Agenda packet — Paso Robles City Council, March 17, 2026 (part 2 of 6)

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Engineering Division Recurring Expenditures [a]
Fund Org Division Account Acct Desc Budget Adjust Total Notes General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51010 CDEng-Perm Full Time Salary $862,100 $0 $862,100 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51015 CDEng-Accrual Payouts $6,000 $0 $6,000 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51020 CDEng-Part Time Wages $23,000 $0 $23,000 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51030 CDEng-Overtime Wages $1,000 $0 $1,000 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51040 CDEng-Retirement $43,500 $0 $43,500 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51041 CDEng-PERS-UAL $80,300 $0 $80,300 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51050 CDEng-Social Security $46,500 $0 $46,500 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51060 CDEng-Grp Ins-Hlth-Dental-Vsn $127,000 $0 $127,000 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51070 CDEng-Workers Compensation $22,000 $0 $22,000 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 51090 CDEng-Deferred Compensation $13,500 $0 $13,500 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52120 CDEng-Office Expense $1,600 $0 $1,600 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52123 CDEng-Dues-Subscriptions $500 $0 $500 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52130 CDEng-Postage $300 $0 $300 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52240 CDEng-Professional Services $105,000 ($105,000) $0 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52242 CDEng-Plan Check Services $89,300 $0 $89,300 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52260 CDEng-Travel and Training $5,300 $0 $5,300 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52261 CDEng-Vehicle Allowance $900 $0 $900 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52263 CDEng-Boot & Tool Allowance $400 $0 $400 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 52850 CDEng-IDC Legal Fees $13,900 $0 $13,900 General Fund 1007102 Engineering Division 54540 CDEng-Equipment-Furniture $40,000 $0 $40,000 Total $1,482,100 ($105,000) $1,377,100
Allocation of Citywide Overhead
Description
C'wide OH
Rate Mod Op Exp
Allocation of
C'wide OH Notes
Citywide Overhead Allocation 17% $1,377,100 $234,107 [b] Attachment 2

Page 149 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Engineering Division Allocation of Total Costs
Description Total Share Notes
Direct Expenses $1,377,100 85%
Allocation of Citywide Overhead $234,107 15%
Total $1,611,207 100%
FY 25/26 Anticipated Adjustment 3% [c]
Total $1,659,543 100%
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort
Description Total Total Notes
Indirect: General Admin; Mgmt; Policies; Procedures; Training; Public Info 40% $663,817 [d] Direct: Engineering Plan Review, Permit Processing, Inspections 60% $995,726 [d] Total 100% $1,659,543
Allocation of Annual Labor Effort Among Core Services
Description Total Total Notes
Development Engineering and Encroachments 77% $1,277,848 [d] CIP / Non-Fee Related 23% $381,695 [d]
Total 100% $1,659,543
Revenue Summary
Acct Acct Desc
FY 22/23
Actual
FY 23/24
Actual
FY 24/25
Budget
47020 GenFnd-Engineering Inspection $281,357 $273,208 $ 220,000 47061 GenFnd-EngineeringPlanChckFees $54,687 $20,281 $ 105,000 Total $336,044 $293,488 $325,000
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate
Description Total
Costs $1,659,543
Direct Hours 8,440
Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate $197
Attachment 2

Page 150 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Calculation of Cost Recovery and Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate - Engineering Division Calculation of Cost Multiplier for Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate (Apply to Base Salary Cost Per Hour) Description FTE
Annual Hours
Per FTE
Total Annual
Hours
Estimated
Salaries
Hourly Wage
Rate Only
Assuming Total
Annual Hours
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate
Indirect Cost
Rate Multiplier
(ICR)
Engineering 7.33 2,080 15,253 $844,361 $55 $197 3.56
Calculation of Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate by Position
Position Total Salaries Total FTE
Avg Salary
Per FTE
Avg Salary
Per Hour
ICR for FullyBurdened
Hourly Rate
Fully-Burdened
Hourly Rate After Hours
Community Development Director $68,217 0.33 $204,651 $98 3.56 $350 $350 City Engineer $163,574 1.00 $163,574 $79 3.56 $280 $280 Development Review Engineer $128,158 1.00 $128,158 $62 3.56 $219 $250 Engineering Inspector $323,767 3.00 $107,922 $52 3.56 $185 $211 Engineering Technician $93,935 1.00 $93,935 $45 3.56 $161 $183 Administrative Assistant $66,709 1.00 $66,709 $32 3.56 $114 $130 [a] Source: FY 24/25 Adopted Budget.
[b] Source: Citywide overhead cost allocation developed for purposes of this analysis. See separate worksheet for details. [c] Source: FY 24/25 and FY 25/26 Adopted Budget. Amount represents difference between FY 25/26 and FY 24/25 adopted budget (rounded). [c] Amounts intended to serve as reasonable estimates. Amounts will vary from year-to-year depending on activity, projects, and City Council priorities.

Attachment 2

Page 151 of 772 ends

Page 152 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Service Time Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service Fee Description
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Total
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Total
Grading and Drainage
4 Mass Grading, Rough Grading, or Stockpile Plan
a) Permit Application Fee 1.5 x $197 = $296 $296
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1,000 CY 6.0 8.0 14.0 x $219 $185 = $1,314 $1,480 $2,794 ii) 1,001 - 10,000 CY 12.0 16.0 28.0 x $219 $185 = $2,628 $2,960 $5,588 iii) Greater than 10,000 CY 28.0 40.0 68.0 x $219 $185 = $6,132 $7,400 $13,532 5 Precise Grading Plan
a) Permit Application Fee 1.5 x $197 = $296 $296
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1 Disturbed Acre 3.0 3.0 6.0 x $219 $185 = $657 $555 $1,212 ii) 1.01 - 5.0 Disturbed Acres 6.0 8.0 14.0 x $219 $185 = $1,314 $1,480 $2,794 iii) Greater than 5 Disturbed Acres 12.0 16.0 28.0 x $219 $185 = $2,628 $2,960 $5,588 6 Grading and Private Improvements
a) Permit Application Fee 1.5 x $197 = $296 $296
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1 Disturbed Acre 3.0 3.0 6.0 x $219 $185 = $657 $555 $1,212 ii) 1.01 - 5.0 Disturbed Acres 6.0 8.0 14.0 x $219 $185 = $1,314 $1,480 $2,794 iii) Greater than 5 Disturbed Acres 12.0 16.0 28.0 x $219 $185 = $2,628 $2,960 $5,588 7 SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 8.0 8.0 x $219 = $1,752 $1,752 8 Erosion Control Plan 8.0 8.0 x $219 = $1,752 $1,752
9 SWCP - Storm Water Control Plan 12.0 12.0 x $219 = $2,628 $2,628 Hydrology and Floodplain
10 Drainage Concept or Final Drainage Report
a) Up to 1.0 Acre 6.0 6.0 x $219 = $1,314 $1,314
b) 1.01 Acres to 10.0 Acres 12.0 12.0 x $219 = $2,628 $2,628 c) Greater than 10 Acres 28.0 28.0 x $219 = $6,132 $6,132 11 Hydrology or Hydraulic Study (Floodplain Study) 8.0 8.0 x $219 = $1,752 $1,752 12 FEMA Related Documents (Elevation Certificate, LOMA, LOMR, etc.) 4.0 4.0 x $219 = $876 $876 Attachment 2

Page 153 of 772 ends

Page 154 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Service Time Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Cost of Service Fee Description
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Total
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Total
Note: In some instances, fees may adjust incrementally based on variations in days in the public right-of-way, cubic yards, etc. These incremental adjustments are intended to reflect additional review effort associated with additional days in the public right-of-way, cubic yards, etc.
[a] Included in grading permit inspection cost.
[b] Fee set to match Caltrans.
[d] Each deposit and/or fee listed in this schedule is based on the estimated number of hours required to perform a standard service request and the typical cost of services/materials required to perform the requested service. For service requests that are anticipated to require efforts, services, or materials, materially different than those typically required, the Department reserves the right to modify the initial deposit amount and/or use a time and materials billing methodology rather than a fixed fee for service.
[c] Depending on project specifications, additional warranty fees may apply. [e] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments. Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

Attachment 2

Page 155 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Service Time
Fee Description
Encroachment Permits
1 Minor Encroachment Permit (includes Traffic Control Plan) (Encroachment Work up to Five Days)
a) Permit Application Fee
b) Permit Fee
i) Base Fee - Up to Five Days
ii) Each Additional Day
2 Major Encroachment Permit
(Encroachment Work Greater than Five Days)
a) Permit Application Fee
b) Permit Fee
i) Projects expected to last between 6 and 10 days in ROW ii) Projects expected to last more than 10 days in ROW
c) Traffic Control Plan Review
3 Public Improvement Plan
(Per SLO County Engineer's Estimate Valuation)
a) Permit Application Fee
b) Permit Fee
i) Up to $100,000
ii) Greater than $100,000
Proposed Fee
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change Unit

$185 94% $197 100% $12 Fixed Fee
varies varies $197 $370 100% varies Fixed Fee
varies varies $185 100% varies Fixed Fee
$185 63% $296 100% $111 Fixed Fee
varies varies $1,250 $1,250 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $2,500 $2,500 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $2,500 100% varies Deposit
$185 63% $296 100% $111 Fixed Fee
varies varies $2,500 $2,500 100% Deposit
varies varies $6,000 $6,000 100% Deposit
Attachment 2

Page 156 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Service Time
Fee Description
Grading and Drainage
4 Mass Grading, Rough Grading, or Stockpile Plan
a) Permit Application Fee
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1,000 CY
ii) 1,001 - 10,000 CY
iii) Greater than 10,000 CY
5 Precise Grading Plan
a) Permit Application Fee
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1 Disturbed Acre
ii) 1.01 - 5.0 Disturbed Acres
iii) Greater than 5 Disturbed Acres
6 Grading and Private Improvements
a) Permit Application Fee
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1 Disturbed Acre
ii) 1.01 - 5.0 Disturbed Acres
iii) Greater than 5 Disturbed Acres
7 SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
8 Erosion Control Plan
9 SWCP - Storm Water Control Plan
Hydrology and Floodplain
10 Drainage Concept or Final Drainage Report
a) Up to 1.0 Acre
b) 1.01 Acres to 10.0 Acres
c) Greater than 10 Acres
11 Hydrology or Hydraulic Study (Floodplain Study)
12 FEMA Related Documents (Elevation Certificate, LOMA, LOMR, etc.) Proposed Fee
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change Unit
$296 100% Fixed Fee
varies varies $1,250 $1,250 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $2,500 $2,500 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $6,000 $6,000 100% varies Deposit
$296 100% Fixed Fee
varies varies $500 $500 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $1,250 $1,250 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $2,500 $2,500 100% varies Deposit
$296 100% Fixed Fee
varies varies $500 $500 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $1,250 $1,250 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $2,500 $2,500 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $1,250 [a] 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $1,250 [a] 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $2,500 [a] 100% varies Deposit
varies varies $1,250 100% Deposit
varies varies $2,500 100% Deposit
varies varies $6,000 100% Deposit
varies varies $1,250 100% Deposit
varies varies $750 100% Deposit
Attachment 2

Page 157 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Service Time
Fee Description
Mapping
13 Final Parcel/Tract Map
a) 1 - 4 Lots
b) 5 - 25 Lots
c) 26+ Lots
d) Condo Maps
14 Certificates (Certificate of Compliance or Map Correction) 15 Grant Deed, Easement Document, Vacation (ROW or Easement) Other
16 Agreements
17 Transportation Permit
a) Per Day
b) Annual
18 Development Technology Fee
(percent of permit fee)
19 Work Without Permit or Outside Scope of Permit
Hourly Rates
20 Hourly Rates For Deposit-Based Services and for Services Requested of City Staff which have no Specified Fee Listed in this Fee Schedule a) City Engineering Staff
i) Business Hours
ii) After Hours (2 hour minimum)
b) City Surveyor Services (Contracted)
c) Engineering Support Services (Contracted)
d) Attorney Review Services
Proposed Fee
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change Unit
varies varies $4,000 100% Deposit
varies varies $6,000 100% Deposit
varies varies $8,000 100% Deposit
varies varies $8,000 100% Deposit
$1,200
deposit
$2,500 100% Fixed Fee
varies varies $3,500 100% Deposit
varies varies $3,500 100% Deposit
$16 [b] $16 [b] Fixed Fee
$90 [b] $90 [b] Fixed Fee
n/a - new 5% 58% % of Permit Fee
n/a - new 2x Permit Fee
varies $197 100% varies Per Hour
varies $225 100% varies Per Hour
Pass-Through Pass-Through 100%
Pass-Through Pass-Through 100%
Pass-Through Pass-Through 100%
Attachment 2

Page 158 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Engineering Fees
Cost of Service Calculation - At Fully-Burdened Hourly Rate Service Time
Fee Description
Note: In some instances, fees may adjust incrementally based on variations in days in the public right-of-way, cubic yards, etc. These incremental adjustments are intended to reflect additional review effort associated with additional days in the public right-of-way, cubic yards, etc.
[a] Included in grading permit inspection cost.
[b] Fee set to match Caltrans.
[d] Each deposit and/or fee listed in this schedule is based on the estimated number of hours required to perform a standard service request and the typical cost of services/materials required to perform the requested service. For service requests that are anticipated to require efforts, services, or materials, materially different than those typically required, the Department reserves the right to modify the initial deposit amount and/or use a time and materials billing methodology rather than a fixed fee for service.
[c] Depending on project specifications, additional warranty fees may apply. [e] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments. Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

Proposed Fee
Current Fee
Current Cost
Recovery
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Proposed Cost
Recovery Fee Change Unit
Attachment 2

Page 159 of 772 ends

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
General Plan Maintenance Fee
Attachment 2

Page 160 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - General Plan Update
Estimated Expenditures
Description Total
Amortization /
Update Frequency Annual Cost Notes
General Plan Update $2,000,000 20 $100,000 [a]
Housing Element $200,000 4 $50,000 [a]
Zoning Code $50,000 4 $12,500 [a]
In-House Maintenance $163,168 1 $163,168 [a],[b]
Total $325,668
Base for Fee Calculation
Acct Acct Desc FY 22/23 Actual
FY 23/24
Estimated FY 24/25 Budget
43030 GenFnd-Building Permit Fees $1,088,059 $1,364,525 $1,300,000 Fee at Full Cost Recovery
Description Total
Cost of Service $325,668
Base for Fee Collection $1,300,000
Fee at Full Cost Recovery 25%
Notes:
[a] Source: Conservative estimates of update costs. Amounts will likely be higher. [b] See cost of service worksheet. Assumes 25% of annual long range, regional planning costs are linked to General Plan Maintenance related efforts.

Attachment 2

Page 161 of 772 ends

User and Regulatory Fees
Cost of Service Calculations
Development Technology Fee
Attachment 2

Page 162 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
User and Regulatory Fee Study
Cost of Service Calculation - Development Technology Enhancement Fee Estimated Expenditures
Description Total
Amortization /
Update Frequency Annual Cost Note
Software and Licensing $60,000 1 $60,000 [a]
Hardware Upgrades $100,000 10 $10,000 [a]
Implementation $600,000 10 $60,000 [a]
Total $130,000
Base for Fee Calculation
Acct Acct Desc FY 22/23 Actual
FY 23/24
Estimated FY 24/25 Budget
43030 GenFnd-Building Permit Fees $1,088,059 $1,364,525 $1,300,000 47020 GenFnd-Engineering Inspection $281,357 $273,208 $220,000 Total $1,369,415 $1,637,733 $1,520,000
Fee at Full Cost Recovery
Acct Desc Total
Cost of Service $130,000
Base for Fee Collection $1,520,000
Fee at Full Cost Recovery 9%
[a] Useful life and ongoing licensing costs, and annual revenues estimated by ClearSource. Amounts are intended to represent reasonable estimates.

Attachment 2

Page 163 of 772 ends

Overview of Proposed Adjustments to Fees and Deposits
Attachment 3

Page 164 of 772 ends

Description Page
Building Fees 1
Fixed Fees and Rates that are Proposed to Remain Unchanged 2 Fixed Fees and Rates that are Proposed to Change 5
Time and Materials Initial Deposit Amounts that are Proposed to Change 7 New Fees Proposed 8
Planning Fees 9
Fixed Fees and Rates that are Proposed to Remain Unchanged 10 Fixed Fees and Rates that are Proposed to Change 12
Time and Materials Initial Deposit Amounts that are Proposed to Change 13 Engineering Fees 15
Fixed Fees and Rates that are Proposed to Remain Unchanged 16 Fixed Fees and Rates that are Proposed to Change 17
Time and Materials Initial Deposit Amounts that are Proposed to Change 18 New Fees Proposed 20
City of Paso Robles
Overview of Proposed Changes to Fees and Deposits
Attachment 3

Page 165 of 772 ends

Overview of Proposed Adjustments to Building Fees
Attachment 3

Page 166 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
1 Building Standard Hourly Rate Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour Flat Fees
2 Minor Residential MPE Permits Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $103 $103 $103 $0 100% each 3 Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical (MPE) Permits
a) 1 Item (e.g. Mech, Plumb, Elec, or EV ONLY) Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $360 $361 $361 $0 100% each b) 2 Items (e.g. Mech + Plumb) Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $463 $464 $464 $0 100% each e) Solar - COM/IND Permit Processing Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $618 $618 $618 $0 100% each [a] f) Solar - COM/IND Plan Check & Est. Inspections Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour [a] 4 Residential Remodels/Additions
c) Patio Cover/Deck/Porch/Carport Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $0 100% each 5 Other
a) Pool/Spa - Residential Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $1,648 $1,648 $1,648 $0 100% each b) Pool/Spa - COM Permit Processing Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $618 $618 $618 $0 100% each c) Pool/Spa - COM Plan Check & Est. Inspections Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour d) Demolition Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $515 $515 $515 $0 100% each e) Retaining Wall Permit Processing Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% each f) Retaining Wall Plan Check & Est. Inspections Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour g) Signs - Major Permit Processing Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $824 $824 $824 $0 100% each h) Signs - Major Plan Check & Est. Inspections Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour i) Signs - Minor Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $412 $412 $412 $0 100% each j) Foundation Repair Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $824 $824 $824 $0 100% each k) Commercial Re-Roof Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $824 $824 $824 $0 100% each l) Cell Site Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $1,648 $1,648 $1,648 $0 100% each m) Commercial Hood Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $1,030 $1,030 $1,030 $0 100% each Permit Processing Fees
11 Hotel/Motel
c) Hotel Amenities - Est. Processing Hours Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to remain unchanged.

Activity Description
Attachment 3

Page 167 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to remain unchanged.

Activity Description
Other Fees
20 General Plan Maintenance Fee
(percent of building permit fee)
Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers a portion of
General Plan Maintenance costs
3% 25% 3% 0% 12% [b]
21 Development Technology Fee
(percent of permit fee)
Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers a portion of
development-related technology
costs
5% 9% 5% 0% 58% [c]
22 AB717 Fee (Education)
(percent of permit fee)
Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount 1% 1% 0% [c] 23 Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP) (Valuation) [d] a) Residential Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount $0.50 or valuation x .00013
$0.50 or valuation
x .00013
b) Commercial Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount $0.50 or valuation x .00028
$0.50 or valuation
x .00028
24 Building Standards (SB 1473) Fee Calculation (Valuation) [d] a) $1 - $25,000 Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount $1 $1 b) $25,001 - $50,000 Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount $2 $2 c) $50,001 - $75,000 Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount $3 $3 d) $75,001 - $100,000 Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount $4 $4 e) Each Add'l $25,000 or fraction thereof Fixed Fee No State of CA authorized amount Add $1 Add $1 25 Board of Appeals Hearing Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour 26 Research Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $103 $103 $103 $0 100% per 1/2 hour 27 Service Required in Excess of Standard Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour 28 Special Submittal or Addendum Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour 29 Supplemental Plan Check Fee Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour 30 Supplemental Inspection Fee Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour 32 After Hours (Scheduled) Call-Out Fee Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $412 $412 $412 $0 100% 2 hr min a) Each Additional Hour Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour 35 Request to work outside normal hours of construction Fixed Fee/Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% 1 hr min 37 Code Modifications / Interpretations Fixed Fee/Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $206 $206 $206 $0 100% 1 hr min 39 Work without a Permit Fixed Fee/Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $412 $412 $412 $0 100% 2 hr min Attachment 3

Page 168 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to remain unchanged.

Activity Description
hrly - Hourly
min - Minimum
valu - Valuation
[a] Per AB1414, residential solar permits cannot exceed $450 (+ $15 per kW above 15). Commercial solar permits cannot exceed $1,000 (+ $7 per kW between 51 & 250, $5 per kW above 250). [b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Fee applies to all permits.
[d] Fee set by State of California.
[e] Flat Fees Include: Plan Check, Inspections & Permit Processing (AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance, SB1473 & SMIP to be included when applicable). [f] Minor Residential MPE Permits include: Building Fee, AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance & SB1473 (has to total the flat rate per Council).

