Agenda packet — Paso Robles City Council, August 6, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

INTRODUCTION
There is a growing nationwide industry trend in which public agencies are acquiring their streetlight infrastructure from their local private or public utility companies. Municipal streetlight ownership is beneficial because it:
 Allows the public agency to control the management of the system, standardize design, and improve maintenance response times;
 Results in tremendous cost savings – particularly related to maintenance and energy;  Enables a public agency to reap additional savings by converting any remaining High Intensity Discharge fixtures to LED fixtures;  Aligns with existing public expectations that the public agency is responsible for the streetlight system; and  Allows the public agency to make system upgrades, such as installing Smart City technologies.

Generally, there are three types of streetlight acquisitions:
 Acquisitions via friendly, at-will negotiations with utilities;  Acquisitions in states where legislation has dictated a predictable framework within which to transfer ownership; and  Acquisitions contested by utilities that require exercising the power of eminent domain in a court of law.

While very beneficial, municipal streetlight acquisitions are highly nuanced because they require:
 In-depth knowledge of the technical aspects of a streetlight system,  A thorough understanding of the legal framework that allows municipalities to purchase streetlight systems from utilities,  The context of how, where, and when previous precedent has been established, and  An understanding of how to navigate various negotiations and legal strategies effectively.

Most public agencies utilize in-house or outside legal counsel when embarking on a streetlight acquisition. This is an important and necessary resource, as any acquisition requires legal guidance.

However, many public agencies experience unforeseen challenges when pursuing a streetlight acquisition solely guided by their legal counsel because their counsel is not equipped with streetlightspecific legal and technical expertise. This often results in unnecessary legal costs, process delays, and failed negotiations and acquisitions.

Streetlight acquisition missteps typically occur due to:
 Lack of understanding of what “contributed property” (or assets in which the owner did not invest either some or all of the property’s cost) means and how it impacts the valuation of a streetlight system;
 Not following the statutory requirements involved with the condemnation process;
 Unfamiliarity with a public agency’s “right to take” the streetlight assets; and
 Being intimidated by a utility’s scare tactics and
conjecture, instead of being guided by the facts,
evidence, and strong legal justification for pursuing
acquisition.

Given the nuances and complexities, public agencies cannot rely solely on legal counsel, but need a streetlight acquisition expert consultant – Tanko Lighting – to lead the process and navigate to a successful ownership transfer.

Utility # of Projects # of Streetlights
Ameren (MO) 2 6,613
American Electric Power (OH) 1 1,100
Centerpoint Energy (TX) 1 175,000
Duke Energy (OH) 1 18,000
Eversource (CT, MA) 31 48,024
Emera (ME) 2 840
Entergy (AR) 1 16
First Energy (OH) 1 1,000
Georgia Power (GA) 1 10,000
The llluminating Company
(OH) 1 2,497
National Grid (NY, MA) 43 103,156
New York State Electric &
Gas (NY) 2 6,889
Northwest Edison (MT) 1 6,000
Oncor Electric (TX) 4 11,238
Pacific Gas & Electric (CA) 2 1,745
Poudre Valley (CO) 1 1,229
Puget Sound Energy (WA) 1 741
San Diego Gas & Electric
(CA) 1 532
Seattle City Light (WA) 1 392
Southern California Edison
(CA) 23 116,511
United Power (CO) 1 915
Xcel Energy (CO) 6 21,313
Total 128 533,751
Tanko's Utility-Owned Streetlight Acquisition Projects
Attachment 2

Page 132 of 225 ends

WHO WE ARE
Tanko Lighting has spent years cultivating our expertise through hundreds of successful municipal streetlight ownership projects nationwide. Our projects have included all three types of acquisitions – friendly negotiations, legislated framework, and eminent domain.

Given the breadth and depth of our experience, we are positioned to respond to whichever strategy is most appropriate for the City’s acquisition. While friendly negotiations with a utility are ideal, we can utilize a variety of approaches to achieve the most effective method for the City’s particular needs.

Tanko Lighting is the only national firm with twenty years of experience focused exclusively on municipal streetlighting projects. Our primary operations include municipal streetlight ownership support, LED conversion, and ongoing maintenance services. Some firms claim they are experienced in streetlighting, but just dabble in it, picking up projects along the way because they are generalists focused on diverse measures and business models. In contrast, we eat, sleep, and breathe streetlighting.

We are streetlight experts. Our technical experience is unmatched by any other firm. We have been involved with over 250 streetlight contracts, representing more than 879,000 streetlight fixtures. Our objective is to ensure that our municipal clients have optimized, efficient, and well-maintained streetlight systems owned and controlled by the communities within which they are located.

WHY CHOOSE TANKO?
There are a variety of factors that distinguish Tanko Lighting from the competition. Please find several outlined below:

Attachment 2

Page 133 of 225 ends

OUR TEAM
Our team is lean, agile, and accessible. This will result in the City having streetlight experts continuously available to assist with every project need, providing peace of mind and alleviating the burden on City staff. Our experienced team’s approach to project management includes the following elements:
 We are hands-on. Our team is accessible, accountable, transparent, ready to serve clients – and our clients love us for it.  We communicate. Our communication is thorough and articulate. Our goal is to eliminate the burden on our clients. This requires establishing trust by actively communicating project progress, challenges, and updates.  We are efficient. Our team values everyone’s time and is constantly utilizing strategies to ensure that no time is wasted. Coming prepared to meetings with accurate agendas, following up with meeting minutes and action items, batching questions, and utilizing time management skills to properly facilitate meetings are examples of how we operate efficiently.  We are educators. We realize that not every client is a streetlight expert. Since we are, we take the time to provide helpful context in simple terms to help our clients make informed decisions – particularly regarding a streetlighting system they will soon own.
 We anticipate needs. Based on our experience nationwide, we know the challenges of purchasing and operating a municipal streetlight system. Our approach considers these challenges and guides our clients through the process by asking critical questions and resolving issues before challenges arise.

Although this is the first time the City has experienced a streetlight municipalization project, it is not our first time. We have done this countless times in numerous states and are skilled in the process and best practices. The City can absolutely rely on our team of streetlight professionals to seamlessly guide it through this process, knowing that it can trust a firm with more than twenty years of relevant experience and unparalleled customer service.

ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES
As previously mentioned, streetlight acquisition missteps typically occur when inexperienced actors are leading. To optimize the process, it is imperative that Tanko Lighting takes the lead role on the project, coordinating all City staff and legal counsel throughout the entire project. While our team is not comprised of licensed attorneys, we are well-versed in the legal process and understand the critical role that legal counsel plays in this process. However, it is essential to understand that the role of legal counsel in this project is limited by design, as this ensures that the streetlight acquisition expert (Tanko Lighting) is at the helm to lead the project cost effectively and to utilize legal counsel surgically, as needed.

Below is a list of anticipated responsibilities for each core team member for this project. These responsibilities, as outlined, will keep the project’s progress moving as smoothly and efficiently as possible. Thus, it is important that these responsibilities are adhered to throughout the project.

Tanko Lighting’s Responsibilities
 Serve as the project lead, responsible for all project deadlines, reporting, and compliance.
 Ensure that statutory requirements are met in a timely manner.
 Coordinate with both City staff and legal counsel via ongoing meetings and correspondence.
 Lead negotiations (if relevant) with the utility.
 Advise City staff on ongoing potential options and strategies.  Provide relevant documentation on previous precedents, technical elements, case law, and legal arguments.
 Draft documents for City staff and legal counsel’s review.  Provide final edits for negotiation and court documents.

Project Partner Roles Tanko
Lighting
(Project
Lead)
Legal
Counsel
(Support)
Attachment 2

Page 134 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 7 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT  Provide documentation and justification for
valuation estimates.
 Provide ongoing reporting as needed.

City’s Responsibilities
 Serve as the project owner and decision maker.
 Assign a decision maker as the primary point of
contract for the project.
 Commit to a regular meeting schedule with the
main point of contact and Tanko Lighting.
o The minimum requirement is to meet at
least once every three weeks.
 Participate in a monthly meeting with either the
legal counselor(s) or the Public Works Director or
other City executive.
o If a scheduled meeting is canceled or
missed, the City may be charged a delay
fee (see Pricing section below).
 For all tasks that require City Council action, if there is a delay other than the City Council session being canceled, the City will be charged a delay fee.
o For example, if a vote or consideration is needed by the City Council and the item is pushed back or removed, the City would be subject to a delay fee.
o The justification for this is that it takes our team a significant amount of time to prepare for such meetings and it leads to inefficiencies and unforeseen costs when a meeting is delayed.  With the aid of Tanko Lighting, determine if the current legal counsel is capable of pursuing negotiation and/or forced acquisition. o If limitations are identified, Tanko Lighting will aid in interviewing and identifying potential counsel replacements and at what point it needs to be done (see Task 4 of the Phase 2: Ownership Support section, below).

Legal Counsel’s Responsibilities
 Serve in a supportive role for the project.
 Participate in a formal introduction meeting following the project kickoff to discuss experiences, roles, and responsibilities.  Commit to attending regular monthly meetings (if needed).  Utilize drafted documents and work closely with Tanko Lighting on the finalization of documents. o Tanko Lighting will provide all drafts to counsel and review documents before counsel finalizes.  Work in tandem with Tanko Lighting to negotiate with the utility.  Contribute to the development of legal strategies.
 Provide document review and feedback in a timely manner.  Represent the City in all court processes and proceedings (if needed).

SCOPE OF SERVICES
We propose a scope of work that provides an understanding of the existing streetlight field conditions and ownership options, as well as negotiating the ownership transfer to the City from the PG&E (should the City opt to formally proceed with ownership) and assists with converting streetlights to more efficient Light Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures.

The scope of services outlined below combines two aspects of the overall strategy – LED conversion and ownership support. While our Pricing section separates these two aspects for budget purposes, our intent is to implement both simultaneously. Thus, our scope of services includes our recommended sequence of tasks for both aspects – and many of the tasks will be concurrent.

Fullerton
California
Attachment 2

Page 135 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 8 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Phase 1: LED Conversion and Ownership Support Project Development This first phase of the project will proceed with the design and coordination of the LED conversion of the streetlights currently owned by the City. This will enable the City to expedite savings and realize reduced electricity bills.

This phase will also determine the field conditions of the existing LS-1 rate streetlight infrastructure, initiate the process of due diligence on the feasibility of ownership, appraise the value of the current streetlight system, and analyze the costs and benefits of ownership.

Task 1 – LED Design & Conversion of City-Owned Streetlights Our team will provide comprehensive services to support the City with converting its City-owned streetlights to LED. Note that we previously conducted an in-field GIS audit of the City-owned fixtures and will utilize this data to plan and implement the LED conversion.

Task 1a - Design
In our experience, a comprehensive LED streetlight conversion is the ideal opportunity for a municipality to reassess its entire streetlighting design and ensure that it has been optimized for existing field conditions. To achieve this, our team routinely conducts municipal-wide design processes for each of its turn-key streetlighting projects. This experience has led to our team’s streamlined approach to design.

Our team utilizes Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) RP8 standards for roadways and right of ways. Additionally, we maintain a working knowledge of all the latest publications and updates in the market. However, there are many instances when municipal customers need to alter these standards to best meet their specific needs.

Thus, our team uses these types of industry accepted standards as guidelines and works closely with the City to develop customized proposed standards of comfort and functionality that match its needs.

Our goal will be to provide the City with an appropriate replacement design for the current City-owned streetlights that includes the brand of fixture, photocell, replacement wattages, color temperatures, distribution patterns and other appropriate settings and options to optimize the LED streetlight retrofit. The design will ultimately result in a replacement plan for all existing streetlights that includes photometric data, lifecycle cost analysis (including the initial capital outlay), net present value and return on investment, energy savings, as well as maps of the replacement plan (see Figure 1).

Our proven process may include theoretical photometrics modeling (demonstrating the light distribution from an aerial perspective at the fixture location). If the City opts to include in-field photometric measurements for any pilot/newly installed LED fixtures, our team can also use the photopic (which measures the light that the cones of the eyes typically perceive) and scotopic (which measures the light that the rods of the eyes typically perceive) field measurements obtained from directly under the fixture and at varying distances to the sides of and across the street from the fixture.

The results from these models portray the most accurate existing and replacement conditions that verify that the replacement LED fixtures will improve the system.

Tanko Lighting’s approach to comprehensive design for this project will include the following elements:
 Applying standard LED replacement wattage recommendations based on the location of each existing fixture.  Conferring with the City’s safety coordinators and police officers to solicit feedback on areas that are currently over- or under-lit and are public safety concerns.
 Coordinating an (optional) pilot of potential products (note that the optional pilot is not included in our pricing but can be provided upon request).
 Selecting appropriate wattages and distribution types for replacement fixtures to meet the City’s needs, while maintaining the objective of providing a simplified design that standardizes inventory (so that the system has consistency and can be more easily maintained over time).

Figure 1: Tanko Lighting’s Municipal Overview Map
shows an entire municipality with recommended
replacement fixtures.

Attachment 2

Page 136 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 9 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT  Applying the City’s preferred products, typical models and special considerations to its GIS inventory to produce maps of the type and wattages by location (see sample map below), as well as an analysis of the total cost, incentives, savings, and payback for the potential retrofit design.
 Presenting the options and total cost/incentives/savings/payback to the City and obtain its final approval on design.

Please note that we assume the inventory will be comprised of a mixture of cobra head and decorative streetlight fixtures. We also have extensive experience designing decorative fixture upgrade options and can provide that support as well. Please note that the design for decorative fixtures includes an additional cost, as the design process for these types of fixtures is more complex than the approach to cobra head fixtures. This additional cost has been considered in the proposal’s pricing structure.

We provide an interactive design web map to facilitate our design process. Please see the graphic below.

Please note that our understanding is that PG&E is currently responsible for streetlight maintenance in the City. We will develop an LED replacement design based on the City’s preferences. If the approved design is not one that can be maintained by PG&E, the City will need to outsource the maintenance of the City-owned streetlights. This is something that we can assist with but is not currently included in our proposed scope.

The overall benefits to our design approach include:
 Standardization – The City is ensured that there is a consistent design method resulting in wattage continuity on its streets.

Standardization also leads to a reduction in the variety of fixtures that the City must keep in its inventory  Safety – Based on the most updated field conditions, the City can be assured that the design matches the system’s current needs and results in improved public safety from streets no longer being under or over lit  Efficiency – The process takes a very thorough approach by examining all relevant field factors and thereby maximizes the available savings by utilizing the most efficient design, while meeting light output needs A sample of our interactive design web map.

Attachment 2

Page 137 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 10 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT  Streamlined Installation – The process allows for the development of a detailed scope of work (via a map of all replacements) by fixture for the installers to follow in the field – which enables more efficient materials gathering at the start of each workday during the LED conversion Deliverables:
 Replacement Plan Maps: Online City-wide maps with recommended LED replacement wattages for the City to review and approve.  Recommended Product Submittals: Technical specification submittal sheets for recommended products.

Task 1b – LED Conversion Support
Once the City has approved the LED replacement design, we can begin the LED conversion process. We have previously coordinated this phase with hundreds of cities and have a proven process that will accomplish this via the following activities:

Bid Coordination
Tanko Lighting has extensive experience assisting municipalities with developing public Requests for Proposals involving the installation tasks and materials for LED lighting conversions. Our team has the expertise to develop solicitations with the appropriate qualifications and requirements to ensure that the City obtains the right installation contractor and materials for this project.

Our approach involves the following activities:
• Product Specifications: We will prepare the product specifications based on the City’s preferences and submit these to the City for review so that the approved versions are ultimately included in bid documents.
• Installation Specifications: Our team will develop the bid documents for the installation/materials bid and will ensure they include:
• Description of work
• Required installation schedule
• Reference standards
• Submittals
• Quality assurance
• Warranty
• Installation
• Field quality control
• Adjusting and cleaning
• Disposal
• Requirements for handling any potential field issues, including no power, missing wire, etc. • Safety standards
• Equipment requirements
• Licensing/reporting requirements
• Pricing requirements/templates
• Communication requirements, including pre-construction and regular project progress meetings, as well as data collection, training, documentation, and reporting requirements • Minimum qualifications
• Procurement Coordination: We will coordinate one bid for installation and one bid for materials (as this is the most cost-effective approach for the City). Once each bid is released, our team will support the City with the development of responses to questions and any necessary addenda documents, as well as assist with bid reviews and interviews, as needed.

Attachment 2

Page 138 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 11 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Please note that it is in the City’s best interest to proceed swiftly with the bid process. When it is delayed, unforeseen cost implications and missed savings can result for the City. Thus, we have developed our processes to streamline this phase and anticipate it will take approximately one month from the point in which our team provides the draft bid documents to the City’s public release of the bids. Further, we anticipate that the final bidder selections will be made within two weeks of the bids’ closing dates. We will work with the City to ensure these timelines are met, and the project proceeds seamlessly. If there are City delays with this phase, we may assess a delay fee in the amount of $2,500 per month for each month beyond the first month (for the release of bids timeline) and $2,500 per month beyond the first two weeks (for the final bidder selections timeline).

