Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 28 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
and males is from late March through September with a peak in July (Thorp et al. 1983). In general, bumble bees forage from a diversity of plants, although individual species can vary greatly in their plant preferences, largely due to differences in tongue length (Hatfield et al. 2015). Crotch’s bumble bees are classified as a short-tongued species, whose food plants include Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia (Williams et al. 2014). Little is known about overwintering for this species, however in general for bumble bees, suitable overwintering sites for queens may include soft, undisturbed soils, leaf litter, or under other debris. Grassland habitat in the Study Area contains multiple food plants for this species. The nearest occurrence is 1.7 miles northeast (CNDDB record submitted by A&M in 2024). Due to the uncommon observations of this species and disturbed condition of the habitat, Crotch’s bumble bee has a low potential of occurring at the site. This species was not observed in the Study Area during site surveys in March 2025.
4. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) is on the California Watch List tracked by the CDFW due to declining populations throughout its range. It has a Global Rank of G4 (Apparently Secure) and a State Rank of S3S4, meaning it is uncertain whether this species can be considered Vulnerable (S3) or Apparently Secure (S4). Only a very small number of ferruginous hawk nests have been found in the northeast part of California and the species is considered a winter visitor or migrant to the state. In California, the ferruginous hawk is found in Great Basin, valley and foothill grassland, Great Basin scrub and pinon and juniper woodlands (CNDDB 2025). The bird prefers large, open grasslands for coursing low in search of prey, and scattered trees, power poles, and shrubs for perching. The ferruginous hawk tends to avoid habitat near human development (Travsky and Beauvais 2005; CDFW 2014). Its main prey sources are ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.), cottontail (Sylvilagus spp.), northern pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) and white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii). They will also eat insects, birds, amphibians and reptiles (Grindrod 1998).
Ferruginous hawks occur within San Luis Obispo County from November through April (CNDDB 2025). The nearest occurrence is 1.2 miles southeast (eBird, 2021). Grassland within the Study Area is marginally suitable for foraging due to the development of the area. The Study Area is outside of the nesting range of the species. The ferruginous hawk has a low potential to occur and was not observed in the Study Area during the March 2025 site survey.
5. Salinas pocket mouse (Perognathus inornatus psammophilus) is a rare pocket mouse listed as a California Species of Special Concern (CNDDB 2025). It has a Global Rank of G4T2 (rounded status T2 – Imperiled) and a State Rank of S1 (Critically Imperiled). The Salinas pocket mouse is one of three subspecies located from the Sacramento Valley, south to the San Joaquin and contiguous valleys (including Salinas Valley). Like other species of pocket mice, the Salinas pocket mouse is nocturnal and spends the day in a burrow with a plugged entrance.
During periods of low temperatures, these mice will enter a period of torpor, emerging occasionally from their burrow if their cache needs to be replenished. The Salinas pocket mouse forages on the seeds of grasses and forbs as well as seasonal vegetation. The closest reported occurrence of the Salinas pocket mouse was located 4.1 miles north in 1918 (CNDDB 9) and a more recent record was 7.2 miles northwest in 1995 (CNDDB 3). Due to the infrequent detections and lack of oak woodlands or riparian woodlands, the site has a low potential to support this species. The Salinas pocket mouse was not observed in the Study Area during the site surveys.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 29 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
6. Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) is a federally proposed Threatened species and a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (CNDDB 2025).
Factors responsible for western spadefoot decline include habitat fragmentation and destruction, invasive species, climate change effects, altered fire regime, and alterations to the watershed (USFWS 2004). This species is endemic to California and northern Baja California, Mexico. Elevations for this species have been observed from near sea level to 4,460 feet in the southern Sierra foothills (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Western spadefoot is primarily an inland species, occurring in grassland habitats with friable soils and seasonal rain pools (CDFW 2014). Rainfall is critical for this species to form and maintain breeding ponds. Spadefoots remain underground for most of the year, emerging to breed in seasonal wetland pools during the rainy season. Breeding occurs from late winter to the end of March. During this time, females lay numerous small, irregular clusters each containing 10 to 42 eggs. Spadefoot development often happens rapidly. Eggs normally hatch within two weeks. Full development from egg to metamorphosis usually occurs between 3 and 11 weeks, depending upon water temperature and food resources (Morey 2000). Western spadefoot diets primarily consist of planktonic organisms and algae as tadpoles and invertebrates such as worms and insects as adults. Recruitment will most often fail if breeding ponds are inhabited by predators such as bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeiana) and crayfishes (Morey 2000; CDFW 2014, Jennings and Hayes 1994). The closest reported occurrence of the western spadefoot is located approximately 0.2 miles east of the Study Area (CNDDB 1189, 2017) where 25 tadpoles were observed in a stock pond. Western spadefoots have been found to travel an average of 100 meters away from their breeding pools during the rainy season, with some traveling further (Baumberger 2019). The manmade ponded landscape features in properties near the Study Area are potential breeding areas for this species. Due to the suitable breeding habitat near the site, the nearby occurrence, and the life history of this species, the western spadefoot has moderate potential to occur within the Study Area. The western spadefoot was not observed on the property during the March 2025 site survey. Aquatic larval surveys will be conducted in April 2025 if water is present in the ponded landscape features.
7. American badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of Special Concern with a widespread range across the state (Brehme et. al. 2015, CDFW 2014). It is a permanent but uncommon resident in all parts of California, except for forested regions of the far northwestern corner, and is more abundant in dry, open areas of most shrub and forest habitats (CNDDB 2025). The American badger requires friable soil in order to dig burrows for cover and breeding. The main food source for the species is fossorial rodents, mainly ground squirrels and pocket gophers (CDFW 2014). The breeding season for badgers is in summer and early fall, and females give birth to litters usually in March and April (CDFW 2014). The closest reported occurrence of the American badger was located 5.5 miles south of the Study Area.
Due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, the American badger has a low potential of occurrence. No American badger or sign of badger, such as dens or dig-outs, was observed during site surveys.
8. San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica; SJKF) is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. The SJKF is one of two subspecies of the kit fox, Vulpes macrotis, which is the smallest canid species in North America. It is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and a few adjacent valleys in the central region of California (Cypher et al. 2013). The SJKF is primarily nocturnal and typically occurs in annual grassland or mixed shrub/grassland habitats throughout low, rolling hills and valleys. They need loose sandy soils in order to dig Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 30 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
their burrows and a prey population of black-tailed jackrabbits, rodents, desert cottontails, insects, some birds, reptiles, and vegetation (CDFW 2014, CNDDB 2025). The most suitable habitat for SJKF has low precipitation, sparse vegetation coverage with high densities of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.). For the SJKF to succeed in an area it needs large expanses of non-fragmented suitable habitat. This type of habitat is decreasing rapidly by conversion into agricultural land or degraded by urban development (Cypher et al. 2013). Female SJKF began preparing natal dens in September and October and then breeding occurs from December through February. Pups are born from January to March and family groups typically split up the following October (Meaney et al. 2006). The closest reported occurrence of the SJKF was located 1.4 miles southeast in 1991 (CNDDB 941). Due to the lack of recent observations near the site, combined with surrounding developments that impede immigration, SJKF has a low potential to occur in the Study Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 31 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
TABLE 5. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL LIST
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
1. Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle -/-
G5/S3
FP; WL
Nests in large, prominent trees in
valley and foothill woodland.
Requires adjacent food source.
Low (nesting and foraging).
Marginally suitable foraging habitat
and nesting habitat is present in and
around the Study Area. The nearest
nest occurrence is 0.7 miles
northeast (CNDDB #122, 2006).
2. Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl -/CCE
G4/S2
SSC
Burrows in squirrel holes in open
habitats with low vegetation.
Low (nesting and foraging).
The Study Area has grassland
habitat with numerous ground
squirrel holes suitable for
nesting and foraging, though it
is highly disturbed. The
nearest occurrence is
approximately 2.2 miles
southeast (eBird, 2018)
3. Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble bee -/CCE
G2/S2
-
Open grassland & scrub habitats.
Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia,
Eriogonum, Lupinus & Medicago.
Low. Grassland habitat in the Study
Area contains multiple food plants
for this species. The nearest
occurrence is 1.7 miles northeast
(CNDDB record submitted by
Althouse and Meade in 2024).
4. Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk -/-
G4/S3S4
WL
Winters locally in open grassland or
savannah habitats. More common in
interior SLO County than coast.
Moderate (foraging). Grassland
within the Study Area is suitable for
foraging. The nearest occurrence is
0.6 miles northwest (eBird, 2017).
No potential (nesting). Study Area
is outside of the breeding range.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 32 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
5. Perognathus
inornatus
psammophilus
Salinas pocket mouse -/-
G2G3T2?/S1
SSC
Annual grassland & desert shrub in
Salinas Valley, with friable soils.
Low. Grassland habitat with friable
soils is present within the Study
Area. The nearest occurrence is
historical and approximately 4.1
miles north (CNDDB #9, 1918).
Another more recent occurrence is
7.2 miles northwest (CNDDB #3,
1995).
6. Spea hammondii Western spadefoot FPT/-
G2G3/S3S4
SSC
Grassland & woodland habitats with
vernal pools for breeding. Most of
year spent underground.
Moderate. Manmade ponded
landscape features in areas adjacent
to the Study Area occasionally
water during the wet season.
Nearest occurrence is 0.2 miles east
(CNDDB #1189, 2017).
7. Taxidea taxus American badger -/-
G5/S3
SSC
Needs friable soils in open ground
with abundant food source such as
California ground squirrels.
Low. Suitable soils and food
sources are present in the Study
Area, though the site is highly
disturbed. Nearest occurrence is
5.53 miles south (CNDDB #23,
2003).
8. Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin kit fox FE/CT
G4T2/S3
-
Annual grasslands or grassy open
stages with scattered shrubby
vegetation. Needs loose textured
sandy soil & prey base.
Low. Marginally suitable soils for
dens and food sources are present in
the Study Area. Surrounding
developments impede immigration
from occupied locations. Nearest
occurrence is 1.4 miles southeast
(CNDDB #941, 1991).
See Section 1.6 for status and rank definitions.
Exhibit D
11 10 7
2 3
11 11
8 10
11 11
10 8
11 5
11 7
7 9
6 1
3 4
5 Legend
Project Location
Crotch's bumble bee ocurrence
5-mile Buffer
USFWS Critical Habitat
California red-legged frog
Vernal pool fairy shrimp
Map Updated:
BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
April 07, 2025 04:40 PM by SS ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC.
0 2 4 Miles
Allegretto Expansion
Map Center: 35.60309°N 120.65049°W
Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County
CNDDB GIS Data Last Updated:
February 2025
Data Source: USFWS Critical Habitat
CBB Data Source: Bumble Bee Watch,
CNDDB, iNaturalist, L. Herrera
Figure 6.
