6
List of Plant Species Observed
Rolling Hills Apartments Project, Paso Robles, CA
FAMILY Scientific Name Common Name Habit
Wetland
Indicator
Status
Native
Status
Cal-IPC
Rating
Listing
Status
AGAVACEAE Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. pomeridianum Soap plant PH - N Yucca sp. Yucca S -
ALLIACEAE Allium sp. Onion PH -
ANACARDIACEA Schinus molle Pepper tree T FACU Limited
ASTERACEAE Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush S - N
Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed AH -Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion PH FACU BORAGINACEAE Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck AH - NBRASSICACEAE Brassica nigra Black mustard AH - Moderate FABACEAE Acmispon wrangelianus Chilean trefoil AH - N
Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine AH - N
Lupinus succulentus Succulent lupine AH - NMelilotus albus White sweet-clover A/BH -Vicia benghalensis Mediterranean vetch AH/V - FAGACEAE Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak T - N
Quercus lobata Valley oak T FACU N
GERANIACEAE Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree AH - Limited IRIDACEAE Iris sp. Iris PH -
LAMIACEAE Marrubium vulgare Horehound PH FACU Limited
MALVACEAE Malva parviflora Cheese-weed AH -
MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum T -
PLANTAGINACEAE Plantago lanceolata English plantain PH FAC Limited Veronica persica Birdeye speedwell AH -
PLANTANACEAE Platanus racemosa Western sycamore T FAC NPINACEAE Pinus sp. Pine T - POACEAE Avena barbata Slender wild oats AG - Moderate
Avena fatua Wild oats AG - ModerateBromus diandrus Ripgut grass AG - ModerateBromus hordeaceus Soft chess AG FACU Limited Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red brome AG - HighHordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Barley AG FACU ROSACEAE Prunus sp. Cultivated almond T -
Rosa californica California wild rose S FAC N
RUBIACEAE Galium aparine Bedstraw AH FACU N
SALINACEAE Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood T - N
Notes: Scientific nomenclature follows Baldwin (2012).
Updated April 2022
IS/MND Attachment 6
List of Plant Species Observed
Rolling Hills Apartments Project, Paso Robles, CA
N - Native speciesHabit definitions:AG - Annual grass.AH - Annual herb.F - FernPG - Perennial grass.PH - Perennial herb.PV - Perennial vine.S - ShrubT - TreeOBL (Obligate Wetland Plants) - Almost always occur in wetlands.FACW (Facultative Wetland Plants) - Usually occur in wetland, but may occur in non-wetlands.FAC (Facultative Wetland Plants) - Occur in wetlands and non-wetlands.FACU (Facultative Upland Plants) - Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands.UPL (Upland Plants) - Almost always occur in non-wetlands.
Listing Status:FE - Federally endangeredFT - Federally threatenedSE - State endangeredST - State threatenedCNPS (California Native Plant Society) Ranking System; CRPR (California Rare Plant Rank):1A - Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere2A - Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere2B - Plants, rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere3 - Plants about which more information is needed – a review list4 - Plant of limited distribution – a watch listCRPR Threat Ranks:0.1 - Seriously threatened in California0.2 - Moderately threatened in California0.3 - Not very threatened in California Limited - These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score.Wetland indicator status (Lichvar and Kartesz, 2016): Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council) Ratings:High - These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Most are widely distributed Moderate - These species have substantial and apparent-but generally not severe-ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation Updated April 2022
IS/MND Attachment 6
APPENDIX C
Wildlife List
IS/MND Attachment 6
Wildlife Species Observed within the BSA
Rolling Hills Apartments Project, Paso Robles, California Common Name Scientific Name Residence Status Protected Status Habitat Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis R -- G, D, P, S, M California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica R M R, G, P House finch Haemorhous mexicanus R M P, D, M
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura R M P, D, M
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos R M S, G, D, M
Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens B M S, P, M
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis R M G, P, M
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura R M P, M
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata RMP
Botta's pocket gopher Thomomys bottae R -- R, G, P
Notes:
Fauna observed by visualizations, indirect signs (tracks, scat, skeletal remains, burros, etc.), and/or auditory cues.