Installation Management
Tanko Lighting will ensure that the selected installation contractor utilizes professionals, properly trained in and abiding by all regulatory and industry safety standards. The installation contractor will be fully insured and responsible for meeting all federal, state, and local codes and laws.

The installation contractor will provide safety, installation, traffic control, and environmental disposal services for this project. The installation contractor’s efforts will be directed by a foreman, who will be responsible for all logistics and field installation, including safety and traffic control, and all management of field staff. The installation contractor will provide all the required safety equipment for the project.

Completion of the project commissioning (see below) will coincide at the end of the installation phase to quickly address any errors, punch list items, or troubleshooting needs.

Utilizing the data from the design process, we will develop installation maps (a sample can be provided upon request) and provide to installers and relevant City staff for accurate project tracking.

An additional feature of Tanko Lighting’s approach is that its GPS data collection activities are integrated throughout project implementation – as a routine practice. We can stay intimately involved with the daily installation phase via its data collection protocols that are required of all installers. We will ensure that installers are equipped with handheld devices and train them in collecting relevant data on both the HPS fixtures being removed, as well as the LED fixtures being installed. Installers will be required to collect data at every location and transmit it in real time to Tanko Lighting. We can track each crew’s daily progress via time-stamped data on every fixture location. This not only enables our team to know every location where each crew has been, it also allows us to track the routes that each crew has used and any inefficiencies in the process. We review this information daily, which allows us to provide immediate instruction to crews on any course corrections necessary. Our proven experience with managing installation crews through data collection activities routinely integrated into the installation phase ensures the accuracy and accountability of project partners.

Upon installation, the City or its designated maintenance contractor will be responsible to serve as first-responder to all outages, shall identify locations where warranty-related work is necessary, and will notify the installation contractor of the warranty-related locations so that a remedy can be implemented.

Given Tanko Lighting’s significant focus on thorough data collection during both the audit and installation phases, approximately ninetyfive percent of the commissioning efforts take place during the time of installation. This is because our team can quickly validate the installation data against the confirmed audit data (which is validated against utility records during the Data Reconciliation phase) and accurately identify any locations where both data sets do not match. This ensures tremendous precision that establishes a finite subset of the installation locations that require additional review.

Corte Madera
California
Attachment 2

Page 139 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 12 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Upon completion of the installation, Tanko Lighting will ensure that the installers perform final inspection on all fixtures, correct any “punch list” items, test lights to ensure that they work, and identify locations where repair needs PG&E assistance. Tanko Lighting will provide the City with a complete commissioning report outlining any errors and actions taken to correct errors.

Pole Tagging
Our team will specify number sequence, tag characteristics, material specifications and location on the pole for a City pole ID system. This may include a specific label indicating City ownership. Typically, we specify a tag recommendation that consists of five to eight digits. We will also have the field staff install the pole tags on the poles (we assume that they will be installed at heights within arm’s reach (i.e. no ladders required)). These will be installed either during the audit (for existing City-owned LED fixtures) or during installation (for any Cityowned non-LEDs in scope for LED conversion).

Community Outreach and Notification
Tanko Lighting believes that proper coordination of information and outreach to stakeholders is an essential part of ensuring a successful streetlight conversion project. To that end, our team will coordinate with the City’s media office to help develop a community outreach and notification plan prior to the commencement of any project activities. The plan will ensure project awareness and minimize public disturbance. Specifically, our team will develop the message and provide the schedule to the City’s media staff for distribution through the City’s existing media outlets (press releases, website, etc.).

Inventory Updates and Installation Close-Out
We will coordinate with the utility on changing tariffs to the newly installed LED fixture rates. We will prepare the necessary documentation, submit required documentation to the utility, confirm the materials have been received, and obtain the timing for the modification to be processed. If known, we will provide the contact information for the appropriate party addressing any rate changes for the City. The City staff may need to confirm that the modification appears in the City utility bills. If there are any inquiries from the utility to the City regarding the submitted applications, we will assist the City with responding to any questions.

Finally, our team will coordinate all final reporting and data requirements to ensure that the City considers the project to be compliant and complete. This includes finalizing the GIS layer with design and construction data and providing this final inventory data to the utility.

We will also provide contacts and the process for warranty support with the manufacturer(s), should it be necessary.

Deliverables:
 Bid Documents: Draft language and supporting materials for the City’s installation and materials bids. We will use the City’s existing installation and materials bid templates to create these drafts.  Project Messaging and Schedule: Specific language, draft press release, and timelines related to project activities to assist with notifying community members of the project.
 Weekly Installation Report: A detailed listing of the locations completed during the installation phase, provided as an interactive online map dashboard available until the end of the project.  Pole Tag Recommendation Specification: Material and specification information for the City to review/approve.  Pole Tag Installation: Physical installation of pole tags on relevant poles via our field staff.  Commissioning Report: Detailed analysis of final installation verification and testing, including an outline of any errors and actions taken to correct errors.
 Rate Change Documentation: A compilation of copies of paperwork submitted and processed with the utility regarding tariff changes.
 Final Reporting Documentation: Final requirements necessary to process the tariff changes with the City, as well as postconstruction electronic GIS records for all newly installed streetlights in the City, including all wattages, badge numbers, locations, and other associate attributes (a preliminary spreadsheet to be provided upon completion of Task 1 and in geodatabase or shapefile format to be provided upon completion of Task 7), and environmental disposal documentation.

City of Rancho Cucamonga’s website featured
Tanko Lighting’s project messaging.

Attachment 2

Page 140 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 13 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Task 2 – Municipal Process Support
Our team will provide comprehensive services to support the City in the exploration of its options regarding potentially obtaining ownership of its streetlight assets, including:
 Assisting the City with the tasks and timing necessary as it moves through each potential stage  Providing sample documentation and supporting materials as required or necessary  Initiating and leading negotiations with the utility, as necessary  Presenting analyses, strategies and options to City staff and Council members via webinars, phone calls and/or a limited number of meetings
 Developing a post-acquisition maintenance strategy that includes the City’s options for both routine and emergency maintenance services for consideration prior to any decision for the potential acquisition  Providing assistance and coordination to support the City’s legislative and/or public relations efforts related to its proposed ownership initiative
 Connecting the City with a third-party financing entity, if needed  Consulting with City legal representatives on the path to potential ownership  Providing background evidence, case law, data, research, legal arguments, and precedence to support a legal approach to purchase the streetlight system (if necessary). Please note that Tanko Lighting is not comprised of licensed attorneys. Thus, our team will merely coordinate with City staff, and/or with the City’s legal counselor(s) and provide consulting services with streetlight expertise.

Deliverables
 Supporting Documentation: Case law, data, and other background materials to support the City’s efforts for the potential purchase of the streetlight system.
 Municipal Process Support: Draft, sample, and necessary documentation, meetings, and research to support this stage of the Progression Plan.

Task 3 – Streetlight GIS Audit for PG&E Fixtures
In our experience, a proper GIS audit is essential to equipping the client with a comprehensive and accurate understanding of its existing infrastructure. The GIS audit is pivotal, as the data collected enables appropriate valuation of the system. It also positions the municipality or its contractor to effectively maintain the system, as well as manage any system upgrades (such as LED conversions or Smart City technologies), which require detailed field data to properly design and install.

Our data-driven approach to project implementation has defined our success. From GPS location coordinates to fixture wattages, accurate data collection and data management is the backbone from which our methodology stems. As most of our clients are interested in performing streetlight system upgrades, our auditors collect more than thirty fields of data per streetlight fixture to ensure that after the ownership transfer, the same data set can be used to create an LED streetlight design customized to our clients' needs and tailored to each streetlight's unique location. This approach also enables us and our clients to streamline maintenance processes, as we know exactly where each light is, the type of pole it is on, the type of fixture that is installed, existing wattage, etc., so that maintenance crews can be prepared ahead of time to respond to requests and minimize visiting the same fixture multiple times.

The preparation phase for the audit will involve the following activities that are critical to the accuracy of the data collection:
• Tanko Lighting working with City staff to clearly define audit scope, including priority areas, municipal boundaries, and any areas outside the right-of-way that should be included.

Attachment 2

Page 141 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 14 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT • Our team developing and providing to municipal staff a list of the attributes that will be collected at each light during the audit. • City staff providing our team with all available City and utility records for streetlights. • Our team reviewing these data records to determine which should be utilized for the data reconciliation phase. • Our team developing audit maps, scheduling, and dispatching auditors to the field.

Tanko Lighting’s approach to the audit is an in-field strategy that poses the following advantages:
• Deploying trained professional auditors to the field at the onset of the project enables our team to obtain the most definitive, up-to-date data set possible. While we supplement our field data with digital data sources (e.g., aerial imagery, street-level imagery, and municipal/utility inventories), the integrity of our audit is never dependent on the age or accuracy of available digital data sources.
• Our in-field approach provides the greatest accuracy and access to the pole and fixture. In person, we can identify potential safety issues, such as leaning poles or structural damage to the pole/arm/fixture. We can also verify pole numbers/labels and confirm any locations where numbers/labels are damaged or missing. This in-person verification of pole labels and exact locations is also invaluable in reconciling the utility billing inventory with what we find in the field (see Task 4). • Knowing exactly what assets are in the field, as well as the current condition of those assets, enables us to identify which assets are eligible for purchase and determine a reasonable valuation of the lighting system. • Collecting data in person gives our team the highest confidence in the accuracy of our data. This precision means that should the municipality move forward with system-wide updates, the municipality will be able to budget and procure for exactly what is in the field - money is not wasted on over-ordering, nor is project completion delayed by under-ordering.

Once the preparation phase is complete, the audit will commence. We will collect data on all the existing LS-1 rate inventory in the field and identify over thirty attributes on-site, including (but not limited to):
• Global Positioning Service (GPS) coordinates (latitude, longitude) of each fixture location and date of capture • Fixture technology
• Lamp type and wattage
• Pole material, mounting height, and arm length
• Pole ID number
• Date of data capture
• Nearest street address
• Street width and configuration (e.g., intersection, crosswalk, cul-de-sac) • Electrical feed (overhead, underground)
• Visible issues (e.g., pole leaning, fixture damage, tree obstruction) During the field audit, we will ensure to inspect every LS-1 rate fixture and pole specified by the City and will provide City staff with access to an interactive, online dashboard that will display the daily and overall progress of the audit, any issues encountered, and a map that can be explored. Please see below for a sample audit dashboard. We will also be available to discuss any questions the City has on the inventory.

Attachment 2

Page 142 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 15 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Deliverables
 Audit Dashboard: An online, interactive dashboard listing the locations completed during the data collection phase, along with a description of any issues that the municipality or utility would need to devote immediate attention to – including electrical hazards, tree trimming needs, etc. This dashboard will be available through the end of the project.  Audit Data: Finalized inventory summary listing quantities by type and wattage, as well as a list of fixtures found in the field audit and their associated attributes, to be provided in a file suitable for sue in common GIS software (e.g., ESRI, ArcMap), as well as Microsoft Excel (this deliverable will be provided after the completion of the project).

Task 4 – Data Reconciliation for PG&E Fixtures
Our team has developed a methodology to capture every streetlight asset owned by and/or billed to a municipality. Using precise GPS technology and expert streetlighting GIS Analysts, our team reconciles every asset it locates in the field with each record in the utility's billing inventory to ensure that all assets eligible for acquisition have been identified. In our team’s experience, cross-reference of these various data sources results in extremely precise and clean data. Projects typically have a utility billing discrepancy of approximately 5 – 10 percent of the inventory quantity, which can result in cities being over-billed by their utility. Any such discrepancies will be identified during this phase of the project, included in a data reconciliation report to the municipality.

We will begin reconciling the data upon commencement of the audit. The data reconciliation report will include the following items:
• Analysis of locations confirmed during the audit
• Analysis of locations appearing in the utility records but not in the confirmed audit records • Analysis of locations confirmed in the audit records but not in the utility records It should be noted that no field audit is perfect because varying and unknown field conditions can impact the data collected. As such, there is sometimes an error rate associated with data collection that may require the development of an Audit Punch List and a plan to remedy. Depending on the quantity of fixtures and the nature of the issues, there are typically three options to remedy the Audit Punch List:

1. Our team revisits specific locations to collect additional audit points (note this may involve additional costs for the City, which we can provide estimates for once the Audit Punch List is developed); or

2. City staff revisits specific locations to collect additional audit points and provides the streetlight information to our team; or A sample of our Audit Dashboard
Attachment 2

Page 143 of 225 ends

3. The City opts not to remedy the Audit Punch List – in which case, anything on the Audit Punch List will be removed from the project’s scope of work. This option may result in missing opportunities to remove lights from the field that are currently on the utility’s billing inventory.

Once the audit is completed, we will inform the City if there is a need for an Audit Punch List, as well as potential remedies for the City to decide which one best meets its needs.

Deliverables
 Data Reconciliation Report: A report detailing any discrepancies found between field data and utility billing records, as well as where records match cleanly (including nearest address and pole number, if applicable). Further, addressing these discrepancy locations with the utility will be the responsibility of the City, unless it requests our team to do so (which will require an additional cost).

Task 5 – Field Conditions Report
One of the greatest benefits of the audit is that it will uncover the physical reality of the streetlight system’s current field conditions. This is important for the City to consider as it evaluates the quality of the services it is currently receiving from the utility and whether the value is justified for what the City is paying via the utility-owned streetlight electricity rates.

Thus, once the audit and data reconciliation are completed, we will develop a Field Conditions Report that will identify the current state of the streetlight system, including any deferred maintenance and other service issues, as well as any data inventory issues. Even if the City ultimately opts not to proceed with streetlight ownership, this Field Conditions Report will provide details of which issues need to be addressed so that the City can communicate them with the utility and demand better service.

In addition to providing the Field Conditions Report, we will also develop a presentation based on the report and meet with City staff to guide them through the findings in the report, so they understand the details and implications. We can also be available to present to City Council, upon request.

Deliverables
 Field Conditions Report: An analysis of the current state of the streetlight system, including any deferred maintenance and other service issues.
 Field Conditions Report Presentation: A presentation of the findings identified in the Field Conditions Report.

Phase 2: Ownership Support
There are typically two paths to streetlight municipal ownership – either negotiated purchase with the utility or utilizing the court system to trigger the transfer of assets. Should the City opt to proceed with purchasing the streetlight system, a negotiated settlement will be our top priority. In general, both strategies can be utilized simultaneously – as a municipality may opt to pursue the court process, while at the same time show good faith by actively seeking a negotiated settlement with its utility. It is difficult to predict which path will result in municipal ownership (as both are viable). Thus, our team will consult with the City along the way to guide it through whichever path meets its goals.

Task 1 – Ownership Initialization
Our team has extensive experience nationally with municipal streetlight ownership projects. This experience will be leveraged for the City’s project, if it decides to pursue acquisition.

We perform data
reconciliation for a
precise
understanding of
existing inventory.

Attachment 2

Page 144 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 17 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT We will initialize our efforts by introducing the City to our streetlight ownership Progression Plan, which outlines the path and required steps necessary to prepare for the Council to decide on whether to pursue acquiring the ownership of the streetlights. There are two essential elements in the Progression Plan: the Project Schedule and the Four Protocols:
 Project Schedule: This is customized to the City’s particular administrative process, including timing for review and approval of documentation, agenda management, Council
meetings, closed sessions, etc. The Project Schedule is updated regularly to accommodate the City’s timing and
project status updates.
 Four Protocols: These Protocols are key to understanding the process. They explain the actions necessary at each stage of the process – from initiation to investigation and discovery, moving into negotiations, and ultimately lead to the City’s determination of its course of action.

Regularly recurring meetings will be scheduled to assist the City with moving through the proposed Progression Plan.

Deliverables:
 Progression Plan: An overview of the Progression Plan and the initial steps for this project stage.  Project Schedule: The Project Schedule will be provided at the initiation of the project and is updated throughout the project duration to accommodate City requirements and needs.

Task 2 – Appraisal
Once the field conditions of the existing system have been determined through the audit and data reconciliation tasks, our team will utilize a qualified, third-party appraiser to complete an appraisal of the streetlight system on behalf of the City. The appraiser will provide a financial valuation analysis to confirm the fair market value of the existing streetlight system. This will be based on market research on the value of previously appraised municipal streetlight systems in both the region and nationally, as well as the field conditions identified during the audit.

Once the appraisal is completed, our team will produce a summary of the results for future use with the Council and/or the potential exploration of the acquisition process. Please note that the appraisal will not consider the overall soundness of every element of the existing system (including unseen elements such as wiring issues, equipment integrity, etc.), and therefore our team will not be responsible/liable for any future operating costs associated with the soundness of the streetlight system equipment.

Deliverables
 Appraisal Analysis: Report of the appraised value of the existing streetlight system, as determined by an appraiser.  Appraisal Summary: Synopsis of the appraisal and the basis for the amount of just compensation value.

