Paso Robles City Council
October 21, 2025

 



 





!" " #
$%&'#%()*))$ 
!" " #

$%+&'#,))*))$ 
!" 
$-&'#())*))$ 
!"
./01 2,34&%(*)) 1$  !"
./01 2534&()*)) 1 $ !"
./01 2,3
"&6)*)) 1 $
!"
./01 253
"&,)*)) 1 $
!"
./01 2'-3
"&7(*)) 1 $
""/01 &'8*)) 1 $
9   .
$'2&6#())*)) $
9  :".
$'2&(#6))*)) $ ; <
9 &-#)))*)) $
1"
 63" 

&6)*)) 1 $ :=

9 4"&(%(*)) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $  >?@ABACDE F+GH7IJ''
KLMNONPOQNRN
Exhibit B




  



 ! "#""$  %

!& #""$  
'%()
%* +,
!-&"#""$  
.
!-/"""#""   
!&/0""#""   
!+/"""#"" 

!1/"""#""  2
%
23

!-0/"""#""  24'%!-/5""#""   %
 !0/"""#""  %


!-/6""#""  %2 

!5/-""#""                     789:;:<=> ?@AB6CD--
Exhibit B

 










!! "#

$%&''!() *  
!! "
$'&+'!*  
!! "#

$,&-'!*  
. " $%&''!*  
!!

)"$,&-/! * 0 

"
*1$+''&''
*  

"
*1$%''&''
* (

2

3
*-4$,5%''&''
* (

2 623
*-
4$7'&''! *

) 
22
 $%-&''
*
 

"$1''&''
 * 
!! 8!
.&%8
 *
 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  9:;<=<>?@ ABCDEFG,,
Exhibit B

 






 




 
 !
"
#$# %!& $ '()** +  , '*)(-
.+ 
# /
'*)01
.+ 
# /& !& ###'-)02!.+  # /& !!& ###'()-(!. + !. '0)13!. + .&## !!
'3)45!.+ .&#
 '*)2*
. + 6"#

" '*)((
. +
 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  789:;:<=> ?@AB3*CD33
Exhibit B







 



 


 !"#$$
%  
&

% '
 ()*#$$% +
+&&'
 )#$$
"$$"$$$$* $$,$$$#$$ 
 %*,%* ($$#$$% & '-
&+ !.#$$
/
0 % &
''&1

).#$$
/
0 %
 % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %  23456578 9:::::;:: <=>?**@A**
Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit C
EXHIBIT 'C' Page 162 of 266 City Council Agenda October 21, 2025 Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit C

Exhibit D
EXHIBIT 'D' Page 181 of 266 City Council Agenda October 21, 2025 Exhibit D

Exhibit D

Exhibit D

Exhibit D

Council Agenda Report
From: Darren Nash, City Planner
Subject: Oak Tree Removal Permit 25-11–Request to Remove Oak Tree No. 28 in the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan (OTR25-11, P25-0072)
CEQA Determination: As part of any future Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed grading and oak tree removal will need to be evaluated for consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2019011065) approved for the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Should the oak tree removal request be denied that action would not be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Date: October 21, 2025
Facts

1. The City received an application for an oak tree removal (P25-0072/OTR25-11) submitted by Althouse and Meade, Inc. on behalf of Olsen 212 requesting to remove Tree No. 28, a 38-inch diameter Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata).

2. Tree No. 28 is in Planning Area (PA) 21 Open Space / Linear Park in the PG&E easement area within the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan (SP). See location maps below.

3. Certified Arborist, Sophie Kroesche of Althouse and Meade on behalf of Olsen 212, evaluated Tree No. 28 and provided an Arborist Report (See Exhibit A of Attachment 1). The report concludes that the tree has a health rating of 5 (relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects).

However, because of proposed grading, recommends removal of the tree since she does not feel that the tree will survive the proposed grading (Alternative 1 or 2).

4. Certified arborist, Rodney Thurman of Heritage Tree, evaluated the tree on behalf of the City and provided an Arborist Report (See Exhibit B of Attachment 1). The report concluded that the current

health of the tree is Fair condition (may have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress may be present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled). Rodney Thurman indicates that additional grading will damage critical roots and jeopardize tree health.

5. Paso Robles Municipal Code 10.01.050.C indicates that an oak tree is considered healthy unless it has been determined by the Arborist to be clearly dead or diseased beyond correction.

6. Paso Robles Municipal Code 10.01.050.D.2 requires the Director of Community Development to prepare a report for the City Council’s consideration of, among other things, “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 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”.

Options

1. Approve Resolution denying removal of OTR 25-11, based on findings that the tree is considered healthy and the need to remove the tree is based on proposed grading that is not consistent with the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan.

2. Approve Resolution approving removal of OTR 25-11 contingent on Olsen 212 getting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment and any other necessary City approvals to allow for mass grading in PA 21.

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
OSCSP Oak Tree Impact and Preservation Plan
Tree No. 28 is included in the Oak Preservation Plan and is rated a 5 on a scale of 0-7, 7 being the healthiest. The Specific Plan’s Oak Preservation Plan was approved with the requirement that Tree No. 28 be preserved.

When Phase 1 mass grading occurred, in the area around Tree No. 28 outside of dripline of the tree, within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). Both arborist reports that were prepared for this removal request indicated that the tree is relatively healthy in its current state after the Phase 1 grading.

The images below show Tree No. 28 in existing state and the proximity of grading.

The grading that occurred in Phase 1 mass grading in the vicinity of Tree No. 28 was anticipated as shown in the detail below from the Oak Preservation Plan (Oak Tree Root Zone Exhibit):

Proposed New Grading
The Althouse and Meade report indicates that the Specific Plan is deficient approximately 100,000 cubic yards of soil and the reason for the request to remove Tree No. 28 is to allow for the removal of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of soil from the area where Tree No. 28 is located. Olsen 212 proposes to excavate approximately 16 to 20 feet of soil which would remove the existing knoll that Tree 28 sits on top of. See Proposed Grading Section A below.

The request to grade approximately 45,000 cubic yards within PA-21 would not be consistent with the current Specific Plan; as shown in the heat map below, minimal grading was to occur within PA-21.

Tree 28 shown preserved
on approved grading plans
Proposed mass grading of
PA021 would remove knoll
under Tree 28.

Accordingly, staff believes a Specific Plan Amendment would need to be approved by Planning Commission and City Council to allow mass grading of PA-21, plus any other necessary City approvals associated with the grading.

Removal of Tree No. 28 is being requested to allow for a significant amount of grading to occur which could drastically change the topography of the land, and necessitate a new drainage plan for this area.

The change in grading, drainage and topography is not consistent with the current Specific Plan.

Therefore, an amendment to the Specifc Plan would appropriately allow for the proposed changes. The grading details provided in this staff report have been provided by the Landscape Architect as part of their presentation. To date, grading plans by a civil engineer have not been submitted to the Engineering Department for review.

Fiscal Impact
There is no direct fiscal impact on the City from this action.

Specific plan does not
allow mass grading of
PA-21

CEQA
As part of any future Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed grading and oak tree removal will need to be evaluated for consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2019011065) approved for the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Should the oak tree removal request be denied that action would not be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Recommendation (Option 1)
Approve Resolution 25-XXX, denying removal of OTR 25-11, based on findings that the tree is considered healthy and the applicant’s request to remove the tree is based on proposed grading that is not consistent with the current Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan.