Residence Status Protected Status Typical Habitat
R - Permanent resident A - Aquatic
W - Winter resident D - Developed areas
B - Summer resident G - Grassland
M - Multiple habitats
P - Woodland
R - Riparian
CS - Candidate species for CESA W - Wetland
C - Coastal lagoons, shores, oceans
O - Rock outcrops
S - Scrub
Mammals
Birds
SE - State endangered species
ST - State threatened species
Reptiles
CSC - California Species of Special Concern
CFP - California Fully Protected Species
BCC - Bird of Conservation Concern (USFWS)
FE - Federal
FT - Federal threatened species
FC - Federal candidate species
M - Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Updated March 2022 Page 1
IS/MND Attachment 6
APPENDIX D
CNDDB Results
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Abies bracteata
bristlecone fir
G2G3
S2S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
80 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
G1G2
S1S2
None
Threatened
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_EN-Endangered
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
684
1,036
955
S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 0 0
Agrostis hooveri
Hoover's bent grass
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,000
1,000
31 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
G5
S3
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
984
984
27 S:1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Anniella pulchra
Northern California legless lizard
G3
S3
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
570
1,263
383
S:10
0 1 0 0 0 9 9 1 10 0 0
Antirrhinum ovatum
oval-leaved snapdragon
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 4.2 720
720
16 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Query Criteria: Quad<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Paso Robles (3512066)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Templeton (3512056)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Adelaida (3512067)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>York Mountain (3512057)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Estrella (3512065)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Creston (3512055)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>San Miguel (3512076)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Atascadero (3512046)<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Santa Margarita (3512045))<br /><span style='color:Red'> AND </span>Taxonomic Group<span style='color:Red'> IS </span>(Dune<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Scrub<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Herbaceous<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Marsh<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Riparian<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Woodland<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Forest<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Alpine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Inland Waters<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Marine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Estuarine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Riverine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Palustrine<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fish<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Amphibians<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Reptiles<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Birds<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mammals<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Mollusks<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Arachnids<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Crustaceans<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Insects<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Ferns<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Gymnosperms<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Monocots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Dicots<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Lichens<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Bryophytes<span style='color:Red'> OR </span>Fungi) Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
G4
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
WBWG_H-High
Priority
600
1,050
420
S:2
0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
G5
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDF_S-Sensitive
CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected
CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
720
1,340
324
S:2
1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0
Arctostaphylos luciana
Santa Lucia manzanita
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa
Cruz
USFS_S-Sensitive
2,700
2,700
10 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Arctostaphylos pilosula
Santa Margarita manzanita
G2?
S2?
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
955
1,400
58 S:4
1 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 4 0 0
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
G5
S4
None
None
CDF_S-Sensitive
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
996
996
156
S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Aristocapsa insignis
Indian Valley spineflower
G1
S1
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 600
600
5 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus
Miles' milk-vetch
G5T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 1,250
1,250
16 S:2
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
G4
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
720
740
2011
S:3
2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0
Batrachoseps minor
lesser slender salamander
G1
S1
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_DD-Data
Deficient
USFS_S-Sensitive
895
1,376
8 S:5
0 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 5 0 0
Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
G4?
S1S2
None
None
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable 1,200
1,200
181
S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
G3G4
S1S2
None
None
900
1,300
437
S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
G3
S3
Threatened
None
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable 600
1,125
795
S:13
0 2 9 1 0 1 8 5 13 0 0
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
G4
S3S4
None
None
CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
995
995
107
S:1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Calochortus obispoensis
San Luis mariposa-lily
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,300
1,700
46 S:3
0 1 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 0 0
Calochortus simulans
La Panza mariposa-lily
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3
SB_CRES-San Diego
Zoo CRES Native
Gene Seed Bank
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,000
1,600
109
S:14
0 5 2 3 0 4 4 10 14 0 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Calycadenia villosa
dwarf calycadenia
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
984
1,130
59 S:4
0 2 0 0 0 2 4 0 4 0 0
Camissoniopsis hardhamiae
Hardham's evening-primrose
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
550
1,600
22 S:8
3 3 0 1 0 1 6 2 8 0 0
Carex obispoensis
San Luis Obispo sedge
G3?
S3?
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,600
2,500
29 S:3
1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 0
Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis
San Luis Obispo owl's-clover
G5T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 790
1,580
69 S:5
0 1 2 0 0 2 1 4 5 0 0
Caulanthus lemmonii
Lemmon's jewelflower
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,000
1,000
91 S:4
0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0
Chorizanthe breweri
Brewer's spineflower
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,000
2,500
45 S:7
2 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 7 0 0
Chorizanthe rectispina
straight-awned spineflower
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
600
1,900
38 S:11
2 1 1 0 0 7 7 4 11 0 0
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense
Chorro Creek bog thistle
G2T2
S2
Endangered
Endangered
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
1,000
1,000
22 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Cirsium occidentale var. lucianum
Cuesta Ridge thistle
G3G4T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 9
S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
G4
S2
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
USFS_S-Sensitive
WBWG_H-High
Priority
620
1,000
635
S:5
0 0 1 0 0 4 3 2 5 0 0
Delphinium parryi ssp. eastwoodiae
Eastwood's larkspur
G4T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 900
900
15 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Delphinium umbraculorum
umbrella larkspur
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
95 S:2
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0
Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina
mouse-gray dudleya
G4T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.3
BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
1,230
1,600
36 S:2
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
G5
S3S4
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
1,165
1,240
180
S:2
0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
G3G4
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
USFS_S-Sensitive
633
1,464
1404
S:21
2 13 3 0 0 3 6 15 21 0 0
Eremophila alpestris actia
California horned lark
G5T4Q
S4
None
None
CDFW_WL-Watch List
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
600
1,000
94 S:2
0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
Eriastrum luteum
yellow-flowered eriastrum
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
860
1,900
34 S:12
3 1 1 0 0 7 6 6 12 0 0
Fritillaria ojaiensis
Ojai fritillary
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,200
1,200
49 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
mesa horkelia
G4T1
S1
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
USFS_S-Sensitive
820
875
103
S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Horkelia cuneata var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia
G4T1?
