Agenda packet — Paso Robles City Council, January 14, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Acceptance of proposal
To accept this proposal, please sign below and return one copy to our office. Please provide billing information and any additional contractual requirements for your accounts payable.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.

Proposal offered by:

Valerie Mattos
Associate Principal
Ar �OOe, Inc.
---------
Jason Dart
COO, Vice President
Althouse and Meade, Inc.

Proposal accepted by:

Client:

Agent*:

Date:

Billing Party:

Billing Address:

Billing Email:

Billing Phone:
*The Agent's signature is required if a client agency relationship exists.

Proposal 2891-2 5
Attachment 3

Page 263 of 392 ends

ATTACHMENT
ALTHOUSE & MEADE, INC.

SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES
The following describes the basis for compensation for services performed during the fiscal year 2025.

This Schedule of Fees and Charges may be adjusted
annually on January l to reflect current economic
conditions. The new Schedule of Fees and Charges
will apply to existing and new assignments.

PERSONNEL CHARGES
The charge for all time required in Lht: pt:rformance of the Scope of Setvices, including office, field, and
travel time, will be at the Unit Price Hourly Rates set forth below for the labor classifications indicated:

Labor Category Rate
Princioal Scientist $290
Associate Principal / Senior Certified Arborist $245
Senior Research Scientist $210
CFO I Vice President $200
Program Manager $185
Senior Biologist / QSD / Certified Arborist $175
Tech. Innovation Unit Program Manager $170
Project Manager $165
Biologist IV/ Env. Sci. IV/ Range Eco. IV/ QSP $150
Biologist III/ Env. Sci. III/ Range Eco. III $135
Biologist II/ Env. Sci. II/ Range Eco. II $125
Biologist I/ Env. Sci. I/ Range Eco. I $105
Senior GIS Specialist $165
GIS Specialist IV $150
GIS Specialist III $140
GIS Specialist II $130
GIS Specialist I $120
Associate Arborist $125
UA V Pilot - Flight Time $215
UA V Program Manager $175
Project Coord./Tech. Editor/Senior Admin. $100
Admin. Assistant / Office Admin. $95
Technician $85
Intern $75
Project accounting, reporting, and invoicing services
will be charged at the rate of 2% per invoice.

EQUIPMENT CHARGES
Equipment will be charged at standard usage rates.

Equipment use rate schedules are available upon
request.
0THRR CHARGRS
SUBCONTRACTORS, EQUIPMENT RENTAL, Misc.

Setvice subcontracted by A&M to others, rental
equipment, and other costs incurred by A&M will be
charged at cost plus 10 percent.

VEIDCLES AND MILEAGE
Field vehicles (pickups, vans, trucks, etc.) used on
project assignments will charge the current mileage
rate established by the Internal Revenue Setvice at the time of vehicle use for travel to/from the project
site(s). Daily vehicle rental fee will be in accordance with the equipment schedule.

PER DIEM AND LODGING
Per Diem and Lodging will be billed at the standard
rate based on federal, state, and county guidelines.

Lodging allowance will be 150 percent of the federal
daily rate for the location of each stay.

CREDIT CARD PROCESSING
A five percent processing fee will be assessed for
each credit card transaction.

This fee schedule contains confidential business information and is not to be copied or distributed for any purpose other than the use intended in this contract or proposal.

Attachment 3

Page 264 of 392 ends

�consor
November 17, 2025
Travis Koch
RICK Engineering Company
1160 Marsh Street Suite 150
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: North River Road Bike Path - Amendment 2
2868 Prospect Park Drive Suite 250
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
916.368.9181
The City of Paso Robles (City) is proposing the North River Road Bike Path, a pedestrian and bicycle pathway located primarily between North River Road and the Salinas River within the City of Paso Robles. The proposed path will begin at the intersection of Union Road and North River Road, extend north to the intersection of River Oaks Drive, follow River Oaks Drive, and terminate near the intersection of Experimental Station Road and River Oaks Drive.

RICK Engineering (RICK) and Conser North America Inc. (Censor) are partnering to advance the project through completion of the 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E).

Under previous contracts, RICK advanced the project through feasibility studies and approximately 30% design.

Portions of the proposed pathway (1,500 feet) must be elevated above existing ground due to hydraulic and environmental constraints. After evaluation. the City determined that a boardwalk-type structure is the preferred approach. In coordination with RICK, Conser evaluated nine viable structural alternatives. While the City has not yet selected a final alternative, the goal is to complete 100% PS&E by the end of 2026.

This Scope and Fee proposal covers all work necessary to complete the project through 100% PS&E. Because the structure type has not yet been selected, construction support services are not included in this proposal and will be addressed under a future contract amendment.

Conser is proposing to complete this work for a not to exceed fee of $227,600. Work will be broken out into two Tasks, with a not to exceed fee of $149,800 and $77,800 for Task 1: Preliminary Engineering and Task 2: Final Design, respectively.

As always, we view negotiations as a partnering opportunity to ensure that you are getting the services you need to complete your project. We want to provide the services and products to deliver the exact results that RICK and the City desires - nothing more and nothing less. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these tasks further. And thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal!
Sincerely,
Conser Engineers, Inc
Juan C Cruz, PE
Project Manager
www.consoreng.com
Attachment 3

Page 265 of 392 ends

Scope of Work
Task 1. Preliminary Engineering
Task 1.1. Preliminary Engineering Project Management
Task 1. 1. 1. PmjPrt M,m;igPmPnt
Cui I�uI will IrIanage the i11ternal design team, monitor schedule and budget, und pre pure monthly progre!;!; report5 and invoices. Consor assumes a 12 month project duration with construction completing in 2027. This scope assumes no funding coordination.

Task 1.1.2. Project Meetings
Consor PM and PE will meet with the RICK Project Manager, City of Paso Robles (City) and other stakeholders as necessary, to manage and deliver the project. This will include one (1) on-site meeting with the project team, and five (5) one-hour teleconference meetings scheduled at RICK's discretion to keep the project delivery team informed of the status of the project and to gain timely decisions. Consor will not be responsible for developing or disseminating any meeting agendas or summaries.

Task 1,1 Deliverables
• One (1) on :.itc meeting
• Five (5) meeting notes and meeting agendas
Task 1.1 Assumption
• Printable project schedule will be developed and maintained by RICK • No funding coordination
Task 1.2. 30% Design - Type Selection/Preliminary Engineering Task 1.2.1. Structure Type Selection
Utilizing work performed in the previous phase Consor will assist RICK and the City in evaluating and recommending a structure type. This scope assumes no additional structure alternatives will be evaluated and the costs will not need updating during this task. A short onepJgc memo will recommend and justify a structure type to the City for consideration. A total of 16 hours is h1uigPtPrl for this task.

Task 1.2.2. Preliminary Engineering
After receiving concurrence from the City on the recommended structure type, Consor will review the latest civil design updates along with the hydraulic and geotechnical recommendations to finalize member sizes, span lengths, and hinge locations.

The total elevated pathway will be approximately 1,500 feet in length and consist of three separate structures, approximately 300 feet, 800 feet, and 450 feet long.

Consor will prepare an Advanced Planning Study (APS) package and Design Criteria document for RICK/City concurrence on the selected alternative. The APS package will include:

Structure plan view, typical section, and elevation view for each structure (to an approximate 30% design level, totaling four sheets)
• Structure span length and width
• Preliminary foundation concepts
• Hinge locations
The Design Criteria will outline key parameters such as loading capacities, seismic design requirements, structure width, and barrier types.

Consor will submit one (1) draft Design Criteria document for RICK/City review and comments, followed by one (1) final version.

Similarly, Consor will submit one (1) draft APS package for comment before finalizing it. The final APS and Design Criteria will serve as the basis for the 65% design phase.

North River Road Bike Trail ! RICK Engineering I 1
Attachment 3

Page 266 of 392 ends

Task 1.2 Deliverables
• Recommendation on preferred structure type memo (pdf format) • One (1) Draft and one (1) Final Design Criteria Memo (pdf format) • One (1) Draft and one (1) Final Advanced Planning Study package (llx17 sheet, pdf format) Task 1.2 Assumption
• Civil CAD work, hydraulic and geotechnical recommendations to be provided by RICK • No major changes to horizontal or vertical alignment (including stationing) will occur after 30% design • Design criteria will not include Caltrans SOC, as it is not applicable for pedestrian facilities outside of Caltrans ROW.

Task 1.3. Geotechnical. Hydraulic. and Environmental Support Task 1.3.1. Geotechnical Support
Consor will coordinate with RICK and their geotechnical consultant to determine appropriate substructure type. This will include one draft foundation data table developed during 65% design and one final foundation data table during final design. Consor will review one (1) draft and one (1) final foundation report.

It is assumed the foundation report will follow the Caltrans Geotech Manual and provide final recommendations and geotechnical considerations for the design of the elevated path structure including the following:
• Site geology;
• Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered; • Grain size of stream bed deposits, depth to bedrock, and resistance of the bedrock as input to scour analyses; • Percentage, frequency, and hardness of cobbles and boulders encountered; • Foundation support for cast-in-drilled hole piles;
• Recommended pile type (CIDH or other);
• Liquefaction potential and the need to consider down-drag forces, seismic settlement, loads due to lateral spreading, or friction reducers in the pile design;
• Deep foundation analyses, minimum pile embedment and diameter, pile spacing and group effects, specified pile tip elevation, and estimated settlement;
• Anticipated CIDH pile drilling conditions;
• Soil corrosion potential
• Log ofTest Borings
• Recommended specifications
Task 1.3.1 Deliverables
• One (1) draft and one (1) final foundation data tables • Review of one (1) draft and one (1) final foundation report Task 1.3.2 Hydraulic Support
Consor will coordinate with RICK's hydraulic team and review their hydrologic and hydraulic report which will include scour, hydraulic information for the design, base and overtopping floods (discharges and water surface elevations) for the proposed condition. Consor will work with the hydraulic team to provide required information including column sizes and soffit elevations. Consor will also review one (1) draft and one (1) final hydraulic report.

Task 1.3.2 Deliverables
• Review one (1) draft and one (1) final hydraulic report Task 1.3.3 Environmental and Permit Support
Consor will assist RICK and their environmental consultant in the development of the base project description for CEQA and NEPA clearance. Consor will also supply RICK and their environmental consultant with estimating impacts areas to the Salinas River caused by the structure. A total of 20 hours is budgeted for this task.

Task 1.3.3 Deliverables
• Review of project description
• Structure impact area quantities for permit applications.

North River Road Bike Trail I RICK Engineering I 2
Attachment 3

Page 267 of 392 ends

Task 1.3.3 Assumptions
• RICK will perform cut and fill quantities for permit applications Task 1.4. 65% Design
Consor will submit 65% structure plans, and engineer's estim;itP to Rir.k/the City for review.

Structure plans sheets are anticipated to inclurle·
• General Plan No 1-3 • Pier Details No 1-2
• General Notes
• Foundation Plan No 1-3
• Abut1ne1"1t Layout No 1-3
• Auul111e11L Deldib Nu 1-2
• Pier Layout No 1-2
•
•
•
•
Typical Section
Longitudinal Section No 1-4
Miscellaneous details No 1-4
Log of Test [)orings
Structure plans are anticipated to include a total of 26 sheets.

The engineer's estimate will be updated from the preliminary costs based on updated quantities and unit costs compiled from recent bid data.

The structure design will be in accordance with the latest versions of California Building Code, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Specifications with Caltrans amendments and applicable sections of the Caltrans Structure Technical Policies (STP's}, Bridge Design Memos (BDM's}, Bridge Memos to Designers and Bridge Design Aids manuals (not superseded by the STP's or BDM's). The design will meet City, Caltrans, FHWA, and AASHTO standards in cffr.r.t ,1t the time the design occL1rs.

Seismic design will be performed in accordance with the applicable edition of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7. Detailing of plans will be in accordance with Caltrans Design Details Manual. Both the design and detailing will be based on the use of the current Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications.

Task 1.4 Deliverables
• 65% Draft Plans (pdf format)
• Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs (MS Excel format) Task 1.4 Assumptions
• Lateral spread will not be a design consideration.
• No major changes to horizontal or vertical alignment (including stationing) will occur after 30% design • RICK will develop and share CAD linework and horizontal and vertical alignment with Consor utilizing AutoCAD Civil 3D.

Task 2. Final Design
Task 2.1. Final Uesign Project Management
Task 2.1.1. Project Management
Consor will manage the internal design team, monitor schedule and budget, and prepare monthly progress reports and invoices. Consor assumes a 12 month project duration with construction completing in 2027. This scope assumes no funding coordination.

Task 2.1.2. Project Meetings
Consor PM and PE will meet with the RICK Project Manager, City of Paso Robles (City) and other stakeholders as necessary, to manage and deliver the project. This will include five (5) one-hour teleconference meetings scheduled at RICK's discretion to keep the project delivery team informed of the status of the project and to gain timely decisions. Consor will not be responsible for developing or disseminating any meeting agendas or summaries.

