Paso Robles City Council
November 7, 2023

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
13 to the aesthetic appeal of the property, and functions as a bioretention area to filter, store, and infiltrate stormwater back into the aquifer.

The Zoning Code also requires that a minimum of twenty-five percent of the parking lot shall be shaded within five years of construction (Section 21.22.080.E.2). The application proposes ample shade tree species in the parking lots and shall comply with this standard. See Sheet L1.1 and L1.2 of the Plan Set for more information on the conceptual landscape plan.

A request to modify the landscape screening standards for the southern property line of Lot 13 (21.13.030.F.1.b) has been included in Section 4.13.1 of the Project Description, below.

4.13.1 Landscape Screening Modification
The Zoning Code requires the installation of thick
landscaped screening, at least 10 feet wide, along the
southern property line of Lot 13 (Section 21.13.030.F.1.b).

The intent of thislandscape screening standard is to establish a visual buffer from the commercial/industrial uses and the future residential uses within the North Chandler Ranch Specific Plan area adjacent to the project site. However, there are certain circumstances that make these standards impractical and inefficient.

A modification is requested to reduce the width of the
landscaping to 7 feet for a majority of the southern property line of Lot 13. In a specific section spanning approximately 60-80 feet, a width of 0-7 feet of landscaping is requested.

The reduced landscaping is required to accommodate the
decorative masonry wall while allowing for onsite circulation and parking. In the 60-80-foot section, 0-7 feet of
landscaping width is necessitated by site constraints linked to the two (2) proposed 30” storm drainpipes, which is
essential for redirecting the non-jurisdiction drainage flow.

While a reduction in landscape screening ground area is requested, the proposed landscape screening tree canopy will grow to 15-35 feet in width1, thereby providing a
minimum of 15 sq. ft. of aerial landscape screening. While a small portion of the southern property line will have zero feet of ground landscaping, strategic positioning of trees adjacent to this section will provide aerial screening in this 1 Section 21.13.030.F.1 recommends planting trees or tall shrubs that would grow more than ten feet high such as Eucalyptus Nicholii and Leyland Cypress. When full grown, Eucalyptus Nichollii and Leyland Cypresses typically have a canopy width of 15-30 feet and 15-25 feet, respectively. https://www.arborday.org/trees/treeguide/treedetail.cfm?itemID=828 Figure 13: Landscaping
Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
14 area. The proposed landscaping, in conjunction with the masonry wall, effectively achieves the intended purpose of the landscape screening standard and will successfully shield the proposed development from future residential uses. See Figure 13 for the location of the proposed landscaping and masonry wall.

4.14 Fencing
The application proposes four types of fencing: Chain link with vertical privacy slats, vinyl coated chain link, black tube steel fencing, and a decorative masonry wall. Black tube steel fencing is proposed around the existing oak tree between Buildings 2/3 in order to protect the critical root zone. Vinyl coated chain link fencing is proposed around the retention pond to prevent accidental and unwanted access. Vinyl coated chain link fencing is also proposed along the northern and eastern property lines of Lot 6 with the purpose of allowing shrubs to grow on them to provide vegetative screening to soften offsite views of the proposed development. Chain link fencing with vertical privacy slats is proposed along the western property line of Lot 13 to match neighboring property fencing types. Lastly, a decorative masonry wall is proposed along the southern property line of Lot 13 to screen the project from future residential uses, consistent with Section

21.13.030.F.1.a. See Sheet L1.1 of the Plan Set for fencing types and locations and Figure 14 below for proposed fencing types:

Figure 14: Proposed Fencing Types

4.15 Lighting
The project site parking lots will be illuminated with 28-foot pole mounted downward facing LED lights (Figure 15). Building faces will be illuminated with wall mounted downward facing lights (Figure 16). Street lighting will be installed along the project frontage consistent with City standards for spacing and based on the locations of existing streetlights. See Sheet C3.2 of the Plan Set for streetlight locations. See Sheets E1-E3 for the Site Lighting and Photometric Plan (respectively).
https://www.gardenia.net/plant/eucalyptus-nicholii#:~:text=Grows%20up%20to%2035%2D50,(4%2D7%20m).

Chain Link w/ Privacy Slats Vinyl Coated Chain Link Black Tube Steel Decorative Masonry Wall Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
15 4.16 Signage
The project site will contain separate operations with multiple points of access from Ardmore Road and Ardmore Extension. The project proposes a monument entry sign and multiple wall signs in order to efficiently direct traffic into the site and allow the different business to differentiate themselves from one another. A total of 1,200 sq. ft. of signage is proposed.

Monument Sign: Three (3) 4’ x 6’ monument signs are proposed for a total monument sign area of 72 sq. ft. Monument signs are proposed on Lot 6 (Parcel A) at the corner of Ardmore Road and Ardmore Extension, Lot 6 (Parcel B) at the center entrance, and Lot 13 at the rear entrance, farthest away from Ardmore Road. The monument signs will feature grey corrugated metal siding, Corten metal panel accents, and punched out lettering and will be installed on a concrete base with reveals. The proposed monument sign design and materials will be compatible with the site architecture and the color palette will complement the colors of the proposed buildings. LED spot-lights are proposed for sign illumination. The monument signs shall not be located within the public right-of-way and will be consistent with Section 21.19.040.K of the Zoning Code. See Sheet A5.2 of the Plan Set for additional details.

Wall-Mounted Signs: Wall signs are proposed on Buildings 1-6 and will be designed to be compatible and consistent with surrounding signs and building architecture. The wall sign area shall comply with Section 21.19.040.O of the Zoning Code which allows 1 sq. ft. of signage per 1 linear foot of building with a street frontage. The total linear feet of buildings with a street frontage is equal to 1,128 linear feet and a total of 1,128 sq. ft. of signage is proposed.

4.17 Waste Storage
Waste enclosures are proposed in multiple locations throughout the site, primarily behind the proposed buildings or in a centralized, screened location. The waste enclosures will be ADA Figure 15: Parking Lot Lighting Figure 16: Building Mounted Lighting Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
16 accessible and will be constructed with standard concrete blocks, corrugated metal roofing, and double swing lockable gates. See Sheet A5.2 of the Plan Set for waste enclosure details and Figure 17 below for waste enclosure locations.

Figure 17: Waste Enclosure Locations

4.18 Grading and Drainage
The proposed development of Lot 13 (for Building 1) takes advantage of the natural gradient of the site, sloping from east to west. An existing non-jurisdictional drainage crosses the southwesterly corner of the property where the storm drainage system installed by the Spurr development to the west conveys stormwater off-site.

Proposed development of Lot 6 requires sensitive consideration of two existing oak trees that are intended to be preserved/protected with the project. Additionally, the existing improvements along Ardmore Road and the set match elevation at the Ardmore Extension prescribe boundary conditions for grade and access. Lot 6 has two drainage areas, with roughly two-thirds of the Lot draining to the west, toward an existing storm drain system installed across Ardmore Road with the Daniels Wood Land project to the west. A second, smaller drainage area slopes toward the northeast corner of the site.

At buildout of the project (both Lots 13 and 6), a cumulative earthwork estimate results in full property disturbance (approximately 14 acres) and 19,803CY cut and 43,515 CY fill. (Note that earthwork figures are relative to finish grade and are unadjusted for soil consolidation.) The proposed site development will be improved with paved surfaces including concrete channels and curbs for storm water conveyance. Catch basins and underground storm drains are proposed to collect and direct project runoff to treatment and retention systems before allowing runoff from the project site.

Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
17 A Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan was prepared by Wallace Group in March 2023 to address project stormwater impacts and mitigation measures (attached). A Preliminary Drainage Report was prepared by Wallace Group in March 2023 to assess the onsite drainage conditions of the project site and to document the preliminary drainage design for the proposed project in support of the preliminary grading plans (attached).

5.0 Environmental Considerations

5.1 Water & Sewer
The proposed project’s water and sewer will be provided by the City of Paso Robles. The project has an annual water demand of 21 AFY and a daily wastewater demand of 15,356 gpd (Wallace Group, November 2022). See Table 8 below for additional information on water and sewer demand estimates:

Table 8: Water & Wastewater Demand Estimates
Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
18 5.2 Traffic
A Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was completed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting (“CCTC”) in December 2022 (attached). The Study included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis, Trip Generation Estimate, and recommendations for site access.

5.2.1 Existing Conditions
Ardmore Road is a two-lane minor road with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour.

No collisions occurred on Ardmore Road between 2017-2021 (Statewide Integrated Traffic Record Systems). One collision occurred south of Golden Hill Road/Ardmore Road intersection; however, no collision pattern was identified. Existing uses along Ardmore Road are expected to generate 513 net new trips per weekday, including 79 AM peak hour trips and 48 PM peak hour trips. Following the completion of the Golden Hill Road/Union Road roundabout, Ardmore Road will not be the fastest route and cut-through traffic is not anticipated.

5.2.2 Project Trip Generation
The proposed project will generate 1,194 net new vehicle trips per weekday, including 117 AM peak hour trips and 158 PM peak hour trips2. See Table 9 below for Project Trip Generation.

Table 9: Project Trip Generation

5.2.3 Intersection Operations
Existing and proposed trip generation was used to estimate the turning movement and volumes at Golden Hill Road/Union Road and Golden Hill Road/Ardmore Road. The Study concluded that the intersections would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better with the addition of the project traffic and the completion of the Golden Hill Road/Union Road roundabout.
2 The Trip Generation Analysis analyzed a larger project than what is currently being proposed, therefore, this analysis is conservative and actual trip generation is expected to be lower.

Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
19 5.2.4 VMT Analysis
The SLOCOG Travel Demand Model was applied to estimate VMT. Project employees were estimated using typical square footage per employee from industry standard sources, then were added to the model. The Study concluded that the project would reduce regional work VMT by 2,315 due to the provisions of jobs in a housing-rich area; therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to VMT.

5.2.5 Site Access
The Report concluded that the initially designed primary access point for Building 1, just east of Ardmore Road, did not meet City Standard Drawing C-10 and that truck turning movements have the potential to conflict with oncoming traffic. The report recommended relocation of the driveway or converting it to a one-way inbound accessway. The applicant team met with City Staff on January 13, 2023, and confirmed that a shared driveway, between Building 1 and the adjacent property to the west (APN 025-362-045), would satisfy City Standards and circumvent truck turning conflicts. The driveway entrance along Ardmore Extension for Building 1 has been replaced with a shared private driveway from Ardmore Road.

5.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Air Quality
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality Analysis was prepared by LSA Associates (LSA). The Study concluded that the proposed project would not conflict with the 2001 Air Plan and construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed the SLO County APCD Threshold of significance. Furthermore, the proposed project is not expected to produce significant emissions that would affect nearby sensitive receptors, would not result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and the GHG emissions released during construction and operation of the project are estimated to be lower than the significance thresholds and would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would generally be consistent with the State GHG reduction goals and the City’s CAP.

5.4 Biological Resources
David Wolff Environmental, LLC (David Wolff) prepared a Biological Resources Assessment for the proposed project, resulting in a total survey area of approximately 14 acres. A series of appropriately timed surveys, an inventory of available background data, biological resources field surveys, a floristic inventory and rare plant survey, and a Waters of the U.S. and State Jurisdictional Determination for the project site was completed.

A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) revealed 17 special-status species composed of 7 special-status plants, 10 special-status wildlife species, and no natural communities of special concern with recorded occurrences were identified within an approximately 5-mile radius of the project site. A floristic inventory and rare plant survey was conducted in May and June of 2022 and verified that no special-status plant species or specialstatus wildlife species were observed or are expected to occur on the project site. The project Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
20 site is located in the developed area of the City and falls outside of the San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) compensatory mitigation area as delineated in the City’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report. While no SJKF have been observed in the Paso robles area for over 10 years, implementation of standard SJKF take avoidance measures have been recommended to reduce potentially significant direct impacts on the SJKF to a less than significant level.

An existing non-jurisdictional swale runs southeast to northeast across the southern corner of the property. No waters of the U.S. or State, wetlands, or riparian habitat under any regulatory jurisdictions or definitions occur on the project site.

As designed, the proposed project has a low potential to impact biological resources. The project does propose to remove six oak trees, all of which being in very poor or poor condition (Heritage Tree, October 2022). The two remaining oak trees may have additional impacts associated with grading within the critical root zone and trimming for construction purposes. Oak tree removals approved as a part of this project would be mitigated in accordance with the City Zoning Code requiring replacement plantings on an inch for inch bases of 25% of the inches of diameter at breast height of oak trees removed. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level and are as follows:
• Measure 1: Preconstruction Survey and Avoidance Measures of Nesting Birds. • Measure 2: Mitigation of Take of San Joaquin Fox.

5.5 Cultural Resources
Padre Associates, Inc. conducted an intensive survey of the project site on July 1, 2022. The field investigation identified no prehistoric materials or historic cultural resources within the project site. Located within an area characterized as low to moderate archaeological sensitivity, the existing landform has slightly been altered by an agricultural accessory structure and mainly used as pastureland for horses. The project area has excellent ground surface visibility, ranging from 60 to 95 percent, with discarded construction materials and accumulation of oak detritus accounting for areas of reduced visibility. The current survey thus confirms the records search conducted at the Central Coast Information Center that did not identify any cultural resources within the Project area.

As a result, no further archaeological work is required or recommended within the acreage investigated during this study under CEQA. In the unlikely event that buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbances will cease until a qualified archaeologist is contacted to evaluate the nature, integrity, and significance of the deposit.

5.6 Oak Tree Impacts
The project site contains eight oak trees; six are proposed for removal and two are proposed to remain and be protected in place. An Oak Tree Assessment Report prepared by Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting (“Heritage”) in October 2022 concluded that the six trees proposed for removal were in very poor or poor condition and had the potential to fail within the next five years and that the two trees proposed to be protected were in poor and good condition. The Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
21 project does not propose the removal of any healthy oak trees. The Report findings were verified during a site visit on March 9, 2023, by the City Arborist.

Section 10.01.050.D of the Zoning Code requires the following factors be considered by City Council as it relates to oak tree removal:

1. The condition of the oak tree with respect to its general health, status as a public nuisance, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, interference with utility services, and its status as host for a plant, pest or disease engaging other species of trees or plants with infection or infestation.

2. The necessity of the requested action to allow construction of improvements or otherwise allow reasonable use of the property for the purpose for which it has been zoned. In this context, it shall be the burden of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed design and use of the property. Every reasonable effort shall he made to avoid impacting oak trees, including but not limited to use of custom-building design and incurring extraordinary costs to save oak trees.

3. The topography of land, and the potential effect of the requested tree removal on soil retention, water retention, and diversion or increased flow of surface waters. The director shall consider how either the preservation or removal of the oak tree(s) would relate to grading and drainage. Except as specifically authorized by the planning commission and city council, ravines, stream beds and other natural water-courses that provide a habitat for oak trees shall not be disturbed.

4. The number, species, size, and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested action on shade areas, air pollution, historic values, scenic beauty and the general welfare of the city as a whole.

5. Good forestry practices such as, but not limited to, the number of healthy trees the subject parcel of land will support.

The Oak Tree Assessment Report describes general health issues, infestation, and the danger associated with retaining the six trees identified as being in Very Poor or Poor health.

Additionally, the site topography would make oak tree retention challenging due to the varying elevations therefore impacting the ability to construct improvements or otherwise allow reasonable use of the property for the purposes for which it was zoned. See below a summary of the Oak Tree Assessment Report prepared by Heritage:

Oak Trees Proposed for Removal
• Oak Tree 1: A 43” diameter valley oak in very poor condition. Drought stress, decay cavities and compression bulges indicating lack of supportive structure in the trunk were identified. An Advanced Level 3 inspection revealed that the tree had the highest risk rating due to the likelihood of root and trunk failure. Mitigation measures, such as canopy and branch trimming and/or structural support or bracing were explored and determined to be inadequate in stabilizing the tree’s trunk or roots. The tree was recommended for removal prior to commencement of construction.

Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
22 • Oak Tree 2: A 47” diameter valley oak in poor condition. Decay cavities and oak root fungus identified. An Advanced Level 3 inspection confirmed there is significant decay in the trunk and eastern scaffold branch. Mitigation measures, such as structural support or bracing was explored and determined to be inadequate in stabilizing the tree’s trunk. The tree was recommended for removal prior to commencement of construction. • Oak Tree 3: A 47” diameter valley oak in poor condition. Decay cavities and a decaying trunk was identified. The remaining parts of the tree were identified as having a high likelihood of familiar. The tree was recommended for removal prior to commencement of construction.
• Oak Tree 4: A 52” diameter valley oak in Very Poor condition. The tree is growing off-site but has critical root zone and crown encroachments into the project area. Large scaffold branch failures and noticeable decay were identified. The remaining scaffolds were identified as being overextended and was identified as having a high likelihood of failure.

Due to the advancement of decay in the scaffold branches, which compromises their structural integrity, the tree is recommended for removal prior to commencement of construction.
• Oak Tree 9: A 51” diameter valley oak in Very Poor condition. Multiple large scaffold branches have failed, and extensive decay was present at branch failure points. A large decay cavity was identified on the northeast side of the trunk. The tree was recommended for removal prior to commencement of construction.
• Oak Tree 11: A 30” diameter valley oak in Very Poor condition. The tree is in severe decline due to drought stress and root disease. Mitigation measures, such as reducing scaffold to reduce failure risk, would result in 50 percent of the live canopy to be removed, which would further compromise the health of the tree. The tree was recommended for removal prior to commencement of construction.

The Zoning Code requires that any native oak removed that is 6-inches in diameter or greater be replaced with an oak tree being equivalent to twenty-five percent of the diameter of the removed trees. The combined diameter of the oak trees proposed for removal is 270 inches, therefore, the combined diameter of oak trees to be replaced onsite, or elsewhere in the City, is 67.5 inches.

The application proposes to replant twenty-three (21) 2” oak trees onsite (42” DBH) and 25.5” DBH of oak trees at a City approved offsite location. The proposed oak tree mitigation replacement trees were located onsite by Heritage in areas where they would have the highest rate of survival. Refer to Sheet L1.1 for oak tree mitigation replacement tree locations and the Letter of Explanation of the Oak Tree Mitigation Planting Plan attached (Heritage, March 2023).