Unit Acronyms:
ea - Each
hr - Hour(s)
Attachment 3

Page 169 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
Flat Fees
3 Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical (MPE) Permits
c) Solar - Residential Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $410 $412 $412 $2 100% each [a] d) Solar - Residential + Electrical Panel Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $490 $515 $515 $25 100% each 4 Residential Remodels/Additions
a) Re-Roof Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $206 $309 $309 $103 100% each b) < 500 sqft Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $1,853 $2,060 $2,060 $207 100% each 5 Other
n) Production/Tract Housing- SFR Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $4,612 $4,635 $4,635 $23 100% each o) Production/Tract Housing- SFR and ADU Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $5,436 $5,459 $5,459 $23 100% each p) ADU Flat Fee (Based on Stock Plan) Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $3,360 $3,399 $3,399 $39 100% each Permit Processing Fees
6 Residential Addition/Remodel - 500sqft or More Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $824 $1,236 $1,236 $412 100% each 7 Residential - New
a) Single Family/Detached Dwelling Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $3,089 $4,532 $4,532 $1,443 100% each b) Each Additional Unit Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $1,030 $1,442 $1,442 $412 100% each 8 Commercial/Industrial - New
a) < 5,000 sqft Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $3,501 $4,944 $4,944 $1,443 100% each b) 5,000 sqft to 10,000 sqft Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $5,149 $7,416 $7,416 $2,267 100% each c) 10,001 sqft to 50,000 sqft Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $7,208 $9,888 $9,888 $2,680 100% each d) 50,001 sqft to 100,000 sqft Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $11,327 $16,480 $16,480 $5,153 100% each e) > 100,000 sqft (for each add'l 25,000 sqft) Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $3,089 $4,532 $4,532 $1,443 100% each 9 Commercial/Industrial - Shell Only
a) < 5,000 sqft Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $1,648 $2,472 $2,472 $824 100% each b) 5,000 sqft or more (for each add'l 5,000 sqft) Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $412 $618 $618 $206 100% each 10 Commercial/Industrial - Tenant Improvement
a) Major Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $2,471 $3,708 $3,708 $1,237 100% each b) Minor Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $1,236 $1,854 $1,854 $618 100% each 11 Hotel/Motel
a) Up to 10 Rooms Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $6,178 $9,064 $9,064 $2,886 100% each b) 11 Rooms or More (for each add'l room) Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $206 $309 $309 $103 100% each

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE
Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to change.

Activity Description
Attachment 3

Page 170 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE
Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to change.

Activity Description
Other Fees
31 Emergency (Non-scheduled) Call-Out Fee Fixed Rate Yes Rounding adjustment $823 $824 $824 $1 100% 4 hr min 33 Application/Permit Extension Fixed Rate Yes Rounding adjustment $104 $103 $103 ($1) 100% per 1/2 hour 34 Duplication of Plans Fixed Rate Yes Rounding adjustment $104 $103 $103 ($1) 100% per 1/2 hour + costs
36 Reactivation of Dormant Permit Fixed Fee/Rate Yes Rounding adjustment $823 $824 $824 $1 100% 4 hr min 38 Change of Design Professional / Contractor Fixed Rate Yes Rounding adjustment $104 $103 $103 ($1) 100% per 1/2 hour hr - Hour(s)
hrly - Hourly
min - Minimum
valu - Valuation
[a] Per AB1414, residential solar permits cannot exceed $450 (+ $15 per kW above 15). Commercial solar permits cannot exceed $1,000 (+ $7 per kW between 51 & 250, $5 per kW above 250). [b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Fee applies to all permits.
[d] Fee set by State of California.

Unit Acronyms:
ea - Each
[e] Flat Fees Include: Plan Check, Inspections & Permit Processing (AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance, SB1473 & SMIP to be included when applicable). [f] Minor Residential MPE Permits include: Building Fee, AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance & SB1473 (has to total the flat rate per Council).

Attachment 3

Page 171 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES

TIME AND MATERIALS INITIAL DEPOSIT AMOUNTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
Inspection Deposits
12 Residential Addition/Remodel - 500sqft or More Deposit Yes $824 $1,236 $1,236 $412 100% each 13 Residential - New
a) Single Family/Detached Dwelling Deposit Yes $3,089 $4,532 $4,532 $1,443 100% each b) Each Additional Unit Deposit Yes $1,030 $1,442 $1,442 $412 100% each 14 Commercial/Industrial - New
a) < 5,000 sqft Deposit Yes $3,501 $4,944 $4,944 $1,443 100% each b) 5,000 sqft to 10,000 sqft Deposit Yes $5,149 $7,416 $7,416 $2,267 100% each c) 10,001 sqft to 50,000 sqft Deposit Yes $7,208 $9,888 $9,888 $2,680 100% each d) 50,001 sqft to 100,000 sqft Deposit Yes $11,327 $16,480 $16,480 $5,153 100% each e) > 100,000 sqft (for each add'l 25,000 sqft) Deposit Yes $3,089 $4,532 $4,532 $1,443 100% each 15 Commercial/Industrial - Shell Only
a) < 5,000 sqft Deposit Yes $1,648 $2,472 $2,472 $824 100% each b) 5,000 sqft or more (for each add'l 5,000 sqft) Deposit Yes $412 $618 $618 $206 100% each 16 Commercial/Industrial - Tenant Improvement
a) Major Deposit Yes $2,471 $3,708 $3,708 $1,237 100% each b) Minor Deposit Yes $1,236 $1,854 $1,854 $618 100% each 17 Hotel/Motel
a) Up to 10 Rooms Deposit Yes $6,178 $9,064 $9,064 $2,886 100% each b) 11 Rooms or More (for each add'l room) Deposit Yes $206 $309 $309 $103 100% each c) Hotel Amenities - Est. Inspection Hours Deposit Yes $206 $206 $206 $0 100% per hour min - Minimum
valu - Valuation
[a] Per AB1414, residential solar permits cannot exceed $450 (+ $15 per kW above 15). Commercial solar permits cannot exceed $1,000 (+ $7 per kW between 51 & 250, $5 per kW above 250). [b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Fee applies to all permits.
[d] Fee set by State of California.
[e] Flat Fees Include: Plan Check, Inspections & Permit Processing (AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance, SB1473 & SMIP to be included when applicable). [f] Minor Residential MPE Permits include: Building Fee, AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance & SB1473 (has to total the flat rate per Council).

Unit Acronyms:
ea - Each
Amounts shown in the following section represent initial deposits collected for services performed on a time and materials basis. Initial deposit amounts are proposed for adjustment.

Activity Description
Underlying hourly billing rate for time
& materials deposit based billings
remains unchanged.

The deposit amount is simply being
recalibrated to attempt to minimize
the need to pursue additional deposit
funding from applicants.

Re-calibrating the deposit is intended
to help provide applicants with a
closer sense of what they are likely to
pay for services.

At the conclusion of the project, any
unused deposit amounts are returned
to the applicant.
hr - Hour(s)
hrly - Hourly
Attachment 3

Page 172 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING FEES

NEW FEES PROPOSED
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
Building Plan Check Fees - Planning
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
18 Planning Building Plan Check Fees - Planning (Greater of a or b)
a) Minimum Fee Fixed Fee Yes n/a - new $107 $107 100% Fixed Fee b) Percent of Building Permit Fee n/a - new 10% Fixed Fee Building Plan Check Fees - Engineering
(Fees Only Applied to Projects Requiring Review)
19 Building Site Plan (per lot) Fixed Fee Yes New fee intended to recover cost of engineering division review of
building plans
n/a - new $788 $788 100% Fixed Fee
min - Minimum
valu - Valuation
[a] Per AB1414, residential solar permits cannot exceed $450 (+ $15 per kW above 15). Commercial solar permits cannot exceed $1,000 (+ $7 per kW between 51 & 250, $5 per kW above 250). [b] Fee applies to new construction, additions, tenant improvements, and residential remodels requiring building permits. [c] Fee applies to all permits.
[d] Fee set by State of California.
[e] Flat Fees Include: Plan Check, Inspections & Permit Processing (AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance, SB1473 & SMIP to be included when applicable). [f] Minor Residential MPE Permits include: Building Fee, AB717, Permit Automation, Nexus Study Fee, General Plan Maintenance & SB1473 (has to total the flat rate per Council).

Unit Acronyms:
ea - Each
The following section includes new fees proposed.

Activity Description
New fee intended to recover cost of
planning division review of building
plans
hr - Hour(s)
hrly - Hourly
Attachment 3

Page 173 of 772 ends

Overview of Proposed Adjustments to Planning Fees
Attachment 3

Page 174 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANNING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
1 Planning Standard Hourly Rate Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $214 $214 $214 $0 100% Per Hour 3 Administrative Use Permit
a) Minor Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $214 $214 $214 $0 100% Fixed Fee b) Major Deposit No No change to proposed initial deposit $1,284 $1,284 $1,284 $0 100% T&M Deposit 12 Indoor Cannabis Cultivation Permit Fixed Fee No Current fee recovers cost of service $214 $214 $214 $0 100% Fixed Fee 14 Oak Tree Removal
c) Oak Tree Mitigation In-Lieu Fee
(per 1.5 inch diameter replacement tree)
Fixed Fee No Fee not examined as part of study $200 $200 $0 Fixed Fee 15 Original Art / Vintage Art Mural
a) Original Art Mural Application Fixed Fee No No change proposed $1 $1,284 $1 $0 0% Fixed Fee b) Vintage Art Mural Application Fixed Fee No No change proposed $1 $1,284 $1 $0 0% Fixed Fee c) Original Art Installation Application, Plan Check and Permitting Fixed Fee No No change proposed $1 $1,284 $1 $0 0% Fixed Fee 16 Plot Plan Deposit No No change to proposed initial deposit $428 $428 $428 $0 100% T&M Deposit 19 Short-Term Rental Permit
a) Short-Term Rental Permit Fee (New and Renewal)
i) Homeshares with Only One Bedroom Available to Rent Fixed Fee No No change proposed $300 $300 $0 Fixed Fee ii) All Others Fixed Fee No No change proposed $550 $550 $0 Fixed Fee b) Inspection Fee Fixed Rate No No change proposed Bill Hourly Bill Hourly per hour 20 Sign Permit Fixed Fee No No change proposed $20 $428 $20 $0 5% Fixed Fee

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to remain unchanged.

Activity Description
Attachment 3

Page 175 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANNING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to remain unchanged.

Activity Description
Other Fees
32 Hourly Rates For Deposit-Based Services and for Services Requested of City Staff which have no Specified Fee Listed in this Fee Schedule a) City Planning Staff Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service $214 $214 $214 $0 100% Per Hour b) Contract Planning Support Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service Time and Materials
plus 15% admin
100% T&M Deposit
c) Specialized Attorney Review Services (Contracted) Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service Time and Materials
100% T&M Deposit
33 Nexus Study Fee Fixed Fee No Fee not examined as part of study 0.20% 0.20% 0.00% formula fee [b] 34 Parking In-Lieu Fee Fixed Fee No Fee not examined as part of study $18,989 $18,989 $0 Fixed Fee [c] 35 Electronic Archiving
a) Size A&B Fixed Fee No No change proposed $0.20 $0.20 $0.00 page b) Size C Fixed Fee No No change proposed $0.45 $0.45 $0.00 page c) Size D&E Fixed Fee No No change proposed $2 $2 $0 page 36 Record Management Fee Fixed Fee No No change proposed $15 $15 $0 each [f] The deposit costs listed above are for the initial deposit only. Costs exceeding the initial deposit will be charged per the City’s hourly rate schedule and/or consultant rates as applicable. Unspent deposits will be refunded. [g] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments. [a] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Commissions, or City Council. [b] Percentage based on permit fee.
[c] Resolution No. 06-197.
[d] In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [e] “Time & materials” includes all costs including consultant costs, outside agency costs, noticing costs, etc.

Attachment 3

Page 176 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANNING FEES
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
2 ABC License - Public Necessity Finding Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $823 $856 $856 $33 100% Fixed Fee 5 Appeal Fixed Fee Yes Partial cost recovery $248 $4,280 $500 $252 12% Fixed Fee [a] 11 Historic Resources
b) Historic Certificate of No Effect Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $592 $856 $856 $264 100% Fixed Fee 14 Oak Tree Removal
a) Staff Level - Dead Tree Fixed Fee Yes Partial cost recovery $248 $535 $268 $20 50% Fixed Fee b) Council Hearing Fixed Fee Yes Partial cost recovery $744 $1,712 $856 $112 50% Fixed Fee 17 Public Improvement Waiver or Deferral Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $744 $1,712 $1,712 $968 100% Fixed Fee 25 Street Name Change Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $744 $856 $856 $112 100% Fixed Fee 26 Temporary Use Permit Fixed Fee Yes Partial cost recovery $206 $428 $214 $8 50% Fixed Fee 30 Zoning Compliance - Home Occupation Review Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $25 $71 $71 $46 100% Fixed Fee 31 Zoning Letter Fixed Fee Yes Fee updated to reflect cost of service $100 $214 $214 $114 100% Fixed Fee [d] In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [e] “Time & materials” includes all costs including consultant costs, outside agency costs, noticing costs, etc. [f] The deposit costs listed above are for the initial deposit only. Costs exceeding the initial deposit will be charged per the City’s hourly rate schedule and/or consultant rates as applicable. Unspent deposits will be refunded. [g] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE
Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to change.

Activity Description
[a] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Commissions, or City Council. [b] Percentage based on permit fee.
[c] Resolution No. 06-197.

Attachment 3

Page 177 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANNING FEES

TIME AND MATERIALS INITIAL DEPOSIT AMOUNTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
4 Annexation (does not include LAFCO or County fees) Deposit Yes $5,500 $17,120 $15,000 $9,500 100% T&M Deposit 6 CEQA Environmental Review by Consultant Deposit Yes $1,500 $10,000 $8,500 100% T&M Deposit 7 Commission's Interpretation of Zoning Code Deposit Yes $600 $1,712 $1,500 $900 100% T&M Deposit 8 Conditional Use Permit
a) Amendment Deposit Yes $600 $2,568 $2,500 $1,900 100% T&M Deposit b) Minor Deposit Yes $1,200 $2,568 $2,500 $1,300 100% T&M Deposit c) Major Deposit Yes $5,500 $5,136 $5,000 ($500) 100% T&M Deposit 9 Development Plan
a) Master Development Plan Deposit Yes $5,500 $10,272 $10,000 $4,500 100% T&M Deposit b) Development Plan Deposit Yes $5,500 $10,272 $10,000 $4,500 100% T&M Deposit c) Development Plan Amendment Deposit Yes $5,500 $5,136 $5,000 ($500) 100% T&M Deposit d) Development Plan Modification Deposit Yes $5,500 $5,136 $5,000 ($500) 100% T&M Deposit 10 General Plan Amendment Deposit Yes $5,500 $10,272 $10,000 $4,500 100% T&M Deposit 11 Historic Resources
a) Historic Certificate of Appropriateness Deposit Yes $1,487 $5,136 $5,000 $3,513 100% T&M Deposit 13 Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger
a) Lot Line Adjustment Deposit Yes $1,487 varies $5,000 $3,513 100% T&M Deposit b) Parcel Merger Deposit Yes $1,487 varies $2,500 $1,013 100% T&M Deposit 18 Rezone (text or map change) Deposit Yes $5,500 $10,272 $10,000 $4,500 100% T&M Deposit Amounts shown in the following section represent initial deposits collected for services performed on a time and materials basis. Initial deposit amounts are proposed for adjustment.

Underlying hourly billing rate for time
& materials deposit based billings
remains unchanged.

The deposit amount is simply being
recalibrated to attempt to minimize
the need to pursue additional deposit
funding from applicants.

Re-calibrating the deposit is intended
to help provide applicants with a
closer sense of what they are likely to
pay for services.

At the conclusion of the project, any
unused deposit amounts are returned
to the applicant.

Activity Description
Attachment 3

Page 178 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANNING FEES

TIME AND MATERIALS INITIAL DEPOSIT AMOUNTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee
or Deposit Cost of Service
Proposed Fee
or Deposit Change Cost Recovery Charge Basis Note
Amounts shown in the following section represent initial deposits collected for services performed on a time and materials basis. Initial deposit amounts are proposed for adjustment.

Activity Description
21 Site Plan
a) Site Plan Review
i) Minor Deposit Yes $592 $1,712 $1,500 $908 100% T&M Deposit ii) Major Deposit Yes $1,088 $5,136 $5,000 $3,912 100% T&M Deposit b) Site Plan Modification
a) Minor Deposit Yes $592 $1,712 $1,500 $908 100% T&M Deposit b) Major Deposit Yes $1,088 $5,136 $5,000 $3,912 100% T&M Deposit 22 Special Planned Development Deposit Yes $5,500 $10,272 $10,000 $4,500 100% T&M Deposit 23 Specific Plan Amendment Deposit Yes $5,500 $10,272 $10,000 $4,500 100% T&M Deposit 24 Street Abandonment Deposit Yes $600 $3,424 $3,000 $2,400 100% T&M Deposit 27 Tentative Map
a) Tentative Parcel Map / Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Deposit Yes $1,200 $5,136 $5,000 $3,800 100% T&M Deposit b) Tentative Tract Map / Vesting Tentative Tract Map Deposit Yes $5,500 $8,560 $8,500 $3,000 100% T&M Deposit c) Urban Lot Split Deposit Yes varies varies $2,500 varies 100% T&M Deposit 28 Time Extension Deposit Yes $1,487 $1,712 $1,500 $13 100% T&M Deposit 29 Variance Deposit Yes $1,200 $5,136 $5,000 $3,800 100% T&M Deposit [d] In addition to amounts shown above, applicant is responsible for all costs of outside agency review/services, including but not limited to, LAFCO, Board of Equalization Fees, Department of Fish and Wildlife Fees, etc. [e] “Time & materials” includes all costs including consultant costs, outside agency costs, noticing costs, etc. [f] The deposit costs listed above are for the initial deposit only. Costs exceeding the initial deposit will be charged per the City’s hourly rate schedule and/or consultant rates as applicable. Unspent deposits will be refunded. [g] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

Underlying hourly billing rate for time
& materials deposit based billings
remains unchanged.

The deposit amount is simply being
recalibrated to attempt to minimize
the need to pursue additional deposit
funding from applicants.

Re-calibrating the deposit is intended
to help provide applicants with a
closer sense of what they are likely to
pay for services.

At the conclusion of the project, any
unused deposit amounts are returned
to the applicant.
[a] Depending on the subject of the appeal, specialized expertise may be solicited, at the expense of the applicant, for the purpose of providing input to the City Manager, Commissions, or City Council. [b] Percentage based on permit fee.
[c] Resolution No. 06-197.

Attachment 3

Page 179 of 772 ends

Overview of Proposed Adjustments to Engineering Fees
Attachment 3

Page 180 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO ENGINEERING FEES
Cost of Service Proposed Fee / Deposit
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee or
Deposit
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Change
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Charge
Basis
17 Transportation Permit
a) Per Day Fixed Fee No Fee set to match CalTrans $16 [b] $16 [b] Fixed Fee b) Annual Fixed Fee No Fee set to match CalTrans $90 [b] $90 [b] Fixed Fee Hourly Rates
20 Hourly Rates For Deposit-Based Services and for Services Requested of City Staff which have no Specified Fee Listed in this Fee Schedule b) City Surveyor Services (Contracted) Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service Pass-Through Pass-Through 100% c) Engineering Support Services (Contracted) Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service Pass-Through Pass-Through 100% d) Attorney Review Services Fixed Rate No Current rate recovers cost of service Pass-Through Pass-Through 100% [c] Depending on project specifications, additional warranty fees may apply. [d] Each deposit and/or fee listed in this schedule is based on the estimated number of hours required to perform a standard service request and the typical cost of services/materials required to perform the requested service. For service requests that are anticipated to require efforts, services, or materials, materially different than those typically required, the Department reserves the right to modify the initial deposit amount and/or use a time and materials billing methodology rather than a fixed fee for service. [e] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN UNCHANGED Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to remain unchanged.

Activity Description
[a] Included in grading permit inspection cost.
[b] Fee set to match Caltrans.

Attachment 3

Page 181 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

Proposing fixed application fee.
$296 $296 100% Fixed Fee
5 Precise Grading Plan
a) Permit Application Fee Fixed Fee Yes Historically recovered via deposit.

Proposing fixed application fee.
$296 $296 100% Fixed Fee
6 Grading and Private Improvements
a) Permit Application Fee Fixed Fee Yes Historically recovered via deposit.

Proposing fixed application fee.
$296 $296 100% Fixed Fee
14 Certificates (Certificate of Compliance or Map Correction) Fixed Fee Yes Historically recovered via deposit.

Proposing fixed fee.
$1,200
deposit
$2,628 $2,500 100% Fixed Fee
Hourly Rates
20 Hourly Rates For Deposit-Based Services and for Services Requested of City Staff which have no Specified Fee Listed in this Fee Schedule a) City Engineering Staff
i) Business Hours Fixed Rate Yes Updated to reflect cost of service varies $197 $197 varies 100% Per Hour ii) After Hours (2 hour minimum) Fixed Rate Yes Updated to reflect cost of service varies $225 $225 varies 100% Per Hour [d] Each deposit and/or fee listed in this schedule is based on the estimated number of hours required to perform a standard service request and the typical cost of services/materials required to perform the requested service. For service requests that are anticipated to require efforts, services, or materials, materially different than those typically required, the Department reserves the right to modify the initial deposit amount and/or use a time and materials billing methodology rather than a fixed fee for service. [e] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

Historically recovered via deposit.

Proposing fixed fee.

FIXED FEES AND RATES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE
Fees and rates included in the following section are proposed to change.

Activity Description
[a] Included in grading permit inspection cost.
[b] Fee set to match Caltrans.
[c] Depending on project specifications, additional warranty fees may apply.