Task 2.1 Deliverables
• Five (5) meeting notes and meeting agendas
Task 2.1 Assumption
• Printable project schedule will be developed and maintained by RICK • No funding coordination
North River Road Bike Trail I RICK Engineering I 3
Attachment 3

Page 268 of 392 ends

Task 2.2. Final Design
Task 2.2.1 Independent Structure Check
An independent design check will be completed prior to the 95% Design Submittal in accordance with Caltrans design procedures. The plans will be reviewed for consistency with City design standards, Caltrans Memos to Designers, and AASHTO requirements. The check will be performed by a licensed Civil Engineer independent of the project team. The reviewer will prepare, sign, and stamp a separate set of design calculations, which will be submitted to the City upon completion.

Task 2.2.1 Deliverables:
• Independent Check Calculations (pdf format)
Task 2.2.2 Specifications
Consor will prepare the structural technical specifications (Sections 10-99) using the latest Caltrans Standard Special Provisions (SSPs).

The basis for these specifications will be the Caltrans Standard Specifications.

The City/RICK will prepare the "boilerplate" documents (Sections 1-9), including the Notice to Bidders, Proposal, Bond Forms, and Agreement. Environmental mitigation measures and permitting requirements will also be incorporated into the specifications.

If Consor determines that any special provisions are required within Sections 1-9, the City will merge these with their boilerplate documents and resolve any conflicts between them.

Task 2.2.3 Engineers Estimate
Two independent sets of structure quantity calculations will be prepared by individuals experienced in this work. The quantity calculations will be organized and detailed for use by field inspectors during construction to prepare progress pay estimates.

Standard Caltrans summary sheets will be used for structure and roadway quantity calculations.

Structure quantity estimators will agree within tolerances prescribed in Chapter 11 of the Bridge Design Aids Manual. Any deviations will be resolved, and the Marginal Estimate will be prepared.

Task 2.2.4 Quality Control Reviews
Consor shall perform an independent QC review prior to transmittal to the City. Review of the 95% PS&E will be performed by a senior level engineer for uniformity, compatibility, and constructability as well as conformance with environmental requirements.

Task 2.2.5 95% PS&E Submittal:

A submittal of the 95% plans will be made to RICK/the City based on comments received on the 65% submittal, Independent Check and QA/QC review. Consor will create a log showing how all of the City's comments were addressed as part of the 95% PS&E package submittal. The 95% submittal will include the plans, specifications, and estimate. A preliminary construction schedule will be submitted, utilizing MS Excel.

Task 2.2.5 Deliverables:
• 95% Draft Structure Plans (llx17 pdf format)
• 95% Technical Special Provisions (MS Word format)
• 95% Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs (MS Excel format) • 65% Submittal Comment Log
• Preliminary Construction Schedule (pdf format)
Task 2.2.6 100% PS&E Submittal:

Upon receipt of comments from the 95% PS&E from RICK and the City, and other jurisdictional agencies, which will be routed through RICK, final revisions will be made. Consor will incorporate appropriate comments in the plans, specifications, and estimate and log all comments and identify how each comment was addressed. The engineer's estimate will be updated based on final quantities and unit costs updated based on the most recent bid data. Submitted 100% PS&E will be stamped and signed by a Civil Engineer registered in North River Road Bike Trail I RICK Engineering I 4
Attachment 3

Page 269 of 392 ends

Ll1e State of California.

Task 2.2.6 Deliverables:
• Final structure Technical Special Provisions signed by the registered engineer • Final Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs (MS Excel format) • Final Structure Plans (llxl 7 pdf format)
• Design calculations signed by the registered engineer of record (pdf format) • Ind Check calculations signed by il registered engineer (pdf format) • 95% PS&E Comment Log
Scope and Fee Assumptions
Plans will be ploLLe<.l <.Jireclly frurri AuluCAD Lu pdf, so Lhat pdf files a1·e of a high quality. Upon request, electronic files (MSWord, Excel, AuLoCAD Civil 3D fur 111dl, eLL.) wilh c1II supporting files will also be p1·ovided to the City of P11so f"\obles (City). Plans will be prepared and provided in AutoCAD Civil 3D. All deliverables are presumed to have at least one round of review by the City unless stated otherwise.

All meetings will be held virtually (Microsoft Teams) unless specified as otherwise.

Structures will be outside of Caltrans ROW, and Caltrans will not be reviewing or commenting on structure plans.

North River Road Bike Trail I RICK Engineering I 5
Attachment 3

Page 270 of 392 ends

Dw-.a--t�CRQ7«-ACl2 �lar-.:tathAN&.dlllb,...•A.rntivr-c:, I I i i ' ! ' f i r f i i ! TASKS � .i !'
""" = - .,,_ IINP """
- - u, .. uow Ul�I '"• ..,,. ,,,.,
·-- .. - •h - ... ...
, .. ,H - , .. OH OH
., ·- ,_ HO , .. ,.. -
,., � l
T.a1il:t;fllt.-�I:�"- .i'filffl:l:'RINO' PROJ£C1
,, --
U,t p....-u..,_,_....,. • ,.
t.1.2. ..... - 10 "
30%0!:SION-�

ENONEERINGITYPE SELECTION
'->.! �T-g___, ,. .
,.u • . ., .,
GEOTEHMCAL, HTI)RAl/LJC, & iHVIRCNMEHTAL SUPPORT

1.11 -··-· , . ,.
,.u ��--··- ' .
,.,,. � Pllllllit <>,_....., , • "
<A .... Doolan . Ill ,..
.. Ta.
lt.2:Ellllll.n.•i,,.,
PIINAI.DU��QT �EYENl'
:Z.1�1 ��-- . "

1.1..z Prn}adu..Hnn,, ,. "
.. FJNAl,.DUIQH
:u., -· --Clad , • ,, ,. ..

U.J ·--·- ' "
:LU fra!J:Mn,� • • '2
UA ,..,_ ... ,Cod:n)l_�IMl4'$ "' • ,.
..... 99iPS&e:6ubm.l:fal . " ,.
lll 100'!(, PS&E Submilfal . • 16
"' ,.. ,.. .. '" � ·---
,,_
No ffiOb.,.wl._lNMd�jC!illlliConiof--,,ntu�....,ti.1111111,:u11' ptin 111ardtdp,o,IID110(lta1fa. klie:�1aM01rldC01D""lfbablltit.t'�eott. R>cfl'o'tllt..dtn.OCA)tNllr111111llln,llt4llfbrlN�«-dW-IIIIN01�111Mh""'4-J tomodlfYtheralBinwrlllng
Cost Proposal
i I ! � I ! j
� . I
j J � ! l I
• i � 1 ! j
I 1 � J !
8 I 1
8 8
�
""" PSI< """'""' '-::'."'.:..� fffu,..__..., �::::'.'"
MU> .....
., , ..
- 0'> - - ·�
• so .. ''"" so SQ ,,_ .,,
• IO .. .. .., .. ., "
.. ... � ··- S,!S(JE lt0..77-7 SH.318 "
,,_ ...... "-'" l5<iQ8 ...., ••=
• 10 .. ...., "' ., "
" $1.218 13.572 _ .. "·''" ... ,.,, "
,. ,., U751 1227'8 U..7?710 S25"53 .,.,,.
• so .. .... "' .. "
,. .,,., ··-· ·-··· ··- ··- .,
' ll17 ...., 1115.m ""' l!l'll .,
.. 1'2'11 .,..., 5'125.11 ,,,.. ..,., "
• "" ,., pe,i) sn139 18328.88 ..,,.. ..,.,, "
0 .. .. """ IO so s nno "'
0 "' .. .,.., ., ., "
" 12.310 sam .. ,,,, ., .... "-"" "
Zl ...... u�, .... ,. 15.007 �- "
,, "" ""' .,,,.. ,,_,,._,. 125.534 528.811 "
,. SSILII kllO SST1.n1 .. .,.. """ "
.. """' l"U11 1704:11 ... ,. ,..,. "
.. ...., , .... I - 21 110,20 I-IQ.loll "
" .. "'"' 11.1111 1821-all 1a.-lU ..... "
,. St,,575 14617 1564.02 15,1-11 15.al - -- ltl14Lfl "'-' "" _,N,_ ,,...,, '"
Attachment 3

Page 271 of 392 ends

Cost Proposal
Exhibit 10-Hl Cost Proposal Page I of3
C.ost-Plns-Fixed Fee nr lnmn sum or Firm Fixed Price contracts (Design, Engineering and Environmental Studies)
Note: Mark-ups arc Not Allowed D Prime Consultant 0 Subconsultant D 2nd Tier Subconsultant Project: North River Road Bike Path - Amendment 2
Consultant Consor North America, Inc.

Project No. ___ D==:24:::
3:::::
7::::
49::::

C::::

A:::::
.02::::: =--- Contract No.

DIRECT LABOR
Classificationffitle Name Initials
Princioal En2ineer • Morgan, Dace DBM
Senior En11:ineer • Cruz, Juan JCC
Professional En11:ineer Hanson, Ashley AMH
En11:ineerin11: Desiimer Zubarev, Aleksandr AAZ
Senior En11:ineer Pohll, Martin MNP
En11:ineerin11: Desi oner Edgar, Mahala MAE
Senior CAD Desiimer Maechler, Bob BRM
f'A n Technician # Kenny, Patrick PSK
Subtotal:

LABOR COSTS
a) Subtotal Direct Labor Costs
b) Anticipated Salary Increases (see page 2 for calculation) ----- llJlJ'.l8
Hours
28 118
206
344
24 100
8 380
1208
Date
Initial Hourly
Rate
$ 91.55
$ 80.98
$ 61.61
$ 47.36
$ 92.74
$ 43.03
$ 64.32
$ 46.29
Range
$80 -$170
$55 -$125
$45 -$100
$35 -$95
$55 -$125
$35 -$95
$50 -$100
$30-$65
$ 65,736.56
$ 3,288.56
11/6/2025
Total
$ 2,563.40
$ 9,556.11
$ 12,691.66
$ 16,291.84
$ 2,225.79
$ 4,303.00
$ 514.56
$ 17,590.20
$ 65,736.56
c) Total Direct Labor Costs [(a)+ (b)] $ 69,025.12

INDIRECT COSTS
d) Fringe Benefits (Rate: 62.25%):
f) Overhead (Rate: 0.00%):
h) General and Administrative (Rate: 130.96%):

FIXED FEE
e) Total Fringe Benefits [(c) x (d)] $ 42,968.14
g) Overhead [(c) x (f)] $ ..;..___ _
i) Gen & Admin [(c) x (h)] $ 90,395.30
j) Total Indirect Costs [(e) + (g) + (i)]
k) TOTAL FJXEn FER [(c) + G)] x fixed fee 12.00%]
North River Road Bike Path PS&E Fee.xlsm 10-H1 Pg 1 11/1712025 $ 133,363.43
$ 24,286.63
Attachment 3

Page 272 of 392 ends

Cost Proposal
I) CONSULTANT'S OTHER DIRECT COSTS (ODC) - ITEMIZE (Add a dd"ti 1 ona Description of Item Quantity
Mileage Costs 855
Per Diem/Hotel 2
Eouioment Rental and Suoolies
Permit Fees
Vendor Reproduction
Vellum
81/2 X 11 Reproduction
11 X 17 Reproduction
Mounting Boards for Presentations
Newsletters (Translation and printing)
Title Report
Miscellaneous
,ae:es I ·r necessa 1ry)
Unit Unit Cost Total
Miles $ 0.700 $ 598.82
Day $ 163.00 $ 326.00
EA $
- $
-
EA $
- $
-
$ -
EA $
-
EA $
-
EA $
-
EA $ -
EA $
-
EA $
-
$
-
1) TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS ..;..$ ___ 92_4-'.8'-2
m) SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS (Add additional pages if necessary) Consor
NOTES:
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
m) TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS' COSTS
n) Total Other Direct Costs INCLUDING SUBCONSULTANTS [(l)+(m)] TOTAL COST [(c) + U) + (k) + (n)]
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 924.82
$ 227,600.00

1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk(*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.

2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended. Indirect cost rates shall remain fixed for the life of the contract.

3. Anticipated salary increases calculation (page 2) must accompany.

4. "Range" shown for initial salary at time of cost submittal. This is subject to escalation.

5. Employees considered"Non-Exempt" are marked with a''#" and are eligible for overtime (l.5X for overtime and 2.0X for double overtime) as applicable.