California Natural Diversity Database Animal Records and USFWS Critical Habitat Atascadero June Beetle
Golden Eagle
Least Bell's Vireo
Lompoc Grasshopper
Northern California
Legless Lizard
Salinas Pocket Mouse
San Joaquin Kit Fox
Southwestern Pond Turtle
Tricolored Blackbird
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
Western Spadefoot
Common Name
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 Label
G:\ayresAllegretto3135\aprx\bioReport.aprx
Layout: Figure 6. CNDDB Animals
Map: CNDDB Animals
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 34 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
3.8.2 Wildlife Survey Results
Three wildlife taxa were observed in the Study Area during the March 3, 2025, survey:
Icaricia acmon (Acmon blue) is a small butterfly found in grasslands and fields; Melanerpes formicivorus (acorn woodpecker) is found in woodlands, forests, and suburban areas; Otospermophilus beecheyi (California ground squirrel) is found in grasslands and pastures. None of the species hold special status. Numerous California ground squirrel burrows were identified throughout the Study Area.
3.8.3 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors and habitat connectivity are important for the movement of wildlife between different populations and habitats.
Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance.
Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement corridors are important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of individuals away from high population density areas; and facilitate the exchange of genetic traits between populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement corridors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies.
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.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 35 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND AVOIDANCE
MEASURES
The proposed Project to expand the Allegretto Resort across an additional 10.8 acres of land could affect biological resources, including disturbed California annual grassland habitat, special status plants and animals, and native blue oak trees. This section provides mitigation recommendations (BIO), designed to reduce impacts to biological resources onsite, as summarized by Table 6.
TABLE 6. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SUMMARY
Biological Resource Potential Effect from Proposed Project Mitigation Measure California Annual Grassland Direct and permanent loss of habitat. None required Oak Trees Avoided. No direct or permanent effects. None required Special Status Plants To be determined by Spring 2025 surveys. To be determined Nesting Birds Mitigable. Loss of potential nesting habitat and/or nests.
BIO-1
Crotch’s Bumblebee To be determined by Spring 2025 surveys. To be determined Western Spadefoot To be determined by Spring 2025 surveys. To be determined Special Status Mammals Mitigable. Direct and permanent loss of habitat.
BIO-2 through BIO-12
Wildlife Corridors Negligible. None Required
4.1 Habitats
The proposed Project would impact California annual grassland habitat. Up to 10.8 acres of California annual grassland would be permanently removed by the Project. Impacts to California annual grassland are not considered significant except where these habitat impacts affect other sensitive biological resources such as sensitive plants, animals, oak trees, or nesting birds (see following Sections 4.2 through 4.4).
4.2 Individual Oak Trees
Two individual oak trees are present within the Study Area. As shown on Table 7 no oak tree Critical Root Zone (CRZ) impacts or removals are proposed. However, oak tree avoidance and protection measures are recommended:
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 36 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
Tree canopies and trunks within 50 feet of proposed development footprint shall include:
• Tree protection fencing shall be shown on the grading plan. It must be a minimum of 4 feet high chain link, snow or safety fence staked (with t-posts 8 feet on center) at the edge of the CRZ or line of encroachment for each tree or group of trees. The fence shall be up before any construction or earth moving begins. The owner shall be responsible for maintaining an erect fence throughout the construction period. The arborist(s), upon notification, will inspect the fence placement once it is erected. After this time, fencing shall not be moved without arborist inspection/approval. If the orange plastic fencing is used, a minimum of four zip ties shall be used on each stake to secure the fence. All efforts shall be made to maximize the distance from each saved tree. Weatherproof signs shall be permanently posted on the fences every 50 feet, with the following information: Tree Protection Zone: No personnel, equipment, materials, or vehicles allowed.
• Grading shall not encroach within the CRZ unless authorized. Surrounding grades shall not disrupt the normal drainage pattern around the trees. Fills shall not create a ponding condition and excavations shall not leave the tree on a rapidly draining mound. Any exposed roots shall be covered the same day they were exposed if possible. If they cannot, they must be covered with burlap or another suitable material and wetted down 2 times per day until reburied. • CRZ impacts shall be avoided where practicable. CRZ impacts include root pruning, ground disturbance within the dripline or CRZ (whichever distance is greater), and trunk damage.
If Project requires oak removal or CRZ impact, a brief Arborist report and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) will be required.
o Oak trees shall be mapped and tagged by a qualified biologist and a licensed land surveyor. Data for each tree should include date, species, number of stems, diameter at breast height (DBH) of each stem, critical root zone (CRZ), canopy width, tree height, health rating, habitat notes, and nests observed.
o Replacement oaks for impacted trees shall be at a 1:1 ratio for CRZ impacts less than 50 percent and 2:1 ratio for CRZ impacts to more than 50 percent. o Replacement oaks for removed trees shall be equivalent to 25 percent the DBH of the removed tree(s). For example, if a 16-inch DBH tree is removed, 4-inches total caliper of replacement trees is required. A one-inch caliper tree is generally in a 15-gallon container, and approximately 8 to 10 feet tall—4 of these would be required. Smaller caliper trees may be planted at a ratio of 5:1 for each tree removed. o Consistent with City ordinance, an Oak Tree Removal permit will be needed for oak tree removal.
o All areas within the CRZ of the trees that can be fenced shall receive a 4–6-inch layer of chip mulch to retain moisture, soil structure and reduce the effects of soil compaction.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 37 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
TABLE 7. IMPACTS TO OAK TREES
Species Total Number CRZ Radii (feet) Impact Avoided
(not impacted) Remove CRZ Impact
Blue oak
(Quercus douglasii)
2 32, 36 0 0 2
TOTAL 2 0 0 2
4.3 Botanical Resources
No federal or state listed plants were observed onsite during the March survey, and two special status species have low potential to occur in the Study Area. Spring botanical surveys will be conducted in 2025. If special status species are found to be present, mitigation recommendations will be described in an Addendum to this report.
4.4 Wildlife Resources
4.4.1 Nesting Birds
Migratory nongame native bird species are protected under the federal MBTA of 1918 and the CFGC (Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513) prohibits take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds. Because it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy nest or eggs, CDFW recommends measures to fully avoid Project impacts. Any Projectrelated vegetation removal and/or ground disturbing activities (e.g. mobilizing, staging, drilling, trenching, grading, and excavating) should be outside of the avian breeding season which generally occurs between February 15 through August 31 (as early as January 1 for some raptors).
BIO 1. PRE-CONSTRUCTION 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.
4.4.2 Crotch’s Bumble Bee
Crotch’s bumble bee could be present in grasslands within the Project area. A spring habitat assessment will be prepared for the Project by a qualified biologist. If suitable habitat is found to be present, mitigation recommendations will be described in an Addendum to this report.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 38 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
4.4.3 Western Spadefoot
Western spadefoot may breed in manmade ponded landscape features near the Project site, in which case they could be present in the Study Area during the nonbreeding season. A spring survey will be conducted in the Study Area to assess presence or absence of Western spadefoot. If Western spadefoot are present, mitigation recommendations will be described in an Addendum to this report.
4.4.4 Salinas Pocket Mouse
Salinas pocket mouse is very unlikely to be present in the Study Area. Habitats at the site are disturbed, and no current information is available on the presence of the species in the vicinity. No further recommendations are provided for this species.
4.4.5 American Badger
American badgers could occur within the Project areas. Project activities including grading and other excavation work could result in take of American badger adults or young, or disturbance of natal dens and abandonment by adult badgers. To reduce this potential impact the following measure is recommended:
BIO 2. PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS 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.
4.4.6 San Joaquin Kit Fox
The Project is outside the City’s designated San Joaquin kit fox habitat mitigation area. San Joaquin kit fox are very unlikely to occur at the site because the habitat is disturbed and surrounded by developed areas.
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:
i. 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.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 39 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
ii. 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.
iii. 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 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.
iv. In addition, the qualified biologist shall implement the following measures:
1. 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:
Potential kit fox den: 50 feet
Known or active kit fox den: 100 feet
Kit fox pupping den: 150 feet
2. 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 projectrelated disturbances have been terminated, and then shall be removed.
3. 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.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 40 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
Monitoring: Required prior to issuance of a grading and/or construction permit.
Compliance will be verified by the City Planning Division.
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.
BIO 8 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 9 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 Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 41 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
animals to increased risk of injury or mortality. No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
BIO 10 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 11 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.
BIO 12 Prior to final inspection, or occupancy, whichever comes first, should any long internal or perimeter fencing be proposed or installed, the applicant shall do the following to provide for kit fox passage:
i. If a wire strand/pole design is used, the lowest strand shall be no closer to the ground than 12 inches.
ii. If a more solid wire mesh fence is used, 8" x 12" openings near the ground shall be provided every 100 yards.
Upon fence 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
Monitoring (San Joaquin Kit Fox Measures BIO 3 through BIO 12): Compliance will be verified by the City of Paso Robles, Planning Division in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. As applicable, each of these measures shall be included on construction plans.
4.4.7 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement
This Project does not propose impacts that would impede or block wildlife from utilizing this site for movement; therefore, no mitigation measures are recommended.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 42 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
5 REFERENCES
Baumberger KL, Eitzel MV, Kirby ME, Horn MH. 2019. Movement and habitat selection of the western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) in southern California. PLoS ONE 14(10): e0222532.
Bradley RD, Ammerman LK, Baker RJ, Bradley LC, Cook JA, Dowler RC, Jones C, et al. 2014.
Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University, Occasional Papers.
https://www.depts.ttu.edu/nsrl/publications/downloads/OP327.pdf.
Beier P, Loe S. 1992. A Checklist for Evaluating Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors.
Wildlife Society Bulletin. 20: 434-440.
Brehme CS, Hathaway R, Booth BH, Fisher RN. 2015. Research of American badgers in western San Diego County, 2014. Data Summary prepared for California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Diego Association of Governments.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2014. CWHR version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. [City] City of El Paso de Robles. 2002. Ordinance No. 8.35 N.S., an Ordinance of the City of El Paso de Robles Amending Section 10.01 et seq. and related Provision of the Municipal Code (Municipal Code Amendment 2001-001 – Oak Trees). Available at:
https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/11843/2002-City-Council-Ordinance--- 835-PDF.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2025. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/; California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
CNDDB. (2025). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Management Framework.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Accessed 2/10/2025.
Chesser RT, Burns KJ, Cicero C, Dunn JL, Kratter AW, Lovette IJ, Rasmussen PC, Remsen Jr.
JV, Stotz DF, Winker K. 2019. Check-list of North American Birds (online). American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.americanornithology.org/taxa.
Coulombe HN. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. The Condor. 73(2):162–176. doi:10.2307/1365837. [accessed 2018 Aug 14]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1365837.
Cypher BL, Phillips SE, Kelly PA. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: conservation implications. Canid Biology and Conservation. 16:25–31.
Driscoll DE. 2010. Protocol for golden eagle occupancy, reproduction, and prey population assessment. American Eagle Research Institute, Apache Junction, AZ. eBird. 2017. https://ebird.org/checklist/S40523973
eBird. 2018. https://ebird.org/checklist/S51104040
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 43 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
eBird. 2021. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org. (Accessed March 2, 2025]).