Attachments

1. Resolution 25-XXX(A) Denying Removal of Tree No. 28
a. Exhibit A - Site Plan
b. Exhibit B - Althouse and Meade Arborist Report
c. Exhibit C - Heritage Tree Arborist Report

2. Resolution 25-XXX(B) to Approving Removal of Tree No. 28 Subject to Specific Plan Amendment a. Exhibit A - Site Plan
b. Exhibit B - Althouse and Meade Arborist Report
c. Exhibit C - Heritage Tree Arborist Report
Click or tap here to enter text.

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 25-XXX (A)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF El PASO DE ROBLES DENYING THE REMOVAL OF OAK TREE NO. 28 IN PA-21 OF THE

OLSEN SOUTH CHANDLER SPECIFIC PLAN
APN 009-795-023
WHEREAS, the City received an application for an oak tree removal (P25-0072/OTR25-11) submitted by Althouse and Meade, Inc. on behalf of Olsen 212 requesting to remove Tree No. 28, a 38-inch diameter Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata); and
WHEREAS, Tree No. 28 is in Planning Area (PA) 21, which is the PG&E easement area within the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan (SP); and
WHEREAS, Certified Arborist, Sophie Kroesche of Althouse and Meade on behalf of Olsen 212, evaluated Tree No. 28 and provided an Arborist Report (See Attachment 2). The report concludes that the tree has a health rating of 5 (relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects).

However, because of proposed grading, Althouse and Meade recommends removal of the tree since they believe the tree will not survive the proposed grading; and WHEREAS, Certified arborist, Rodney Thurman of Heritage Tree, evaluated the tree on behalf of the City and provided an Arborist Report (See Attachment 3). The report concluded that the current health of the tree is Fair condition (may have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress may be present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled). Rodney Thurman indicates that additional grading will damage critical roots and jeopardize tree health; and WHEREAS, Olsen 212 has submitted the application request to remove the 38-inch diameter Valley Oak to facilitate the removal of approximately 44,000 cubic yards of dirt from PA-21; and WHEREAS, PA-21 is within the PG&E easement, and the proposed grading is not recognized in the Specific Plan as an area where grading can occur. The proposed grading would require amending the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Paso Robles Municipal Code 10.01.050.D.2 requires the consideration of “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”; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends denial of oak tree removal permit because reasonable alternatives to the proposed design exist that would allow reasonable use of the property; and

Attachment 1
WHEREAS, as part of any future Specific Plan Amendment, the proposed grading and oak tree removal will need to be evaluated for consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2019011065) approved for the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Should the oak tree removal request be denied, that action would not be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378; and
WHEREAS, the City Council met to discuss the request for an oak tree removal on October 21, 2025, considered the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and accepted public testimony.

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 No.28, a 38-inch diameter valley oak, is being requested to accommodate grading within PA-21 the PG&E easement area, which would not be consistent with the current Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan; and

2. The City finds that Oak Tree No. 2 is considered healthy based on the City’s submitted arborist report.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles does hereby deny the request to remove Tree No. 28, a 38-inch diameter valley oak tree as shown in Exhibit B and C.

APPROVED this 21
st Day of October, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - A&M Arborist Report
Exhibit C - Heritage Tree Arborist Report

SITE PLAN
NORTH
Exhibit A

1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180, Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626 www.althouseandmeade.com
1 June 11, 2025
Planning and Development Department, City of Paso Robles c/o Darren Nash, City Planner
City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles CA 93446
(805) 237-3970
Email: [email protected]
Re: Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo
Dear Darren:

On May 6, 2025 LynneDee Althouse and Certified Arborist Sophie Kroesche (WE-15635A) assessed Tree 28, a valley oak (Quercus lobata), and noted site conditions. Our arborist report is attached for reference.

We reviewed the proposed borrow grading required to complete Phases 2 and 3 of the Viñedo project and find that Tree 28 is already isolated on a knoll created during borrow activities (Photos 1 and 2 and Attachment 1). Removal of additional material outside the critical root zone (CRZ) would leave this tree on a tiny point of land with insufficient hydrology (surface water accumulation) and opportunity for normal soil processes to provide nutrients and moisture for the tree during the growing seasons (Attachment 2).

The reason extra material is needed because the project has been in a soil material deficit, an import condition of over 100,000 cubic yards (10,000 truck-loads) since grading for Phase 1 began. The material available around and under Tree 28 would help offset additional import of soil, minimize high green-house gas trips, and reduce truck traffic on City streets during construction.

Tree 28 was considered impacted during our initial tree assessment. Our Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (October 20201
) identified this tree as heavily impacted (over 50% of the critical root zone would be impacted) and was included in the tree mitigation requirements at a 2:1 mitigation ratio for heavily impacted trees.

We recognize the current health of the tree and acknowledge that its isolation and relative “suspension” above the surrounding landscape will put the tree at risk of failure within a relative short period of years. Attachment 2 illustrates the isolation effect of the tree’s root crown sitting 1 Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2020. Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Olsen-South Chandler Ranch. October 2020.

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo 2
15 to 17 feet above the surrounding landscape. Sections drawn through the remaining point of land were provided by Rick Engineering for reference.

Mitigation for Tree 28 has been accounted for at a 2:1 replacement ratio and will be updated to mitigate for the tree removal. Mitigation requirements for an oak tree removal requires replacement oaks equivalent to 25 percent of the diameter of the removed trees. The removal of Tree #28 with a DBH of 38 inches will require a total of 7, 24-in box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees. The addendum to the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan requires seven (7) 24-in box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees.

Due to the mitigation already accounted for from the two-to-one (2:1) ‘heavily impacted’ mitigation assumed from the original grading plans, the net additional mitigation trees will be five (5) 24-inch box oaks that are 1.5 inches trunk caliper.

Photo 1. Tree 28 in early grading condition. View
northeast, May 6, 2025.

Photo 2. Tree 28, view south, May 6, 2025.

Sincerely,
Sophie Kroesche LynneDee Althouse
Certified Arborist #WE-15635A Principal Scientist
Copy: Danny Brose, Danny Ray Edwards, Valerie Mattos
Attachments:

Attachment 1. Grading Plan Sheet 7 (Rick Engineering 4/21/25) Attachment 2A. Tree 28 Current Grading (Rick Engineering 5/27/25) Attachment . Tree 28 Proposed Grading (Rick Engineering 5/27/25) Attachment 3. Oak Tree Report for Tree 28 – Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Olsen-South Chandler Ranch
Attachment 4. Oak Tree Removal Permit Application
Exhibit B

Tree 28
Tree 28 would be isolated on a hill.

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo
ATTACHMENT 3. OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREE 28 – ADDENDUM TO OAK TREE PROTECTION AND

MITIGATION PLAN FOR OLSEN-SOUTH CHANDLER RANCH
Exhibit B

1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180, Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626 www.althouseandmeade.com
Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo June 10, 2025
Rick Engineering
c/o Carlos Avila, Principal Project Manager
5620 Friars Road
San Diego CA 92110
(619) 908-3560
Email: [email protected]
Re: Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo
On May 6, 2025 Althouse and Meade principal LynneDee Althouse and arborist Sophie Kroesche evaluated one (1) valley oak (Quercus lobata; Tree #28), south of Linne Road, to the west of Hanson Road. Tree #28 is in the Olsen-South Chandler Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA; Vinedo), City of Paso Robles, California. Location coordinates for Tree #28 are 35.6062575 °N, 120.6337048 °W (WGS 84; Figure 1).

The overall condition/health of the tree was visually inspected from the ground. The rating system defined in Table 1 provides of a scale from one to ten based on the structure and health of the tree.

Tree species, height, canopy width, and DBH (diameter breast height) was measured and recorded (Table 2). Any signs of pest disease or structural weakness was noted. For this report, the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is defined as the area using a radius of one foot per one-inch DBH.