North River Road Bike Path PS&E Fee.x/sm 10-H1 Pg 1 11/17/2025 Attachment 3

Page 273 of 392 ends

Year 1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year 1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Years
Year 1
Year2
Year3
Year4
Year 5
Cost Proposal
Exhibit 10-Hl Cost Proposal Page 2 of 3
Cost-Plus-.Fixed Fee or Lump Sum or Firm Fixed Price Contracts (Calculations for Anticipated Salary Increases)

1. Calculate Average Hourly Rate for 1st year of the contract (Direct Labor Subtotal divided by total hours) Direct Labor Subtotal per
Cost Proposal
$ 65,736.56
Total Hours per Cost
Proposal
1208
Avg Hourly
Rate
$54.42
5 Year Contract Duration
Year 1 Avg Hourly Rate

2. Calculate hourly rate for all years (Increase the Average Hourly Rate for a year by proposed escalation%) Avg Hourly Rate Proposed Escalation
$54.42 + 5% $57.14 Year 2 Avg Hourly Rate
$57.14 + 5% $60.00 Year 3 Avg Hourly Rate
$60.00 + 5% $63.00 Year 4 Avg Hourly Rate
$63.00 + 5% $66.15 Year 5 Avg Hourly Rate

3. Calculate estimated hours per year (Multiply cstim11tc % e11ch ye11r by tot11I hours) Estimated % Completed Total Hours per Cost Total Hours
Each Year Proposal per Year

0.00% • 1208 0 Estimated Hours Year 1
100.00% • 1208 1208 Estimated Hours Year 2

0.00% • 1208 0 Estimated Hours Year 3

0.00% • 1208 0 Estimated Hours Year 4

0.00% • 1208 0 Estimated Hours Year 5
Total Total 1208

4. Calculate Total Costs including Escalation (Multiply Average Hourly Rate by the number of hours) Avg Hourly Rate Estimated hours
(calculated above) ( calculated above)
$54.42
$57.14
$60.00
$63.00
$66.15
NOTES:
* 0
* 1208
* 0
* 0
* 0
Total Direct Labor Cost with Escalation
Direct Labor Subtotal before Escalation
Estimated total of Direct Labor Salary
Increase
Cost per
Year
$0.00
$69,025.12
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$69,025.12
$ 65,736.56
$3,288.56
Estimated Hours Year 1
Estimated Hours Year 2
Estimated Hours Year 3
Estimated Hours Year 4
Estimated Hours Year 5
Transfer to Page 1

1. This is not the only way to estimate sal ary increases. Other methods will be accepted if they clearly indicate the% increase, the# of years of the contract, and a breakdown of the labor to be performed each year.

2. An estimation that is based on direct labor multiplied by salary increase% multiplied by the# of years is not acceptable. (i.e. $250,000 x 2% x 5 yrs = $25,000 is not an acceptable methodology)

3. This assumes that one year will be worked at the rate on the cost proposal before salary increases are granted.

4. Calculations for anticipated salary escalation must be provided.

North River Road Bike Path PS&E Fee.xlsm 10-H1 Pg 211/17/2025 Attachment 3

Page 274 of 392 ends

Cost Proposal
Exhibit 10-Hl Cost Proposal Page 3 of3
Certification of Direct Costs:

I, the undersigned, certify to the best ofmy knowledge and belief that all direct costs identified on the cost proposal(s) in this contract are actual, reasonable, allowable, and allocable to the contract in accordance with the contract terms and the following requirements:

1. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

2. Terms and conditions of the contract

3. Title 23 United States ode Section 112 - Letting of Contracts

4. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part 31 - Contract ost Principles and Procedures

5. 23 ode of Federal Regulations Part 172 - Procurement, Management, and Administration of Engineering and Design Related Service

6. 48 Code of Federal Regulations Part" 9904 - Cost Accounting tandards Board (when applicable) All costs must be applied consistently and fairly to all contracts. All documentation of compliance must be retained in the project files and be in compliance with applicable federal and state requirements. Costs that are noncompliant with the federal and state requirements are not eligible for reimbursement.

Local governments are responsible for applying only cognizant agency approved or Caltrans accepted Indirect Cost Rate(s).

Prime Consultant or Subconsultant Certifyin2:

Name: Jason Jurrens, P.E. Title*: Regional Manager -----......:---------- Signatme:�
Email: [email protected]
Date of Certification (mm/dd/yyyy): I 1/6/2025
Phone Number: 916.368.9181
Address: 2868 Prospect Park Dr, Suite 250, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 *An individual executive or financial officer of the consultant's or subconsultant's organization at a level no lower than a Vice President or a Chief Financial Officer, or equivalent, who has authority to represent the financial information utilized to establish the cost proposal for the contract.

List services the consultant is providing under the proposed contract:

Structural design services for an elevated pedestrian bike path.

North River Road Bike Path PS&E Fee.xlsm 10-Ht Pg 3 11/17i2025 Attachment 3

Page 275 of 392 ends

Attachment 3

Page 276 of 392 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Leslie Frazier, City Engineer/Deputy Community Development Director Subject: Second Reading by Title Only and Adoption of Ordinance 1165 N.S., Accepting the Completed Engineering and Traffic Study and Authorizing the Update and Enforcement Posted Speed Limits
CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15061, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15301, and 15378.

Date: January 14, 2026
Facts

1. The City is required to complete an Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) for radar enforceable speed limits per the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

2. The previous speed zone survey update was completed and approved by City Council in June 2023.

3. Since that action, supplemental surveys have been conducted to establish appropriate speed limits for newly constructed roadways accepted by the City Council. In addition, staff identified several streets requiring re-evaluation, as well as segments that had not previously undergone a speed survey.

4. The City retained Central Coast Transportation Consulting to complete the E&TS for the City.

5. Based on the survey, two roadway segments, Vine Street and South River Road, were found to warrant a reduction of 5 MPH from the previously adopted speed survey, due to current land use and field conditions.

6. In addition to these adjustments, the updated survey establishes speed limits for six roadway segments where speed zones were either not previously set or required speed limits to be established for newly constructed roadways.

7. A summary of the evaluated street segments, including existing and recommended posted speeds, is provided in Exhibit A. The completed E&TS is provided in Exhibit B.

8. The Police and Public Works Departments have reviewed the speed study and concur with the recommendations in the report summarized and attached.

9. Due to the Vinedo development, the master developer, Olsen 212, will be required to implement the newly adopted speed limits by installing appropriate regulatory signage along new roads. The City will install regulatory signage on existing roadways where speed zones were not previously set or reduced.

10. The work will include furnishing and installing speed limit signs, removing or replacing existing signs where necessary, and coordinating with City staff for final placement to ensure compliance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

11. In addition to posting newly adopted speed limit signage, Spring Street will have newly posted speed limit signs, and 13th Street will have two signs installed between Pine Street and Riverside Avenue, to appropriately sign the roadways based on existing speeds.

Page 277 of 392 ends

12. For the signs that are city responsibility, the installation will be completed under a unit-price contract administered through the Public Works Department. The estimated cost for materials, labor, and inspection is $5,000.

13. A summary of new or replaced speed limit signs is provided in Exhibit C.

14. On December 16, 2025, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting, held a public hearing and introduced for first reading Ordinance No. 1165 N.S. of the El Paso de Robles Municipal Code Accepting the Completed Engineering and Traffic Study and Authorizing the Update and Enforcement Posted Speed Limits.

Options

1. Take no action;

2. Approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance 1165 N.S., accepting the completed Engineering and Traffic Survey and authorizing the update and enforcement of the posted speeds;

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
In accordance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), Engineering and Traffic Surveys (E&TS) are required to justify the establishment and enforcement of speed limits. The purpose of these surveys is to ensure that posted speed limits are reasonable, safe, and enforceable through radar.

The City’s last comprehensive speed zone survey update was completed and adopted by the City Council in 2023. Since that time, newly constructed roadway segments have been completed to accommodate development within the City. Additionally, locations have been identified requiring re-evaluation, as well as segments that had not previously undergone a speed survey. Supplemental speed surveys were therefore conducted to evaluate prevailing speeds on newly constructed roadways, review corridors where conditions have changed, and address locations lacking a prior valid speed survey.

The surveys were completed by Central Coast Transportation Consulting in accordance with Caltrans and CVC requirements, including spot speed measurements, roadway condition reviews, collision history review, and engineering judgment. Generally, speed limit postings are set at the nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic (as measured in the field). Without completed speed surveys, radar cannot be used to enforce speed limits.

Based on the speed zone survey results, staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance accepting the completed E&TS and updating and establishing the prima facie speed limits for the evaluated street segments. The ordinance will supersede prior conflicting resolutions or ordinances for those segments. Adoption of these speed limits will ensure the City remains in compliance with State law, supports consistent enforcement, and reflects current operating conditions on the roadway network.

Fiscal Impact
The City will incur an estimated $5,000 in costs for furnishing and installing new regulatory speed limit signs along the evaluated street segments. This work will be completed under contract administered by the City. Operating street maintenance appropriations will be used to cover the cost of this contract, and no further action is necessary.

Page 278 of 392 ends

CEQA
The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (b)(2)-(3), 15378 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the establishment of speed limits as provided herein may have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the ordinance includes findings that the action is exempt under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) and categorically exempt under section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because it involves the operation and minor alteration of existing public streets and related traffic control devices.

Recommendation (Option 2)
Approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance 1165 N.S., accepting the completed Engineering and Traffic Survey and authorizing the update and enforcement of the posted speeds.

Attachments

1. Completed Speed Zone Survey Map

2. Ordinance 1165 N.S. - Accepting the Completed Speed Zone Survey and Updating Posted Speeds a. Exhibit A – Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
b. Exhibit B – Engineering & Traffic Survey Report
c. Exhibit C – Speed Limit Sign Summary

Page 279 of 392 ends

Attachment 1

Page 280 of 392 ends

Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. 1165 N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES, CALIFORNIA

ACCEPTING THE COMPLETED ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEYS AND AUTHORIZING THE UPDATE,

ESTABLISHMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT OF PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY; AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, under California Vehicle Code sections 22352, 22357, 22358, and 40802, local authorities may, by ordinance, determine and declare prima facie speed limits on streets under their jurisdiction based upon engineering and traffic surveys, and such surveys are required to support radar and other speed-measuring enforcement; and
WHEREAS, the City previously completed and approved a speed zone survey update in June 2023; and WHEREAS, since that time, supplemental surveys have been conducted to establish appropriate speed limits for newly constructed roadways accepted by the City Council, to re-evaluate certain existing streets, and to evaluate additional street segments that had not previously undergone a speed survey; and
WHEREAS, the City retained Central Coast Transportation Consulting to complete an update of the City's Engineering and Traffic Surveys and to analyze the listed streets within the City limits for the purpose of establishing appropriate posted speed zones consistent with the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, the resulting engineering and traffic surveys and speed studies have been reviewed by the Police Department and Public Works Department, which concur with the recommendations contained in the report summarized and attached to this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to accept the updated engineering and traffic surveys, to update and establish prima facie speed limits for the streets identified in Exhibit “A” to this Ordinance in accordance with the California Vehicle Code, and to ensure that such speed limits are enforceable, including by radar and other electronic means, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 40802; and WHEREAS, to the extent Municipal Code provisions, including but not limited to Sections 12.54.010 and

12.54.020, contemplate establishing speed limits by resolution, the City Council intends by this Ordinance to establish the applicable prima facie speed limits by ordinance as required and authorized by the California Vehicle Code, and to supersede any prior conflicting resolutions or ordinances for the streets identified in Exhibit “A.”

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

Page 281 of 392 ends

Attachment 2
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein as substantive findings of this Ordinance.

Section 2. Acceptance of Engineering and Traffic Surveys. The City Council hereby accepts and approves the engineering and traffic surveys and associated speed studies prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting for the streets identified in Exhibit “A” to this Ordinance (collectively, the “Engineering and Traffic Surveys”). The Engineering and Traffic Surveys are attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit “B” and are incorporated herein by this reference. Furthermore, the City Council finds that the Engineering and Traffic Surveys have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code, including sections 22357, 22358, and 40802, and applicable guidance in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and that they provide the necessary justification for the establishment and enforcement of the speed limits set forth in this Ordinance.

Section 3. Establishment of Prima Facie Speed Limits. Pursuant to California Vehicle Code sections 22352, 22357, and 22358, the City Council hereby determines and declares that the speed limits set forth for each street or street segment listed in Exhibit “A” to this Ordinance are reasonable and safe and will facilitate the orderly movement of traffic, based on the Engineering and Traffic Surveys. The speed limits set forth in Exhibit “A” are hereby updated and established as the prima facie speed limits for the corresponding streets or street segments within the City and shall constitute the lawful speed limits for those locations. All prior resolutions and ordinances establishing speed limits for the specific streets and street segments identified in Exhibit “A” that are inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed or superseded to the extent of such inconsistency. The Statutory prima facie speed limits established by Vehicle Code section 22352 and any other speed limits established by ordinance or resolution that are not inconsistent with this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 4. Posting of Speed Limit Signs. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager, Public Works Director, or their designees to cause appropriate speed limit signs to be erected and maintained on the streets and street segments identified in Exhibit “A,” in accordance with the California Vehicle Code and applicable provisions of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, so that the speed limits established by this Ordinance shall be effective and enforceable.

Section 5. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the establishment of speed limits as provided herein may have a significant effect on the environment.

Alternatively, this Ordinance is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 (Existing Facilities), as it involves the operation and minor alteration of existing public streets and related traffic control devices.

Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance is declared to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision hereof. The City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance despite any partial invalidity of its provisions.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

Page 282 of 392 ends

Attachment 2
Section 8. Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on December 16, 2025, for first reading by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles, and adopted on January 14, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Engineering & Traffic Survey Summary
Exhibit B – Engineering & Traffic Survey Report
Exhibit C – Speed Limit Sign Summary

Page 283 of 392 ends

# Street Segment
Existing
Speed
Limit
Proposed
Speed
Limit
1 South River Road Niblick Road to Charolais Road 40 35 2 Vine Street 1st to 24th Street 30 25
# Street Segment
Existing
Speed
Limit
Proposed
Speed
Limit
3 Sherwood Road Fontana Road to Linne Road NA 35
4 Parkview Lane Airport Road to Poppy Lane Alley NA 25
5 Bridgegate Lane Riverbank Lane to S. River Road NA 25 6 Cedarwood Dr Creston Road to east end NA 25
7 Golden Hill Road SR 46 to north end NA 35
8 Riverbank Lane Southerly End to S. River Road NA 25
Exhibit 'A'
Existing Roads
Existing Roads
New Speed Limits
Newly Constructed Roads
Reduced Speed Limits

Page 284 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Bridgegate Ln
Speed Zone Limits: Riverbank Ln to River Rd Limit Length (Miles): 0.33 Survey Location: Near Creeksand Ln Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): - Business/Residence District: Yes
Average Daily Traffic: ~ 1,000 ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 0 0% 100%
47 0 0% 100%
46 0 0% 100%
45 0 0% 100%
44 0 0% 100%
43 0 0% 100%
42 0 0% 100%
41 0 0% 100%
40 0 0% 100%
39 0 0% 100%
38 0 0% 100%
37 0 0% 100%
36 0 0% 100%
35 1 1% 100%
34 2 2% 99%
33 1 1% 97%
32 2 2% 96%
31 4 4% 93%
30 5 6% 89%
29 6 7% 83%
28 5 6% 77%
27 10 11% 71%
26 4 4% 60%
25 10 11% 56%
24 8 9% 44%
23 7 8% 36%
22 9 10% 28%
21 4 4% 18%
20 3 3% 13%
19 3 3% 10%
18 1 1% 7%
17 0 0% 6%
16 1 1% 6%
15 2 2% 4%
14 2 2% 2%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 25 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
August 19, 2025
22352 as roadway qualifies as a residential district. # Vehicles: 90 100% - Recommend 25 MPH speed limit consistent with CVC 515 and Collision Rate (#/MVM): 0.00
No collisions were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a two lane local road with on street parking and sidewalks.

The are no existing or planned bikeways.

Adjacent land uses are single family homes.

Recommendations:

Average Speed (MPH): 25
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 30
Collisions (2022-2024) 0
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 75.6%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 6.7%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 17.8%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 22 to 31
Survey Date: 7/16/2025
Time: 12:00 to 14:00
Exhibit B
Exhibit 'B' Page 285 of 392 City Council Agenda January 14, 2026 Metro Traffic Data Inc. Prepared For:
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20 Central Coast Transportation Consulting Hanford, CA 93230 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
Morro Bay, CA 93442
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax
www.metrotrafficdata.com
ROAD NAME:

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X
X X X
X

X X X X X
X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X
X X
X X X
X X
X
X
X
X X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Bridgegate Ln
0 1
0 0
0 3
2 -120.6832586
7/16/2025
12:00 to 14:00
near Creeksand Ln
5 1
48 Speed Survey

35.6080089
Westbound
27 2
0 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
1 5
2 7
5 5
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 20 - 29 MPH
24 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
1 2
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 286 of 392 ends

Metro Traffic Data Inc. Prepared For:
310 N. Irwin Street - Suite 20 Central Coast Transportation Consulting Hanford, CA 93230 895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6
Morro Bay, CA 93442
800-975-6938 Phone/Fax
www.metrotrafficdata.com
ROAD NAME:

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X
X X
X X

X X X X X
X X X

X X X X

X X X X X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X

X X X X
X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

12:00 to 14:00
Speed Survey
Bridgegate Ln
near Creeksand Ln

35.6080089
-120.6832586
7/16/2025
Eastbound
31 22 - 31 MPH
27 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 0
36 0
34 1
35 1
33 1
31 2
32 2
30 5
28 4
29 3
27 5
25 3
26 2
24 3
22 4
23 2
21 2
19 1
20 0
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 1
0 10 0
14 0
42 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 287 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X X
X X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

12:00 to 14:00
Speed Survey
Bridgegate Ln
near Creeksand Ln

35.6080089
-120.6832586
7/16/2025
Westbound + Eastbound
30 22 - 31 MPH
25 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 0
36 0
34 2
35 1
33 1
31 4
32 2
30 5
28 5
29 6
27 10
25 10
26 4
24 8
22 9
23 7
21 4
19 3
20 3
18 1
11 16 1
17 0
15 2
0 10 0
14 2
90 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 288 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Cedarwood Dr
Speed Zone Limits: Creston Rd to East End Limit Length (Miles): 0.49 Survey Location: East of Beechwood Dr Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): - Business/Residence District: Yes
Average Daily Traffic: 2,500-5,000 ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 0 0% 100%
47 0 0% 100%
46 0 0% 100%
45 0 0% 100%
44 0 0% 100%
43 0 0% 100%
42 0 0% 100%
41 0 0% 100%
40 0 0% 100%
39 0 0% 100%
38 0 0% 100%
37 0 0% 100%
36 1 1% 100%
35 1 1% 99%
34 0 0% 98%
33 0 0% 98%
32 4 4% 98%
31 5 5% 94%
30 3 3% 89%
29 6 6% 86%
28 8 8% 80%
27 10 10% 72%
26 6 6% 62%
25 15 15% 56%
24 7 7% 41%
23 9 9% 34%
22 7 7% 25%
21 1 1% 18%
20 7 7% 17%
19 6 6% 10%
18 1 1% 4%
17 1 1% 3%
16 2 2% 2%
15 0 0% 0%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 25 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
November 5, 2025
22352 as roadway qualifies as a residential district. # Vehicles: 100 100% - Recommend 25 MPH speed limit consistent with CVC 515 and Collision Rate (#/MVM): 3.73
Collision rate is greater than the statewide average for similar facilities. 3 broadside, 1 sideswipe, and 1 fixed object collision were reported.

No pedestrian, bicycle, or fatal collisions were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Local two lane road with on street parking and continuous sidewalk on the south side. Surrounded by residential and park land uses.

Recommendations:

Average Speed (MPH): 25
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 29
Collisions (2022-2024) 5
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 76.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 6.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 18.0%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 22 to 31
Survey Date: 9/4/2025
Time: 13:45 to 15:05
Exhibit B

Page 289 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X
X X
X X X

X X X X X X
X
X
X X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Cedarwood Dr
0 0
0 0
1 1
3 120.6553203
9/4/2025
13:45 to 15:05
e/o Beechwood
6 4
50 Speed Survey

35.6071435
Westbound
29 1
1 0
4 0
0 0
0 0
1 7
4 6
2 3
0 5
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 22 - 31 MPH
26 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 290 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X X X
X
X X X
X

X X X X
X X X
X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X
X X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

13:45 to 15:05
Speed Survey
Cedarwood Dr
e/o Beechwood

35.6071435
120.6553203
9/4/2025
Eastbound
29 19 - 28 MPH
24 MPH
N.P. MPH
52 0
MPH
55 0
54 0
53 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 0
36 0
34 0
35 0
33 0
31 1
32 3
30 3
28 4
29 1
27 3
25 9
26 2
24 5
22 1
23 6
21 0
0 19 3
20 6
18 1
16 1
17 1
15 0
10 0
14 0
50 13 0
12 0
11 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 291 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X

X X X X

X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X
X
X X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

13:45 to 15:05
Speed Survey
Cedarwood Dr
e/o Beechwood

35.6071435
120.6553203
9/4/2025
Westbound + Eastbound
29 22 - 31 MPH
25 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
52 0
MPH
55 0
54 0
53 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 0
36 1
34 0
35 1
33 0
31 5
32 4
30 3
28 8
29 6
27 10
25 15
26 6
24 7
22 7
23 9
21 1
0 19 6
20 7
18 1
16 2
17 1
15 0
10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 292 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Golden Hill Rd
Speed Zone Limits: SR-46 to North end Limit Length (Miles): 0.50 Survey Location: North of Dallons Dr Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): None Business/Residence District: No
Average Daily Traffic: 6,000-15,000 ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 1 1% 100%
47 0 0% 99%
46 0 0% 99%
45 0 0% 99%
44 0 0% 99%
43 3 3% 99%
42 1 1% 96%
41 3 3% 95%
40 0 0% 92%
39 4 4% 92%
38 3 3% 88%
37 2 2% 85%
36 6 6% 83%
35 5 5% 77%
34 7 7% 72%
33 5 5% 65%
32 8 8% 60%
31 8 8% 52%
30 6 6% 44%
29 5 5% 38%
28 7 7% 33%
27 6 6% 26%
26 4 4% 20%
25 4 4% 16%
24 1 1% 12%
23 1 1% 11%
22 4 4% 10%
21 2 2% 6%
20 3 3% 4%
19 1 1% 1%
18 0 0% 0%
17 0 0% 0%
16 0 0% 0%
15 0 0% 0%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 35 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
August 19, 2025
consistent with CVC 22358.6(a). # Vehicles: 100 100% -
Speed limit is equal to City's arterial design speed.

Round to nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th percentile speed Collision Rate (#/MVM): 1.67
Collision rate is greater than the statewide average for similar facilities. 1 injury collision and 3 collisions w/parked vehicles were reported.

No pedestrian, bicycle, or fatal collisions were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a two to six lane arterial at intersections with intermittent Class II bike lanes, sidewalks, medians, and parking.

Recommendations:

Average Speed (MPH): 31
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 37
Collisions (2022-2024) 16
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 63.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 17.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 20.0%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 27 to 36
Survey Date: 6/25/2025
Time: 15:08 to 15:44
Exhibit B

Page 293 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X

X X X X
X
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X
X X

X X X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Golden Hill Rd
0 0
0 5
6 1
0 -120.6580961
6/25/2025
15:08 to 15:44
n/o Dallons Dr
1 3
60 Speed Survey

35.6474237
Southbound
35 0
4 6
4 4
0 0
0 1
0 6
2 4
0 1
0 4
4 1
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 27 - 36 MPH
31 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 294 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X X
X
X X
X X
X

X X X X
X
X
X X

X X X X
X X
X

X X X X
X X
X
X X X
X X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

15:08 to 15:44
Speed Survey
Golden Hill Rd
n/o Dallons Dr

35.6474237
-120.6580961
6/25/2025
Northbound
41 28 - 37 MPH
31 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 1
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 3
44 0
42 1
40 0
41 2
39 0
37 1
38 2
36 4
34 1
35 1
33 0
31 4
32 2
30 2
28 4
29 1
27 0
25 0
26 2
24 1
22 3
23 0
21 2
19 1
20 2
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
40 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 295 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X X
X
X X X

X X X X
X X X
X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X
X
X

X X X X
X X
X X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

15:08 to 15:44
Speed Survey
Golden Hill Rd
n/o Dallons Dr

35.6474237
-120.6580961
6/25/2025
Southbound + Northbound
37 27 - 36 MPH
31 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 1
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 3
44 0
42 1
40 0
41 3
39 4
37 2
38 3
36 6
34 7
35 5
33 5
31 8
32 8
30 6
28 7
29 5
27 6
25 4
26 4
24 1
22 4
23 1
21 2
19 1
20 3
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 296 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Parkview Ln
Speed Zone Limits: Airport Rd to Poppy Lane Alley Limit Length (Miles): 0.22 Survey Location: East of Airport Rd Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): - Business/Residence District: No
Average Daily Traffic: <1,000 ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 0 0% 100%
47 0 0% 100%
46 0 0% 100%
45 0 0% 100%
44 0 0% 100%
43 0 0% 100%
42 0 0% 100%
41 0 0% 100%
40 0 0% 100%
39 0 0% 100%
38 0 0% 100%
37 0 0% 100%
36 0 0% 100%
35 0 0% 100%
34 1 2% 100%
33 0 0% 98%
32 0 0% 98%
31 5 10% 98%
30 1 2% 88%
29 1 2% 86%
28 2 4% 84%
27 4 8% 80%
26 2 4% 72%
25 5 10% 68%
24 6 12% 58%
23 6 12% 46%
22 3 6% 34%
21 3 6% 28%
20 3 6% 22%
19 2 4% 16%
18 2 4% 12%
17 1 2% 8%
16 0 0% 6%
15 0 0% 6%
14 2 4% 6%
13 1 2% 2%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 25 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
Survey Date: 9/4/2025
Time: 9:30 to 11:30
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 19 to 28
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 72.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 16.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 12.0%
Average Speed (MPH): 24
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 29
Collisions (2022-2024) 0
Round down 5 MPH from nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th Collision Rate (#/MVM): 0.00
No collisions were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Local two lane road with on street parking and a Class I path on the south side. Surrounded by residential and park land uses.