Esri. 2024. World Imagery Basemap. Collected June 18, 2021. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a9 GBIF.org. 2025. (10 February 2025) GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.3j9dfg
Gervais JA, Rosenberg DK, Comrack LA. 2008. Burrowing owl. In: Shuford WD, Gardali T, editors. California bird species of special concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Camarillo, CA & Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists & California Department of Fish and Game. (Studies of Western Birds 1).
Green GA, Anthony RG. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor. 91(2):347–354. doi:10.2307/1368313. [accessed 2018 Aug 14]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1368313.
Grindrod P. 1998. Ferruginous hawk. Salt Lake City: HawkWatch International.
Hatfield R, Jepsen S, Thorp R, Richardson L, Colla S. 2015. Bombus crotchii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [accessed 2018 Jul 16]. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
2.RLTS.T44937582A46440211.en.
Hunt G. 1995. A pilot golden eagle population study in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, California. National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO (United States); California Univ., Santa Cruz, CA (United States). Predatory Bird Research Group.
Jennings MR, Hayes MP. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.
California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division Rancho Cordova.
Jepson Flora Project (eds.). 2025. Jepson eFlora. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ Keil DJ, Hoover RF. 2023. Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Second Edition. Pacific Street Publishing, San Luis Obispo, California.
Meaney CA, Reed-Eckert M, Beauvais GP. 2006. Kit fox (Vulpes macrotis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Golden, Colorado.
Morey, S. 2000. Life History Account for Western Spadefoot Toad (Spea hammondii) In California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Systems, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Originally published In Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol I-III. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Pagel JE, Whittington DM, Allen GT. 2010. Interim golden eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Bird Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Shuford WD, Gardali T. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 44 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
in California. Camarillo, CA & Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists & California Department of Fish and Game.
Thorp, R. W., D. S Horning and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: viii.
Travsky A, Beauvais GP. 2005. Species assessment for the ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) in Wyoming.
[USDA 2024] Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. 2024. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for California. Available online at
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed 1/25/2024. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. Portland, OR.
Watson J. 2010. The golden eagle. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Williams PH, Thorp RW, Richardson LL, Colla SR. 2014. Bumble bees of North America: An identification guide. Princeton University Press.
York MM, Rosenberg DK, Sturm KK. 2002. Diet and food-niche breadth of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) in the Imperial Valley, California. Western North American Naturalist 62(3): 280–287.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles 45 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
6 APPENDICES
• Appendix A. Site Plan
• Appendix B. Special Status Plants Reported from the Region • Appendix C. Special Status Animals Reported from the Region Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles A-1 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
APPENDIX A. SITE PLAN (NORTH COAST ENGINEERING, INC., MARCH 2025) Exhibit D
DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY ACS ARCHITECTS INC INCLUDING THIS DOCUMENT ARE TO BE USED ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SPECIFIC USE FOR WHICH THEY WERE INTENDED ANY EXTENSION OF USE TO ANY PROJECTS BY OWNER OR BY ANY OTHER PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF ACS ARCHITECTS INC IS DONE UNLAWFULLY AND AT THE USERS OWN RISK IF USED IN A WAY OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFICALLY INTENDED USER WILL HOLD ACS ARCHITECTS INC HARMLESS FROM ALL CLAIMS AND LOSSES Address City, ST
ALLEGRETT0 RESORT EXPANSION
AR4A0003 J Wick
SITE PLAN
SP100
B
A
2 11
acs-architects.com
101 Shipyard Way
Suite B
Newport Beach, CA
92663
CIN ATL
T (714) 436-9000
ACS Architectural
Construction
Services
Inc.
NOT PUBLISHED. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED THE ABOVE DRAWINGS,
SPECIFICATION, IDEAS, DESIGNS
AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED
THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN
THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT.
NO PART THEROF SHALL BE
REPRODUCED, COPIED, ADAPTED,
DISCLOSED OR DISTRIBUTE TO
OTHERS, SOLD, PUBLISHED OR
OTHERWISE USED WITHOUT PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF AND
APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO
THE ARCHITECT. VISUAL CONTACT
WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR
SPECIFICATIONS SHALL
CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE
EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
THESE RESTRICTIONS. COPYRIGHT
ACS, INC. 2018
JOB ADDRESS
CLIENT
PROJECT DRAWING TITLE
BUILDING
PROJECT NUMBER DESIGNED
ISSUE DATE
PROJECT MANAGER
PLOT DATE AND TIME
DRAWING NUMBER
ALLEGRETTO RESORT EXPANSION - SITE PLAN
DSG
March 14, 2025
12/26/2025 09:35 AM
PROFESSIONAL SEAL
REVISIONS
DRW
DRAWN BY
NPB
S
R
Q
P
O
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S
R
Q
P
O
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CHECKED
CHK
MKE
Client Name
0' 40' 80' 160'
BUENA VISTA DRIVE
DALLONS DRIVE
CONFERENCE
CENTER
SPA &
SUITES
ALEGRETTA
SUITES
ABBEY
POOL
EXISTING
ALLEGRETTO
SUITES
EXISTING
LANDSCAPED
HILL
EXISTING GARDEN
STAGE
30' x 60'
PICKLEBALL
RESTAURANT
FOOD
STORAGE
CABANAS
LOUNGE
PIAZZA
BAR
BBQ
TENNIS
T
10' TALL SOUND WALL
109 STALLS
23 20
13 11
8 12 STALLS
17 STALLS
4 17
9 8
8 8
15 251 STALLS
72 STALLS
8 8 8
27 24 24
25 25
26 26 4
20 16
16 5
13 26
TOWEL
BAR
MECH
wc
wc
WINE
VINEYARD
44 STALLS
PRODUCTION
(15,000 GSF)
FOUNTAIN
8 9
YARD
VINEYARD
VILLAS
(24 UNITS)
VINEYARD
TRASH
TRASH
26 9
8 STALLS 8
8 Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-1 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
APPENDIX B. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS REPORTED FROM THE REGION Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-1 March 2025
APPENDIX B. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS REPORTED FROM THE REGION Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
1. Abies bracteata Bristlecone fir -/-
G2G3/S2S3
1B.3
- Steep, rocky, fire-resistant
slopes, generally in canyonlive-oak phase of mixedevergreen forest No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
2. Agrostis hooveri Hoover's bent grass -/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Apr-Jul Sandy sites within chaparral,
cismontane woodland,
coniferous forest, valley and
foothill grassland.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
3. Amsinckia
douglasiana
Douglas' fiddleneck -/-
G4/S4
4.2 Mar-May Valley and foothill grassland.
Dry habitats with unstable
shaly sedimentary slopes.
150-1600 m.
No Potential. Suitable shaly
substrates are not present in
the Study Area.
4. Antirrhinum ovatum Oval-leaved
snapdragon
-/-
G3/S3
4.2 May-Nov Heavy, adobe-clay soils on
gentle, open slopes, also
disturbed areas
No Potential. Suitable heavy
clay substrates are not
present in the Study Area.
5. Arctostaphylos
hooveri
Hoover's manzanita -/-
G3/S3
4.3 Feb-Jun Rocky slopes, upland
chaparral, open ponderosapine forest near coast
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
6. Arctostaphylos
obispoensis
Bishop manzanita -/-
G3/S3
4.3 Feb-Jun Chaparral, open closed-cone
forest near coast. Rocky,
generally serpentine soils.
60-950m.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
7. Aristocapsa insignis Indian Valley
spineflower
-/-
G1/S1
1B.2
May-Sep Sandy soil in grassland
communities, and in pine-oak
or juniper woodlands
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-2 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
8. Astragalus macrodon Salinas milk-vetch -/-
G4/S4
4.3 Apr-Jul Eroded pale shales or
sandstone, serpentine
alluvium
No Potential. Suitable shaly
substrates are not present in
the Study Area.
9. Calochortus simulans La Panza mariposalily
-/-
G2/S2
1B.3
Apr-Jun Valley and foothill grassland,
coniferous woodland,
chaparral. Decomposed
granitic sand, sometimes
serpentine. <1100 m.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
10. Calycadenia villosa Dwarf calycadenia -/-
G3/S3
1B.1
May-Oct Dry, rocky hills, ridges,
grassland, openings in
foothill woodland
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
11. Camissoniopsis
hardhamiae
Hardham's eveningprimrose-/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Mar-May Sandy soil, limestone,
disturbed oak woodland
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
12. Castilleja densiflora
var. obispoensis
San Luis Obispo
owl's-clover
-/-
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Mar-May Coastal grassland. Often
serpentine soil. <400 m.
No Potential. Conditions are
not suitable because of
disturbance; closest
occurrence is 1.4 miles
northeast but is outside of
species’ typical range
(CNDDB #42, 2005).
13. Caulanthus lemmonii Lemmon's
jewelflower
-/-
G3/S3
1B.2
Feb-May Grassland, chaparral, scrub No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present in the Study
Area.
14. Ceanothus cuneatus
var. fascicularis
Lompoc ceanothus -/-
G5T4/S4
4.2 Feb-Apr Coastal chaparral. Sandy
substrates. <275 m.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-3 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
15. Chorizanthe
douglasii
Douglas' spineflower -/-
G4/S4
4.3 Apr-Jul Cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest,
chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grassland;
in sand or gravel.
No Potential. Suitable
sandy/gravelly substrates are
not present in the Study Area.
16. Chorizanthe palmeri Palmer's spineflower -/-
G4/S4
4.2 Apr-Aug Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, grassland. Clay
soils, generally in areas of
serpentine or partially
serpentinized igneous rock.
60-700 m.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
17. Chorizanthe
rectispina
Straight-awned
spineflower
-/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Apr-Jul Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub. In
sand or disintegrating shale,
often on granite. 200-600 m.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
18. Convolvulus
simulans
Small-flowered
morning-glory
-/-
G4/S4
4.2 Mar-Jul Clay substrates, occasionally
serpentine, annual grassland,
coastal-sage scrub, chaparral
No Potential. Suitable clay
substrates are not present in
the Study Area.
19. Delphinium parryi
subsp. eastwoodiae
Eastwood's larkspur -/-
G4T2/S2
1B.2
Feb-Mar Uncommon. Coastal
chaparral, grassland, on
serpentine
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
20. Delphinium
umbraculorum
Umbrella larkspur -/-
G3/S3
1B.3
Apr-Jun Moist oak forest No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present in the Study
Area.
21. Entosthodon kochii Koch's cord moss -/-
G1/S1
1B.3
- Cismontane woodland. Moss
growing on soil.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
22. Eriastrum luteum Yellow-flowered
eriastrum
-/-
G2/S2
1B.2
May-Jun Bare sandy decomposed
granite slopes in cismontane
woodland, chaparral, forest
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-4 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
23. Eriogonum elegans Elegant wild
buckwheat
-/-
G4G5/S4S5
4.3 May-Nov Uncommon. Cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Usually in sandy
or gravelly substrates; often
in washes, sometimes
roadsides.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
24. Eriogonum nudum
var. indictum
Protruding buckwheat -/-
G5T4/S4
4.2 Apr-Dec Clay No Potential. Suitable clay
substrates not present in the
Study Area.