Attachment 3

Page 182 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO ENGINEERING FEES

TIME AND MATERIALS INITIAL DEPOSIT AMOUNTS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO CHANGE Cost of Service Proposed Fee / Deposit
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee or
Deposit
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Change
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Charge
Basis
Encroachment Permits
2 Major Encroachment Permit
(Encroachment Work Greater than Five Days)
b) Permit Fee
i) Projects expected to last between 6 and 10 days in ROW Deposit Yes varies $1,314 $1,480 $1,250 $1,250 varies 100% Deposit ii) Projects expected to last more than 10 days in ROW Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,960 $2,500 $2,500 varies 100% Deposit c) Traffic Control Plan Review Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,500 varies 100% Deposit 3 Public Improvement Plan
(Per SLO County Engineer's Estimate Valuation)
b) Permit Fee
i) Up to $100,000 Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,960 $2,500 $2,500 100% Deposit ii) Greater than $100,000 Deposit Yes varies $6,132 $7,400 $6,000 $6,000 100% Deposit Grading and Drainage
4 Mass Grading, Rough Grading, or Stockpile Plan
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1,000 CY Deposit Yes varies $1,314 $1,480 $1,250 $1,250 varies 100% Deposit ii) 1,001 - 10,000 CY Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,960 $2,500 $2,500 varies 100% Deposit iii) Greater than 10,000 CY Deposit Yes varies $6,132 $7,400 $6,000 $6,000 varies 100% Deposit 5 Precise Grading Plan
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1 Disturbed Acre Deposit Yes varies $657 $555 $500 $500 varies 100% Deposit ii) 1.01 - 5.0 Disturbed Acres Deposit Yes varies $1,314 $1,480 $1,250 $1,250 varies 100% Deposit iii) Greater than 5 Disturbed Acres Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,960 $2,500 $2,500 varies 100% Deposit 6 Grading and Private Improvements
b) Plan Review and Permit Inspection Fees
i) Up to 1 Disturbed Acre Deposit Yes varies $657 $555 $500 $500 varies 100% Deposit ii) 1.01 - 5.0 Disturbed Acres Deposit Yes varies $1,314 $1,480 $1,250 $1,250 varies 100% Deposit iii) Greater than 5 Disturbed Acres Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,960 $2,500 $2,500 varies 100% Deposit Amounts shown in the following section represent initial deposits collected for services performed on a time and materials basis. Initial deposit amounts are proposed for adjustment.

Underlying hourly billing rate for time
& materials deposit based billings has
been recalibrated to reflect
consolidated billing rate rather than
positional billing rates. This is
consistent with practice of other
development divisions.

Current deposit amounts are
illustrated as "varies" because they
vary depending on application
submittal.

Moving forward, staff recommends
proposed deposit amounts that are
commonly applied from project to
project. The deposit amount is
intended to attempt to minimize the
need to pursue additional deposit
funding from applicants.

Re-calibrating the deposit is intended
to help provide applicants with a
closer sense of what they are likely to
pay for services.

At the conclusion of the project, any
unused deposit amounts are returned
to the applicant.

Activity Description
Attachment 3

Page 183 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO ENGINEERING FEES

Activity Description
7 SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Deposit Yes varies $1,752 $1,250 [a] varies 100% Deposit 8 Erosion Control Plan Deposit Yes varies $1,752 $1,250 [a] varies 100% Deposit 9 SWCP - Storm Water Control Plan Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,500 [a] varies 100% Deposit Hydrology and Floodplain
10 Drainage Concept or Final Drainage Report
a) Up to 1.0 Acre Deposit Yes varies $1,314 $1,250 100% Deposit b) 1.01 Acres to 10.0 Acres Deposit Yes varies $2,628 $2,500 100% Deposit c) Greater than 10 Acres Deposit Yes varies $6,132 $6,000 100% Deposit 11 Hydrology or Hydraulic Study (Floodplain Study) Deposit Yes varies $1,752 $1,250 100% Deposit 12 FEMA Related Documents (Elevation Certificate, LOMA, LOMR, etc.) Deposit Yes varies $876 $750 100% Deposit Mapping
13 Final Parcel/Tract Map
a) 1 - 4 Lots Deposit Yes varies $4,380 $4,000 100% Deposit b) 5 - 25 Lots Deposit Yes varies $6,132 $6,000 100% Deposit c) 26+ Lots Deposit Yes varies $8,760 $8,000 100% Deposit d) Condo Maps Deposit Yes varies $8,760 $8,000 100% Deposit 15 Grant Deed, Easement Document, Vacation (ROW or Easement) Deposit Yes varies $3,504 $3,500 100% Deposit Other
16 Agreements Deposit Yes varies $3,504 $3,500 100% Deposit [d] Each deposit and/or fee listed in this schedule is based on the estimated number of hours required to perform a standard service request and the typical cost of services/materials required to perform the requested service. For service requests that are anticipated to require efforts, services, or materials, materially different than those typically required, the Department reserves the right to modify the initial deposit amount and/or use a time and materials billing methodology rather than a fixed fee for service. [e] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

Current deposit amounts are
illustrated as "varies" because they
vary depending on application
submittal.

Re-calibrating the deposit is intended
to help provide applicants with a
closer sense of what they are likely to
pay for services.

At the conclusion of the project, any
unused deposit amounts are returned
to the applicant.
[a] Included in grading permit inspection cost.
[b] Fee set to match Caltrans.
[c] Depending on project specifications, additional warranty fees may apply.

Attachment 3

Page 184 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles

OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO ENGINEERING FEES

NEW FEES PROPOSED
Cost of Service Proposed Fee / Deposit
Charge Type
Change
Proposed Overview
Current Fee or
Deposit
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection
Permit
Processing /
Plan Review
Permit
Inspection Change
Proposed
Cost
Recovery
Charge
Basis
18 Development Technology Fee
(percent of permit fee)
Fixed Fee Yes New fee to recover a portion of
development-related technology
costs
n/a - new 5% 58% % of Permit
Fee
19 Work Without Permit or Outside Scope of Permit Fixed Fee Yes Only collected on projects operating without permit or outside scope of
permit.
n/a - new 2x Permit Fee
[d] Each deposit and/or fee listed in this schedule is based on the estimated number of hours required to perform a standard service request and the typical cost of services/materials required to perform the requested service. For service requests that are anticipated to require efforts, services, or materials, materially different than those typically required, the Department reserves the right to modify the initial deposit amount and/or use a time and materials billing methodology rather than a fixed fee for service. [e] Deposit amounts listed will be monitored for periodic adjustments to reflect annual cost inflation. Initial deposit amount of $1,000 or less will be adjusted annually to the nearest dollar. Initial deposit amounts of $1,000 to $5,000 will be adjusted in $500 increments.

Initial deposit amounts of $5,000 or greater, will be adjusted in $1,000 increments.

The following section includes new fees proposed.

Activity Description
[a] Included in grading permit inspection cost.
[b] Fee set to match Caltrans.
[c] Depending on project specifications, additional warranty fees may apply.

Attachment 3

Page 185 of 772 ends

City of Paso Robles
Estimate Only Building and Development Fees
Residential Current Proposed
Single Family
Building Permit - Submittal Fee $ 3,089.00 $ 4,532.00
Building Permit - Inspection Deposit $ 3,089.00 $ 4,532.00 External Plan Check Fees $ 1,490.00 $ 1,490.00
(Cost Recovery estimate 10 hrs @ $149.00)
Water Connection (based 3/4"meter/Reso 10-162) $ 19,066.00 $ 19,066.00 Water Meter - 1" $ 500.00 $ 500.00
Wastewater Facility Charges $ 8,093.00 $ 8,093.00
SMIP Fees (Strong Motion Instrumentation) $ 65.00 $ 65.00 AB717, Automation, General Plan, Nexus Study $ 607.00 $ 873.00 Senate Bill 1473 $ 20.00 $ 20.00
Electronic Archiving $ 15.00 $ 15.00
Building Review Review (based on 1 hr) $ 206.00 $ 206.00 Planning Review (based on 1 hr) $ 214.00 $ 214.00
Union 46 Specific Plan Fees** n/a n/a
Development Impact Fees *
Transportation $ 3,726.00 $ 3,726.00
Police $ 108.00 $ 108.00
Fire $ 1,476.00 $ 1,476.00
General Governmental $ 4,276.00 $ 4,276.00
Park and Recreation $ 4,181.00 $ 4,181.00
Library $ 1,380.00 $ 1,380.00
Total without school fee $51,601.00 $54,753.00
*Development Impact Fees based on Resolution 17-066 & 19-017 PRUSD School Fees are currently $5.17 per square foot (effective 06/01/2025) - Some Areas of Town are TUSD *Per Resolution 19-017 the Development Impact Fees shall be paid at the rate in effect of the time of payment. Need to be paid prior to receiving Certificate of Occupancy.

Attachment 4

Page 186 of 772 ends

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
“The Pass of the Oaks”
Notice of Public Hearing
City of Paso Robles - City Council
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 17, 2026 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon as the matter may be heard, at Centennial Park – Norris Room located at 600 Nickerson Drive, Paso Robles, CA 93446 concerning adoption of a resolution imposing proposed increases and establishing certain user and regulatory fee amendments for various City regulatory activities, programs, and services in an effort to promote cost recovery for such services provided. The proposed amendments for this public hearing include development services fees within the Community Development Department.

The information related to establishing the proposed user fees has been made publicly available at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing described above.

At the public hearing, members of the public will be afforded an opportunity to make oral or written presentations concerning the proposed fees. Copies of the staff report and resolution describing the proposed fees will be available for review at the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall (1000 Spring Street) and on the City’s website at https://www.prcity.com no later than 72 hours preceding the hearing (copies are available for purchase for the cost of reproduction).

Questions about the proposed fees may be directed to the Administrative Services Department at (805) 237-3999 or via email at [email protected].

If you challenge the proposal in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Residents and interested parties can livestream the meeting at www.prcity.com/youtube, and call (805) 865-7276 to provide public comment via phone. The phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting and remain open throughout the meeting to ensure the opportunity to comment on each item heard by the Council, other than brief reports and announcements by staff or the Council.

Written public comments can be submitted via email to [email protected] prior to 12:00 noon on the day of the Council meeting to be posted as an addendum to the Agenda. If submitting written comments in advance of the meeting, please note the agenda item by number or name. City Council meetings will be live-streamed during the meeting and also available to play later on YouTube by accessing the following link: www.prcity.com/youtube. Any writing or document pertaining to an open session item on this agenda which is distributed to a majority of the City Council after the posting of this agenda will be available for public inspection at the time the subject writing or document is distributed. The writing or document will be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA, during normal business hours, and may be posted on the City’s web site at www.prcity.com/meetings.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Any individual, who because of a disability needs special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, may request assistance by contacting the City Clerk’s Office (805) 237- 3960. Whenever possible, requests should be made four (4) working days in advance of the meeting.

Attachment 5

Page 187 of 772 ends

Council Agenda Report
From: Darren Nash, City Planner
Subject: First Reading by Title Only an Ordinance of the Paso Robles Municipal Code to Amend the Borkey Specific Plan and Associated Rezoning, and Approval of the Resolutions Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum, the General Plan Amendment, the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for Expansion of the Allegretto Resort CEQA Determination: Addendum to the 2012 MND for the original Allegretto project. The Addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164.

Date: March 17, 2026
Facts

1. Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd, (applicant) has applied for a General Plan Amendment and rezoning entitlements to expand the Allegretto Resort located at 2700 Buena Vista Drive. Improvements are to be made to the neighboring 10.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive (APN 008-121-021).

2. The applicant is currently under contract with Cuesta College to purchase the vacant 10.8-acre site, known as the “Bow-Tie” site (see Figure 1 below).

3. The property is in Public Facilities (PF) General Plan land use classification and the PF zoning classification “provides for facilities owned by public agencies, including public schools.”

4. The applicant has requested General Plan Amendment 25-02 and Rezone 25-02 to amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps from PF to Parks and Open Space (POS) land use classification with a Resort Lodging Overlay (POS/RL), which “provides a land use category for public and private properties that are used for only open space and recreation”.

5. The RL Overlay can be applied to any property and is “intended to provide a means through which the City can consider and selectively provide appropriate locations for hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts inns, and similar forms of visitor-serving lodging (along with related accessor/ancillary land uses).

6. The applicant has also requested Specific Plan Amendment 26-01 to amend the Borkey Area Specific Plan, to amend Map D-1 Proposed General Plan Designations and Map D-2 Proposed Zoning Designations, to change the designations of the 10.8-acre bow tie site from PF to POS with POS/RL.

7. The applicant has requested Planned Development 25-06 and Conditional Use Permit 24-10 to establish and operate an expansion to the existing Allegretto Resort, consisting of multiple new buildings totaling 172,000 square feet that includes 93 new hotel keys, a spa, a 12,000± square foot conference center, viticulture building, and various other ancillary buildings.

8. The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on December 29, 2025. The Development Review Committee suggested the addition and clarification of some site planning and architectural components and ultimately recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to City Council.

Page 188 of 772 ends

9. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the project on February 24, 2026 and on four successive votes of 6-0 recommended the City Council approve the project P25-0027 (GPA-25-02, RZN25-02, SPA26-01 PD 25-06, CUP 26-03) and associated Addendum to the 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Community Outreach
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 24, 2026. This City Council public hearing has been noticed with on-site notices, in the New Times and with US Mail notices to neighboring property owners.

Options

1. Take no action;

2. Introduce for first reading by title only an ordinance adopting the Specific Plan amendment and the rezone, and adopt resolutions approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum, the General Plan amendment, and the Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit;

3. Amend resolutions and ordinance;

4. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
The Allegretto Resort by Ayres opened in October 2015 and included a 20-acre, 171-room luxury property located on Buena Vista Drive, across from the Cuesta College North Campus. The item before council is the proposed expansion of the resort which is intended to complement the existing resort with similar style architecture, colors, and materials for the buildings. The project will act as a campus with internal vehicle and pedestrian connectivity.

As a result, the applicant is requesting that the City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map to change the zoning and land use designations from Public Facilities (PF) to Parks and Open Space with a Resort Lodging Overlay (POS-R/L). The R/L Overlay zoning allows hotel-resort uses with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Since the site is in the Borkey Area Specific Plan, the applicants have also applied to amend the zoning and general plan maps in the specific plan to accommodate the change from PF to POS-R/L.

Figure 1

Page 189 of 772 ends

A development plan and conditional use permit is also being processed to establish and operate the proposed 172,000 square foot expansion to the Allegretto Resort. The project proposes the following buildings in the following phases:

Figure 2

Page 190 of 772 ends

The viticulture building is intended to be an accessory use and be operated by Ayres Paso Robles; Ltd. to provide wine related education activities along with boutique scale wine production.

The project will also be required to dedicate a future street right-of-way across the viticultural site to allow a future street connection to Experimental Station Road. This street will not be improved at this time but could be improved in the future if any significant land use or zoning changes are approved for the Experimental Station Road area located to the south of the resort.

Figure 3
Traffic Considerations
The project site is served by two arterial roadways: Buena Vista Drive (north–south arterial) and Dallons Drive (east–west arterial). Access to the site is proposed via the existing driveways on Buena Vista Drive, Dallons Drive, and Experimental Station Road, in addition to four new driveways on Dallons Drive.

A traffic impact analysis was prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,432 net new vehicle trips per weekday. Based on the analysis, traffic volumes at surrounding intersections do not warrant installation of new intersection controls (e.g., traffic signals or all-way stop control). However, intersection modifications are required at Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road and Buena Vista Drive/Dallons Drive to maintain safe and efficient operations.

Improvements at the Buena Vista Drive/Dallons Drive intersection include pedestrian safety enhancements such as curb bulb-outs at the northwest and southwest corners, crosswalk improvements,

Page 191 of 772 ends

and modifications to signing, striping, and pavement markings necessary to support the revised intersection configuration and maintain public safety.

Improvements at the Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road intersection include upgraded curb ramps to provide ADA-compliant pedestrian access, installation of a marked crosswalk, modified signing and striping to accommodate the revised configuration, and construction of a curb bulb-out at the northeast corner to enhance pedestrian safety and prevent right-turn lane vehicles from proceeding straight through the intersection.

Frontage Improvements
Frontage improvements are required consistent with Municipal Code Section 11.12 and include completion of sidewalk at the northeast project boundary. New sidewalk improvements are required along the south side of Dallons Drive between Buena Vista Drive and Jena Court. Additional frontage improvements include installation of street lighting and refurbishment of parkway landscaping along the project frontage, including new street trees.

Drainage
The site is currently developed as an operational vineyard resort, with existing improvements draining to three on-site stormwater basins located at the northwest, northeast, and southwest corners of the property. As part of the proposed expansion, the three existing basins will be removed or modified to accommodate the revised site layout and additional impervious surface area:
 The northwest basin will be removed, with stormwater flows redirected to a proposed subsurface detention chamber.
 The northeast basin will be relocated.
 The southwest basin will be expanded to accommodate additional runoff generated by the proposed improvements.
 Two additional drainage facilities will be constructed to serve the expanded project area.

All basin outfalls will be designed to match pre-project discharge rates, ensuring no increase in peak downstream flows.

Utilities
The project will be served by a proposed private water and sewer system. The system has been designed to adequately meet domestic water demand, fire flow requirements, and wastewater service needs.

Fiscal Impact
The proposed expansion of the Allegretto Resort is anticipated to result in a positive fiscal impact to the City. The project would add 93 hotel rooms along with supporting amenities including a spa, conference center, and related visitor-serving facilities. These uses are expected to generate additional transient occupancy tax (TOT), sales tax, and property tax revenues while supporting continued growth in the City’s tourism economy.

According to the Paso Robles Tourism Impact Study (Beacon Economics, 2025), visitors spend approximately $450.8 million annually in Paso Robles and support 3,424 local jobs, representing roughly one-fifth of total employment in the city. Visitor spending also generates approximately $20.9 million in tax revenue, providing about 37 percent of the City’s General Fund. Expansion of visitor-serving lodging

Page 192 of 772 ends

and hospitality facilities is consistent with the City’s economic strategy and contributes to maintaining this important revenue base.

The project includes frontage improvements, pedestrian and intersection safety improvements, drainage infrastructure, and on-site utility systems that will be constructed as part of the development. As such, the project is not expected to require significant additional City capital expenditures.

Overall, the project is expected to contribute additional visitor activity, employment opportunities, and ongoing tax revenue to the City while supporting Paso Robles’ established tourism and hospitality sector.

CEQA
In 2012 the City Council, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of General Plan Amendment 12-001, Rezone 12-001, Tentative Parcel Map 12-004, Planned Development 12-001, and Conditional Use Permit 12-003. In July 2012, the City Council approved an MND (SCH No. 2012051069) (2012 MND) for the project.

As lead agency, and as part of the City’s due diligence, the City required an updated Traffic Impact Study, Biological Study, Cultural Study, Air Quality and Green House Gas assessment, to determine if the Project would result in any new or more severe significant effects not identified in the 2012 MND. Based on this study, a full analysis of the scope of the Project, and the previously adopted 2012 MND, none of the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental document to be prepared is triggered. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164. As part of the approvals, the City Council will consider approving an Addendum to the previously adopted 2012 MND and MMRP for Planned Development 25-06, Conditional Use Permit 26- 03, Rezone 25-02, Specific Plan Amendment 26-01, and General Plan Amendment GPA 25-02, in accordance with the Statutes and Guidelines of CEQA and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA.

Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(A), authorizing the addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

2. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(B), authorizing the General Plan Amendment.

3. Introduce for first reading by title only, Ordinance XXXX amending the Paso Robles Municipal Code to authorize the Specific Plan Amendment and the rezone designation.

4. Approved Resolution 26-XXX(C), authorizing the development plan and conditional use permit for the project.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Resolution 26-XXX(A) – Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum

3. Resolution 26-XXX(B) - General Plan Amendment

4. Ordinance XXXX – Specific Plan Amendment and Rezone

5. Resolution 26-XXX(C) – Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit

Page 193 of 772 ends

Attachment 1

Page 194 of 772 ends

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 26 -XXX (A)

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

APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 25-02, REZONE 25-02, BORKEY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 26-01, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 25-06, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26-03
2700 BUENA VISTA DRIVE, APNs 008-121-021
WHEREAS, Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd, (applicant) has applied for entitlements to expand the existing Allegretto Resort at 2700 Buena Vista Drive (project) to the neighboring 10.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive (APN 008-121-021)(the property); and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently under contract with Cuesta College to purchase the 10.8-acre site, also known as the “Bow-Tie” site; and
WHEREAS, the property is in Public Facilities (PF) General Plan land use classification and the Public Facilities (PF) Zoning classification that “provides for facilities owned by public agencies, including public schools”; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested General Plan Amendment 25-02 and Rezone 25-02 to amend the Land Use and Zoning Maps from PF to Parks and Open Space land use classification with a Resort Lodging Overlay (POS/RL), the purpose of which is to “provide a land use category for public and private properties that are used for only open space and recreation”; and
WHEREAS, the RL Overlay can be applied to any property and is “intended to provide a means through which the city can consider and selectively provide appropriate locations for hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts inns, and similar forms of visitor-serving lodging (along with related accessor / ancillary land uses); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has additionally requested Specific Plan Amendment 26-01 to amend the Borkey Area Specific Plan, to amend Map D-1 Proposed General Plan Designations and Map D-2 Proposed Zoning Designations, to change the designations of the 10.8 acre bow tie site from Public Facilities to Parks and Open Space, Resort Lodging Overlay (POS/RL); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested Planned Development 25-06 and Conditional Use Permit 24-10 to establish and operate an expansion to the existing Allegretto Resort, consisting of multiple new buildings totaling 172,000 square feet that includes 93 new hotel keys, a spa, a conference center, viticulture building, and various other ancillary buildings; and
WHEREAS, in 2012 the City Council, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.) determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of General Plan Amendment 12-001, Rezone 12-001, Tentative Parcel Map 12-004, Planned Development 12-001, and Conditional Use Permit 12-003. In July 2012, the City Council approved an MND (SCH No. 2012051069) for the project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an MND has been certified, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances to

Page 195 of 772 ends

Attachment 2
determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that an addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the 2012 MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164. The Addendum is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, by way of preparation of an addendum for the Project, staff evaluated the Project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code section 21166, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 by preparing an Initial Study and accompanying technical reports (Addendum) including an updated Archaeological Survey (Exhibit B), Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas assessment (Exhibit C), Biological Resource Assessment (Exhibit D), and Transportation Analysis (Exhibit F); and
WHEREAS, based on that evaluation, staff concluded that the 2012 MND fully analyzed and mitigated all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the Project, and therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is required; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c), the Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review, but can be included within the public record with the final MND; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to consider the project, including General Plan Amendment 25-02, Specific Plan Amendment, 26-01, Rezone 25-02, Conditional Use Permit 26-03, and Planned Development 25-06. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC26-007 to recommend the City Council approve an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, Resolution PC26-008 to recommend the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 25-02, Specific Plan Amendment 26-01 for the project, Resolution PC26-009 to recommend the City Council approve Rezone 25-02 for the project, and Resolution PC26-010 to recommend the City Council approve Planned Development 25-06 and Conditional Use Permit 26-03 for the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 17, 2026 to consider the Addendum to the adopted 2012 MND prepared for the Project.