The City of Paso Robles Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 10.01) provides policies, regulations, and specifications necessary to govern preservation of oak trees within the City and to control their pruning and/or removal. Any oak tree slated for removal requires a permit and mitigation, where the total caliper diameter of replacement trees shall be equivalent to 25 percent of the total DBH of trees removed. Information presented in this Oak Tree Removal Report will be added to the long-term addendum sheet to the October 2020 Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan.

TABLE 1. TREE HEALTH RATING SYSTEM
Rating Condition
0 Deceased
1 Evidence of massive past failures, extreme disease and is in severe decline 2 May be saved with attention to pruning, insect/pest eradication and future monitoring 3 Some past failures, some pests or structural defects that may be mitigated with pruning Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo 2 Rating Condition
4 May have had minor past failures, excessive deadwood or minor structural defects that can be mitigated with pruning
5 Relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects 6 Healthy tree that probably can be left in its natural state 7, 8, 9 Have had proper arboricultural pruning and attention or have no apparent structural defects 10 Specimen tree with perfect shape, structure and foliage in a natural or protected setting Results
Tree #28
Tree #28 is a 38-inch DBH valley oak (Quercus lobata; Photos 1 and 2) with a height of 45 feet and canopy width of 75 feet. It is a single trunk tree with a tree health rating of 5. It is located to the east of Hanson Rd within the PG&E powerline corridor in the Phase 1 grading plans. It was not included in the original or revised Oak Tree Removal Permits. The grading plans encroach on the CRZ of the tree, and it is likely that continued grading around the tree will impact more than 50 percent of the CRZ (Figure 1). Approximately 45,000 cu yds of soil will be removed from around the tree, and it is the only remaining tree in the area. The removal of surrounding soil combined with possible increased rodent activity in the roots leads us to believe it will significantly decline due to grading impacts. We recommend removal and subsequent increased mitigation as outlined in the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (2020).

Photo 1. Tree #28 with current grading activity,
May 6, 2025.

Photo 2. Tree #28, May 6, 2025.

TABLE 2. TREE ASSESSMENT DATA
Tree Tag # Species Impact Health
Rating
Trunk
DBH (in.)
Tree
Height
(ft.)
Canopy
Spread
(Diameter)
(ft.)
Notes
28 Q. lobata Removal 5 38 45 75
Severe CRZ impact
from grading; large
amount of wildlife
burrows in root
zone
Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo 4 Impacts and Mitigation
The Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (2020) for the SPA provides guidelines for the mitigation of trees that will have unavoidable impacts on their root systems. Mitigation is required for trees impacted by grading and trees that require removal. Root systems of oak trees can extend well beyond the canopy dripline, and any disturbance inside this area can cause damage and impact tree health, thus mitigation is necessary.

The grading that is currently occurring around Tree #28 has caused the tree to be isolated on a steeply graded knoll created during borrow activities. Current grading has left the tree with degraded soil and insufficient hydrology. Burrowing wildlife that lived within the roots of the surrounding removed oaks are likely to flee to Tree #28 and further increase soil and root disturbance. The grading is steep on the west side of the tree and grading is planned to impact over 50 percent of the CRZ. Figure 1 outlines the areas to be graded and shows the amount of grading to occur in the CRZ of Tree #28. The invasive grading, as well as removal of most nearby oaks, leads us to predict a significant decline in the health of this tree. It is recommended that the tree be added to the Oak Tree Removal Permit Addendum and require additional mitigation to account for tree removal.

Tree #28 was considered during the initial tree assessment, and the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (A&M 20201
) identified the tree as heavily impacted (>50% of CRZ impact). It was included in the tree mitigation requirements at a 2:1 mitigation ratio. This mitigation has already been accounted for and will factor into the total mitigation requirements necessary for a removed tree.

Removal of this tree will require an Oak Tree Removal application to be reviewed and approved by the Paso Robles City Council, as required by the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (10.01.050). Mitigation for the removal of these three oaks will require replacement oaks equivalent to 25 percent of the diameter of the removed tree. A minimum of two, 24-inch box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees will be planted for each removed tree.

The removal of Tree #28 will result in the loss of 38 inches of total DBH. Twenty-five percent of 38 inches is 9.5 inches, which equates to 7, 1.5-inch caliper trees. Due to the 2:1 mitigation previously accounted for, the total additional trees required for mitigation of the removed tree are 5, 24-in box, one and one-half inch caliper measurement trees.

TABLE 3. MITIGATION FOR OAK TREE REMOVAL
Species Count Total DBH
(in)
25 percent
of DBH
Sum (in)
Mitigation Trees
2:1
mitigation
trees
Additional

1.5-inch
caliper trees
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 1 38 9.5 2 5
1 Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2020. Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Olsen-South Chandler Ranch. October 2020.

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo 5 The trees should be planted in the Turtle Creek restoration and mitigation area within the Olsen – South Chandler Ranch SPA. Replacement trees will be maintained and annually monitored for at least 7 years by a city-approved arborist. Trees will be monitored for a minimum of 80 percent survival by Year 7, per the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (2020).

Sincerely,
Sophie Kroesche
Certified Arborist #WE-15635A
Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo
ATTACHMENT 4. OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION
Exhibit B

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
“The Pass of the Oaks”

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
PERMIT NUMBER: DATE ISSUED:

NAME OF APPLICANT: PHONE NO:

STREET ADDRESS:

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF OAK TREE(S):

Pursuant to Section 10.01 (Oak Tree Preservation) of Title 10 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code, the property-owner is hereby requesting one of the following:

A. Removal of Oak Tree(s) where no Development Application is pending B. Removal of Oak Tree(s) clearly dead or diseased beyond correction C. Removal of Oak Tree(s) as part of a Development Application D. Emergency Removal of Oak Tree (s)
As recommended and identified in the Arborist Report prepared for this Request for Removal by (ISA Certified Arborist) dated
By:

Community Development Director or authorized representative Council Action: Date: Resolution No.:

Olsen 212, Althouse and Meade (805)237-9626
Hanson Rd, 35.6062575 °N, 120.6337048 °W
Olsen-South Chandler Ranch SPA.

Tree #28: 38-in Quercus lobata in Phase 3. See Figure 1 in Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for a map of the tree.

X 1
Sophie Kroesche WE-15635A 6-10-2025
Exhibit B

Exhibit B

1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760
Email: [email protected]
Date: August 25, 2025
To: Darren Nash – City of Paso Robles Planning and Development Department From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc.

Subject: Tree 28- Olson Specific Plan – Tree Health and Grading Encroachment Memo Mr. Nash,
The purpose of this memo is to provide a tree health and grading encroachment assessment of Tree 28, a native blue oak located within the Olson Specific Plan.

Methodology of Assessment
The following describes in general how measurements were taken and what assessment standards and definitions were used for the field assessment.

Tree Diameter Measurements
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) is measured at 4.5’ above ground.

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.

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

Levels of Tree Inspections
• Level 1: Limited Visual Assessment
o A quick, "walk-by" or "drive-by" assessment to identify immediate, obvious problems or defects.
o Purpose is to screen many trees efficiently and determine which ones require further, more detailed examination.
o Method involves visual observation and possibly aerial or foot patrols.