Recommendations:

November 5, 2025
percentile speed consistent with CVC 22358.6(c). # Vehicles: 50 100% - Exhibit B

Page 297 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X X X
X
X
X X X
X
X X
X X

X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

11 0
1 1
0 0
MPH
55 54
53 22 - 31 MPH
24 MPH
N.P. MPH
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 50
49 48
47 46
45 44
43 42
41 40
39 38
37 36
35 34
33 32
31 30
29 28
27 26
25 24
23 22
21 20
19 18
17 16
10 15
14 13
12 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
3 1
2 2
4 28
1 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
0 9:30 to 11:30
Airport to Poppy
2 1
26 Speed Survey

35.6096456
Westbound
Parkview Ln
0 1
1 0
0 1
1 -120.6423609
9/4/2025
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 298 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X X

X X X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

24 13 0
12 0
11 0
15 0
10 0
14 1
0 19 1
20 2
18 1
16 0
17 22 1
23 2
21 2
25 3
26 1
24 4
28 1
29 0
27 1
31 2
32 0
30 1
34 1
35 0
33 0
37 0
38 0
36 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
0 54 0
53 0
51 0
52 0
MPH
55 Eastbound
29 19 - 28 MPH
24 MPH
N.P. MPH
9:30 to 11:30
Speed Survey
Parkview Ln
Airport to Poppy

35.6096456
-120.6423609
9/4/2025
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 299 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X

X X X X X
X
X
X X

X X X X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

50 13 1
12 0
11 1
15 0
10 0
14 2
0 19 2
20 3
18 2
16 0
17 22 3
23 6
21 3
25 5
26 2
24 6
28 2
29 1
27 4
31 5
32 0
30 1
34 1
35 0
33 0
37 0
38 0
36 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
0 54 0
53 0
51 0
52 0
MPH
55 Westbound + Eastbound
29 19 - 28 MPH
24 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
9:30 to 11:30
Speed Survey
Parkview Ln
Airport to Poppy

35.6096456
-120.6423609
9/4/2025
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 300 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Riverbank Ln
Speed Zone Limits: Southerly End to River Rd Limit Length (Miles): 0.56 Survey Location: Near Creeksand Ln Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): - Business/Residence District: Yes
Average Daily Traffic: ~ 1,000 ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 0 0% 100%
47 0 0% 100%
46 0 0% 100%
45 0 0% 100%
44 0 0% 100%
43 1 1% 100%
42 0 0% 99%
41 0 0% 99%
40 0 0% 99%
39 0 0% 99%
38 1 1% 99%
37 0 0% 98%
36 0 0% 98%
35 0 0% 98%
34 0 0% 98%
33 2 2% 98%
32 1 1% 96%
31 2 2% 95%
30 5 5% 92%
29 4 4% 87%
28 6 7% 82%
27 7 8% 76%
26 14 15% 68%
25 5 5% 53%
24 9 10% 47%
23 10 11% 37%
22 3 3% 26%
21 8 9% 23%
20 6 7% 14%
19 2 2% 8%
18 2 2% 5%
17 2 2% 3%
16 0 0% 1%
15 1 1% 1%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 25 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
August 19, 2025
22352 as roadway qualifies as a residential district. # Vehicles: 91 100% - Recommend 25 MPH speed limit consistent with CVC 515 and Collision Rate (#/MVM): 0.00
No collisions were reported west of River Road.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a two lane local road with on street parking and sidewalks.

Adjacent land uses are single family homes and a neighborhood park.

Recommendations:

Average Speed (MPH): 25
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 29
Collisions (2022-2024) 0
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 79.1%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 13.2%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 7.7%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 20 to 29
Survey Date: 7/16/2025
Time: 9:00 to 11:00
Exhibit B

Page 301 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X
X
X X X
X

X X X X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X
X X
X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Riverbank Ln
0 1
2 0
1 4
2 -120.6836495
7/16/2025
09:00 to 11:00
near Creeksand Ln
2 3
40 Speed Survey

35.6104076
Westbound
28 5
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
4 2
5 4
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 19 - 28 MPH
23 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
1 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 302 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X X
X

X X X X
X X X
X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X
X
X X X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

09:00 to 11:00
Speed Survey
Riverbank Ln
near Creeksand Ln

35.6104076
-120.6836495
7/16/2025
Eastbound
30 21 - 30 MPH
26 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 1
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 1
36 0
34 0
35 0
33 2
31 1
32 0
30 4
28 3
29 3
27 6
25 3
26 10
24 4
22 1
23 6
21 3
19 0
20 2
18 1
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
51 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 303 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X X
X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
X X
X X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

09:00 to 11:00
Speed Survey
Riverbank Ln
near Creeksand Ln

35.6104076
-120.6836495
7/16/2025
Westbound + Eastbound
29 20 - 29 MPH
25 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 1
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 1
36 0
34 0
35 0
33 2
31 2
32 1
30 5
28 6
29 4
27 7
25 5
26 14
24 9
22 3
23 10
21 8
19 2
20 6
18 2
11 16 0
17 2
15 1
0 10 0
14 0
91 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 304 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Sherwood Rd
Speed Zone Limits: Fontana Rd to Linne Rd Limit Length (Miles): 0.67 Survey Location: East of Fontana Rd Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): - Business/Residence District: No
Average Daily Traffic: ~5,000 ADT (estimated) MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 0 0% 100%
47 0 0% 100%
46 0 0% 100%
45 0 0% 100%
44 2 2% 100%
43 1 1% 98%
42 1 1% 97%
41 2 2% 96%
40 1 1% 94%
39 2 2% 93%
38 7 7% 91%
37 5 5% 84%
36 6 6% 79%
35 10 10% 73%
34 17 17% 63%
33 8 8% 46%
32 8 8% 38%
31 8 8% 30%
30 5 5% 22%
29 3 3% 17%
28 5 5% 14%
27 3 3% 9%
26 1 1% 6%
25 0 0% 5%
24 3 3% 5%
23 0 0% 2%
22 0 0% 2%
21 1 1% 2%
20 0 0% 1%
19 0 0% 1%
18 0 0% 1%
17 0 0% 1%
16 0 0% 1%
15 1 1% 1%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
See E&TS east of Airport Rd for additional survey within limits.

Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 35 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
Survey Date: 8/29/2025
Time: 12:00 to 12:37
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 29 to 38
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 77.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 9.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 14.0%
Average Speed (MPH): 33
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 38
Collisions (2022-2024) N/A
Round down 5 MPH from nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th Collision Rate (#/MVM): -
Newly constructed roadway. No collision history or patterns.

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a divided two lane arterial with left turn lanes or roundabouts at intersections. There are Class II bike lanes, a Class I bike path, sidewalks, and no on street parking.

Recommendations:

November 5, 2025
percentile speed consistent with CVC 22358.6(c). # Vehicles: 100 100% - Proposed speed limit is consistent with the arterial design speed.

Exhibit B

Page 305 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X X
X X

X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X
X X X
X X X

X X X X
X X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Sherwood Rd
0 0
0 1
8 0
0 -120.6468638
8/29/2025
12:00 to 12:37
Fontana to Airport
0 4
50 Speed Survey

35.615101
Westbound
36 1
2 9
4 3
1 1
0 0
0 3
1 0
1 0
1 3
1 2
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 27 - 36 MPH
32 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 306 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X X
X

X X X X X

X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X
X X
X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

12:00 to 12:37
Speed Survey
Sherwood Rd
Fontana to Airport

35.615101
-120.6468638
8/29/2025
Eastbound
38 30 - 39 MPH
34 MPH
N.P. MPH
52 0
MPH
55 0
54 0
53 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 1
42 1
40 0
41 2
39 1
37 4
38 5
36 3
34 8
35 8
33 7
31 4
32 0
30 2
28 1
29 0
27 0
25 0
26 0
24 2
22 0
23 0
21 0
0 19 0
20 0
18 0
16 0
17 0
15 1
10 0
14 0
50 13 0
12 0
11 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 307 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X
X X X
X
X X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

12:00 to 12:37
Speed Survey
Sherwood Rd
Fontana to Airport

35.615101
-120.6468638
8/29/2025
Westbound + Eastbound
38 29 - 38 MPH
33 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
52 0
MPH
55 0
54 0
53 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 1
44 2
42 1
40 1
41 2
39 2
37 5
38 7
36 6
34 17
35 10
33 8
31 8
32 8
30 5
28 5
29 3
27 3
25 0
26 1
24 3
22 0
23 0
21 1
0 19 0
20 0
18 0
16 0
17 0
15 1
10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 308 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Sherwood Rd
Speed Zone Limits: Fontana Rd to Linne Rd Limit Length (Miles): 0.67 Survey Location: East of Airport Rd Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): - Business/Residence District: No
Average Daily Traffic: ~2,500 ADT (estimated) MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 1 1% 100%
47 0 0% 99%
46 0 0% 99%
45 3 3% 99%
44 3 3% 96%
43 2 2% 93%
42 7 7% 91%
41 5 5% 84%
40 8 8% 79%
39 9 9% 71%
38 9 9% 62%
37 7 7% 53%
36 6 6% 46%
35 7 7% 40%
34 7 7% 33%
33 5 5% 26%
32 5 5% 21%
31 7 7% 16%
30 1 1% 9%
29 2 2% 8%
28 1 1% 6%
27 3 3% 5%
26 1 1% 2%
25 0 0% 1%
24 0 0% 1%
23 1 1% 1%
22 0 0% 0%
21 0 0% 0%
20 0 0% 0%
19 0 0% 0%
18 0 0% 0%
17 0 0% 0%
16 0 0% 0%
15 0 0% 0%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
and pedestrian facilities.

See E&TS east of Fontana Rd for additional survey within limits.

Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 35 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
November 5, 2025
percentile speed consistent with CVC 22358.6(b) and CAMUTCD # Vehicles: 100 100% - Table 2B-106(CA) as corridor is adjacent to multi-use paths, bicycle, Round down 5 MPH from nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th Collision Rate (#/MVM): -
Newly constructed roadway. No collision history or patterns.

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a divided two lane arterial with left turn lanes or roundabouts at intersections. There are Class II bike lanes, a Class I bike path, sidewalks, and no on street parking.

Recommendations:

Average Speed (MPH): 37
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 42
Collisions (2022-2024) N/A
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 70.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 9.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 21.0%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 33 to 42
Survey Date: 8/29/2025
Time: 12:55 to 13:57
Exhibit B

Page 309 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X
X X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X

X X X X

X X X X
X X X

X X X X

X X X X X
X X X

X X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Sherwood Rd
0 0
0 4
1 0
0 -120.6420036
8/29/2025
12:55 to 13:57
Airport to Linne
0 0
50 Speed Survey

35.6129946
Eastbound
42 0
5 3
1 1
2 1
3 3
0 2
1 0
0 1
3 1
4 4
3 4
0 0
1 0
0 2
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 33 - 42 MPH
37 MPH
N.P. MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 310 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X

X X X X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X
X X
X X

X X X X
X

X X X X

X X X X X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

12:55 to 13:57
Speed Survey
Sherwood Rd
Airport to Linne

35.6129946
-120.6420036
8/29/2025
Westbound
41 31 - 40 MPH
36 MPH
N.P. MPH
52 0
MPH
55 0
54 0
53 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
49 0
46 0
45 1
47 0
43 1
44 1
42 4
40 5
41 2
39 5
37 4
38 5
36 2
34 4
35 2
33 1
31 6
32 4
30 0
28 1
29 1
27 1
25 0
26 0
24 0
22 0
23 0
21 0
0 19 0
20 0
18 0
16 0
17 0
15 0
10 0
14 0
50 13 0
12 0
11 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 311 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X X X
X X X
X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X
X
X X
X
X X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

12:55 to 13:57
Speed Survey
Sherwood Rd
Airport to Linne

35.6129946
-120.6420036
8/29/2025
Eastbound + Westbound
42 33 - 42 MPH
37 MPH
N.P. MPH / N.P. MPH
52 0
MPH
55 0
54 0
53 0
51 0
50 0
48 1
49 0
46 0
45 3
47 0
43 2
44 3
42 7
40 8
41 5
39 9
37 7
38 9
36 6
34 7
35 7
33 5
31 7
32 5
30 1
28 1
29 2
27 3
25 0
26 1
24 0
22 0
23 1
21 0
0 19 0
20 0
18 0
16 0
17 0
15 0
10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
11 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 312 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: River Rd
Speed Zone Limits: Niblick Rd to Charloais Rd Limit Length (Miles): 0.60 Survey Location: South of Oak Hill Rd Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): 40 Business/Residence District: No
Average Daily Traffic: 12,300 (2024) ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 1 1% 100%
51 0 0% 99%
50 0 0% 99%
49 0 0% 99%
48 0 0% 99%
47 0 0% 99%
46 1 1% 99%
45 1 1% 98%
44 2 2% 97%
43 4 4% 95%
42 4 4% 91%
41 6 6% 87%
40 6 6% 81%
39 9 9% 75%
38 10 10% 66%
37 11 11% 56%
36 11 11% 45%
35 8 8% 34%
34 1 1% 26%
33 7 7% 25%
32 4 4% 18%
31 3 3% 14%
30 4 4% 11%
29 2 2% 7%
28 1 1% 5%
27 2 2% 4%
26 0 0% 2%
25 0 0% 2%
24 1 1% 2%
23 0 0% 1%
22 1 1% 1%
21 0 0% 0%
20 0 0% 0%
19 0 0% 0%
18 0 0% 0%
17 0 0% 0%
16 0 0% 0%
15 0 0% 0%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
generating a high concentration of bicyclists or pedestrians.