WHEREAS, based on the information and analysis contained in the Addendum prepared for the Project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant effects on the environment with mitigation measures implemented.

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

Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the 2012 MND and Addendum, any oral or written comments received, and the administrative record prior to making any decision on the Project. The City Council finds that the Addendum and 2012 MND contain a complete and accurate

Page 196 of 772 ends

Attachment 2
reporting of all the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. Findings on the Necessity for a Subsequent or Supplemental MND or EIR. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 2012 MND, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the City Council, the Council finds that the Project necessitate only minor modifications to the 2012 MND. Therefore, pursuant to State CEQA section 15164, an Addendum to the 2012 MND is the appropriate document for the Project.

The City Council further finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental MND or EIR is not required for the Project because the Project:

A. will not result in substantial changes that would require major revisions of the 2012 MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
B. will not result in substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is developed that would require major revisions of the 2012 MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and
C. does not present new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2012 MND documents were certified showing any of the following:
(i) the Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2012 MND; (ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the 2012 MND;
(iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the lead agency declined to adopt such measures; and
(iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the lead agency declined to adopt.

Section 4. Findings on Environmental Impacts. Having considered the Addendum, the administrative record, the 2012 MND and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the Council finds that all environmental impacts of the Project have been addressed within the 2012 MND and the Addendum. The City Council finds that the Addendum contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

Section 5. Adoption of the Addendum to the 2012 MND. The City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles, based on its independent judgment, does hereby adopt a resolution approving an Addendum to the previously adopted 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 25-06, Conditional Use Permit 26-03, Rezone 25-02, Specific Plan Amendment 26-01, and General Plan Amendment GPA 25-02, in accordance with the Statutes and Guidelines of CEQA and the City’s Procedures for Implementing CEQA.

Page 197 of 772 ends

Attachment 2
Section 6. Adoption of Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council does hereby adopt the Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit A-1.

Section 7. Notice of Determination. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA (including its implementing guidelines) within five working days of project approval.

Section 8. Custodian of Record. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446.

The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

APPROVED this 17th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Addendum
Exhibit A-1 - Revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibit B – Archaeological Survey
Exhibit C – Air Quality and GHG Assessment
Exhibit D – Biological Resource Assessment
Exhibit E – Transportation Analysis
Exhibit F – 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration

Page 198 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1

CEQA ADDENDUM
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2012051069
Allegretto Resort Expansion-Planned Development
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 025-410-019, 025-410-020, 025-410-021, and 025-410-004
Location: 2700 Buena Vista Drive
Paso Robles, CA
Planned Development (PD25-06)
Rezone (RZN 25-02)
General Plan Amendment (GPA25-02)
Applicant:

Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd.
355 Bristol Street, Suite A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7923
Lead Agency:

City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Staff Contact:

Darren Nash, City Planner
[email protected]
(805)237-3970]

Page 199 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Determination
The City of Paso Robles is processing an application for Allegretto Resort Expansion, an expansion of the existing Allegretto Resort on to adjacent land previously part of Cuesta College on Buena Vista and Dallons Drive in northern Paso Robles (“Project”). The 10.8 -acre site needs a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Development Plan to accommodate the proposed resort expansion.

This document constitutes an Addendum to the July 2012 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND or 2012 MND) prepared for the Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd. project (GPA 12-001, REZONE 12- 001, Tentative Parcel Map 12-004, Borkey Specific Plan Amendment 12-001, Planned Development 12-001, Conditional Use Permit 12-003). This Addendum evaluates whether the Project, the 10.8-acre Ayres Hotel expansion, would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require any new or modified mitigation measures as compared to the 2012 MND.

As lead agency, and as part of the City’s due diligence, the City required an updated Traffic Impact Study, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, Biological Resource Assessment, Cultural Study, and Arborist Report to determine if the Project would result in any new or more severe significant effects not identified in the MND. Based on these studies, and a full analysis of the scope of the Project, and the previously adopted 2012 MND, none of the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental document to be prepared is triggered. In particular, there have been no: (1) substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; and (3) new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous MND was adopted that shows: (a) the Project would have significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; (b) the Project would have more severe environmental effects than shown in the MND; or (c) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible or new mitigation measures now exist and would be feasible and would reduce significant effects.

Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164.

This Addendum incorporates the mitigation measures detailed in the MND. The incorporation of these measures ensures that previously adopted mitigation will be implemented for the Project and that no significant impacts will result from the Project and no new or increased significant impacts will result from the Project. All impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the existing, new, and modified mitigation measures.

Page 200 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
B. Background
Ayres Paso Robles, LP has acquired the 10.8-acre property to the north of the existing Allegretto site (APN 025-410-004). The Project site involves an expansion of the existing resort hotel (APN:025-410-020, 025-410-021, 025-410-019).

On July 17, 2012, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and rezoned three parcels (APNs 025-410-019, 025-410-020, and 025-410-021) to Parks and Open Space with ResortLodging Overlay in conjunction with approval of a General Plan Amendment and Tentative Parcel Map. The project was approved with specific conditions of approval and accompanying mitigation measures, which have been incorporated into the Addendum.

Ayres is seeking to incorporate , the 10.8-acre property, on the south side of Dallons Drive (see exhibit above) into the Allegretto Resort campus. In order to do this, the 10-8 acre site needs to be designated POS - Parks and Open Space zone with a Resort Lodging overlay to align with the current Allegretto parcel. The Cuesta property to the North and East of the subject property are zoned PF Public Facilities. This property is bordered by Dallons Drive thus creating a natural buffer to the subject site. West of the site across another buffer, Buena Vista Drive, are CP - Commercial-Neighborhood zoned properties. Adjoining the subject property to the South is the Allegretto Resort and further east and south are properties zoned R1 – Residential Single Family with a B4 overlay.

Ayres seeks to amend Planned Development 12-001 and Conditional Use Permit 12-003 for the Allegretto resort property to incorporate the new parcel and expanded resort.

Page 201 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
The Project applicant is now seeking the following entitlements to allow for construction of a resort hotel expansion consistent with the 2012 MND, related CEQA documents, and the City’s General Plan:
 Planned Development/Conditional Use Permit
 Rezone
 General Plan Amendment
 Borkey Specific Plan Amendment
C. Addendum Purpose
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of uses previously analyzed for the site in the 2012 MND and related environmental documents. As documented in this Addendum, none of the conditions stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have been met and therefore there is no need for a subsequent environmental impact report. This Addendum, together with the MND, and previous environmental documents incorporated by reference, will be relied on by the City when considering approval of the Project.

This Addendum has been prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15164 and Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21166.1 The Addendum uses an environmental checklist to evaluate each environmental topic area within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This Addendum applies to the current action only; any future development proposals that are not part of the proposed Project will be subject to their own consistency determinations and potential subsequent CEQA review.

D. CEQA Framework for Addendum
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 provide that an addendum to an adopted MND may be prepared when the conditions for subsequent or supplemental review are not present. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164.)
2 Subsequent or supplemental review is only required when substantial changes to a project require major revisions of a previous environmental document due to new or increased substantial environmental impacts, or where new information of substantial importance has been uncovered that indicates the project would create new impacts or increase the severity of existing impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, subd. (a), 15164, subd. (b).) Subsequent environmental review is only necessary if one or more of the following has occurred:

1 / See Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 668. 2 / When project changes “[do] not raise any new effects which the [MND] had not already reviewed and analyzed” then preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not warranted. (River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 177; see also Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 704.)

Page 202 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
 Substantial changes are proposed for the project that will require major revision of a previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;  Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones;
 New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration.
o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous Negative Declaration.
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt them. o Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous document would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measures or alternative.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is a resort hotel expansion to the existing Allegretto Resort proposing to add 93 lodging rooms (hotel suites, villas, spa suites), accessory uses/buildings including a conference center, viticulture building, and recreational activities such as a swimming pool and pickleball courts. The project is proposed to be constructed on portions of the existing Allegretto site and on the adjacent 10.8- acre vacant land
The requested land use approvals and entitlements for the Project include: (1) a Planned Development & Conditional Use Permit Amendment; (2) a General Plan Amendment; (3) a rezone from Public Facilities to Parks and Open Space with Resort-Lodging Overlay, and (4) an amendment to the Borkey Area Specific Plan.

The Project includes the following components:

Page 203 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
BLDG.

NO.

PROPOSED USE SQUARE
FOOTAGE*±/
USE
1 Hotel, restaurant, and amenities 134,014
3 Conference center 15,150
4 Restaurant, employee facilities, and
offices
8,689+5,187
5 Hotel, spa, and amenities 48,919
6 Restrooms, pool bar, and equipment 2,169
7 Hotel 39,827
9 Chapel and events 2,757
10 Bar and catering kitchen 2,954
14 Restrooms, storage, and picnic shelter 1,836
16 Viticulture Building – demonstration,
classroom, limited wine production
15,000
17 Hotel suites 29,400
Additionally, the Project will incorporate a number of actions designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan as follows:
 LED fixtures will be used throughout the Project.
 All buildings will be “solar ready”
 EV ready parking spaces will be provided pursuant to the California Green Building Code
 Shaded exterior patio areas for employee and customer use will be provided  Inclusion of internal pedestrian connectivity
 Inclusion of trash enclosures/waste receptacles for solid waste, recyclables, and organic waste
The project is proposed to be constructed in multiple construction phases.

III. CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
The pre-existing Allegretto Resort project site has been previously analyzed under CEQA and approved for the development of similar hotel, recreation, and dining uses. The environmental determinations for the Allegretto Resort included environmental review in accordance with CEQA resulting in the 2012 MND. The previous MND analyzed the development of the Project site and addressed the anticipated development of these parcels as a resort hotel.

The 2012 MND adopted for APNs 025-410-019, 025-410-020, and 025-410-021 addressed potentially significant environmental impacts and established development standards for the anticipated development of a resort hotel like the Project. Additionally, the 2012 MND previously approved the rezone of APNs 025-410-019, 025-410-020, and 025-410-021 to a Parks and Open Space with Resort-Lodging Overlay; however, APN 025-410-004 is currently zoned for Public Facilities.

Page 204 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
The Project consists of three additional hotel buildings, villas, and recreational and gathering spaces, including a pool and convention center, which requires a Planned Development permit (PD) and a subsequent rezone and general plan amendment. The Project is consistent with applicable regulations including the City’s zoning regulations, the existing tract approvals, and associated environmental review. The 10.8 acre site remains non- developed and is covered with native grasses, the same condition of when it was studied in 2012. Current analysis has identified no new significant effects. With adoption of the conditions of approval and mitigation measures previously identified in conjunction with the previous MND any significant effects previously identified would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Description of Environmental Checklist
The checklist includes the full range of environmental issues presented in the most recent version of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. After adoption of the MND, CEQA Guidelines underwent a comprehensive update, effective December 28, 2018.3 Although not required,4the checklist categories in this Addendum follow the updated Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines in order to provide the most updated information to decisionmakers.5 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, this checklist evaluates environmental topics in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a different environmental impact significance conclusion than that reached in the MND. If the situations described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are not present, then no subsequent EIR or initial study/negative declaration is required, and an addendum is the appropriate CEQA document.

The column headings in the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G version to assess whether the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present. The checklist offers the following: (1) identification of the earlier analyses and where they are available in prior document(s) for review; (2) discusses whether proposed deviations from the previously analyzed program would involve new or substantially more severe significant impacts; (3) discusses whether new circumstances surrounding the previously-analyzed program would involve new or substantially more severe significant impacts; (4) discusses any substantially important new information requiring new analysis; and (5) describes the mitigation measures that

3 See Senate Bill 743 (2018).
4 See Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 426 [“once an EIR is finally approved, a court generally cannot … compel an agency to perform further environmental review if new regulations or guidelines for evaluating the project’s impacts are adopted in the future”]; Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 808 [CEQA Guidelines enacted after an EIR is certified are not “new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code section 21166, subdivision (c)” and therefore do not trigger preparation of subsequent environmental review nor require consideration in an addendum]).
5 See Public Resources Code sections 21002.1, subdivision (e), 210065; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002, subdivision (a)(1), 15003, subdivision (c).

Page 205 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
were incorporated from the prior document(s) and the extent to which they address any site specific conditions for the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subdivision (a).) Each column is described in more detail below. The issue-area checklists are followed by a discussion that explains the results and provides site-specific analysis as warranted.

1. Where Was Impact Analyzed?
This column references the pages of the previous MND, Biological Resources Assessment, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment, or Transportation Analysis where information and analysis relative to the environmental issue at hand can be found.

2. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(1), this column indicates whether proposed changes (if any) represented by the Project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the 2012 MND or that the Project will result in substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impact. A “yes” answer is only required if such new or worsened significant impact will require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed. Conversely, a “no” answer does not mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental issues, but only that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the prior approved environmental documents.

3. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(2), this column indicates whether changed circumstances affecting the Project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the 2012 MND or will result in substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. A “yes” answer is only required if such new or worsened significant impacts will require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” A “yes” answer is only required if such new or worsened significant impacts will require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed. Conversely, a “no” answer does not mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental issue, but only that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the prior approved environmental documents.

4. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(3), this column indicates whether new information “of substantial importance” is available requiring an update to the

Page 206 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
analysis of the 2012 MND to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigations remain valid. Any such information is only relevant if it “was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR.” To be relevant in this context, such new information must show one or more of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.

This category of new information may apply to any new regulations enacted after certification of the prior EIR or adoption of the prior negative declaration, which might change the nature of analysis of impacts or the specifications of a mitigation measure. If the new information shows the existence of new significant effects or significant effects that are substantially more severe than were previously disclosed, then new mitigation measures should be considered. If the new information shows that previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible, such measures or alternatives should be considered anew. If the new information shows the existence of mitigation measures or alternatives that are (i) considerably different from those included in the prior EIR or negative declaration, (ii) able to substantially reduce one or more significant effects, and (iii) unacceptable to the project proponents, then such mitigation measures or alternatives should also be considered.

5. What Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigation Measures Address Impacts Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, this column indicates whether the 2012 MND and/or the findings adopted by the lead agency provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “n/a” is indicated, this environmental review concludes that the impact does not occur with this Project and therefore no mitigation is needed.

B. Prior Analysis and Background Materials
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.

Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). All documents are available for review at the City of Paso Robles Community Development Department - 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446.

Page 207 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1

REFERENCED

ACRONYM

DOCUMENT
TITLE
AIS Archaeological Inventory Survey for a Parcel at 2700 Buena Vista Drive, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California
AQGHG Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion Project
BRA Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion MND Mitigated Negative Declaration for Ayres Hotel, 2012 TA Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis WDM Water Demand Memo

Page 208 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
C. Checklist and Discussion

1. AESTHETICS.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any “major revisions” to existing
MND related to new significant
impacts or substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
MND, p. 5 No No No None required.
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
MND, p. 5 No No No None required.
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
MND, p. 5 No No No None required.
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
MND, p. 5 No No No None required.

Discussion: The project site is visible from Highway 46 East and surrounding local roadways. It is within an urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by development, including a hotel, community college, commercial uses, and residences.

The visual quality of the site is moderately high since it is undeveloped open grassland visible from the nearby roads.

The site is not within or adjacent to a scenic vista, gateway, or scenic highway as designated by the City’s General Plan or other adopted plans or policies. Therefore, the project could not result in a substantial impact on scenic resources.

The proposed buildings and site lighting including parking lot light standards will not result in significant new light or glare onto the surrounding properties. The light fixtures comply with the City’s requirements for light shielding (21.82.020.H-1 ) and would be downcast to not shed light on adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts from light or glare.

The project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impacts to aesthetics. The Project is subject to the submittal of a development plan (PD) as contemplated in the MND. Approval of the PD requires the Planning Commission to make specific findings, including that the Project would not have an adverse effect on public views from nearby roadways and other public vantage points

Page 209 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
and that the design and intensity of the Project would not be a disharmonious or disruptive element of the neighborhood. Consistent with the MND, the PD process would ensure that the Project is developed in a manner that does not degrade existing visual character and quality.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to aesthetic resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.
b. Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.

Discussion: The City General Plan; Open Space Element in Figure OS-1, State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP); identifies soil of “Farmland of Local Importance” within the Project. Although the

Page 210 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
project site includes soil of “Farmland of Local Importance,” neither the site or surrounding uses are currently used for agricultural purposes, and current zoning, Public Facilities, would not permit such uses on site.

The project area is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the site does not include any current or future agricultural lands and would not convert Prime, Unique or Farmland of Statewide Importance to other uses.

Therefore, this project would result in less than significant impacts to agricultural soils monitored in the State FMMP.

No forestland is located within the Project; therefore, the Project will not result in conflicts with existing zoning or case the rezoning of forestland.

Similarly, since there are no forestlands within the Project, the Project will not result in the loss of forestland or the conversion of forestland to non-forest uses.

Neither the site nor surrounding parcels are currently used for agricultural purposes, and current zoning, Public Facilities, would not permit such uses on site. Since no agricultural or farmland uses exist on-site or are allowed by current zoning, the Project will no result in the conversion of farmland into non-agricultural uses.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to agricultural or forest resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

3. AIR QUALITY.

Discussion: The proposed project complies with the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) Clean Air Plan (CAP) by reducing regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), providing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements, and implementing MM GHG-1c, which requires the construction of EV Ready parking spaces and charging stations. However, particulate matter generated during construction exceeds the standards outlined in SB 656 and poses a potentially significant impact. MM AQ-1 and AQ-2 both assist in reducing PM emissions during construction and are consistent with SLOAPCD’s airborne PMreduction efforts, which lowers the impact to less than significant.

Construction of the Project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with clearing, site prep, grading, building construction, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment,

Page 211 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces, which have the potential to present a significant air quality impact. Maximum daily emissions comply with SLOAPCD’s significance threshold. However, the project’s construction would exceed SLOAPCD’s quarterly maximum significance threshold. Implementation of MMs AQ-1 and AQ-2 include SLOAPCD-recommended standard and best available control measures to reduce construction-generated emissions of fugitive dust, mobile-source emissions associated with construction vehicles and equipment, and evaporative emissions from architectural coasting (e.g. low VOC-emission paint), which leads to a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.

The proposed project does not include any equipment or land uses that are considered major emission sources, and operational GHG emissions would be concentrated in mobile sources and area sources, including landscape maintenance. Operational uses have a minimal potential of producing a net increase in pollutants and a limited potential threat to public health. The site is not located in a naturally occurring-asbestos area as identified by SLOAPCD, and the most significant pollutant concentrations for sensitive communities would be localized construction PM. Implementing MM AQ-1 and AQ-2 would minimize impacts to sensitive communities by lowering construction emission generation, including PM, to create a less than significant impact.

Other emissions, such as odors, may be produced during construction through diesel-powered equipment, exhaust fumes, and pavement and architectural coatings. However, none of these sources pose a potential health concern and would only occur intermittently throughout the workday. To further mitigate these odors, the implementation of MM AQ-1 and AQ-2 limit construction equipment idling and require the use of newer, cleaner equipment and vehicles.

Please note that the March 2025 AQ/GHG Assessment that was prepared for the Allegretto Expansion Project provides mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. AQ-2 is the same mitigation measure as AQ-1 in the 2012 MND. AQ-2 is an added mitigation measure in the 2025 Assessment. The Assessment states that AQ-1 and AQ-2 are standard and best management practices. The listed measures are standard measures to reduce construction generated emissions of fugitive dust , mobile source emissions, associated with construction vehicles and equipment. While these measures are outlined as mitigation measures, the are also required for projects that do not meet the thresholds for , and AQ-2 in the Addendum are the same mitigation measure. With this Addendum, AQ-1 has been added.

Mitigation Measures: MMs AQ-1, AQ-2.

Conclusion: With the implementation of MM AQ-1 and 2, the project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to air quality (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a)).

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Page 212 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
BRA 3.5 No No No None required.
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish and wildlife
Species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
BRA 3.8.3 No No No None required.
e. Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.

BRA 4.2 No No No None required.
f. Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
BRA 1.5, 1.6 No No No None required.

Discussion: No sensitive habitats have been identified on the proposed project site, including wetlands or riparian habitats. Therefore, the project poses no potential harm to sensitive habitats. The area is classified as California annual grassland habitat, and 10.8 acres will be permanently removed. Habitat removal poses a significant impact if special status species reside within the area. Potential special status species on-site include the golden eagle, burrowing owl, Crotch’s bumble bee, ferruginous hawk, Salinas pocket mouse, western spadefoot, American badger, and San Joaquin kit fox. However, no special status species have been observed on-site, which indicates a less than significant impact on habitats and sensitive species. MMs BIO 1 through 13 require a survey for sensitive species prior to beginning construction and include measures to protect sensitive species if they are later observed on-site.