Task 3 – Streetlight System Analysis
The City has a variety of approaches it may consider regarding the ongoing ownership and operation of the streetlight system. It is important for the City to explore these options and determine a course of action in its best interests. As such, once the fair market value of the system has been appraised, our team will develop a Streetlight System Analysis to provide a variety of information, including but not limited to:
 Clarification on rate schedules and tariff-specific distinctions  Comparative costs analysis, including ROI and economic impacts  In-depth financial valuation of the existing streetlight system assets Santa Clarita
California
Attachment 2

Page 145 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 18 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT  Differences in valuation methods
 Determination of the salvage and functional replacement value of the system
 Analysis of advantages and differences of approach
 Potential emissions impacts
 Maintenance cost comparisons and proposed strategies
Deliverables
 Streetlight System Analysis: Comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits for the ownership and operations alternatives for the streetlight system.

Task 4 – Ownership Negotiations & Consulting Services
If the City Council affirmatively decides to pursue acquisition of the streetlights, the court process begins. Throughout this process, the City will always remain open to a negotiated settlement and Tanko Lighting will provide supporting consulting services for both possibilities of legal or negotiated resolution (even if they are concurrent) through the following activities:
• If necessary, participate with City staff in interviews and assist with the evaluation of prospective legal firms
• Assisting the City with the tasks and timing necessary as it moves through each potential stage • Providing sample documentation and supporting materials as required or necessary • Regularly recurring meetings to assist the City with moving through the proposed Progression Plan • Participating and leading negotiations with the utility as necessary • Presenting analyses, strategies and options to City staff and Council members via webinars, phone calls and/or a limited number of meetings
• Providing assistance and coordination to support the City’s legislative and/or public relations efforts related to its proposed ownership initiative
• Consulting with the City’s legal representatives on the path to potential ownership • Providing background evidence, case law, data, research, legal arguments, and precedence to support a legal approach to purchase the streetlight system (if necessary). Please note that Tanko Lighting is not comprised of licensed attorneys. Thus, our team will merely coordinate with City staff, and/or with the City’s legal counselor(s) and provide consulting services with streetlight expertise. All court appearances, court filings, court costs, utility appraisal fees, filing fees, attorney’s fees, legal costs/services, and expert witness fees will be the City’s responsibility • Providing consulting services to both the City and the City’s attorney with expertise and vast knowledge of utilities, context and technical aspects of streetlights, experience with other acquisitions, and comprehensive knowledge of the streetlighting industry  Support of determination of the system’s value and purchase price, including assistance with depositions, data on previous sales, rate analysis, etc.

All potential court appearances, court filings, court costs, utility appraisal fees, filing fees, attorney’s fees, legal costs/services, and expert witness fees will be the City’s responsibility.

Deliverables
• Supporting Documentation: Case law, data, and other background materials and sample documentation to support the City’s legal case for the potential purchase of the streetlight system. • Streetlight Ownership Offer from Utility: Tanko Lighting’s efforts may result in a viable offer as a result of negotiations, mediation, arbitration, or a Court award of possession of the streetlight assets (if the City decides to pursue streetlight acquisition). A viable offer will potentially include such elements as:
o Projected date of transfer
o Definition of assets (and estimated quantity)
o Fusing/electrical requirements
o Points of demarcation, and
La Puente
California
Attachment 2

Page 146 of 225 ends

Task 5 – Final Coordination of Ownership Transfer
Once the City is in active negotiations for the purchase and sale of the streetlight system, there will be a period of time in which final negotiations and transfer of assets will occur. The duration of this process is highly variable – and could last several months or years.

During this period, our team will continue to support the City, culminating in a final bill of sale and transition of streetlight assets to the City, including such activities (if necessary) as:
 Coordination of utility correspondence/negotiations
 Review of the pole attachment agreement terms
 Review of purchase and sale agreement terms (including separation requirements)  Support of final determination of the system’s value and purchase price, including assistance with depositions, data on previous sales, rate analysis, etc.

All potential court appearances, court filings, court costs, utility appraisal fees, filing fees, attorney’s fees, legal costs/services, and expert witness fees will be the City’s responsibility.

Deliverables
 Ongoing Coordination: Support activities, including document review, contract and/or financial negotiations/correspondence with the utility, consulting, etc. to ensure the final transfer of streetlight assets to the City.

Task 6 – Post-Acquisition Inventory True-Up
Once the City receives a finalized acquisition inventory, our team will re-reconcile it against the original audit inventory data from Phase

1. We will then identify any data discrepancies, which will likely fall into one of the following two categories:

1. No Corresponding Record in Audit Data: There is no audit data for some of the acquired streetlights (likely due to them having been newly installed since the audits completion); or

2. No Lamp Match in Audit Data: The lamp type does not match the audit data (likely due to the fact that they were converted to LED since the audits completion).

Once we have reconciled the data, we will develop a report outlining the discrepancies found between the utility acquisition inventory and the City’s audit data, and dispatch one of our auditors to the field to visit any locations outlined in the discrepancy report and collect updates for these records. We will notify the City when the discrepancies are remedied and provide a final, updated GIS data set at the conclusion of the project.

Deliverables
 Data Discrepancy Report: A report outlining any discrepancies found between the utility acquisition inventory and the City’s audit data.
 Final Reconciled Inventory Data: Final, fully-reconciled GIS data, provided at the conclusion of the project.

Task 7 – LED Design & Conversion of Newly Acquired Streetlights Once the City data for the acquired streetlights is reconciled, we will conduct the LED design and implement the LED conversion for the newly acquired streetlights.

Task 7a - Design
The activities involved with this task will be the same as in Phase 1, Task 1a, so please refer to that section for the specifics Task 7b – LED Conversion Support
The activities involved with this task will be the same as in Phase 1, Task 1b, so please refer to that section for the specifics. However, please note that we will not be installing any pole tags on the acquired streetlights, as we assume the existing PG&E tagging is sufficient and retagging will not be necessary.

Attachment 2

Page 147 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 20 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Deliverables:
 Bid Documents: Draft language and supporting materials for the City’s installation and materials bids. We will use the City’s existing installation and materials bid templates to create these drafts.  Project Messaging and Schedule: Specific language, draft press release, and timelines related to project activities to assist with notifying community members of the project.
 Weekly Installation Report: A detailed listing of the locations completed during the installation phase, provided as an interactive online map dashboard available until the end of the project.  Commissioning Report: Detailed analysis of final installation verification and testing, including an outline of any errors and actions taken to correct errors.
 Rate Change Documentation: A compilation of copies of paperwork submitted and processed with the utility regarding tariff changes.
 Final Reporting Documentation: Final requirements necessary to process the tariff changes with the City, as well as postconstruction electronic GIS records for all newly installed streetlights in the City, including all wattages, badge numbers, locations, and other associate attributes (in geodatabase of shapefile format), and environmental disposal documentation.

Tanko Lighting’s Municipal Overview Map shows an entire municipality with recommended replacement fixtures.

Attachment 2

Page 148 of 225 ends

PRICING
As previously noted, our scope of services combines two aspects of the overall strategy – LED conversion and ownership support. However, we have separated these two aspects in our pricing tables below for budget purposes, even though we recommend that both be implemented simultaneously and we expect the City to execute one contract for all tasks in our scope of services.

Also note that our tables below include all pricing associated with Tanko Lighting’s direct involvement with the project. This pricing does not include any non-Tanko costs, for which we previously provided estimates (see Cover Letter).

Please find our pricing below, which is valid for sixty (60) days from the date of this proposal.

Tasks Estimated Budget
Task 2 - Municipal Process Support $ 22,500.00
Task 3 - GIS Audit - PG&E Fixtures $ 92,050.00
Task 4 - Data Reconciliation - PG&E
Fixtures $ 39,450.00
Task 5 - Field Conditions Report $ 12,500.00
Phase 1 Subtotal $ 166,500.00
Task 1 - Ownership Initialization $ 10,000.00
Task 2 - Appraisal $ 10,000.00
Task 3 - Streetlight System Analysis $ 12,500.00
Task 4 - Ownership Negotiations &
Consulting Services $ 60,000.00
Task 5 - Final Coordination of Ownership
Transfer $ 30,000.00
Task 6 - Acquisition Inventory True Up $ 11,000.00
Phase 2 Subtotal $ 133,500.00
TOTAL $ 300,000.00
Ownership Tasks & Phases
Phase 1
Phase 2
Attachment 2

Page 149 of 225 ends

www.tankolighting.com | 220 Bayshore Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94124 | P 415.254.7579 | F 415.822.3626 Page 22 of 22 CITY OF PASO ROBLES, CA | STREETLIGHT OWNERSHIP AND LED CONVERSION SUPPORT Payment Terms
 Tanko Lighting will invoice the City monthly, based on the percentage of each task completed each month.  The City will pay Tanko Lighting within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice.

Tasks Fixture Type Unit Cost Estimated Quantity Extended Cost Cobrahead $ 62.50 66 $ 4,125.00
Decorative $ 75.00 308 $ 23,100.00
Cobrahead $ 62.50 66 $ 4,125.00
Deocorative $ 75.00 308 $ 23,100.00
Task 1b. Pole Tagging - City Owned Lights Exsiting LEDs $ 45.00 76 $ 3,420.00 $ 57,870.00
Cobrahead $ 62.50 39 $ 2,437.50
Decorative $ 75.00 49 $ 3,675.00
Cobrahead $ 62.50 39 $ 2,437.50
Deocorative $ 75.00 49 $ 3,675.00
$ 12,225.00
$ 70,095.00
*This assumes PG&E tagging is sufficient and newly aquired lights do not need to be retagged **Quantities of lights in Phase 2 may vary based on LS-1 audit Task 1a. LED Design - Existing City Owned Lights
Task 1b. LED Conversion - Existing City Owned Lights
Phase 1 Subtotal
Phase 1 - LED Design and Conversion of City Owned Lights LED Conversion Tasks & Phases
Task 7a. LED Design - Newly Acquired Streetlights
Task 7b. LED Conversion - Newly Acquired Streetlights
Phase 2 Subtotal
Phase 2 - LED Design and Conversion of Newly Acquired Streetlights TOTAL
Attachment 2

Page 150 of 225 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Warren Frace, Community Development Director
Subject: Approval of First Amendment to Operating Memorandum No. 1 of the Olsen-South Chandler Ranch Development Agreement – Modifying Timing of Certain Improvements CEQA Determination: The Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan and Development Agreement were analyzed as part of the Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2019011065, the modifications to the Project detailed in the Operating Memo have been determined to be consistent with previously approved EIR and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and there are no additional environmental impacts. As such, no additional CEQA review is required.

Date: August 6, 2024
Facts

1. On February 20, 2020, the Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan (OSCSP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were approved by City Council.

2. Increasing the supply of both single-family residential (SFR) and multi-family residential (MFR) housing production is one of the City Council Adopted Goals for Fiscal Years 2024-2026.

3. The OSCSP allows 1,293 SFR and MFR residential units to be built consistent with the EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which requires project impacts to be mitigated to a level of less than significant, including off-site traffic impact.

4. The OSCSP development agreement requires certain off-site traffic improvements to be installed prior to issuance of any residential building permits; similarly, the development agreement also calls for certain park improvements to be installed prior to the first certificate of occupancy.

5. The Master Developer, Olsen 212 has completed Phase 1 mass grading, and is in the process of selling planning areas to merchant builders for housing construction.

6. On February 21, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1. which provided an alternative timing trigger for both off-site traffic improvements and public park improvements; it did not alleviate the improvements from being installed, only changing the timing on when they must be installed.

7. The Master Developer, Olsen 212 has submitted a request to amend Operating Memo 1 to allow additional time to complete off-site public improvements.

8. The City Manager is authorized to approve Operating Memo’s but is seeking City Council concurrence.

Community Outreach
The OSCSP included a robust public outreach process including a weeklong public charrette, a 45-day public EIR circulation and public hearing at both Planning Commission and City Council.

Options

1. Take no action;

Page 151 of 225 ends

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1;

3. Provide alternative direction.

Analysis and Conclusions
The Master Developer has been working since 2020 to start construction of the OSCSP. The Master Developer (Olsen 212) is currently completing the backbone infrastructure and certain off-site improvements. The Master Developer is requesting additional flexibility on off-site signal light improvement timing due to contract bidding and construction supply-chain challenges (refer to Attachment)
All of the required Phase on-site road, sewer, water, parks, and amenities are under construction and moving quickly to completion consistent with the approved Operating Memo 1.

Sherwood Road extension – backbone water and sewer installed and road close to paving. Farmstand community building and HOA community pool building under construction.

Sherwood Road extension
with water and sewer mains
Farm Stand community
building HOA Pool House facility

Page 152 of 225 ends

Sherwood Road extension
with water and sewer mains
Existing Sherwood Road
Fontana Road widening
ready for paving
Housing Authority Affordable
Apartments nearing completion

Page 153 of 225 ends

Both the Turtle Creek Park and Royal Oak Park rehabilitation projects are under construction.

Royal Oak Park rehabilitation
project under construction
Turtle Creek linear park restrooms and
pickleball courts nearing completion

Page 154 of 225 ends

Approved Operating Memo No. 1
The approved Operating Memo No. 1 (Attachment No. 2) allows an alternative timing trigger that the improvements be completed within 12 months of the issuance of the first building permit. This allows the off-site traffic and park improvements to be under construction concurrently with the construction of housing units. It is expected that the traffic and park improvement would be completed about the same time the first housing units are ready to be occupied.

When considering Operating Memo No. 1, the City tasked Central Coast Transportation Consulting (CCTC), who prepared the EIR Traffic Impact Study, with reviewing this request for consistency with the EIR and MMRP. CCTC prepared a Traffic Analysis Memo and determined that 350 OSCSP units could be occupied prior to the completion of off-site traffic improvement without creating a significant impact. This was different from when the initial Traffic Impact Study Report was published because a number of “near term” projects that were analyzed had not been constructed. As such, the Master Developer requested the flexibility to pull up to 350 builder permits during the 12-month off-site construction period.

In order to guarantee the off-site improvements would be completed during the 12-month period, the Operating Memo No. 1 included interim milestone requirements as well as the Master Developer being required to hold construction financing funds in a dedicated account. Staff analyzed the request and determined Operating Memo No. 1 was consistent with the EIR and a reasonable request that will help to facilitate the construction of much needed housing units. Operating Memo No. 1 was authorized by the Council in February 2023.

Proposed First Amendment to Operating Memo No. 1
Currently, Olsen 212 is requesting the following amendments to Operating Memo No. 1:
 Change the facility completion requirement from permit issuance to certificate of occupancy.

This change would be consistent with the CCTC traffic analysis, since no traffic would be generated until the houses are occupied. The performance bonds add an additional level of security to guarantee all required improvements are completed. It should be noted that the occupancy of the last house will not be authorized if the improvements are not completed. City staff foresees where this could create concerns from the ultimate owners of the property should the improvements not be completed in a timely manner.
 Change the facility completion deadline from 12-months after first house permit to 18-months (October 2025)
The first house permits were issued in April 2024. Due to winter weather delays, some improvements may not be completed in 12-month (April 2025). An additional 6 months to complete improvements appears to be a realistic and reasonable request.  Provide performance guarantee bonds for the off-site signal light improvement project.

Providing performance guarantee bonds for the off-site signals is an additional benefit to the City.

This will ensure construction of the improvements since the City could pull the bonds and complete the projects and therefore mitigate traffic impacts.

Page 155 of 225 ends

Conclusion
Based on Olsen 212’s performance under Operating Memo No. 1, the reality of supply-chain and construction labor constraints, and conformance with mitigation required by the FEIR, the proposed amendments appear reasonable.

Fiscal Impact
There are no new fiscal impacts approving the first amendment to Operating Memo No. 1. All off-site traffic and park improvements will remain the responsibility of the Master Developer who will provide funding for these off-site public facilities in a dedicated account. Providing performance guarantee bonds for the off-site signals is an additional benefit to the City.

CEQA Determination
The Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan and Development Agreement were analyzed as part of the Olsen– South Chandler Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2019011065. The requested Operating Memo timing triggers have been analyzed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting and determined to be consistent with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Therefore, the Operating Memo is consistent with the EIR. As such, no additional CEQA review is required.

Recommendation (Option 2)
Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 – Olsen 212 justification letter

2. Attachment 2 – Council Approved Operating Memo 1

3. Attachment 3 – Amendment 1 redline changes

4. Attachment 4 – City Council resolution
a. Exhibit A – Amendment 1 to Operating Memo 1
b. Exhibit B – Central Coast Transportation Consulting Vinedo Intersection Mitigation Recommendations

Page 156 of 225 ends

Page 157 of 225 ends

1 OPERATING MEMORANDUM NUMBER ONE

BETWEEN

THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
AND OLSEN RANCH 212, LLC

COMPRISING INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS

TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Development Agreement by and among the City of El Paso de Robles (the “City”) and OLSEN RANCH 212, LLC (“the Developer”), dated AS OF February 14, 2020 and recorded on May 4, 2020 in the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County as Document No. 2020021501 (the “Development Agreement”), provides in Section 1.7 of the Development Agreement that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that minor changes are appropriate with respect to the details of the Project development and the performance of the parties under this Agreement. Therefore, the Development Agreement provides that any minor modification to the Development Agreement which does not modify (i) the Term of the Development Agreement; (ii) permitted uses of the Property, (iii) maximum density or intensity of use, except as allowed pursuant to Section 2.1.3 of the Development Agreement (Final Lotting) (iv) provisions for the reservation, dedication, acquisition, or abandonment of land or public rights of way, (v) conditions, terms, restrictions or requirements for subsequent discretionary actions, (vi) monetary contributions by Developer, or (vii) any other financial commitments by Developer, including the provisions related to Developer’s obligations to finance installation, operations, and maintenance of Project infrastructure and formation and operations of one or more community facilities districts, (any and all of which are hereinafter an “Insubstantial Modification”), and that can be processed under CEQA as exempt from CEQA, or with the preparation of an Addendum to the EIR, shall not require a public hearing prior to the parties executing a modification to the Development Agreement.