25. Eriophyllum jepsonii Jepson's woolly
sunflower
-/-
G3/S3
4.3 Apr-Jun Dry oak woodland No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present in the Study
Area.
26. Eschscholzia
hypecoides
San Benito poppy -/-
G4/S4
4.3 Mar-Jun Grassy areas in woodland,
chaparral, shale-derived soils
No Potential. Suitable shale
soils are not present in the
Study Area.
27. Fritillaria agrestis Stinkbells -/-
G3/S3
4.2 Mar-Jun Clay, often vertic,
occasionally serpentine
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
28. Gilia latiflora subsp.
cuyamensis
Cuyama gilia -/-
G5?T4/S4
4.3 Apr-Jun Sandy flats, pinyon/juniper
woodland, lower river valleys
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
29. Gilia tenuiflora
subsp. amplifaucalis
Trumpet-throated
gilia
-/-
G3G4T3/S3
4.3 Mar-Apr Sandy soil of dry creeks,
floodplains, slopes
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
30. Hesperevax
caulescens
Hogwallow starfish -/-
G3/S3
4.2 Mar-Jun Declining. Drying shrinkswell clay of vernal pools, flats, steep slopes (sometimes
serpentine)
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-5 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
31. Hooveria purpurea
var. purpurea
Santa Lucia purple
amole
FT/-
G2T2/S2
1B.1
Apr-Jun Often in grassy areas with
blue oaks in foothill
woodland. Gravelly clay
soils.
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
32. Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
Mesa horkelia -/-
G4T1/S1
1B.1
Feb-Sep Dry, sandy, coastal chaparral
and oak woodland
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
33. Horkelia cuneata
var. sericea
Kellogg's horkelia -/-
G4T1?/S1?
1B.1
Apr-Sep Old dunes, coastal sandhills No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present in the Study
Area.
34. Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia dwarf
rush
-/-
G3/S3
1B.2
Apr-Jul Wet, sandy soils of seeps,
meadows, vernal pools,
streams, roadsides
Low. Grassy areas adjacent
to the road and small ditches
could support this species,
though the nearest
occurrences are historic and
approximately 4 miles away
(CNDDB #30, 1937 and
CNDDB #8, 1958).
35. Lasthenia leptalea Salinas Valley
goldfields
-/-
G3/S3
4.3 Feb-Apr Openings in woodland, sandy
and gravelly substrates,
decomposed granite
No Potential. Suitable
substrates are not present in
the Study Area.
36. Lepidium jaredii
subsp. jaredii
Jared's pepper-grass -/-
G2G3T1T2/S1S2
1B.2
Mar-May Valley and foothill grassland
(alkaline, adobe)
No Potential. Suitable
alkaline soils are not present
in the Study Area.
37. Lessingia tenuis Spring lessingia -/-
G4/S4
4.3 May-Jul Openings in chaparral,
woodland
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-6 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
38. Malacothamnus
discombobulatus
Discombobulating
bushmallow
-/-
GNR/S2
1B.2
Jul-Aug Early-recovering post-burn
woody vegetation, edges of
openings, some plants
occasionally persisting into
more mature vegetation
stages;
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
39. Meconella oregana Oregon meconella -/-
G2/S2
1B.1
Mar-Apr Shaded canyons No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
40. Mielichhoferia
elongata
Elongate copper moss -/-
G5/S3S4
4.3 - Metamorphic rock, usually
acidic, usually vernally
mesic, often roadsides,
sometimes carbonate
No Potential. Suitable
metamorphic substrates are
not present in the Study Area.
41. Monolopia gracilens Woodland
woollythreads
-/-
G3/S3
1B.2
Feb-Jul Serpentine grassland, open
chaparral, oak woodland
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
42. Navarretia fossalis Spreading navarretia FT/-
G2/S2
1B.1
Apr-Jun Vernal pools, ditches No Potential. Vernal pools are not present in the Study
Area.
43. Navarretia
nigelliformis subsp.
radians
Shining navarretia -/-
G4T2T3/S2S3
1B.2
Mar-Jul Grassland and cismontane
woodland. Often on clay and
alkaline sites, sometimes
vernal pools. 65-1,000 m.
Low. Marginally suitable
grassland habitat is present in
the Study Area, though it is
highly disturbed. Nearest
occurrence is 0.7 miles
northeast of the Study Area
(CNDDB #4, 2006).
44. Navarretia prostrata Prostrate vernal pool
navarretia
-/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Apr-Jul Alkaline floodplains, vernal
pools
No Potential. Vernal pools
and alkaline soils are not
present in the Study Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles B-7 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CA Rare Plant Rank
Blooming
Period Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
45. Plagiobothrys
uncinatus
Hooked
popcornflower
-/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Apr-May Chaparral, canyon sides,
rocky outcrops, fire follower
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
46. Stebbinsoseris
decipiens
Santa Cruz microseris -/-
G2/S2
1B.2
Apr-May Open, sandy, shaly, or
serpentine sites, coastal
No Potential. Suitable habitat
is not present in the Study
Area.
State/Rank Abbreviations:
FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
PE: Proposed Federally Endangered
PT: Proposed Federally Threatened
CE: California Endangered
CR: California Rare
CT: California Threatened
CCE: Candidate for California Endangered
CCT: Candidate for California Threatened
California Rare Plant Ranks:
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
0.1 - Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
0.2 - Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
0.3 - Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
Global/State Ranks:
G1/S1 – Critically Imperiled
G2/S2 – Imperiled
G3/S3 – Vulnerable G4/S4 – Apparently Secure
G5/S5 – Secure
Q – Element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it.
Range rank – (e.g., S2S3 means rank is somewhere between S2 and S3) ? – (e.g., S2? Means rank is more certain than S2S3 but less certain that S2) Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-1 March 2025 (Updated December 2025)
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS REPORTED FROM THE REGION Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-1 March 2025
APPENDIX C. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS REPORTED FROM THE REGION Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
1. Actinemys pallida Southwestern pond
turtle
FPT/-
G2G3/SNR
SSC
Ponds, lakes rivers, streams with
abundant vegetation
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
2. Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird -/CT
G1G2/S2
SSC
Requires open water, protected nesting
substrate, & foraging area with insect
prey near nesting colony.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
3. Anniella pulchra Northern California
legless lizard
-/-
G3/S2S3
SSC
Sandy or loose loamy soils under coastal
scrub or oak trees. Soil moisture
essential.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
4. Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat -/-
G4/S3
SSC
Uses rock crevices, caves, tree hollows,
mines, old buildings, & bridges for
roosting.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
5. Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle -/-
G5/S3
FP; WL
Nests in large, prominent trees in valley
and foothill woodland. Requires adjacent
food source.
Low (nesting and foraging).
Marginally suitable foraging
habitat and nesting habitat is
present in and around the Study
Area. The nearest nest
occurrence is 0.7 miles northeast
(CNDDB #122).
Moderate (in flight). There is
moderate potential for this
species to be sighted flying over
the study area from more
suitable habitat in surrounding
areas.
6. Ardea herodias Great blue heron -/-
G5/S4
-
Rookeries located in tall trees near
foraging areas.
No potential. No suitable nesting
habitat at the site. The nearest
occurrence is 14.2 miles
northwest (CNDDB #57).
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-2 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
7. Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl -/CCE
G4/S2
SSC
Burrows in squirrel holes in open
habitats with low vegetation.
Low (nesting and
foraging). The Study Area
has grassland habitat with
numerous ground squirrel
holes that could support
this species, though it is
highly disturbed. The
nearest occurrence is
approximately 2.2 miles
southeast (eBird, 2018)
8. Batrachoseps minor Lesser slender
salamander
-/-
G1/S1
SSC
Inhabits moist locations in forests of
mixed oak, tanbark oak, sycamore &
laurel above 1,300 ft (400 m).
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
9. Bombus crotchii Crotch's bumble bee -/CCE
G2/S2
-
Open grassland & scrub habitats. Food
plant genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, Eriogonum, Lupinus &
Medicago.
Low. Grassland habitat in the
Study Area contains multiple
food plants for this species. The
nearest occurrence is 1.7 miles
northeast (CNDDB record
submitted by Althouse and
Meade in 2024).
10. Bombus
pensylvanicus
American bumble bee -/-
G3G4/S2
-
Valley and foothill grasslands, coastal
prairies. Food plant genera include
Vicia, Trifolium, Cirsium, & Helianthus.
No potential. Marginally suitable
grassland habitat is present
within the Study Area. Nearest
occurrence is 9.0 miles south
and is outside the typical range
of this species (CNDDB #380,
2023).
11. Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pool fairy
shrimp
FT/-
G3/S3
-
Clear water sandstone depression pools,
grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt
flow depression pools.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-3 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
12. Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk -/-
G4/S3S4
WL
Winters locally in open grassland or
savannah habitats. More common in
interior SLO County than coast.
Moderate (foraging). Grassland
within the Study Area is suitable
for foraging. The nearest
occurrence is 0.6 miles
northwest (eBird, 2017).
No potential (nesting). Outside
of nesting range.
13. Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend's big-eared
bat
-/-
G4/S2
SSC
Roosts in caves, abandoned buildings,
tunnels. Roosting sites limiting.
Sensitive to human disturbance.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
14. Eremophila alpestris
actia
California horned lark -/-
G5T4Q/S4
WL
Nests on the ground in open habitats
with low, sparse vegetation. More
common in the interior.
No potential. Vegetation within
the Study Area too dense to
support this species.
15. Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon -/-
G5/S4
WL
Inhabits dry, open terrain. Nests on cliffs
near open areas for hunting.
No potential. There is no
suitable nesting habitat within
the Study Area.
16. Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Bald eagle FD/CE
G5/S3
FP
Nests within 1 mi of water in tall live
tree with open branches.
No potential (foraging and
nesting). The Salinas River is
0.7 miles west of the Study
Area. Nearest nest is 9.3 miles
east and last confirmed active by
Althouse and Meade, Inc. on
2/20/2025.
17. Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat -/-
G3G4/S4
-
Forages in open habitats or habitat
mosaics with trees. Roosts in dense
foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds
on moths. Requires water.
No potential. No suitable habitat
within the Study Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-4 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
18. Lavinia exilicauda
harengus
Monterey hitch -/-
G4T3/S3
SSC
Pajaro & Salinas river systems. Most
abundant in lowland areas with large
pools or in small reservoirs that mimic
such conditions.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
19. Masticophis
flagellum ruddocki
San Joaquin
coachwhip
-/-
G5T2T3/S3
SSC
Open, dry, treeless areas with low
vegetation cover. Valley grasslands.
No potential. The habitat in the
Study Area is urban and
fragmented from the closest
occurrence 9.9 miles north
(CNDDB #84, 1999).