Wildlife movement and connectivity are constrained in the Study Area by surrounding development. The surrounding developed areas are residential, rural residential, educational, and commercial, with limited open land to the east and north. South of the Study Area is Highway 46, which is lined with a mix of commercial development including a hotel and shopping centers, and residential and rural residential housing that have removed most natural habitat for many miles. West of the property is residential for 0.6 miles, followed by the Salinas River and then Highway 101. East of the Study Area is a mosaic of rural residences, industrial areas, and agriculture fields. North of the Study area is Cuesta College, rural residential housing, and agriculture fields. Habitat within the Study Area is usable by wildlife and development would reduce the amount of wildlife habitat available. Although it would contribute to a reduction in the ability of wildlife to move through the area, development in the Study Area would not create a new barrier to an existing corridor since ground movement of wildlife is already constrained by significant development in adjacent areas in the north, south, east, and west.

There are no Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans related to the proposed project site. However, two Oak trees have been observed on-site and are protected under local policy. The proposed project does not plan for the removal of these trees and will not disturb the Critical Root Zone (CRZ).

Mitigation Measures: MMs BIO 1 through 12.

Conclusion: With implementation of the above MMs, the project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to biological resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)). With the 2026 project the same mitigation measures as the 2012 MND, except since 2012 it has been determined that this site is within the City’s Kit Fox Exemption area for in-lieu fee requirements, since the site is considered entitled (Cuesta College site). Additionally, since 2012 the Crotch Bumble Bee has been included as a Special Status Species and has been included in requirement for survey prior to start of grading.

Page 213 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Discussion: There are no historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources located on the site or in the near vicinity. Since the property is not located within proximity to a creek, river, or known cultural resource it is unlikely that resources are located on the site. An archaeological survey was conducted for the 2026 project, and no artifacts were found and there was no evidence of any historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources. The State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and all known local tribes have been contacted to determine if this property is a “sacred site” in accordance with Senate Bill 18. No Native American Tribes have reported that this property was previously used by Native Americans or that it is a sacred site. If any artifacts are discovered at any point during development, all construction will stop until a qualified archaeologist is contacted and has assessed the artifact.

As a result of the Archeological Study, it is not anticipated that there are human remains on the project site, however if human remains are found during site disturbance, all grading and/or construction activities shall stop, and the County Coroner shall be contacted to investigate. The Coroner will handle the situation in a manner consistent with Public Resources Code 5097.98 or equivalent protocol by the Sherrif’s Department.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to cultural resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

6. ENERGY.

Page 214 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Not addressed. No No No None required.

Discussion: Construction activities at the Project site would be temporary and consist of site preparation, grading, construction of buildings, paving, and installation of landscaping. The construction sequencing will be designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs. In other words, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully onsite because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, as well as maintenance and fuel. Project construction would meet applicable state and federal energy policies or standards established for equipment and vehicle efficiency.

The project will be required to meet all building/energy codes when going through the building permit process. The site was originally anticipated to be a college campus; it is not anticipated that energy use would be significant for the proposed project.

The City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe energy impacts in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to energy consumption (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

42. ii.Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii.Seismic-related ground
failure, including
MND, p. 15 No No No None required.

Page 215 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
liquefaction?
iv.Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
MND, p. 16 No No No None required.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
MND, p. 16 No No No None required.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18- 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
MND, p. 16 No No No None required.
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
MND, p. 16 No No No None required.
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
MND, p. 14 No No No None required.

Discussion: There are two known fault zones on either side of the Salinas Rivers valley. The Rinconada Fault system runs on the west side of the valley and grazes the City on its western boundary. The San Andreas Fault is on the east side of the valley and is situated about 30 miles east of Paso Robles. The City of Paso Robles recognizes these geologic influences in the application of the California Building Code (CBC) to all new development within the City. Review of available information and examinations indicate that neither of these faults is active with respect to ground rupture in Paso Robles. Soils and geotechnical reports and structural engineering in accordance with local seismic influences would be applied in conjunction with any new development proposal. Based on standard conditions of approval, the potential for fault rupture and exposure of persons or property to seismic hazards is not considered significant. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within City limits.

Per the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in an area with soil conditions that have a low potential for liquefaction or other type of ground failure due to seismic events and soil conditions. To implement the EIR’s mitigation measures to reduce this potential impact, the City has a standard condition to require submittal of soils and geotechnical reports, which include site-specific analysis of liquefaction potential for all building permits for new construction, and incorporation of the recommendations of said reports into the design of the project. Additionally, the project site is in an area that is designated a low-risk area for landslides. Therefore, potential impacts due to landslides is less than significant.

Per the General Plan EIR the soil condition is not erosive, expansive, or otherwise unstable. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated. A geotechnical/soils analysis has been conducted to evaluate the site specific soil stability and suitability of grading and retaining walls proposed. This study outlines the best management practices for grading techniques and erosion control plan to ensure that potential impacts due to soil stability will not occur.

The development will be connected to the City’s municipal wastewater system, therefore there would not be impacts related use of septic tanks.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to geology and soils (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

Page 216 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
AQGHG, p. 16-17 No No No MMs AQ-2, GHG-1
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
AQGHG, p. 16-17 No No No MMs AQ-2, GHG-1
Discussion: Short-term construction emissions and long-term operational emissions of the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2022.1.1.29, computer program. Based on the modeling conducted, most increases in GHG emissions would result from construction, vehicle use, and energy consumption.,. The proposed project would lead to an overall reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which complies with the County of San Luis Obispo 2023 Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy. However, the proposed project does not include the required best management practices (BMPs), prohibit the installation of natural gas-fueled appliances, or require EV Ready spaces that would support SC 32 2030 target of carbon neutrality by 2045, as outlined in California’s 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

To mitigate these potentially significant impacts, the project will implement MM AQ-2 and GHG-1. GHG-1a requires the installation of EV-ready parking spaces that are compliant with 2045 carbon neutrality goals.

And to offset future GHG emissions from natural gas appliances, MM GHG-1c and AQ-2 would mitigate GHG emissions from waste generation and construction. After applying MM AQ-2 and GHG-1, the potential impacts of GHG emissions comply with local and state air quality goals and standards and are considered less than significant.

The proposed GHG-1 mitigation would revise the original GHG-1 mitigation. Both mitigation measures require the applicant to prepare a GHG Reduction Plan.

Mitigation Measures: MMs AQ-2, GHG-1.

Conclusion: With implementation of the above MMs, the project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to GHG emissions (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Page 217 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
b. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
MND, p. 20 No No No None required.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one- quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
MND, p. 20 No No No None required.
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
MND, p. 21 No No No None required.
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in
the project area?
MND, p. 21 No No No None required.
f. For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working on the
project area?
MND, p. 21 No No No None required.
g. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
MND, p. 21 No No No None required.
h. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
MND, p. 21 No No No None required.

Discussion: Construction of the project would involve the temporary transport, use, and disposal of common construction materials including paints, adhesives, surface coatings, cleaning agents, fuels, and oils that are typically associated with any urban development project.. These materials associated with construction activities would be used and stored in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations, which minimizes the potential risk associated with construction-related hazardous materials. Besides the construction materials, the project does not include use of, transport, storage or disposal of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment.

The project is not identified as a hazardous site per Government Code section 65962.5, and the site (existing and new) is not situated near an airport safety zone. Although the project is situated within a quarter mile of a

Page 218 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
school, Cuesta College North County Campus, besides the common construction materials described above, the project will not emit or transport hazardous materials during or after construction. Therefore, the project does not pose any potential threat related to hazardous materials.

The project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe hazards or hazardous materials impacts. Any hazards or hazardous materials impacts that may occur as a result of the project would be within the scope of those discussed in the MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe hazards or hazardous materials in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
MND, p. 21 No No No None required.
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
MND, p. 22 No No No None required.
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite
ii. substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site
MND, p. 22 No No No None required.

Page 219 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
iii. create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff
iv. impede or redirect flood
flows
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
MND, p. 23 No No No None required.
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
MND, p. 23 No No No None required.

Discussion: The proposed project is designed to retain stormwater on-site through installation of various low-impact development (LID) features. The project was been designed to reduce impervious surfaces, preserve existing vegetation, and promote groundwater recharge by employing bioretention through implementation of these measures. Thus, water quality standards will be maintained and discharge requirements will be in compliance with State and local regulations. Therefore, impacts to water quality and discharge will be less than significant.

The proposed project would be on the City’s municipal water supply system, therefore it could not individually impact nearby well production. The site is designed to reduce impervious surfaces where possible and to direct surface drainage to onsite retention systems to facilitate groundwater recharge. The City has sufficient groundwater resource capacity in combination with surface water resources to adequately serve this project.

Therefore, this project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies impacts to groundwater resources would be less than significant.

The drainage pattern on the site would not be substantially altered with development of this project since the project largely maintains the existing, historic drainage pattern of the property, and drainage will be maintained on the project site. Additionally, surface flow would be directed to historic drainage areas for percolation in bioswale drainage features at the southwest corner of the property. There are no streams, creeks or rivers on or near the project site that could be impacted from this project or result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts to drainage patterns and facilities would less than significant.

There is no housing associated with this project nor is there any housing in the near vicinity downstream from the site and the site is not within or near a flood hazard area. Therefore this project could not result in flood related impacts to housing.

In accordance with the Paso Robles General Plan, there is no mudflow hazards located on or near the project site. Therefore, the project could not result in mudflow inundation impacts.

The project will implement the City’s Storm Water Management Plan - Best Management Practices, and would therefore not conflict with these measures.

The project will incorporate all feasible means to manage water runoff on the project site. There is no wetland or riparian areas in the near vicinity, and the project could not result in impacts to aquatic habitat. Therefore, the project will not result in significant impacts to these resources.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to hydrology and water quality (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Page 220 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Physically divide an established
community?
MND, p. 24 No No No None required.
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
MND, p. 24 No No No None required.
c. Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
MND, p. 24 No No No None required.

Discussion: The project is largely surrounded by non-residential land uses, except for the residential neighborhood along the southeast border of the Project. The Project borders the established community but will not divide it.

The site is currently zoned for Public Facilities and is vacant. The project scope includes amendments to the General Plan Land Use designation and zoning of the site to Parks and Open Space with a Resort Lodging Overlay. The proposed change of land use designation and zoning would complement and be compatible with the surrounding land.

No sensitive habitats or species were observed on-site and no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans established in this area of the City. Therefore, there would be no conflicts with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to land use and planning (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

12. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Page 221 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Discussion: There are no known mineral resources at this project site; therefore, the Project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource.

There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites located on-site. The Project will not result in the loss of locally important mineral resource recovery sites.

The project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impacts to mineral resources. Any impacts to mineral resources that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2012 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to mineral resources in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to mineral resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

13. NOISE.

Discussion: The proposed project includes land uses such as lodging, retail, wellness center, viticulture building, and a restaurant, and it is not anticipated that these activities would create excessive noise that may impact surrounding properties. That being said, noise created from the project will be subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance that limits the amount of noise at certain times of the day. The project may result in short-term

Page 222 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
construction noise and vibration from machinery. However, the construction noise is not anticipated to be excessive, and construction will only take place during daytime hours, 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. excluding Sundays and federal holidays. Therefore, impacts from groundborne vibration noise would be considered less than significant.

The project is not located within an airport area subject to an airport land use plan and will thus not be impacted by airport-related noise.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to noise (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Discussion: The project site is currently vacant. As there are no existing residential units, the project will not displace any people or housing.

The Project is consistent with the type of development contemplated in the MND. There are no residential units on the project site. The project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe population and housing impacts. Any population and housing impacts that might occur as a result of the project would be within the scope of those discussed in the MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant substantially more severe population and housing impacts in relation to the project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to population and housing (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

15. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Page 223 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for
any the public services:

MND, p. 26 No No No None required.

Fire protection? MND, p. 26 No No No None required.

Police protection? MND, p. 26 No No No None required.

Schools? MND, p. 26 No No No None required.

Parks? MND, p. 26 No No No None required.

Other public facilities? MND, p. 26 No No No None required.

Discussion: This project has been reviewed by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, and Utilities Division where those departments have provided any necessary conditions of approval to bring the project up to City Standards. With the construction of the project up to the city codes, the project will not be a significant impact on public services. The proposed project will not result in a significant demand for additional new services since it is not proposing to include new neighborhoods or a significantly large-scale development. The incremental impacts to services can be mitigated through payment of development impact fees.

Any public services impacts that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more public services impacts in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to public services (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)). All required impact fees supporting public services will be paid at the appropriate time in the construction process, if not already paid for the subject parcels.

16. RECREATION.

Page 224 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
MND, p. 27 No No No None required.

Discussion: The project is a resort type project that is designed to provide significant outdoor recreation space for its patrons, therefore the project would not significantly increase the use of city parks and facilities. This project does not require the construction of recreational facilities.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The Project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to recreation (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

17. TRANSPORTATION.

Discussion: A Traffic Analysis was prepared for the project by Central Coast Transportation Consulting, dated March 2025. The Memorandum summarized the transportation analysis for the project and addresses the environmental factors -17. Transportation a-d:
(a) The proposed circulation system, including roadways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities all comply with existing plans, ordinances, and policies. The Project will improve bike lane and pedestrian path connectivity along Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive. Any new parking lots constructed will include pedestrian paths for safe travel. The transportation analysis also recommends space for a future bus stop along

Page 225 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
Bunea Vista Drive to fulfill transit-based demand. (b) An updated traffic analysis has been conducted with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impact analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). In compliance with Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and County of San Luis Obispo thresholds, the analysis projects a reduction in regional VMT and a less-than significant impact on transportation. However, large-scale events could generate high traffic volumes, and a transportation management plan is recommended for events with 150 or more attendees. (c) No hazardous geometric design features are included within or adjacent to the site’s circulation. The project proposes a driveway along Dallons Drive to access the equipment yard. Less vehicular traffic is expected within this area compared to the rest of the hotel parking; however, the existing horizontal curve and future landscaping and vegetation impedes sight distance. By restricting parking near the driveway, the design could improve visibility. The proposed driveway should comply with sight distance standards designated by San Luis Obispo County. All proposed uses are compatible within and adjacent to the circulation plans. (d) Access points via existing driveways include Buena Vista Drive, Dallons Drive, and Experimental Station Road with an additional driveway proposed along Dallons Drive. These access points will provide adequate emergency access. The traffic analysis recommends an easement for a roadway between Dallons Drive and Experimental Station Road since the residential neighborhoods along Dallons Drive does not have secondary access. The project will not impede existing emergency access and is designed in compliance with all emergency access safety features and to City emergency access standards.

The March 2025 Transportation Analysis Memo included information beyond what is necessary to address impacts in this section of the Addendum. The information provided in Figure 1 – Site Plan and Recommendations and Figure 2 – Buena Vista Dr. Recommendations, is information requested by the City Engineer to determine what frontage improvement requirements the project may need to comply with City Engineering Standards. These recommendations have been reviewed by the City Engineer and have been incorporated in to the conditions of approval for the project at the discretion of the City Engineer.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The Project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to transportation (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Page 226 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Discussion: The Archaeological Survey (AIS) conducted a search and analysis of local records from the Central Coast Information Center and records from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to identify any eligible or listed cultural resources. These records did not recognize any cultural resources within the revised project site. Additionally, the AIS includes correspondence with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in search of recognized sacred land or resources within the proposed project site. The NAHC did not have any sacred land or resources on file. Traditionally and culturally affiliated tribes were then contacted in search of any unlisted or unregistered lands and resources; no responses were received and no sacred lands or resources have been identified by local or state records or affiliated native tribes.

The AIS concluded that there is no evidence of significant cultural resources located on the subject property and no further archeological investigations are recommended. The Archeologist indicated that it is unlikely, due to the fact that no evidence of significant cultural resources was located on the subject property, no further archaeological investigations are recommended at this time.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to tribal cultural resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.

Page 227 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
WDM No No No None required.
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
WDM No No No None required.
d. Generate solid waste in excess
of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
MND, p. 29 No No No None required.
e. Comply with federal, state, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
MND, p. 29 No No No None required.

Discussion: The project will not require the construction of new facilities for wastewater, stormwater, or solid waste. Per the City’s General Plan EIR, Urban Water Management Plan, and Sewer System Management Plan, the City’s water and wastewater treatment facilities are adequately sized, including planned facility upgrades, to provide water needed and treat effluent resulting from this project. As for solid waste, the City’s landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate construction related and operational solid waste disposal for this project, per the City’s Landfill Master Plan. Additionally, the project will comply with all federal, state, and local solid waste regulations and will not generate solid waste in excess beyond state of local standards or capacity.

All new stormwater resulting from this project will be managed on the project site and will not enter existing storm water drainage facilities or require expansion of new drainage facilities. Therefore, the project will not impact the City’s storm water drainage facilities.

The project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impacts to utilities and service systems. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to utilities and service systems in relation to the project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to utilities and service systems (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones:

Page 228 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
MND, p. 19 No No No None required.
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
Not addressed. No No No None required.
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that
may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Not addressed. No No No None required.

Discussion: As a part of the 2018 CEQA Guidelines update, the Appendix G checklist was revised to include Wildfire as a category of analysis. At the time the MND was prepared and certified, wildfire was addressed under Hazards and Hazardous Materials in the MND, and the Project was not within the vicinity of any wildland fire hazard areas. Currently, Cal Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps (2025) designates most of the project as a moderate fire hazard severity zone with the easternmost portion recognized as a high fire hazard severity zone. However, both zones are classified as local responsibility areas rather than state responsibility areas.

Additionally, the Project is not located adjacent to or near any very high fire hazard zones (VHFH) or any state responsibility areas (SRA) since both the nearest VHFH zone and SRA are outside city limits.

The Project will not impair or interfere with adopted emergency response routes or plans.

The Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe wildfire impacts. According to the City’s 2025 LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, safety zones throughout the City are labeled Moderate, High, and Very High Fire. The subject site is within the Moderate safety zone, the lowest risk zone. Along with the standard conditions of approval related to fire sprinklers, vegetation management, fire hydrant locations, building setbacks, etc. this site has been evaluated in relation to impacts to wildfire, and impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Conclusion: The project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to wildfire risk (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

Page 229 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
82473.03000\44668602.1
82473.03000\44723836.1
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the
range of an endangered, rare or
threatened species, or eliminate
important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when
view in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
MND, p. 30 No No No None required.
c. Does the project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
MND, p. 30 No No No None required.

Discussion: Based on the discussions above and supporting reports, the project’s impacts related to habitat for wildlife species (San Joaquin Kit Fox) will be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There will be no impact to fish habitat or fish and wildlife populations. The site is routinely maintained and mowed, so impact to fish, wildlife, of plant habitat is less than significant. The project consists of an expansion on a 10.8 acre site to an existing resort located on a 20-acre site. The proposed expansion project is in an area located in close proximity to a state highway, a community college, and existing developed residential neighborhoods. The project is being reviewed on a regional scale
The project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

The Project does not involve any element that might result in new significant or substantially more severe cumulative impacts. Any contribution to cumulative impacts would be within the scope of those discussed in the MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe cumulative impacts in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: BIO-1 through 12, AQ-1, AQ-2.

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

Page 230 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-1
Revised - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Project File No./Name: General Plan Amendment 25-02, Rezone 25-02, Borkey Specific Plan Amendment 26-01, PD 25-06, CUP 26-03– Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd.

Approving Resolution No.:

Date: March 17, 2026
The following environmental Mitigation Measures were either incorporated into the approved plans or were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Each and every Mitigation Measure listed below has been found by the approving body to lessen the level of environmental impact of the project to a less than significant level. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that it has been completed.

See attached Mitigation Summary Table for Mitigation Measure Descriptions.

Mitigation
Measure Type
Monitoring Dept or
Agency
Shown
on Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
AQ-1 Project Planning Division,
Building Division
AQ-2 Project Planning Division,
Building Division
BR-1 Project Planning Division
BR-2 Project Planning Division
BR-3 Project Planning Division
BR-4 Project Planning Division
BR-5 Project Planning Division
BR-6 Project Planning Division
BR-7 Project Planning Division
BR-8 Project Planning Division
BR-9 Project Planning Division
BR-10 Project Planning Division
BR-11 Project Planning Division
BR-12 Project Planning Division
BR-13 Project Planning Division
BR-14 Project Planning Division
BR-15 Project Planning Division
GHG-1 Project Planning Division
Eng. Cond. No.
15 Project Planning Division
Explanation of Headings:

Type Project, ongoing, cumulative
Monitoring Dept. or Agency Dept or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular MM Shown on Plans When a MM is shown on the plans, this column will be initialed & dated

Page 231 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-1
Verified Implementation When a MM has been implemented, this column will be initial & dated Remarks Area for describing status of ongoing MM, or other information

Page 232 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-2
Mitigation Measures Summary
Air Quality
AQ-1: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce construction-generated fugitive dust.

These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed areas where possible. b. Use water trucks, SLOAPCD-approved dust suppressants (see Section 4.3 in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook), or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the District’s limit of 20 percent opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60- minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph.

Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. Please note that since water use is a concern due to drought conditions, the contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCDapproved dust suppressant where possible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. c. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily or covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
e. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between the top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. f. “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out soils, the trackout prevention device may need to be modified. g. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.

AQ-2: The following measures shall be implemented to reduce construction emissions from on and off-road construction equipment (NOx, ROG, and DPM) and area sources. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications. b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment with ARB-certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road).
c. To the extent locally available, heavy-duty (50 horsepower or greater) diesel-fueled, off-road construction equipment shall meet Tier 4 emissions standards. d. When applicable, portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities shall be registered with the California statewide portable equipment registration program (issued by the California Air Resources Board) or be permitted by the APCD. Such equipment may include power screens, conveyors, internal combustion engines, crushers, portable generators, tub grinders, trammel screens, and portable plants (e.g, aggregate plant, asphalt plant, concrete plant). For more information, contact the SLOAPCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912. e. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2010 or cleaner certification standard for onroad heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation.