S1?
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
SB_UCSC-UC Santa
Cruz
USFS_S-Sensitive
600
1,140
58 S:2
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0
Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
984
984
37 S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0
Lavinia exilicauda harengus
Monterey hitch
G4T2T4
S3
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
250
250
2 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Lepidium jaredii ssp. jaredii
Jared's pepper-grass
G2G3T1T2
S1S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
12 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Linderiella occidentalis
California linderiella
G2G3
S2S3
None
None
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
968
1,076
508
S:5
0 4 0 0 0 1 0 5 5 0 0
Malacothamnus palmeri var. palmeri
Santa Lucia bush-mallow
G3T2Q
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,000
1,000
10 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Masticophis flagellum ruddocki
San Joaquin coachwhip
G5T2T3
S2?
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
584
646
96 S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 0 0
Meconella oregana
Oregon meconella
G2G3
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1 1,200
1,200
9 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Monardella palmeri
Palmer's monardella
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,600
1,600
24 S:2
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0
Monolopia gracilens
woodland woollythreads
G3
S3
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2 68
S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia
G2
S2
Threatened
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.1
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_CRES-San Diego
Zoo CRES Native
Gene Seed Bank
1,100
1,100
82 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians
shining navarretia
G4T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
BLM_S-Sensitive
700
1,571
102
S:14
0 0 5 2 0 7 7 7 14 0 0
Neotoma macrotis luciana
Monterey dusky-footed woodrat
G5T3
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_DD-Data
Deficient
988
1,700
8 S:3
2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0
Northern Interior Cypress Forest
Northern Interior Cypress Forest
G2
S2.2
None
None
2,400
2,400
22 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Perognathus inornatus psammophilus
Salinas pocket mouse
G2G3T2?
S1
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
740
1,225
9 S:7
3 3 0 0 0 1 7 0 7 0 0
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
G3G4
S3S4
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
600
600
784
S:2
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0
Plagiobothrys uncinatus
hooked popcornflower
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,780
1,780
14 S:1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
Polyphylla nubila
Atascadero June beetle
G1
S1
None
None
800
900
4 S:3
0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0
Progne subis
purple martin
G5
S3
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
915
915
71 S:1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
G3
S3
None
Endangered
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
USFS_S-Sensitive
1,010
1,010
2476
S:1
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 7 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
G2G3
S2S3
Threatened
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
775
1,684
1671
S:11
1 7 1 1 1 0 5 6 10 1 0
Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala
Cuesta Pass checkerbloom
G3T1
S1
None
Rare
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_SBBG-Santa
Barbara Botanic
Garden
USFS_S-Sensitive
2,500
2,500
4 S:1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
G2G3
S3
None
None
BLM_S-Sensitive
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
594
1,591
1422
S:31
2 6 10 2 0 11 16 15 31 0 0
Stebbinsoseris decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris
G2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_UCSC-UC Santa
Cruz
600
600
19 S:1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus
most beautiful jewelflower
G2T2
S2
None
None
Rare Plant Rank - 1B.2
SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho
Santa Ana Botanic
Garden
SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at
Berkeley
USFS_S-Sensitive
103
S:2
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0
Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt
G4
S4
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
965
1,700
88 S:9
1 3 0 1 0 4 3 6 9 0 0
Taxidea taxus
American badger
G5
S3
None
None
CDFW_SSC-Species
of Special Concern
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
570
1,055
594
S:26
23 2 0 0 0 1 24 2 26 0 0
Trimerotropis occulens
Lompoc grasshopper
G1G2
S1S2
None
None
IUCN_EN-Endangered 900
900
8 S:1
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 8 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
Elev. Element Occ. Ranks Population Status Presence
Name (Scientific/Common)
CNDDB
Ranks
Listing Status
(Fed/State) Other Lists
Range
(ft.)
Total
EO's A B C D X U
Historic
> 20 yr
Recent
<= 20 yr Extant
Poss.
Extirp. Extirp.