Oak Trees to be Protected
Oak Tree 10 is a 51” valley oak in Good condition and Oak Tree 13 is a 42” valley oak in Poor condition. The application proposes to utilize the natural beauty of these existing oak trees as focal points within the development. Due to proposed construction encroachments inside of the CRZ or within 5 feet of canopies, both trees are required to be protected in place. Furthermore, City Planning Staff has encouraged the retention of Oak Tree 13, and although in poor condition, protection measures have been identified in order to retain this tree. Tree protection measures Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
23 consist of the construction of gravity walls to prevent soils erosion, tree pruning, implementation of recommended landscape and irrigation procedures, and the installation of a permanent fence, built at the limits of the tree protection zone, to restrict access (Tree 13 only). See the attached Oak Tree Assessment Report for more details on oak tree protection measures.

5.7 Noise
An Acoustical Analysis was completed by 45 dB in March 2023. The study modeled existing and resulting daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels for the proposed project. Noise levels associated with the proposed project are anticipated to comprise of the following: traffic noise associated with the increased traffic on Ardmore Road; traffic and parking activities associated with daily passenger vehicles in the surrounding parking lots; truck traffic and loading of up to 80 semi-trucks at the loading docks on the west side of Building 1; truck traffic and loading of up to 60 medium delivery trucks at the loading dock and in the service/loading lane along the north side of Building 6; truck traffic and loading of up to 60 medium delivery trucks in the service/loading lane along the south side of Building 3; and an estimated total of 37 rooftop HVAC units on the six project buildings.

The Analysis conservatively estimated the number of semi-trucks and medium-sized delivery trucks that would be used for the project; however, the actual number of truck trips will likely be much lower. The Analysis also conservatively estimated HVAC noise production by excluding parapet screening from the noise model. The Analysis concluded that the project would comply with the Paso Robles Municipal Code Daytime, Evening, and Nighttime Hourly limits. Actual noise generated from the project is expected to be less due to the conservative estimates included in the report. In the event additional delivery truck traffic or extended hours of operation into the evening and nighttime hours is proposed by future tenants, a reassessment of noise at property lines will be completed and any necessary mitigation measures will be deployed (i.e. sound walls at loading docks). See Table 10 below for project compliance with City Noise Standards.

Table 10: Project Compliance with City Noise Standards
Receiving
Land Use
Daytime Hourly Leq,d
(City Standard)
Daytime Hourly Leq,d
(Max Proposed)
Daytime Lmax
(City Standard)
Daytime Lmax
(Max Proposed)
Residential
(North)
55 55 75 71
Residential
(East)
55 52 75 44
Residential
(South)
55 53 75 65
Commercial
(West)
60 60 80 76
Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
24 6.0 Project Consistency with Commercial Service (C3) District The proposed project is located within the Commercial Service (C3) District, which is defined as, “Areas for highway-related, commercial services, and light industrial uses,” in the City of Paso Robles General Plan Land Use Element. The application includes a request to establish a mix of commercial services and light industrial uses; warehouse, retail, manufacturing, and winemaking uses with supporting office and storage space. The proposed uses are consistent with the C3 District land use category.

Attachment 2

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
To: Chairperson Christensen, Planning Commissioners
cc: Darren Nash
From: Ian McCarville, Kirk Consulting
Date: October 5, 2023
Subject: Ardmore Industrial – Phased Planned Development/Conditional Use Permit & Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PD22-20/PR22-054)
Dear Chairperson Christensen and Commissioners,
On July 31, 2023, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the proposed Ardmore Industrial Planned Development/Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PD22-20/PR22-054). Following this meeting, the Applicant Team prepared updated exhibits to address the comments made during the DRC’s review of the project. Below is a summary of the comments received and the Applicant Team's responses:

Truck Circulation Exhibit: The DRC requested an exhibit illustrating truck circulation on Lot 13.

Please refer to Sheet C2.1 of the Plan Set for the Truck Circulation Plan.

Pedestrian Circulation Exhibit: The DRC requested an exhibit that illustrated pedestrian connections throughout the site. Please refer to Sheet A1.1 in the Plan Set for the Proposed Pedestrian Access Plan.

Oak Tree Images: The DRC requested additional photos of the oak trees proposed for removal and retention. These images can be found in the Oak Tree Impact and Protection Plan (Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting, October 2022).

Landscaping Plan: The original application included a request to modify the landscape screening standards along the southern property line of Lot 13; however, in response to the DRC's request, the Applicant Team reevaluated this area and determined that the 10-foot landscaping requirement can be met. Consequently, the project no longer requires a modification from the landscape screening standards outlined in Section 21.13.030.F.1.b of the Zoning Code. Refer to Sheet L1.1 for the Conceptual Overall Landscape Plan and Sheet L1.3 for the Landscape Sections for more details.

Parking Calculations: Additional information on Parking Calculations was requested by the DRC, which can be found on pages 10-12 of the Project Description.

View Simulation: The DRC requested a view simulation looking east down Ardmore to visualize how the project will integrate into the existing setting. This perspective rendering can be found on Sheet A4.12.

Attachment 3

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Perimeter Wall/Fencing The DRC requested additional information on the decorative wall and asked that the applicant create an easy-to-read exhibit that illustrates where the various fencing types are located. Refer to Sheet L1.1 of the Plan Set for the Fencing Plan and page 14 of the Project Description for the proposed fencing types.

Architectural Details The DRC requested that the Plan Set be revised to include additional architectural details for the cornices, windows, and other similar items. Refer to Sheets A2.0 – A2.3 of the Plan Set for the enhanced architectural details.

In conclusion, we are confident that the comments made during the DRC meeting have been addressed within the revised project documents. The exhibits mentioned in this communication will be highlighted during the Applicant Team’s presentation at the Planning Commission’s public hearing for the project scheduled for October 10, 2023.

Respectfully,
Ian McCarville
[email protected]
Phone: (805) 461-5765
Attachments:
1) Project Description (Kirk Consulting, July 2023)
2) Oak Tree Impact and Protection Plan (Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting, October 2022).
3) Revised Plan Set (Arris Studio Architects & Wallace Group, October 2023) Attachment 3

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
T 805.781.5912 F 805.781.1002 W slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

VIA EMAIL ONLY
October 9, 2023
Darren Nash
City of Paso Robles Community Development Department
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
[email protected]
SUBJECT: SLO County APCD Comments Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Covelop Project (Ardmore Industrial Development) Dear Darren Nash:

Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the proposed project located at 2930 Union Road in Paso Robles.

The project consists of subdividing an existing 7.54-acre lot into two parcels totaling 4.15 acres and 3.39 acres. The proposed project would include phased construction of six buildings totaling 240,327 square feet (sf) of floor area across and the extension of Ardmore Road. One proposed building would be a large warehouse consisting of 116,812 sf and 9,000 sf of office space. The other five buildings (114,515 sf) would consist of a mix of retail, manufacturing, winemaking, and storage uses. The proposed project would result in approximately 14 acres of site disturbance and +/-19,803 cubic yard (CY) cut and +/- 43,612 CY fill. The proposed project would include the construction of 310 vehicle parking spaces, 16 motorcycle parking spaces, and 114,529 sf of landscaping.

The following comments are formatted into 3 sections. The (1) General Comments section states information pertinent to the applicant, lead agency, and/or public. The (2) Air Quality and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions sections may state mitigation measures and/or rules and requirements which the APCD recommends be set as conditions of approval for the project.

The applicant or agent should contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division about permitting requirements stated in the (1) General Comments section. The lead agency may contact the APCD Planning Division for questions and comments related to proposed conditions of approval in the (2) Air Quality and (3) Greenhouse Gas Emission sections. Both Divisions can be reached at 805-781-5912.

Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
APCD Comments Regarding MND for the Proposed Paso Robles Covelop Project October 9, 2023

Please Note: The APCD recently updated the Land Use and CEQA Webpage on the slocleanair.org website.

The information on the webpage displays the most up-to-date guidance from the SLO County APCD, including the 2023 CEQA GHG Guidance & Threshold Recommendations, Quick Guide for Construction Mitigation Measures and Quick Guide for Operational Mitigation Measures. (1) General Comments
Nuisance Odors from Wineries
Wine production facilities can generate nuisance odors during various steps of the process. Proven methods for handling wastewater discharge and grape skin waste need to be incorporated into the winery practices to reduce off-site odor. Odor complaints could result in a violation of the SLO County APCD Rule 402, Nuisance.

Construction Permit Requirements
Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during the project’s construction phase. Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require a California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive:
• Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers; • Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; • Internal combustion engines; and
• Tub grinders
For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendices, page 4-4, in the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Operational Permit Requirements
Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present at the site. Operational sources may require APCD permits. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive:
• New wineries or expanding wineries with the capacity of 26,000 gallons (10,000 cases at twelve 750 milliliter bottles per case) year or more require a Permit to Operate for fermentation and storage of wine;
• Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Any stationary or portable agricultural engine over 50 hp; • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; • Food and beverage preparation (primarily coffee roasters); • Furniture and fixture products;
• Metal industries, fabrication;
• Small scale manufacturing;
• Boilers;
• Internal combustion engines; and
• Sterilization units using ethylene oxide and incinerators.

Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
APCD Comments Regarding MND for the Proposed Paso Robles Covelop Project October 9, 2023

For a more detailed listing, refer to the Technical Appendix, page 4-4, in the APCD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. For information on how to apply for an APCD Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate, click here. Note: Most facilities applying for an Authority to Construct or Permit to Operate with stationary diesel engines greater than 50 hp, should be prioritized or screened for facility wide health risk impacts. A diesel engine-only facility limited to 20 non-emergency operating hours per year or has demonstrated to have overall diesel particulate emissions less than or equal to 2 lb/yr does not need to complete an additional health risk assessment.

(2) Air Quality

CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Construction Phase Impacts - Exceeds Threshold(s)
The APCD evaluated the construction impacts of this project using the most recent CalEEMod computer model and the inputs the applicant used. The modeling results indicate that the construction phase impacts will likely exceed the APCD’s significance threshold values identified in Table 2-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, APCD was able to model ROG plus NOx emissions below the APCD Quarterly Tier 2 threshold of 6.3 tons of ozone precursors/quarter.

APCD’s results were close to the applicants modeling results when a “Use Low VOC paint” mitigation measure was included.

Therefore, APCD recommends that the City of Paso Robles add a mitigation measure that the project’s construction phase will either use low VOC paints (50 g of VOC per liter or lower) or source prefabricated/painted project materials to ensure the project is beneath the APCD’s ozone precursor quarterly threshold.

Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment This project exceeds the following threshold; therefore the project’s construction phase shall implement Standard Construction Mitigation Measures:
• Exceeds ROG+NOx Quarterly Tier 1 threshold
Standard Mitigation Measures include, but are not limited to:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner offroad heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation; • Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2010 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation; • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance; • All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5-minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
APCD Comments Regarding MND for the Proposed Paso Robles Covelop Project October 9, 2023

• Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; • Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and, • Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.

Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures: Expanded List
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Projects with grading areas more than 4 acres and/or within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) and minimize nuisance (APCD Rule 402) impacts:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible; b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. When drought conditions exist and water use is a concern, the contractor or builder should consider use of a dust suppressant that is effective for the specific site conditions to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. Please refer to the following link from the San Joaquin Valley Air District for a list of potential dust suppressants: Products Available for Controlling Dust;
c. All stockpiled dirt should be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed;
d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible, and building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding, soil binders or other dust controls are used;
e. 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) or otherwise comply with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114; f. “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 a ‘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; g. All fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; h. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% 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 (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
APCD Comments Regarding MND for the Proposed Paso Robles Covelop Project October 9, 2023

lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact the Compliance Division at 805-781-5912).
i. 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;
j. 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;
k. 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 APCD; l. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
m. 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 where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible; and
n. Take additional measures as needed to ensure dust from the project site is not impacting areas outside the project boundary.

OPERATIONAL PHASE
Operational Phase Impacts - Below Threshold
Based on the APCD’s operational phase emission estimates using the most recent CalEEMod computer model, the operational phase would likely be less than the APCD’s significance threshold values identified in Table 3-2 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

(3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project proponent evaluated the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of this project using the most recent CalEEMod computer model with the results included in Table L of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The applicant incorrectly amortized the Operation emissions of 1,875 MT carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)/year, instead of the overall construction emissions of 1,124 MT CO2e over the four years of construction. Commercial projects use a 25-year project life for amortized construction emissions resulting in 45 MT CO2e/yr to be added to the operational phase emissions.

The applicant removed unnecessary refrigerant emissions (736 MT CO2e/yr) from the total operational emissions (1,875 MT CO2e/yr ) for a total of 1,139 MT CO2e/yr. APCD added the applicant’s Operational emissions to the amortized Construction phase emissions resulting in 1,184 MT CO2e/yr.

The 1,184 MT CO2e per year exceeds the potential interim GHG threshold of 690 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year the city may find to be applicable for this project. However, when APCD re-ran CalEEmod using Central Coast Community Energy as the energy supplier, the result was 720 MT CO2e. Using the following mitigation measures, the project proponent could achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas reductions below 690 metric tons of CO2e per year:

Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
APCD Comments Regarding MND for the Proposed Paso Robles Covelop Project October 9, 2023

• The applicant commit to the project receiving power from Central Coast Community Energy;
• Construct the project with adequate electrical panel capacity to support an all-electric retrofit of the development; and
• Construct project to improve on CALGreen electric vehicle (EV) capable standards by making parking spaces EV ready instead, thus supporting the transition to electric transportation.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me at 805-781-5912.

Sincerely,

ASHLEY GOLDLIST
Air Quality Specialist
ASG/kaw
cc: Damien Mavis, 3090 Anderson LLC dba Tooth & Nail Winery ([email protected]) Dora Drexler, APCD,([email protected])
Darcy Delgado, The City of Paso Robles, ([email protected]) Ian McCarville, Kirk Consulting,([email protected]) Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Via Email
October 10, 2023
Joel Neel, Chairperson
Ty Christensen, Chairperson Pro-Temp
Patrick Connally
Robert Covarrubias
Sheree Davis
Mark Koegler
Eric Marlow
Planning Commission
City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
[email protected]
Darren Nash
City Planner
Community Development Department
City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration for CoVelop Industrial Project (SCH No. 2023090132, Planned Development 22-20, Oak Tree Removal 23-11, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map PR22-0054, and CUP 23- 14) and Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 (Tues., October 10, 2023) Dear Chair Neel, Honorable Planning Commissioners of Paso Robles, and Mr. Nash:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the CoVelop Industrial Project (SCH 2023090132), which proposes the development of six commercial/light industrial buildings totaling 240,327 square feet and removal of six oak trees at 2930 Union Road (APN: 025-362-043) in the City of Paso Robles (“Project”).

SAFER is concerned that the MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated in an environmental impact report (“EIR). The construction of the project necessitates removal of six ecologically-important native valley oaks and eliminates potential habitat for the protected San Joaquin Kit Fox, a species currently endangered primarily due to habitat loss as a result of land conversion and development. SAFER requests that an environmental impact report be prepared for the Project rather than an MND to ensure that potentially significant impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.

Attachment 5

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
October 10, 2023
Comment on Mitigated Negative Declaration for CoVelop Industrial Project (SCH No. 2023090132, Planned Development 22-20, Oak Tree Removal 23-11, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map PR22-0054, and CUP 23-14) and Planning Commission Agenda Item 1 (Tues., October 10, 2023)

SAFER reserves the right to supplement this comment throughout the administrative process. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997).

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
Attachment 4

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 6

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 6

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 6

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 6

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 7
RESOLUTION 23-XXX (A)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH #2023090132) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PLAN PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COVELOP/MD3 - (PLANNED DEVELOMENT 22-20, OAK TREE REMOVAL 23-11, VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP PR 22-0054, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 23-14) - 2930 UNION ROAD, APN: 025-362-043, AND (2) APPROVE THE PROJECT APPLICANT – COVELOP/MD3
WHEREAS, the City of Paso Robles has received applications from Kirk Consulting on behalf of Covelop/MD3, requesting a commercial subdivision, development plan, conditional use permit, and oak tree removal permit to develop an approximate 14-acre site with six (6) commercial/light industrial buildings totaling 240,327± square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Project will require the following entitlements: Planned Development PD 22-20, Oak Tree Removal 23-11 for six (6) native oak trees, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map PR 22-0054, and Conditional Use Permit 23-14; and WHEREAS, the site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial Service (CS) and is in the Commercial Light-Industrial zoning district, Planned Development zoning overlay (C3-PD); and WHEREAS, commercial and light-industrial uses, included warehousing, are allowed usesin the C3-PD zoning district; and
WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map PR 22-0054 would subdivide Parcel 6, which is currently 6.76 (net) acres, into two parcels where Parcel A would be 4.03 acres and Parcel B would be 2.73 acres. Existing Lot 13 is approximately 7 acres and while included as part of the development plan, is not included in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of the planned development (PD) district zoning overlay is to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Approval of a development plan is required for all development in the planned development (overlay) district; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Statutes and Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq., and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA, an Initial Study and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) SCH 2023090132 were prepared and were circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning on September 11, 2023 and ending October 10, 2023. This process was noticed by: (1) filing a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) with the State Clearinghouse; (2) filing an NOI with the San Luis Obispo County Clerk; (3) placing an NOI in the Tribune Newspaper, a newspaper of general circulation; (4) mailing the NOI to various interested persons, agencies, and tribes; and (5) posting the NOI on the City website; and
WHEREAS, the MND was made available during the public review period at the Paso Robles Community Development Department and on the City’s web page; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the MND and will be imposed on the project through the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d). These mitigation measures are imposed on the project to address potential environmental effects to:

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

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 7
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP will also be imposed as enforceable conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, two written comments were received before the Planning Commission hearing and were initially considered and responded to at the hearing. These comments are summarized as follows:

A. Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Letter (Attachment 4) – suggesting some additional thresholds to consider and associated dust control conditions and greenhouse gas emission conditions.

B. Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) Letter (Attachment 5) – indicating that SAFER is concerned that the proposed MND does not analyze the project impacts related to proposed oak removals and San Joaquin Kit Fox habitat impacts, and requests that an EIR be prepared for the project.

A more thorough response to these comments letters has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit A of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2023 to consider the Final MND and the MMRP prepared for the proposed project, and to accept public testimony and written comments on the Development Plan, Oak Tree Removal Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permit; at the close of this public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended, on a 5-0 vote (two Commissioners were absent), that the City Council adopt the MND, the MMRP, and the proposed Project with the addition of conditions of approval to address the APCD letter; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Final MND is included in Exhibit A of this resolution; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on November 7, 2023 to consider the Final MND and MMRP prepared for the proposed project, and to accept public testimony on the Development Plan, Oak Tree Removal Permit, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, based on the information and analysis contained in the Final MND prepared for this Project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council find there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that there would be a significant impact on the environment, with the mitigation measures imposed on the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, the City Council has independently reviewed the Final MND, and all comments received regarding the Final MND, and neither additional information submitted to the City nor other circumstances have produced substantial new information requiring substantial revisions that would trigger recirculation of the Final MND or additional environmental review of the Project under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Based on the whole record before it, the City Council finds that the Final MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation, and the Final MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.