See E&TS south of Riverbank Ln for additional survey within limits.

Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 35 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
100% -
Table 2B-106(CA) as corridor is adjacent to retail and The Oaks, 100
August 19, 2025
on the east side, and no on-street parking.

Recommendations:

Round down 5 MPH from nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th percentile speed consistent with CVC 22358.6(b) and CAMUTCD # Vehicles:

Average Speed (MPH): 37
lanes, continuous sidewalk on the westside, discontinuous sidewalk 85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 41
Collisions (2022-2024) 24
Collision Rate (#/MVM): 2.97
Collision rate is greater than the statewide average for similar facilities. 4 injury collisions and 3 collisions w/parked vehicles were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a two to six lane arterial at intersections with Class II bike 1 pedestrian, no bicycle, and no fatal collisions were reported.

Percent Vehicles in Pace: 73.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 9.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 18.0%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 33 to 42
Survey Date: 6/25/2025
Time: 14:17 to 14:30
Exhibit B

Page 313 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X

X X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X
X
X X X

X X X X
X X
X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

River Rd
0 0
0 5
1 0
0 -120.6800488
6/25/2025
14:17 to 14:30
s/o Oak Hill Rd
0 1
50 Speed Survey

35.6133512
Southbound
39 0
5 0
3 4
1 1
1 1
0 2
0 0
1 0
1 2
4 5
3 7
0 0
0 0
1 1
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 30 - 39 MPH
35 MPH
40 MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 314 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X X X
X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X
X X X
X
X X
X X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

14:17 to 14:30
Speed Survey
River Rd
s/o Oak Hill Rd

35.6133512
-120.6800488
6/25/2025
Northbound
42 35 - 44 MPH
38 MPH
40 MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 1
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 3
44 1
42 3
40 5
41 5
39 5
37 8
38 5
36 4
34 1
35 3
33 2
31 0
32 3
30 0
28 0
29 0
27 0
25 0
26 0
24 0
22 1
23 0
21 0
19 0
20 0
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
50 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 315 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X

X X X X
X X X

X X X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

14:17 to 14:30
Speed Survey
River Rd
s/o Oak Hill Rd

35.6133512
-120.6800488
6/25/2025
Southbound + Northbound
41 33 - 42 MPH
37 MPH
40 MPH / 40 MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 1
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 1
45 1
47 0
43 4
44 2
42 4
40 6
41 6
39 9
37 11
38 10
36 11
34 1
35 8
33 7
31 3
32 4
30 4
28 1
29 2
27 2
25 0
26 0
24 1
22 1
23 0
21 0
19 0
20 0
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 316 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: River Rd
Speed Zone Limits: Niblick Rd to Charloais Rd Limit Length (Miles): 0.60 Survey Location: South of Riverbank Ln Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): 40 Business/Residence District: No
Average Daily Traffic: 12,300 (2024) ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 1 1% 100%
50 0 0% 99%
49 0 0% 99%
48 0 0% 99%
47 1 1% 99%
46 2 2% 98%
45 2 2% 96%
44 5 5% 94%
43 10 10% 89%
42 5 5% 79%
41 4 4% 74%
40 6 6% 70%
39 8 8% 64%
38 12 12% 56%
37 12 12% 44%
36 10 10% 32%
35 5 5% 22%
34 6 6% 17%
33 3 3% 11%
32 2 2% 8%
31 1 1% 6%
30 2 2% 5%
29 2 2% 3%
28 0 0% 1%
27 0 0% 1%
26 1 1% 1%
25 0 0% 0%
24 0 0% 0%
23 0 0% 0%
22 0 0% 0%
21 0 0% 0%
20 0 0% 0%
19 0 0% 0%
18 0 0% 0%
17 0 0% 0%
16 0 0% 0%
15 0 0% 0%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
CAMUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) as corridor is adjacent to retail and the Oaks, generating a high concentration of bicyclists or pedestrians.

Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 35 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
August 19, 2025
percentile speed consistent with CVC 22358.6(c). Round down # Vehicles: 100 100% - additional 5 MPH consistent with CVC 22358.6(d), 22358.7, and Round down 5 MPH from nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th Collision Rate (#/MVM): 2.97
Collision rate is greater than the statewide average for similar facilities. 4 injury collisions and 3 collisions w/parked vehicles were reported. 1 pedestrian, no bicycle, and no fatal collisions were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a two to six lane arterial at intersections with Class II bike lanes, continuous sidewalk on the westside, discontinuous sidewalk on the east side, and no on-street parking.

Recommendations:

Average Speed (MPH): 38
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 43
Collisions (2022-2024) 24
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 78.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 11.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 11.0%
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 34 to 43
Survey Date: 6/25/2025
Time: 13:58 to 14:11
Exhibit B

Page 317 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X

X X X X
X X X
X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X
X X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

River Rd
0 0
0 3
1 0
0 -120.6811582
6/25/2025
01:58 to 02:11
s/o Riverbank
0 0
50 Speed Survey

35.6093701
Southbound
42 0
4 5
0 1
1 4
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
5 6
6 6
0 0
0 0
1 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 34 - 43 MPH
37 MPH
40 MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 318 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X
X X

X X X X

X X X X X X
X X
X X X

X X X X
X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

01:58 to 02:11
Speed Survey
River Rd
s/o Riverbank

35.6093701
-120.6811582
6/25/2025
Northbound
44 36 - 45 MPH
39 MPH
40 MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 1
50 0
48 0
46 1
45 2
47 1
43 6
44 4
42 2
40 4
41 3
39 3
37 6
38 6
36 4
34 1
35 1
33 0
31 1
32 1
30 1
28 0
29 1
27 0
25 0
26 1
24 0
22 0
23 0
21 0
19 0
20 0
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
50 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 319 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X X
X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X
X X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

01:58 to 02:11
Speed Survey
River Rd
s/o Riverbank

35.6093701
-120.6811582
6/25/2025
Southbound + Northbound
43 34 - 43 MPH
38 MPH
40 MPH / 40 MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 1
50 0
48 0
46 2
45 2
47 1
43 10
44 5
42 5
40 6
41 4
39 8
37 12
38 12
36 10
34 6
35 5
33 3
31 1
32 2
30 2
28 0
29 2
27 0
25 0
26 1
24 0
22 0
23 0
21 0
19 0
20 0
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 320 of 392 ends

ENGINEERING & TRAFFIC SURVEY
Prepared for the City of Paso Robles
Road Name: Vine St
Speed Zone Limits: 24th St to 1st St Limit Length (Miles): 1.63 Survey Location: At 21st Street Existing Posted Speed Limit (MPH): 30 Business/Residence District: Yes
Average Daily Traffic: ~5,000 ADT MPH Frequency Total % Cumulative ≥ 55 0 0% 100%
54 0 0% 100%
53 0 0% 100%
52 0 0% 100%
51 0 0% 100%
50 0 0% 100%
49 0 0% 100%
48 0 0% 100%
47 0 0% 100%
46 0 0% 100%
45 0 0% 100%
44 0 0% 100%
43 0 0% 100%
42 0 0% 100%
41 0 0% 100%
40 0 0% 100%
39 0 0% 100%
38 1 1% 100%
37 0 0% 99%
36 1 1% 99%
35 0 0% 98%
34 5 5% 98%
33 5 5% 93%
32 4 4% 88%
31 11 11% 84%
30 7 7% 73%
29 7 7% 66%
28 10 10% 59%
27 17 17% 49%
26 7 7% 32%
25 13 13% 25%
24 5 5% 12%
23 4 4% 7%
22 1 1% 3%
21 1 1% 2%
20 1 1% 1%
19 0 0% 0%
18 0 0% 0%
17 0 0% 0%
16 0 0% 0%
15 0 0% 0%
14 0 0% 0%
13 0 0% 0%
12 0 0% 0%
11 0 0% 0%
≤ 10 0 0% 0%
Date:

Recommended Speed Limit: 25 MPH
Prepared By: Michelle Matson, PE 73131 & TE 2680
Survey Date: 6/25/2025
Time: 14:39 to 15:02
Observer: Metro Traffic Data
10 MPH Pace Speed: 25 to 34
Percent Vehicles in Pace: 86.0%
Percent Vehicles > Pace: 2.0%
Percent Vehicles < Pace: 12.0%
Average Speed (MPH): 28
85th Percentile Speed (MPH): 32
Collisions (2022-2024) 29
Recommend 25 MPH speed limit consistent with CVC 515 and Collision Rate (#/MVM): 1.95
Collision rate is greater than the statewide average for similar facilities. 1 injury, 3 collisions w/parked vehicles, and 1 collision with an animal were reported. No pedestrian, bicycle, or fatal collisions were reported.

Source: California Crash Reporting System (CCRS).

Physical Description & Unusual Conditions:

Roadway is a two lane collector with on-street parking and intermittent Class II bike lanes and sidewalks.

Residential, commercial, and school land uses with many access points.

Recommendations:

August 19, 2025
22352 as roadway qualifies as a residential district. # Vehicles: 100 100% - Exhibit B

Page 321 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X
X X X
X X X
X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X
X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X
X X

X X X X X
X X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 1 of 3 ends

Vine St
0 0
0 3
2 0
0 -120.6947258
6/25/2025
14:39 to 15:02
(at 21st)
1 4
50 Speed Survey

35.6358864
Southbound
33 0
0 3
7 5
0 0
0 0
0 9
2 5
3 1
0 3
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
20 19
18 17
16 10
15 14
13 12
26 25
24 23
22 21
32 31
30 29
28 27
38 37
36 35
34 33
44 43
42 41
40 39
50 49
48 47
46 45
52 51
0 0
0 0
0 25 - 34 MPH
29 MPH
30 MPH
MPH
55 54
53 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 322 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X X
X X
X X

X X X X
X X

X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X
X X
X X X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 2 of 3 ends

14:39 to 15:02
Speed Survey
Vine St
(at 21st)

35.6358864
-120.6947258
6/25/2025
Northbound
31 23 - 32 MPH
27 MPH
30 MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 0
36 0
34 2
35 0
33 2
31 4
32 2
30 2
28 6
29 4
27 8
25 8
26 5
24 2
22 0
23 3
21 1
19 0
20 1
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
50 13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 323 of 392 ends

LIMITS:

LATITUDE:

LONGITUDE:

DATES/TIMES:

DIRECTION:
85% SPEED
10 mph PACE
AVG. SPEED

POSTED SPEED
X
X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X
X
X
X
TOTAL:

Page 3 of 3 ends

14:39 to 15:02
Speed Survey
Vine St
(at 21st)

35.6358864
-120.6947258
6/25/2025
Southbound + Northbound
32 25 - 34 MPH
28 MPH
30 MPH / 30 MPH
MPH
49 0
55 0
54 0
53 0
52 0
51 0
50 0
48 0
46 0
45 0
47 0
43 0
44 0
42 0
40 0
41 0
39 0
37 0
38 1
36 1
34 5
35 0
33 5
31 11
32 4
30 7
28 10
29 7
27 17
25 13
26 7
24 5
22 1
23 4
21 1
19 0
20 1
18 0
11 16 0
17 0
15 0
0 10 0
14 0
100
13 0
12 0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Percentile
Speed (MPH)
speed curve
Exhibit B