Valley Oak Woodland
Valley Oak Woodland
G3
S2.1
None
None
1,060
2,000
91 S:6
0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 6 0 0
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell's vireo
G5T2
S2
Endangered
Endangered
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
NABCI_YWL-Yellow
Watch List
660
710
503
S:2
1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0
Vulpes macrotis mutica
San Joaquin kit fox
G4T2
S2
Endangered
Threatened
641
1,049
1020
S:26
2 0 1 1 0 22 23 3 26 0 0
Report Printed on Monday, March 21, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated February, 27 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 9 of 9 Information Expires 8/27/2022
Summary Table Report
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
IS/MND Attachment 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
February 17, 2022
Shannon Joy
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Rolling Hills Paso Robles Project, San Luis Obispo County Dear Ms. Joy:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Cody Campagne
IS/MND Attachment 7
Rolling Hills Multifamily
Transportation Impact Study
Central Coast Transportation Consulting
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
Morro Bay, CA 93442
(805) 316-0101
February 2023
Prepared For: City of Paso Robles
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 2
Transportation Impact Study
Executive Summary
This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the Rolling Hills residential project located on Creston Road in the City of Paso Robles. The project includes 135 multi-family housing units estimated to generate 941 trips per weekday, including 65 trips during the AM peak hour and 79 trips during the PM peak hour. An alternative project description includes 64 single family housing units. The single-family alternative would generate less vehicle trips than the multi-family alternative.
The multi-family project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would have a less-than-significant impact to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
With construction of a single lane roundabout at Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2) all study locations would operate acceptably under Existing Plus Project Conditions. Under Cumulative Conditions, the intersection would operate acceptably; however, westbound queues are expected to reach the Creston Road/Melody Drive (#3) intersection during peak periods. However, no additional lanes are recommended as the entire corridor experiences congestion during the school drop off and pick up and congestion is minimal during off peak times.
We recommend the Creston Road driveway be limited to left-in, right-in, right-out only. We also recommend 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.
We also recommend the project construct the following improvements consistent with the Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Study:
• Extend curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on the north side of Creston Road from project frontage to Orchard Drive.
• Install curb ramps and bulbouts on the north and south side of Creston Road at the existing Orchard Drive crosswalk.
• 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 SW-24-3 (CA) sign in advance of the crosswalk.
• Replace existing overhead flashing beacons with overhead and pole mounted rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB).
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. We recommend the project frontage improvements incorporate the width to accommodate the future Class II facilities.
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 3
Transportation Impact Study
Contents
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 CEQA Transportation Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6
3.0 Local Transportation Analysis................................................................................................................... 9
4.0 References...................................................................................................................................................17 Table 1: City of Paso Robles Mobility Deficiency Criteria........................................................................................... 9 Table 2: Project Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................................11 Table 3: Existing Weekday Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................14 Table 4: Existing Weekday Plus Project Intersection Queues...................................................................................15 Figure 1: Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Existing Volumes and Lane Configurations................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Project Trip Distribution and Assignment ..................................................................................................12 Figure 4: Existing Plus Project Volumes.......................................................................................................................13 Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B: Intersection Calculation Sheets
Appendix C: Signal Warrant
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 4
Transportation Impact Study
1.0 Introduction
This study evaluates the potential transportation impacts of the Rolling Hills residential development located on Creston Road just west of Rolling Hills Road in the City of Paso Robles. The project includes two alternatives including 135 multi-family housing units or 64 single-family housing units. The multi-family alternative would generate more vehicle trips and was analyzed in this report. The project site plan is shown on Figure 1.
The following intersections were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hour:
1. Creston Road/Orchard Drive
2. Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road
3. Creston Road/Melody Drive
4. Creston Road/Shopping Center (Williams Plaza)
5. Creston Road/Golden Hill Road
6. Golden Hill Road/Rolling Hills Road
The study locations were evaluated under these scenarios:
• Existing Conditions reflect recent traffic counts and the existing transportation network. • Existing Plus Project adds project-generated traffic to Existing Conditions volumes.
Each scenario is described in more detail in the appropriate chapter. The proposed project does not require a General Plan amendment and cumulative analysis is not required.
This study also evaluates vehicle miles traveled (VMT), safety, emergency access, and consistency with regional plans as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
IS/MND Attachment 8
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 6
Transportation Impact Study
2.0 CEQA Transportation Analysis
This section presents analysis relevant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), notably analysis of the existing setting, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), emergency access, and safety.
The City’s 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines Supplement provides VMT and safety thresholds consistent with guidance from the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Residential projects may have a significant impact if the residential VMT per capita exceeds 85 percent of the regional average.
Residential VMT captures all home-based productions (all trips to and from homes).
Projects may have a significant impact if they exacerbate an existing high-priority or similar safety location, introduce a design feature that substantially increases hazards, or propose features that do not meet City design standards.
2.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION NETWORK
The existing roadways in the project vicinity are described below. • Creston Road is an arterial with two travel lanes, Class II bike lanes, and a sidewalk and parking on the south side adjacent to the project. East of Rolling Hills Road, the roadway transitions to four travel lanes with a sidewalk on both sides, Class II bike lanes, and no on-street parking. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour (MPH) with supplemental 25 MPH school signage. • Orchard Drive is a two-lane local road with minimal striping, no bikeways, and no posted speed limit. • Rolling Hills Road is a two-lane collector with a center left-turn lane and continuous sidewalk on the eastside, and no marked bikeways. The posted speed limit is 40 MPH. • Melody Drive is a two-lane collector with sidewalks on both sides, on-street parking, and no bikeways.