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

Section 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

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

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 7
Section 3. Based on the Final MND and the administrative record, including all public comments (written and oral evidence) presented to the City Council as of November 7, 2023, the City Councilfinds that all environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant with the mitigation set forth in the MND and the MMRP. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the Final MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. No new significant environmental effects have been identified in the Final MND and any changes to the Final MND in response to comments or otherwise do not constitute substantial revisions requiring recirculation under State CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. Based on these findings, the City Council approves and adoptsthe Final MND for this Project, which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A”, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (c)(2).

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

Section 5. The City Council directsstaff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Luis Obispo County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of approval of the Project.

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

APPROVED this 7th day of November 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
Exhibit A - Response to Comments
Exhibit B – Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH 2023090132 Exhibit C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit A
Response to Comments
APCD letter dated 10/9/23

1. General Comments
a. Nuisance Odors from Wineries Wine production facilities can generate nuisance odors during various steps of the process. Proven methods for handling wastewater discharge and grape skin waste need to be incorporated into the winery practices to reduce offsite odor. Odor complaints could result in a violation of the SLO County APCD Rule 402, Nuisance.

Response: There is no wine production component for this project. It is anticipated that there would be wine storage, which has no odor.
b. Construction Permit Requirements
Response: The list of equipment is provided for in the project conditions of approval indicating that if used will require an APCD permit.
c. Construction Permit Requirements: Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present during the project’s construction phase.

Portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities may require a California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or an APCD permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive:
• Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers; • Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; • Internal combustion engines; and
• Tub grinders.

Response: Condition of approval APCD-1 has been included in Exhibit A of Resolution B. d. Operational Permit Requirements: Based on the information provided, we are unsure of the types of equipment that may be present at the site. Operational sources may require APCD permits. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements but should not be viewed as exclusive:
• New wineries or expanding wineries with the capacity of 26,000 gallons (10,000 cases at twelve 750 milliliter bottles per case) year or more require a Permit to Operate for fermentation and storage of wine;
• Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater; • Any stationary or portable agricultural engine over 50 hp • Electrical generation plants or the use of standby generators; • Food and beverage preparation (primarily coffee roasters); • Furniture and fixture products;
• Metal industries, fabrication;
• Small scale manufacturing;
• Boilers; Page 397 of 1329
City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit A
• Internal combustion engines; and
• Sterilization units using ethylene oxide and incinerators.

Response: Condition of approval APCD-2 has been included in Exhibit A of Resolution B.

2. Air Quality
a. The APCD evaluated the construction impacts of this project using the most recent CalEEMod computer model and the inputs the applicant used. The modeling results indicate that the construction phase impacts will likely exceed the APCD’s significance threshold values identified in Table 2-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However, APCD was able to model ROG plus NOx emissions below the APCD Quarterly Tier 2 threshold of 6.3 tons of ozone precursors/quarter. APCD’s results were close to the applicants’ modeling results when a “Use Low VOC paint” mitigation measure was included.

Response: T he project’s construction phase shell either use low VOC paints (50 g of VOC per liter or lower) or source prefabricated/painted project materials to ensure the project is beneath the APCD’s ozone precursor quarterly threshold. The condition of approval has been added to Exhibit A of Resolution B. b. Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment This project exceeds ROG+NOx Quarterly Tier 1 threshold; therefore the project’s construction phase shall implement Standard Construction Mitigation Measures:
• Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
• Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road); • Use diesel construction equipment meeting CARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation;
• Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the CARB’s 2010 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State OnRoad Regulation; • Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
• All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5-minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit;
• Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; • Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
• Electrify equipment when feasible;
• Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible; and,
• Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.

Response: The standard conditions listed above have been added as conditions of approval in Exhibit A of Resolution B. Page 398 of 1329 City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit A

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project proponent evaluated the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of this project using the most recent CalEEMod computer model with the results included in Table L of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The applicant incorrectly amortized the Operation emissions of 1,875 MT carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)/year, instead of the overall construction emissions of 1,124 MT CO2e over the four years of construction. Commercial projects use a 25-year project life for amortized construction emissions resulting in 45 MT CO2e/yr to be added to the operational phase emissions. The applicant removed unnecessary refrigerant emissions (736 MT CO2e/yr) from the total operational emissions (1,875 MT CO2e/yr ) for a total of 1,139 MT CO2e/yr. APCD added the applicant’s Operational emissions to the amortized Construction phase emissions resulting in 1,184 MT CO2e/yr.

The 1,184 MT CO2e per year exceeds the potential interim GHG threshold of 690 metric tons of CO2e emissions per year the city may find to be applicable for this project. However, when APCD re-ran CalEEmod using Central Coast Community Energy as the energy supplier, the result was 720 MT CO2e. Using the following mitigation measures, the project proponent could achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas reductions below 690 metric tons of CO2e per year:

Response: The applicant has committed to the project receiving power from Central Coast Community Energy. A condition has been added to Exhibit A of Resolution B.

SAFER – Lozeau Drury Letter

1. Mitigated Negative Declaration Comment
SAFER is concerned that the MND is improper under the California Environmental Quality Act because there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated in an environmental impact report (“EIR). The construction of the project necessitates removal of six ecologically-important native valley oaks and eliminates potential habitat for the protected San Joaquin Kit Fox, a species currently endangered primarily due to habitat loss as a result of land conversion and development. SAFER requests that an environmental impact report be prepared for the Project rather than an MND to ensure that potentially significant impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated.

Response:

Oak Removal: The discussion section IV.e. Biological Resources of the Initial Study, adequately addresses tree preservation and removal policies.

San Joaquin Kit Fox habitat removal: Mitigation Measure MM Bio-1 and MM Bio-2 adequately address habitat impacts.

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM
Covelop
Public Review Period September 11, 2023 to October 10, 2023

1. PROJECT TITLE: Covelop
Entitlements: Planned Development PD 22-20, Conditional Use Permit 22-20 and Tentative Parcel Map PR
22-0054

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

3. PROJECT LOCATION: 2930 Union Road, Paso Robles, CA
APN: 025-362-043

4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Covelop/MDF
Contact Person: Ian McCarville
Phone Number: (805) 461-5765
Email: [email protected]

5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CS (Commercial Service)

6. ZONING: C3-PD (Commercial-Light Industrial, Planned
Development Overlay)

7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project consists of subdividing an existing 7.54-acre gross lot (Lot 6), into two parcels totaling 4.15 acres gross (Parcel A) and 3.39 acres gross (Parcel B). The site has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial Service (CS) and is zoned Commercial-Light industrial with a Planned Development Overlay (C3-PD). Site development will consist of six (6) buildings totaling 240,327 square feet of floor area across Lots 6 and 13, site access, circulation, drainage improvements, and the extension of Ardmore Road. Lot 13 will be developed with one large warehouse building consisting of 116,812 sq. ft. of warehouse space and 9,000 sq. ft. of office space. Parcels A and Parcel B will be developed with five (5) smaller buildings totaling 114,515 sq. ft. of building area that will consist of a mix of retail, manufacturing, winemaking, and storage uses. A retention basin is proposed at the northeastern corner of the site to capture surface runoff. The project will result in approximately 14 acres of site disturbance and +/-19,803 CY cut and +/- 43,612 CY fill. The project also includes the construction of 310 vehicle parking spaces, 16 motorcycle parking spaces, and 114,529 sq. ft. of landscaping. (See Site Plan, Attachment 3) Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
The project is proposed to be implemented in two phases. Phase I will consist of the development of Lot 13, the construction of buildings 2, 3 and 4 and access, circulation, parking, retention basin, and landscaping on Lot 6 (“Parcel A”), and the construction of Ardmore Extension. Phase II will consist of buildings 5 & 6 (“Parcel B”) with the adjacent parking and site circulation improvements.

There are eight (8) existing native oak trees onsite, seven (7) of which are in poor or very poor condition and one (1) that is in good condition. The project proposes the removal of six (6) oak trees that are in poor or very poor condition. The two remaining trees are to be protected and preserved during construction. The City has an Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance which requires the City Council to authorize the removal of trees that are not clearly diseased or dying. This project will require the City Council to review the oak trees requested for removal.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:

Existing uses on the project site consist of abandoned agricultural structures and a +/- 12 acres of horse pasture. The site is mostly flat with gently rolling slopes downwards from north to south to a nonjurisdictional swale running across the southern edge of the site. There are eight (8) existing native oak trees onsite, seven (7) of which are in poor or very poor condition and one (1) that is in good condition.

Native soils withing the project site are predominantly within the Arbuckle-San Ysidro Complex and the San Ysidro Loam.

Surrounding uses include Commercial/Light Industry zoned parcels to the north (residence, horse pasture), east (residences, animal raising), and west (Daniels Wood Land, Spurr/Case Pacific Construction/outdoor storage yard), and Residential Single Family and Residential Agriculture zoned parcels to the south (vacant, rangeland). The parcels to the south of the project area are within the boundary of the North Chandler Ranch Specific Plan. North Chandler Ranch was approved for 879 dwelling units, however, there are no current plans to start on this development. (See Vicinity Map, Attachment 2)

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.):

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Regional Water Quality Control Board

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? In accordance with AB 52, the City provided formal notification on April 11th, 2023 to the designated contact or tribal representative of traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice. At the time of publishing this report no consultation request has been received.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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

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

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

A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

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

September 8, 2023
Signature Date
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

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

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

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

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

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

In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

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

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

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

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact Source
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion: The site is located in an area where there are existing large acreage residential uses in an area of the City that is zoned for commercial and light-industrial uses (C3). In addition to the residential properties, there are existing adjacent industrial uses such as the Case Pacific and Dave Spurr construction office and outdoor storage yards. The Paso Robles School District bus maintenance yard is also located on Ardmore Road, at Golden Hill Road. The other surrounding properties consist of existing residences on C3 zoned land. The project site is not located on a scenic vista and does not include scenic resources, therefore there is no impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Discussion: The project will not substantially damage any scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The project proposesto remove 6 out of the 8 oak trees on the site as a result of the project Arborist concluding that the trees are in poor health, but none of these trees are located within or visible from a state scenic highway. Moreover, the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance allows for the City Council to approve the removal of oak trees in relation to a development project by making findings. The Arborist reports for the project indicate that the 6 oaks proposed for removal have health issues and need to be removed to prevent future hazard situations with the new proposed buildings. Based on the trees not being located within a scenic highway, and since the oaks would be removed in a manner consistent with the City Ordinance, including the requirement to plant mitigation trees at a rate of 25-percent of the diameter removed, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact relating to this issue. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Discussion: The project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. This site is zoned C3-PD, and since it has PD Overlay Zoning, a development plan is required. In addition to the PD requirement, Section 21.13 of the Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit to be processed. The overlay zoning, along with the special conditions, is required to give the Planning Commission the opportunity to review land use proposals to ensure quality development is approved in this area of the City.

The proposed light industrial, warehouse project is the type of development anticipated in the C3-PD zoning district in this Ardmore Road area of the City. The project is designed in a manner that has high aesthetic quality and will not substantially degrade visual character from surrounding public views, therefore this project’s impacts to existing visual character and quality of public views is less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: Standard conditions require that all new lighting be adequately shielded. A condition of approval requires Staff to review light fixtures for proper shielding prior to the issuance of a building permit. As a result, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and the proposed project’s potential impact relating to this issue would be less than significant.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The project site is designated in the General Plan and is zoned on the City’s Zoning Map for commercial development. The property is not identified in the City General Plan, Conservation Element (Figure OS-1, Important Farmland) as having either prime or unique farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts on converting prime or other significant soils to urban land uses.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Discussion: The project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use. The Project Site is not zoned for agriculture and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would result in no impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion (c-d): The project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland resources and only contains a few scattered Oak trees. Therefore, no impacts associated with forest land or timberland would occur with the implementation of the project. Additionally, the project site is an open field and contains no forest land. The project would not result in the removal or conversion of forest land; therefore, no impacts would occur.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion: The proposed project would not cause other changes in the environments that could indirectly result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. The project site does not conflict with existing zoning either, as the site is not designated as farmland or forest land, nor is it surrounded by those uses. The development of this project will have no impact on agricultural or forest resources.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact Source
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Discussion (a): The San Luis Obispo County area is a non-attainment area for the State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter.

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

The potential for future project development to create adverse air quality impacts falls generally into two categories: Short term and Long term impacts. Short term impacts are associated with the grading and development portion of a project where construction generates dust from grading and site preparation, and emissions from construction equipment, but the impacts end when construction is complete. Long term impacts are related to the ongoing operational characteristics of a project and are generally related to mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity and natural gas), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment), related to the proposed project.

Short term impacts:

An Air Quality and GHG Analysis was prepared for the project by LSA (Attachment 7). Predicted maximum daily construction emissions for the proposed project are summarized in Table J (below). Construction generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants exceeds the SLO APCD’s thresholds of significance. The emission projections in Table J account for the conventional construction equipment that will be utilized during grading and construction activities. Additional sources of air pollutant emissions include emissions from on-road motor vehicles used to transport materials and personnel.

As identified in the Air Quality and GHG analysis, Table J Air Quality Construction Emissions demonstrate that although the activities would increase the emission of O3 precursor pollutants GOD and NOx, DPM, and fugitive dust, it would not exceed the thresholds of significance establish by the SLO APCD for the purposes of reducing air pollution and its deleterious health effects, and therefore not require mitigation. Based on the project not exceeding the established threshold, criteria pollutant emissions generated during project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

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 K (below) and are compared to the operational significance thresholds established by the SLO APCD. As shown in Table K, the Project’s emissions would not exceed any SLO APCD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants, therefore impacts would be less than significant.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2001 Clean Air Plan and construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed SLO County APCD thresholds of significance. The proposed project is not expected to produce significant emissions that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would also not result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. GHG emissions released during construction and operation of the project are estimated to be lower than significance thresholds and would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would generally be consistent with the State GHG reduction goals and the City’s CAP. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air standard?
Discussion: As shown in Table K in Discussion A above, the emissions associated with the operations of the project would be well below the significance thresholds set by the SLO County APCD. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS, resulting in no impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Discussion: There are no sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of the project site. The project site is primarily surrounded by commercial and a few residential land uses. Therefore, it is not anticipated that sensitive receptors would be exposed to airborne particulates and construction equipment pollutants. In addition, project construction pollutant emissions would be below the SLO County APCD significance thresholds. Once the project is constructed, the project would not be a source of substantial pollutant emissions.

Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors are less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Discussion: During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on site would result in localized odors. These odors would be temporary and will not be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. Additionally, the proposed uses that would be developed within the project site are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints. Therefore, odor impacts from the project will be less than significant.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect 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 (CDFW) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) was prepared by David Wolff Environmental, LLC, dated July 24, 2023 (See Attachment 4). The BRA studied the 14-acre study area for biological resources. . The BRA concluded that there are no special status plant species within the project site. Additionally, no special status wildlife species or evidence of nesting birds was identified. The BRA did indicate that 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 San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) and migratory nesting birds.

Based on the potential impacts to occur to special status biological resources, mitigation measures are included for this project. With incorporation of the following mitigation measures the projects impacts on Biological Resources will be less than significant.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
MM BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.

If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a nondisturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the nondisturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.

MM BIO-2: To avoid direct take of SJKF during construction in accordance with the CDFW and San Luis Obispo County Guide to SJKF Mitigation Procedures Under CEQA, the project owner shall adopt the Standard Kit Fox CEQA Mitigation Measures and shall be included on development plans. The following measures shall be implemented:
• A maximum 25 mph speed limit shall be required at the project site during construction activities. • All construction activities shall cease at dusk and not start before dawn. • A qualified biologist shall be on-site immediately prior to initiation of project activities to inspect for any large burrows (e.g., known and potential dens) and to ensure no wildlife are injured during project activities. If dens are encountered, they should be avoided as discussed below.
• Exclusion zone boundaries shall be established around all known and potential SJKF dens. • All excavations deeper than 2 feet shall be completely covered at the end of each working day, or fitted with wildlife escape ramps. • All pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for SJKF and other wildlife before burying, capping, or moving. • All exposed openings of pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be capped or temporarily sealed prior to the end of each working day.
• All food-related trash shall be removed from the site at the end of each workday. • Project-related equipment shall be prohibited outside of designated work areas and access routes. • No firearms shall be allowed in the project area.
• Disturbance to burrows shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. • No rodenticides or herbicides should be applied in the project area. • Permanent fences between any remaining habitat areas shall allow for SJKF passage through or underneath (i.e., an approximate 4- inch passage gap shall remain at ground level).
• To avoid take of any SJKF and/or active SJKF dens, within 30 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance, implement the SJKF den survey and den closure protocol for unoccupied dens. Any SJKF occupied dens shall be avoided until the SJKF leave the den/site.
• Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permit and within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, all personnel associated with the project shall attend a worker education training program, conducted by a qualified biologist, to avoid or reduce impacts on sensitive biological resources (i.e. San Joaquin kit fox). At a minimum, as the program relates to the kit fox, the training shall include the kit fox’s life history, all mitigation measures specified by the City, as well as any related biological report(s) prepared for the project. The applicant shall notify the City shortly prior to this meeting. A kit fox fact sheet shall also be developed prior to the training program, and distributed at the training program to all contractors, employers and other personnel involved with the construction of the project.
• During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds any such animal either dead, injured, or entrapped shall be required to report the incident immediately to the applicant and City. In the event that any observations are made of injured or dead kit fox, the applicant shall immediately notify the USFWS and CDFW by telephone. In addition, formal notification shall be provided in writing within three working days of the finding of any such animal(s). Notification shall include the date, time, location and circumstances of the incident. Any threatened or endangered species found dead or injured shall be turned over immediately to CDFW for care, analysis, or disposition.