Page 324 of 392 ends

Street Segment Existing Speed Limit Proposed Speed Limit City Council Action Notes Existing Signs (to be verified in the field) Existing Speed Limit Signs Proposed Signs (preliminary, based on field review and E&TS) Install Speed Limit Sign Replace Speed Limit Sign Signs Installation, Replacement, or Removal Bridgegate Ln Riverbank Ln to River Rd N/A 25 Yes New speed limit. Residential District. No existing signage. - Install new 25 MPH sign for westbound traffic just east of Willowbank Ln. 1 - Future installation with Larry Moore Park Cedarwood Dr Creston Rd to east end N/A 25 Yes New. Request from citizen. No existing signage. - Install eastbound sign east of Creston Rd and Beechwood Dr. Install westbound sign west of Driftwood Dr and west of Beechwood Dr. 4 - City Golden Hill Rd SR 46 to north end N/A 35 Yes New speed limit. Request from Police. No existing signage. - Install northbound signs north of SR 46 and north of Tractor St. Install southbound signs south of Wisteria Ln and south of Tractor St. 4 - City Parkview Ln Airport Rd to Poppy Ln Alley N/A 25 Yes New with Vinedo. No existing signage. - Install eastbound sign east of Airport Road and westbound sign west of Sherwood Rd. Install eastbound end speed limit sign at Poppy Ln. 3 - City Riverbank Ln Southerly End to River Rd N/A 25 Yes New speed limit. Residential District. No existing signage. - Install new 25 MPH sign for westbound traffic just east of Canyon Crest Ln. 1 - Future installation with Larry Moore Park Sherwood Rd Fontana Rd to Linne Rd N/A 35 Yes New with Vinedo. No existing signage. - Install eastbound sign east of Fontana Rd and Airport Rd. Install westbound sign west of Airport Rd and Linne Rd. Install end speed limit at Linne Rd. 5 - Developer South River Rd Niblick Rd to Charolais Rd 40 35 Yes Reevaluate existing speed limit based on new occupied uses. NB: ~325' north of Charolais Rd, ~325' south of Riverbank Ln; SB: ~700' south of Niblick Rd, ~90' south of Serenade Ln, ~140' south of Riverbank Ln. 5 Replace existing 5 signs with 35 MPH signs. - 5 City Vine St 1st St to 24th St 30 25 Yes Reevaluate - check school crosswalk signage, Police request centerline. NB: ~235' north of 1st St, ~40' north of 6th St, ~95' north of 15th St, ~40' north of 20th St; SB: ~45' south of 21st St, ~45' south of 15th St, ~50' south of 7th St. 7 Replace existing 7 signs. Install northbound sign north of 10th St. Install southbound signs south of 10th St and south of 4th St. 3 7 City Linne Rd Fontana Rd to City Limit 40 None Yes Revised with Vinedo. Survey east of Sherwood when occupied. Removed by construction, to be confirmed. 1 None, E&TS and sign recommendations to be completed when additional residences have been occupied. - - Developer 13th St Spring St to Riverside Ave 25 signs only No No new survey, revise end 25 mph sign. EB: ~165' east of Spring St (25), ~225' east of Riverside Avenue (30), ~115' east of Paso Robles Street (end 25) 3 Remove existing 30 MPH sign and end 25 MPH sign. Install westbound sign west of Riverside Ave and eastbound end speed limit sign at Riverside Ave. 1 1 City Spring St 1st St to 24th St 25 signs only No No existing signs on south end. NB: ~165' north of 1st St (25), ~100' north of 10th St (25), ~45' north of 15th St (25); SB: ~40' south of 10th St (25) 4 Install northbound signs north of 6th St and 21st St. Install southbound signs south of 24th St, 21st, 16th St, and 4th St. 6 4 City 20 TOTAL PROPOSED SIGNS 28 17 City Installed Signs (current): 21 17 Developer Installed Signs (current): 5 - City/Larry Moore Park Installed Signs (future): 2 - TOTAL EXISTING SIGNS Paso Robles Speed Limit and Sign Updates (as of 12/1/2025) NOTE: Additional speed surveys completed did not required signs, ordinances, or E&TS and are not included. NB - Northbound; SB - Southbound; EB - Eastbound; WB - Westbound, TBD - To be determined. Exhibit C Page 325 of 392 City Council Agenda January 14, 2026 Council Agenda Report
From: Leslie Frazier, City Engineer/Deputy Director of Community Development Subject: Approval of Final Map Tract 3105-4 For Recordation, River Oaks Phase 4 CEQA Determination: The City finds that a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan. Acceptance of a final map does not require additional review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15182.

Date: January 14, 2026
Facts

1. On August 8, 2017, the Planning Commission approved the Phased Vesting Tentative Map (VTTM) 3105.

2. Phased Vesting Tentative Map 3105 is comprised of five phases of 271 residential lots, with an additional 24 open-space and three road lots. Phase 4 includes 45 single-family residential lots. Phases 5 include the remaining 36 residential lots.

3. Vesting Tentative Map No. 3105, as approved by the City, established the vested development standards applicable to the project. Pursuant to Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act, the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Map was extended by operation of law through legislatively authorized extension periods. As extended, the Vesting Tentative Map remained valid through the processing of the Phase 4 Final Map. The Phase 4 Final Map is consistent with the approved subdivision layout, applicable conditions of approval, and overall development framework established under the VTTM. Therefore, the City may consider and approve the Phase 4 Final Map consistent with the vested rights and applicable regulations governing the subdivision.

4. River Oaks Reserve, LLC (Applicant) is conditioned to construct public improvements prior to Final Map recordation. The public improvements consist of private streets, water, recycled water, and sewer facilities.

5. The Applicant is requesting that the Final Map be recorded prior to completion of the public improvements. This is allowed per the City’s Municipal Code, if the Applicant signs a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and submits financial securities to guarantee the construction.

6. The Applicant has submitted a signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement and valid Financial Assurances to guarantee construction of public improvements required by the Conditions of Approval.

7. The City previously annexed the parent parcel into the Community Facility District on April 2, 2024, and as such, the new lots created by this map will be subject to Community Facility District assessments.

8. The Applicant previously submitted Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and a tract maintenance mechanism for recordation with the Phase 1 Final Map. The Applicant has submitted evidence that Phase 4 will be annexed into the CCRs by the California Department of Real Estate prior to occupancy.

Page 326 of 392 ends

9. The City Engineer reviewed the conditions of approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3105, and associated documents, to determine compliance with the same. The City Engineer is recommending approval of Final Tract Map 3105-4 for recordation based on the Project’s compliance with the Conditions of Approval.

10. The City Attorney has reviewed the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Financial Assurances, CC&Rs and has determined that they are satisfactory.

11. The Acting City Surveyor reviewed Final Map 3105-4 and has determined that the Map complies with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and has determined that the Map is Technically Correct.

Options

1. Take no action.

2. Approve Final Map Tract 3105-4 and direct the City Clerk to indicate Council’s approval on the map; Direct the City Manager to sign a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the applicant, subject to editorial revisions by the City Attorney; and direct the City Engineer to record the Final Map 3105-4 and required agreements, documents, and easements; and take any other ancillary actions necessary to effectuate the contemplated approvals.

3. Refer the Final Map 3105-4 back to staff with specific directions for further consideration.

4. Provide alternative directions to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
The Applicant has filed a final map with the City and is now requesting that the map be recorded.

The Applicant must demonstrate compliance with the project’s conditions of approval to record the Final Map. The conditions of approval include construction of water, recycled water, and sewer improvements, and submittal of CC&R and future Homeowners Association documents.

The City Engineer and City Surveyor have reviewed the Final Map and have determined that it is technically correct and ready to record pending the following:

Subdivision Improvement Agreement
The Applicant is required to install water, recycled water, sewer, and private street improvements as part of the conditions of approval to support the construction of the 45 single family homes. While the Applicant has completed the majority of the improvements for Phase 4 infrastructure, the City and the HOA have not accepted the improvements. The Applicant is requesting that they be allowed to sign a Subdivision Improvement Agreement in lieu of completing the improvements prior to Final Map recordation. This is allowed per City Code and the Subdivision Map Act. The Applicant has reviewed the SIA and agrees with the terms. The Applicant-signed SIA is included as Attachment 2, Exhibit B. The City Attorney has reviewed the SIA and supporting bonds and determined they meet the City’s Municipal Code requirements.

Deed Restriction and Covenant
A Deed Restriction and Covenant will be recorded to ensure common lot restrictions remain in place and binding on future owners. The recorded document will provide public notice and ensure ongoing compliance with the approved conditions of use.

Page 327 of 392 ends

Fiscal Impact
There is a neutral fiscal impact resulting from Final Map Tract 3105-4 recordation. The Map’s long term fiscal impact to City services are offset by community facilities district taxes. The CFD allows for the levy of special taxes on the properties to offset the cost of City service required by the project.

CEQA
A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for the Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan. The proposed Final Tract Map and associated ancillary actions do not involve any substantial changes or new environment effects; therefore, no additional environmental review under CEQA is required pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15182.

Recommendation (Option 2)
Approve Resolution 26-XXX which:

A. Approves Final Tract Map 3105-4 and directs the City Clerk to state the Council’s approval on the Final Map
B. Accepts the Offers of Dedication according to the terms of Offer of Dedication by the parties having a record interest in said land.

C. Authorizes entering into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, directing the City Manager to sign the Subdivision Improvement Agreement set forth in substantially final form, and authorizing the City Attorney to correct any minor or non-substantive errors in the document.

D. Accept the Deed Restriction and Covenant and authorize recording of the document and any ancillary actions needed to execute the City Council’s approval; and direct the City Engineer to record all documents required by the Conditions of Approval.

Attachments

1. Planning Area Map, River Oaks Project

2. Resolution 26-XXX Acceptance of Final Map 3105-4
a. Exhibit A – Final Tract Map 3105-4
b. Exhibit B – Subdivision Improvement Agreement with Bonds attached c. Exhibit C – Deed Restriction and Covenant Document

Page 328 of 392 ends

Attachment 1

Page 329 of 392 ends

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 26-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES ACCEPTING FINAL MAP TRACT 3105-4 FOR RECORDATION, AND APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT RIVER OAKS II – PHASE 4 APPLICANT – River Oak Reserve, LLC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3105-4 on August 8, 2017; and
WHEREAS, applicant River Oaks Reserve, LLC (developer), are requesting that the Final Map for Tract 3105-4 (Phase 4 Final Map) be approved and accepted by the City Council for recordation; and
WHEREAS, the Phase 4 Final Map is a request to subdivide a portion of the area identified as Future Phase of Tract 3105, approximately 16.19 acres of the River Oaks II, into 45 residential lots; and
WHEREAS, Vesting Tentative Map No. 3105, as approved by the City, established the vested development standards applicable to the project. Pursuant to Section 66452.6 of the Subdivision Map Act, the expiration date of the Vesting Tentative Map aas extended by operation of laa through legislatively authorized extension periods. As extended, the Vesting Tentative Map remained valid through the processing of the Phase 4 Final Map; and WHEREAS, the developer is requesting that the City enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement to guarantee construction of the public improvements and monumentation required in connection aith this project in order to alloa recordation of the Phase 4 Final Map, ahich is authorized pursuant to the Paso Robles Municipal Code and state Subdivision Map Act, and has provided related financial assurances; and
WHEREAS, the developer has submitted a signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement and has submitted bonds as the financial assurances ahich have been revieaed by the City Attorney; and
WHEREAS, all other conditions of approval for this subdivision have been satisfied by the developer; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer and Acting City Surveyor have revieaed the Phase 4 Final Map and find that it is in substantial conformance aith Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3105-4 and Conditions of Approval and is technically correct.

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

Page 330 of 392 ends

Attachment 2
Section 1. All the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the Final Map for Tract 3105-4 and authorizes Final Map execution and recordation.

Section 3. The City Council hereby accepts the Offers of Dedication for public utility, road, nonexclusive public access, drainage, storm drain, aater, and seaer easement purposes by the parties having a record interest in said land, as shoan on the Final Map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 4. The City Council directs the City Manager to sign the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and authorizes the City Attorney to correct any non-substantive errors in the documents, included hereaith and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit B.

Section 5. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, in consultation aith the City Attorney, to take any additional ancillary actions necessary to ensure all associated documents are executed consistently aith the City Council’s approval of the Final Map for Tract 3105-4 and City-required documents.

APPROVED by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles by the folloaing vote on January 14, 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Final Tract Map 3105-4
Exhibit B – Subdivision Improvement Agreement aith Bonds attached Exhibit C – Deed Restriction and Covenant Document

Page 331 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 332 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 333 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 334 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 335 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 336 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 337 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 338 of 392 ends

Exhibit A

Page 339 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 340 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 341 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 342 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 343 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 344 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 345 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 346 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 347 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 348 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 349 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 350 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 351 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 352 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 353 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 354 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 355 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 356 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 357 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 358 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 359 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 360 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 361 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 362 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 363 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 364 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 365 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 366 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 367 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 368 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 369 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 370 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 371 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 372 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 373 of 392 ends

Exhibit 'B'

Page 374 of 392 ends

Exhibit C
Exhibit 'C'

Page 375 of 392 ends

Exhibit C

Page 376 of 392 ends

Exhibit C

Page 377 of 392 ends

Exhibit C

Page 378 of 392 ends

Exhibit C

Page 379 of 392 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Wyatt Lund, Recreation Volunteer Coordinator
Subject: Approval of the Sensorio & HYBYCOZO Public Art Installation in Downtown City Park CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption, which applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features where the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301). Additionally, the action is categorically exempt from the CEQA under the Class 4 exemption for minor alterations to land.

Date: January 14, 2026
Facts

1. In Fall 2025, Ryan Hopple, from Sensorio, and Stacie Jacob of Solterra Strategies, proposed the installation of three lighted sculptures, centered in the “banjo” planter on the north side of Downtown City Park. Sensorio owners, Bobbi and Ken Hunter, want to donate this installation as “A Gift of Light” to the community.

2. The sculptures will be created by artist collective HYBYCOZO (hib-e-co-zo) composed of artists Serge Beaulieu and Yelena Filipchuk. The artists’ goal is to bring light, art, and community together in a highly visible entryway to downtown Paso Robles.