The Development Agreement further provides that if and when City and Developer agree that such Insubstantial Modifications are necessary or appropriate, they may implement such clarifications through operating memoranda approved by the City and Developer as insubstantial modifications to the Development Agreement.

With this Operating Memorandum No. 1, City and Developer wish to clarify certain conditions in the Project Approvals in order to carry out the intent of the City and Developer with respect to the design, development, and implementation of the Project. Capitalized terms used in this Operating Memorandum shall carry the same definitions as those set forth in the Development Agreement.

A. PURPOSE:

The purpose of this Operating Memorandum is to identify a basic framework between the City and Developer to facilitate the construction of certain improvements as contemplated under the terms of the Development Agreement. This Operating Memorandum will reduce certain uncertainties associated with the orderly development of the Project and provide for the effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services as required by the Development Agreement.

Attachment 2

Page 158 of 225 ends

2 B. INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS:
1) Off-Site Traffic Improvements Completion Deadline Modifications. The Development Agreement requires that Developer shall construct certain off-site roadway improvements as specified in the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Parties agree to modify certain deadlines specified in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan as follows:

Traffic
Improvement
Summary
Description
Original
Development
Deadline for
Completion of
Construction of
Improvements
Modified Deadline for
Completion of
Construction of
Improvements
13th
Street/Riverside
Avenue
Implement signal
timing optimization
Prior to the issuance
of 1
st building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the
350th building permit, or
(ii) 12 months following
issuance of the 1st
building permit.

Developer agrees it shall provide City with documentation reasonably approved by the City Attorney and City Manager, ensuring there are sufficient available and dedicated funds to complete these improvements as required by this Operating Memorandum, at the time of issuance of the first building permit.
2 Park Improvements Completion Deadline Modifications. The Development Agreement requires that Developer shall construct certain parks improvements as specified in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan. The Parties agree to modify certain deadlines specified in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan as follows:

Attachment 2

Page 159 of 225 ends

3 Park
Improvement
Summary
Description
Original
Development
Deadline for
Completion of
Construction of
Improvements
Modified Deadline for
Completion of Construction
of Improvements
Royal Oaks
Park
Park upgrades, as
Approved by the
City’s Parks and
Recreation
Committee
Prior to the issuance
of 50th Certificate of
Occupancy in
Phase 1B
The earlier to occur of: (i)
issuance of the 250th
certificate of occupancy in the
Specific Plan, or (ii) 12
months following issuance of
PA-6 Farmstand Amenity per the 1st building permit.

Specific Plan
Prior to 1st Certificate
of Occupancy
PA-7 Poolhouse Amenity per
Specific Plan
Prior to 50th
Certificate of
Occupancy
Turtle Creek
Park (PA-14
East)
Mitigation per
Specific Plan
Prior to 50th
Certificate of
Occupancy in Phase 2
Turtle Creek
Park (PA 14
West)
Park upgrades and
mitigation per
Specific Plan
Prior to the issuance
of 50th Certificate of
Occupancy in
Phase 1B
Developer agrees it shall provide City with documentation reasonably approved by the City Attorney and City Manager, ensuring there are sufficient available and dedicated funds to complete these improvements as required by this Operating Memorandum, at the time of issuance of the first building permit.
3 Developer’s Cost for Off-Site Traffic Improvements Modification. The Development Agreement requires that Developer pay the City’s traffic impact fee at the time of issuance of each certificate of occupancy, at the rate set forth in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provides that Developer shall be entitled to credit against the City’s traffic impact fee, as set forth in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement, for the off-site roadway improvements specified thereon. The City and Developer agree that to the extent Developer’s cost for applicable off-site traffic improvements, after subtracting any contribution owed from the Beechwood Project’s developers under that separate Development Agreement for the Beechwood Specific Plan recorded on April 14, 2021 in the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County as Document No. 2021028132, exceeds the estimated traffic improvements costs amounts as stated in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement, then the Developers traffic impact fee credits shall be adjusted proportionately to reflect the actual traffic improvements costs, as documented by invoices and other proof of actual costs incurred as approved by the City, subject to a maximum increased credit amount equal to the percentage increase in the City’s traffic impact fees, as allowed per Section 2.5.3 of the Development Attachment 2

Page 160 of 225 ends

4 Agreement, between the Effective Date of the Development Agreement and the date of completion of each improvement for which credit is requested.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last written date below.

FOR CITY:

Date:

Ty Lewis, City Manager
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________ ____________________________________ City Attorney Special Counsel
(signatures continued on following page)
Attachment 2

Page 161 of 225 ends

5 FOR DEVELOPER:

OLSEN RANCH 212, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ___________________________________
Its: ___________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Its: ___________________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

STOWELL, ZEILENGA, RUTH,

VAUGHN & TREIGER LLP
By: ___________________________________
James D. Vaughn
Attorneys for Developer Olsen Ranch 212, LLC
Attachment 2

Page 162 of 225 ends

1 366916.1

AMENDED AND RESTATED OPERATING MEMORANDUM

NUMBER ONE BETWEEN

THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
AND OLSEN RANCH 212, LLC

COMPRISING INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS

A. PURPOSE:

Attachment 3

Page 163 of 225 ends

2 366916.1
B. INSUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS:
1) Off-Site Traffic Improvements Completion Deadline Modifications. The Development Agreement requires that Developer shall construct certain off-site roadway improvements as specified in the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Parties agree to modify certain deadlines specified in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan as follows:

Traffic
Improvement
Summary
Description
Original
Development
Deadline for
Completion of
Construction of
Improvements
Modified Deadline for
Completion of
Construction of
Improvements
13th
Street/Riverside
Avenue
Implement signal
timing optimization
Prior to the issuance
of 1
st building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the
350th certificate of
occupancy, or (ii) 12 18
months following issuance
of the 1st building permit.

13th Street/Paso
Robles Street
Implement signal
timing optimization
Prior to the issuance
of 1
st building permit
Niblick Road
/South River
Road
Construct Right turn
pocket and extend
left turn pocket (WB
leg); implement
signal timing
optimization
Prior to the issuance
of 1
st building permit
Creston
Road/Scott Street
Install all-way traffic
signal
Prior to the issuance
of 100th building
permit
The City concludes, on the advice of its consulting traffic engineer, that these traffic improvement completion deadline modifications will not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. For the avoidance of doubt, the building permit and certificate of occupancy unit count milestones set forth in this Operating Memorandum refer to the Vinedo project area covered by the Development Agreement and to be developed by Developer (Planning Areas 2 through 8 and 11 through 23, inclusive), and do not include model homes unless and until such model homes are proposed for sale and residential occupancy.

Attachment 3

Page 164 of 225 ends

3 366916.1
Park
Improvement
Summary
Description
Original
Development
Deadline for
Completion of
Construction of
Improvements
Modified Deadline for
Completion of Construction
of Improvements
Royal Oaks
Park
Park upgrades, as
Approved by the
City’s Parks and
Recreation
Committee
Prior to the issuance
of 50th Certificate of
Occupancy in
Phase 1B
The earlier to occur of: (i)
issuance of the 250th
certificate of occupancy in the
Specific Plan, or (ii) 12
months following issuance of
PA-6 Farmstand Amenity per the 1st building permit.

Performance Bond Requirement.
3 Developer agrees it shall deposit with the City, within 30 days of execution of this Agreement, an improvements performance bond, in a form approved by the City Attorney, guaranteeing the faithful delivery and performance of the improvements as specified in this Operating Memorandum and repair any defects. The bond shall expressly obligate the surety to complete the improvements as specified in this Operating Memorandum to the City’s satisfaction, if not completed by the Developer as required, regardless of the cost to complete the improvements at that time. If the Developer fails to complete these improvements, or any portion thereof, within the time provided by this Operating Memorandum, the City may, in its sole discretion and in addition to any other remedy provided in the Development Agreement, this Operating Memorandum, or by law, cause to be forfeited to the City such portion of the improvement security and posted bond given to secure the performance of the improvements or require the surety to complete the improvements and repair any defects. Additionally, in the event Developer defaults in the performance of any of the obligations specified herein, the City may elect to construct the improvements itself. Should the City elect to complete the improvements, it is entitled to recover the full cost and expense of such construction from Developer, Developer’s successors and assigns, or from the then owner of the Property, and/or execute on the bonds under the Development Agreement and this Operating Memorandum for such costs. If the City prevails in an action upon Attachment 3

Page 165 of 225 ends

4 366916.1
any bond posted under this Operating Memorandum, the City shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court.
4 Developer’s Cost for Off-Site Traffic Improvements Modification. The Development Agreement requires that Developer pay the City’s traffic impact fee at the time of issuance of each certificate of occupancy, at the rate set forth in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement provides that Developer shall be entitled to credit against the City’s traffic impact fee, as set forth in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement, for the off-site roadway improvements specified thereon. The City and Developer agree that to the extent Developer’s cost for applicable off-site traffic improvements, after subtracting any contribution owed from the Beechwood Project’s developers under that separate Development Agreement for the Beechwood Specific Plan recorded on April 14, 2021 in the Official Records of San Luis Obispo County as Document No. 2021028132, exceeds the estimated traffic improvements costs amounts as stated in Exhibit C of the Development Agreement, then the Developers traffic impact fee credits shall be adjusted proportionately to reflect the actual traffic improvements costs, as documented by invoices and other proof of actual costs incurred as approved by the City, subject to a maximum increased credit amount equal to the percentage increase in the City’s traffic impact fees, as allowed per Section 2.5.3 of the Development Agreement, between the Effective Date of the Development Agreement and the date of completion of each improvement for which credit is requested.
35 Default. Developer agrees that any failure to complete any requirement of this Operating Memorandum as and when required shall constitute a default under the Development Agreement, entitling the City to exercise any and all remedies under the Development Agreement, subject to its notice requirements. The Developer further agrees that any failure to complete any requirement of this Operating Memorandum as and when required shall entitle the City to, at its option, cease issuing any building permits or other subsequent ministerial entitlements, after complying with the notice requirements of Section 6.1 and the emergency working group requirements of Section 6.4.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last written date below.

FOR CITY:

Date:

Page 166 of 225 ends

5 366916.1
FOR DEVELOPER:

STOWELL, ZEILENGA, RUTH,

VAUGHN & TREIGER LLP
By: ___________________________________
James D. Vaughn
Attorneys for Developer Olsen Ranch 212, LLC
Attachment 3

Page 167 of 225 ends

Attachment 4
RESOLUTION 24-XXX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES Authorizing Execution of the Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan – Amendment 1 to the Olsen 212 Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1 - Modifying Timing of Certain Improvements Olsen – South Chandler Specific Plan
WHEREAS, the Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan (OSCSP) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were approved by City Council on February 20, 2020; and WHEREAS, increasing the supply of both single-family residential (SFR) and multi-family residential (MFR) housing production is one of the City Council Adopted Goals for Fiscal Years 2024-2026; and WHEREAS, the OSCSP allows 1,293 SFR and MFR residential units to be built consistent with the EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which requires project impactsto be mitigated to a level of less than significant, including off-site traffic impact; and WHEREAS, the OSCSP development agreement requires certain off-site traffic improvements to be installed prior to issuance of any residential building permits; similarly, the development agreement also calls for certain park improvements to be installed prior to the first certificate of occupancy; and WHEREAS, the Master Developer, Olsen 212 has completed Phase 1 mass grading, and isin the process of selling planning areas to merchant builders for housing construction; and WHEREAS, Olsen 212 is proposing a Development Agreement Operating Memo that would provide an alternative timing trigger for both off-site traffic improvements and public park improvements; this does not alleviate the improvementsfrom being installed, only changing the timing on when they must be installed; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager is authorized to approve Operating Memo’s but is seeking City Council concurrence; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1; and
WHEREAS, the Master Developer, Olsen 212 has submitted a request to amend Operating Memo 1 to allow additional time to complete off-site public improvements.

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. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment 1 to Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan Olsen 212 Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1 as shown in Exhibit A.

Page 168 of 225 ends

Attachment 4
APPROVED this 6
th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
a. Exhibit A – Amendment 1 to Operating Memo 1
b. Exhibit B – Central Coast Transportation Consulting Vinedo Intersection Mitigation Recommendations

Page 169 of 225 ends

Exhibit
A

Page 170 of 225 ends

Exhibit
A

Page 171 of 225 ends

Exhibit
A

Page 172 of 225 ends

Exhibit
A

Page 173 of 225 ends

Exhibit
A

Page 174 of 225 ends

(805) 316-0101
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442

MEMORANDUM
Date: January 30, 2023
To: David Athey, City of Paso Robles
From: Michelle Matson and Joe Fernandez, CCTC
Subject: Vinedo Intersection Mitigation Recommendations This memorandum summarizes the traffic operations at the following four intersections where the Vinedo development is required to mitigate impacts:
 13th Street/Riverside Avenue
 13th Street/Paso Robles Street
 Creston Road/Scott Street
 Niblick Road/South River Road
Construction of improvements at these intersections are currently required prior to the issuance of the 1st or 100th building permit. Vinedo has requested that the improvements occur prior to issuance of the 350th building permit or 12 months following issuance of the 1st building permit, whichever comes first.

Significant impacts would not occur prior to the 350th unit under Near Term Conditions and we support the proposed mitigation timing. The following section summarizes the intersection analysis.

INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
Table 1 summarizes the intersection level of service (LOS) and Table 2 summarizes the queues. The analysis includes Near Term Conditions without the project, with 350 residential units, and the full plus project scenarios.

Table 1: Intersection Level of Service
Intersection Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS Delay2 LOS AM 27.8 C 28.4 C 29.9 C 30.6 C
PM 47.5 D 48.6 D 51.4 D 51.7 D
AM 14.2 B 14.3 B 14.6 B 14.7 B
PM 19.6 B 19.8 B 20.8 C 20.8 C
AM 2.4 (32.1) - (D) 2.7 (35.0) - (E) 3.6 (44.9) - (E) 4.1 (51.5) - (F) PM 4.1 (52.6) - (F) 4.8 (61.8) - (F) 7.4 (97.6) - (F) 8.1 (105.9) - (F) AM 37.6 D 40.4 D 49.2 D 53.2 D
PM 39.4 D 40.0 D 43.6 D 44.2 D
NT+1293+School1
Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Intersection Auto Levels of Service

13. Creston Rd/Scott St

2. HCM 6th average control delay in seconds per vehicle. For side-street-stop controlled intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parentheses next to the overall intersection delay.

1. Intersection analysis obtained from the Olsen-Chandler Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis (CCTC, 2019).

Near Term (NT)
1 NT+1293 units1

8. 13th St/Riverside Ave

9. 13th St/Paso Robles St

19. Niblick Rd/South River Rd
Peak
Hour
Note: Unacceptable operations (LOS deficiency and/or signal warrants met) shown in bold text.

NT+350 units
Exhibit B

Page 175 of 225 ends

Vinedo Intersection Mitigation Recommendations 2
Central Coast Transportation Consulting January 30, 2023 Table 2: Intersection Queues
The addition of 350 residential units under Near Term Conditions increases queues by less than one vehicle, an insignificant impact. At Creston Road/Scott Street, the traffic signal warrant would not be met prior to the 350th residential unit. Significant impacts would not occur prior to the 350th unit under Near Term Conditions and we support the proposed mitigation timing.

REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation. 2014, Revision 6. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Central Coast Transportation Consulting (CCTC). July 2019. Olsen-Chandler Specific Plan – Paso Robles Administrative Draft Transportation Impact Analysis
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.

Transportation Research Board. 2017. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.

ATTACHMENTS
Synchro Analysis
Near Term
(NT)2
NT+350
units
NT+1293
units2
NT+1293+
School2
AM 328 328 328 332
PM 268 268 268 268
AM 316 327 350 356
PM 372 380 398 401
AM 216 216 216 216
PM 233 233 233 233
AM 57 57 57 57
PM 285 287 290 290
AM 88 88 88 88
PM 109 109 109 109
AM 251 253 260 267
PM 435 448 479 482
AM 5 5 5 8
PM 8 8 10 10
AM 48 55 78 90
PM 88 100 143 150
AM #359 #368 #392 #401
PM 221 224 #244 #246
AM #329 #336 #358 #385
PM 191 207 #271 #277
AM 74 74 74 74
PM 148 148 148 148
AM 126 135 #157 #174
PM 132 137 151 154

13. Creston Rd/Scott St
WB -

1. Queue length that would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time. # indicates that 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Bold indicates queue length longer than storage length.

Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Queues
Intersection Movement
Storage
Length (ft)
Peak
Hour

8. 13th St/Riverside Ave
WBL 125
WBT 295
SBL 60

9. 13th St/Paso Robles St
NBL 130
NBR 110
EBL 120
EBT 295
95th Percentile Queues (ft)
1 19. Niblick Rd/South River Rd
NBL 150
SBL 110
EBL 140

2. Intersection analysis obtained from the Olsen-Chandler Specific Plan Transportation Impact Analysis (CCTC, 2019).

WBL 80
Exhibit B

Page 176 of 225 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Katie Banister, Associate Planner
Subject: Approval of Oak Tree Removal Permit and Modification of the Building Envelope for the Construction of a New Single-Family Residence Located at 1707 Via Lantana (OTR24-07, P24-0041, B24-0209, E24-0004)
CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a class 3 exemption for the construction of small structures pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Date: August 6, 2024
Facts

1. The City has received an application for a grading permit (E24-0004) and building permit (B24-0209) for the construction of a new single-family residence on an undeveloped lot at 1707 Via Lantana (APN 025-523-076) (see Attachment 1). In support, the applicant has also requested an oak tree removal permit for the removal of one 9-inch valley oak tree (P24-0041).

2. Tract 2620 was approved by the Planning Commission along with Development Plan 04-016 in March 2005, via Resolutions PC 05-028, 05-029, and 05-030.

3. The subject property is Lot 9 of Tract 2620 (see Attachment 2), which was recorded in 2006 with an informational sheet showing building envelopes and the following limitations:
a. Lot development shall be restricted to the building envelopes shown hereon. b. Any construction on these lots will be required to stay out of the critical root zone of the oak trees.
c. All remaining oak trees shall be preserved within the subdivision by use of custom and/or extraordinary grading and home design measures. No oak tree removals will be allowed in excess of those approved with City Council Resolution 05-0024.

4. Concurrent with recordation of the final subdivision map, deed notifications were recorded for each lot, including the following language, “deviations from the building envelopes may be allowed with review by the Planning Department, if it can be determined that the expansion of the building envelope would avoid the identified critical root zones and be consistent with all applicable zoning code restrictions and the oak tree ordinance.”

5. Development Plan 04-016 was amended by Resolution PC 15-022 to allow the Development Review Committee to approve construction outside the building envelope for each lot if “the deviation avoid[s] critical root zones and [is] consistent with applicable zoning restrictions and the oak tree ordinance.”

6. The proposed residence would extend beyond the recorded building envelope for Lot 9. The building would be within the critical root zone of Oak Tree #73, which is proposed for removal.

7. The proposed amendment to the building envelope does not avoid the critical root zone of all oak trees, so must be reviewed by the City Council.

8. Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 10.01.050.D.2 states, “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

Page 177 of 225 ends

to the proposed design and use of the property. Every reasonable effort shall be made to avoid impacting oak trees, including but not limited to use of custom-building design and incurring extraordinary costs to save oak trees”.

9. The proposed residence includes a three-car garage including parking for a golf cart, which results in a 68-foot 6-inch-wide building that does not fit within the recorded building envelope.

10. The applicant has submitted an oak tree impact and tree protection report from Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting (see Attachment 3). The arborist reports Oak Tree #73 has a diameter of 9 inches and is in poor condition. The tree is “suppressed by the adjacent, dominant oak #74”, has a leaning canopy, and has experienced moderate drought stress.

11. Tract 2620 includes a total of 16 lots. Since recordation of the map, the building envelopes for 6 lots (Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 15) have been amended by the City Council to allow reasonable use of each property. Oak tree removal permits have been approved on each of these lots.

12. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a class 3 exemption for the construction of small structures pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Options

1. Take no action.

2. Approve Resolution 24-XXX (A) to amend the building envelope for Lot 9 of Tract 2620 and Approve Resolution 24-XXX (B) to approve Oak Tree Removal Permit 24-07; or

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
Tract 2620 was approved by the City in 2005 and recorded in 2006 with conditions that allowed for the removal of 13 oak trees, but required the protection and retention of the remainder of the oak trees within the subdivision. The tract includes 16 lots zoned for single-family residences and almost 9 acres of steeply sloping open space with at least 100 oak trees. Each residential lot was recorded with a building envelope, where lot development is required to occur. Of the 12 lots that have been developed, 6 lots (lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 15) have required amendments to the building envelope and the removal of at least one oak tree to allow reasonable use of the property.

Lot 9, the subject of this request is 12,711 square feet (0.29 acre) with a building envelope of 7,510 square feet. The building envelope is intended to protect 3 oak trees on the lot and 1 oak tree on Lot 11 near the shared property line. The proposed 4-bedroom, 3-bath residence includes 2,521 square feet of habitable space and a 625 square-foot 3-car garage. The amendment to the building envelope is requested to accommodate the proposed residence. The width of the garage results in a building footprint proposed approximately 4 feet from the trunk of Oak Tree #73 and impacting about 70% of its critical root zone.

Oak Tree #73, a 9-inch valley oak in poor condition is proposed for removal. It has been suppressed by a nearby and more dominant valley oak tree (#74). The tree shows signs of moderate drought stress.

Page 178 of 225 ends

Tract 2620 (Additional Information Sheet)
1707 Via Lantana Site Plan
Oak Tree #73
Oak Tree #73

Page 179 of 225 ends

Oak Tree #73
The Oak Tree Protection Ordinance (Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 10.01.050.D) requires the City Council to consider the following factors when deliberating an oak tree removal permit:

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 endangering 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.

Page 180 of 225 ends

Except as specifically authorized by the planning commission and city council, ravines, stream beds and other natural watercourses 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.

If the building envelope is not amended and the oak tree removal permit is not approved, the applicant will need to redesign the project to retain and protect Oak Tree #73. While it would be possible to design a residence that avoids all impacts to Tree #73, the arborist reports the condition of the tree does not justify the effort.

Fiscal Impact
None.

CEQA
The City finds that this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a class 3 exemption for the construction of small structures pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.

Recommendation (Option 2)
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve Resolution 24-XXX (A), to amend the building envelope for Lot 9 of Tract 2620; and

2. Approve Resolution 24-XXX (B), to approve Oak Tree Removal Permit 24-07.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map

2. Attachment 2 - Tract Map 2620

3. Attachment 3 - Draft Resolution A
a. Exhibit A - Amended Building Envelope for Lot 9 of Tract 2620

4. Attachment 4 - Draft Resolution B
a. Exhibit A - Arborist Report
b. Exhibit B - Site Plan

Page 181 of 225 ends

Attachment 1
Vicinity Map
Tract 2620

Page 182 of 225 ends

Attachment 2

Page 183 of 225 ends

Attachment 2

Page 184 of 225 ends

Attachment 2

Page 185 of 225 ends

Attachment 3
RESOLUTION 24-XXX (A)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES

APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT-PLAN BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR LOT 9 OF TRACT 2620
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a grading permit (E24-0004) and building permit (B24- 0209) for the construction of a new single family residence on an undeveloped lot at 1707 Via Lantana (APN 025-523-076). In support, the applicant has also requested Oak Tree Removal Permit 24-07 for the removal of one 9-inch valley oak tree (P24-0041); and
WHEREAS, Tract 2620 was approved by the Planning Commission along with Development Plan 04-016 in March 2005, via Resolutions 05-028, 05-029, and 05-030; and WHEREAS, the subject property is Lot 9 of Tract 2620 was recorded with an informational sheet showing building envelopes and the following limitations:
a. Lot development shall be restricted to the building envelopes shown hereon. b. Any construction on these lots will be required to stay out of the critical root zone of the oak trees.
c. All remaining oak trees shall be preserved within the subdivision by use of custom and/or extraordinary grading and home design measures. No oak tree removals will be allowed in excess of those approved with City Council Resolution 05-0024; and WHEREAS, concurrent with recordation of Tract 2620, deed notifications were recorded for each lot, including the following language, “deviations from the building envelopes may be allowed with review by the Planning Department, if it can be determined that the expansion of the building envelope would avoid the identified critical root zones and be consistent with all applicable zoning code restrictions and the oak tree ordinance”; and
WHEREAS, Development Plan 04-016 was amended by Resolution PC 15-022 to allow the Development Review Committee to approve construction outside the building envelope for each lot if “the deviation avoid[s] critical root zones and [is] consistent with applicable zoning restrictions and the oak tree ordinance”; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residence would extend beyond the recorded building envelope for Lot 9. The building would be within the critical root zone of Oak Tree #73, which is proposed for removal; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the building envelope does not avoid the critical root zone of all oak trees, so must be reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 10.01.050.D.2 states, “it shall be the burden of the person seeking the permit to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that there are no reasonable

Page 186 of 225 ends

Attachment 3
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”; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residence includes a 3-car garage including parking for a golf cart, which results in a 68-foot 6-inch-wide building that does not fit within the recorded building envelope; and WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an oak tree impact and tree protection report from Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting (see Attachment 3). The arborist reports Oak Tree #73 has a diameter of 9 inches and is in poor condition. The tree is “suppressed by the adjacent, dominant oak #74”, has a leaning canopy, and has experienced moderate drought stress; and
WHEREAS, Tract 2620 includes a total of 16 lots. Since recordation of the map, the building envelopes for 6 lots (Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 15) have been amended by the City Council to allow reasonable use of each property. Oak tree removal permits have been approved on each of these lots; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a class 3 exemption for the construction of small structures pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 6, 2024, to consider the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and to accept public testimony regarding this amendment to the building envelope for Lot 9 of Tract 2620.

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. Based upon the facts and analysis presented in the staff report, public testimony received, the City Council finds that modifying the building envelope for Lot 9 as shown in Exhibit A would allow reasonable use of the property without causing significant impact to any oak tree in good condition.

Section 3. The City Council does hereby approve an amendment to the building envelope of Lot 9 of Tract 2620 as shown in Exhibit A of this resolution.

Page 187 of 225 ends

Attachment 3
APPROVED this 6
th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
Exhibits
A. Lot 9 Building Envelope Amendment

Page 188 of 225 ends

Exhibit A
Lot 9 of Tract 2620
Original Building
Envelope (Blue)
Revised Building
Envelope (Orange)
10 feet

Page 189 of 225 ends

Attachment 4
RESOLUTION 24-XXX (B)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF ONE VALLEY OAK TREE AT 1707 VIA LANTANA, LOT 9 OF TRACT 2620
WHEREAS, the City has received an application for a grading permit (E24-0004) and building permit (B24-0209) for the construction of a new single family residence on an undeveloped lot at 1707 Via Lantana (APN 025-523-076). In support, the applicant has also requested Oak Tree Removal Permit 24-07 for the removal of one 9-inch valley oak tree (P24-0041); and WHEREAS, Tract 2620 was approved by the Planning Commission along with Development Plan 04- 016 in March 2005, via Resolutions 05-028, 05-029, and 05-030; and WHEREAS, the subject property is Lot 9 of Tract 2620 was recorded with an informational sheet showing building envelopes and the following limitations:
a. Lot development shall be restricted to the building envelopes shown hereon. b. Any construction on these lots will be required to stay out of the critical root zone of the oak trees.
c. All remaining oak trees shall be preserved within the subdivision by use of custom and/or extraordinary grading and home design measures. No oak tree removals will be allowed in excess of those approved with City Council Resolution 05-0024; and WHEREAS, concurrent with recordation of Tract 2620, deed notifications were recorded for each lot, including the following language, “deviations from the building envelopes may be allowed with review by the Planning Department, if it can be determined that the expansion of the building envelope would avoid the identified critical root zones and be consistent with all applicable zoning code restrictions and the oak tree ordinance”; and
WHEREAS, Development Plan 04-016 was amended by Resolution PC 15-022 to allow the Development Review Committee to approve construction outside the building envelope for each lot if “the deviation avoid[s] critical root zones and [is] consistent with applicable zoning restrictions and the oak tree ordinance”; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residence would extend beyond the recorded building envelope for Lot 9.

The building would be within the critical root zone of Oak Tree #73, which is proposed for removal; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the building envelope does not avoid the critical root zone of all oak trees, so must be reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 10.01.050.D.2 states, “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”; and
WHEREAS, the proposed residence includes a 3-car garage including parking for a golf cart, which results in a 68-foot 6-inch-wide building that does not fit within the recorded building envelope; and

Page 190 of 225 ends

Attachment 4
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted an oak tree impact and tree protection report from Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting (see Attachment 3). The arborist reports Oak Tree #73 has a diameter of 9 inches and is in poor condition. The tree is “suppressed by the adjacent, dominant oak #74”, has a leaning canopy, and has experienced moderate drought stress; and WHEREAS, Tract 2620 includes a total of 16 lots. Since recordation of the map, the building envelopes for 6 lots (Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 15) have been amended by the City Council to allow reasonable use of each property. Oak tree removal permits have been approved on each of these lots; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a class 3 exemption for the construction of small structures pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 6, 2024, to consider the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and to accept public testimony regarding this oak tree removal permit.

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. Pursuant to Paso Robles Municipal Code section 10.01.050.D., based on the information contained in the staff report, testimony presented during the public hearing, and responses thereto, the City Council hereby finds and determines that:

1. Removal of Oak Tree #73, a 9-inch diameter valley oak is necessary to allow construction of improvements or otherwise allow reasonable use of the property for the purpose for which it has been zoned; and

2. The condition of Oak Tree #73 is poor. The tree is suppressed by Oak Tree #74 and experiencing moderate drought stress.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles does hereby:

1. Authorize the removal of one (1) 9-inch diameter valley oak tree identified as Oak Tree #73 in Exhibit 1 and as shown in Exhibit 2; and

2. Require the onsite replanting of two (2) 24-inch box trees with 1.5-inch caliper measurement native oak trees at the direction of a certified arborist.

3. Provide irrigation and protection for the replanted oak trees until they are established.

APPROVED this 6
th day of August, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 191 of 225 ends

Attachment 4
John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Arborist Report
B. Site Plan

Page 192 of 225 ends

1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] April 23, 2024 To: Doug Menezes- 1842 Warren Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780
From: Rodney Thurman - Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc., San Luis Obispo, CA Re: Updated Oak Tree Impact & Tree Protection Report for Lot 9 at 1707 Via Lantana in Paso Robles, CA Mr. Menezes,
At your request to update an Oak Tree Impact & Tree Protection Report in response to comments from the City of Paso Robles Planning Department regarding your plans to construct a single-family residence at Lot 9 at 1707 Via Lantana, I have produced the following report.

Assignment
Produce written oak tree impact and tree protection report based on International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices for tree protection during construction and City of Paso Robles Oak Tree Ordinance 835 N.S.

Report includes:

1. Inventory of all oak trees with diameters of 6 inches or greater in building envelope

2. Condition assessment of all inventoried native oaks in building envelope

3. Critical root zone (CRZ) calculations

4. Tree protection zone (TPZ) calculations

5. Tree impact assessment

6. Tree protection requirements and standards

7. Site maps with tree locations & tree protection zones delineated

8. Photographs
Summary
The proposed project is for the construction of a single-family home. I have recommended the removal of 1 native oak tree based on your planned construction footprint encroachment impacts and the tree’s poor condition. I also recommended two (2) native oaks to be retained and protected.

Tree replacements will be required for all native oak trees removed that are six (6) inch diameter and larger.

For this project, a minimum of two (2) native oak trees at 1.5-inch caliper, twenty-four-inch box size, will be required to be planted on site if the recommended oak tree removal is approved. I have proposed three (3) native oak trees at 1.5-inch caliper, twenty-four-inch box size trees be planted on site to compensate for the loss of one native oak.

Exhibit A

Page 193 of 225 ends

2 An International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist shall observe and approve all construction activities proposed in or within 5 feet of the CRZ of any native oak tree being retained. Any work outside the CRZ will not require arborist oversite.

A pre-construction meeting shall be held with the project arborist and all parties involved in the construction of the project. All tree protection fencing, and tree protection measures shall be in place before any construction activity begins.

At the conclusion of all construction, the project arborist shall perform a final inspection of the trees and submit a letter to the City of Paso Robles Planning and Zoning Department, verifying the trees are healthy and undamaged by construction. If damage or death of one of the protected trees occurs, you may be required to pay additional fees and plant additional mitigation trees.

Introduction
The property is one of the last lots in the subdivision. The land has many of its original contours and the construction envelope will have a combination of grading, fill and compaction in order to build on the site.

Per the City of Paso Robles Oak Preservation Ordinance, all native oak trees 6-inches in diameter and greater, that will have construction impacts in the CRZ or within 5 feet of the CRZ must be inventoried.

According to the ordinance, native oak trees shall be retained and protected if possible. There were two (2) native California oaks with diameters 6-inches or greater, growing on the site within the construction envelope. One (1) native oak was growing offsite on the southern property line. On-site trees included one (1) blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and one (1) valley oak (Quercus lobata). The off-site tree was a valley oak (Quercus lobata). See Appendix A - Tree Inventory & Tree Protection Table. See also Appendix B – Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations.

Methodology
Tree Diameter Measurements
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) was measured at 4.5’ above ground. For multi-stem trees that divided below 4.5’, I measured below the division at the narrowest point on the trunk. If it was not possible to measure below the division, I measured each stem individually, then squared the diameter of each stem. Finally, I summed the squared diameters and took the square root of the sum to get the diameter of the tree.