Based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological resources within the project site, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological, botanical, or wetland habitat resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered to be 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: A Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the project dated July 24, 2023. The BRA indicates that field surveys were conducted and concludes that no wetlands, water of the U.S./State or riparian habitat occur on the project site. Additionally, there were not any other sensitive natural communities are located on the site. Therefore, this project’s impacts on riparian and sensitive habitats are less than significant.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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: The Biological Study indicates that there are two swale features observed onsite and were determined to not be subject to the Clean Water Act or California Fish and Game Code jurisdiction due to a lack of defined bed and bank structure. In addition, consultation with the RWQCB confirmed that similar to the Case Pacific project and Spurr project sites to the west, they would not regulate the swales as waters of the state pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act due to lack of wetland habitat and low beneficial uses. Therefore, this project’s impact on protected wetlands are less than significant.
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: The project will not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor will it substantially interfere with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Furthermore, the project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. According to Figure 4.3-2 San Joaquin Kit Fox Mitigation Area (see Figure 6 of the BRA, Attachment 4), of the City of Paso Robles General Plan EIR, the project site is not located within the Kit Fox Mitigation Area and considered part of the developed portion of the City, therefore, compensatory mitigation is not required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Discussion: There are eight oak trees on the site. The project proposes the removal of six oak trees, all of which are in poor or very poor condition. The two remaining oak trees (Tree No. 10 & 13) may have additional impacts associated with grading within the critical root zone and trimming for construction purposes. Oak tree removals approved as part of this project would be mitigated in accordance with the City Zoning Code, requiring replacement plantings on an inch for inch basis of 25% of the inches of diameter at breast height of the oak trees removed. Additionally, the project has been designed in a manner to protect the Tree No. 10 and 13 and protection measures such as protection fencing will be required as conditions of approval.

As a result of the trees being removed being in poor condition and mitigation oak trees will be planted on site as outlined in the City’s Oak Preservation Ordinance, this project 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; therefore, no impact will occur.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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?
Discussion: The project will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource; indeed, the project will not impact a historical resource at all. A Phase I Archaeological Study completed for the project did not identify any historic resources within the Project site; moreover, no historic resources were identified within the Project site during the pedestrian survey. Proposed Project impacts will not affect historic resources and no further historic study or monitoring is warranted. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Discussion: The Phase I Archaeological Study prepared for the Project did not identify any cultural resources within the project site, and no cultural resources were identified within the project site during the pedestrian survey. Proposed project impacts will not affect cultural resources and no further archaeological study or monitoring is warranted.

Although the study did not identify any cultural resources, mitigation measure CUL-1 will require work to stop in the event that cultural materials are encountered during future ground disturbance. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the project’s impacts related to archeological resource is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources including human remains are encountered during ground disturbance activity, the project shall stop all activity within a 100-foot radius of the find and the project archaeologist shall access the situation with the County Coroner to verify the next steps and determine when construction may resume. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Discussion (c): A Phase I archeological survey was conducted by Padre Associates, Inc. of the project site on July 1, 2022. The field investigation identified no prehistoric materials or historic cultural resources within the project site. Located within an area characterized as low to moderate archaeological sensitivity, the existing landform has slightly been altered by an agricultural accessory structure and mainly used as pastureland for horses. The project area has excellent ground surface visibility, ranging from 60 to 95 percent, with discarded construction materials and oak detritus accounting for areas of reduced visibility.

Although the study did not identify any cultural resources including human remains, mitigation measure CUL-1 will require work to stop in the event that cultural materials including human remains are encountered during future ground disturbance, Padre recommends stopping all activity within a 100-foot radius of the find and contacting a County-qualified archaeologist, therefore this project impacts on human remain disturbance is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources including human remains are encountered during ground disturbance activity, the project shall stop all activity within a 100-foot radius of the find and the project archaeologist shall access the situation with the County Coroner to verify the next steps and determine when construction may resume.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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 is a commercial 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 Green Building Standards or the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all of which are applicable standards to reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, impacts to energy resources are less than significant. 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, the project would not exceed the Efficiency Threshold for operational emissions or operation emission plus the amortized constriction emissions, the Project would not conflict with the CAP, Updated Strategic Action Plan Update, or the City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan (PRCAP). Therefore, impacts to this environmental factor are less than significant.

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.

Discussion (a-i): The project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects relating to the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 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 person 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
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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 will be incorporated into the design of this project including adequate structural design and not constructing overactive or potentially active faults. Therefore, impacts that may result from seismic ground shaking are 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 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 site-specific analysis of liquefaction potential for all building permits for new construction, and incorporation of the recommendations of said reports into the design of the project. The design of any structures on-site would incorporate measures to incorporate design measures into the project; therefore, impacts for seismic-related ground failure are less than significant. iv) Landslides? 1
Discussion: Per the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is in an area that is designated a low-risk area for landslides. Therefore, potential impacts due to landslides are less than significant. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 2, 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; therefore, impacts due to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. 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.
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.
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 project does not propose to use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no impacts would occur.

No further analysis is warranted.
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. If 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 paleontological resources and/or unique geologic features.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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 (a):

Short term:

Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to the project site, and off-road construction equipment. The SLO County APCD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related emissions. It’s estimated that the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 1,875.0 metric tons of CO2E during construction. When amortized over the 30-year life the of project, annual emissions would be

62.5 metric tons of CO2e. Once construction is complete, the generation of these emissions will 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 are identified in Table L. Project operations are expected to generate 1,201.6 metric tons of CO2E emissions annually.

The project is compared with the SLO APCD efficiency-based threshold of 4.9 metric tons of CO2E per project service population per year. The SLO APCD’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. The project would emit 4.8 metric tons of CO2E per service population per year, which is below the SLO APCD threshold of 4.9 metric tons of CO2E per service population per year. Since the project would not exceed the Efficiency Threshold, the Project for operation emissions or operational emissions plus amortized construction emissions would not conflict with the CAP, Updated Strategic Action Plan, or the City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan (PRCAP). Therefore, the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be less than significant and the projects cumulative GHG impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
The following analysis evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with adopted plans to reduce GHG emissions.

As described above, the City adopted a CAP in November 2013. The consistency of the project with the goals of this CAP fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local-agency decision-makers of the environmental impact of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that GHG emissions are addressed. Although the CAP does not include a target for 2030, the measures in the plan will continue to provide reductions after the milestone year and help demonstrate continued progress toward achieving the SB 32 2030 target. The following CAP measures would be applicable to the proposed project:
• Measure E-4: Incentives for Exceeding Title 24 Energy Efficiency Building Standards • Measure E-5: Energy Efficient Public Realm Lighting Requirements • Measure E-6: Small-Scale On-Site Solar PV Incentive Program • Measure TL-5: Transport Demand Management Incentives
• Measure TL-6: Parking Supply Management
• Measure W-1: Exceed the SB X7-7 Water Conservation Target • Measure S-1: Solid Waste Diversion Rate
Future tenants of the project are unknown at this time, but they would implement transportation measures consistent with the CAP to reduce VMT. The proposed project would also be consistent with the CAP goal of increasing water and energy efficiency in new buildings by complying with the latest California Building Code (Title 24), including the latest CALGreen Code standards. In addition, the proposed project would comply with local and State laws regarding solar energy. Construction of the project would include a diversion of construction waste from landfills to recycling consistent with current local and State standards and CAP goals to increase diversion and reduction of waste. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable CAP measures. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

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 routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. 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 would not result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it result in impacts from accidental release of materials into the environment. During construction, the proposed project would involve the transport of general construction materials. Construction activities would involve the use of fuels and greases for the construction equipment; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials will be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and local laws, ordinances and regulations. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant 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?
Discussion: There are no existing or proposed schools located within ¼ mile of the project; therefore, there would be no impact of hazardous materials emission on local schools.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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: The project site is not included on a hazardous materials site list; therefore, there is no impact from this project. 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 project is not located within an airport safety zone; therefore, there is no impact. 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, therefore there is not impact.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion: The site is not located in an area that is considered wildland, therefore there is no impact from wildland fires.

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 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 Control plans include the use of drainage management areas (DMAs) and the use of low impact designs (LIDs).

Therefore, considering these factors, the impacts as a result of the development of this project on storm water 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 is zoned for commercial 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), Citywide, 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. Based on UWMP indicating that City water resources exceeds the projected demand city wide, this projects water use will have less than significant impact on the City’s overall water system Standard conditions applied to all new developments require the payment of development 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:

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Discussion: The proposed new/replaced impervious surface area is approximately 11.52-acres. Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCRs) will be satisfied through a variety of methods. Several different Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) have been designed for implementation across the site, depending on proposed surface drainage conditions and subsurface retention requirements. 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 site, as discussed in Section VII. Geology/Soils, 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 and impacts will be less than significant.
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. Impacts will be less than significant.

d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Discussion: The proposed project is not in any flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones; therefore, there no impact will occur due to this environmental factor.
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
Discussion: The project is a commercial development in a commercial district and is adjacent to other commercial uses. Some residences are located to the east of the site, but no established community would be physically divided as a result of the project. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1, 2
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Discussion: The proposed project is located within the Commercial Service (C3) District, which is defined as, “Areas for highway-related, commercial services, and light industrial uses,” in the City of Paso Robles General Plan Land Use Element. The application includes a request to establish a mix of commercial services and light industrial uses; warehouse, retail, manufacturing, and winemaking uses with supporting office and storage space. The proposed uses are consistent with the C3 District land use category, therefore, there is no impact.

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 Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Discussion: An Acoustical Analysis was completed by 45 dB in March of 2023.

The Study concluded that existing daytime hourly noise levels due to road traffic noise, primarily from Highway 46, range up to 43 dBA at the north property line adjacent to an existing residence, as predicted from published traffic counts and the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model implemented into SoundPLAN®. The proposed project was modeled to analyze the potential noise impact on the neighboring land uses.

Noise levels associated with the project are anticipated to comprise of the following:
• Traffic noise associated with the increased traffic on Ardmore Road • Traffic and parking activities of 994 passenger vehicles daily in the surrounding parking lots • Truck traffic and loading of up to 80 semi-trucks daily at the loading docks on the west side of Building 1 • Truck traffic and loading of up to 60 medium delivery trucks daily at the loading dock and in the service/loading lane along the north side of Building 6
• Truck traffic and loading of up to 60 medium delivery trucks daily in the service/loading lane along the south side of Building 3 • 37 rooftop HVAC units on the six Project buildings, each modeled with a sound power level of 87 dBA rel 10-12 W (i.e., sound pressure level of 76 dBA rel 20µPa at 1-m).
• All site activities were assumed to occur during daytime hours between 7am and 7pm • No vehicle idling was included for the service/loading lanes near Buildings 3 and 6 or near the loading docks at Building 1 • Refrigerated trucks are not expected at the Project site and were not included as a noise source in the model With the project in place and the above assumptions about site traffic and rooftop HVAC equipment, the modeled Daytime Hourly LAeq levels along the property lines adjacent to residential land uses ranged up to 55 dBA and Nighttime Hourly LAeq levels ranged up to 45 dBA, both of which comply with the City of Paso Robles Municipal Code Daytime limit of 55 dBA and Nighttime limit of 45 dBA for residential land uses, therefore, this projects impacts to ambient noise levels are less than significant. The analysis concluded that the project would comply with the Paso Robles Municipal Code Daytime, Evening, and Nighttime Hourly limits. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? 1
Discussion: Based on the proposed light-industrial/commercial type uses, groundborne noise and vibration generated by the project will not be significant. All construction activity will be required to comply with the City’s construction time requirements of 7am to 7pm Monday thru Saturday, unless exception is allowed for by the Building Official. Groundborne vibration and noise related to construction activity is anticipated to be low, since 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 Discussion: The project site is currently undeveloped land and jobs created can be absorbed by the local and regional employment market and will not create the demand for new housing or population growth. Therefore, impacts to population growth are less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Discussion: There are no residences located on the project site, therefore, there are no impacts related to the displacement of people.

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 project would be designed and constructed in accordance with Paso Robles Department of Emergency Services (EMS) requirements for access, fire water supply, and vegetation management. With adherence to these requirements, the project poses a low fire hazard and is not expected to impact capacity or service levels. No new or modified government facilities are needed to provide fire protection for the project. Therefore, there would be no impact to EMS.

The project site is located in the City of Paso Robles, which provides police protection and public safety within the city limits. Construction and operation of the project would not generate a material demand on police services. As such, the project is not expected to result in an adverse impact on City of Paso Robles Police Department response times, service ratios, or other performance objectives, nor would the project result in the need for new or modified police facilities to serve the site. No new or modified government facilities are needed to provide police protection for the project, therefore, there would be no impact for Police services.

The project would not generate population growth. Therefore, there would be no impact to schools, parks, or other public facilities.

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 project would not encourage new housing demands and use of recreational facilities, therefore the project results in no impacts to recreational facilities.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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: This project is consistent with the City’s C3 and CS zoning and land use designations. The proposed project would generate approximately 1,194 net new vehicle trips per weekday, including 117 AM peak hour trips and 158 PM peak hour trips. The project would not significantly impact intersection operations and would have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles traveled.

As required by all development projects with the approval of a building permit, the applicant shall be required to pay transportation impact fees established by the City Council in affect at the time of occupancy to mitigate future impacts with planned development in the City. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Discussion: A Transportation Analysis was prepared for this project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting, dated December 7, 2022 (Attachment 10), which indicates that the project would generate approximately 1,194 net new vehicle trips per weekday, including 117 AM peak hour trips and 158 PM peak hour trips, which would not significantly impact intersection operations and would have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, and therefore would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Section 1504.3(b). 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. No impact will occur. 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 City emergency access standards. The project would result in no impact to emergency access.

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
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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: A Phase I archeological survey was conducted by Padre Associates, Inc. of the project site on July 1, 2022. The field investigation identified no prehistoric materials or historic cultural resources within the project site. Located within an area characterized as low to moderate archaeological sensitivity, the existing landform has slightly been altered by an agricultural accessory structure and mainly used as pastureland for horses. The project area has excellent ground surface visibility, ranging from 60 to 95 percent, with discarded construction materials and oak detritus accounting for areas of reduced visibility. No tribal cultural resources were identified within the project area. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources are less than significant.

Letters were sent to the six tribes who requested notification for development plans as outlined in AB 52. As of this time the city has not received any request for further consultation. As mentioned above, based on the location and characteristics, it is unlikely that there are tribal cultural resources.

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?
Discussion: 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 the project and treat effluent resulting from this project. All new storm water resulting from this project will be managed on the project site and will not enter existing storm water drainage facilities or require expansion of new drainage facilities. No new water or wastewater facilities, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications will need to be constructed or expanded for this project, therefore there are no impacts. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Discussion: The project is permitted is permitted with a Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit, in the current land use and zoning designations; therefore, the project can be served with existing water resource entitlements available and will not require expansion of new water resource entitlements. This project will have a less than significant impact on the City’s water supply. 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: Per the City’s SSMP, the wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve this project as well as existing commitments; therefore, there is no impact.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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: During construction, most debris would consist of recyclable materials such as wood pallets, plastic and paper packaging and scrap metal that can be taken to the nearby waste recycling center and all other non-recyclable construction debris being taken to the nearby 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. Per the City’s Landfill Master Plan, the City’s landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate construction related and operational solid waste disposal for this project; therefore, there is no impact to solid waste infrastructure from this project.
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. No impact will occur.

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. Therefore, the project would not impact an emergency response plan.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Discussion (b and c): As previously identified, the site 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 structures, 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 impacts 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, therefore there would be no impact.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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 the Biological Resources section of this environmental document, there are mitigation measures related to habitat that will reduce impacts on biological resources to less than significant. 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: The project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion: As noted within this environmental document, the project’s potential to cause what may be considered substantial, adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly is less than significant. As such, there would be no impact on the effects on human beings as a result of the project.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
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 Uptown/Town Centre Specific Plan Same as above
12 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Impact Thresholds
APCD
3433 Roberto Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
13 San Luis Obispo County – Land Use Element San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
14 USDA, Soils Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County,
Paso Robles Area, 1983
Soil Conservation Offices
Paso Robles, Ca 93446
15 City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan 2013 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachments:

1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

2. Vicinity Map

3. Project Site Plan

4. Biological Resource Assessment by David Wolff Environmental, LLC (July 2023) a. Biological Consistency Letter and SJKF Habitat Evaluation

5. Oak Tree Assessment Report by Heritage Tree (August 2022)

6. Phase I Archaeological Study by Padre Associates, Inc (July 2022)

7. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis by LSA (April 2023)

8. Storm Water Control Plan by Wallace Group (February 2023)

9. Drainage Design Report by Wallace Group (February 2023)

10. Transportation Analysis by Central Coast Transportation Consultants (December 2022)

11. Acoustical Analysis by 45dB Acoustics (March 2023)
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Attachment 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Project File No./Name: Covelop Project – Ardmore Road
Approving Resolution No.: by: Planning Commission City Council Date: September 26, 2023 The following environmental mitigation measures were either incorporated into the approved plans or were incorporated into the conditions of approval. Each and every mitigation measure listed below has been found by the approving body indicated above to lessen the level of environmental impact of the project to a level of non-significance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that it has been completed.

Explanation of Headings:

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

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

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

Mitigation Measure
PD 22-20, CUP 22-20, VTPM 22-0054, OTR
(Covelop)
Type
Monitoring
Department
or Agency
Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
To reduce any potentially significant impact on nesting birds from vegetation removal to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures are
recommended.

MM BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between
September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.

OngoingCDD Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Mitigation Measure
PD 22-20, CUP 22-20, VTPM 22-0054, OTR
(Covelop)
Type
Monitoring
Department
or Agency
Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around
active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the nondisturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding
disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce
potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-significant level.

MM BIO-2: To avoid direct take of SJKF during construction in accordance with theSFWS and San Luis Obispo County
Guide to SJKF Mitigation Procedures Under CEQA, the
project owner shall adopt the Standard Kit Fox CEQA
Mitigation Measures and shall be included on
development plans. The following measures shall be
implemented:
• A maximum 25 mph speed limit shall be required at
the project site during construction activities.
• All construction activities shall cease at dusk and not start before dawn.
• A qualified biologist shall be on-site immediately prior to initiation of project activities to inspect for any large burrows (e.g., known and potential dens) and to
ensure no wildlife are injured during project activities. If dens are encountered, they should be avoided as
discussed below.
• Exclusion zone boundaries shall be established around all known and potential SJKF dens.

Project CDD Notes shown on
construction
documents.