Page 233 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-2
f. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle when not in use. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit. g. Construction equipment staging areas shall be located at the furthest distance possible from nearby residential land uses.
h. To the extent locally available, electrified, or alternatively powered construction equipment shall be used.
i. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where possible; and, j. Use alternative-fueled construction equipment on-site where possible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel. k. Construction of the proposed project shall use low-VOC content paints not exceeding 50 grams per liter.
l. To the extent locally available, use prefinished building materials or materials that do not require the application of architectural coatings.
m. Meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2 standards for reducing cement use in concrete mix as allowed by local ordinance and conditions.

Biological Resources
BIO-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys. Within one week of ground disturbance activities, if work occurs between March 15 and August 15, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. If surveys do not locate nesting birds, construction activities may be conducted. If nesting birds are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of nests until chicks are fledged. A pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the report. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer depending upon site conditions.

BIO-2: Pre-Construction for American Badger. Within 15 days of starting any grading, grubbing, or oak tree removal, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted in the Study Area to locate occupied American badger dens within 100 feet of project areas. Highly visible fencing or rope barriers shall be installed under the direction of a project biologist in a manner sufficient to protect the dens from construction equipment. A buffer of 50 feet shall be used for occupied non-maternal dens. A buffer of 150 feet shall be installed if the den is determined to be a maternal pupping den. Construction activities shall not commence within the exclusion area until the badger has moved of its own accord. A preconstruction survey letter report shall be submitted to the lead agency for review within one week after completion of the survey.

BIO-3: Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permits, the applicant shall provide evidence that they have retained a qualified biologist acceptable to the City. The retained biologist shall perform the following monitoring activities:
a. Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permits and within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, the biologist shall conduct a pre-activity (i.e. preconstruction) survey for known or potential kit fox dens and submit a letter to the City reporting the date the survey was conducted, the survey protocol, survey results, and what measures were necessary (and completed), as applicable, to address any kit fox activity within the project limits. b. The qualified biologist shall conduct weekly site visits during site-disturbance activities (i.e. grading, disking, excavation, stock piling of dirt or gravel, etc.) that proceed longer than 14 days. Site disturbance activities lasting up to 14 days do not require weekly monitoring by the biologist unless observations of kit fox or their dens are made on-site, or the qualified biologist recommends monitoring for some other reason. When weekly monitoring is required, the biologist shall submit weekly monitoring reports to the County.
c. Prior to or during project activities, if any observations are made of San Joaquin Kit fox, or any known or potential San Joaquin kit fox dens are discovered within the project limits, the qualified biologist

Page 234 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-2
shall re-assess the probability of incidental take (e.g. harm or death) to kit fox. At the time a den is discovered, the qualified biologist shall contact USFWS and the CDFW for guidance on possible additional kit fox protection measures to implement and whether or not a Federal and/or State incidental take permit is needed. If a potential den is encountered during construction, work shall stop until such time the USFWS determines it is appropriate to resume work. If incidental take of kit fox during project activities is possible, before project activities commence, the applicant must consult with the USFWS. The results of this consultation may require the applicant to obtain a Federal and/or State permit for incidental take during project activities. The applicant should be aware that the presence of kit foxes or known or potential kit fox dens at the project site could result in further delays of project activities.
d. In addition, the qualified biologist shall implement the following measures:
a. Within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, fenced exclusion zones shall be established around all known and potential kit fox dens. Exclusion zone fencing shall consist of either large flagged stakes connected by rope or cord, or survey laths or wooden stakes prominently flagged with survey ribbon. Each exclusion zone shall be roughly circular in configuration with a radius of the following distance measured outward from the den or burrow entrances:
i. Potential kit fox den: 50 feet
ii. Known or active kit fox den: 100 feet
iii. Kit fox pupping den: 150 feet
b. All foot and vehicle traffic, as well as all construction activities, including storage of supplies and equipment, shall remain outside of exclusion zones. Exclusion zones shall be maintained until all project-related disturbances have been terminated, and then shall be removed. c. If kit foxes or known or potential kit fox dens are found on site, daily monitoring by a qualified biologist shall be required during ground disturbing activities.

BIO-4: Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permits, the applicant shall clearly delineate the following as a note on the project plans: “Speed signs of 25 mph (or lower) shall be posted for all construction traffic to minimize the probability of road mortality of the San Joaquin kit fox”. Speed limit signs shall be installed on the project site within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction.

BIO-5: During the site disturbance and/or construction phase, grading and construction activities after dusk shall be prohibited unless coordinated through the City, during which additional kit fox mitigation measures may be required.

BIO-6: Prior to issuance of grading and/or construction permit and within 30 days prior to initiation of site disturbance and/or construction, all personnel associated with the project shall attend a worker education training program, conducted by a qualified biologist, to avoid or reduce impacts on sensitive biological resources (i.e. San Joaquin kit fox). At a minimum, as the program relates to the kit fox, the training shall include the kit fox’s life history, all mitigation measures specified by the City, as well as any related biological report(s) prepared for the project. The applicant shall notify the City shortly prior to this meeting. A kit fox fact sheet shall also be developed prior to the training program, and distributed at the training program to all contractors, employers and other personnel involved with the construction of the project.

BIO-7: During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, to prevent entrapment of the San Joaquin kit fox, all excavations, steep-walled holes and trenches in excess of two feet in depth shall be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Trenches shall also be inspected for entrapped kit fox each morning prior to onset of field activities and immediately prior to covering with plywood at the end of each working day. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they shall be thoroughly inspected for entrapped kit fox. Any kit fox so discovered shall be allowed to escape before field activities resume, or removed from the trench or hole by a qualified biologist and allowed to escape unimpeded.

Page 235 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-2
BIO-8 Prior to final inspection should any long internal or perimeter fencing be proposed or installed, the applicant shall do the following to provide for kit fox passage:

1. If a wire strand/pole design is used, the lowest strand shall be no closer to the ground than 12 inches.

2. If a more solid wire mesh fence is used, 8”x12” opening near the ground shall be provided every 100 yards.

Upon fence installation, the applicant shall notify the City to verify proper installation, the applicant shall notify the City to verify proper installation. Any fencing constructed after issuance of a final permit shall follow the above guidelines.

BIO-9: During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, any pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of four inches or greater, stored overnight at the project site shall be thoroughly inspected for trapped San Joaquin kit foxes before the subject pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If during the construction phase a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe will not be moved. If necessary, the pipe may be moved only once to remove it from the path of activity, until the kit fox has escaped.

BIO-10: During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of only in closed containers. These containers shall be regularly removed from the site. Food items may attract San Joaquin kit foxes onto the project site, consequently exposing such animals to increased risk of injury or mortality. No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.

BIO-11: Prior to, during and after the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, use of pesticides or herbicides shall be in compliance with all local, State and Federal regulations. This is necessary to minimize the probability of primary or secondary poisoning of endangered species utilizing adjacent habitats, and the depletion of prey upon which San Joaquin kit foxes depend.

BIO-12: During the site-disturbance and/or construction phase, any contractor or employee that inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox or who finds any such animal either dead, injured, or entrapped shall be required to report the incident immediately to the applicant and City. In the event that any observations are made of injured or dead kit fox, the applicant shall immediately notify the USFWS and CDFW by telephone.

In addition, formal notification shall be provided in writing within three working days of the finding of any such animal(s). Notification shall include the date, time, location and circumstances of the incident. Any threatened or endangered species found dead or injured shall be turned over immediately to CDFW for care, analysis, or disposition.

BR-13 Occupied burrows or nests of special status species shall be mapped using GPS or survey equipment.

Work shall not be allowed within 100 foot buffer while nests are in use. The buffer zone shall be delineated on the ground with orange construction fencing where it overlaps work areas.

BR-14 Occupied burrows or nests of special status bird species that are within 100 feet of project work areas shall be monitored at least every two weeks through the nesting season to document nest success and check for project compliance with buffer zones. Once burrows or nests are deemed inactive and/or chicks have fledged and are no longer dependent on the nest, work may commence in those areas.

BR-15 Silvery legless lizards, a special status species, could potentially be present in construction areas. Preconstruction surveys for silvery legless lizards shall be conducted prior to primary grubbing and other construction activities that affect undisturbed habitat. If no special status species are found, construction activities may begin immediately. If a silvery legless lizard is found, a qualified biologist shall move them to the nearest safe location. The biologist shall have the authority to stop work if special status species are found in the project area during construction.

Page 236 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A-2
Greenhouse Gases
GHG-1: The project shall include the following measures:
a. CALGreen Tier 2 compliant electric vehicle (EV) charging stations shall be “EV Ready” as opposed to “EV Capable”.
b. Install electrically powered appliances and building mechanical equipment in place of natural gas-fueled equipment. If natural gas equipment is to be installed, the following shall be implemented:
a. Install electrical service to the natural gas equipment location sufficient to allow for the future conversion from natural gas to electrical service;
b. A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan shall be prepared for the proposed project. The GHG Reduction Plan shall include a menu of all possible onsite GHG reduction measures sufficient to offset operational natural-gas source emissions. In the event that the City of Paso Robles (City) adopts an updated Climate Action Plan or the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025 41 releases updated recommended GHG significance thresholds that address future-year GHG emissions reductions, the GHG-Reduction Plan may be evaluated in comparison to the GHG thresholds and reduction measures identified in the Climate Action Plan or those identified by the SLOAPCD and adjusted in order for the project to be in compliance with the Climate Action Plan. The GHG Reduction plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of building construction permits.
c. Under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3) and (c)(4), respectively, a project’s GHG emissions may also be reduced by offsite measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required by existing regulations and measures that sequester GHGs. In the event that feasible onsite GHG-reduction measures are insufficient to offset operational natural-gas source GHG emissions, offsite mitigation measures may be included to the extent feasible. Offsite mitigation measures may include “Direct Reduction Activities” located in the City of Paso Robles or the SLOAPCD jurisdictional areas. “Direct Reduction Activities” means undertaking or funding activities that will reduce or sequester GHG emissions. GHG reduction credits shall achieve GHG emission reductions that are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. GHG reduction credits shall be undertaken for the specific purpose of reducing project-generated GHG emissions and shall not include reductions that would otherwise be required by law. All Direct Reduction Activities and associated reduction credits shall be confirmed by an independent, qualified third-party air consultant retained by the Applicant.

The project shall provide organic waste pick up and shall provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City of Paso Robles Development Standards for Solid Waste Services.

Page 237 of 772 ends

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY
FOR A PARCEL AT 2700 BUENA VISTA DRIVE,

PASO ROBLES), SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,

CALIFORNIA
[ APN Portion of 025-410-004, 020, and 021]
Prepared for:

Ayres Construction Company
355 Bristol Street, Suite A
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared by:

Nancy Farrell
Cultural Resource Management Services
829 Paso Robles Street
Paso Robles, California 93446
October 2025
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Paso Robles, CA

CRMS Project No. 59-2976
Exhibit B

Page 238 of 772 ends

INTRODUCTION
At the request of Jana Beekman, Cultural Resource Management Services (CRMS) has conducted an archaeological inventory of approximately ±20 acres at The Allegretto Vineyard Resort, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California (Figure 1, 2 and 3).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This work was completed under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Paso Robles. The purpose of this investigation is to identify any cultural resources present on the parcel that may be affected by the proposed resort improvements. A literature and records search and intensive archaeological survey were conducted to identify and evaluate any significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources that might be impacted by the proposed construction (Exhibit A).

In addition, as part of an early participation notice, letters were sent to Native American tribes, organizations and individuals. The list of recipients was provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and is comprised of those groups and individuals thought to have a cultural interest in this area, notifying them of the proposed project, inviting them to consult, and requesting information or concerns regarding the proposed project. A Sacred Lands Search was conducted at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Concurrent with that search, Native Americans and Native American groups cited by the NAHC were contacted. In regards to the NAHC response letter, there have been no responses to the letters written, by the Native Americans or groups, noted specifically in Exhibit B attached to this report (Exhibit B).
-1-
Exhibit B

Page 239 of 772 ends

Figure 1: Vicinity Map (No Scale)
-2-
Exhibit B

Page 240 of 772 ends

Figure 2: Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Paso Robles, CA -3-
Exhibit B

Page 241 of 772 ends

Figure 3: Assessor’s Parcel Map, Survey Area In Red Outline -4-
Exhibit B

Page 242 of 772 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The surrounding area is a region of broad, flat to gently rolling incised terraces ± 3./4 mile east of the Salinas River and almost 5 miles south of the Estrella River. The parcel was dry-farmed to grain until the until development of Cuesta College and the Allegretto Vineyard Resort. Development of that part of Paso Robles began in the early 21st century. Elevation at the project is about 800 ft. ASL. The weather pattern is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Every several years, extreme frosts occur during winter months, but generally the area experiences 300 to 325 frost-free days per year.

Water Sources
Annual rainfall ranges from 12 to 20 inches. Today, the Estrella River, north of the property, and the Huer Huero Creek to the east and north, flow at the surface only during seasons of heavy rainfall, but the river flow would have been more abundant and regular during the time of prehistoric human occupation of the area. There is also an unnamed blue line creek to the south of the project parcel. The surface flow in these streams has likely been reduced to a minimum in recent years by the many municipal and private wells which draw water from the river and creeks for residential and agricultural use.

Geology and Pedology
The Paso Robles area presents a complex geologic picture. Cenozoic Monterey Shale and Miocene Santa Margarita Sandstone formations are dominant (Chipping 1987:VIII-7). Sandstones, siltstone, diatomite and conglomerates are characteristic rocks of the Santa Margarita Formation. Beds of fossil Pecten and oyster shells are also present in some locations. The pale brown soils of the project area is primarily Arbuckle- San Ysidro complex, a fine sandy loam deep well-drained soil that formed in alluvium derived from mixed rocks (Lindsey 1983: 19). A wide variety of rock types, including white quartz, black and brown Monterey cherts, green to pink/red Franciscan cherts and various colors of cherty shales and silt stones occur here. -5-
Exhibit B

Page 243 of 772 ends

Vegetation
The vegetation in this part of Paso Robles is Oak Savanna. Thousands of oaks were removed from the region northeast of Paso Robles in the early 1900s for orchards and later for dry framing (Rossi 1979: 260). Vegetation on the project area now consists primarily of native and introduced grasses and forbs: dove weed (Eremocarpus setigerus), vinegar weed (Trichostema lanceolatum), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Cheeseweed (Malva spp.), pineapple weed (Chamomilla suaveolens), barley (Hordeum vulgare), oats (Avena spp.), brome (Bromus spp.), vetch (Vicia villosa) and mustard (Brassica spp.).

Fauna
Fauna commonly occurring in the surrounding area include black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), coyote (Canis latrans), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), black bear (Ursus americanus) and historically, grizzly bear (Ursus arctos californicus) and tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannoides).

A number of ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), the western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), gophers (Thomomys spp.), mice (Microtus spp. and Peromyscus spp.), and a variety of reptiles and amphibians are also present. Common birds in the area include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicuvorus), and valley quail (Lophortyx californicus). Except for predators, all of these animals would have been food items for indigenous populations.

CULTURAL CONTEXT
Archaeological Background
Archaeological evidence indicates that San Luis Obispo County was occupied as early as 9000-10,000 years ago (Fitzgerald 2004). Because of the relatively small amount of archaeological work that has occurred in the interior central coast ranges, the cultural history of this region has until quite recently been placed within the sequence that has been defined for the Santa Barbara region, where far more archaeological investigations had taken place. The first regional chronology was proposed by D.B. Rogers (1929) and -6-
Exhibit B

Page 244 of 772 ends

was based on his excavation of coastal sites around Santa Barbara. This three-part sequence of Early Oak Grove or Millingstone Culture and Intermediate or Hunting People and a late Canaliño Culture is still considered generally valid in terms of broad cultural patterns (Fitzgerald and Jones 1998). Olsen and Payen (1969) constructed a cultural chronology for the eastern portion of the region based on materials from San Luis, Little Panoche, and Los Baños Reservoirs. The dating of individual cultural units was later revised by Mikkelsen and Hildebrandt (1990) based on the Olivella bead typology developed by Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987). Researchers on the Central Coast have continued to refine the chronological framework and several alternative schemes have been proposed, primarily based on sites in the Central Valley, Central Coast and channel Islands (cf. Moratto 1984: 125; King 1990; Erlandson and Jones 2002; Jones and Haney 2007). The following chronology for the San Luis Obispo area builds on this work and incorporates extensive investigations carried out on the Pecho Coast, south of San Luis Obispo (Jones and Codding 2019). All dates are radiocarbon calibrated:

Paleoindian 10,000 BCE - 8350 BCE
Millingstone/ Lower Archaic 8350 BCE - 3500 BCE
Early 3500 BCE - 600 BCE
Middle 600 BCE - 1000 CE
Middle/Late Transition 1000 CE - 1230 CE
Late 1230 CE - 1769 CE
Mission Period 1769 CE - 1830 CE
The characteristics of each of these periods are manifested primarily in changes in the material culture and elaboration of the social structure. These periods are based upon shifts in technology that relate to the type and variety of foods consumed, methods of procurement, and social structure. The earliest periods were a time of hunting and gathering, with an emphasis on seed collecting and processing. The tool kit for these periods shows an emphasis on milling equipment, crude cores yielding flaked stone tools. An increased reliance on fishing (evidenced by fishhooks), and on acorns as a dietary staple (mortars and pestles), was indicated later by the addition of new tools. -7-
Exhibit B

Page 245 of 772 ends

Paleoindian (10,000-8350 BCE)
Excavations on the northern Channel Islands have yielded radiocarbon dates as early as 12,500 years ago (Erlandson and Braje 2011). There is still very limited information for the Paleoindian period in the Central Coast mainland region.

Millingstone Period (8350 BCE - 3500 BCE)
More substantive archaeological evidence exists for the Millingstone Period, as evidenced by radiocarbon dates from excavations conducted at Diablo Canyon (Greenwood 1972), Cambria (Gibson 1979) Edna Valley (Fitzgerald et al. 1998) and Paso Robles (Stevens et al. 2004). Another site with a possible Millingstone period occupation in the interior south coast ranges is the Salinas River Crossing Site (SLO-1756) reported by Fitzgerald (1997). Although the association between artifacts and dates at this site is not straightforward, it also yielded an artifact assemblage similar to Millingstone Horizon sites in southern California and produced a date of 7000 CE/BCE. This basic adaptation persisted until about 3500 BCE and was characterized by milling slabs, manos (handstones), rather crude cobble tools and a high density of marine shellfish remains. Collection of seeds and shellfish appears to have been primary in the diet. It was during this period that permanent settlements with associated cemeteries were established.

Early Period (3500 BCE - 600 BCE)
Investigations at coastal sites reveal that people fished with nets and bone gorges; used tule reed boats or rafts; ate deer, small land mammals and sea mammals.

Large projectile points and stone knives are indicative of hunting activity. Milling implements consisting of manos and metates were evidence of the processing of seeds, and possibly vegetable foods, dried meats, and fish. The end of this period is marked by changes in technology with the decrease of manos and metates, a shift in the settlement pattern, and alterations in ornamental style. Along the coast and in interior areas, the Early period is marked by the appearance of mortars and pestles and contractingstemmed projectile points (Olsen and Payen 1969; Jones 1993). Other artifacts found with Early period occupations are also found in Millingstone period sites including -8-
Exhibit B

Page 246 of 772 ends

Olivella class L beads, large side-notched projectile points, and milling slabs and handstones. Greater numbers of sites are known from the Early period, possibly signaling a population increase.

Middle Period (600 BCE - 1000 CE)
The Middle period is well represented at sites along the central coast and increasingly in interior regions as well. The types of artifacts found in Middle period occupations are similar to those from the Early period although a larger number of bone implements and bead types are known (Olsen and Payen 1969; Jones and Waugh 1995).

Projectile points tend to be contracting-stemmed types with large side-notched and square-stemmed points apparently no longer used. Excavations at Fort Hunter-Liggett have shown that Middle period occupations in that area resemble those found along the coast (Jones and Haney 1997).

Mortars and pestles become larger and more common during this period. Exotic products are adopted and small seeds become less important as a staple. This period heralds the advent of social and political alliances and economic networks to regulate food supplies and their distribution in order to alleviate conditions resulting from regional fluctuations in the harvest. Some villages grew larger and less defensive in nature as populations were integrated into larger political units. The end of this period is marked by dramatic changes in economic, social, and political conditions; evidenced by the creation of new habitation sites and larger coastal fishing communities.

Middle/Late Transition Period (1000 CE - 1230 CE)
Around 1,000 A.D., a 300-year period of warmer temperatures and drier climate, the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, caused adverse environmental conditions, particularly intermittent droughts (Raab and Larson 1997). During the Late Period, terrestrial resource production is thought to have decreased significantly, while adaptive responses involving technology and social complexity evolved. Characteristic artifacts include curved shell fishhooks, mortars with attached basket hopper, contractingstemmed and double side-notched projectile points. The bow and arrow was introduced.
-9-
Exhibit B

Page 247 of 772 ends

Late Period (1230 CE - 1769 CE)
This period is marked by a more mobile, dispersed settlement pattern than earlier periods (Jones et al. 2015: 15), an increasing dependence on acorns and other storable commodities, and a general diversification of the marine and terrestrial foods consumed. The tool assemblage for this period is distinguished by Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood projectile points, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, steatite disk beads and bifacial bead drills. This period is also marked by the development of an economic system involving the introduction of new forms of beads and ornaments as forms of money. Late period assemblages from the interior south coast ranges are distinguished by a suite of new bead types, small side-notched and triangular arrow points, and hopper mortars, as well as many artifact types found in earlier periods (Olsen and Payen 1969). At Fort Hunter Liggett, Late period occupations also included small arrow points, new bead types, as well as bedrock mortars and unshaped pestles (Jones 2000; Haney et al. 2002). On the whole, the Late period assemblages from a wide area of the central coast and interior regions appear superficially similar, but this was probably a time of continued cultural differentiation due to higher population densities.