Exhibit C

2 • Level 2: Basic Assessment
o A thorough, ground-based visual examination of the tree's entire structure. o Purpose is to identify structural defects, pests, diseases, and other issues affecting the tree's stability and health.
o Method involves a 360-degree observation of the tree's roots, trunk, and crown, potentially using simple tools like a rubber mallet to assess wood soundness. A written report is often provided.
• Level 3: Advanced Assessment
o A comprehensive and specialized investigation of a particular tree or trees. o Purpose is to gather in-depth information about internal issues and complex structural problems that are not visible from the ground. o Method utilizes advanced techniques such as aerial inspections by climbing, resistance drilling to check wood decay, tomography, ground penetrating radar, or even soil and root analysis.

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.

Structural issues may be present. 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 may be 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.

Introduction
On August 18, 2025, I visited the site and inspected Tree 28 regarding its health. Further, I inspected the grading encroachments that had been performed to date and assessed the impact of the work on the tree’s critical root zone.

Exhibit C

3 Observations
Tree Health
Tree #28 is a blue oak (Quercus douglasii) that is native to the Paso Robles area. It has a diameter of 35 inches and an approximate height of 35 feet. Based on health and structure. I gave it a rating of FAIR. I performed a Level 2, basic inspection and observed the following. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photo 1.

Roots - Anchor roots extending form the root crown at the base of the trunk were intact and healthy, with no signs of decay. There were two areas of receding trunk flare at ground level.

These areas had significant carpenter ant activity which may indicate decay at the heart of the tree. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 4 & 5.

Trunk – I sounded the trunk with a rubber sounding mallet, from ground level to approximately 6 feet above ground. When struck with the mallet, the trunk did not resound hollow. That is not to say that the tree does not have any internal decay, but it is not as likely that advanced trunk decay is present because solid trunk wood does not have the resonance of a tree with a substantial void in its interior. If you would like to determine whether there is internal decay and to what extent, then I recommend you have a Level 3, advanced inspection performed that employs the use of a Resistograph wood resistance drill which produced a graph of the integrity of the wood in area sampled or a tomograph which produces a full cross-sectional picture of the trunk through the use of sonic waves.

Scaffold Branches – These are the main branches that create the structure of the trees canopy.

The connection to the trunk of the tree was sound with no visible structural issues. The lower sections of the scaffolds did not have any visible structural or decay issues.

Secondary & Tertiary Branches – These are the branches that divide off from the main scaffolds and create the remainder of the canopy structure. There were secondary branches that had decay areas in them. Approximately 25% of these branches had decay pockets that required pruning or removal of the branch to make the tree safer. Trimming and removal of these branches would not significantly reduce the canopy to a level where the tree’s vigor would be reduced. Tertiary branches did not show any significant decay issues .

Foliage and Young Shoot Growth – The foliage of the tree was of average size and vigor for this species of oak. Young shoot growth was below average and there was some signs of die back from drought stress during previous summers.

Root Encroachment Assessment
Grading had already been performed according to specifications of the original plan. The northwest, north and northeast sides of the tree is where the majority of grading occurred. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 2 & 3. I did not observe any exposed roots at the cut edges of grading. Face cuts were not present, in the critical root zone, rather, the grading was sloped away from the tree gradually until final grade levels were achieved. This technique is preferable to vertical, face cuts that go deeper and potentially expose more critical roots.

Exhibit C

4 When facing cuts are made in the soil around the tree, it creates an island effect and because more soil surface is exposed, the soil dries out quicker. Ultimately, this condition robs the tree of moisture that is critical to its survival.

Tree Protection

Tree protection fencing and signage was in place at the time of my inspection. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 1 & 3. It appeared that the fencing was placed at the edge of the canopy dripline rather than using the calculation of for giving a 1 foot radius of critical root zone (CRZ) protection for every inch of tree diameter as prescribed in the city’s oak tree preservation ordinance. This tree measures 35 inches in diameter, therefore the minimum CRZ radius of protection shall be 35 feet in all directions. Based on the diameter of the tree, the fencing needs to be set at 35 feet from the trunk of the tree.

I measured tree protection fencing in several directions and found the following tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing measurements.
• Northwest 30’
• Northeast 30’
• East 33’
• Southeast 40’
• South 33’
• West 30’
Discussion and Recommendations
I rated the condition of the tree as FAIR based on a Level 2, Basic inspection. Grounded in the observations I made during my inspection, the tree is worthy of retention and protection. The grading cuts that have already been performed are the closest I would recommend in order to protect the critical roots of the tree. Grading closer than what has already occurred will damage critical roots and jeopardize the tree’s health.

I recommend this tree be retained and protected with no additional grading to be performed. Further, I recommend re-setting the tree protection fencing to a minimum of 35’ from the tree’s trunk. If it is possible, for maximum protection, I recommend setting the tree protection fencing at 1.5’ for every inch of diameter of the tree, which equates to a 52.5 foot tree protection zone radius from the trunk of the tree.

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

5 Appendix A – Photographs
Photo 1 – View of southwest side of tree. Tree is in Fair condition based level 2 basic assessment.

Exhibit C

6 Photo 2 – View of grading on northwest side of tree.

Exhibit C

7 Photo 3 – View of north and northeast sides of tree showing grading that has been performed.

Exhibit C

8 Photo 4 – View of potential decay area on west side of tree.

Carpenter ant activity was observed.

Exhibit C

9 Photo 5 – View of potential decay area on east side of tree.

Carpenter ant activity was observed.

Exhibit C

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 25-XXX (B)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF OAK TREE NO. 28 IN PA-21 OF THE OLSEN SOUTH CHANDLER SPECIFIC PLAN CONTINGENT ON OLSEN 212 APPLYING FOR AND RECEIVING A SPECIFIC PLAN

AMENDMENT AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY CITY APPROVALS
TO ALLOW MASS GRADING IN PLANNING AREA 21
APN 009-795-023
WHEREAS, the City received an application for an oak tree removal (P25-0072/OTR25-11) submitted by Althouse and Meade, Inc. on behalf of Olsen 212 requesting to remove Tree No. 28, a 38-inch diameter Valley Oak tree (Quercus lobata); and
WHEREAS, Tree No. 28 is in Planning Area (PA) 21, which is the PG&E easement area within the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan (SP). See site plan, Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Certified Arborist, Sophie Kroesche of Althouse and Meade on behalf of Olsen 212, evaluated Tree No. 28 and provided an Arborist Report (See Exhibit B). The report concludes that the tree has a health rating of 5 (relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects).

However, because of proposed grading, recommends removal of the tree since the tree will not survive the proposed grading; and
WHEREAS, Certified arborist, Rodney Thurman of Heritage Tree, evaluated the tree on behalf of the City and provided an Arborist Report (See Exhibit C). The report concluded that the current health of the tree is Fair condition (may have had minor past failures. Some pests or structural defects may be present small deadwood. Minor to moderate drought stress may be present. Defects may be mitigated with pruning and pests can be controlled). Rodney Thurman indicates that additional grading will damage critical roots and jeopardize tree health; and
WHEREAS, Olsen 212 has submitted the application request to remove the 38-inch diameter Valley Oak to facilitate the removal of approximately 44,000 cubic yards of dirt from PA-21; and WHEREAS, PA-21 is within the PG&E easement and the proposed grading is not recognized in the current Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan as an area where grading can occur. The proposed grading would require an amending to the Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, Paso Robles Municipal Code 10.01.050.D.2 requires the consideration of “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”; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the tree be allowed to be removed after the applicant applies for and receives discretionary City Council approval for an Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan Amendment allowing for mass grading in PA-21, and any other necessary City approvals; and

Attachment 2
WHEREAS, as part of a future Specific Plan Amendment the proposed grading and oak removal will need to be evaluated for consistency with the Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2019011065) approved for the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council met to discuss the request for an oak tree removal on October 21, 2025, considered the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and accepted public testimony.