Prior to issuing Building
Permit.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Mitigation Measure
PD 22-20, CUP 22-20, VTPM 22-0054, OTR
(Covelop)
Type
Monitoring
Department
or Agency
Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
• All excavations deeper than 2 feet shall be completely covered at the end of each working day, or fitted with
wildlife escape ramps.
• All pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be
inspected for SJKF and other wildlife before burying,
capping, or moving.
• All exposed openings of pipes, culverts, or similar
structures shall be capped or temporarily sealed prior
to the end of each working day.
• All food-related trash shall be removed from the site at the end of each workday.
• Project-related equipment shall be prohibited outside of designated work areas and access routes.
• No firearms shall be allowed in the project area.
• Disturbance to burrows shall be avoided to the
greatest extent feasible.
• No rodenticides or herbicides should be applied in the project area.
• Permanent fences between any remaining habitat
areas shall allow for SJKF passage through or
underneath (i.e., an approximate 4-inch passage gap
shall remain at ground level).
• To avoid take of any SJKF and/or active SJKF dens,
within 30 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance, implement the SJKF den survey and den closure
protocol for unoccupied dens. Any SJKF occupied
dens shall be avoided until the SJKF leave the den/site. • Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permit and within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, all personnel associated with the
project shall attend a worker education training
program, conducted by a qualified biologist, to avoid
or reduce impacts on sensitive biological resources
(i.e. San Joaquin kit fox). At a minimum, as the
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Mitigation Measure
PD 22-20, CUP 22-20, VTPM 22-0054, OTR
(Covelop)
Type
Monitoring
Department
or Agency
Shown on Plans Verified
Implementation Timing/Remarks
program relates to the kit fox, the training shall include the kit fox’s life history, all mitigation measures
specified by the City, as well as any related biological report(s) prepared for the project. The applicant shall notify the City shortly prior to this meeting. A kit fox fact sheet shall also be developed prior to the training
program, and distributed at the training program to all contractors, employers and other personnel involved
with the construction of the project.
• During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or
injures a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds any such
animal either dead, injured, or entrapped shall be
required to report the incident immediately to the
applicant and City. In the event that any observations
are made of injured or dead kit fox, the applicant shall immediately notify the USFWS and CDFW by
telephone. In addition, formal notification shall be
provided in writing within three working days of the
finding of any such animal(s). Notification shall include the date, time, location and circumstances of the
incident. Any threatened or endangered species
found dead or injured shall be turned over
immediately to CDFW for care, analysis, or disposition.

MM CUL-1 In the event that cultural resources including human remains are encountered during ground
disturbance activity, the project shall stop all activity within a 100-foot radius of the find and the project archaeologist shall access the situation with the County Coroner to verify the next steps and determine when construction may
resume.

Project CDD Prior to site
disturbance, grading
permit issued
(add additional measures as necessary)
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Explanation of Headings:

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

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

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

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit B Page 433 of 1329 City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

2930 UNION ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA
(LOTS 6 & 13 APN: 025-362-043)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX EXEMPT AREA HABITAT EVALUATION
JULY 24, 2023
Prepared for:

MD3 INVESTMENTS
893 MARSH ST # 13914
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406
PREPARED BY:

David Wolff Environmental, LLC
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AND PURPOSE ............................................................................... 2

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS – SETTING................................................................................................................. 2

4.0 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

5.0 RESULTS........................................................................................................................................................ 4

5.1 HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES.................................................................................................. 4

5.1.1 ANNUAL BROME GRASSLAND ....................................................................................................................... 4

5.1.2 RUDERAL – LIVESTOCK PADDOCKS AND BARN ............................................................................................. 5

5.2 WILDLIFE ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

5.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WETLANDS, AND WATERS OF THE STATE .................................................................. 5

5.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN............................................ 7

5.4.1 SPECIAL-STATUS BOTANICAL RESOURCES..................................................................................................... 8

5.4.2 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE .......................................................................................................................... 9

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ..........................................................10

6.1 SUFFICIENCY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA............................................................................................................10

6.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................................10

6.3 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................................11

7.0 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................................13

8.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................................................13

APPENDIX A – FIGURES
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: VICINITY LOCATION AERIAL MAP
FIGURE 3: SOILS MAP
FIGURE 4: HABITAT MAP
FIGURE 5: CNDDB OCCURRENCE MAP
FIGURE 6: SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX EXEMPT AREA MAP (2003 GENERAL PLAN FEIR) FIGURE 7: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B – TABLES
TABLE B-1: FLORISTIC INVENTORY PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
TABLE B-2: CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES OCCURRENCES

APPENDIX C – WATERS OF THE U.S./STATE WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEETS Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
MD3 INVESTMENTS
2930 UNION ROAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA
(LOTS 6 & 13 APN: 025-362-043)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2930 Union Road Development Project (project) proposes an industrial park development on approximately 14 acres of undeveloped land in the City of Paso Robles. The proposed project site is on the edge of commercial, industrial and residential developments to the north, east and west of the site. Open grazing grasslands are to the south of the project site. Field surveys established existing conditions of the site as non-native annual grassland habitat and ruderal barn and paddock area. Eight mature valley oak trees are spread around the site. Based on a formal jurisdictional determination, a non-wetland non-jurisdictional swale runs across the southern end of the site. No wetlands or other waters of the U.S./State or riparian habitat occur on the project site.

The search and review of the CNDDB revealed 17 special-status species composed of 7 special-status plants, 10 special-status wildlife species, and no natural communities of special concern with recorded occurrences within an approximately 5-mile radius of the proposed project site. A floristic inventory and rare plant survey conducted during the spring/summer 2022 confirmed that no special-status plant species occur on the project site. No specialstatus wildlife species were observed or expected to occur on the project site. The project site is outside of and exempt from the City of Paso Robles (City) San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) compensatory mitigation area as delineated in the City’s General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No SJKF have been observed in the Paso Robles area for over 10 years.

Implementation of the standard SJKF take avoidance measures would reduce potentially significant direct impacts on the SJKF to a less than significant level.

The conversion of disturbed non-native annual grassland to development and displacement of common local wildlife at the edge of urban development may be considered a less than significant impact. Valley oak tree removal (7 trees in poor or very poor condition; 1 tree in good conditions) would require implementation of the City’s replacement policy, therefore, would be considered a less than significant impact. Locally common resident and migratory ground nesting birds that may use the site for breeding, foraging, and roosting could be impacted by project construction. Mitigation to avoid potentially significant impacts on nesting birds is recommended.

Based on the findings described in this biological resources assessment establishing the existing conditions of the proposed project site, and incorporation of the recommended Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological or botanical resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered less than significant.

2.0 INTRODUCTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION, AND PURPOSE
The 2930 Union Road Development Project (project) proposes industrial park development on approximately 14.0 acres of undeveloped land within the urbanized area in the City of Paso Robles (City). The site supports approximately 12.0 acres of disturbed non-native grassland with evidence of intensive horse pasturing, and approximately 2.0 acres of livestock paddocks, barn, and horse training areas (“arenas”). There are eight mature valley oak trees on the site that have been documented and evaluated by arborists (7 trees in poor or very poor condition; 1 tree in good conditions). The project site is surrounded by industrial and residential development to the north, west, and east. Grassland hills with grazing cattle are to the south and southeast. Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix A provide regional and vicinity context location maps respectively.

David Wolff Environmental (DWE) conducted the review of available background data, biological resources field surveys, a floristic inventory and rare plant survey, and a waters of the U.S./State jurisdictional determination on the project site on May 5 and June 23, 2022.

The purpose of the field surveys and this biological resources assessment is to document existing conditions of the proposed project site, determine the suitability and presence or absence of rare, threatened, or endangered plants or wildlife (special-status species), and to evaluate the potential for any direct or indirect significant impacts on biological or waters of the U.S./State resources, or adverse effects on any special-status species.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS – SETTING
The proposed project site has been used as horse pasturing for many years and is surrounded by residential and industrial developments, with active grazing lands to the southeast. The site is mostly flat gently sloping downwards from north to south to a swale running across the southern edge of the site to culverts on and under the recent adjacent development on the western site boundary. The site appears to have been substantially and regularly used as horse pasture over time evidenced by abundant horse droppings all over the site. The northwest two acres show more intense horse use in paddocks, barn, and a rectangular and circular “arena” training areas.

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; Soil Conservation Service, 1977/2022) has identified two soil series mapping units within the project site as shown in Appendix A Figure 3. Onsite soils are mapped as Arbuckle-San Ysidro Complex (106), 2 to 9 percent slopes, and San Ysidro Loam (197), 0 to 2 percent slopes. The Arbuckle soil is a very Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
deep, well drained soil with moderately low permeability formed in alluvium from mixed rocks. Typically, the surface layer is pale brown fine sandy loam to 10 inches thick. The San Ysidro soil is a very deep, moderately well drained soil with very slow permeability formed in alluvium from mixed rocks. Typically, the surface layer is pale brown loam about 20 inches thick. Field observations of surface soils, spoils from ground squirrel burrows, and wetland delineation soil test pits corroborate the loamy and sandy loam soils mapping throughout the project site.

4.0 METHODS
Prior to field surveys, DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted a review of available background information including aerial photography of the project area over time (Google Earth), the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey, arborists’ reports, environmental review documentation from the adjacent City of Paso Robles approved Planned Development 17-015, City of Paso Robles General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, and the query results of an approximately 5-mile search radius of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). The 5-mile radius search is appropriate given project location mostly surrounded by and at the edge of urban development in the City. The CNDDB provided a list and mapped locations of special-status plant and wildlife species that have been recorded in the region of the project site. The CNDDB records help to focus the field survey efforts and evaluation of potential project effects on specific species or habitats.

It is noted that the CNDDB does not necessarily include all special-status species potentially occurring onsite or in the region, but rather only those that have been recorded by the CNDDB.

DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff reviewed the available background data described above and conducted biological resources field surveys and a floristic inventory and rare plant survey on the project site on May 5 and June 23, 2022, to document existing conditions of the onsite biological resources. Surveys were conducted by walking the entirety of the proposed project site recording plant and wildlife species observed and general site characteristics. Conditions for the site survey were conducive to the purpose of documenting plant and wildlife habitat to establish existing conditions. The field surveys included conducting a wetland delineation and jurisdictional determination of swale running across the southern corner of the site. It appears that cattle were brought in to reduce the grassland cover between the two DWE field surveys that provided additional observations of the swale configuration and general site microtopography.

The overall purpose of the field surveys was to document existing conditions in terms of habitat for plant and wildlife species, determination of the presence/absence of special-status plant or wildlife species, and the potential to support wetland habitat and/or other waters of the U.S./State. The study area habitat types were described by the aggregation of plants and wildlife based on the composition and structure of the dominant vegetation observed at the Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
time the field reconnaissance was conducted and through review of multiple years of aerial photography.

DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff reviewed the available background information and available aerial photography, conducted the field surveys, and is the primary author and principal in charge of report preparation. The survey data collected on plant and wildlife species and conclusions presented in this biological resources assessment are based on the methods and field reconnaissance conducted over the project site as described above.

5.0 RESULTS

5.1 HABITAT TYPES AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
Plant communities are generally described by the assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types. The best fit based on observed site conditions for community alliance and alliance codes habitat classifications used in this report follow, A manual of California vegetation, 2nd edition (Sawyer et al. 2009) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Community List. Plant names used in this report follow The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded (Baldwin et al. 2012) with updated taxonomy referenced through the CalFlora database (2022). The proposed project site supports one plant community, non-native annual grassland over the entire site, with a more disturbed/ruderal area where there are paddocks, evidence of horse “arenas,” and a barn. Eight mature valley oak trees are spread across the site. Figure 4 in Appendix A provides a habitat map showing the locations and extent of the habitat types and oak trees on the proposed project site.

Figure 7 includes a set of onsite representative photographs from DWE field surveys. Table B-1 in Appendix B provides a complete list of plant species observed during DWE floristic inventory and rare plant field surveys.

5.1.1 ANNUAL BROME GRASSLAND – DISTURBED NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND The Annual Brome Grassland or Bromus (diandrus, hordeaceus), Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands (CDFW: Bromus hordaceus – Erodium botrys, 42.026.09), is best described as disturbed non-native annual grassland habitat from what appears to be ongoing horse pasturing. The disturbed non-native annual grassland habitat covers 12 acres of the project site and is dominated by non-native annual grasses and herbaceous broadleaf plant species, with few native forbs. Plant species diversity is generally low on the site given what appears to be long-term horse grazing practices. Dominant plant species in the disturbed annual grassland habitat include soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus) and filarees (Erodium spp.). Other associated grasses and herbaceous broadleaf species include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), red brome (Bromus rubens), foxtail barley (Hordum murinum ssp. leporinum), short podded Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), clustered tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata), and fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia). See Figure 7 Photos 1 through 9.

Eight mature valley oak trees (Quercus lobata) are spread across the non-native annual grassland site that were evaluated by arborists. Seven of which are in poor or very poor condition with arborist’s recommendation for removal for development, and one in good condition that could be retained with maintenance pruning.

A non-wetland swale running southeast to northwest emanating from the southern edge of site was dominated by squirrel-tail barley (Hordeum jubatum) with mayweed (Anthemis cotula) transitioning to Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum) (see Figure 4). A full discussion of the jurisdictional determination of the non-wetland swale is included in Section 5.3 below.

5.1.2 RUDERAL – LIVESTOCK PADDOCKS AND BARN
Approximately two acres on the northwest corner of the site supports a barn, fenced paddocks, and what appears to have been rectangular and circular horse training “arenas” that created a ruderal (disturbed) grassland area. There is no official classification for “ruderal” but is accepted for describing areas subject to human and livestock disturbed areas.

The intensive animal use reduces vegetative cover and habitat values for native species with an increase in cover of short-podded mustard in the disturbed areas.

5.2 WILDLIFE
The project site soft chess and filaree dominated non-native grassland with evidence of substantial horse grazing provides minimal quality habitat for locally common wildlife species that have become adapted to the habitat edges along the urban interface. Common wildlife observed were gopher mounds and abundant ground squirrels. Bird species observed included northern mockingbird, mourning dove, European starling, common raven, western meadowlark, with red tailed hawk and turkey vulture fly overs. The large valley oak trees can provide roosting and nesting habitat for birds. No large raptor stick nests were observed in any of the trees. The habitat on the project area does not support a substantial amount habitat in the context of the greater expanse of undeveloped lands abutting urban development to the north and west, and agricultural/grazing lands to the south and west. As such, the site adjacent to developed City of Paso Robles does not represent a migratory or movement corridor for wildlife.

5.3 WATERS OF THE U.S., WETLANDS, AND WATERS OF THE STATE The project site is upland non-native grassland/pasture with a non-wetland nonjurisdictional swale running southeast to northwest across the southern corner of the project site. In addition to review of aerial photography over time, data on vegetation, soils, and Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
hydrology were collected at three wetland determination data observation points on May 5, 2022, and reaffirmed on June 23, 2022 (see Figure 4). The swale is evident onsite from Google Earth aerial photographs back to 1994 leading offsite on adjacent properties to the west running towards Union Road where it likely entered storm drains.

Presently, the western end of the swale at the property line is met by culverts on and under the adjacent property. Recent City approved adjacent development placed culverts at the western end of the swale at the property line. There is no surface evidence of the swale remaining on the recent developed areas. The certified mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the adjacent approved project (Planned Development PD 17-001) determined that the swale emanating from and “downstream” of the project site lacked an ordinary high water mark (OHWM; limits of Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction) and, therefore, was not a wetland or waters of the U.S./State (City of Paso Robles MND, Attachment 4, Kevin Merk Associates, 2017). The onsite broad low gradient swale also lacks any distinct bed, bank, or channel, evidence of flow such as scour or sediment deposits, or basin topography. The lack of any defined OHWM was very evident during the DWE June 23, 2022 field survey after cattle grazing had reduced the grassland cover exposing the microtopography of the site (see Figure 7, Photos 10 through 20). As such, there is no OHWM present and the swale does not represent a waters of the U.S./State.

DWE gathered data at wetland determination data points at two locations in the swale that supported wetland indicator plant species, and one location above the swale representing uplands. The wetland determination data forms corroborating the following findings are included in Appendix C. The following current wetland plant indicators status and 2020 Arid West Wetland Plant List were used.
• OBL – (Obligate) almost always occur in wetlands;
• FACW – (Facultative Wetland) usually occur in wetlands, but may occur in nonwetlands; • FAC – (Facultative) occur in wetlands and non-wetlands; • FACU – (Facultative Upland) usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands;
• UPL – (Upland) almost always occur in non-wetlands.

Data Point 1 (DP-1) was taken at the western (“downstream”) end of the swale at the property line where there was a dominance of seasonal wetland plants coyote thistle (Eryngium vaseyi; FACW), popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus; FACW), and woolly marbles (Psilocarphus tenellus; OBL) within an approximately 470 square foot oval area.

However, there were no field indicators of hydric soil (redoxomorphic features from sufficient wetting/drying). While the swale could be considered a drainage pattern (a secondary indicator), two secondary indicators are needed (i.e., water marks, sediment/drift deposits) to be determine a wetland. No other secondary indicators or any primary Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
indicators (1 required) of wetland hydrology were present. As such, the area does not meet the three-parameter jurisdictional wetland determination criteria and is a non-wetland nonjurisdictional swale.

Data Point 2 (DP-2) was taken above the swale topography to represent an upland point.

This data point was dominated by 85% cover of soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus: FACU), with red brome (Bromus rubens; UPL), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum; FAC), and a few coyote thistle (FACW) that does not meet the wetland vegetation criteria. There were no field indicators of hydric soil (redoxomorphic features from sufficient wetting/drying). The data point was outside of the swale drainage pattern so no primary or secondary wetland hydrology indicators were present. As such, the area does not meet the three-parameter jurisdictional wetland determination criteria and represents uplands.

Data Point 3 (DP-3) was taken in the swale where there was a predominance of seasonal wetland grasses Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum; FAC) and squirreltail barley (Hordum jubatum; FAC), with filaree (Erodium cicutarium; UPL).

However, there were no field indicators of hydric soil (redoxomorphic features from sufficient wetting/drying). While the swale could be considered a drainage pattern (a secondary indicator), two secondary indicators are needed (i.e., water marks, sediment/drift deposits) to be determine a wetland. No other secondary indicators or any primary indicators (1 required) of wetland hydrology were present. As such, the area does not meet the three-parameter jurisdictional wetland determination criteria and is a non-wetland nonjurisdictional swale.

The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) issued policy, procedures, and wetland definition for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the State (2021 Procedures). In brief, the 2021 Procedures define wetlands as waters of the State to be consistent with the federal three parameter definition requiring the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. As described above and detailed on the wetland determination data sheets in Appendix C, the project site does not support any three parameter wetlands. As such, there are no State wetlands present on the project site. Further, the State determined the swale on the adjacent property to the west (now in culverts) did not represent a waters of the State (City of Paso Robles, 2017).

Based on the above detailed findings, no waters of the U.S./State, wetlands, or riparian habitat under any regulatory jurisdictions or definitions occur on the project site.