20. Neotoma macrotis
luciana
Monterey duskyfooted woodrat-/-
G5T3/S3
SSC
Variety of habitats with moderate to
dense understory vegetation.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
21. Perognathus
inornatus
psammophilus
Salinas pocket mouse -/-
G2G3T2?/S1
SSC
Annual grassland & desert shrub in
Salinas Valley, with friable soils.
Low. Grassland habitat with
friable soils is present within the
Study Area. The nearest
occurrence is historical and
approximately 4.1 miles north
(CNDDB #9, 1918). Another
more recent occurrence is 7.2
miles northwest (CNDDB #3,
1995).
22. Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Coast horned lizard -/-
G4/S4
SSC
Frequents a wide variety of habitats,
most common in lowlands along sandy
washes with scattered low bushes.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
23. Polyphylla nubila Atascadero June
beetle
-/-
G1/S1
-
Known only from sand dunes in
Atascadero & SLO.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
24. Rana boylii pop. 6 Foothill yellowlegged frog - south coast DPS
FE/CE
G3T1/S1
-
- No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-5 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
25. Rana draytonii California red-legged
frog
FT/-
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands & foothills in or near sources
of deep water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation. Requires
11-20 weeks for larval development.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
26. Setophaga petechia Yellow warbler -/-
G5/S3
SSC
Frequently found nesting & foraging in
willow shrubs & thickets, & in other
riparian plants including cottonwoods,
sycamores, ash, & alders.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
27. Spea hammondii Western spadefoot FPT/-
G2G3/S3S4
SSC
Grassland & woodland habitats with
vernal pools for breeding. Most of year
spent underground.
Moderate. Manmade ponded
landscape features in areas
adjacent to the Study Area
occasionally water during the
wet season. Nearest occurrence
is 0.2 miles east (CNDDB
#1189, 2017).
28. Strix occidentalis
occidentalis
California Spotted
Owl
-/-
G3G4T2T3/S3
SSC
Most often found in deep-shaded
canyons, on north-facing slopes, &
within 984 ft (300 m) of water.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
29. Taricha torosa Coast Range newt -/-
G4/S4
SSC
Lives in terrestrial habitats & will
migrate >0.62 mi (1 km) to breed in
ponds, reservoirs & slow moving
streams.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
30. Taxidea taxus American badger -/-
G5/S3
SSC
Needs friable soils in open ground with
abundant food source such as California
ground squirrels.
Low. Suitable soils and food
sources are present in the Study
Area, though the site is highly
disturbed. Nearest occurrence is
5.53 miles south (CNDDB #23,
2003).
31. Trimerotropis
occulens
Lompoc grasshopper -/-
G1G2/S1S2
-
Gravelly/rocky substrates & road cuts.
Known only from Santa Barbara & SLO
Counties.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-6 March 2025
Scientific Name Common Name
Federal/State Status
Global/State Rank
CDFW Status
Habitat Preferences Potential to Occur
32. Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's vireo FE/CE
G5T2/S3
-
Riparian habitat, near water or dry
streambed, <2000 ft. Nests in willows,
mesquite, Baccharis.
No potential. No suitable habitat
is present in or around the Study
Area.
33. Vulpes macrotis
mutica
San Joaquin kit fox FE/CT
G4T2/S3
-
Annual grasslands or grassy open stages
with scattered shrubby vegetation. Needs
loose textured sandy soil & prey base.
Low. Marginally suitable soils
for dens and food sources are
present in the Study Area, and
surrounding developments
impede movement from nearby
habitat. Nearest occurrence is
1.4 miles southeast (CNDDB
#941, 1991).
Exhibit D
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
Biological Resource Assessment for Allegretto Resort Expansion, City of El Paso de Robles C-7 March 2025
State/Rank Abbreviations:
FE: Federally Endangered
FT: Federally Threatened
PE: Proposed Federally Endangered
PT: Proposed Federally Threatened
CE: California Endangered
CR: California Rare
CT: California Threatened
CCE: Candidate for California Endangered
CCT: Candidate for California Threatened
Global/State Ranks:
G1/S1 – Critically Imperiled
G2/S2 – Imperiled
G3/S3 – Vulnerable G4/S4 – Apparently Secure
G5/S5 – Secure
Q – Element is very rare but there are taxonomic questions associated with it.
Range rank – (e.g., S2S3 means rank is somewhere between S2 and S3) ? – (e.g., S2? Means rank is more certain than S2S3 but less certain that S2)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Rank:
WL: Watch List
SSC: Species of Special Concern
FP: Fully Protected
SA: Special Animal
Exhibit D
(805) 316-0101
895 Napa Avenue, Suite A-6, Morro Bay, CA 93442
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 21, 2025
To: Leslie Frazier, City Engineer, City of Paso Robles
From: Michelle Matson and Joe Fernandez, CCTC
Subject: Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles –Transportation Analysis This memorandum summarizes the transportation analysis for the proposed Allegretto Expansion on Buena Vista Drive in the City of Paso Robles. The project would expand the existing 172-room resort to provide 100 additional guest rooms as well as additional resort amenities including a spa, gym, conference center, restaurant, wine education and other associated uses.
TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The project would generate approximately 1,432 new vehicle trips per weekday, including 105 AM and 138 PM peak hour trips. The project would have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Site access is proposed via the existing driveways on Buena Vista Drive, Dallons Drive, and Experimental Station Road as well as a new driveway on Dallons Drive.
All study intersections operate at level of service (LOS) D or better except Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) during the AM peak hour (school drop-off) which operates at LOS E under Existing Conditions with and without the project and LOS F under Near Term Conditions with and without the project.
The peak hour traffic signal and all-way stop control warrants would not be met and we recommend restricting left turns from Experimental Station Road due to the offset left turn lanes.
The project would increase the eastbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue at State Route 46 East (SR 46 E)/Buena Vista Drive (#3) exceeding the available storage including deceleration under Near Term Conditions during the AM and PM peak hour. However, the queue would not spill out of the actual turn pocket length.
Dual eastbound left turn lanes at the intersection are included in the City’s Development Impact Fee.
The project site plan and recommendations are shown in Figure 1 and the detailed Buena Vista Drive recommendations are shown on Figure 2. These recommendations are discussed in detail in the Site Access and Circulation section of this report.
Other regional improvements to access SR 46 E are included in the City’s Development Impact Fees, and fee payment would constitute the project’s fair share contribution. .
The following sections summarize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, trip generation, local transportation analysis, and site access and circulation.
Exhibit E
March 2025
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles Figure 1 - Project Site Plan and Recommendations BUENA VISTA DR
DALLONS DR
EXPERIMENTAL
STATION RD Close sidewalk
gap on southside
of Dallons Drive.
Prepare Transportation
Management Plan for events
with 150 to 385 attendees.
Provide pedestrian paths
through the parking lots
consistent with existing
conditions.
RIBOLI
FAMILY
LA QUINTA
Modify access at the Buena Vista
Drive/Experimental Station Road
intersection, improve bicycle access, and
consider crosswalk on Buena Vista Drive.
See Figure 2 for recommendations.
Potential easement
location(s) for
secondary access.
Install curb extensions
and improve bicycle
and pedestrian
access. See Figure 2
for recommendations.
RIVER
OAKS
BUSINESS
CENTER
35 MPH corner
sight distance. Relocate proposed
driveway on Dallons
Drive across from
existing Cuesta
College driveway.
Exhibit E
March 2025 Allegretto, Paso Robles
match line
BUENA VISTA DR BUENA VISTA DR
SR 46 E
DALLONS
DR
RIVER
OAKS DR
PROJECT
DRIVEWAY
Remove through
traffic merge left
signs.
Install Class II bike
lanes between
Experimental Station
Road and driveways
(2' buffers, 5'
minimum bike lanes,
11'-12' travel lanes,
and 16' turn lane).
Install red curb and
restrict 20' of parking.
Restripe bike lane
between the through
lane and right turn lane. match line Figure 2: Buena Vista Drive Recommendations Provide area for future bus stop.
Close bike lane gap
and install bike lane
signage and
striping consistent
with the CAMUTCD. EXPERIMENTAL
STATION RD
Existing bulb out.
Install bulb-out, curb
ramps, and crosswalk
improvements (signs,
striping, RRFBs).
Bulb out not
recommended for trucks.
Extend existing
median to
crosswalk.
Install bulb outs on
west side of
intersection. Repave
and relocate bike
lanes, crosswalk,
STOP bars, and
STOP markings.
Resurface and restripe
Buena Vista Drive south
of Dallons Drive (8'
parking, 5' minimum
bike lanes, 11'-12' travel
lanes, and 16' turn lane).
Install red curb and
restrict parking on
both sides between
Experimental Station
Road and State
Route 46 E. ~56' ~80'
Modify southbound
approach.
Provide 12' travel
lanes and 5' bike
lanes to driveway
~100' west.
Extend bike lane
to intersection.
Install red curb and
restrict parking
between intersections
and within project
driveway intersection.
Install additional
right turn lane
signage
consistent with
the CAMUTCD.
Add tactile domes
and reconstruct curb
ramp if needed.
Add tactile domes
and reconstruct curb
ramp if needed.
Install median
with pedestrian
refuge to restrict
left turns.
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 4 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
CEQA ANALYSIS
This section presents analysis relevant to CEQA including existing setting, emergency access, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and safety.
Existing Setting
The following summarizes key roadways in the project vicinity:
• Buena Vista Drive is a north-south arterial with two travel lanes. Between Experimental Station Road and Dallons Drive there are sidewalks, Class II bike lanes, and intermittent on-street parking on the west side. No bike lanes are provided south of Dallons Drive. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour adjacent to the project site.
• Dallons Drive is an east-west arterial with two travel lanes. West of Golden Hill Road, there are Class II bike lanes, intermittent sidewalks, and no on-street parking. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour adjacent to the project site.
• Experimental Station Road is an east-west roadway with two travel lanes, intermittent sidewalks, onstreet parking, and Class II bike lanes. The roadway is a collector west of Buena Vista Drive and a local road east of Buena Vista Drive. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour adjacent to the project site. • Golden Hill Road is a north-south arterial with two travel lanes north of Union Road that expands into four travel lanes between Mesa Road and Dallons Drive. There are intermittent sidewalks, on-street parking, and Class II bike lanes.
• SR 46 E is an east-west expressway with two travel lanes per direction connecting the Central Valley with the Central Coast.
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) provides regional fixed-route service in San Luis Obispo County. Route 9 serves the North County region, providing regional access between San Luis Obispo, Santa Margarita, Atascadero, Templeton, and Paso Robles. The closest stop to the project is located adjacent to the project site on Buena Vista Drive north of Dallons Drive at Cuesta College North, which is served on weekdays with hourly service.
Emergency Access
Access to and from the site is provided via the existing driveways on Buena Vista Drive, Dallons Drive, and Experimental Station Road as well as the proposed driveway on Dallons Drive. The emergency access to the project site is adequate as proposed.