Critical Root Zone Measurements
Critical Root Zones or CRZs were determined by giving a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. E.g., a 12-inch diameter tree would have a 12-foot CRZ radius measured from the outside of the trunk.

Tree Protection Zone Measurements
Generally, tree protection zone or TPZ distances follow the distances listed for CRZs.

The exception is if there are proposed tree-root encroachments into the CRZ of 25% or less.

Exhibit A

Page 194 of 225 ends

3 In most cases encroachments of less than 25% can may be allowed unless the structure or health of the tree would be compromised.

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 disease, 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.

Trees Inventoried
In total, I inventoried 3 native oak trees with DSHs measuring 6 inches or greater and having CRZs within or adjacent to the proposed building footprint and construction impact areas. The complete inventory, including tree numbers, species, CRZ and TPZ measurements, is provided in Appendix A - Tree Inventory and Tree Protection Table.

I numbered all trees in the field with a metal tag which I attached to the trunk at approximately 4-feet above ground. Tag numbers assigned were 72, 73 & 74. All inventoried trees were plotted on the Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations - Appendix B.

Tree 72 – A 17-inch diameter blue oak located at the front of the lot and north of the driveway apron entrance. See Appendix E - Photographs - Photo 1.

The tree was in Good condition for the following reasons:
• Good form
• No decay
• No structural root issues
• Minor drought stress indicated by small dead wood in the canopy • Low and overextended branches
• Minor issues with competing branches which can be mitigated through pruning Exhibit A

Page 195 of 225 ends

4 Tree 73 – A 9-inch diameter valley oak was located at the southern property line. See Appendix E - Photographs – Photos 2&3.

The tree was in Poor condition for the following reasons:
• Tree was suppressed by adjacent, dominant oak (#74)
• Structurally, it was asymmetrical and its canopy leaned to the northeast, which was caused by competition from Tree 74
• Moderate drought stress, indicated by 2” to 4” diameter dead wood in the canopy Tree 74 – A 16-inch diameter valley oak was located on the south side of southern property line. According to the tree survey map, the tree is offsite and belongs to the neighboring property owner. See Appendix E - Photographs – Photo 3&4.

The tree was in Fair condition for the following reasons:
• Good form
• Wound approximately 12x18” on west side of trunk
• No soft rot decay at trunk wound
• No structural root issues
• Minor drought stress indicated by small dead wood in the canopy • Low and overextended branches
• Tree had some minor issues with competing branches that can be mitigated through pruning
Proposed Tree Removals
Tree 73 – A 9-inch diameter valley oak will require removal if this project is approved. See Appendix E - Photographs – Photos 2&3.

Reasons for Removal:
• The tree was suppressed by the adjacent, dominant oak #74 and its condition was rated as poor. Although this tree is alive, compared to the other trees on site it is less vigorous and more likely to decline and die due to competition for water resources. • Structurally, it was asymmetrical, and its canopy leaned to the northeast. • Moderate drought stress, indicated by 2” to 4” diameter dead wood in the canopy. • Canopy encroaches into proposed building roofline and walls and would not allow sufficient fire safety clearance. Cal Fire requires at least 10 feet of side clearance from all buildings. With heightened insurance requirements, you may find it more difficult to retain homeowner insurance if this tree remains in place. • Construction plans show an approximate 70% encroachment into the critical root zone.

The root encroachments from building as well as significant canopy reduction, would cause impacts that this tree would not survive.
• In terms of maintaining native tree canopy cover for the lot, this tree is the smallest and provides the least amount of canopy coverage. It makes sense to replant with vigorous replacement trees that will have a better chance of survival and providing benefits far into the future rather than for a decade or less.

Exhibit A

Page 196 of 225 ends

5 Tree Protection
Critical Root Zones were determined by giving a radius of 1-foot per every inch of tree diameter. E.g., a 12-inch diameter tree would have a 12-foot CRZ radius measured from the outside of the trunk.

Distances for CRZs are listed in the Tree Inventory & Tree Protection Table included in Appendix A. Trees requiring arborist supervision are also called out in the table. See also - Appendix B – Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations.

Fencing shall be provided for all trees listed for protection and shall be set according to specifications listed. If there is any confusion about where to place fencing, contact the project arborist, Rodney Thurman at 805 234 8760.

Tree protection signs shall be placed on the TPZ fencing and be spaced 10 feet apart. Signs shall be weatherproof, and state, “Tree Protection Zone – Do Not Enter”. The signs shall also include the project manager’s and project arborist’s phone numbers. Signs shall remain in place until final inspection has been completed and submitted to the “City” by the project arborist. See Appendix C – Tree Protection Diagrams - Diagram 1 – Tree Protection Fencing for further detail.

The trunks of all trees listed for protection shall be shielded by installing 2x4’s against the trunk and securing them with zip-ties or wire. Do not anchor wood or wire directly to trunk. See Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams – Diagram 2 for further instruction.

No construction or ground disturbance shall be allowed inside the fenced TPZ without the project arborist’s permission and/or oversite. If you are unsure whether an activity is allowed, refer to Appendix D - Tree Protection Requirements – Quick Reference List or contact the project arborist.

Trees to be Protected
I have worked with your architect and civil engineer to help redesign grading and drainage to make sure the least amount of root impact is incurred by trees being retained.

I have recommended Trees 72 & 74 be protected. They will require tree protection fencing and trunk protection according to the specifications provided below. All work within CRZ of Trees 72 & 74 will require the project arborist’s supervision to ensure that all tree protection measures are implemented.

Tree 72 will have an approximate impact of 25%. There is a proposed sidewalk within 8’ of the southeast side of the tree. For the preliminary phases of construction, before sidewalks are installed, I have set the TPZ fencing limit from the outside edge of the trunk at a 17’ radius to the north, northwest, northeast, southeast & east. On the south and southwest side of the trunk, I have set the fencing limit at a 10’ radius. On the west side of the tree, I set the fencing limit at 12’. This will allow for construction activities and still protect the tree. TPZ delineations are shown in solid orange lines in Appendix B – Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations.

For construction of the sidewalk, I have modified the TPZ. Fencing will need to be adjusted. With the project arborist’s guidance, the TPZ fencing on the southeast side of the tree, shall be moved 7.5’ from the outside edge of the trunk. The modified TPZ is shown as an orange dashed line. For TPZ delineations, Appendix B – Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations. See Appendix A - Tree Inventory & Tree Protection Table for TPZ measurement details.

Exhibit A

Page 197 of 225 ends

6 To limit damage to critical roots, all digging within or adjacent to tree TPZ/CRZ shall be performed by hand. If a root 1” diameter or larger is exposed, it shall not be cut without the project arborist’s permission. If the project arborist determines that a root over 1-inch diameter is to be cut, it shall be cut by hand with a pruning saw or reciprocating saw “Sawzall”. Once roots are severed, the project arborist may approve the use of machinery to complete excavation and grading.

Tree 74 will have an approximate impact of 25%. This tree is growing offsite but it still requires protection. Your plan has allowed for an adequate TPZ. Some roots, however, will likely be impacted and may need to be cut on the north and northeast sides of the tree to allow for preparation and installation of the building foundation.

This tree has a diameter of 16-inches; therefore, it will have a CRZ radius of 16 feet. I have allowed for the TPZ to be established at an 8’ radius from the trunk to the northeast, a 12’ radius from the trunk to the north and a 16’ radius from the trunk to the east, west and south. Fencing shall form an enclosed, TPZ beneath the tree. For TPZ delineations, Appendix B – Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations. See Appendix A - Tree Inventory & Tree Protection Table for TPZ measurement details.

The trunk shall also be protected by installing 2x4’s against the trunk and securing them with zip-ties or wire. Do not anchor wood or wire directly to trunk. See Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams – Diagram 2 for further instruction. All work within or adjacent to the CRZ of Tree 74 will require an arborist’s supervision to ensure that all tree protection measures are implemented.

To limit damage to critical roots, all digging within or adjacent to tree TPZ/CRZ shall be performed by hand. If a root 1” diameter or larger is exposed, it shall not be cut without the project arborist’s permission. If the project arborist determines that a root over 1-inch diameter needs to be cut, it shall be cut by hand with a pruning saw or reciprocating saw “Sawzall”. Once roots are severed, the project arborist may approve use of machinery to complete excavation and grading.

Pruning
Oak trees being retained in this project will require some pruning maintenance to give clearance for fire safety and construction access. In general, clearance for fire safety requires a 10’ distance from buildings and 6’ clearance above ground. Large, overextended branches should be reduced up to 25% to reduce risk of failure. Any deadwood 2” diameter and larger or structurally unstable branches should also be removed.

Aesthetic pruning may be performed; however, pruning shall not remove more than 25% of a tree’s live canopy. All pruning and removal work shall be performed before any project construction starts and shall be performed by an ISA certified arborist on the City of Paso Robles’ approved arborist list. Prior to starting any pruning work on Tree 74, you must have the tree owner’s approval.

Exhibit A

Page 198 of 225 ends

7 Oak Tree Replacements
The City of Paso Robles requires replacements for any native oak removed that is 6-inches in diameter or greater. This requirement is at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. The following is excerpted from the city’s Oak Tree Ordinance 835 N.S.:

Replacement oaks being equivalent to twenty-five percent of the diameter of the removed tree(s). (For example, the replacement requirement for removal of two trees of fifteen-inch DBH (thirty total diameter inches), would be seven and one-half inches (thirty inches removed multiplied by twenty-five hundredths replacement factor).

This requirement could be satisfied by planting five, one and one-half inch caliper trees, or three, two-and one-half-inch caliper trees or any other combination totaling seven and one-half inches).

A minimum of two, twenty-four-inch box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees shall be required for each oak tree removed.

Replacement trees shall be located on the same property as where the tree is approved for removal or, subject to approval of the director, arrangements can be made to locate the replacement trees on public property. Planting standards for replacement trees shall be consistent with City Standard Details and Specification L-4 except that deep root barriers shall not be required if the trees are not adjacent to sidewalk areas. Oak tree preservation and maintenance measures shall be consistent with the provisions of this chapter.

The diameter of the oak tree proposed for removal within your project is 9 inches. Twenty-five percent of 9 inches is 2.25 inches. At minimum, two (2) native oaks at the minimum 1.5-inch caliper, twentyfour-inch box size shall be required to be planted on the premises or somewhere in the city, upon the Public Works Director’s approval.

In our conversation regarding tree replacements, you agreed to planting three (3) native oaks in the back yard at the minimum 1.5-inch caliper trees on site within your formal landscape. Three replacements are above the minimum required and shows an effort to restore the native tree loss on your property. With this plan, you would be replacing 50% of the diameter lost. See Appendix B – Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations.

Planting the trees in your formal landscape will offer an increased rate of success because they will receive a higher level of care compared to mitigation trees planted in an open space that only receives minimal care.

When incorporating new oak trees into your landscape, the spacing should be no less than 20 feet. For long term fire safety clearance, no tree should be planted closer than 20 feet from any building. To ensure a higher success rate, trees should be incorporated into open, non-hardscape areas. Irrigation shall be provided for a minimum of three (3) years during the months of May-October to ensure establishment.

Pre-Construction Meeting
Prior to any construction or ground disturbing activities for this project, the project arborist shall meet with all contractors involved with the construction of the home to review tree protection measures.

Exhibit A

Page 199 of 225 ends

8 Any new contractors brought on site shall also meet or communicate with the project arborist to ensure they are aware of all tree protection measures.

Monitoring:

Any work within the CRZs or TPZs of trees 72 and 74 shall be monitored by the project arborist. Contact Rodney Thurman at Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. to coordinate monitoring.

Conclusion
There were three (3) native oaks within the building envelope of the site you are planning to develop.

You have designed the home to retain trees 72 & 74, which are the highest quality trees. Tree 73, due to construction impacts, would be severely impacted and would not survive. Even if you were able to design around the tree, it was in poor condition and would not warrant the additional effort and expense for the limited years it would continue to live.

Respectfully Submitted,
Rodney D. Thurman
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist PN-2684BUM
ISA Municipal Specialist
ISA Utility Arborist
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification
Appendices: tree inventory & protection table, tree protection map & replacement locations, tree protection diagrams, tree protection requirements quick reference list, photographs Exhibit A

Page 200 of 225 ends

9 Appendix A – Tree Inventory & Tree Protection Table
#
Botanical
name
Common
name Diameter Cond.

CRZ
Radius Impact
TPZ Fence
Radius from
trunk Protect Comments
72 Quercus
douglasii blue oak 17 Good 17’ 25%
17’ N, NE, & NW
10’ S & SW
12’ W
Modify to 7.5’
SE for sidewalk
YES
Retain Tree - Arborist
supervision of work in or
adjacent to TPZ/CRZ required. All
digging within or adjacent to tree
TPZ/CRZ shall be performed by
hand.
73 Quercus
lobata
valley
oak 9 Poor 9’ 70% NONE NO
Remove Tree – Based on
condition as well as on site
grading plan, this tree will have
impacts of at least 50% to its CRZ
home construction. Tree will not
survive impacts.
74 Quercus
lobata
valley
oak 16 Fair 16’ 25%
8’ NE
12’ N
16’ E, W & S
YES
Retain Tree - Arborist
supervision of work in or
adjacent to TPZ/CRZ required. All
digging within or adjacent to tree
TPZ/CRZ shall be performed by
hand.

Exhibit A

Page 201 of 225 ends

10 Appendix B -Tree Protection Map & Replacement Locations Tree Protection & Tree Replacements – Orange delineation shows where to locate tree protection fencing to create TPZ. Orange dashed line shows where to modify TPZ when installing sidewalk. Tree numbers correlate with numbers provided in Appendix A - Tree Inventory and Protection Table. Tree replacement approximate locations are highlighted in green.

Exhibit A

Page 202 of 225 ends

11 Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams
Diagram 1 – Tree Protection Fencing
Exhibit A

Page 203 of 225 ends

12 Diagram 2 – Trunk Protection – Secure wood to tree using zip ties or wire. Do not anchor wood or wire directly to trunk.

Exhibit A

Page 204 of 225 ends

13 Appendix D - Tree Protection Requirements - Quick Reference List • Tree Protection During Construction - Tree protection shall be provided during the entire time construction activities occur. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be established and maintained to ensure protected roots remain undisturbed. • Tree Protection Fencing - Tree protection fencing is required to be in place for the duration of the construction project and shall be installed before starting any ground disturbing activities. Do not remove any tree protection fencing or enter the TPZ without approval of the project arborist. The fencing shall delineate and protect the TPZ.

The fencing shall be 4 feet tall and made of orange, high density, polyethylene with 3.5” x 1.5” openings. It shall be installed on steel posts 8 feet on center and tightly stretched to prevent sagging. See Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams - Diagram 1 – Tree Protection Fencing.
• Trunk Protection - Tree protection fencing is required See Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams - Diagram 2 – Trunk Protection.
• Tree Protection Signage - Weatherproof, tree protection signs stating “Tree Protection Zone – Do Not Enter” shall be placed on the fencing and be spaced 10 feet apart. Signs shall remain in place until completion of the project. See Appendix C - Tree Protection Diagrams - Diagram 1 – Tree Protection Fencing.
• Pre-Construction Meeting - A meeting with all contractors involved in the project shall occur with the project arborist before beginning construction activities. Any new contractors brought on site shall also meet or communicate with the project arborist to ensure they are aware of tree protection measures.
• Preparing Tree Protection Zone - If construction occurs during the months of June through November, the TPZ’s shall be irrigated to a depth of 12 inches before construction begins. This will ensure the trees are properly hydrated. Additional irrigations during “heat-waves” may be recommended by the project arborist. • Root Protection - No grading, trenching, paving or any other soil disturbance shall occur within or adjacent to the TPZ of the tree without permission and supervision by the project arborist. No trenching or excavation for footings, foundations, utilities or roadways shall occur within or adjacent to the TPZ without first, hand trenching the location and exposing roots.

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

Exhibit A

Page 205 of 225 ends

14 • Root Pruning - If the project arborist determines that a root over 1-inch diameter needs to be cut, it shall be cut by hand with a pruning saw or reciprocating saw “Sawzall”.

After cutting a root, the area shall be backfilled as soon as possible with moist soil or covered with wet burlap until backfill can be completed. Burlap shall be kept wet the entire time it is in use for cut-root protection.
• Dumping, Cleanout or Storage of Materials - No construction materials, soil, or debris shall be stored in the TPZ. No concrete, plaster, paint or chemical washout shall be allowed within the TPZ or CRZ.
• Monitoring - An initial inspection shall be completed by the project arborist prior to commencement of construction activities to ensure that all tree protection measures have been put in place. Weekly inspections of the TPZ and associated fencing shall also be completed by the project arborist until construction is complete. Any root pruning, excavation, grading or filling within 5 feet of the TPZ shall a be monitored by the project arborist.
• Project Arborist Contact Information - Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting – Cell: 805 234 8760 – Email: [email protected] Exhibit A

Page 206 of 225 ends

15 Appendix E – Photographs

Photo 1 - View of Tree 72 to northwest from Via Lantana. Retain tree.