5.4 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Species Act (FESA); those considered “species of concern” by the USFWS; those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and plants occurring as a rank 1B, 2, and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Natural Communities of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by the CNPS and CDFW because of their limited distribution or historic loss over time.

The search and review of the CNDDB revealed 17 special-status species composed of seven special-status plants, 10 special-status wildlife species, and no natural communities of special concern with recorded occurrences within an approximately 5-mile radius of the proposed project site. The 5-mile CNDDB search radius is appropriate to focus the special-status species issues given the project site location at the edge of urban development. The following briefly describes or summarizes the special-status species issues and potential for occurrence on the project site. Figure 5 provides CNDDB mapped locations and Table B-2 in Appendix B provides a list of special-status species recorded in the CNDDB that includes scientific and common name, listing status, habitat requirements, and potential to occur or observations if any on the project site.

5.4.1 Special-Status Botanical Resources
The CNDDB revealed the recorded occurrences of seven special-status plant species within a 5-mile radius of the project site, none of which are formally listed under the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts, only with a CNPS rank suggesting rarity. None of the CNDDB plant occurrences are mapped within the project site. The floristic inventory and rare plant survey conducted on the project site on May 5 and June 23, 2022 resulted in no observations of any special-status plant species. The May 5th field survey was during peak floristic expression for the 2022 growing season.

The special-status plant species occurrences recorded in the CNDDB are herbaceous annuals that are commonly associated with a specific soil type, moisture regime (mesic/moist grasslands, vernal pools). Special-status plants recorded in the CNDDB associated with serpentine or specialized soils that do not occur on the project site include Lemmon’s jewelflower (Caulanthus lemmonii), woodland wollythreads (Monolopia gracilens) and San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densifllora var. obispoensis). No serpentine or clay soils are mapped or observed within the project area and these species were not observed during the DWE floristic inventory field surveys.

The special-status plant species recorded in the CNDDB known from mesic (moist) habitats occurring in the region are the shining navarretia (Navarretia nigeliformis ssp. radians), Jared's pepper-grass (Lepidium jaredii ssp. jaredii), oval-leaved snapdragon (Antirrhinum Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
ovatum), and Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis). The CNDDB has many occurrences of shining navarretia south of the project site (Chandler Ranch occurrences). The nonwetland swale provides mesic conditions but none of these species were observed during the DWE floristic inventory field surveys.

5.4.2 Special-Status Wildlife
The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of 10 special-status wildlife species within the region of the project site. Special-status wildlife species known from the region evaluated for this study are discussed below by groups based upon habitat preferences, specific habitat use requirements (i.e., terrestrial or aquatic), mobility, and migratory patterns. Table B-2 in Appendix B provides listing status, habitat detail, and potential to occur on the project site for each of the species discussed below.

Aquatic/Riparian Species – The project site does not support habitat for any of the highly aquatic permanent water western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), vernal pool species vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) or western spadefoot (toad) (Spea hammondii). The CNDDB includes occurrences for wide-ranging resident and migratory bird species known from the region of the project site. The tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is locally nomadic but requires bulrush and cattail marsh or ponds for breeding that are not present on the project site. The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is a breeding season migrant known from the Salinas River that requires dense riparian habitat that does not occur on the project site. As such, the project site does not support suitable habitat for these bird species.

Reptiles – The northern legless lizard (Anniela pulchra) is closely associated with sandy or very friable loamy soils under coastal scrub or woodland vegetation with soil moisture and vegetative cover being essential. The onsite loam and sandy loam soils, lack of shrub cover, and horse pasturing renders the site unsuitable for this species.

Upland Birds – The project site supports potential limited foraging and/or nesting opportunities for the wide ranging locally nomadic golden eagle. No large stick nests were observed in any of the large onsite valley oak trees. Brief forging on the project site has a low probability of occurrence and does not represent a substantial amount of foraging habitat.

Mammals – San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat Urban Area Exemption – The SJKF occupies open country grassland, open scrubland, and oak savannah where there are friable soils for burrowing and an abundant rodent prey base. This small species of fox is known to use available ground squirrel or other existing burrows for den sites as they typically do not initially excavate their own dens. The open grassland grazing lands to the southeast offers suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox, although not observed in the Paso Robles area for over ten years. The project site in the developed area of the City falls outside of the SJKF compensatory mitigation area defined in the City General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report as shown on Figure 6 in Appendix A.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

6.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

6.1 SUFFICIENCY OF BIOLOGICAL DATA
The DWE field surveys on May 5 and June 23, 2022 are sufficient to; 1) adequately establish existing conditions of the project site and context in the landscape and land use mosaic in the vicinity; 2) determine that the site does not support any special-status plant or wildlife species; 3) determine the absence of waters of the U.S./State, wetland or riparian habitats onsite, and 4) adequately evaluate proposed project impacts and provide recommended mitigation measures to reduce potential significant impacts to a less than significant level.

The data collected as articulated in this report provide sufficient biological resources information to adequately address potential significance of impacts on biological resources.

6.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Botanical Resources – The proposed project would develop the entire 12.0 acres of nonnative annual grassland and 2.0 acres of ruderal habitats, including up to eight valley oak trees into industrial park urban uses. Seven valley oaks are in poor or very poor condition with arborist’s recommendation for removal for development, and one in good condition that could be retained with maintenance pruning. No natural communities of special concern occur on the project site so none would be impacted. The onsite soil and microhabitat conditions are not suitable for any special-status plant species, and none were observed during the DWE floristic inventory and rare plant survey. Oak tree removals approved as part of the project would be mitigated in accordance with the City ordinance requiring replacement plantings on an inch for inch basis of 25% of the inches of diameter at breast height of oak trees removed. As such, impacts on botanical resources would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is recommended.

Wildlife Resources – Construction of the proposed project and conversion of the entire site into industrial park urban uses could result in the mortality and/or displacement of locally common wildlife such as resident and migratory birds, raccoons, opossums, and small mammals. No special-status wildlife species are expected to occur on the project site. As such, impacts on common wildlife would be considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is recommended.

Vegetation and tree removal (clearing and grubbing) during the nesting season for birds could result in the destruction of active bird’s nests. Destruction of active nests is prohibited by the Fish and Game Code of California Sections 3503 and 3503.1 (raptors specifically). As such, this could be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation to avoid take or destruction of active nests would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
The project is within the historic range of the SJKF with no observations in the City limits for over 10 years. Although highly unlikely, the SJKF could occupy a den on the project site and be impacted by project construction. Potential direct impacts on an occupied SJKF den is a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation to avoid take of the species.

6.3 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measure is recommended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potentially significant impacts on nesting birds.

To reduce any potentially significant impact on nesting birds from vegetation removal to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures are recommended.

MM BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance shall be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the nesting season for birds. If vegetation and/or tree removal is planned for the bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be required.

If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-thansignificant level.

To reduce any potentially significant impact and avoid take of any SJKF from project construction, the following mitigation measures are recommended.

MM BIO-2: To avoid direct take of SJKF during construction in accordance with the USFWS and San Luis Obispo County Guide to SJKF Mitigation Procedures Under CEQA, the project owner shall adopt the Standard Kit Fox CEQA Mitigation Measures and shall be included on development plans. The following measures shall be implemented:
• A maximum 25 mph speed limit shall be required at the project site during construction activities.
• All construction activities shall cease at dusk and not start before dawn. • A qualified biologist shall be on-site immediately prior to initiation of project activities to inspect for any large burrows (e.g., known and Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
potential dens) and to ensure no wildlife are injured during project activities. If dens are encountered, they should be avoided as discussed below.
• Exclusion zone boundaries shall be established around all known and potential SJKF dens.
• All excavations deeper than 2 feet shall be completely covered at the end of each working day, or fitted with wildlife escape ramps. • All pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for SJKF and other wildlife before burying, capping, or moving.
• All exposed openings of pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be capped or temporarily sealed prior to the end of each working day. • All food-related trash shall be removed from the site at the end of each workday.
• Project-related equipment shall be prohibited outside of designated work areas and access routes.
• No firearms shall be allowed in the project area.
• Disturbance to burrows shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. • No rodenticides or herbicides should be applied in the project area. • Permanent fences between any remaining habitat areas shall allow for SJKF passage through or underneath (i.e., an approximate 4-inch passage gap shall remain at ground level).
• To avoid take of any SJKF and/or active SJKF dens, within 30 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance, implement the SJKF den survey and den closure protocol for unoccupied dens. Any SJKF occupied dens shall be avoided until the SJKF leave the den/site.
• Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permit and within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, all personnel associated with the project shall attend a worker education training program, conducted by a qualified biologist, to avoid or reduce impacts on sensitive biological resources (i.e. San Joaquin kit fox). At a minimum, as the program relates to the kit fox, the training shall include the kit fox’s life history, all mitigation measures specified by the City, as well as any related biological report(s) prepared for the project. The applicant shall notify the City shortly prior to this meeting. A kit fox fact sheet shall also be developed prior to the training program, and distributed at the training program to all contractors, employers and other personnel involved with the construction of the project.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
• During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds any such animal either dead, injured, or entrapped shall be required to report the incident immediately to the applicant and City. In the event that any observations are made of injured or dead kit fox, the applicant shall immediately notify the USFWS and CDFW by telephone. In addition, formal notification shall be provided in writing within three working days of the finding of any such animal(s). Notification shall include the date, time, location and circumstances of the incident. Any threatened or endangered species found dead or injured shall be turned over immediately to CDFW for care, analysis, or disposition.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological resources within the project site, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial adverse effects on biological, botanical, or wetland habitat resources. Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project impacts on biological resources would be considered to be less than significant.

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, Editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. UC Press.

2. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org (accessed March 2022).

3. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of recorded occurrences of special-status species. Accessed July 2022.

4. CALFLORA. 2022. Online database of native plants of California. 2022.

5. City of Paso Robles. 2003. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report Figure 4.3-2 delineating the San Joaquin kit fox compensatory mitigation area.

6. City of Paso Robles. 2017. Notice of Determination and Certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 17-001, Tentative Parcel Map PR 16-0245, and Conditional Use Permit 17-01. November 16, 2017.

7. Google Earth. 2022. Online resource for aerial photography over time.

8. Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting. 2022. Oak Tree Assessment Report for Ardmore Road Project, 2930 Union Road, Paso Robles, CA 93446. August 10, 2022.

9. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame-Heritage Program.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

10. Holland, V.L., and D.J. Keil. 1990. California Vegetation. Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California.

11. Jameson, E.W. & Hans J. Peeters . 2004. Mammals of California, Revised Edition. University of California Press.

12. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Contract # 8023. Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

13. Mayer, W. and W. Laudenslayer, Editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

14. Peterson, R.T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company.

15. Stebbins, R.C., and McGinnis, S.M. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California: Revised Edition (California Natural History Guides) University of California Press, 2012

16. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press, Sacramento.

17. Solid Oak Tree Management. 2021. Arborist Report for Ardmore Project, Paso Robles, CA.

October 31, 2021.

18. U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service (Natural Resources Conservation Service). Online mapping and soils data for inland San Luis Obispo County (1977/2022).

19. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. January 2011.

20. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). August 2020.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

APPENDIX A

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: VICINITY LOCATION AERIAL MAP
FIGURE 3: SOILS MAP
FIGURE 4: HABITAT MAP
FIGURE 5: CNDDB OCCURRENCE MAP
FIGURE 6: SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX EXEMPT AREA MAP
FIGURE 7: REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Disturbed Non-Native
Annual Grassland
Livestock
Paddocks
and Barn
Non-Wetland
Lot #6
Lot #13
Swale
DP-1
DP-2
DP-3
35°38'28"N 35°38'27"N 35°38'26"N 35°38'25"N 35°38'24"N 35°38'23"N 35°38'22"N 35°38'21"N 35°38'20"N 35°38'19"N 35°38'18"N 35°38'17"N 35°38'16"N 35°38'15"N 120°39'18"W 120°39'17"W 120°39'16"W 120°39'15"W 120°39'14"W 120°39'13"W 120°39'12"W 120°39'11"W 120°39'10"W 120°39'9"W 120°39'8"W 120°39'7"W 120°39'6"W 120°39'5"W 120°39'4"W 120°39'3"W 120°39'2"W 120°39'1"W 120°39'W 120°38'59"W 120°38'58"W 120°38'57"W 120°39'17"W 120°39'16"W 120°39'15"W 120°39'14"W 120°39'13"W 120°39'12"W 120°39'11"W 120°39'10"W 120°39'9"W 120°39'8"W 120°39'7"W 120°39'6"W 120°39'5"W 120°39'4"W 120°39'3"W 120°39'2"W 120°39'1"W 120°39'W 120°38'59"W 120°38'58"W 120°38'57"W 120°38'56"W Regional Map
Legend
Project Site Boundary
Lot Boundary
Non-Wetland Swale
Valley Oak Tree
DP-# | Wetland Delineation Data
Point
Habitats
Disturbed Non-Native Annual
Grassland
Livestock Paddocks and Barn
Ardmore Rd
Ardmore Rd
Figure 4: Habitat Map
2930 Union Road
Lots 6 & 13
Biological Resources Assessment
Sources: Aerial Imagery by Google (2/26/21).

Map Updated: 8/8/2022
Created by: SierraGIS
0 125 250
Feet
0 30 60
Meters
GCS | NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet
Projection | Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum | North American 1983
Scale | 1:1,600
Project Location

35.63955°N 120.65166°W
Township 26S, Range 12E, Section 26
Paso Robles Quadrangle
San Luis Obispo County, California
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Project Site
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Photo 1: View southeast at ruderal animal paddock area, remnant rectangular “arena” with mustard growth, and barn (arrow). 5/5/2022 Photo 2: View west at ruderal animal paddock area and remnant circular “arena” along Ardmore Road (truck passing by). 5/5/2022 Photo 3: View northeast along west edge of lot #6 at non-native annual grassland heavily used as horse pasture. 5/5/2022
Photo 4: View east along lot #6 edge between pasture and paddock area at non-native annual grassland with scattered valley oak trees. 5/5/2022 Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Photo 5: View north at non-native annual grassland pasture towards north edge of lot #6 (tree line). 5/5/2022
Photo 6: View west across lot #6 & lot #13 “line” non-native annual grassland & barn/oak at south end of paddock area (arrow). 5/5/2022 Photo 7: View south along east border of lot #13 non-native annual grassland pasture and scattered valley oak trees. 5/5/2022 Photo 8: View west at non-native annual grassland pasture & valley oak along north edge of lot #13. Structures are across Ardmore Road. 5/5/2022 Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Photo 9: View west at lot #13 non-native annual grassland pasture. West property boundary along fence in background (arrow). 5/5/2022 Photo 10: View west along south edge of lot #13 property boundary where non-jurisdictional swale enters property (arrow). 5/5/2022 Photo 11: View west at non-jurisdictional swale running across southwest corner of lot #13 to culverts on/under adjacent property (arrow). 5/5/2022 Photo 12. View west at non-jurisdictional swale after grazing showing lack of any ordinary highwater mark (OHWM). 6/23/2022
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Photo13: View southeast at wetland determination data point DP-1 (arrow) at end of non-jurisdictional swale. 5/5/2022
Photo 14: View southeast at DP-1 (arrow) at end of non-jurisdictional swale after grazing showing lack of any basin topography. 6/23/2022 Photo 15: View south at DP-2 (arrow) upland data point and DP-1 (shovel) at end of non-jurisditinal swale. 5/5/2022
Photo 16. View north after grazing at DP-2 (arrow) upland point and DP-1 (shovel) at end of non-jurisditinal swale. No OHWM. 6/23/2022 Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Photo 17: View west at DP-3 (arrow) in non-jurisdictional swale. 5/5/2022
Photo 18: View southeast at DP-3 (arrow) after grazing in nonjurisdictional swale. No OHWM. 6/23/2022 Photo 19: View southeast at non-jurisdictional swale after grazing showing no OHWM. 6/23/2022
Photo 20. View southeast across adjacent property where nonjurisdictional swale enters the project site. 5/5/2022 Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

APPENDIX B
TABLES
TABLE B-1: FLORISTIC INVENTORY PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
TABLE B-2: CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
TABLE B-1

FLORISTIC INVENTORY AND RARE PLANT SURVEY SPECIES OBSERVED DWE SURVEYS: MAY 5, 2022, JUNE 23, 2022

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Amsinckia intermedia Common fiddleneck
Anthemis cotula Mayweed
Bromus diandrus Rip gut brome
Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
Bromus rubens Red brome
Deinandra fasciculata Clustered tarweed
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
Erodium botrys Filaree
Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree
Eryngium vaseyi Coyote thistle
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
Hirschfeldia incana Short podded mustard
Hordeum jubatum Squirreltail barley
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley
Hordum murinum ssp. leporinum Foxtail barley
Plagiobothrys stipitatus Stalked popcorn flower
Psilocarphus tenellus Woolly marbles
Quercus lobata Valley oak
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
2930 Union Road
Biological Resources Assessment
Table B-2
CNDDB Special-Status Species Recorded Occurrences
(5-mile Radius; July 2022)
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal
Status State Status
CNPS
Rare Plant
Rank General Habitat Description Micro Habitat Description Potential to Occur
Onsite
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None Threatened -- Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California.

Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the
colony.

No suitable wetland
habitat onsite.

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle None Fully Protected --
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and desert.

Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas. low / foraging only Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo Endangered Endangered -- Summer resident of Southern California in low riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river bottoms; below 2000 ft.

Nests placed along margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into pathways, usually willow, Baccharis, mesquite.

No suitable riparian
habitat onsite.

Anniella pulchra northern California legless lizard None Species of
Special Concern -- Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation.

Soil moisture is essential. They prefer soils with a high moisture content.

No suitable friable
soils onsite.

Emys marmorata western pond turtle None
Species of
Special Concern --
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation.

Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egglaying.

No suitable wetland
habitat onsite.

Spea hammondii western spadefoot None
Species of
Special Concern --
Occurs primarily in grassland habitats, but can be found in valley-foothill hardwood woodlands. Vernal pools are essential for breeding and egg-laying.

No suitable ponded
wetland habitat
onsite.

Vulpes macrotis mutica San Joaquin kit fox Endangered Threatened -- Annual grasslands or grassy open stages with scattered
shrubby vegetation.

Need loose-textured sandy soils for burrowing, and suitable prey base. Often associated with ground squirrel burrows.

Low. Not observed
in area for more
than 10 years.

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp Threatened None -- Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains, in astatic rainfilled pools.

Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow depression pools.

No suitable ponded
wetland habitat
onsite.

Polyphylla nubila Atascadero June beetle None None --
Known only from inland sand dunes in San Luis Obispo
County.