The existing residences on Experimental Station Road east of Buena Vista Drive do not have secondary access.
We recommend the project provide an easement for a roadway connection between Dallons Drive and Experimental Station Road. Potential easement locations are shown on Figure 1. See the site access and circulation section for additional easement recommendations.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
The City’s 2022 Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Supplement provides thresholds for vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact analysis. Hotel projects may have a significant impact if they cause a net increase in regional VMT. This threshold is consistent with guidance from the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as well as the County of San Luis Obispo’s thresholds. The County developed an excel-based quick-response tool which was applied for this project since it borders the County and the City uses the identical threshold for this Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 5 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
land use. The tool shows that the project would reduce regional VMT, which is considered a less-thansignificant impact. The tool’s output sheet is attached.
Safety
Collision data for City roadways was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for 2019 to 2023. No collisions were reported within 250 feet of Buena Vista Drive/Project driveway (#1) or Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2). Two broadside collisions were reported approximately 300 feet south of Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) including one due to improper turning and one due to a right of way violation.
Two collisions were reported within 250 feet of the existing Allegretto driveway on Dallons Drive including one head-on collision due to a right of way violation and one rear end collision due to unsafe speed. No collisions occurred with vehicles exiting the existing driveway.
Buena Vista Drive is not identified in the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan. There are no collision patterns or recommendations for City roadways.
Collision data for the Caltrans study intersections was obtained from the Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS).
Table 1: Collision Analysis
The collision rates at the SR 46 E/Buena Vista Dr (#3) and SR 46 E/Golden Hill Road (#4) intersections are well above the state average rates and total collisions exceed the number considered significant. The SR 46 E corridor also has above average collision rates as documented in multiple other studies. The City and partner agencies are working toward corridor improvements and a parallel route to SR 46 E.
Intersection MVE F I All F F+I All F F+I All
SR 46 E & Buena Vista Dr 30,000 6,000 60.23 1 5 33 0.017 0.10 0.55 0.003 0.14 0.28 29 SR 46 E & Golden Hill Rd 30,000 11,000 74.83 0 10 41 0.000 0.13 0.55 0.002 0.16 0.33 39
5. Number of collisions needed to be significant based on Caltrans Significance Test. Source: Caltrans Table C Task Force Summary Report, 2002.
Length shown in miles, I = Injury, F = Fatality.
Bold indicates rate higher than state average or total collisions greater than number significant.
1. Average daily traffic (ADT) obtained from the Caltrans website and available traffic studies.
2. 2019 to 2023 collisions obtained from TASAS
3. Rates are in collisions per million vehicle miles (MVM) for roadways and per million vehicles entering (MVE) for intersections.
4. Average rate for similar facilities from Caltrans "2022 Collision Data on California State Highways".
Major
ADT1
Minor
ADT1
Total
Collisions2 Actual Rate3State Ave Rate4 Number
Significant5
Collision Analysis
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 6 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
The amount of project traffic affecting the study locations is estimated in three steps: trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. Trip generation refers to the number of trips generated by the project, trip distribution identifies the origins and destinations, and trip assignment specifies the routes taken to reach the origins and destinations. The Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition was used to estimate project trip generation. Table 2 summarizes the project trip generation.
Table 2: Project Trip Generation
The proposed project would generate 1,432 new vehicle and trucks trips per weekday, including 105 AM peak hour trips and 138 PM peak hour trips.
Trip distribution and assignment for the project trips was obtained from 2012 Traffic and Circulation Study for the existing Allegretto Resort. The project trip distribution is shown in Figure 3.
Note that the trip generation represents average weekday conditions and does not reflect maximum capacity events at the conference center. We recommend the project prepare a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for events with more than 150 attendees including, but not limited to, the following:
• Public Information: Detail how event, transportation, and parking information are provided to the public or attendees.
• Motorist Information: Detail event signage and alternative routes. • Demand Management: Detail event start and end times, shuttles, carpool incentives and other measures to reduce demand during peak periods of congestion on SR 46 E and to avoid parking impacts.
• Incident Management: Detail chain of command if incident occurs and point of contact for emergency services and TMP management.
We recommend preparing a blanket TMP for approval by the City for use during events with 150 to 385 attendees.
Land Use In Out Total In Out Total
Lodging1 100 rooms 588 23 9 32 18 23 41
Restaurant2 6.00 KSF 503 2 2 4 31 16 47
Restaurant Internal Trips 3
-105 -1 -1 -2 -14 -7 -21
Wine Production/Classroom4 16.50 KSF 171 13 3 16 9 7 16 Event Spaces5 17.95 KSF 275 50 5 55 5 50 55
New New Vehicle Trips 1,432 87 18 105 49 89 138
3. Internal trips assumed based on PM peak hour pass-by rate of LU #931 Fine Dining. Daily assumed to be 5 times the PM peak.
5. Conference Center 385 maximum occupancy. Assumed weekday events were one third the size of capacity, 33% of attendees would staying on-site, 10% of off-site trips would be dropped off, and 1.6 vehicle occupancy. Daily assumed to be 5 times the PM peak.
4. ITE Land Use Code #540, Junior/Community College. Average rates used. Assumed 149 students based on maximum occupancy.
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual , 11th Edition and Trip Generation Handbook , 3rd Edition.
1. ITE Land Use Code #330, Resort Hotel. Average rates used for Weekday. Sunday rates and Daily estimated from #310, Hotel.
2. ITE Land Use Code #931, Fine Dining. Average rates used.
Trip Generation
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Size
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 7 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The following sections summarize the existing traffic volumes, Existing and Near Term intersection operations, and site access and circulation.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Turning movement counts were collected at the following study intersections in October 2024 and compared to available June 2021 intersection volumes as summarized below • Buena Vista Drive/Project Driveway (#1): no historic data available. • Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) no historic data available. • SR 46 E/Buena Vista Drive (#3): The 2024 count was 24 percent higher, and one percent lower compared to the 2021 count during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. • SR 46 E/Golden Hill Road (#4): The 2024 count was 14 percent higher, and one percent lower compared to the 2021 count during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively.
The intersection turning movement counts are attached. The existing volumes and lane configuration are shown in Figure 3.
Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations Mobility deficiencies are identified if the project causes vehicle queues that exceed turn pocket lengths, increases safety hazards, causes stop-controlled intersection to operate below LOS D and meet signal warrants, or causes vehicle demand greater than the roadway capacity.
The intersection LOS and queuing were calculated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies in the Synchro 11 software package. The LOS analysis is shown in Table 3 and the queue analysis is shown in Table 4. The existing plus project volumes are shown on Figure 3. The level of service analysis worksheets are attached.
Table 3: Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service All study intersections operate at LOS D or better except Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) during the AM peak hour which operates at LOS E without and without the project. This reflects operations during the worst 15-minute period preceding the start of school at the nearby Kermit King Elementary School.
See Near Term Conditions for intersection recommendations. w
Intersection Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
AM 0.2 (16.8) - (C) 0.7 (19.0) - (C)
PM 0.2 (10.0) - (B) 2.2 (14.8) - (B)
AM 2.7 (37.6) - (E) 4.2 (48.0) - (E)
PM 1.2 (15.6) - (C) 1.2 (18.3) - (C)
AM 17.2 B 19.9 B
PM 14.4 B 16.3 B
AM 28.9 C 29.4 C
PM 29.9 C 30.2 C
Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Peak
Hour
Existing + Project
1. Buena Vista Dr/Project Driveway
2. Buena Vista Dr/Experimental Station Rd
3. SR 46 E/Buena Vista Dr
1. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition average control delay in seconds per vehicle (HCM 2000 used for #3 and #4 during the AM peak hour). For side-street-stop controlled intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parentheses next to the overall delay.
Existing
4. SR 46 E/Golden Hill Rd
Exhibit E
PROJECT
SITE Existing Plus Project Volumes March 2025
Figure 3: Distribution, Existing & Existing Plus Project Volumes Allegretto, Paso Robles
Existing Volumes and Lane Configurations
SR 46 East 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 N
Not to Scale
2 3 4
Buena Vista Dr
Experimental Station Rd Golden Hill Rd
Dallons Dr Project Driveway Buena Vista Dr Buena Vista Dr Exp Station Rd Buena Vista Dr Golden Hill Rd SR 46 E SR 46 E Project Driveway Buena Vista Dr Buena Vista Dr Exp Station Rd Buena Vista Dr Golden Hill Rd SR 46 E SR 46 E 2(4) 68(40) 291(216) 9(15) 246(178) 198(199) 23(45) 1(0) 298(212) 3(14) 281(304) 2(1) 2(1) 285(308) 0(2) 287(303) 113(110) 144(309) 148(222) 1(1)
2(1)
12(6)
7(1)
2(3)
90(50)
1(9)
6(1)
233(187) 150(83)
222(246)
558(834)
182(140) 2(4) 68(40) 361(256) 10(15) 253(182) 198(201) 23(45) 1(0) 298(212) 88(62) 281(304) 3(2) 5(16) 300(379) 0(2) 296(347) 119(138) 144(309) 148(222) 106(175) 1(1)
2(1)
12(7)
22(9)
2(3)
90(50)
1(11)
24(87)
277(212)
922(1058)
177(98)
937(1214)
222(246)
563(855)
302(165)
182(140)
692(871)
27(37)
2(0) 106(175)
672(860)
27(37)
2(0)
301(158)
937(1214) 922(1058) 8% 23% 2% 17% 50% X% LEGEND
Study X Intersection LEGEND
Project Trip
Distribution LEGEND
Project
Site
Stop Sign
AM(PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
XX(XX) Traffic
Signal
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 9 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
Table 4: Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues No queues exceed the available storage under Existing Conditions with or without the project.
Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Intersection Operations Near Term Conditions include approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the study area and elsewhere in the City. The projects include Olsen South Chandler Specific Plan, Beechwood Specific Plan, the Gateway Annexation, and other warehouse projects north of SR 46 E, and regional growth on SR 46 E. Near Term volumes were obtained from available traffic studies.
The applicant is considering another 90-unit hotel on Experimental Station Road east of Buena Vista Road which was also included in the Near Term no project volumes. No capacity improvements were assumed at the study intersections under Near Term Conditions and the existing peak hour factor (PHF) was used. This reflects a worst-case scenario due to the major AM peak hour traffic spike prior to the start of school.
The Near Term LOS analysis is shown in Table 5 and the queue analysis is shown in Table 6. The Near Term and Near Term Plus Project volumes are shown on Figure 4. The level of service analysis worksheets are attached.