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 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 No.28, a 38-inch diameter valley oak, is being requested to accommodate grading within PA-21, the PG&E easement area, which would require an amendment to the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan any other necessary City approvals.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles does hereby approve the request to remove Tree No. 28, a 38-inch diameter valley oak tree as shown in Exhibit A and B, contingent on applicant first receiving discretionary approval of an Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan Amendment and any other necessary City approvals, that must be issued and processed first, independent of this action. The City has full discretionary authority with respect to any future action undertaken independent of this requested Oak Tree Removal.

Section 4. The City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles does hereby:

1. Approve the request to remove one (1) 34-inch diameter valley oak tree identified as Oak Tree #1 in Exhibit 1 and as shown in Exhibit 2;

2. The Oak Tree may not be removed until an Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan Amendment, and any other necessary City approvals, including a grading plan, have both been approved and processed by the City; and

3. Requires oak tree mitigation totaling 34 inches; and

4. Require the onsite replanting of at least ten (10) 15-gallon, 3/4-inch caliper native oak trees (of the total mitigation amount) at the direction of a certified arborist.

5. Require the provision of irrigation and protection for the replanted oak trees until they are established.

APPROVED this 21
st Day of October 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Attachment 2
ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Althouse & Meade Arborist Report
Exhibit C - Heritage Tree Arborist Report

SITE PLAN
NORTH
Exhibit A

1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180, Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626 www.althouseandmeade.com
1 June 11, 2025
Planning and Development Department, City of Paso Robles c/o Darren Nash, City Planner
City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles CA 93446
(805) 237-3970
Email: [email protected]
Re: Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo
Dear Darren:

On May 6, 2025 LynneDee Althouse and Certified Arborist Sophie Kroesche (WE-15635A) assessed Tree 28, a valley oak (Quercus lobata), and noted site conditions. Our arborist report is attached for reference.

We reviewed the proposed borrow grading required to complete Phases 2 and 3 of the Viñedo project and find that Tree 28 is already isolated on a knoll created during borrow activities (Photos 1 and 2 and Attachment 1). Removal of additional material outside the critical root zone (CRZ) would leave this tree on a tiny point of land with insufficient hydrology (surface water accumulation) and opportunity for normal soil processes to provide nutrients and moisture for the tree during the growing seasons (Attachment 2).

The reason extra material is needed because the project has been in a soil material deficit, an import condition of over 100,000 cubic yards (10,000 truck-loads) since grading for Phase 1 began. The material available around and under Tree 28 would help offset additional import of soil, minimize high green-house gas trips, and reduce truck traffic on City streets during construction.

Tree 28 was considered impacted during our initial tree assessment. Our Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (October 20201
) identified this tree as heavily impacted (over 50% of the critical root zone would be impacted) and was included in the tree mitigation requirements at a 2:1 mitigation ratio for heavily impacted trees.

We recognize the current health of the tree and acknowledge that its isolation and relative “suspension” above the surrounding landscape will put the tree at risk of failure within a relative short period of years. Attachment 2 illustrates the isolation effect of the tree’s root crown sitting 1 Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2020. Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Olsen-South Chandler Ranch. October 2020.

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo 2
15 to 17 feet above the surrounding landscape. Sections drawn through the remaining point of land were provided by Rick Engineering for reference.

Mitigation for Tree 28 has been accounted for at a 2:1 replacement ratio and will be updated to mitigate for the tree removal. Mitigation requirements for an oak tree removal requires replacement oaks equivalent to 25 percent of the diameter of the removed trees. The removal of Tree #28 with a DBH of 38 inches will require a total of 7, 24-in box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees. The addendum to the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan requires seven (7) 24-in box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees.

Due to the mitigation already accounted for from the two-to-one (2:1) ‘heavily impacted’ mitigation assumed from the original grading plans, the net additional mitigation trees will be five (5) 24-inch box oaks that are 1.5 inches trunk caliper.

Photo 1. Tree 28 in early grading condition. View
northeast, May 6, 2025.

Photo 2. Tree 28, view south, May 6, 2025.

Sincerely,
Sophie Kroesche LynneDee Althouse
Certified Arborist #WE-15635A Principal Scientist
Copy: Danny Brose, Danny Ray Edwards, Valerie Mattos
Attachments:

Attachment 1. Grading Plan Sheet 7 (Rick Engineering 4/21/25) Attachment 2A. Tree 28 Current Grading (Rick Engineering 5/27/25) Attachment . Tree 28 Proposed Grading (Rick Engineering 5/27/25) Attachment 3. Oak Tree Report for Tree 28 – Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Olsen-South Chandler Ranch
Attachment 4. Oak Tree Removal Permit Application
Exhibit B

Tree 28
Tree 28 would be isolated on a hill.

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo
ATTACHMENT 3. OAK TREE REPORT FOR TREE 28 – ADDENDUM TO OAK TREE PROTECTION AND

MITIGATION PLAN FOR OLSEN-SOUTH CHANDLER RANCH
Exhibit B

1650 Ramada Drive, Suite 180, Paso Robles, CA 93446
(805) 237-9626 www.althouseandmeade.com
Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo June 10, 2025
Rick Engineering
c/o Carlos Avila, Principal Project Manager
5620 Friars Road
San Diego CA 92110
(619) 908-3560
Email: [email protected]
Re: Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo
On May 6, 2025 Althouse and Meade principal LynneDee Althouse and arborist Sophie Kroesche evaluated one (1) valley oak (Quercus lobata; Tree #28), south of Linne Road, to the west of Hanson Road. Tree #28 is in the Olsen-South Chandler Ranch Specific Plan Area (SPA; Vinedo), City of Paso Robles, California. Location coordinates for Tree #28 are 35.6062575 °N, 120.6337048 °W (WGS 84; Figure 1).

The overall condition/health of the tree was visually inspected from the ground. The rating system defined in Table 1 provides of a scale from one to ten based on the structure and health of the tree.

Tree species, height, canopy width, and DBH (diameter breast height) was measured and recorded (Table 2). Any signs of pest disease or structural weakness was noted. For this report, the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is defined as the area using a radius of one foot per one-inch DBH.

The City of Paso Robles Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 10.01) provides policies, regulations, and specifications necessary to govern preservation of oak trees within the City and to control their pruning and/or removal. Any oak tree slated for removal requires a permit and mitigation, where the total caliper diameter of replacement trees shall be equivalent to 25 percent of the total DBH of trees removed. Information presented in this Oak Tree Removal Report will be added to the long-term addendum sheet to the October 2020 Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan.

TABLE 1. TREE HEALTH RATING SYSTEM
Rating Condition
0 Deceased
1 Evidence of massive past failures, extreme disease and is in severe decline 2 May be saved with attention to pruning, insect/pest eradication and future monitoring 3 Some past failures, some pests or structural defects that may be mitigated with pruning Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo 2 Rating Condition
4 May have had minor past failures, excessive deadwood or minor structural defects that can be mitigated with pruning
5 Relatively healthy tree with little visual structural and or pest defects 6 Healthy tree that probably can be left in its natural state 7, 8, 9 Have had proper arboricultural pruning and attention or have no apparent structural defects 10 Specimen tree with perfect shape, structure and foliage in a natural or protected setting Results
Tree #28
Tree #28 is a 38-inch DBH valley oak (Quercus lobata; Photos 1 and 2) with a height of 45 feet and canopy width of 75 feet. It is a single trunk tree with a tree health rating of 5. It is located to the east of Hanson Rd within the PG&E powerline corridor in the Phase 1 grading plans. It was not included in the original or revised Oak Tree Removal Permits. The grading plans encroach on the CRZ of the tree, and it is likely that continued grading around the tree will impact more than 50 percent of the CRZ (Figure 1). Approximately 45,000 cu yds of soil will be removed from around the tree, and it is the only remaining tree in the area. The removal of surrounding soil combined with possible increased rodent activity in the roots leads us to believe it will significantly decline due to grading impacts. We recommend removal and subsequent increased mitigation as outlined in the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (2020).