The posted speed limit is 25 MPH.
• Golden Hill Road is an arterial with three to four travel lanes, a center turn lane, and intermittent sidewalks and Class II bike lanes in the project vicinity. The speed limit is 45 MPH north of Creston Road.
Marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals are provided on all legs of the Creston Road/Melody Drive (#3) and Creston Road/Golden Hill Road (#5) signalized intersections. Additionally, there is an uncontrolled crosswalk on Creston Road at Orchard Drive.
The Paso Express provides fixed route and dial-a-ride transit service for the City of Paso Robles. The fixed route service operates Routes A and B, which run clockwise and counterclockwise, respectively. The stops at the project site are located on Creston Road at the intersection with Melody Drive for both the A and B routes.
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides regional fixed-route service throughout San Luis Obispo County. Route 9 serves the North County region, providing regional access between San Luis Obispo, Santa Margarita, Atascadero, Templeton, and Paso Robles. The closest stop to the project site is located over a mile away at the Paso Robles transit center at the intersection of Pine Street and 8th Street, which is served on weekdays with hourly service.
2.2 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)
The SLOCOG Travel Demand Model was applied to estimate VMT. The regional average residential VMT per capita is 13.40, and 85 percent of this level corresponds to a threshold of 11.39 residential VMT per capita. The project was added to the SLOCOG model in an existing Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) which also includes IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 7
Transportation Impact Study
existing single family residences. With the project the project TAZ generates 6.22 residential VMT per capita, well below the threshold. The project would have a less-than-significant impact to VMT.
2.3 EMERGENCY ACCESS
The project proposes access at two entryways with one approach from Creston Road and one from Rolling Hills Road. Emergency access is adequate as proposed.
2.4 COLLISIONS
Creston Road/Golden Hill Road (#5) was included in the City’s Local Road Safety Plan as a high incident location. There is a pattern of drivers making left-turns failing to yield to oncoming traffic and rear-end collisions from unsafe speeds. Recommendations include:
• Replace or upgrade signal backplates with retroreflective border. • Upgrade 8” signal heads to 12” signal heads.
• Install near side signal head on east corner luminaire pole • Install Signal Warning Beacon on southbound Golden Hill Road approach. • Implement adaptive signal controls with advanced dilemma zone detection.
In addition, we recommend the City review the signal timing including pedestrian, bicycle, yellow, and red clearance intervals.
Collision data was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for 2017 through 2021 for the remainder of the unsignalized study intersections as described below. • Creston Road/Orchard Drive (#1): Four collisions occurred near the intersection, three were rear end due to unsafe speed and one was an auto right of way collision during rainy conditions. • Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2): Three collisions occurred near the intersection due to an auto right-of-way violation, driving under the influence, and unsafe speed. • Creston Road/Shopping Center (#4): Two auto right of way collisions occurred near the driveway on Creston Road.
• Golden Hill Road/Rolling Hills Road (#6): Six collisions were reported at the intersection. Four broadside collisions occurred with an eastbound driver on Rolling Hills Road and a southbound driver on Golden Hill Road, one of these was an eastbound driver failing to yield to a southbound cyclist.
At least four or five collisions, susceptible to correction by installation of multi-way stop control, must occur during a 12-month period to meet California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) guidelines for installation.
Twelve collisions occurred near the signalized intersection of Creston Road/Melody Drive (#3). Five broadside collisions occurred due to auto right-of-way violations and four rear end collisions occurred due to unsafe speeds. The westbound left turn phase does not meet the recommendations for protective phasing. Reflective borders, signal timing updates, and video detection should be considered.
Installation of a roundabout at Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2) should reduce collisions at the intersection and slow corridor speeds.
2.5 RTP CONSISTENCY
SLOCOG’s 2019 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) serves as the blueprint for regional development patterns. It includes visions, goals, and policies relevant to the proposed project. These include support for a IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 8
Transportation Impact Study
mix of housing options in new residential developments and support for infill development near existing transit services and activity centers. The proposed project is on an infill site near goods and services.
2.6 CRESTON ROAD COMPLETE AND SUSTAINABLE STREETS STUDY The Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Project utilized a community-driven effort to develop a plan for creating a vibrant, pedestrian and bicycle-friendly, green street environment for residents, businesses, and visitors. The plan included the following recommendations:
• Trigo Lane to Orchard Drive:
o Addition of RRFBs at the crosswalks at Trigo Lane, Ivy Lane, and Orchard Drive o Installation of continuous painted bike lanes and crossing lanes o Additional and increased pedestrian sidewalk area, mainly around intersections o Incorporation of a two-way center turn lane
o Allocation of on-street parking between Ivy Lane and Orchard Drive • Orchard Drive to Melody Drive:
o Addition of a roundabout at Rolling Hills Road and Creston Road intersection o Increased sidewalk area around roundabout
o New pedestrian crosswalks at Rolling Hills Road
With installation of a roundabout at Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2) and the recommended frontage improvements, the project is consistent with the Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Study.