No suitable sandy
dune habitat onsite.

Trimerotropis occulens Lompoc grasshopper None None --
Known only from Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo
counties. Rocky gravelly habitats
No suitable habitat
onsite.

Antirrhinum ovatum oval-leaved snapdragon None None 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, pinyon and juniper
woodland, valley and foothill grassland.

From open hillsides to small vernal pools in clay or gypsum soils w/in grassland or woodland. Sites often alkaline. 200- 1000 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis San Luis Obispo owl's-clover None None 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps. Heavy clay soils; sometimes on serpentine. 9-485 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

Caulanthus lemmonii Lemmon's jewelflower None None 1B.2 Pinyon and juniper woodland, valley and foothill grassland. 75-1585 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia dwarf rush None None 1B.2
Vernal pools, meadows and seeps, lower montane
coniferous forest, chaparral, Great Basin scrub.

Vernal pools, ephemeral drainages, wet meadow habitats
and streamsides. 280-2035 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

Lepidium jaredii ssp. jaredii Jared's pepper-grass None None 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland.

Alkali flats and sinks. Sandy, alkaline, sometimes adobe soils. 335-1005 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads None None 1B.2 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane
woodland, broadleafed upland forest, North Coast
coniferous forest.

Grassy sites, in openings; sandy to rocky soils. Often seen on serpentine after burns, but may have only weak affinity to serpentine. 120-975 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. radians shining navarretia None None 1B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Apparently in grassland, and not necessarily in vernal pools. 60-975 m.

Not observed
during DWE rare
plant survey.

BIRDS

REPTILES / AMPHIBIANS

MAMMALS

INVERTEBRATES
PLANTS
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

APPENDIX C

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEETS
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ”3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
2930 Union Road Development Project Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo May 5, 2022 MD3 Investments CA DP-1
David Wolff, DWE Principal Ecologist S26 T26S R12E
Upland Terrace Level 0-2%
LRR C 35.638191 -120.652540 NAD 1983
San Ysidro loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (197) None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔

0.20 ac.
470 sq. ft
Eryngium vaseyi 25% Yes FACW
Plagiobothrys stipitatus 40% Yes FACW
Psilocarphus tenellus 40% Yes OBL
Rumex crispus 3% No FAC
108%
100
Swale topography evident in field and available aerial photography. Non-wetland non-jurisdictional swale. 00 3
3 100%
✔
Mesic site at end of swale at property border.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

DP-1
0-3 10YR 4/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
3-6 10YR 4/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
6-17 10YR 3/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
None
Loam soils with no redox features.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Swale topography. No other secondary indicators and no OHWM.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ”3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
2930 Union Road Development Project Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo May 5, 2022 MD3 Investments CA DP-2
David Wolff, DWE Principal Ecologist S26 T26S R12E
Upland Terrace Level 0-2%
LRR C 35.638104 -120.652409 NAD 1983
San Ysidro loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (197) None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
500 sq. ft
Bromus hordeaceus 85% Yes FACU
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum 25% Yes FAC
Bromus rubens 5% No UPL
Eryngium vaseyi 10% No FACW
125%
Upland data point above non-wetland non-jurisdictional swale. 00 1
2 50%
✔
Not greater than 50% dominance by wetland indicator species. Upland data point Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

DP-2
0-3 10YR 3/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
3-10 10YR 3/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
None
Loam soils with no redox features.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Data point above swale topography. No indicators of wetland hydrology Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ”3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:
2930 Union Road Development Project Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo May 5, 2022 MD3 Investments CA DP-3
David Wolff, DWE Principal Ecologist S26 T26S R12E
Upland Terrace Level 0-2%
LRR C 35.638003 -120.652354 NAD 1983
San Ysidro loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (197) None
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
500 sq. ft
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum 65% Yes FAC
Hordeum jubatum 35% Yes FAC
Erodium cicutarium 20% Yes OBL
120%
Swale topography evident in field and available aerial photography. Non-wetland non-jurisdictional swale. 00 2
3 66%
✔
Swale with dominance of FAC grasses.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1
Loc2 Texture Remarks

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

DP-3
0-3 10YR 3/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
3-10 10YR 3/2 100% NONE Loam No redox features
None
Loam soils with no redox features.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Swale topography. No other secondary indicators and no OHWM.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] August 17, 2022 To: Michael Stoltey – MD3 Investments & Damien Mavis – CoVelop Re: Oak Tree Assessment report for Ardmore Road Project, 2930 Union Rd, Paso Robles, CA 93446 Gentlemen,
In response to your request for an Oak Tree Assessment for trees growing on a lot you intend to purchase and develop at 2930 Union Road, I have produced the following report.

Assignment
• Collect tree data and perform Level 2 inspection on 9 valley oaks (Quercus lobata) to determine condition and suitability for retention.
• Perform advanced Level 3 Assessment with Resistograph for 3 valley oaks. • Provide written summary of condition and suitability for retention for all 9 valley oaks.

Introduction
On August 2, 2022, I visited the site and performed a Level 2, basic assessment on all native oaks 6-inch diameter and greater on lots you intend to develop. As a result, 3 of the trees required a Level 3 advanced inspection with a Resistograph, wood density measuring device. I returned to the site on August 5, 2022, and performed the advanced inspections with a Resistograph to measure wood density.

On August 12, 2022, I collected additional data for tree #2 via a climbing inspection. I analyzed data collected during the advanced inspections and have made recommendations regarding tree condition, tree risk and potential for retention. All tree inspections were based on the potential for a tree to fail within the next 5 years from the date of this report. Any tree retained should be re-inspected on an annual basis to determine health and structural integrity status.

MethodologyMy initial level 2 inspection consisted of a ground based, visual inspection and full walk around of the tree. I used a rubber mallet to sound the trunk to detect decay. I tagged each tree with an aluminum tag and assigned it a number. Based on a previous arborist’s inspection of the trees, I assigned the same number that was listed in their report so we would have consistency when referencing the trees.

Advanced inspections consisted of Resistograph wood density testing, and in one instance, an aerial inspection that consisted of determining the extent of decay with a tape measure.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
2 Tree Condition Ratings
All trees in the inventory were given a condition rating. The rating was based on the health, structure and presence of disease and insects. See the following definitions:
• Dead = Severely declining or no foliage, large dead branches, decay cavities, loss of bark, roots decayed or dead.
• Very Poor = Evidence of multiple large past failures, advanced decay, uncontrollable pest infestations or disease infection. Tree in severe decline. • Poor = Tree may be suppressed, drought stressed, or had at least 1 large branch failure.

Disease or pest infestations may be present. Can potentially be retained with attention to mitigation pruning, cultural care changes, pest and disease control. • Fair = May have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present, small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled.
• Good = A relatively healthy tree with minor to no structural defects with minimal to no pest observed. Defects can be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled. • Very Good = Trees that have had professional arboricultural care. No structural defects, disease or pests identified.
• Excellent = Specimen tree with superior form, root structure and health. Tree has been regularly cared for by professional arborists over its lifetime, E.g., estate or arboretum tree.

Inspection Levels
Level 1 – Limited Visual Inspection – This is a limited walk-by or drive-by, which does not typically include a complete walk around a tree. The inspection focuses on obvious defects, imminent or probable likelihood of failures. There are generally no tools used at this level. This is the fastest and least thorough assessment.

Level 2 – Basic Assessment – Generally includes a complete walk around inspection. Basic tools such as probes, measuring devices, binoculars, mallet or magnifying glass are used. At this level, an aerial inspection is not included. A Level 2 assessment is usually necessary to establish the need for a Level 3 assessment.

Level 3 – Advanced Inspection – Detailed inspection which usually employs the use of special equipment, data collection and analysis. A higher level of training is also required, such as International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Tree Risk Assessment Qualification. Specialized equipment may include an Air Spade (device that uses compressed air to expose roots or root crown for inspections without causing damage to sensitive plant tissues). Resistograph (drilling devise used to measure and graph wood density) Level 3 inspections may also include sending samples to labs for analysis. A Level 3 inspections will usually take place later because of time needed to perform a Level 2 inspection.

Assessing Tree Structure and Potential to Fail
Estimating the structural integrity of trees is a challenge because, unlike steel I-beams or other construction materials there is no precise engineering standard to help determine the load a tree can withstand.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
3 Arborists must use measurement of decay, experience with previous, similar trees as well as factor in the various stressors on the compromised areas within the tree. Trees with thicker outer shells are going to be stronger. Oval internal decay areas and areas of decay that have broken through the outer shell of the trunk or branch will be weaker due to the inconsistency of the cylinder.

Tree Risk
Tree risk is determined by identifying the targets e.g. (people, buildings, cars or property) that could be injured or damaged by a whole or partial tree failure, the occupancy rate, exposure of the target to the tree hazard, the size of part of the tree that may impact the target if it were to fail, the likelihood of impact on the target, and the consequences of failure on the target.

The part of the tree most likely to fail and cause the largest impact is used to determine the highest overall risk for the tree.

When considering likelihood of failure, the definitions are as follows:
• Imminent – Failure has started or most likely to occur in the near future. Even if there is no significant wind or increased load. The imminent category overrides the time frame stated in the scope of work.
• Probable – Failure may be expected under normal weather conditions within the specified time frame.
• Possible – Failure may be expected in extreme weather conditions, but is unlikely during normal weather conditions during a specified time frame. • Improbable – The tree or part is not likely to fail during normal weather conditions and may not fail in extreme weather conditions within the specified time frame.

Risk Matrices
I used the International Society of Arboriculture’s Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to determine risk. Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” determines the likelihood of failure and impact. The result is entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” which factors in Consequences of Failure to get the overall risk rating. In the example below, Likelihood of failure of a part was Probable. The Likelihood of Impact was High. The result was Likely. In Matrix 2, I entered the result of Likely and entered Severe in the Consequences of Failure which gave me a risk rating of High.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
4 For each tree requiring a level 3 inspection, I have highlighted matrix tables to show how risk was determined for the part or parts of the tree being considered regarding failure potential.

Mitigation
When assessing risk for a tree, it is important to determine if the risk of tree failure can be reduced through mitigation. Mitigation can be made through pruning, installing cabling or bracing support structures. Moving targets out of the strike zone of a tree or restricting access to a tree are also viable mitigation measures. The recommended mitigation should not be so excessive that they compromise the health of the tree.

Tree Assessments
I performed level 2 assessments on trees 1,2,3,4,9,10,11 & 13. See Tree Map Appendix B. From those assessments, I determined that trees 1,2 and 13 required level 3 advanced inspections. Each assessment below includes a condition rating as well as potential for retention and mitigation recommendations. For level 3 inspections, I included a tree risk assessment matrix.

Tree 1 – A 43” diameter valley oak was in Very Poor condition. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photo 1
Basic Level 2 Inspection –
This tree had drought stress which was indicated by dead wood in the canopy. It also had decay throughout its scaffold branches which was indicated by decay cavities and woodpecker nests excavated in dead wood. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photos 1 & 4.

The trunk had an approximate lean to the east of 10 degrees. It also had a horizontal compression bulge on the east side of its trunk approximately 1’ above ground. Compression bulges or wrinkles, indicate that wood fibers are being crushed by the weight of the canopy and trunk due to lack of supportive structure in the trunk. Further the tree had a large, decayed, anchor root on its southwest side. The root was on the opposing side of the lean of the tree and is likely to fail as decay advances and stress from the weight of the canopy continues to build.

See Appendix A -Photographs - Photos 1-3.

Although this tree had a full canopy it has significant trunk decay. When I sounded the trunk with a rubber mallet, it resounded hollow on all sides. To further confirm the sounding results, I performed an advanced inspection of the decay using a Resistograph.

Advanced Level 3 Inspection -
I took 4 measurements of the wood density of the trunk at 3.5’ above ground. o Sample 1 – west side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 4” o Sample 2 – south side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 6” o Sample 3 – east side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 4” with a small 1.25” pocket of sound wood at 8” laterally, then total decay
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
5 o Sample 4 – north side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 5.25” Based on the Resistograph results, it was apparent that interior wood of the trunk is significantly decayed. The evidence of compression bulges showed that the trunk is losing structural integrity and leaning due to lack of supportive wood fibers.

Armillaria mellea, a.k.a. Oak root fungus is a common disease in valley oaks and is likely the cause of the decay in the roots and the trunk. Christopher J. Luley in his guide Wood Decay Fungi calls this fungus Number one of the “Big Three” of the important decay fungi. Again, according to Mr. Luley, “Armillaria is a root and butt rot fungus that increases the risk of tree failure and is a pathogen capable of killing cambium of roots and lower trunk of stressed trees”.

See Appendix A - Photographs - Photos 29 & 30 for example of failed oak due to root and butt rot.

Parts Assessed – Roots and Trunk

I used the International Society of Arboriculture’s Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to determine risk for this tree. In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the roots and trunk as Probable. The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” in the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. For the Consequences of Failure section of Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of High.

Part Assessed – Scaffold Branches
In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the scaffold branches as Probable. The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” for the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. Under Consequences of Failure in Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of High.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
6 Combined Inspection Results and Risk Assessment
The highest risk rating for this tree was High and was associated with root and trunk failure. I found decay in one anchor root and significant decay was detected in the trunk. Buckling of trunk fibers was evident. Based on shell strength measurements, the likelihood of trunk failure was probable, due to lack of structural integrity. Root failure was Probable due to significant decay in the anchor root on the southwest side of the tree. Scaffold failure was also probable with a high likelihood of failure.

Mitigation:

Scaffolds - Reducing the canopy through end weight reduction and removing decayed branches 2” diameter and larger would relieve some stress on remaining scaffold branches and reduce their risk to Moderate.

Roots and Trunk - Reducing the canopy through end weight reduction would relieve some stress on the trunk but not enough to offset the overall stress being exerted on the buckling area on the north side of the tree. No structural support or bracing will help the stability of the tree’s trunk or roots. Significant decay has been detected in the roots as well as the trunk. Based on shell strength measurements, lean of the tree and buckling of wood fibers on the east side of the trunk made failure likely due to lack of structural integrity. I recommend removing the tree before commencement of construction.

Tree 2 – A 47” diameter valley oak was in Poor condition. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photo 5.

Basic Level 2 Inspection –
On the south side of the trunk there was a decay cavity originating at the root-crown and extending approximately 5.5’ upward. When sounded with a rubber mallet on either side of the cavity, it resounded hollow. Moving around the trunk to the east side, I detected another hollow sounding area with my mallet at approximately 3.5’ above ground. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photo 6. Like Tree 1, I suspect Armillaria mellea - Oak root fungus, is the cause of the rot.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
7 At approximately 8 feet above ground, on the southwest side of the trunk there was another decay area that was almost closed over with scar tissue. Although almost closed, I suspected a large area of decay behind the scar. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photo 7. There was a large scaffold branch attached to the trunk above the scar. It had a desiccated fungal fruiting body growing on it and cankers had killed strips of bark near the fungus. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photo 8. I identified the fungi genus to be that of Inonotus. Jessie A. Glaeser and Kevin T. Smith in the winter 2010 issue of Western Arborist, note this fungus to cause a whiterot of heartwood in the trunk of living oaks and also decays strips or sections of sapwood, forming elongate cankers and killing the cambium. According to Swiecki, T. J.; Bernhardt, E. A. 2006, A Field Guide to Insects and Diseases of California Oaks, “Inonotus dryophilus is one of the most serious pathogens of living oaks in California associated with decline, failure, and mortality”. In this tree, the combined weakened trunk area at the scar combined with the heavy, decayed scaffold branch make this section of the tree likely to fail.

In the upper canopy at approximately 14’ above ground there was another decay cavity in the center of the canopy, where a large scaffold branch had failed many years ago. I suspected advanced decay in the trunk at this location. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photo 9 Advanced Level 3 Inspection -
During the aerial inspection, it was discovered that the opening of the decayed scaffold in the upper canopy was 13” in diameter. The depth of the cavity was 13’2” deep. When the distance to the ground from the outside of the cavity was measured, it was 14’3”, which illustrated that the entire trunk of the tree was hollow. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 9 -14.

From the cavity opening, the decay continued upward into the scaffold branch growing east.

This scaffold is very likely to fail due to weak trunk structure. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photo 12.

Based on the decay detected during mallet sounding, I wanted to investigate the extent of the decay further. I performed an advanced inspection for decay using a Resistograph. I took 6 measurements of the wood density of the trunk at 3.5’ above ground unless otherwise indicated.
o Sample 1 – west side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 8” o Sample 2 – south side of tree, 1’ west of decay cavity, outer shell thickness was 8.5” o Sample 3 – south side of tree at decay cavity seam, outer shell thickness was 3” at 3’ above ground.
o Sample 4 – south side of tree, 1’ east of decay cavity, outer shell thickness was 7.25” o Sample 5 – east side of tree, outer shell thickness was 5.5” o Sample 6 – north side of tree, outer shell thickness was 12” I have highlighted the tables below to show how risk was determined for the part or parts of the tree that was being considered regarding failure potential.

I used the International Society of Arboriculture’s Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to determine risk for this tree.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
8 Part Assessed - Trunk
In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the trunk as Probable.

The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” in the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. Under Consequences of Failure in Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of the Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of High.

Part Assessed – Scaffold Branches
In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the scaffold branches as Probable. The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” for the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. Under Consequences of Failure in Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of High.

Combined Inspection Results and Risk AssessmentThe highest risk rating for this tree was High and was associated with trunk and scaffold branch failure. Significant decay was detected in the trunk and eastern scaffold branch.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
9 Based on shell strength measurements, and the void caused by decay on the south side of the tree, the trunk is likely to fail due to lack of structural integrity. In regard to the eastern scaffold branch and other decayed branches, they could be removed, and end-weight could be reduced to relieve some stress on remaining scaffold branches. However, the reduction of the canopy would be close to 50% and would compromise the health of the tree. Further, since the trunk is not structurally sound, this negates the mitigation measure.

Mitigation: Remove tree before commencement of construction. No structural support or bracing will help the stability of the tree’s trunk.

Tree 3 – A 47” diameter valley oak was in Very Poor condition. When I sounded the trunk with a rubber mallet, it resounded hollow on the southwest side. A large wound left by a scaffold branch failure in the crown of the tree has since decayed and left a 3’x 4’ hollow at approximately 14’ above ground on the east side of tree. Another decay cavity on the north side of the tree at the same height as the previous, measured approximately 2’ in diameter.

Remaining scaffold was overextended and attached to the decaying trunk. The remaining parts of this tree have a high likelihood of failure. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 15 & 16.