Photo 1. Tree #28 with current grading activity,
May 6, 2025.

Photo 2. Tree #28, May 6, 2025.

TABLE 2. TREE ASSESSMENT DATA
Tree Tag # Species Impact Health
Rating
Trunk
DBH (in.)
Tree
Height
(ft.)
Canopy
Spread
(Diameter)
(ft.)
Notes
28 Q. lobata Removal 5 38 45 75
Severe CRZ impact
from grading; large
amount of wildlife
burrows in root
zone
Exhibit B

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo 4 Impacts and Mitigation
The Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (2020) for the SPA provides guidelines for the mitigation of trees that will have unavoidable impacts on their root systems. Mitigation is required for trees impacted by grading and trees that require removal. Root systems of oak trees can extend well beyond the canopy dripline, and any disturbance inside this area can cause damage and impact tree health, thus mitigation is necessary.

The grading that is currently occurring around Tree #28 has caused the tree to be isolated on a steeply graded knoll created during borrow activities. Current grading has left the tree with degraded soil and insufficient hydrology. Burrowing wildlife that lived within the roots of the surrounding removed oaks are likely to flee to Tree #28 and further increase soil and root disturbance. The grading is steep on the west side of the tree and grading is planned to impact over 50 percent of the CRZ. Figure 1 outlines the areas to be graded and shows the amount of grading to occur in the CRZ of Tree #28. The invasive grading, as well as removal of most nearby oaks, leads us to predict a significant decline in the health of this tree. It is recommended that the tree be added to the Oak Tree Removal Permit Addendum and require additional mitigation to account for tree removal.

Tree #28 was considered during the initial tree assessment, and the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (A&M 20201
) identified the tree as heavily impacted (>50% of CRZ impact). It was included in the tree mitigation requirements at a 2:1 mitigation ratio. This mitigation has already been accounted for and will factor into the total mitigation requirements necessary for a removed tree.

Removal of this tree will require an Oak Tree Removal application to be reviewed and approved by the Paso Robles City Council, as required by the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance (10.01.050). Mitigation for the removal of these three oaks will require replacement oaks equivalent to 25 percent of the diameter of the removed tree. A minimum of two, 24-inch box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees will be planted for each removed tree.

The removal of Tree #28 will result in the loss of 38 inches of total DBH. Twenty-five percent of 38 inches is 9.5 inches, which equates to 7, 1.5-inch caliper trees. Due to the 2:1 mitigation previously accounted for, the total additional trees required for mitigation of the removed tree are 5, 24-in box, one and one-half inch caliper measurement trees.

TABLE 3. MITIGATION FOR OAK TREE REMOVAL
Species Count Total DBH
(in)
25 percent
of DBH
Sum (in)
Mitigation Trees
2:1
mitigation
trees
Additional

1.5-inch
caliper trees
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 1 38 9.5 2 5
1 Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2020. Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Olsen-South Chandler Ranch. October 2020.

Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Oak Tree Report for Tree #28; Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for Vinedo 5 The trees should be planted in the Turtle Creek restoration and mitigation area within the Olsen – South Chandler Ranch SPA. Replacement trees will be maintained and annually monitored for at least 7 years by a city-approved arborist. Trees will be monitored for a minimum of 80 percent survival by Year 7, per the Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan (2020).

Sincerely,
Sophie Kroesche
Certified Arborist #WE-15635A
Exhibit B

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Tree 28 Removal Request for Vinedo
ATTACHMENT 4. OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION
Exhibit B

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
“The Pass of the Oaks”

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

OAK TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
PERMIT NUMBER: DATE ISSUED:

NAME OF APPLICANT: PHONE NO:

STREET ADDRESS:

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF OAK TREE(S):

Pursuant to Section 10.01 (Oak Tree Preservation) of Title 10 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code, the property-owner is hereby requesting one of the following:

A. Removal of Oak Tree(s) where no Development Application is pending B. Removal of Oak Tree(s) clearly dead or diseased beyond correction C. Removal of Oak Tree(s) as part of a Development Application D. Emergency Removal of Oak Tree (s)
As recommended and identified in the Arborist Report prepared for this Request for Removal by (ISA Certified Arborist) dated
By:

Community Development Director or authorized representative Council Action: Date: Resolution No.:

Olsen 212, Althouse and Meade (805)237-9626
Hanson Rd, 35.6062575 °N, 120.6337048 °W
Olsen-South Chandler Ranch SPA.

Tree #28: 38-in Quercus lobata in Phase 3. See Figure 1 in Addendum to Oak Tree Protection and Mitigation Plan for a map of the tree.

X 1
Sophie Kroesche WE-15635A 6-10-2025
Exhibit B

Exhibit B

1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760
Email: [email protected]
Date: August 25, 2025
To: Darren Nash – City of Paso Robles Planning and Development Department From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc.

Subject: Tree 28- Olson Specific Plan – Tree Health and Grading Encroachment Memo Mr. Nash,
The purpose of this memo is to provide a tree health and grading encroachment assessment of Tree 28, a native blue oak located within the Olson Specific Plan.

Methodology of Assessment
The following describes in general how measurements were taken and what assessment standards and definitions were used for the field assessment.

Tree Diameter Measurements
Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) is measured at 4.5’ above ground.

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.

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

Levels of Tree Inspections
• Level 1: Limited Visual Assessment
o A quick, "walk-by" or "drive-by" assessment to identify immediate, obvious problems or defects.
o Purpose is to screen many trees efficiently and determine which ones require further, more detailed examination.
o Method involves visual observation and possibly aerial or foot patrols.

Exhibit C

2 • Level 2: Basic Assessment
o A thorough, ground-based visual examination of the tree's entire structure. o Purpose is to identify structural defects, pests, diseases, and other issues affecting the tree's stability and health.
o Method involves a 360-degree observation of the tree's roots, trunk, and crown, potentially using simple tools like a rubber mallet to assess wood soundness. A written report is often provided.
• Level 3: Advanced Assessment
o A comprehensive and specialized investigation of a particular tree or trees. o Purpose is to gather in-depth information about internal issues and complex structural problems that are not visible from the ground. o Method utilizes advanced techniques such as aerial inspections by climbing, resistance drilling to check wood decay, tomography, ground penetrating radar, or even soil and root analysis.

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.

Structural issues may be present. 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 may be 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.

Introduction
On August 18, 2025, I visited the site and inspected Tree 28 regarding its health. Further, I inspected the grading encroachments that had been performed to date and assessed the impact of the work on the tree’s critical root zone.

Exhibit C

3 Observations
Tree Health
Tree #28 is a blue oak (Quercus douglasii) that is native to the Paso Robles area. It has a diameter of 35 inches and an approximate height of 35 feet. Based on health and structure. I gave it a rating of FAIR. I performed a Level 2, basic inspection and observed the following. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photo 1.

Roots - Anchor roots extending form the root crown at the base of the trunk were intact and healthy, with no signs of decay. There were two areas of receding trunk flare at ground level.

These areas had significant carpenter ant activity which may indicate decay at the heart of the tree. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 4 & 5.