In addition, the proposed roundabout is consistent with the City’s Circulation Element.
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 9
Transportation Impact Study
3.0 Local Transportation Analysis
The remaining sections of this report present additional analysis relevant to City transportation policy.
3.1 DEFICIENCY THRESHOLDS
The City’s TIA Guidelines provide criteria for identifying mobility deficiencies reflecting the City’s Circulation Element Goals as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: City of Paso Robles Mobility Deficiency Criteria
3.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Intersection turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections in August 2022 during the weekday AM and PM peak hours when local schools were in session. The existing intersection volumes and lane configurations are shown in Figure 2. The traffic count data sheets are included as Appendix A.
The Creston Road corridor currently experiences congestion during the school pick up and drop off periods.
Intersection operations are discussed in detail under the Existing Plus Project Conditions section of this report.
Study Element Deficiency Determination
On-site Circulation and Parking
Project designs fail to meet City or industry standard guidelines, fail to provide adequate truck access, will result in unsafe conditions, or will create parking demand or supply above code requirements.
Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit Facilities
Project fails to provide safe and accessible connections, conflicts with adopted plans, or adds trips to facility that doesn't meet current design standards.
Traffic Operations
Project causes vehicle queues that exceed turn pocket lengths, increases safety hazards, causes stop-controlled intersection to operate below LOS D and meet signal warrants, or causes vehicle demand greater than the roadway capacity.
1. Summary based on Table 5 of City's Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.
City of Paso Robles Mobility Deficiency Criteria1
IS/MND Attachment 8
#
"
&
%
"
#(% %
# (!&
'()
"'%&'
#"
%#
'
' '#$
"
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 11
Transportation Impact Study
3.3 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation network. The amount of project traffic affecting the study locations is estimated in three steps: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation refers to the total number of trips generated by the site. Trip distribution identifies the general origins and destination of these trips, and trip assignment specifies the routes taken to reach these origins and destinations.
3.3.1 Project Trips
Project trip generation was estimated using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Project Trip Generation
The project is estimated to generate 941 trips per weekday, including 65 trips during the AM peak hour and 79 trips during the PM peak hour. Project trip distribution and assignment was derived using the SLOCOG model and is shown on Figure 3.
3.3.2 Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations
The study intersections were analyzed using Synchro 11 and the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 edition methodology. Table 3 presents the LOS for the study intersections under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions and Table 4 summarizes the key queues. Existing Plus Project volume are shown on Figure 4.
Detailed calculation sheets are included in Appendix B. Note that the project proposes a single-lane roundabout at the Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2) intersection, but it was evaluated under its current stop-control in the following tables.
Daily
Land Use Size Total In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing1
135 DU 941 15 50 65 50 29 79
DU = Dwelling Unit; KSF = Thousand Square Feet; ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers; LU = Land Net New Vehicle Trips 941 15 50 65 50 29 79 Use.
1. ITE LU Code #220, Multi-Family (Low-Rise). Fitted curve equations used.
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
Project Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
IS/MND Attachment 8
%"" $
""(
!
%*' '
%"*#
(
)*+
$)
'(
) %$
'%
) )
'%
) ' &
()' *) %$
IS/MND Attachment 8
#
"
%
#'$ $
# '!%
&'(
"&$%&
#"
$#
&
&
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 14
Transportation Impact Study
Table 3: Existing Weekday Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
AM 0.5(21.9) -(C) 0.5(22.6) -(C)
PM 0.5(16.7) -(C) 0.5(17.1) -(C)
AM 6(41.7) -(E) 8.9(60.3) -(F)
PM 4.5(26.2) -(D) 5.4(30.6) -(D)
AM 8.4 A 8.4 A
PM 5.8 A 5.9 A
AM 0.7(12.1) -(B) 0.7(12.2) -(B)
PM 2.4(15.5) -(C) 2.4(15.7) -(C)
AM 19.3 B 19.3 B
PM 15.3 B 15.2 B
AM 2.4(15.7) -(C) 2.6(16.1) -(C)
PM 2.6(14.5) -(B) 2.6(14.7) -(B)
2. Intersection was assumed to be two-way stop controlled under project conditions.
Unacceptable operations shown in bold text.
Intersection
1. Creston Rd/ Orchard Dr
2. Creston Rd/ Rolling Hills Rd
3. Creston Rd/ Melody Dr
4. Creston Rd/ Shopping Center
5. Creston Rd/ Golden Hill Rd
6. Golden Hill Rd/ Rolling Hills Rd
1. HCM 6th average control delay in seconds per vehicle. For two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parentheses next to the overall delay. HCM 2000 used for yield controlled intersections.