3. The sculptures, constructed of steel, will feature static warm white or single-color lighting powered electrically at 180 watts for 12 hours of usage, equating to 2.16kw per night, at an estimated cost of $1.00 per night, to be incurred by the city.

4. The sculptures will be anchored in place by three concrete footings, submerged in the soil of the planter bed.

5. Community Services Department (CSD) staff will work with the Community Development and Public Works Departments to ensure all required permits are obtained and installation is completed safely and meets all building code requirements.

6. Fabrication of the sculptures requires a two-to-three-month production period followed by an estimated two or three weeks for installation. The installation will be in place for three years, with a potential extension after review by the city.

7. The installation would include no more than two 18” by 24” interpretive plaques equipped with nearfield communication technology that links visitors to Sensorio content.

8. Sensorio has offered to fully fund the sculpture commissioning, fabrication, installation, and all ongoing maintenance.

Options

1. Take no action;

Page 380 of 392 ends

2. Approve the proposed Sensorio and HYBYCOZO sculpture installation at Downtown City Park and authorize city staff to execute a formal agreement with Sensorio;

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
In early 2025, the City and Sensorio began exploring opportunities for a public art installation in Downtown City Park consistent with the City’s 5-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. In March 2025, the City met with Sensorio to discuss a potential collaborative project and also submitted a Letter of Intent to the Arts in California Parks grant program seeking $70,000 for the “Paso Robles Downtown Public Art Placemaking Initiative.” In May 2025, the City was informed that the project was not selected for funding. Despite this, Sensorio remained committed to realizing a public art project in the park. In July 2025, Sensorio approached the City offering to fully fund the design, fabrication, installation, and maintenance of the artwork as a gift to the community.

Building on this commitment, representatives from Sensorio and Solterra Strategies presented a proposal in Fall 2025 to install three large-scale steel sculptures in the “banjo” planter on the north side of Downtown City Park. The sculptures will be anchored in place by three concrete footings, submerged in the soil of the planter bed. The pieces would be created by HYBYCOZO, an internationally recognized artist collective known for illuminated geometric sculptures inspired by mathematics, science, and natural patterns. Their work emphasizes the interplay of light, shadow, geometry, and place, contributing to immersive public art experiences. Sensorio’s proposal was endorsed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee on December 8, 2025. Approval by City Council would authorize city staff to execute a formal agreement with Sensorio.

The lighting for the sculptures will require approximately 180 watts for twelve hours nightly, resulting in an estimated annual electricity cost of $365, which would be the City’s only direct expense. Sensorio will cover all other project costs, including fabrication, up to two interpretive signs, installation, concrete footings, and maintenance over the planned three-year display period with a potential 2 (two) year extension after a review by the city. The project will also include an interpretive plaque with near-field communication (NFC) capability to offer visitors supplemental digital content.

City staff from Community Services, Community Development, and Public Works will collaborate to ensure the project meets all required safety, permitting, and building code standards. The installation directly supports the City of Paso Robles’ Economic Development Strategic Plan by advancing its goals for public art, placemaking, and vibrant community spaces. The sculpture enhances the park’s visual appeal, strengthens Paso Robles’ creative identity, and encourages residents and visitors to gather, explore, and linger downtown. By integrating high-quality, locally connected artwork into public spaces, the installation helps attract foot traffic, support nearby businesses, and reinforce Paso Robles as a culturally rich destination, aligning with the Economic Development Strategic Plan’s vision of fostering a thriving, connected, and economically resilient community.

Fiscal Impact
Sensorio is solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of the sculptures. The fiscal impact to the City is minimal including annual estimated electrical utility cost of approximately $365 per year.

CEQA
The City finds that this action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under the Class 1 exemption, which applies to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting,

Page 381 of 392 ends

leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features where the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15301). Additionally, the action is categorically exempt from the CEQA under the Class 4 exemption for minor alterations to land
Recommendation (Option 2)
Approve the proposed Sensorio & HYBYCOZO installation at Downtown City Park.

Attachments

1. HYBYCOZO’s Rendering of Proposed Sculptures

2. Rendering of Plaque/Label

3. City of Paso Robles Art in Public Places Policy

Page 382 of 392 ends

Attachment 1

Page 383 of 392 ends

Rendering of plaque/label
Attachment 2

Page 384 of 392 ends

Adopted by City CounciI12/7/99

CITY OF PASO ROBLES

ART IN PUBLIC PLACES POLICY
The purpose of the Art in Public Places (APP) policy is to facilitate the acquisition and display of visual art in City operated public places such as City office buildings and parks. The Policy follows the following definitions and guidelines:

ART DISPLAY DEFINITIONS
Art for Permanent Display ~ Art which is donated or commissioned and remains on display for more than one year.

Art for Temporary Display ~ Art which is loaned, leased, rented, or otherwise obtained and is displayed for up to one year.

PUBLIC ART REVIEW COMMITTEE (PARC)
• PARC is a quorum of the Paso Robles Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting.
• Proposals for permanent or temporary art display are made to and considered by PARC on a case by case basis.

THE PROCESS
• Upon receipt of a complete proposal for placement of art in a public place, PARC creates an agenda item to consider the proposal at the next regularly scheduled Advisory Committee meeting.
• PARC notifies media and potentially interested parties of the agenda item. • PARC reviews proposal at the regularly scheduled public meeting, seeking input and opinion from interested parties.
• PARC's recommendations for permanent and temporary artwork display are forwarded to the City Council for consideration and final dispensation.

THE CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
Included, but are not limited to:
• Artistic Quality
• Appropriateness of design to the function of the site • Durability
• Size
• Material
• Site & Setting
• Maintenance Considerations
• Location
Attachment 3

Page 385 of 392 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Chris Huot, City Manager
Subject: Mayoral and City Council Term Limits: Legal Overview and Policy Options CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State Guidelines Section State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Date: January 14, 2026
Facts

1. During the November 4, 2025 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Gregory requested, and the City Council agreed, an item should return to the City Council to discuss the potential enactment of term limits.

2. California Government Code section 36502(b) authorizes general law cities, including Paso Robles, to establish limits on the number of terms the Mayor and/or City Councilmembers may serve.

3. State law requires that any term limits measure be prospective only. It may apply only to terms starting after the or at the same election in which the measure is approved, or at later elections, but not retroactively to terms already served.

4. Term limit structure options commonly include two- or three-term limits, lifetime or consecutive limits, combined or separate limits for Mayor and Council, and whether partial terms should count.

5. A term limits measure must be submitted to the voters at a regularly scheduled election—a statewide primary, statewide general election, or a general municipal election—and must receive majority voter approval.

6. Measures may be placed on the ballot either by voter initiative or by City Council action. The legal deadline for placing a measure on a ballot is 88 days prior to the election.

7. No specific structure is required by law; the design of a term limits measure is a local policy choice as long as it complies with state law.

8. If Council directs staff to proceed, the City Attorney’s Office will prepare the necessary ordinance/measure language and required election resolutions.

9. The next general municipal election for the City of Paso Robles will occur on November 3, 2026, which is the earliest feasible date to place a term limits measure before voters.

10. To meet county deadlines for the November 2026 ballot, the City must submit ballot materials— including resolutions, the measure text, and impartial analysis—no later than July 2026.

Options

1. Take no action;

2. Direct staff to prepare a term limits measure, including draft ordinance language and required election resolutions, for Council review;

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Page 386 of 392 ends

Analysis and Conclusions
California Government Code section 36502(b) authorizes a general law city, including the City of Paso Robles, to establish limits on the number of terms an elected Mayor and/or City Councilmember may serve. State law sets two principal requirements that must guide any local term limits measure.

First, any local term limits measure must be “prospective.” This means it may only apply to new Mayoral or Council terms that are voted upon at the same election at which the measure is approved, or at a later election. For example, if a term limits measure were approved in November 2026, it could apply only to the new terms elected at that November 2026 municipal election and any subsequent elections (2028, 2030, etc.). It may not apply to terms that were elected at elections prior to the measure’s passage (e.g., 2020, 2022, or 2024 races). Applying term limits to previously served terms would constitute an impermissible retroactive application and violate state law.

Second, voter approval is required. A local term limits measure must be submitted to Paso Robles voters at a “regularly scheduled election,” meaning:
 a statewide primary election,
 a statewide general election, or
 a general municipal election.

For Paso Robles, the next regularly scheduled general municipal election will occur on November 3, 2026, which is the earliest feasible date to place a term limits measure before voters. The San Luis Obispo County Clerk-Recorder establishes submission deadlines for all ballot materials. To place a measure on the November 2026 ballot, the City must submit the ordinance/measure text, ballot question, and required resolutions by July 2026, which precedes the statutory 88-day deadline and provides adequate time for County processing.

Because term limits measures require majority voter approval, they are governed by the State Elections Code provisions for local ballot measures. A measure may reach the ballot either through (1) a citizen initiative signed by at least 10% of registered voters, or (2) City Council action to place the measure on the ballot by approving the required resolutions. After the measure is placed on the ballot, the City Attorney must prepare an impartial analysis and members of the public may submit arguments for or against the measure, all of which appear in the County voter information guide.

Beyond these legal requirements, the format and structure of a term limits measure is a matter of local policy. The City Council would have discretion over a number of important design elements:

1. Length of Term Limits.

Most California cities adopt either a two-term or three-term limit. While a one-term limit or four-term limit is legally permissible, such structures are uncommon.

2. Lifetime vs. Consecutive Term Limits.

A lifetime limit prohibits a person from ever again serving in that office once the limit is reached.

A consecutive limit requires a “cooling-off” period during which the person cannot serve or be appointed to the same office. State law does not dictate the length of the cooling-off period, though two or four years is typical. After this period, the individual may run again and serve additional terms.

Page 387 of 392 ends

Because City Council seats and the elected Mayor position in Paso Robles are each contested every four years, a two-year cooling-off period would, in practice, function similarly to a four-year break unless a mid-term vacancy occurs.

3. Separate or Combined Term Limits for Mayor and Council.

State law allows the City to adopt:
 a single combined limit covering service as either Mayor or Councilmember, or  separate limits for each office.

Examples include:
 a two-term lifetime limit for combined service as Mayor or Councilmember;  a two-term lifetime limit for Mayor and a three-term lifetime limit for Council;  a two-term consecutive limit for both offices combined.

Numerous possible configurations exist depending on community priorities.

4. How Partial Terms Are Counted.

If someone fills a vacancy as Mayor or Councilmember through appointment or a special election the term may be shorter than the standard four-year term. Cities vary in how they treat such service:
 Some do not count partial terms toward the limit.
 Some count any portion of a term as a full term.
 Some adopt a hybrid approach, counting partial terms only when the remaining time is below a certain threshold (such as two years), which discourages strategic mid-term resignations designed to avoid term limits.

Additionally, some cities count terms cut short by recall, removal, or conviction to avoid creating an unintended incentive structure.

The table below summarizes term limits for elected officials in the incorporated cities of San Luis Obispo County. It indicates whether limits exist, details limits for mayors and council members where applicable, and notes the city type (Charter or General Law). For cities with no formal term limits identified, verification with the city clerk is recommended.

City Term limits
in effect?
Mayor term-limit Council term-limit City type / Notes
San Luis
Obispo
Yes 2-year mayor terms,
max 4 consecutive
terms.
4-year council terms, max
2 consecutive terms.

Charter city
Grover
Beach
Yes 2-year mayor terms,
max 2 consecutive
terms (per Municipal
Code Sec. 2304)
4-year council terms, max
2 consecutive terms per
position; after a
~23-month break one may
run again.

General-Law city
Arroyo
Grande
No N/A N/A General-Law city
(election schedule:
2-yr mayor / 4-yr
council)

Page 388 of 392 ends

Atascadero No N/A N/A General-Law city
(mayor 2 yrs, council 4
yrs)
Morro Bay No N/A N/A General-Law city;
mayor serves 2-year
term, council
members 4-year
terms.

Pismo
Beach
No N/A N/A General-Law city
(mayor 2-yr, council
4-yr)
Paso Robles No N/A N/A General-Law city;
mayor and council
serve 4-year terms.

An article from the National League of Cities outlining the pros and cons of term limits is attached for reference.

Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this report or providing direction. If the Council later places a measure on the ballot, the City will incur election-related costs. November General Elections are generally less costly because costs are shared among participating jurisdictions. Historically, the County Clerk’s Office has been unable to provide election cost estimates to the City.

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

Recommendation (Option 2)
Direct staff to prepare a draft term limits measure, including ordinance language and the necessary election resolutions, and return to Council for review in advance of the July 2026 submission deadline for the November 2026 General Election.

Attachments

1. National League of Cities; Cities 101 — Term Lengths and Limits

Page 389 of 392 ends

Attachment 1

Page 390 of 392 ends

Attachment 1

Page 391 of 392 ends

Attachment 1

Page 392 of 392 ends

Paso Robles City CouncilJanuary 14, 2026

Paso Robles City Council
January 14, 2026