AM 33' 70'
PM 8' 13'
AM 15' 20'
PM 3' 3'
AM 263' 324'
PM 211' 250'
AM 147' 155'
PM 139' 180'
AM 206' 217'
PM 234' 287'
AM 129' 131'
PM 180' 181'
AM 25' 25'
PM 38' 38'
AM 139' 145'
PM 135' 138'
AM 71' 73'
PM 132' 134'
AM 180' 183'
PM 289' 292'
SBR 450'
3. SR 46 E/Buena Vista Dr SBL 450'
EB -
WB -
2. Buena Vista Dr/ Experimental Station Rd
SBL 140/185'
EBL2
345'
1. Queue length that would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time. Bold indicates queue length longer than storage length. # indicates that 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity and queue may be longer. 160'/425'
SBT 395'
4. SR 46 E/Golden Hill Rd
EBL2
225'
WBL2
125'
NBL
3. Deceleration length of 530 feet has been subtracted from the storage length per the Highway Design Manual for 60 mph design speed.
Existing and Existing Plus Project Intersection Queues1 Intersection Movement
Storage
Length Peak Hour Existing
Existing +
Project
Exhibit E
Near Term Plus Project Volumes March 2025
Figure 4: Near Term & Near Term Plus Project Volumes
Near Term Volumes LEGEND 1
N
Not to Scale
2 3 4
Buena Vista Dr
Experimental Station Rd Golden Hill Rd
Dallons Dr Project Driveway Buena Vista Dr Buena Vista Dr Exp Station Rd Buena Vista Dr Golden Hill Rd SR 46 E SR 46 E Project Driveway Buena Vista Dr Buena Vista Dr Exp Station Rd Buena Vista Dr Golden Hill Rd SR 46 E SR 46 E
Project
Site
AM(PM) Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
XX(XX) 304(366) 2(1)
1(9)
6(1) 1(0) 315(254)
3(14)
7(1)
6(6)
90(50)
2(1)308(364)0(2)
2(4)
68(40)
311(266)
26(28)
1(1)
3(4)
19(24)
250(198)
1262(1543)
294(321)123(117)
157(140)
1064(1599)
312(282)
762(1216)
311(162)
252(241)306(278)
25(50)
258(213)
751(1135)
30(55)
2(0) 218(363) 166(356)
141(218)
304(366)3(2)
1(11)
24(87) 1(0) 315(254) 88(62)
22(9)
6(6)
90(50)
5(16)323(435)0(2)
2(4)
68(40)
381(306)
27(28)
1(1)
3(4)
19(25)
294(223)
1262(1543)
303(365)129(145)
184(155)
1064(1599)
312(282)
767(1237)
312(169)
259(245)306(280)
25(50)
258(213)
771(1146)
30(55)
2(0) 218(363) 166(356)
141(218)
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Allegretto, Paso Robles PROJECT
SITE
SR 46 East
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 11 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
Table 5: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service All study intersections operate at LOS D or better except Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) during the AM peak hour which operates at LOS F with and without the project and under Near Term Conditions. Neither the peak hour traffic signal warrant nor all way stop control warrants would be met.
Consistent with access management best practices, full access intersections and driveways are not recommended within the functional areas of signalized intersections. The functional area includes the decision distance, deceleration distance, and queues. Based on the queues shown in Table 6, the upstream functional area from the SR 46E/Buena Vista Drive intersection (#3) would extend beyond the Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) intersection under Near Term Conditions with or without the project.
We recommend restricting parking within the functional area. In addition, offset driveways are not recommended due to left turn conflicts.
We recommend modifying the Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) intersection by installing an island to restrict eastbound left turns and a bulb out on the northeast corner to prevent vehicles in the right turn lane from proceeding through the intersection. With the improvements, the westbound approach would continue to operate at LOS F; however, the queue would be less than two vehicles, and the peak hour signal and all-way stop control warrants are not met.
A single lane roundabout would also operate acceptably. However, the improvement would likely require additional right-of-way and is not recommended.
Although left turn turns at Riboli Family Winery and La Quinta are within the functional area, the project would not add to these movements and alternative routes are not available to serve these existing uses. w
Intersection Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS
AM 0.2 (17.9) - (C) 0.7 (20.4) - (C)
PM 0.2 (10.4) - (B) 2.1 (17.1) - (B)
AM 3.7 (52.0) - (F) 5.9 (71.1) - (F)
PM 1.6 (20.1) - (C) 1.8 (24.7) - (C)
AM 19.7 B 20.9 C
PM 18.7 B 21.7 C
AM 33.1 C 33.6 C
PM 50.3 D 51.2 D
2. Buena Vista Dr/Experimental Station Rd
3. SR 46 E/Buena Vista Dr
1. Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition average control delay in seconds per vehicle (HCM 2000 used for #3 and #4 during the AM peak hour). For side-street-stop controlled intersections the worst approach's delay is reported in parentheses next to the overall delay.
Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Peak
Hour
Near Term Near Term + Project
1. Buena Vista Dr/Project Driveway
4. SR 46 E/Golden Hill Rd
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 12 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
Table 6: Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Intersection Queues No queues exceed the available storage under Near Term Conditions with or without the project except the following:
• State Route 46 East (SR 46 E)/Buena Vista Drive (#3): The project would increase the eastbound left turn lane 95th percentile queue during both peak hours exceeding the available storage including deceleration. However, the queue would not exceed the available storage without deceleration.
Implementation of a time-of-day plan including updated maximum green times and shorter maximum cycle length would result in a shorter queue, not exceeding the available storage including deceleration.
Dual eastbound left turn lanes at the intersection are also included in the City’s Development Impact Fee. The project will pay their fair share for the improvement through payment of the fee. In addition, we recommend the applicant prepare a TMP for events with more than 150 attendees as previously detailed.
• State Route 46 East (SR 46 E)/Golden Hill Road (#4): The eastbound left turn and southbound though lane 95th percentile queues exceed the block length or available storage including deceleration.
However, the project would not exacerbate the queue.
AM 43' 95'
PM 10' 15'
AM 33' 43'
PM 10' 13'
AM 331' #452'
PM 289' #347'
AM 176' 185'
PM 189' 227'
AM 268' 285'
PM 378' 441'
AM 191' 193'
PM #258' #258'
AM 29' 29'
PM 56' 56'
AM 152' 158'
PM 196' 199'
AM 95' 96'
PM 179' 179'
AM 214' 216'
PM #606' #606'
SBR
3. SR 46 E/Buena Vista Dr SBL 450'
-
EB -
2. Buena Vista Dr/ Experimental Station Rd
WB
1. Queue length that would not be exceeded 95 percent of the time. Bold indicates queue length longer than storage length. # indicates that 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
3. Deceleration length of 530 feet has been subtracted from the storage length per the Highway Design Manual for 60 mph design speed.
SBL 140/185'
125'
NBL 160'/425'
SBT 395'
Near Term and Near Term Plus Project Intersection Queues1 Intersection Movement
Storage
Length Peak Hour Near Term
Near Term
+ Project
EBL2
345'
4. SR 46 E/Golden Hill Rd
EBL2
225'
WBL2
450'
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 13 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Frontage improvements and a driveway on Buena Vista Drive, Dallons Drive, and Experimental Station Road were previously constructed to serve the existing resort. The following sections summarize the vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access in the project vicinity. The project site plan and recommendations discussed below are shown in Figure 1 and the detailed Buena Vista Drive recommendations are shown on Figure 2.
Field observations indicate that some employees currently park on the west side of Buena Vista Drive. We recommend all employees park on site to avoid mid-block uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.
Vehicle Access
The project proposes an additional driveway on Dallons Drive accessing the equipment yard. The driveway is currently proposed on the inside of a horizontal curve and the sight distance will be obscured by existing and future vegetation. We recommend relocating the proposed driveway on Dallons Drive across from one of the Cuesta College driveways to increase sight distance.
There are three potential locations for the easement to provide emergency access between Dallons Drive and Experimental Station Road. The eastern locations have the same sight distance concerns as the currently proposed driveway on Dallons Drive. The western location may also have sight distance concerns due to the existing grades at Experimental Station Road.
The City does not currently have adopted sight distance standards. We recommend the driveway and emergency access connections to Experimental Station Road and Dallons Drive meet County Standards. Corner Sight Distance is shown on County Standard A-5a attached. We also recommend minimum landscaping in the sight distance triangle.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) guidance states, “At all intersections, one stall length on each side measured from the crosswalk or end of curb return should have parking prohibited.
A clearance of six feet measured from the curb return should be provided at alleys and driveways.” Assembly Bill 413 reinforces this concept by prohibiting drivers from parking within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk. We recommend restricting 20 feet of parking adjacent to driveways and intersections on Buena Vista Drive. We also recommend restricting parking between the Buena Vista Drive/Project Driveway (#1) and the River Oaks Business Park driveway approximately 150 feet north to increase sight distance.
We also recommend resurfacing and restriping Buena Vista Drive from Dallons Drive/River Oaks Drive to the Riboli Family Winery/La Quinta driveway and installing bike lane, right turn lane, and other signage and striping consistent with the (CAMUTCD).
Pedestrian Access
The existing sidewalk on the south side of Dallons Drive is discontinuous at the eastern project limits. We recommend completing the sidewalk on the south side of Dallons Drive between Buena Vista Drive and Jena Court. We also recommend providing pedestrian paths through the parking lots consistent with existing conditions.
Funds have been collected for a crosswalk and pedestrian improvements at the Buena Vista Drive/Experimental Station Road (#2) intersection. Due to the vertical curve north of the intersection, a crosswalk was not recommended on the south side of the intersection and was proposed on the north side. We recommend the following at the intersection:.
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 14 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
• Install crosswalks on the north, east, and west legs. • Install median with pedestrian refuge to restrict eastbound left turns. • Install bulb out on the northeast corner.
• Extend the existing median north of the intersection south to the new crosswalk on the north leg. • Install pedestrian warning signage and striping and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) for the north crosswalk.
At the Buena Vista Drive/Dallons Drive/River Oaks Drive intersection the following are recommended:
• Install curb extensions on the west side of the intersection to narrow the River Oaks Drive cross section reducing pedestrian exposure.
• Provide space for a southbound bus stop south of Dallons Drive. • Relocate the west leg crosswalk, STOP bars, and STOP markings.
In addition, tactile domes should be installed on existing curb ramps or replaced on the corridor as needed.
Bicycle Access
Currently the northbound bike lane on Buena Vista Drive north of Experimental Station adjacent to the project is located curbside. We recommend restriping the northbound bike lane on Buena Vista Drive to between the through lane and the right turn lane consistent with the CAMUTCD.
The City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies sharrows on Buena Vista Drive south of Experimental Station Road; however, left turning cyclists are not recommended at SR 46 E/Buena Vista Drive (#3) and sharrows are not recommended at this time. We recommend removing parking on Buena Vista Drive from Experimental Station Road to SR 46 E to provide Class II buffered bike lanes.
We also recommend extending the existing Class II bike lanes adjacent to the Buena Vista Drive/Dallons Drive intersection to the crosswalk.
The project site plan and recommendations are shown in Figure 1 and the detailed Buena Vista Drive recommendations are shown on Figure 2.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: San Luis Obispo County SB743 Sketch VMT Tool Attachment B: Turning Movement Counts
Attachment C: Synchro Reports
Attachment D: County Standard A-5a
Exhibit E
Allegretto Expansion, Paso Robles – Transportation Analysis 15 Central Coast Transportation Consulting March 21, 2025
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation. May 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide.