Existing and Existing Plus Project Levels of Service
Peak Hour
Existing Existing + Project
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 15
Transportation Impact Study
Table 4: Existing Weekday Plus Project Intersection Queues The following City intersections operate below LOS D or show queue deficiencies:
• Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2): During the AM peak hour, the intersection operates at LOS E without the project and LOS F with the project and the current side-street-stop control. In addition, the southbound right turn queue exceeds the turn pocket length under Existing Conditions with and without the project during the AM peak hour. Modifying the intersection to a single lane roundabout as proposed by the project would improve operations to LOS C or better during both peak hours and eliminate queue deficiencies. A traffic signal is warranted under Existing Conditions and would also operate acceptably with acceptable queues with an additional westbound approach lane. The roundabout is preferred in the Creston Corridor Plan. The signal warrant is included in Appendix C. • Creston Road/Golden Hill Road (#5): The eastbound left turn queue exceeds the turn pocket length under Existing Conditions with and without the project during the AM peak hour. The project would exacerbate the queue by less than one vehicle and the impact would be less than significant. Additional storage is also available in the bay taper to accommodate the queues.
Although analysis of Cumulative Conditions was not required in this report, operations at Creston Road/Rolling Hills Road (#2) were estimated to determine future right-of-way needs. Under Cumulative Conditions, westbound queues would be expected to reach or exceed the Creston Road/Melody Drive (#3) Peak
Hour Existing Existing+Project
AM 13 13
PM 8 8
AM 45 83
PM 33 48
AM 108 125
PM 65 73
AM 33 33
PM 30 30
AM 3 3
PM 18 18
AM 3 3
PM 10 10
AM 133 134
PM 84 85
AM 35 38
PM 30 33
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.
Bold indicates queue length longer than storage length.
3. Creston Rd/Melody Dr
4. Creston Rd/Shopping Center
5. Creston Rd/Golden Hill Rd
1. Queue length in feet that would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time.
6. Golden Hill Rd/Rolling Hills Rd
SBL
SBR
200
60 SBR
WBL
2. Creston Rd/Rolling Hills Rd
SBL -
100
115
-
Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues
Intersection Movement Storage
Length (ft)
95th percentile Queue
1. Creston Rd/Orchard Dr SBL/R
EB -
EBL 125
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 16
Transportation Impact Study
intersection during peak periods. However, no additional lanes are recommended as the entire corridor experiences congestion during the school drop off and pick up and congestion is minimal during off peak times.
3.4 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) states that, “ideally, driveways should not be located within the functional area of an intersection or the influence area of an adjacent driveway.” In addition, the City’s Circulation Element calls for limited access on arterial roadways consistent with access management best practices.
The project proposes a driveway on Creston Road and a driveway on Rolling Hills Road. We recommend full access at the Rolling Hills Road driveway. We recommend the Creston Road driveway be limited to left-in, right-in, right-out. Additional uncontrolled left turns to Creston Road are not recommended consistent with access management best practices. To accommodate left turns into the site on Creston Road and reduce conflicts points on the corridor, a short median in the two-way left turn lane is recommended. The median would allow left turns into the site and the driveway across Creston Road but would restrict outbound left turns.
We also recommend the project construct the following improvements consistent with the Creston Road Complete and Sustainable Streets Study to provide an accessible connection to area schools:
• Extend curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements on the north side of Creston Road from project frontage to Orchard Drive.
• Install curb ramps and bulbouts on the north and south side of Creston Road at the existing Orchard Drive crosswalk.
• 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 SW-24-3 (CA) sign in advance of the crosswalk.
• Replace existing overhead flashing beacons at Orchard Drive with overhead and pole mounted rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB).
The study also contained a median in the two-way left turn lane at the Orchard Drive crosswalk. We do not recommend installing the median to continue to allow for two-stage gap acceptance for southbound left turn drivers at Orchard Drive.
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. We recommend the project frontage improvements incorporate the width to accommodate the future Class II facilities.
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting February 2023
Rolling Hills Multifamily 17
Transportation Impact Study
4.0 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2018. A Policy on Geometric Design.
California Department of Transportation. May 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide.
_____. 2020. Highway Design Manual.
_____. 2014, Revision 6. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). December 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
City of El Paso De Robles. 2017. Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. _____. 2018. General Plan Circulation Element.
_____. 2013. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. _____. 2022. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Supplement.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 2019. Regional Transportation Plan.
The Natelson Company, Inc. 2001. Employment Density Study Summary Report.