Mission Period (1769 CE - 1830 CE)
Glass trade beads, square nails and bottle glass begin to appear in the archaeological matrix (Meighan 1979; Moratto 1984: 273).

Ethnohistorical Overview
At the time of European contact, the Paso Robles region was primarily occupied by a branch of the northern-most Chumash, the Obispeño (Kroeber 1925). This group inhabited coastal and inland areas between Malibu and the vicinity of San Simeon (Kroeber 1925; Gibson 1983). Also present in the region historically were the Migueleño Salinan (Greenwood 1978). The Salinan were bordered by the Esselen and Costanoan to the north, Yokuts to the east and the Chumash to the south. Examination of mission records reveals that members of the Salinan Nation inter-married into the northern portion of San Luis Obispo County, including the Paso Robles area. The exact boundary of these two groups has not been well established and is the subject of continuing research on the part of ethno-historians, archaeologists, and some Salinan and Chumash descendants. Research indicates that the main village in the' Paso Robles area was a -10-
Exhibit B

Page 248 of 772 ends

Chumash village named Sososquiquia. (Gibson 1988: 3). There were three people baptized at San Miguel Mission who named this village as their home; nineteen peopIe from this village were baptized in San Luis Obispo, most between the years of 1790 and 1804 AD. The actual (archaeologically identified) location of the rancheria of Sososquiquia has not been ascertained. Unfortunately, relatively little of substance is known about Salinan culture specifics because of the early influence of the missions and the remoteness of their territory. Their traditional lifeways were altered early on and few people outside of the mission system were present to record what remained after secularization (Mason 1912).

The economies of the Salinan and the Chumash, observed at the time of European contact, was based upon an annual cycle of foraging and hunting. Plants foods, especially acorns and seeds, provided the bulk of the diet. Acorns were stored in large willow-twig granaries until needed, then ground in a stone mortar. The tannic acid present in the acorn meal was leached out with water, and the result was cooked into a gruel or cake. Other important plant foods included wild grass and other hard seeds, roots and corms, and various fruits and berries. Major animal foods included a diverse assortment of terrestrial mammals, marine and freshwater fish, shellfish, birds, as well as reptiles and insects. It is unclear to what extent people living inland ventured to the coast and vice versa, but it is likely that people were mobile enough to take advantage of plant and animal foods when and where they occurred. Diets would have varied from season to season, and from year to year, depending on availability.

Hunting of animals and birds was accomplished with snares, traps, spears, and the bow and arrow. Stone, bone, wood and shell all provided materials for the production of tools. Stone tools and the debris from their manufacture and maintenance are the most likely to be seen in an archaeological context. Flaked stone work included projectile points, scrapers and choppers. Pecked and ground stone objects include bowl mortars, pestles, metates, basket mortars, stone bowls, notched pebble net sinkers, and steatite arrow shaft straighteners. Ornaments were made of bone, steatite and serpentine. Bone and shell tools were also manufactured; especially bone awls and on the coast, C-shaped fishhooks. Shell beads of mussel and abalone were the basis of the Salinan currency, with values based on the color or the shell (Hester 1978: 502). -11-
Exhibit B

Page 249 of 772 ends

Historic Overview
European contact in the San Luis Obispo County region may have begun as early as 1587 with the visit of Pedro de Unamuno to Morro Bay, although some scholars have questioned this based on the ambiguity of Unamuno's descriptions (Mathes 1968). A visit in 1595 by Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño is better documented (Wagner 1924). The earliest well-documented descriptions of the region come from accounts by members of Gaspar de Portola's land expedition to explore Alta California, which passed through the region in 1769 (Squibb 1984). No large villages, such as those seen along the Santa Barbara channel, were reported by early travelers in the San Luis Obispo region. Several accounts of this expedition exist, including those of Juan Crespi (Bolton 1926), Miguel Costanso (Teggert 1911), and Pedro Fages (Priestley 1937). Costanso's diary contains observations regarding the native inhabitants' houses, settlement patterns, dress, and customs, as well as their attitudes toward the expedition.

Permanent Spanish settlement of the region began with the founding of Mission San Antonia de Padua (near King City) in 1771 and San Luis Obispo de Tolosa (in San Luis Obispo) in 1772. Twenty-five years later, Mission San Miguel Archangel was founded in the heart of southern Salinan territory. The mission properties were extensive and included an outlying rancho station, Las Gallinas, near present day Paso Robles (Ohles 1997). As elsewhere, induction into the mission system had a devastating effect on the local inhabitants, requiring them to live and work at the mission and to a great extent abandon their former lifeways. Under the guidance of the mission fathers, the natives were instructed in European farming methods, including the production of wheat, beans and fruit, and the raising of livestock.

The inadvertent introduction of European diseases, the consequent high mortality rate, and the pressures of overwhelming social change decimated the population. Most native villages had been abandoned by 1805, and the populace had either fled or moved into the mission system (Gibson 1983). The natives who had survived the Spanish colonization period, went on to build and staff the ranchos of the Mexican and American periods which followed. By the beginning of the 20th Century, the Chumash and Salinan had been integrated into American society (King 1984). -12-
Exhibit B

Page 250 of 772 ends

In 1822, Mexico attained independence of Spain and California became a Mexican territory. The Secularization Act, passed by the Mexican congress in 1833, provided for the immediate break-up of the missions and the transfer of mission lands to settlers and Indians. Work toward this end began in 1834 under Governor Figueroa. Grants were made to individuals by the governor on the recommendation of the local alcalde of the Mission. During the years from 1840 to 1846, a series of land grants were made from the lands of Mission San Miguel by the governors of Mexican California. Three grants, Santa Ysabel, El Paso de Robles, and Huer Huero, were made in the vicinity of the Project. A number of complex land transfers involving the grants took place over the next decades. The project is located within the bounds of Rancho Santa Ysabel.

The 17,774+ acre Rancho Santa Ysabel, granted on May 12, 1844 by Mexican Governor Manuel Micheltorena to Francisco Arce (Ohles 1997: 104-110). In 1848 at the end of the Mexican war, California was ceded to the United States, and was admitted to the Union is 1850. All grants were then subject to validation under United States laws.

Based on the quality of the soil and general accessibility, a Board of Equalization in San Luis Obispo considered the parcel to be a Third Class Mexican Land Grant Ranchero.

The United States Land Commission issued a patent on the parcel on May 21, 1866. In 1878, a San Miguel Mission administrator, Don Innocenti Garcia, related to Thomas Savage that Arce had sold the land to Don Francisco Rico; however, no other record of this transaction has ever been located (Ohles 1997:110). Ownership had passed to W. V.

Huntington by 1886.

The City of Paso Robles was a portion of the 26,000 acre rancho El Paso de los Robles, granted May 12, 1844 to Pedro Navarez by Governor Manuel Micheltorena. A patent on the El Paso de los Robles was obtained July 20, 1866 by Petronillo Rios. Prior to the patent, however, the parcel had been sold in two separate transactions, first to Daniel and James Blackburn on September 21, 1858. The second portion was sold July 9, 1861 to Lazarus Godchaux. They immediately began making improvements to the hot sulphur springs which had been used by local inhabitants for generations. The location had long been a rest stop for travelers on the El Camino Real. In 1864 the El Paso de Robles Hotel was built, with attendant bath house. By the 1870s, the Paso Robles Hot -13-
Exhibit B

Page 251 of 772 ends

Springs was a well known destination for people seeking the famous curative powers of the springs (Sawyer 1915).

The West Coast Land Co. was incorporated on March 27, 1886. Their immediate objective was to purchase and develop 64,000 acres of land for resale. The land was comprised of the ranchos Santa Ysabel, El Paso de Robles, Eureka, and the unsold portion of Huer Huero. The purchase was based upon the expectation that the Southern Pacific Railroad would build a coastal line between San Francisco and Los Angeles through San Luis Obispo County (Nicholson 1980). A town plan for Paso Robles was commissioned. On November 17, 1886, two weeks after the first train arrived in town a “Grand Auction” was held, resulting in the sale of 228 lots. The town plan was completed by 1887. The trickle of settlers became a flood and Paso Robles became a major agricultural export center. Cattle ranches, dairies, almond and other fruit orchards, and large tracts devoted to dry land grain production comprised the rural landscape. Agriculture has continued to be the mainstay of the region up to the present, with increasing emphasis on viticulture and wine-making. The proliferation of wineries in the last 30 years has lead to tourism once again becoming a major component of the local economy. The project region was used for various agricultural pursuits, primarily grazing and dry farming of grain until the construction of the Allegretto Vineyard Resort Paso Robles, in 2014.

MAP AND RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
Prior to the field survey, a records and literature search was conducted at the Central Coast Information Center, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, which is the State-designated regional clearinghouse for archaeological site information for San Luis Obispo County. The search also included inventories for the State Historic Property Data Files, National Register of Historic Places, National Register of Determined Eligible Properties, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest, Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the CalTrans State and Local Bridge Surveys. Eleven previous cultural -14-
Exhibit B

Page 252 of 772 ends

resource studies have been conducted within a 1/4 mile radius of the project area (Dills 1975; Farrell 2007; Gibson 1988; Laurie and Stevens 2018; Mikkelson et al 2001a, 2001b; Parker 1997, 2007; Singer 1987; Smith 1979 ; Waldron 1985). One of them, Gibson 1988, covered the current project area. No significant cultural resources were found in the vicinity of the project area during any of these efforts.

FIELD METHODS
A field inspection of the project area was made in October, 2025 by Nancy Farrell and Ron Rose of CRMS. The survey was accomplished by walking straight-line transects spaced at approximately three meters across the project area. Visibility of mineral soil was approximately 30% in most areas. Much of the property supported a dense ground cover of annual grasses. In these portions, rodent holes were inspected and grasses were scraped away at intervals. No evidence of prehistoric or historic artifacts, features, or other indications of significant cultural resources were found during the survey.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the fact that no evidence of significant cultural resources was located on the subject property, no further archaeological investigations are recommended at this time. While it is unlikely that subsurface remains are present, the nature of surface survey does not preclude the possible existence of such remains. If prehistoric or historic cultural materials are encountered during any phase of property grading or development the work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment of the resources and proper mitigation measures be formulated, if necessary. -15-
Exhibit B

Page 253 of 772 ends

REFERENCES CITED
Angel, M.
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Thompson & West, Oakland. Facsimile reproduction, Valley Publishers, Fresno. 1979.

Bennyhoff, J. A., and R. E. Hughes
1987 Shell Beads and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 64(2).

Bolton, H. E.,
1926. Captain Portola in San Luis Obispo County 1769. Tabula Rasa Press, Morro Bay, California.

Chipping, David H.
1987 The Geology of San Luis Obispo County: A Brief Description and Field Guide. San Luis Obispo.

Dills, Charles E
1975 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Prospect Heights Subdivision.

Erlandson, Jon M and T.J. Braje
2011 From Asia to the Americas by Boat? Paleogeography, paleoecology, and stemmed points of the Northwest Pacific. Quaternary International 239: 28-37.

Erlandson Jon M. and Terry L. Jones, editors
2002 Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.

Farrell, Nancy
2007 Archaeological Inventory Survey of a +/-25 acre Parcel at the Southwest Corner of Dallons Road and Golden Hill Road, Paso Robles, California [APN: 025-391-037, -038, 039, 063, & -067]. Cultural Resource Management Services Fitzgerald, Richard T.
1997 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Salinas River Crossing Site, CA-SLO-1756, San Luis Obispo County, California, for the Coastal Branch, Phase II Project. Submitted to the California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California. Garcia and Associates, Santa Cruz, California.
2000 Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper No. 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society.

Fitzgerald, Richard T. and Terry L. Jones
1998 Interpretive Synthesis of Subsurface Archaeological Investigations for the Coastal Branch Phase II Project. In Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SLO-1797, the Cross Creek Site, San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Branch Phase II Project, edited by R. T. Fitzgerald, Appendix G. Report prepared by Garcia and Associates, on file at California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento.
-16-
Exhibit B

Page 254 of 772 ends

Gibson, Robert O.
1979 Preliminary Inventory and Assessment of Indian Cultural Resources at Lodge Hill, Cambria, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report for the Cambria Water District. 1983 Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach:. Master's Thesis, California State University, Hayward.
1988 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey for the Borkey Area Specific Plan, Paso Robles.

Greenwood, R.S.
1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Paper 2, San Luis Obispo. 1978 Obispeño and Purismeño Chumash. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Haney, Jefferson W, Terry L. Jones, and Jennifer M. Farquhar 2002 Phase II Archaeological Investigation of CA-MNT-879 Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterey County, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.

Hester, Thomas Roy
1978 Salinan. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Edited by Robert F Heizer.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

Jones, Terry L.
1993 Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Cultural History. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(1): 1-78.
2000 Archaeological Evaluations at CA-MNT-237 and CA-MNT-519, Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterey County, California. Report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.

Jones, Terry L and Brian F. Codding
2019 Foragers on America’s Western Edge, The Archaeology of California’s Pecho Coast. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Jones, Terry L., and Jefferson W. Haney
1997 Archaeological Evaluation of CA-MNT-521, Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterey County, California. Report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. 2007 Archeological Evaluation of CA-MNT-1770, Fort Hunter Liggett, Monterey County, California. For Cultural Resources Office Fort Hunter Liggett.

Jones, Terry L , David Knight and Brian Codding
2015 Archaeological Investigations at CA-SLO-5, Diablo Canyon Lands, San Luis Obispo County California: Final Report of the 2013 Cal Poly Field School and Mitigation Program. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Walnut Creek, California.

Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh
1995 Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. -17-
Exhibit B

Page 255 of 772 ends

King, Chester D.
1984 Appendix I: Ethnohistoric Background. In Archaeological Investigations on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Report on file at Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara 1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social Systems Maintenance in the Santa barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. In The Evolution of North American Indians, edited by D.H. Thomas. Garland Publishing, Inc.

New York.

Kroeber, Alfred
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Facsimile edition, California Book Company, 1953.

Laurie, Leroy and Nathan Stevens
2018 Cultural Resources Survey for the City of Paso Robles Water Distribution System Project, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California. SWCA
Lindsey, Wesley C.
1983 Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California: Paso Robles Area. United States Department of Agriculture, soil Conservation Service.

Mason, J. A.
1912 The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 10, No.4, pp.97-240. Berkeley, The University Press. 1918 The Language of the Salinan Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(1):1-154. Berkeley, CA.

Mathes, W. M.
1968 Sebastián Vizcaino and Spanish Expansion in the Pacific Ocean, 1580-1630. California Historical Society, San Francisco.

Meighan, Clement
1979 Glass Trade Beads in California. Ms. on file at Lowie Museum of Anthropology.

University of California, Berkeley.

Mikkelsen, P.J., and W. R. Hildebrandt
1990 Archaeological Inventory and Evaluation for the Proposed Los Baños Grandes Reservoir, Merced County, California. Report on file, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento.

Mikkelsen, Patricia, Laura Leach-Palm,, Jennifer Hatch, Elizabeth Kallenbach, and Jerome King 2001a Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 5 Rural Highways, San Luis Obispo County, California, Highways 1, 41, 46, 58, 101, 166, 227, and 229, Volume I. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.
-18-
Exhibit B

Page 256 of 772 ends

Patricia Mikkelsen, Laura Leach-Palm, Jennifer Hatch, Elizabeth Kallenbach, Jerome King, and Chee, Vue
2001b Cultural Resources inventory of Caltrans District 5 Rural Highways - Topographic Quadrangles. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press. Orlando.

Nicholson, Loren
1980 Rails Across the Ranchos. Valley Publishers, Fresno.

Ohles, Wallace V.
1997 The Lands of Mission San Miguel. Friends of the Adobes, Inc. San Miguel.

Olsen, William H., and Louis A. Payen
1969 Archeology of the Grayson Site, Merced County, California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Archaeological Reports 12.

Parker, John
1999 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed Paso Robles Hot Springs and Spa Development North River Road, Paso Robles. Parker & Associates 2007 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Proposed River Oaks II Development North River Road, Paso Robles. Parker and Associates
Priestly, Herbert Ingram (editor and translator)
1937 A Historical Political and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain.

Ballena Press, Ramona, California. 1937 UC Press.

Raab, L. Mark, and Daniel O. Larson
1997 Medieval Climatic Anomaly and Punctuated Cultural Evolution in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 62: 319-336.

Rogers, David Banks
1929 Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast, California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Special Publication 1, Santa Barbara, California.

Rossi, Randall Steven
1979 Land Use and Vegetation Change in the Oak Woodland Savannah of Northern San Luis Obispo County, California (1774-1978). Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley Department of Geography.

Sawyer, Frank W, M.D.
1915 Paso Robles Hot Springs California. Sunset Publishing House.

Singer, Clay
1987 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Union/46 Specific Plan Area, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California
-19-
Exhibit B

Page 257 of 772 ends

Smith, Chuck
1979 State Highway 46 (30.3-59-9 P.M.) Caltrans. -
Squibb, Paul
1984 Captain Portola in San Luis Obispo County in 1769. Tabula Rasa Press. Morro Bay, California
Stevens, Nathan, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Nancy Farrell, Mark A. Giambastiani, Jennifer M. Farquhar, and Dayna Tinsley
2004 Archaeological Test Excavations at Santa Ysabel Ranch, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report submitted to Weyrich Development Company, LLC. Cultural Resource Management Services, Paso Robles.

Teggart, Frederick J. (ed)
1911 The Portola Expedition of 1769-1770. Diary of Miguel Costanso. University of California Press.

Wagner, H.R.
1924 The Voyage to California of Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño in 1595. California Historical Society Quarterly 3 (1): 3-24.

Wendy Waldron
1985 Survey of road widening along Highway 46, including bridges no. 49-165 and 49-34, located between the junction of Routes 101/46 and Airport Road, SLO County. Caltrans District 5.
-20-
Exhibit B

Page 258 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT A
Records and Literature Search
Central Coast Information Center
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA
-21-
Exhibit B

Page 259 of 772 ends

-22-
Exhibit B

Page 260 of 772 ends

-23-
Exhibit B

Page 261 of 772 ends

EXHIBIT B
Letter To Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
Response From NAHC
Letter To Native Americans and Groups
Response From Native Americans and Groups
,
-24-
Exhibit B

Page 262 of 772 ends

-25-
Exhibit B

Page 263 of 772 ends

Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle-Estrella, CA
-26-
Exhibit B

Page 264 of 772 ends

-27-
Exhibit B

Page 265 of 772 ends

Cultura Resource Management Services
829 Paso Robles Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Phone 805-237-3838
Fax 805-237-3849
October 10, 2025

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RE: Phase I Archaeological Inventory Survey, Ptn of APN: 025-410-004 and 002 Buena Vista Drive and Dallons Drive, Paso Robles
XXXXXXXXXX:

The owner of the property described above, is proposing extensive addition to their resort complex.

Cultural Resource Management Services (CRMS) has been retained, to prepare a Phase I surface survey as well as provide an early participation notice to interested Native Americans and Native American groups relative to the proposed project.

The project area is within the City limits of Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo county, and is identified on the attached portion of the USGS 7.5' Quadrangle. Paso Robles, CA. The study area falls within Township 26 South and Range 12 East MDM. The project location is depicted as a salmon polygon.

The Native American Heritage Commission has indicated that no Sacred Sites exist either on the property or the vicinity. If you wish to comment on this project, please do so as soon as possible. If you have any questions contact me at the phone number or address shown, or by email [email protected]. We look forward to your reply.

Best regards,
Ron Rose
Vice President
Encl: Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Paso Robles
-28-
Exhibit B

Page 266 of 772 ends

The Letter On The Previous Page Was Sent To The Following Individuals And Groups.

XXXX Substituted For Address and Salutation
-29-
Exhibit B

Page 267 of 772 ends

RESPONSE TO LETTERS WRITTEN
To date, there have been no responses to letters.
-30-
Exhibit B

Page 268 of 772 ends

Exhibit B

Page 269 of 772 ends

AI R QU AL IT Y &

GR E E N H O U S E GAS

I M P A C T AS S ES SM E N T
F O R

AL L E G R E T T O RE S O R T

EX P A N S I O N P R O J E C T

P ASO R O B L E S , CA
MARCH 2025
PREPARED BY:
75 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE 105
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
Exhibit C

Page 270 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Project Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Air Quality......................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Setting............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change.................................................................................................................................. 27 Existing Setting........................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Regulatory Framework............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Impact Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 References..................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Common Pollutants & Adverse Effects............................................................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data ......................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Air Quality Index Summary for Ozone & Related Health Effects.................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Air Quality Index Summary for Fine Particulate Matter & Related Health Effects ....................................................... 9 Table 5. Air Quality Index Annual Historical Summary .................................................................................................................. 9 Table 6. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards & Attainment Designations ................................................................... 12 Table 7. SLOAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Project-Level Construction Impacts ........................................................... 14 Table 8. SLOAPCD Thresholds of Significance for Project-Level Operational Impacts ............................................................ 15 Table 9. Daily Construction Emissions without Mitigation ........................................................................................................... 18 Table 10. Quarterly Construction Emissions without Mitigation .................................................................................................. 18 Table 11. Summary of Construction Emissions without Mitigation.............................................................................................. 19 Table 12. Quarterly Construction Emissions with Mitigation........................................................................................................ 22 Table 13. Operational Emissions without Mitigation.................................................................................................................... 24 Table 14. Global Warming Potential for Greenhouse Gases..................................................................................................... 28 Table 15. City of Paso Robles GHG Emissions Inventories........................................................................................................... 29 Table 16. Construction-Generated GHG Emissions .................................................................................................................... 37 Table 17. Operational GHG Emissions.......................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 18. Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan........................................................................................... 39

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proposed Site Plan............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Paso Robles Municipal Airport Wind Rose Plot............................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3. California GHG Emissions Inventory by Sector & Subsector (2019) ............................................................................ 29 Figure 4. California Black Carbon Emissions Inventory (Year 2013) ........................................................................................... 30

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Emissions Modeling & Supportive Documentation Exhibit C

Page 271 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
ii

LIST OF COMMON TERMS & ACRONYMS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
APS Alternative Planning Strategy
AQI Air Quality Index
ARB California Air Resources Board
ATCM Air Toxics Control Measure
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BSC Building Standards Commission
C2F6 Perfluoroethane
C3F8 Perfluoropropane
C4F10 Perfluorobutane
C4F8 Perfluorocyclobutane
C5F12 Perfluoropentane
C6F14 Perfluorohexane
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CAMP Construction Activity Management Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CF4 Perfluoromethane
CH4 Methane
City City of Paso Robles
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CVC California Vehicle Code
DPM Diesel-Exhaust Particulate Matter or Diesel-Exhaust PM EV Electric Vehicle
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
hp Horsepower
LNG Liquified Natural Gas
LOS Level of Service
MMT Million Metric Tons
mph Miles per Hour
Exhibit C

Page 272 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
iii

LIST OF COMMON TERMS & ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MT Metric Tons
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for HAPs
NF3 Nitrogen Trifluoride
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOA Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
NOX Oxides of Nitrogen
O3 Ozone
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pb Lead
PFC Perfluorocarbons
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Fugitive Particulate Matter (less than 10 micrometers) PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter (less than 2.5 micrometers) ppb Parts per Billion
ppm Parts per Million
Project Allegretto Resort Expansion Project
PV Photovoltaic
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB Senate Bill
SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SLCP Short-lived Climate Pollutant
SLOAPCD San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District
SLOCOG San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SP Service Population
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
U.S. EPA United State Environmental Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
ZNE Zero Net Energy
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
μm Micrometer
Exhibit C

Page 273 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
1 INTRODUCTION
This report provides an analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the proposed development of the Allegretto Resort Expansion Project (project). This report also provides a summary of existing conditions in the project area and the applicable regulatory framework pertaining to air quality and climate change.

PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project is located in the City of Paso Robles at the southeast corner of Buena Vista Drive and Dallons Drive. The project includes development of a mix of land uses, including hotel suites, event space, restaurant, conference center, pickleball courts, gardens and vineyards. The proposed project’s site plan is depicted in Figure 1.

AIR QUALITY
Existing Setting
The project is located in the City of Paso Robles (City), within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), and within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). Air quality in the SCCAB is influenced by a variety of factors, including topography, and local and regional meteorology.

Topography
The City sits on the rolling hills of the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. It is bounded from the northwest by the Santa Lucia Mountain Range, which extends almost the entire length of the county. Rising sharply to about 3,000 feet at its northern boundary, the Santa Lucia Range gradually winds southward away from the coast, finally merging into a mass of rugged features on the north side of Cuyama Canyon. Point Buchon juts into the Pacific just south of Morro Bay to form the protective harbor of San Luis Obispo Bay. The Irish Hills are the dominant feature on this knob of land, rising abruptly from the shore to form steep cliffs and generally complex terrain from the Los Osos/Montana de Oro State Park area to Pismo Beach. These headlands have a pronounced influence on local wind flow patterns.

Estuaries are also a notable feature of the coastal areas, occurring wherever flowing streams meet the ocean. Morro Bay contains the region's largest estuary, with a saltwater marsh located on the east side where Chorro and Los Osos creeks enter the bay. This is one of the most significant wetlands remaining on the California coast and has been designated part of the National Estuary Program. It provides nesting habitat for blue herons, cranes, and other important types of woodland birds and wildlife. Smaller coastal lagoons and marshes are also scattered along the county's shoreline.

Local and Regional Meteorology
The climate of the county can be generally characterized as Mediterranean, with warm, dry summers and cooler, relatively damp winters. Along the coast, mild temperatures are the rule throughout the year due to the moderating influence of the Pacific Ocean. This effect is diminished inland in proportion to the distance from the ocean or by major intervening terrain features, such as the coastal mountain ranges. As a result, inland areas are characterized by a considerably wider range of temperature conditions. Maximum summer temperatures average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit near the coast, while inland valleys are often in the high 90s. Minimum winter temperatures average from the low 30s along the coast to the low 20s inland (SLOAPCD 2001).

Exhibit C

Page 274 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
2 Figure 1. Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit C

Page 275 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
3 Regional meteorology is largely dominated by a persistent high-pressure area that commonly resides over the eastern Pacific Ocean. Seasonal variations in the strength and position of this pressure cell cause seasonal changes in the weather patterns of the area. The Pacific High remains generally fixed several hundred miles offshore from May through September, enhancing onshore winds and opposing offshore winds.

During spring and early summer, as the onshore breezes pass over the cool water of the ocean, fog, and low clouds often form in the marine air layer along the coast. Surface heating in the interior valleys dissipates the marine layer as it moves inland (SLOAPCD 2001).

From November through April the Pacific High tends to migrate southward, allowing northern storms to move across the county. About 90 percent of the total annual rainfall is received during this period. Winter conditions are usually mild, with intermittent periods of precipitation followed by mostly clear days. Rainfall amounts can vary considerably among different regions in the county. In the Coastal Plain, annual rainfall averages 16 to 28 inches, while the Upper Salinas River Valley generally receives about 12 to 20 inches of rain. The Carrizo Plain is the driest area of the county with less than 12 inches of rain in a typical year (SLOAPCD 2001).

Airflow around the county plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of pollutants. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by the location and strength of the Pacific High-pressure system and other global patterns, by topographical factors, and by circulation patterns resulting from temperature differences between the land and sea. In spring and summer months, when the Pacific High attains its greatest strength, onshore winds from the northwest generally prevail during the day. At night, as the sea breeze dies, weak drainage winds flow down the coastal mountains and valleys to form a light, easterly land breeze (SLOAPCD 2001).

In the Fall, onshore surface winds decline, and the marine layer grows shallow, allowing an occasional reversal to a weak offshore flow. This, along with the diurnal alternation of land-sea breeze circulation, can sometimes produce a "sloshing" effect. Under these conditions, pollutants may accumulate over the ocean for a period of one or more days and are subsequently carried back onshore with the return of the sea breeze. Strong inversions can form at this time, "trapping" pollutants near the surface (SLOAPCD 2001).

This effect is intensified when the Pacific High weakens or moves inland to the east. This may produce a "Santa Ana" condition in which air, often pollutant-laden, is transported into the county from the east and southeast.

This can occur over a period of several days until the high-pressure system returns to its normal location, breaking the pattern. The breakup of Santa Ana conditions may result in relatively stagnant conditions and a buildup of pollutants offshore. The onset of the typical daytime sea breeze can bring these pollutants back onshore, where they combine with local emissions to cause high pollutant concentrations. Not all occurrences of the "post-Santa Ana" conditions lead to high ambient pollutant levels, but it does play an important role in the air pollution meteorology of the county (SLOAPCD 2001).

Predominant wind flow in the project area, based on historical meteorological data from the Paso Robles Municipal Airport, is depicted in Figure 2. As depicted, wind flow in the project area is predominantly from the northwest, averaging approximately 6.7 miles per hour (mph). Calm winds are present an average of approximately 26.8 percent of the time.

Atmospheric Stability and Dispersion
Air pollutant concentrations are primarily determined by the amount of pollutant emissions in an area and the degree to which these pollutants are dispersed into the atmosphere. The stability of the atmosphere is one of the key factors affecting pollutant dispersion. Atmospheric stability regulates the amount of vertical and horizontal air exchange or mixing that can occur within a given air basin. Restricted mixing and low wind speeds are generally associated with a high degree of stability in the atmosphere. These conditions are characteristic of temperature inversions (SLOAPCD 2001).

In the atmosphere, air temperatures normally decrease as altitude increases. At varying distances above the earth's surface, however, a reversal of this gradient can occur. This condition termed an inversion, is simply a warm layer of air above a layer of cooler air, and it has the effect of limiting the vertical dispersion of pollutants. The height of the inversion determines the size of the mixing volume trapped below. Inversion strength or intensity is measured by the thickness of the layer and the difference in temperature between the Exhibit C

Page 276 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
4 base and the top of the inversion. The strength of the inversion determines how easily it can be broken by wind or solar heating (SLOAPCD 2001).

Figure 2. Paso Robles Municipal Airport Wind Rose Plot
Source: Iowa Environmental Mesonet 2023
Several types of inversions are common to this area. Weak, surface inversions are caused by radiational cooling of air in contact with the cold surface of the earth at night. In valleys and low-lying areas, this condition is intensified by the addition of cold air flowing downslope from the hills and pooling on the valley floor. Surface inversions are a common occurrence throughout the county during the winter, particularly on cold mornings when the inversion is strongest. As the morning sun warms the earth and the air near the ground, the inversion lifts, gradually dissipating as the day progresses. During the late spring and early summer months, cool air over the ocean can intrude under the relatively warmer air over land, causing a marine inversion. These inversions can restrict dispersion along the coast, but they are typically shallow and will dissipate with surface heating (SLOAPCD 2001).

In contrast, in the summertime, the presence of the Pacific high-pressure cell can cause the air mass aloft to sink. As the air descends, compressional heating warms it to a temperature higher than the air below. This highly stable atmospheric condition, termed a subsidence inversion, is common to all of coastal California and can act as a nearly impenetrable lid to the vertical mixing of pollutants. The base of the inversion typically ranges from 1,000 to 2,500 feet above sea level; however, levels as low as 250 feet, among the lowest anywhere in the state, have been recorded on the coastal plateau in San Luis Obispo County. The strength of these inversions makes them difficult to disrupt. Consequently, they can persist for one or more days, causing air stagnation and the buildup of pollutants. Highest or worst-case ozone levels are often associated with the presence of this type of inversion (SLOAPCD 2001).

Exhibit C

Page 277 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
5 Criteria Air Pollutants
For the protection of public health and welfare, the Clean Air Act (CAA) required that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for various pollutants. These pollutants are referred to as "criteria" pollutants because the U.S. EPA publishes criteria documents to justify the choice of standards. These standards define the maximum amount of an air pollutant that can be present in ambient air without harm to the public’s health. An ambient air quality standard is generally specified as a concentration averaged over a specific time period, such as one hour, eight hours, 24 hours, or one year. The different averaging times and concentrations are meant to protect against different exposure effects. The CAA allows states to adopt additional or more health-protective standards. The air quality regulatory framework and ambient air quality standards are discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Human Health & Welfare Effects
Common air pollutants and associated adverse health and welfare effects are summarized in Table 1. Within the SCCAB, the air pollutants of primary concern, with regard to human health, include ozone, particulate matter (PM), and carbon monoxide (CO). As depicted in Table 1, exposure to increased pollutant concentrations of ozone, PM and CO can result in various heart and lung ailments, cardiovascular and nervous system impairment, and death.

Table 1. Common Pollutants & Adverse Effects
Pollutant Human Health & Welfare Effects
Particulate Matter
(PM10 & PM2.5)
Increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility (haze).

Ozone
(O3)
Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing, coughing, and pain when inhaling deeply; decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop yield. Damages rubber, some textiles, and dyes.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can damage marble, iron, and steel; damage crops and natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. A precursor to acid rain.

Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness, and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart problems. A precursor to ozone and acid rain.

Contributes to global warming, and nutrient overloading which deteriorates water quality. Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

Lead
(Pb)
Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and kidney damage, neurological disorders, cancer, lowered IQ. Affects animals, plants, and aquatic ecosystems.

Source: ARB 2018
Odors
Typically, odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (i.e. irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological, including circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache.

Neither the state nor the federal governments have adopted rules or regulations for the control of odor sources. The SLOAPCD does not have an individual rule or regulation that specifically addresses odors; however, odors would be applicable to SLOAPCD’s Rule 402, Nuisance. Any actions related to odors would be based on citizen complaints to local governments and the SLOAPCD. The SLOAPCD recommends that odor impacts be addressed in a qualitative manner. Such analysis shall determine if the project results in Exhibit C

Page 278 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
6 excessive nuisance odors, as defined under the California Code of Regulations, Health & Safety Code Section 41700, air quality public nuisance.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air, but due to their high toxicity, they may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. Because there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur, TACs differ from criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which state and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. TACs, therefore, are not considered “criteria pollutants” under either the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) or the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and are thus not subject to National or State ambient air quality standards (AAQS). TACs are not considered criteria pollutants in that the FCAA and CCAA do not address them specifically through the setting of National or State AAQS. Instead, the U.S. EPA and California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology to limit emissions. In conjunction with District rules, these federal and state statutes and regulations establish the regulatory framework for TACs. At the national level, the U.S. EPA has established National Emission Standards for HAPs (NESHAPs), in accordance with the requirements of the FCAA and subsequent amendments. These are technology-based source-specific regulations that limit allowable emissions of HAPs.

Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act [Assembly Bill (AB) 1807] and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

At the state level, the ARB has authority for the regulation of emissions from motor vehicles, fuels, and consumer products. Most recently, diesel-exhaust particulate matter (DPM) was added to the ARB list of TACs. DPM is the primary TACs of concern for mobile sources. Of all controlled TACs, emissions of DPM are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient TAC risk. The ARB has made the reduction of the public’s exposure to DPM one of its highest priorities, with an aggressive plan to require cleaner diesel fuel and cleaner diesel engines and vehicles (ARB 2005).

At the local level, air districts have authority over stationary or industrial sources. All projects that require air quality permits from the SLOAPCD are evaluated for TAC emissions. The SLOAPCD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. The SLOAPCD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources, based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. The SLOAPCD requires a comprehensive health risk assessment for facilities that are classified in the significant-risk category, pursuant to AB 2588. No major existing sources of TACs have been identified in the project area.

Asbestos
Asbestos is the common name for a group of naturally-occurring fibrous silicate minerals that can separate into thin but strong and durable fibers. Naturally-occurring asbestos (NOA), which was identified as a TAC in 1986 by ARB, is located in many parts of California and is commonly associated with ultramafic rock. The project site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for naturally-occurring ultramafic rock and serpentine soils.

Ambient Air Quality
Air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in the SCCAB. The Paso RoblesSanta Fe Avenue is the closest representative monitoring station with sufficient data to meet U.S. EPA and/or ARB criteria for quality assurance. Ambient monitoring data was obtained for the last three years of available measurement data (i.e., 2021 through 2023) and is summarized in Table 2. As depicted, the state PM2.5 Exhibit C

Page 279 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
7 standards were exceeded for 3 days in 2021 and was exceeded for 2 days in 2023. Measured 24-hour PM10, 8-hour ozone, 1-hour ozone, and NO2 concentrations did not exceed the state and federal ambient air quality standards in the last three years of monitoring.

Table 2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data Pollutant Monitoring Year
2021 2022 2023
Ozone (O3)
(1)
Maximum concentration (1-hour/8-hour average; ppm) 0.070/0.065 0.074/0.068 0.075/0.066 Number of days state/national 1-hour standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 Number of days state/national 8-hour standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(2)
Maximum concentration (1-hour average; ppb) 44.0 26.0 50.7 Number of days state/national standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(2)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (national/state; μg/m3) 19.1/19.1 24.3/24.3 28.7/28.7 Number of days national standard exceeded
(measured/calculated)(3) 0/0 0/0 0/0
Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)
(1)
Maximum concentration (national/state; μg/m3) 74.4/74.7 46.8/46.1 54.1/52.9 Number of days state standard exceeded (measured/calculated)(3) 3/3.1 0/NA 2/2 Number of days national standard exceeded
(measured/calculated)(3) 0/0 0/0 0/0
ppm = parts per million by volume, μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, NA=Not Available

1. Based on ambient concentrations obtained from the Paso Robles-Santa Fe Avenue. Monitoring Station.

2. Based on ambient concentrations obtained from the Atascadero-Lift Station #5 Monitoring Station.

3. Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the standard. Calculated days are estimated days that measurement would have exceeded the standard had measurements been collected every day.

Source: ARB 2025
Air Quality Index
The health effects of ambient air pollutant concentrations can be evaluated and presented in various ways.

The most common method is the use of the Air Quality Index (AQI). The U.S. EPA developed the AQI as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts based on measured ambient air quality in comparison to established ambient air quality standards. Tables 3 and 4 present a summary of the health impacts for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), respectively, based on the U.S. EPA’s AQI.

A summary of the annual air quality index for the project area, based on monitoring data obtained from the Paso Robles monitoring station for the last three years of available data, is provided in Table 5. As depicted in Table 5, the project area typically experiences "good” air quality with the total number of days ranging from 117 to 207 days per year. Days classified as “moderate” AQI ranged from 152 to 245 days per year. Over the last three years of available data, the area has experienced a total of 17 days classified as “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups”. Over the past three years, the area has not experienced air quality conditions within the “Unhealthy”, “Very Unhealthy” or “Hazardous” range (U.S. EPA 2023).

Exhibit C

Page 280 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
8 Table 3. Air Quality Index Summary for Ozone & Related Health Effects Air Quality Index / 8-hour Ozone
Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI 51-100: Moderate
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 55-70 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 101-150: Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 71-85 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 151–200: Unhealthy
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 86-105 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI 201-300: Very Unhealthy
Ambient Ozone Concentrations: 106-200 ppb
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups at most risk.

Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

An AQI of 50 and below is categorized as “Good” and air quality is satisfactory, and poses little or no risk. An AQI of 301 or higher is categorized as “Hazardous” having a health warning of emergency conditions: everyone is more likely to be affected. Outdoor activities should be avoided for all individuals.

AQI = Air quality index, ppb = parts per billion
Source: ARB 2018
Exhibit C

Page 281 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
9 Table 4. Air Quality Index Summary for Fine Particulate Matter & Related Health Effects
Air Quality Index / 8-hour Ozone
Concentration
Health Effects Description
AQI 51-100: Moderate
Ambient Concentrations: 12.1-35.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Some people who may be unusually sensitive to particulate.

Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people: Consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion. Watch for symptoms such as coughing or shortness of breath. These are signs to take it easier.

AQI 101-150: Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups
Ambient Concentrations: 35.5-55.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: People with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and teenagers.

Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms for sensitive individuals, aggravation of heart or lung disease, and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly.

Cautionary Statements: If you have heart disease: Symptoms such as palpations, shortness of breath, or unusual fatigue may indicate a serious problem. If you have any of these, contact a health care provider.

AQI 151–200: Unhealthy
Ambient Concentrations: 55.5-150.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Everyone.

Health Effects Statements: Increased aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly; increased respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or rescheduling. Everyone else:

Reduce prolonged or heavy exertion. Take more breaks during outdoor activities.

AQI 201-300: Very Unhealthy
Ambient Concentrations: 150.5-250.4 µg/m3
Sensitive Groups: Everyone.

Health Effects Statements: Significant aggravation of heart or lung disease and premature mortality in persons with cardiopulmonary disease, and the elderly; significant increase in respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Sensitive groups: Avoid all physical activity outdoors.

Move activities indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better.

Everyone else: Avoid prolonged or heavy exertion. Consider moving activities indoors or reschedule to a time when air quality is better.

An AQI of 50 and below is categorized as “Good” and air quality is satisfactory and poses little or no risk. An AQI of 301 or higher is categorized as “Hazardous” having a health warning of emergency conditions: everyone is more likely to be affected. Outdoor activities should be avoided for all individuals.

AQI = Air quality index, µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: ARB 2018
Table 5. Air Quality Index Annual Historical Summary
Year
Air Quality Index (AQI) - Number of Days
Good Moderate
Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups Unhealthy
Very
Unhealthy Hazardous
2023 207 152 6 0 0 0
2022 117 245 3 0 0 0
2021 154 203 8 0 0 0
Represents overall air quality taking into account all criteria pollutants measured.

Source: U.S, EPA 2023
Exhibit C

Page 282 of 772 ends

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting Allegretto Resort Expansion Project March 2025
10 Regulatory Framework
Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. EPA, ARB, and the SLOAPCD.

Each of these jurisdictions develops rules, regulations, and policies to attain the goals or directives imposed upon them through legislation.

Federal
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The U.S.

EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the FCAA, which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the FCAA in 1977 and again in 1990.

FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT
The FCAA required the U.S. EPA to establish NAAQS or National AAQS, and set deadlines for their attainment.

Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from non-health-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions.

NAAQS are summarized in Table 6.

State

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD
The ARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the CCAA of 1988. Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks maintained by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, establishing California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which in many cases are more stringent than the NAAQS, and setting emissions standards for new motor vehicles. The CAAQS are summarized in Table 6. The emission standards established for motor vehicles differ depending on various factors including the model year, and the type of vehicle, fuel, and engine used.

CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT
The CCAA requires that all air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain CAAQS for ozone, CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) by the earliest practicable date. The CCAA specifies that districts focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources, and the act provides districts with authority to regulate indirect sources. Each district plan is required to either (1) achieve a five percent annual reduction, averaged over consecutive 3-year periods, in districtwide emissions of each non-attainment pollutant or its precursors, or (2) to provide for the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce emissions. Any planning effort for air quality attainment would thus need to consider both state and federal planning requirements.

ASSEMBLY BILLS 1807 & 2588 - TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Within California, TACs are regulated primarily through AB 1807 (Tanner Air Toxics Act) and AB 2588 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987). The Tanner Air Toxics Act sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB designates a substance as a TAC. Existing sources of TACs that are subject to the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act are required to: (1) prepare a toxic emissions inventory; (2) prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

IN-USE OFF-ROAD DIESEL VEHICLE REGULATION
On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. The regulation applies to self-propelled diesel-fueled vehicles that cannot be registered and licensed to drive on-road, as well as two-engine vehicles Exhibit C

Page 283 of 772 ends

Paso Robles City CouncilMarch 17, 2026

Paso Robles City Council
March 17, 2026