Trunk – I sounded the trunk with a rubber sounding mallet, from ground level to approximately 6 feet above ground. When struck with the mallet, the trunk did not resound hollow. That is not to say that the tree does not have any internal decay, but it is not as likely that advanced trunk decay is present because solid trunk wood does not have the resonance of a tree with a substantial void in its interior. If you would like to determine whether there is internal decay and to what extent, then I recommend you have a Level 3, advanced inspection performed that employs the use of a Resistograph wood resistance drill which produced a graph of the integrity of the wood in area sampled or a tomograph which produces a full cross-sectional picture of the trunk through the use of sonic waves.

Scaffold Branches – These are the main branches that create the structure of the trees canopy.

The connection to the trunk of the tree was sound with no visible structural issues. The lower sections of the scaffolds did not have any visible structural or decay issues.

Secondary & Tertiary Branches – These are the branches that divide off from the main scaffolds and create the remainder of the canopy structure. There were secondary branches that had decay areas in them. Approximately 25% of these branches had decay pockets that required pruning or removal of the branch to make the tree safer. Trimming and removal of these branches would not significantly reduce the canopy to a level where the tree’s vigor would be reduced. Tertiary branches did not show any significant decay issues .

Foliage and Young Shoot Growth – The foliage of the tree was of average size and vigor for this species of oak. Young shoot growth was below average and there was some signs of die back from drought stress during previous summers.

Root Encroachment Assessment
Grading had already been performed according to specifications of the original plan. The northwest, north and northeast sides of the tree is where the majority of grading occurred. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 2 & 3. I did not observe any exposed roots at the cut edges of grading. Face cuts were not present, in the critical root zone, rather, the grading was sloped away from the tree gradually until final grade levels were achieved. This technique is preferable to vertical, face cuts that go deeper and potentially expose more critical roots.

Exhibit C

4 When facing cuts are made in the soil around the tree, it creates an island effect and because more soil surface is exposed, the soil dries out quicker. Ultimately, this condition robs the tree of moisture that is critical to its survival.

Tree Protection

Tree protection fencing and signage was in place at the time of my inspection. See Appendix A - Photographs – Photos 1 & 3. It appeared that the fencing was placed at the edge of the canopy dripline rather than using the calculation of for giving a 1 foot radius of critical root zone (CRZ) protection for every inch of tree diameter as prescribed in the city’s oak tree preservation ordinance. This tree measures 35 inches in diameter, therefore the minimum CRZ radius of protection shall be 35 feet in all directions. Based on the diameter of the tree, the fencing needs to be set at 35 feet from the trunk of the tree.

I measured tree protection fencing in several directions and found the following tree protection zone (TPZ) fencing measurements.
• Northwest 30’
• Northeast 30’
• East 33’
• Southeast 40’
• South 33’
• West 30’
Discussion and Recommendations
I rated the condition of the tree as FAIR based on a Level 2, Basic inspection. Grounded in the observations I made during my inspection, the tree is worthy of retention and protection. The grading cuts that have already been performed are the closest I would recommend in order to protect the critical roots of the tree. Grading closer than what has already occurred will damage critical roots and jeopardize the tree’s health.

I recommend this tree be retained and protected with no additional grading to be performed. Further, I recommend re-setting the tree protection fencing to a minimum of 35’ from the tree’s trunk. If it is possible, for maximum protection, I recommend setting the tree protection fencing at 1.5’ for every inch of diameter of the tree, which equates to a 52.5 foot tree protection zone radius from the trunk of the tree.

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

5 Appendix A – Photographs
Photo 1 – View of southwest side of tree. Tree is in Fair condition based level 2 basic assessment.

Exhibit C

6 Photo 2 – View of grading on northwest side of tree.

Exhibit C

7 Photo 3 – View of north and northeast sides of tree showing grading that has been performed.

Exhibit C

8 Photo 4 – View of potential decay area on west side of tree.

Carpenter ant activity was observed.

Exhibit C

9 Photo 5 – View of potential decay area on east side of tree.

Carpenter ant activity was observed.

Exhibit C

Council Agenda Report
From: Warren Frace, Community Development Director
Subject: Approval of Amendment No. 2 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: October 21, 2025
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. In 2024, the Master Developer, Olsen 212 submitted a request to amend Operating Memo 1 to allow additional time to complete off-site public improvements.

8. On August 6, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to approve the first Amendment to Operating Memo No. 1. The amended Operating Memo included dual timing triggers of housing units finaled and specific dates.

9. The construction of the on-site project amenities and recreational facilities have been completed, although Turtle Creek Park has not been accepted by the City.

10. The project is in compliance with the finaled housing unit triggers; however, the off-site signal projects were not completed by the specified completion dates.

11. A number of issues have arisen to delay the timing of the signal improvements, including supply chain delays, required changes to plans, key staff changes for both the Master Developer and the City and challenges retaining qualified contractors to perform this highly specialized work.

12. Today, permits and construction contracts are all in place and the contractor has provided new construction timelines that are incorporated into the Amendment No. 2 to Operating Memorandum No. 1.

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;

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 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 new timelines for the completion of the off-site signal light improvement timing based on actual construction timelines. The current timelines were not met due to contract bidding challenges, construction supply chain delays, required changes to plans, key staff changes for both the Master Developer and the City.

The following table shows the status of all the facilities addressed by Operating Memo No. 1.

Olsen Backbone Improvement Timing and Status
Operating Memo 1
Traffic Mitigation Improvements
Traffic
Improvement
Summary
Description
Timing Status
13th Street / Riverside
Avenue signal
modifications
Implement signal timing
optimization
The earlier to occur of: (i) prior to
issuance of the 350th certificate of
occupancy, or (ii) 18 months following
issuance of the 1st building permit
Permits issued construction
started.
13th Street / Paso Robles
Street signal modifications
Implement signal timing
optimization same
Permits issued construction
started.

Niblick Road /South River
Road turn lanes
Construct Right turn
pocket and extend left
turn pocket (WB leg);
implement
Signal timing
optimization
same Permits issued construction
started.

Creston Road / Scott
Street new signal light
Install all-way traffic
signal same
Permits issued construction
started.

Amenity and Recreation Improvements
Amenity and
Recreation
Improvement
Summary
Description
Timing Status
Royal Oaks Park Park upgrades, as
Approved by the City’s
Parks and Recreation
Committee
The earlier to occur of: (i) issuance of
the 250th certificate of occupancy in
the Specific Plan, or (ii) 12 months
following issuance of the 1st building
permit
Completed – accepted by City
PA-6 Farmstand Amenity per Specific
Plan
same Completed – HOA facility
PA-7 Pool house Amenity per Specific
Plan same
Completed – HOA facility
Turtle Creek Park (PA-14
East)
Mitigation per Specific
Plan same
Pickleball, restrooms, mitigation
planting complete – not accepted
Turtle Creek Park (PA 14
West)
Park upgrades and
mitigation per Specific
Plan
same
Mitigation planting complete – not
accepted
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 as 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 offsite 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.

Approved Amendment No 1. to Operating Memo No. 1 (August 6, 2024) The City approved the following Amendment No 1 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-months (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.