Exhibit A

Page 207 of 225 ends

16 Photo 2 - View of Tree 73 to northwest from Via Lantana. Tree is suppressed.

Note asymmetric shape & deadwood in upper canopy. Remove Tree Exhibit A

Page 208 of 225 ends

17 Photo 3 - View of Trees 73 and 74 to northwest from Via Lantana. Tree 74 is offsite and suppressing growth of Tree 73. Retain Tree 74.

Tree 73
Tree 74
Exhibit A

Page 209 of 225 ends

18 Photo 4 - View of wound on trunk west side of Tree 74. No soft decay at this point.

Exhibit A

Page 210 of 225 ends

PARK ST
UNION RD. SALINAS RIVER
US 101 CA 46
21ST
19TH
13TH
24TH ST CRESTON RD. SITE
14TH
15TH
16TH
17TH
18TH
20TH PINE ST SPR NI G ST OAK STRIVERGLEN DR

VIA FUCHSIA VIA LANTANA
Y D
H
GARAGE FF=850.7' RESIDENCE FF=850.8' 5' 20'
10'
10' 10'
18'-2" DECK
F =850.7'
15'-2" 20'-4" 5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
TREE #72 = 17"Ø CRZ
TREE #74 = 16"Ø CRZ TREE #73 = 9"Ø CRZ
(TO BE REMOVED)
TREE #75 = 12"Ø CRZ PERMEABLE WALKWAY

TREE PROTECTION FENCING
PORCH
F =850.7' C/O
C/O
C/O
CONC. DRIVEWAY
(E) CONC. DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY STD.

INSTALL 2' GARDEN WALL PAVERS 6' TALL WOOD FENCE

W/ GATE
6' TALL WOOD FENCE GROUND-MOUNTED

AIR CONDENSER
CS COVER SHEET/ SITE PLAN C-1/C-5 GRADING PLAN/EROSION CONTROL PLAN GC-1 GREEN CODE REQUIREMENTS T-24.1 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS
T-24.2 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS
LNG LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS A-1 FLOOR PLAN A-2 BUILDING SECTIONS A-3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-4 ELECTRICAL PLAN M-1 MECHANICAL PLAN D-4 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS S-0 STRUCTURAL TITLE SHEET S-0.1 SPECIAL INSPECTIONS & TYPICAL NOTES S-1 FOUNDATION PLAN
S-2 FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
S-3 ROOF FRAMING PLAN D-1/D-2 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
TJI TRUSS JOIST DETAILS WSWH2/ 4 STRONG WALL DETAIL SHEETS FLOOR PLAN SQUARE FOOTAGE: LIVING 2521 SQ. FT. GARAGE 625 SQ. FT. PORCH/PORCH 451 SQ. FT. DECK 136 SQ. FT.

PROJECT TEAM

STRUCTURAL DRAFTSMAN OWNER
NRB DRAFTING, INC. 2121 PINE STREET, SUITE A
(805) 237-3746
(805) 237-1368 FAX PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 MSD ENGINEERING (805) 462-2282 ATASCERO, CA 93422 DOUG MENEZES
18542 WARREN AVE. (714) 936-1874
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOT 09, TRACT 2620 VIA LANTANA CITY OF PASO ROBLES COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APN #: 025-523-076
27 NUMBER OF ORIGINALS IN SET

THESE RECORD DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED BASED UPON INFORMATION SUBMITTED, IN PART, BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATION

IS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NRB IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACCURACY, NOR FOR

ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN

INCORP'D INTO THESE DOCUMENTS AS A RESULT
SITE PLAN 1" = 20'-0"
GENERAL GRADING PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C.R.C. ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPT. 2. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHEDULING A

PRE-CONSTRCUTION MEETING WITH THE CITY AND OTHER
AFFECTED AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE
CITY AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING
PERFORMED AND ARRANGEMENT FOR INSPECTION. 3. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. 5. A SOILS ENGINEER SHALL SUPERVISE THE GRADING AND CERTIFY THAT ALL GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OF THE C.B.C. AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF ORIGINAL SOILS REPORT BY BUENA GEOTECHNICAL, REPORT #B-043905, DATED JUNE 18, 2004 AND UPDATED BY HALLIN GEOTECICAL, REPORT # H-231610, DATED NOV. 21, 2023 6. ESTIMATED EARTH QUANTITIES: CUT: 20 CU. YRDS. FILL: 380 CU YRDS. CONSOLIDATION, AND SUBSIDENCE FACTORS AND LOSSES DUE TO CLEARING OPERATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE BASED UPON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING GROUND SURFACE AND

PROPOSED FINISH GRADES, OR SUBGRADES AS SHOWN ON
THE PLAN, AND SHOULD VARY ACCORDING TO THESE FACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

SITE INSPECTION AND QUANTITY TAKE OFF AND SHALL BID
ACCORDINGLY. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL AT ALL TIMES. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING SURVEY MARKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL SUCH MONUMENTS OR MARKERS SHALL BE RESET AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. 9. ALL TOP SOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED FOR LATER DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LOTS AND SLOPES. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES ARE TO BE PLANTED OR HYDROSEEDED AFTER COMPACTION TO PREVENT EROSION. 10. ALL ROUGH GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY BUILDING DEPT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. 11. ANY OAK TREES ON SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN OAK, AN APPLICATION SHALL BE FILED WITH THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES FOR APPROVAL. 12. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS WORKING WITH

THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL HAVE AN APPROPRIATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE, A LOCAL BUSINESS LICENSE, AND SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. 13. SLOPES OF ALL CUT SURFACES TO BE NO LESS THAN 2 HORIZ. TO 1 VERT. ALL FILL SURFACES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 SLOPE. ALL FILL SHALL HAVE 90% COMPACTION.

VICINITY MAP
COVER
SHEET
-
GENERAL NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY WORKMANSHIP. ALL WALLS SHALL BE PLUMB AND TRUE. ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE SECURE ACCORDING TO

ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES OR AS SPECIFIED
HEREIN OR AS PER THE 2016 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE. 2. NRB ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY CHANGES, ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DEVIATIONS BY THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, EITHER INTENTIONAL OR ACCIDENTAL. 3. THE OWNER IS ADVISED THAT THESE DRAWINGS AND

ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE THE ONLY MEDIUM
AVAILABLE TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF NRB AND CANNOT BE ASSUMED ALL-INCLUSIVE WITH REGARD TO SUCH. 4. IN ALL CASES, NOTED DIMENSIONS SHALL SUPERSEDE SCALED DIMENSIONS. 5. CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITH MATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES. 6. "OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE" MANUAL SHALL BE PLACED IN THE BUILDING THAT CONTAINS THE APPLICABLE ITEM LISTED IN CGBSC. (PROVIDE COPY OR TEMPLATE OF MANUAL) 7. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY CORNERS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDATION INSPECTION. UTILITY NOTES: 1. PROVIDE WATER PRESSURE REGULATOR FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR RISERS SHALL BE 1" IN DIAMETER. MATERIALS TO BE USED MAY BE SCHEDULE 8O PVC OR TYPE L COPPER PIPE. 3. PROVIDE NEW SEWER LATERAL WITH CLEANOUT 2 FEET MIN. FROM BUILDING. 4. HOSE BIBS AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALL HAVE APPROVED BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. 5. WATER PRESSURE IN BUILDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO 80 PSI OR LESS. PRESSURE REGULATOR IS REQUIRED. 6. WHERE APPLICABLE, PROVIDE BACK WATER VALVE ON THE SEWER LATERAL WHEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING FIXTURES HAVE FLOOD RIMS LOCATED BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THE NEXT UPSTREAM MANHOLE COVER. 7. IF DRAIN LINES WITHIN THE BUILDING ARE LOWER THAN THE SEWER MAIN, AN EJECTOR SUMP PUMP MAY BE REQUIRED. 8. MINIMUM SIZE FOR SERVICE RISERS FOR STRUCTURES SHALL BE 1" DIA. MATERIALS SHALL BE SCHEDULE 8O PVC OR TYPE "L" COPPER, MIN. SITE NOTES: 1. CONTOUR SHOWN DERIVED FROM LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A LICENSED SURVEYOR ESTABLISH ACTUAL GRADES. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED AS A GRADING PLAN. 2. PROVIDE A MINIMUM SETBACKS PER CITY ORDINANCE. 3. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT TIME OF

FOUNDATION INSPECTION WITH THE MARK OF A LICENSED LAND
SURVEYOR. 4. DRIVEWAY APRON SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY STREET STANDARDS. 5. FINISH GRADE AROUND THE STRUCTURE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE FOUND. A MIN. OF 5% FOR 10'-0" & DRAIN TOWARD A PUBLIC STREET OR ENGINEERED DRAINAGE STRUCTURE. 6. STORM WATER MEASURES SHALL BE MANAGED PER GREEN BUILDING CODES. 7. ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE 4 INCHES IN HEIGHT, 12" MINIMUM STROKE WIDTH AND OF CONTRACTING COLOR TO THE BACKGROUND. WHERE ADDRESS CAN NOT BE VIEWED FROM PUBLIC WAY, A MONUMENT OR POLE SHALL BE USED.

PLANS PREPARED BY: NRB DRAFTING, INC. 2121 PINE STREET., SUITE A PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 PH (805) 237-3746 FX (805) 237-1368 NRB DRAFTING, INC. TAKES NO LIABILITY FOR INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE OWNER IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. THE OWNER HAS APPROVED THIS SET OF PLANS AND AGREED THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS BUILDABLE ON SAID LOT. THE DRAFTSMAN DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THESE PLANS OR THE SPECIFICATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ARE SUITABLE, WHETHER OR NOT MODIFIED FOR ANY OTHER SITE THAN THE ONE FOR WHICH THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY PREPARED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON

THE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED IN LETTER OF ANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS SHOWN BY THESE DRAWINGS. THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINAL OR

TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE
ENGINEER. ALL DRAWING AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE DRAFTSMAN AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DRAFTSMAN.

OCCUPANCY: R-3/U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VB
ALLOWABLE AREA: PER CITY ORDINANCE HEIGHT: ±21'-11" AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER: YES STORIES: 1

DESIGNER NOTE

SHEET INDEX

AREA CALCS

BLDG CODE DATA

CODE ANALYSIS

PROJECT DATA

FIRE SPRINKLERS
SHAFFER FIRE PROTECTION P.O. BOX 4736
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93403
(805) 904-9048

SOILS ENGINEER
HALLIN GEOTECHNICAL P.O. BOX 1897 ATASCADERO. CA 93423
(805) 975-7361 LIC NO. 00000

STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS

1. THIS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IS SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CBC SECTIONS 1704 AND 1705

2. SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT 2.1. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PER SECTIONS 1704 AND 1705

2.2. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDING PAD PREPARATION

3. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THIS STATEMENT AND CBC 1704.7 4. THE OWNER WILL RETAIN AND DIRECTLY PAY FOR THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED IN CBC SECTION 1704.1 SCHEDULE OF INSPECTION, TESTING AGENCIES, AND INSPECTORS

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE TESTING AGENCIES AND SPECIAL INSPECTORS THAT WILL BE RETAINED TO CONDUCT THE MAJORITY OF THE TESTS AND INSPECTION ON THIS PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY: FIRM CONTACT INFORMATION: 1. GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTIONS HALLIN GEOTECHNICAL P. O. BOX 1897 ATASCADERO, CA 93423 (805) 975-7361 SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS NOTATION USED IN TABLE C INDICATES CONTINUOUS INSPECTION IS REQUIRED P INDICATES PERIODIC INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED. THE NOTES AND/OR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHOULD CLARIFY TABLE 1704.7 - INSPECTION OF SOILS

1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW FOOTINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIRED

BEARING CAPACITY

2. VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHED PROPER MATERIAL 3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF CONTROLLED FILL MATERIALS 4. VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESS DURING PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF CONTROLLED FILL. 5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONTROLLED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THAT SITE HAS BEEN PREPARED PROPERLY C P X
X
X
X
X
ENERGY FORMS CARSTAIRS P.O. BOX 4736
(805) 904-9048
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403
ATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATE DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCK BELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTURE FROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH "APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCAL BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIES WITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED ARE MOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY. 2121 Pine St., SUITE A
Paso Robles, California 93446
Tel: 805.237.3746
Fax: 805.237.1368
Email: [email protected]

CITY OF PASO ROBLES CALIFORNIA
05-18-23 23036
23036

VIA LANTANA

PASO ROBLES, CA
ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE: 2022 California Energy Code 2022 California Residential Code 2022 California Electrical Code 2022 California Green Building Code 2022 California Mechanical Code 2022 California Plumbing Code 2022 California Reference Standards Code CITY OF PASO LAND & BUILDING ORDINANCES AND GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE SCOPE OF WORK CONSTRUCT A NEW 1-STORY RESIDENCE W/ ATTACHED GARAGE.

TRUSS COMANY
TRUSPRO, INC. P.O. BOX 850
(800) 338-8787 GUADALUPE, CA 93434 CIVIL ENGINEER

SCOTT DUFFIELD
1030 RIESLING
TEMPLETON, CA 93465
(951) 489-9604
GRADING: CUT: 20 CU YDS ± FILL: 380 CU YDS ± MAX DEPTH OF CUT = 4' MAX DEPTH OF FILL = 4' PERCENT OF NATURAL GRADE: 19.4% AREA OF DISTURBANCE: O.22 AC
IMPERVIOUS AREA: 5,188 SQ. FT.

A SEPARATE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR: FIRE SPRINKLERS
PHOTOVOLTAIC-3.55 kWdc
4555 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE H ARBORIST HERITAGE TREE
1343 BISHOP AVE. SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 234-8760
Exhibit B

Page 211 of 225 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Damian Nord, Chief of Police
Subject: Amendments to the Paso Robles Municipal Code Chapter 7.50 Regarding Camping on Public Property and Protection of Waterways
CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Date: August 6, 2024
Facts

1. Chapter 7.50 of the El Paso de Robles Municipal Code (“PRMC”) generally prohibits camping on public property.

2. Subject to limited exceptions, PRMC section 7.50.040 bars enforcement of Chapter 7.50’s prohibitions against individuals sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property where no alternative shelter is available.

3. The above implements Martin v. City of Boise, a 2019 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter” (920 F.3d 584, 616).

4. On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, Oregon.

Among other things, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cities from enforcing laws regulating camping on public property (144 S.Ct. 2202).

5. The Supreme Court’s Johnson decision overruled the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin.

6. On July 25, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-1-24. Among other things, the order explained that California is experiencing a homelessness crisis decades in the making and highlighted the potential dangers associated with encampments, including subjecting unsheltered occupants to extreme weather, fires, predatory and criminal activity, and widespread substance abuse.

7. The Governor’s order highlighted the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision and encouraged local governments to take action “with urgency” to remove encampments from public spaces, “prioritizing those encampments that most threaten the life, health, and safety of those in and around them.”

8. Goal 6.1 from the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan provides that the City will review existing public policies to identify options to mitigate the environmental, health, and safety impacts of homelessness in the riverbed and throughout the City.

9. Consistent with Goal 6.1, the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision and Executive Order N-1-24, the attached ordinance updates Chapter 7.50 to remove the outdated Martin provision and augment and clarify the camping regulations as indicated below.

Options

1. Take no action

Page 212 of 225 ends

2. Adopt the attached ordinance

3. Provide alternative direction to staff
Analysis and Conclusions
The attached ordinance amends Chapter 7.50 to remove the obsolete Martin provision. It also updates Chapter 7.50 to further safeguard and preserve the City’s natural resources and protect the health, safety and welfare of all residents and people within the geographic boundaries of the City. It does so by augmenting Chapter 7.50’s definitions and clarifying that camping or maintaining an encampment is prohibited in or on public property, including streets, sidewalks, parks, open space areas, high fire risk areas, and the Salinas River corridor. A redline showing the ordinance’s changes to Chapter 7.50 is attached as Attachment 2.

Since the passage of the Martin provision, the City has proactively worked with community partners to ensure shelter and supportive services are available to assist community members experiencing homelessness. This includes the dedication of Project Homekey grant funds to People’s Self-Help Housing Corporation, the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), and the El Camino Homeless Organization (ECHO) for the establishment of a joint shelter and transitional low-income housing site in the Black Oak neighborhood in 2021. Since the establishment of the site, the City has contributed funds in support of ECHO’s operating budget through a Memorandum of Understanding that provided ECHO with $444,000 over fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. With ECHO now providing 70 shelter beds, the City has recommitted to funding ECHO at the same level over the next two fiscal years. In 2023, the City adopted a Homelessness Strategic Plan to better address the needs of those experiencing homelessness and the impacts on the community. The City is moving forward with that plan with funding for a Homeless Services Manager position approved in June 2024. Recognizing the impacts of housing as it relates to homelessness and the prevention of homelessness, the City has also been working with HASLO, the Paso Robles Housing Authority, and housing developers to increase access to affordable housing. Since 2019, 205 housing units have been added to the City’s housing inventory with 240 units currently in the permitting process.

Fiscal Impact
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this action.