Mitigation: Remove tree before commencing project.
• Tree 4 – A 52” diameter valley oak was in Very Poor condition. The tree was growing off-site but had critical root zone (CRZ) and crown encroachments into your proposed construction area.

This tree has had several large scaffold branch failures. At the failure points, significant decay was visible. The remaining scaffolds were overextended and potentially had similar internal decay and had a high likelihood of failure. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photo 17.

Mitigation: I highly recommend removal of this tree due to the advancement of decay in the scaffold branches which is compromising their structural integrity. Crown reduction needed to reduce the risk of scaffold branches failing would take up to 50% of the live canopy and jeopardize the tree’s health. Because this tree is off site, you will need to coordinate with the owner regarding removal.

At minimum this tree should have all overextended branches reduced to help prevent further failures and protect any buildings or other targets you may place on your property within striking distance of the tree. If the owner of the tree chooses to retain it, you will need to design buildings, service and loading zones outside of the CRZ. • Tree 9 – A 51” diameter valley oak was in Very Poor condition. Multiple large scaffold branches had failed. Extensive decay was present at branch failure points. Only 2 overextended scaffold branches remain, and they are connected to a decaying trunk.

When I sounded the trunk with a rubber mallet, it resounded hollow. A 3’ long by 10” wide decay cavity was on the northeast side of trunk. This tree has a high risk of complete failure. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 18 & 19.

Mitigation: Remove tree before commencing project.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
10 • Tree 10 – A 51” diameter valley oak was in Good condition. The trunk of the tree resounded solid when sounded with a rubber mallet. Tree form was good, but there was some large dead wood and decaying scaffolds. This tree can be retained, but it should have maintenance pruning performed prior to commencement of your project. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 20 & 21.

Mitigation: Reduce end-weight on overextended branches. Remove dead wood 2” diameter and larger. Remove decayed and structurally unsound scaffold branches. • Tree 11 – A 30” diameter valley oak was in Very Poor condition. The tree was in severe decline due to drought stress and root disease. Many of the smaller branches had died. I detected decay at the root crown on the southwest side of the tree. I found an ant nest at the root-crown decay area indicating ants are excavating and nesting in dead roots and root crown.

The dead roots contribute to the decline of the canopy and compromise the stability of the tree.

At least five, 12” average diameter scaffolds had extensive decay on the east side of the tree. To reduce scaffold failure risk, up to 50% of the live canopy would need to be removed, which would compromise the health of and already unhealthy tree. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 22-24.

Mitigation: Remove tree prior do commencement of project. • Tree 13 – A 42” diameter valley oak was in Poor condition.

Basic Level 2 Inspection –
The tree had a full canopy with a balanced form. On the south side of the tree at the root crown, there was an area of decay in the underside of one of the anchor roots. Like trees 1 and 2, the decay is likely caused by Armillaria mellea. I also noted the lower trunk was bulging and larger than normal which may indicate butt-rot caused by A. mellea. Further, I observed that the eastern scaffold branch was decayed, and large dead wood was present throughout the canopy.

See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 25 - 28.

A previous report, by another arborist, expressed concern that a scar at the base of the tree might indicate decay and structural instability. When I sounded the tree’s trunk with a rubber mallet, it resounded solid, except on the north side of the trunk. Due to the difference of opinion regarding the structural integrity of the trunk, I performed an advanced inspection for decay using a Resistograph.

Advanced Level 3 Inspection -
I took 5 measurements of the wood density of the trunk at 3.5’ above ground. o Sample 1 – west side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 7” o Sample 2 – south side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 8.5” o Sample 3 – east side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 8.5” o Sample 4 – east side of tree scarred area on east side of trunk approximately 1’ above ground. Outer shell thickness was 12”.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
11 o Sample 5 – north side of tree. Outer shell thickness was 5” Like Tree 1, the trunk of this tree had advanced internal decay, however when comparing outer shell thickness, this specimen had thicker walls and did not have indications of trunk fibers buckling, therefore its structural integrity is likely stronger.

Tree Risk - I used the International Society of Arboriculture’s Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form to determine the risk. I used Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” on the form and entered the result into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” to get the overall risk rating.

I have highlighted the tables below to show how risk was determined for the part or parts of the tree that was being considered regarding failure potential.

Part Assessed - Root

In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the roots as Possible.

The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Somewhat Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” for the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. Under Consequences of Failure in Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of Moderate.

Part Assessed – Trunk
In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the scaffold branches as Probable. The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” for the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. Under Consequences of Failure in Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of High.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
12 Part Assessed – Scaffold Branches
In Matrix 1 the “Likelihood Matrix” I selected Likelihood of Failure of the scaffold branches as Probable. The Likelihood of impacting a target in a built environment would be High. The resulting Likelihood of Impact was Likely, which I entered into Matrix 2, the “Risk Rating Matrix” for the Likelihood of Failure and Impact section. Under Consequences of Failure in Matrix 2, I entered Severe. The Likelihood of Failure and Impact rating combined with the Consequences of Failure resulted in a risk rating of High.

Combined Inspections Results and Risk AssessmentThe highest risk rating for this tree was High and was associated with scaffold and trunk failure. I found decay in one anchor root and significant decay was detected in the trunk, however no bulging of trunk fibers was evident. Based on shell strength measurements, the likelihood of trunk failure is probable due to lack of structural integrity. Scaffold failure was also probable.

Risk of root failure remained moderate.

Mitigation:

Mitigations are meant to reduce risk without compromising the health of the tree. Ultimately, the tree manager, owner or other controlling entity must decide if the residual risk assessed is reasonable.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
13 Scaffolds - Reducing the canopy through end weight reduction and removing decayed and branches 2” diameter and larger will relieve some stress on remaining scaffold branches and reduce their risk to Moderate.

Roots - Reducing the canopy through end weight reduction will relieve some stress on roots, however due to the overall weight of the canopy and stem, the risk rating for root failure will remain Moderate.

Trunk - Canopy reduction will relieve some stress on the trunk of the tree, however it will not likely be enough to lower trunk failure risk to moderate. If this tree is to be retained, and the goal is to reduce the risk rating, the only reasonable way to achieve that goal will be to restrict access by installing a permanent fence around it. The fence shall be a minimum of 4.5’ tall and be set at least to the edge of the canopy dripline. Once access is restricted, the risk rating will be Moderate.

Respectfully Submitted,
Rodney D. Thurman
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM
ISA Municipal Specialist
ISA Utility Arborist
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification
Appendices: Photographs, Tree Map
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
14 Appendix A - Photographs

Photo 1 - View of Tree 1 to south. Note
lean to east.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
15 Photo 2 - Tree 1 with decayed anchor root on southwest side, indicated by arrow. Ink pen provided for scale
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
16 Photo 3 - Tree 1 with compression bulge east side of trunk indicated by arrow shows lack of structural support.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
17 Photo 4 - Tree 1 with decay in scaffold branches. indicated by arrows.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
18 Photo 5 - View of Tree 2 to north
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
19 Photo 6 - Tree 2 with decay cavity south side of trunk. Length is approximately 5.5’.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
20 Photo 7 - Tree 2 with decay cavity at scaffold union approx. 8’ above ground on southwest side of tree.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
21 Photo 8 - Tree 2 with fungal fruiting body circled and decay in south scaffold branch indicated by arrow.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
22 Photo 9 - Tree 2 with decay cavity formed by failed scaffold circled at center of tree, approximately 14 feet above ground.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
23 Photo 10 - Tree 2 perspective view of decay cavity formed by failed scaffold circled at center of tree. Cavity is circled. Other decay points below the open cavity are indicated by arrows.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
24 Photo 11 - Tree 2 view of decay cavity formed by failed scaffold.

Opening measures 13”
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
25 Photo 12 - Tree 2 view of interior decay cavity formed by failed scaffold. Arrow 1 shows depth of cavity down to roots of tree.

Arrow 2 shows decay that has advanced into eastern scaffold branch.
#2
#1
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
26 Photo 13 - Tree 2 measurement of
interior depth of decay cavity formed by
failed scaffold. 13’ 2”
Photo 14 - Tree 2 measurement of
exterior depth of decay cavity formed by
failed scaffold. 14’ 3”
Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
27 Photo 15 - View of Tree 3 to north. Overextended scaffold to west. Large decay cavity at connection to trunk.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
28 Photo 16 - Tree 3 with large decay cavity at scaffold connection to trunk.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
29 Photo 17 - View of Tree 4 with to northwest. Numerous failed scaffold branches due to overextension and internal decay.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
30 Photo 18 - View of Tree 9 to north. Numerous failed scaffold branches due to overextension and internal decay.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
31 Photo 19 - Tree 9 close-up of failed scaffold branch with internal decay.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
32 Photo 20 - View of Tree 10 to south.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
33 Photo 21 - Tree 10 with decayed scaffold branch indicated by yellow arrows.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
34 Photo 22 - View of Tree 11 to north. At least 5 decayed scaffold branches would be removed which would reduce the tree at least 50%. Arrows indicate branch removal points.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
35 Photo 23 - Tree 11 close up of declining canopy, decayed branches, and dead wood indicated by arrows.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
36 Photo 24 - Tree 11 close up of root crown decay at southwest side of tree indicated by yellow arrow. Ant nest discovered here which indicates dead and rotting wood.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
37 Photo 25 - View of Tree 13 to north. Note overextended scaffold branches indicated by arrows.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
38 Photo 26 - Tree 13 with root decay cavity on south side of tree indicated by arrow.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
39 Photo 27 - Tree 13 with bulging root-crown indicating possible butt-rot.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
40 Photo 28- Tree 13 with decaying scaffold branch east side of canopy indicated by arrow. Line indicates locations for removal Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
41 Photos 29 & 30 - Example of oak tree that failed due to root and butt-rot. Photo 29 shows failed roots. Photo 30 shows internal decay of trunk.

Exhibit B

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
42 Appendix B – Tree Map
Tree Locations Map – Red = removals, Green = retain and protect, Dashed line delineates property boundaries.
2 1 9
10 13
3 11
4 Home

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY,

NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT,
2930 UNION ROAD (LOTS 6 AND 13,
APN 025-362-043)

PASO ROBLES, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
Project No. 2202-2481
Prepared for:

Covelop, Inc.

P.O. Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
Prepared by:

Rachael J. Letter, M.S., RPA and Christopher J. Letter, B.A.

Padre Associates, Inc.
369 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 786-2650
July 2022

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Phase I Archaeological Study, 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
Project No. 2202-2481
-iNATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA BASE INFORMATION
Authors: Rachael J. Letter, M.S., RPA and Christopher J. Letter, B.A.

Consulting firm: Padre Associates, Inc.
369 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 786-2650
Report Date: July 2022
Report Title: Phase I Archaeological Study, New Commercial Development, 2930 Union Road (Lots 6 and 13, APN 025-362-043), Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California
Prepared for: Covelop, Inc.

P.O. 12910
San Luis Obispo, California 93406
Prepared by: Padre Associates, Inc.
369 Pacific Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 786-2650
Contract No: 2202-2481
U.S.G.S. Quads: Paso Robles, California
Project Size: 14.5 acres
Key words: San Luis Obispo County, Paso Robles, Phase I Archaeological Study

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Phase I Archaeological Study, 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
Project No. 2202-2481
-iiMANAGEMENT SUMMARY
At the request of Covelop, Inc. (Client), Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), has completed a Phase I archaeological study in support of a new commercial development (Project) at 2930 Union Road (Lots 6 and 13 of APN 025-362-043), in Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California (Project site). The scope of this document includes an archaeological records search and a Phase I pedestrian survey.

The records search did not reveal any previously recorded resources within the Project site. Padre conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project site on July 1, 2022. No cultural resources were observed within the Project site.

Proposed Project impacts will not affect cultural resources and no further archaeological study or monitoring is warranted. Padre recommends that the Project proceed as planned. In the event cultural resources are encountered during the proposed Project, Padre recommends the County cease construction activities within a 100-foot radius. Work will resume once an archaeologist who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology has assessed the find and identified and implemented appropriate mitigation measures.

One copy of this report will be submitted to the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) at the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. A copy of all field notes is on file at Padre’s office in San Luis Obispo, California.

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Phase I Archaeological Study, 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
Project No. 2202-2481
-iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................. 1-1

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 STATE REGULATIONS ................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)............................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 California Register of Historical Resources ............................................................ 2-1

2.2 REGULATIONS CONCERNING DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS ........................ 2-2

3.0 NATURAL AND CULTURAL OVERVIEW......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING........................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT.................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (c. 25,000 – c. 9950 B.P.)....................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 Millingstone Period (c. 9950 – c. 5450 B.P.)........................................................... 3-1

3.2.3 Early Period (c. 5450 – c. 2550 B.P.)...................................................................... 3-2

3.2.4 Middle Period (c. 2550 – c. 950 B.P.) ..................................................................... 3-2

3.2.5 Middle to Late Transition Period (c. 950 – c. 700 B.P.) .......................................... 3-2

3.2.6 Late Period (c. 700 – c. 181 B.P.)........................................................................... 3-3

3.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT ........................................................................................ 3-3

3.4 HISTORIC PERIOD CONTEXT ..................................................................................... 3-4

3.4.1 Contact Period ........................................................................................................ 3-4

3.4.2 Mission Period ........................................................................................................ 3-4

3.4.3 Rancho and Anglo-Mexican Periods....................................................................... 3-4

3.4.4 Americanization Period........................................................................................... 3-5

4.0 RECORDS SEARCH METHODS AND RESULTS............................................................ 3-1

4.1 METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

4.2 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 3-1

5.0 FIELD SURVEY METHODS AND RESULTS.................................................................... 5-1

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................. 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................................... 7-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Project Location Map................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 5-1. Overview of Project site, facing south......................................................................... 5-1 Figure 5-2. Overview north end of Project site, facing south......................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-3. Overview of Project site, facing south......................................................................... 5-2 Figure 5-4. Overview of south end of Project site, facing south.................................................... 5-3

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Confidential Records Search Results

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Phase I Archaeological Study, 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
Project No. 2202-2481
- 1-1 -

1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Covelop, Inc. (Client), Padre Associates, Inc. (Padre), has completed a Phase I archaeological study in support of a new commercial development (Project) at 2930 Union Road (Lots 6 and 13 of APN 025-362-043) in Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California (Project site).

Padre completed the Phase I Archaeological Study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. CEQA requires lead agencies to evaluate proposed projects for their potential to impact archaeological resources (Public Resources Code Section 21082, 21083.2, and 21084.1, and California Code of Regulations 15064.5). According to the CEQA Guidelines, “historical resources” include buildings, structures, objects, districts, or sites that may possess prehistoric or historical archaeological, architectural, cultural, or scientific importance. CEQA states that if a project will have a significant effect on important cultural resources, then alternative plans or mitigation measures need to be developed. However, only important cultural resources need to be considered in the mitigation plans.

Padre Staff Archaeologist Christopher Letter completed the pedestrian survey on July 1, 2022 and was overseen by Padre Senior Archaeologist Rachael J. Letter, M.S., RPA. Ms. Letter exceeds the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards as outlined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.

The remainder of this section provides the Project description and location; Section 2.0 discusses the regulatory framework; Section 3.0 provides the environmental, ethnographic and archaeological overviews for the region; Section 4.0 describes the records search results; Section

5.0 presents the field methodology and survey results; Section 6.0 provides a summary and recommendations; and references are listed in Section 7.0. Appendix A provides the confidential records search results.

1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located within the Paso Robles, California United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series topographic quadrangle map. Specifically, the Project site is located within Section 26, Township 26 South, Range 12 East in Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1-1). Elevation ranges from 811 to 834 feet above mean sea level, and Huer Huero Creek is located approximately 0.32-mile to the east of the Project site.

The Project site is bordered by Union Road to the north, Ardmore Street to the west, and pastureland/ rural properties to the east and south.

The proposed Project includes the construction of a 125,812 square foot warehouse and office building on lot 13 and four commercial, storage, manufacturing, and winemaking buildings totaling 114,650 square feet on lot 6 as well as associated parking lots.

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023

PROJECT LOCATION
Source: USGS Topo 7.5' Quad
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California V FIPS 0405 Feet Notes: This map was created for informational and display purposes only LEGEND:

Project Location
2202-2481 June 2022
FIGURE
1-1
2930 UNION ROAD, PASO ROBLES,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CA PROJECT NUMBER: DATE:

PROJECT NAME:
³
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Paso Robles
Legal Description: T26S, R12E Sec.26
Project
Location SAN LUIS
OBISPO
COUNTY
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
1:24,000
GIS Maps\Map Project\Archeology\2930 Union Road\Project Location.mxd 6/27/2022

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Phase I Archaeological Study, 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
Project No. 2202-2481
- 2-1 -

2.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The following regulatory framework describes the applicable state and local statutes, ordinances, and policies pertaining to the protection of archaeological resources. These laws must be considered during the planning process for projects that have the potential to affect archaeological resources in San Luis Obispo County.

2.1 STATE REGULATIONS

2.1.1 California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA statute and guidelines include procedures for identifying, analyzing, and disclosing potential adverse impacts to historical resources, which include all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or local registers.

CEQA further defines a “historical resource” as a resource that meets any of the following criteria:
• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the CRHR; • A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; • A resource identified as significant (i.e., rated 1-5) in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1(g) (Department of Parks and Recreation Form [DPR] 523), unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant; or • Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California, provided the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).

2.1.2 California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is a listing of California resources that are significant within the context of California’s history. The CRHR is a state-wide program of similar scope to the National Register Historic Places (NRHP). In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are eligible for listing in the CRHR. A historic resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following criteria that are defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850:
• It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
• It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or

City Council Agenda November 7, 2023
Phase I Archaeological Study, 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
Project No. 2202-2481
- 2-2 -
• It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or • It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

2.2 REGULATIONS CONCERNING DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS
California Public Resources Code §5097.98 (Notification of Native American human remains, descendants; disposition of human remains and associated grave goods) mandates that the lead agency adhere to the following regulations when a project results in the identification or disturbance of Native American human remains:
(a) Whenever the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 48 hours of their notification by the Native American Heritage Commission. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

(b) Whenever the commission is unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant identified fails to make a recommendation, or the landowner or his or her authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation provided for in subdivision (k) of Section 5097.94 fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner, the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5097.9, the provisions of this section (including those actions taken by the landowner or his or her authorized representative to implement this section), and any action taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 5097.94, shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13, commencing with Section 21000). (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30244, the provisions of this section (including those actions taken by the landowner or his or her authorized representative to implement this section), and any action taken to implement an agreement developed pursuant to subdivision (1) of Section 5097.94 shall be exempt from the requirements of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20, commencing with Section 30000).