Proposed Amendment No 2. to Operating Memo No. 1 (October 21, 2025) The applicant is proposing the following Amendment No 2 to Operating Memo No. 1:
 Change the transportation facility completion deadline from 18-months to the following specific dates:

Traffic Mitigation Improvements
Traffic
Improvement
Summary
Description
Current Timing Proposed Timing
13th Street / Riverside
Avenue signal
modifications
Implement signal timing
optimization
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the 350th
certificate of occupancy, or (ii)
18 months following issuance
of the 1st building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i) prior to
issuance of the 350th certificate
of occupancy, or (ii) December
1, 2025.
13th Street / Paso Robles
Street signal
modifications
Implement signal timing
optimization same
The earlier to occur of: (i) prior to
issuance of the 350th certificate
of occupancy, or (ii) December
1, 2025
Niblick Road /South River
Road turn lanes
Construct Right turn pocket and
extend left turn pocket (WB leg);
implement Signal timing
optimization
same The earlier to occur of: (i) prior to
issuance of the 350th certificate
of occupancy, or (ii) August 1,
2026
Creston Road / Scott
Street new signal light
Install all-way traffic signal
same
The earlier to occur of: (i) prior to
issuance of the 350th certificate
of occupancy, or (ii) March 1,
2026

The new timing deadlines would continue to be consistent with the Central Coast Transportation Consulting (CCTC), Traffic Analysis Memo and determined that 350 Olsen – South Chandler Specific Plan units could be occupied prior to the completion of off-site traffic improvement without creating a significant impact.

Conclusion
The Amendment No. 2 request includes actual construction timelines provided by the contractor and is consistent with additional traffic analysis prepared for Operating Memo #1. Based on the performance of Olsen 212’s completion of the on-site backbone improvements and recreational facilities, it appears reasonable to approve the additional time to complete the off-site signal projects.

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)
Approve Resolution 25-XXX authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to Olsen–South Chandler Specific Plan Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1 in substantially final form.

Attachments

1. Olsen 212 Justification Letter

2. Council Approved Operating Memo 1 – Amendment 1
a. Exhibit A – 13th Street Signals Construction Timeline

3. Resolution 25-XXX – Olsen-South Chandler Ranch Development Agreement Amendment 2 to Operating Memo 1
a. Exhibit A – Amendment 2 to Operating Memo 1
b. Exhibit B – Central Coast Transportation Consulting Vinedo Intersection Mitigation Recommendations

Attachment 1 - Amendment Request Justification
Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

Attachment 2

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.
2, 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: ------
Chris Huot, City Manager
ATTEST:

Melissa Boyer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Elizabeth Hull, City Attorney Matt Summers, Special Counsel (signatures continued on following page)
4 366916.4
Attachment 2

Attachment 2

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors
0 Beechwood Phase 1 Offsite
Improvements
12 days Mon 10/13/25 Tue 10/28/25
1 Signal Work 10 days Mon 10/13/25 Fri 10/24/25
2 Riverside Ave 2 days Mon 10/13/25 Tue 10/14/25
3 Paso Robles St 4 days Wed 10/15/25 Mon 10/20/25 2
4 River Road 4 days Tue 10/21/25 Fri 10/24/25 3
5 Striping & Signs 7 days Mon 10/20/25 Tue 10/28/25
6 13th Street Striping 9 Bike Lane 1 day Mon 10/20/25 Mon 10/20/25 7 13th Street Lanes 1 day Tue 10/21/25 Tue 10/21/25 6
8 Paso Robles St 1 day Wed 10/22/25 Wed 10/22/25 7
9 North River Road 1 day Thu 10/23/25 Thu 10/23/25 8
10 13th St at River Road 0.5 days Fri 10/24/25 Fri 10/24/25 9 11 South River Road 0.5 days Fri 10/24/25 Fri 10/24/25 10 12 Signs 2 days Mon 10/27/25 Tue 10/28/25 11
Beechwood Phase 1 Offsite Improvements
Signal Work
Riverside Ave
Paso Robles St
River Road
Striping & Signs
13th Street Striping 9 Bike Lane
13th Street Lanes
Paso Robles St
North River Road
13th St at River Road
South River Road
Signs

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T
Oct 12, '25 Oct 19, '25 Oct 26, '25 Nov 2, '25

Preliminary, Tentative Schedule
Whitaker Construction Group, Inc.

Tue 10/7/25
Exhibit A

Attachment 3
RESOLUTION 25-XXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE OLSEN–SOUTH CHANDLER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2 TO THE OLSEN 212 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OPERATING MEMO NO. 1

MODIFYING TIMING OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS
AMENDMENT 2 TO OPERATING MEMO 1

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
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 relevant Operating Memos 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, in 2024, the Master Developer, Olsen 212 submitted a request to amend Operating Memo 1 to allow additional time to complete off-site public improvements; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024 the City Council authorized the City Manager to approve the 1st Amendment to Operating Memo No. 1; and
WHEREAS, the amended Operating Memo included dual timing triggers of housing units finaled and specific dates; and
WHEREAS, the construction of the on-site project amenities and recreational facilities have been

Attachment 3
completed, although Turtle Creek Park has not been accepted by the City; and WHEREAS, the project is in compliance with the finaled housing unit triggers, however the off-site signal projects were not completed by the specified completion dates; and WHEREAS, a number of issues have arisen to delay the timing of the signal improvements, including supply chain delays, required changes to plans, key staff changes for both the Master Developer and the City and challenges retaining qualified contractors to perform this highly specialized work; and WHEREAS, today, permits and construction contracts are all in place and the contractor has provided new construction timelines that are incorporated into the Amendment No. 2 to Operating Memorandum No. 1; and
WHEREAS, 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.

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 authorizes the City Manager to execute Amendment 2 to Olsen– South Chandler Specific Plan Olsen 212 Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1, as shown in Exhibit A, in substantially final form.

APPROVED this 21st day of October 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk

Attachment 3
Exhibit A – Amendment 2 to Operating Memo 1
Exhibit B – Central Coast Transportation Consulting Vinedo Intersection Mitigation Recommendations

Exhibit A
AMENDMENT NO. 2 OF OPERATING MEMO NO. 1

FURTHER AMENDED AND RESTATED 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.

On February 21, 2023, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the 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.

On August 6, 2024 the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Amended and Restated Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1 to allow additional time to complete off-site public improvements.

On _____________the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute this Further Amended and Restated Development Agreement Operating Memo No. 1 to allow additional time to complete Off-site traffic improvements.

With this Further Amended and Restated Development Agreement Operating Memorandum No. 1 (hereinafter “Operating Memorandum”), 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,

Exhibit A
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. Except as expressly modified herein, the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement remain in full force and effect.

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 1st
building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the
350th certificate of
occupancy, or (ii)
December 1, 2025.
13th Street/Paso
Robles Street
Implement signal
timing optimization
Prior to the issuance of 1st
building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the
350th certificate of
occupancy, or (ii) December
1, 2025.

Exhibit A
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 1St
building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the
350th certificate of
occupancy, or (ii) August 1,
2026.

Creston
Road/Scott Street
Install all-way traffic
signal
Prior to the issuance of
100th building permit
The earlier to occur of: (i)
prior to issuance of the
350th certificate of
occupancy, or (ii) March 1,
2026.

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 do not include model homes unless and until such model homes are proposed for sale and residential occupancy. 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:

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 the 1st building
PA-6 Farmstand Amenity per Specific permit.

Plan
Prior to Pt Certificate
of Occupancy
PA-7 Pool house 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

Exhibit A
3 Performance Bond Requirement. 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 in the Development Agreement, as clarified and modified 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 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.

5. 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:

Exhibit A
Date: __________________ __________________________________ Chris Huot, City Manager
ATTEST:
________________________________
Melissa Martin, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _______________________________ Elizabeth Hull, City Attorney Matt Summers, Special Counsel FOR DEVELOPER:
(signatures continued on following page)

Exhibit A
FOR DEVELOPER:

OLSEN RANCH 212, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By:________________________________
Danny Brose, Its Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

STOWELL, ZEILENGA, RUTH

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

(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

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