CEQA
The attached ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

Recommendation
Introduce for first reading by title only, an ordinance (Attachment 1) entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 7.50 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PROTECTION OF WATERWAYS AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE

TO BE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Attachments

1. Ordinance No. XXXX – Post Grants Pass Camping Ordinance 1st Read

2. Redline – Existing Chapter 7.50 vs. the ordinance’s amendments to the same

Page 213 of 225 ends

82476.01000\42487865.3
Attachment 1
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AMENDING CHAPTER 7.50 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE

ROBLES REGARDING CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PROTECTION OF

WATERWAYS AND DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, Chapter 7.50 of the El Paso de Robles (“City”) Municipal Code generally prohibits camping on public property; and
WHEREAS, subject to limited exceptions, section 7.50.040 bars enforcement of Chapter 7.50’s prohibitions against individuals sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property where no alternative shelter is available; and
WHEREAS, the above provision implements Martin v. City of Boise, a 2019 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter” (920 F.3d 584, 616); and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, Oregon. Among other things, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit cities from enforcing laws regulating camping on public property (144 S.Ct. 2202); and WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s Johnson decision abrogates (i.e., overrules) the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Martin. Consequently, Martin is no longer good law or binding on cities; and WHEREAS, given the foregoing, this ordinance (“Ordinance”) amends Chapter 7.50 to remove the outdated Martin provision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to protecting the life, health, and safety of its residents and all people within the geographic boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that certain public lands within the City’s geographical boundaries pose significant health and safety hazards to people who make shelter or stay overnight in those areas.

The Council further finds that some of these public lands are environmentally sensitive and may be significantly damaged by unregulated human activity; and WHEREAS, beyond removing the outdated Martin provision, this Ordinance amends Chapter 7.50 to further safeguard and preserve the City’s natural resources and protect the health, safety and welfare of all residents and people within the geographic boundaries of the City; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

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

Page 214 of 225 ends

82476.01000\42487865.3
Attachment 1
-2-
Section 2. Amendment. The City Council ordains that Chapter 7.50 of the City of El Paso de Robles Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“Chapter 7.50 – Camping

7.50.010 – Definitions.

The following definitions apply to the use of these terms in this chapter:
“Camp” means to pitch, erect or occupy an encampment, or to use camp paraphernalia, or both, for the purpose of, or in a way that facilitates, outdoor sheltering for living accommodation purposes or for remaining outdoors overnight.
“Camp paraphernalia” means personal property used to facilitate occupancy of an area and includes personal property typically associated with camping such as tarps, cots, beds, sleeping bags, hammocks, bedding, camp stoves, cooking equipment, buckets and similar equipment, mattresses, couches, dressers, or other furniture.
“Encampment” means one or more temporary, makeshift, or hand-built structures not intended for long-term continuous occupancy, including tents, that are used to shelter one or more persons or their belongings and that are not authorized by the property owner. Encampment includes any camp paraphernalia and personal property associated with or located in or around the structures or tents.
“Open space” means any undeveloped public property either primarily in its natural state, including canyons, bluffs, and unimproved waterways, or that is held out by the City or used by the public for passive recreational purposes, conservation, habitat preservation, or that maintains or enhances the conservation of natural or scenic resources. “Park” means any public property, whether developed or undeveloped, held out by the City or used by the public for active or passive park and recreation uses, including adjacent buffer lands and natural areas of any adjacent parking lots and perimeter sidewalks. “Waste” means any rubbish, solid waste, liquid waste, infectious waste, or medical waste. “Waterway” means all portions of the Salinas River corridor.

7.50.020 – Camping, locations prohibited; protection of waterways.

A. Camping. It is unlawful for any person to camp or to maintain an encampment in or upon any public property, including any street, sidewalk, park, open space, waterway, or banks of a waterway. Additionally, it is unlawful for any person to camp or maintain an encampment in or upon any land designated by this code as a high fire risk area.

B. Waterways. It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:

1. Build or erect a structure of any type along the banks of any waterway, or drive a nail or other object into any tree or other natural area vegetation for the purpose

Page 215 of 225 ends

82476.01000\42487865.3
Attachment 1
-3-
of building an encampment or any other structure, or to affix an object to any tree or other natural vegetation;

2. Move boulders or large rocks, destroy vegetation, paved roads or paths created by the City, or otherwise reconfigure the natural landscape in the waters of or along the banks of a waterway;

3. Drive, park, or bring any vehicle along the banks of a waterway, except in places specifically provided and designated for vehicular use;

4. Dig on the banks of a waterway; or

5. Discharge or store waste, including garbage, refuse, or human or animal waste, along the banks or into the waters of a waterway.

C. Nothing in subsection (B) is intended to prohibit the activities of an owner of private property or other lawful user of private property that are normally associated with and incidental to the lawful and authorized use of private property; and nothing is intended to prohibit the activities of a lawful user if such activities are expressly authorized by the City Manager or by any law, regulation, permit, order or other directive from a regulatory authority.

7.50.030 – Procedures for removal and recovery of personal property.

A. The city council may, by resolution, adopt procedures for the removal and recovery of personal property left upon lands where camping is prohibited per Section 7.50.020. Such procedures need not conform to those provided for in subsection B, below.

B. Absent the city council's adoption of a resolution per subsection A above, personal property left upon lands where camping is prohibited for more than twenty-four hours may be removed by the city and may be recovered by the owner for up to ninety days.

7.50.040 – Enforcement.

A. Subsection A of Section 7.50.020 shall not apply to either of the following:

1. Any event involving camping that is approved or sponsored by the city.

2. Any person camping or maintaining an encampment on public property designated by City Council resolution for such purposes.” Section 3. CEQA. The City Council finds that this Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

Page 216 of 225 ends

82476.01000\42487865.3
Attachment 1
-4-
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage and adoption in accordance with Government Code section 36937.

Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons or places.

Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles, California, and cause the Ordinance to be published once within 15 days after passage in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City in accordance with Government Code section 36933.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on August 6, 2024, for first reading by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles, and adopted on the ____day of ____, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk

Page 217 of 225 ends

Attachment 2
Chapter 7.50 CAMPING– Camping

7.50.010 – Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter and this Code, unless otherwise provided by this Code, the The following definitions apply to the use of these terms in this chapter:
“Camp” means to pitch, erect or occupy an encampment, or to use camp paraphernalia, or both, for the purpose of, or in a way that facilitates, outdoor sheltering for living accommodation purposes or for remaining outdoors overnight. "Camping" means to pitch or occupy camp facilities or to use camp paraphernalia. "Camp facilities" include, but are not limited to, tents, huts, or other temporary shelters. "“Camp paraphernalia"” means personal property used to facilitate occupancy of an area and includes, but is not limited to, tarpaulins personal property typically associated with camping such as tarps, cots, beds, sleeping bags, hammocks, bedding, camp stoves, cooking facilities not designated by Title 17, Buildings and Construction, orequipment, buckets and similar equipment, mattresses, couches, dressers, or other furniture.
“Encampment” means one or more temporary, makeshift, or hand-built structures not intended for long-term continuous occupancy, including tents, that are used to shelter one or more persons or their belongings and that are not authorized by the property owner.

Encampment includes any camp paraphernalia and personal property associated with or located in or around the structures or tents.
“Open space” means any undeveloped public property either primarily in its natural state, including canyons, bluffs, and unimproved waterways, or that is held out by the City or used by the public for passive recreational purposes, conservation, habitat preservation, or that maintains or enhances the conservation of natural or scenic resources. “Park” means any public property, whether developed or undeveloped, held out by the City or used by the public for active or passive park and recreation uses, including adjacent buffer lands and natural areas of any adjacent parking lots and perimeter sidewalks. “Waste” means any rubbish, solid waste, liquid waste, infectious waste, or medical waste. “Waterway” means all portions of the Salinas River corridor.

7.50.020 – Camping, locations prohibited; protection of waterways.

A. Upon any land or easement owned, operated, or managed by the city; B. Upon any land for which the general plan, a specific plan, or Title 21, Zoning, designates as private open space and prohibits camping; or
C. Upon any land designated by the fire chief as a fire risk area. Fire risk areas are determined by the probability of wildfire through assessing vegetation, fire history, and topography.

Page 218 of 225 ends

(Supp. No. 62)
Page of
D. Upon any land designated by the director of public works as a water supply risk area. Water supply risk areas include, but, are not limited to, areas in or near city wells, areas directly overlying the Salinas River, and areas in or near water treatment facilities.

B. Waterways. It is unlawful for any person to do any of the following:

1. Build or erect a structure of any type along the banks of any waterway, or drive a nail or other object into any tree or other natural area vegetation for the purpose of building an encampment or any other structure, or to affix an object to any tree or other natural vegetation;

2. Move boulders or large rocks, destroy vegetation, paved roads or paths created by the City, or otherwise reconfigure the natural landscape in the waters of or along the banks of a waterway;

3. Drive, park, or bring any vehicle along the banks of a waterway, except in places specifically provided and designated for vehicular use;

4. Dig on the banks of a waterway; or

5. Discharge or store waste, including garbage, refuse, or human or animal waste, along the banks or into the waters of a waterway.

7.50.030 – Procedures for removal and recovery of personal property.

A. The city council may, by resolution, adopt procedures for the removal and recovery of personal property left upon lands where camping is prohibited per Section 7.50.020.

Such procedures need not conform to those provided for in subsection B, below.

B. Absent the city council's adoption of a resolution per subsection A above, personal property left upon lands where camping is prohibited per Section 7.50.020 for more than twenty-four hours may be removed by the city and may be recovered by the owner for up to ninety days.

7.50.040 – Enforcement.

Page 219 of 225 ends

A. Absent exigent circumstances relating to immediate threats to the public health, safety, or welfare, including, but not limited to, conditions described in Section 7.50.020, subsections C and D, the provisions of this chapter will not be enforced against indigent homeless persons sitting, lying, or sleeping on public property when no alternative shelter, including a publicly provided campsite, hotel vouchers, or similar accommodations, is available in accordance with the holding in Martin v. City of Boise (9th Cir. 2019) 920 F.3d 584.

B. When, pursuant to subsection A, the provisions of this chapter will not be enforced, camp facilities may be erected only between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily.

A. Subsection A of Section 7.50.020 shall not apply to either of the following:

1. Any event involving camping that is approved or sponsored by the city.

2. Any person camping or maintaining an encampment on public property designated by City Council resolution for such purposes.”

Page 220 of 225 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Ty Lewis, City Manager
Subject: Approval of a Resolution in Support of Proposition 13 CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Date: August 6, 2024
Facts

1. On June 6, 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13 which amended the California Constitution to limit the assessment and taxation of properties in California.

2. Prior to Proposition 13, property values in California were systematically reviewed and updated and as a result, assessed values were usually kept at or near current market value levels.

3. Furthermore, local jurisdictions (counties, cities, school districts, special districts, etc.) independently established property tax rates and the total property tax rate was the composite of the individual rates. In other words, different taxpayers could be paying different tax rates depending on where you live in the state. At that time, the property tax rate throughout California averaged three percent of the market value of the property.

4. Proposition 13 rolled back most local real property, or real estate, assessments to 1975 market value levels, limited the property tax rate to one percent plus the rate necessary to fund local voterapproved bonded indebtedness, and limited future property tax increases to no more than two percent annually.

5. Under Proposition 13, properties are reassessed to current market value only upon a change in ownership or completion of new construction (called the base year value). Essentially, Proposition 13 converted the market value-based property tax system to an acquisition value-based system.

6. Proposition 13 also changed the requirements for local governments to levy other taxes. Specifically, Proposition 13 requires two–thirds of voters to approve any special taxes levied by local governments.

Special taxes are those taxes that raise funds for a particular purpose.

7. Proposition 13 gave state lawmakers responsibility for allocating property tax revenues among local jurisdictions.

Options

1. Take no action;

2. Approve Resolution 24-XXX, in Support of Proposition 13 and direct staff to send a copy of the resolution to the Offices of Senator John Laird and Assemblymember Dawn Addis; or

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
Earlier this year, the City Council directed staff to bring a resolution in support of the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPGA) to a future meeting for consideration. The TPGA was a ballot

Page 221 of 225 ends

initiative that originally qualified for the November 5, 2024, statewide ballot. However, on June 20, 2024, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the TPGA amounts to a revision of the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot go before voters in November. Although the TPGA will not appear before voters in November, there was subsequent interest from the City Council in expressing its support generally for Proposition 13.

Approved by California voters in 1978, Proposition 13 significantly restructured how property tax is levied, increased, and allocated throughout California. Prior to Proposition 13, most local governments established their own property tax rates, which could be increased without significant limitations.

Proposition 13 limited the annual assessment of property tax to one percent of the assessed valuation of the property. It also limited assessment increases to a maximum of two percent annually. This was a significant reduction from previous tax rates which had allowed taxes to increase annually based on market value. Property assessments were frozen at the purchase price of the property, with reassessment only occurring upon change of ownership or major improvements. This "acquisition value" assessment system meant that properties were not reassessed annually to reflect current market values, thereby stabilizing property tax bills for homeowners. Proposition 13 imposed a strict requirement for any new or increased local taxes, including parcel taxes and bonds, to be approved by a two-thirds majority of voters.

Proposition 13 is considered an important factor in housing affordability. Not only does Proposition 13 restrict the amount of property taxes levied, but it also provides homeowners with the ability to anticipate and budget for their property tax payments each year. This is significant especially for those individuals living on fixed incomes. Due to Proposition 13, the taxable value of most properties is less than their market value. The longer a property is owned, the wider this gap grows. Many property owners therefore pay lower property taxes under Proposition 13 than they would pay if taxed based on their properties’ market values. Proposition 13 also limits other types of taxation by requiring voter approval for any bonded indebtedness that would increase property taxes beyond the one percent base.

Over time, there have been several attempts to alter Proposition 13. This includes proposals to “split” how property taxes are levied between residential and commercial properties. Other efforts have sought to reduce voter thresholds to increase taxes. Overall, Proposition 13 remains of benefit to property owners and renters by limiting the amount of property taxes that are assessed annually. Therefore, it is recommended that the City Council formally recognize its support for the continuation of Proposition 13 as it is structured today.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact for approving this resolution. The City is projected to receive approximately $14.9 million in property tax revenues in FY 2024-25. Any growth in property tax revenues results from increases in property values, which the City does directly control. While property taxes remain a significant revenue for the City, other local taxes make up for the revenue losses that resulted from Proposition 13.

These include hotel tax, sales tax, and user fees.

CEQA
The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Recommendation (Option 2)
Approve Resolution 24-XXX in support of Proposition 13 and direct staff to forward a copy of the resolution to the offices of Senator John Laird and Assemblymember Addis.

Page 222 of 225 ends

Attachments

1. Resolution 24-XXX in Support of Proposition 13

Page 223 of 225 ends

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 24-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 13
WHEREAS, On June 6, 1978, Proposition 13, officially titled the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation,” and popularly known as the “Jarvis-Gann Initiative,” was approved by California’s voters, reducing property tax rates on homes, businesses and farms, and capping the rate of increase in the future; and
WHEREAS, Prior to the adoption of Proposition 13, California’s raging inflation had sent property tax bills in California soaring so high that many families had to sell their homes because they could not afford to pay their taxes; and
WHEREAS, Prior to the adoption of Proposition 13, property tax assessments showed wider divergences than assessment disparities under the current acquisition-value system; and WHEREAS, With the approval of Proposition 13, real property values were adjusted to a base value equal to the 1976 assessed value of that real property, thereby introducing an objective standard upon which real property would be taxed and ending the previous subjective standard for assessment that engendered the property tax assessment surges that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s; and WHEREAS, With the passage of Proposition 13, taxpayers, for the first time, were provided a measure of certainty with respect to their property taxes; and
WHEREAS, Following the passage of Proposition 13, the average homeowner has saved tens of thousands of dollars in property tax payments, money that was able to be spent in the economy to create jobs and foster economic development; and
WHEREAS, Following the passage of Proposition 13, renters also benefitted as the reduction in taxes reduced upward pressure on rents; and
WHEREAS, The volatility of income and sales tax revenue to the state and local governments is a major flaw in California’s tax system, while Proposition 13 has rendered California’s property taxes as a stable and predictable source of public revenue, even during economic downturns, which has provided a major benefit to local governments throughout California; an WHEREAS, Since the passage of Proposition 13, proposed alternatives to Proposition 13 would have had a variety of unwelcome effects, including substantial tax increases for low-income and elderly homeowners; and
WHEREAS, Voters intended Proposition 13 to protect all property owners, and they had rejected previous attempts to impose higher taxes on small businesses, knowing that these so-called “split roll” proposals would inflict irreparable harm on California’s economy; and WHEREAS, Proposition 13 has become a nationwide symbol for taxpayer revolt and for citizens exercising control and power over their governance.

Page 224 of 225 ends

Attachment 1

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 hereby affirms its support for Proposition 13 and the benefit that it provides to individual homeowners, renters, local governments and to the state’s overall economy.

Section 3. The City finds that the approval of this resolution is not a project subject to CEQA. In the alternative, the approval of this resolution is exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15061, subd. (b)(3).) APPROVED this 6th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk

Page 225 of 225 ends

Paso Robles City CouncilAugust 6, 2024

Paso Robles City Council
August 6, 2024