Transportation Research Board. 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
IS/MND Attachment 8
Central Coast Transportation Consulting November 2022
Rolling Hills
Draft Transportation Impact Study Appendices
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
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 0 0 0 65 0 7 0 98 2 3
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 102 0 0 0 168 2 2
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 192 0 3 0 281 1 1
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 8 219 0 5 0 236 1 4
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 13 248 0 2 0 233 4 9
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 138 0 2 0 164 1 2
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 86 0 5 0 128 0 3
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 87 0 3 0 116 2 5
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 12 0 31 0 28 1137 0 27 0 1424 13 29
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 3 0 2 1 1 120 0 3 0 118 2 0
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 121 0 1 0 152 2 2
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 135 0 0 0 233 4 5
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 7 1 8 153 0 0 0 204 4 2
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 0 9 223 0 4 0 141 3 3
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 163 0 2 0 158 4 7
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 178 0 2 0 174 5 2
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 2 182 0 1 0 205 0 2
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 175 0 2 0 154 3 1
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 3 177 0 4 0 165 1 0
4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 0 0 0 178 1 2
4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 186 0 1 0 141 2 2
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 160 0 2 0 173 4 0
5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 183 0 1 0 152 4 0
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 140 0 1 0 134 3 1
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 151 0 0 0 116 4 0
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 33 0 43 2 46 2609 0 24 0 2598 46 29
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 6 0 25 0 24 797 0 12 0 914 7 16 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 22 1 22 674 0 6 0 736 15 17 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.878 1.6%
PM 22 0 9 0.596
PM 0.950 1.6%
AM 25 0 6 0.705
PHF 0.75 0.786
AM PM
22 24 7 15
674 797 914 736
00 00
PM AM
PHF
0.816 0.792 PHF
##### 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Orchard Dr @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
Eastbound
35.6242
-120.6667
Orchard 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 0000000000000100
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0000000000000000
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0000000000000200
7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0002000000020300
8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0004000001010000
8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0000000000000000
8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0001000000000000
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0001000001000100
TOTAL 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 7 0 0
Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 2:00 PM - 2:15 PM 0001000000000000
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0001000000000000
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0000000000000000
2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0000000000000100
3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0003000004010000
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0000000000000000
3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0000000000000000
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0003000000020000
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0000000001000000
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0002000000000000
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 0000000000000000
5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0001000000000000
5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0000000000000000
TOTAL 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 1 0 0
PEAK HOUR Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:30 AM - 8:30 AM 0006000001030500
2:30 PM - 3:30 PM 0003000004010100
Bikes Peds Peds <>
AM Peak Total 69 PM 0 0 0 3
PM Peak Total 5 4 AM 0006 Peds <>
00 AM PM
00 00
41 51
00 00
PM AM
Peds <> 31
Peds <>
0000 AM
0 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Orchard Dr @ Creston Rd 35.6242
San Luis Obispo -120.6667
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
Orchard 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
Orchard Dr @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022
Orchard 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 0 0 0 0 6 0 34 0 14 58 0 5 0 73 10 3
7:15 AM - 7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 5 0 44 0 17 86 0 2 0 123 2 2
7:30 AM - 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 63 0 37 183 0 3 0 216 6 2 7:45 AM - 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 58 0 35 234 0 5 0 186 18 4 8:00 AM - 8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 8 0 49 1 53 214 0 2 0 186 32 4 8:15 AM - 8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 39 0 44 110 0 2 0 122 14 1 8:30 AM - 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 3 0 25 1 12 72 0 5 0 102 4 2
8:45 AM - 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6 0 29 0 27 62 0 3 0 90 8 4
TOTAL 0 0 0 0 40 0 341 2 239 1019 0 27 0 1098 94 22
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 30 0 23 100 0 5 0 91 8 0
2:15 PM - 2:30 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 29 0 28 98 0 1 0 134 3 2
2:30 PM - 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 3 0 46 0 23 110 0 0 0 191 8 5 2:45 PM - 3:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 53 1 37 137 0 1 0 169 5 1 3:00 PM - 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 46 0 72 217 0 4 0 95 18 6 3:15 PM - 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 45 0 38 134 0 2 0 113 13 6 3:30 PM - 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 32 0 50 123 0 2 0 148 16 1 3:45 PM - 4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 41 0 58 136 0 1 0 167 1 2 4:00 PM - 4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 28 0 51 130 0 1 0 125 8 0 4:15 PM - 4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 41 0 40 142 0 5 0 126 6 0 4:30 PM - 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 49 0 44 118 0 2 0 131 9 2 4:45 PM - 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 48 0 43 145 0 2 0 99 7 2
5:00 PM - 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 55 0 43 126 0 2 0 117 12 0 5:15 PM - 5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 44 0 41 144 0 1 0 115 5 0 5:30 PM - 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 37 0 32 111 0 1 0 102 10 2 5:45 PM - 6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 0 28 0 34 120 0 0 0 87 13 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 85 0 652 1 657 2091 0 30 0 2010 142 29
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 20 0 209 1 169 741 0 12 0 710 70 11 2:30 PM - 3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 21 0 190 1 170 598 0 7 0 568 44 18 PHF Trucks PHF
AM 0.885 1.3%
PM 190 0 21 0.909
PM 0.870 1.6%
AM 209 0 20 0.854
PHF 0.664 0.846
AM PM
170 169 70 44
598 741 710 568
00 00
PM AM
PHF
0.878 0.769 PHF
##### 0 0 0 AM
##### 0 0 0 PM
Turning Movement Report
Southbound
Rolling Hills Rd @ Creston Rd
San Luis Obispo
Thursday, August 25, 2022 Clear
Eastbound
35.6235
-120.6641
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