_____. 2020. Highway Design Manual.
_____. 2014, Revision 8. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD).
City of El Paso De Robles. 2017. Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. _____. 2018. General Plan Circulation Element.
_____. 2013. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. _____. 2021. Local Roadway Safety Plan.
_____. 2022. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Supplement.
Federal Highway Administration. February 2010. Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections _____. July 2013. Signalized Intersections Informational Guide.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. _____. 2017. Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition.
Penfield and Smith. 2012. Ayres Hotel Project Traffic and Circulation Study.
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. 2019. Regional Transportation Plan.
Transportation Research Board. 2017. Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
Exhibit E
RESOLUTION NO. 12-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 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 (Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd.)
APN: 025-391-014
WHEREAS, PD 12-001, CUP 12-003, GPA 12-001, RZ 12-001, PR 12-004, BSPA 12-001 (The Project), has been submitted by Doug Ayres on behalf of Ayres Paso Robles, LTD. to establish a 225 room resort hotel; and
WHEREAS, the resort would also include a wellness/spa facility, conference room, restaurant, extended stay units (included in the 225 rooms proposed), wine tasting/retail boutique, and ancillary parking, gardens, orchards and vineyards; and
WHEREAS, the project is proposed to be located on the 20-acre site at the northeast corner of Buena Vista Drive and Experimental Station Road; and
WHEREAS, the project entitlements needed to establish the project include the following:
General Plan Amendment: to change the existing RMF-8 (Residential Multi-Family, 8-units per acre) to Parks and Open Space (POS) with a Resort Lodging Overlay (R/L) land use designation; Rezone: to change the existing R2 (Residential Multi-Family duplex/triplex) zoning designation to Parks and Open Space (POS) with a Resort Lodging Overlay (R/L) zoning; Specific Plan Amendment: to amend the Borkey Area Specific Plan to allow for the project which introduces a different land use than that originally approved by the plan, establish updated Specific Plan fees, and adopt a new rural street standard for Experimental Station Road; Development Plan: development plan to review the project site planning, architectural design and details, mixture of land uses, and landscaping;
Conditional Use Permit: to allow for resort hotels in the POS zoning district, and to exceed the applicable height limitations;
Tentative Parcel Map: requested by the applicant to create separate parcels for the wine tasting retail building and the wellness center from the resort hotel parcel;
Street Abandonment: request to abandon an unused portion of Experimental Station Road, at its intersection with Buena Vista Drive.
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for this project (attached as Exhibit A) which concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be approved; and
WHEREAS, Public Notice of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed as required by Section 21092 of the Public Resources Code and no written comments have been submitted; and CC Resolution 12-113 Page 1 of 47 Exhibit F
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2012, to consider facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and to accept public testimony regarding this proposed environmental determination; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the City Council on July 17, 2012, to consider facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and to accept public testimony regarding this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has entered into a signed Mitigation Agreement with the City of Paso Robles (prior to Planning Commission action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration) that establishes obligation on the part of the property owner to mitigate potential future impacts as identified in the environmental document; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached as Exhibit B to this resolution, has been reviewed by the City Council in conjunction with its review of this project and shall be carried out by the responsible parties by the identified deadlines; and
WHEREAS, based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the City Council finds no substantial evidence that there would be a significant impact on the environment based on the attached Mitigation Agreement and mitigation measures described in the Initial Study and contained in the resolution approving Planned Development 12-001 (Section 3) as site specific conditions summarized below.
Topic of Mitigation Condition #
Transportation Engineering Cond. No. 14
Air Quality AQ 1- AQ 5
Greenhouse Gas GHG-1
Biological (Kit Fox & Oak Trees) BR 1 – BR 16
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles, based on its independent judgment, approves a Mitigated Negative Declaration for PD 12-001, CUP 12-003, GPA 12-001, RZ 12-001, PR 12-004, BSPA 12-001, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Paso Robles this 17th day of July, 2012 by the following vote:
AYES: Strong, Gilman, Hamon, Picanco
NOES:
ABSTAIN: Steinbeck
ABSENT:
Duane Picanco, Mayor
ATTEST:
Caryn Jackson, Deputy City Clerk
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 2 of 47 Exhibit F
Exhibit F
1 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF PASO ROBLES
1. PROJECT TITLE: Ayres Paso Robles, LTD.
Concurrent Entitlements: PD 12-001, CUP 12-003, GPA 12-001, RZ 12-001, TPM 12-004, SA 12-001, Waiver 12-001
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Contact:
Phone: (805) 237-3970
Email:
3. PROJECT LOCATION: Northeast corner of Buena Vista & Experimental Station Roads, Paso Robles, CA (APN 025-391-014)
4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Ayres Paso Robles, LTD
Contact Person: Doug Ayres
Phone: (714) 540-6060
Email: [email protected]
5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RMF-8 (Residential Multi-Family, 8 units per acre)
6. ZONING: R2 (Residential Multi-family, 8 units per acre)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal to establish a 225 room resort hotel with a wellness/spa facility, conference room, restaurant, extended-stay units (included within the 225 rooms proposed), wine tasting/retail boutique, and ancillary parking, landscaping, gardens, orchards and vineyards.
The project entitlements needed to establish the project include the following:
General Plan Amendment: to change the existing RMF-8 (Residential Multi-Family, 8-units per acre) to Parks and Open Space (POS) with a Resort Lodging Overlay (R/L) land use designation; Rezone: to change the existing R2 (Residential Multi-Family duplex/triplex) zoning designation to Parks and Open Space (POS) with a Resort Lodging Overlay (R/L) zoning; Specific Plan Amendment: to amend the Borkey Area Specific Plan to allow for the project which deviates from the adopted specific plan land use pattern, and establish updated Specific Plan fees; Development Plan: development plan to review the project site planning, architectural design and details, mixture of land uses, and landscaping;
Conditional Use Permit: to allow for resort hotels in the POS zoning district, and to exceed the applicable height limitations;
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 3 of 47 Exhibit F
2 Tentative Parcel Map: requested by the applicant to create separate parcels for the wine tasting retail building and the wellness center from the resort hotel parcel; Waiver: requested by the applicant to waive the requirement to install curb, gutter and sidewalk along Experimental Station Road.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The project is located in the northeast area of Paso Robles, at the northeast corner of Buena Vista Drive and Experimental Station Road, in Subarea D of the Borkey Area Specific Plan, near the intersection of Buena Vista Drive and Highway 46 (refer to Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). The site is undeveloped. The existing landform of the property consists of flat areas toward the west and northern areas of the property. There are two hills on the site, with slopes between 25 – 35% in the southeasterly portion of the site. There are no significant biological resources on the property. However, the property is within the migration corridor for the San Joaquin Kit Fox.
The site is largely surrounded by urban land uses. Surrounding land uses include public-institutional (community college) to the north, multi-family residential to the northwest, neighborhood commercial to the west, a hotel and restaurant to the south, a winery to the southwest, and single-family, rural residential to the east.
8. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 4 of 47 Exhibit F
3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature: Date
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 5 of 47 Exhibit F
4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. “Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “"Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance CC Resolution 12-113 Page 6 of 47 Exhibit F
5 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Discussion (a-c): 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. While the project will alter the visual character of the existing site, the new development provides ample open areas that include orchards, vineyards and landscaping (approximately a third of the property) and would therefore be compatible with the visual quality of surrounding development. However, 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. Therefore, this project will not result in significant impacts to scenic resources. d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1, 2,
10)
Discussion: The proposed building 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 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.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 7 of 47 Exhibit F
6 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The project site is identified in the City General Plan, Open Space Element in Figure OS-1, State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The property is identified as having soil that is “Farmland of Local Importance”. The project would not convert Prime, Unique or Farmland of Statewide Importance to other uses. The property does not appear to have been used for agricultural uses in the last several decades, and is surrounding by urban land uses. Therefore, this project would result in less than significant impacts to agricultural soils monitored in the State FMMP. b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Discussion: The site is not under Williamson Act contract, nor is it currently used for agricultural purposes.
Additionally, agricultural uses such as “crop production” are not permitted in the existing multi-family zoning district.
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 5114(g))?
Discussion: There are no forest land or timberland resources within the City of Paso Robles. d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion: See II c. above.
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion: Given the existing characteristics of the site including the surrounding development, location to the State Highway and City infrastructure, development of this site would not have a significant impact to agricultural or forestry resources.
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
(Source: Attachment 5)
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 8 of 47 Exhibit F
7 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion: The proposed project is located within an urban area of the City with access to an existing transit stop within approximately 0.1 mile of the project site. A planned future bikeway is located along Buena Vista Road, adjacent to the project site. Furthermore, as described in III c. below, the proposed project would not result in operational emissions that would exceed SLOAPCD’s significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct continued implementation of the Air District’s Clean Air Plan. This impact is considered less than significant. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation? (Source: 11)
Discussion: There are no existing or projected air quality violations within the vicinity of the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. Short-term construction-generated emissions could potentially exceed APCDrecommended significance thresholds. As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant. However with mitigation measures incorporated impacts are considered less than significant. See Attachment 4, Mitigation Measures Summary.
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? (Source: 11)
Discussion:
Short-term Construction Emissions
Short-term increases in emissions would occur during the construction process. Construction-generated emissions are of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. The construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with site grading and excavation, paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, as well as the movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces. Short-term construction emissions would result in increased emissions of ozone-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and emissions of PM. Emissions of ozone-precursors would result from the operation of on- and off-road motorized vehicles and equipment. Emissions of airborne PM are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities and can result in increased concentrations of PM that can adversely affect nearby sensitive land uses.
Detailed construction information is not currently available for the proposed project. However, construction emissions modeling was conducted using the CalEEMod computer program, based on the default construction schedule durations and equipment requirements identified in the model. Equipment load factors were revised to match those identified in the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (2011), per SLOAPCD recommendations. Site preparation and grading activities for the entire site were assumed to occur during the initial development phase. Asphalt paving emissions were adjusted to quantify emissions associated with anticipated areas of asphalt coating application for parking stalls and handicap markers.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 9 of 47 Exhibit F
8 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Estimated construction emissions for the construction pollutants of primary concern (i.e., ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5) are summarized in Table 7. Estimated emissions in comparison to SLOAPCD significance thresholds are summarized in Table 8 and Table 9. As indicated in Table 8, combined quarterly emissions of ROG and NOX occurring during the initial development of the proposed project would total approximately 2.6 tons/year, which would exceed the SLOAPCD’s significance threshold of 2.5 tons/quarter. These emissions of ROG and NOX assume that site preparation and site grading activities would occur during the same calendar quarter. Emissions of DPM and fugitive dust generated during the initial development phase, as well as, emissions generated during development of Phase 3, would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. Because estimated emissions of ROG and NOX occurring during initial site preparation and grading would exceed applicable thresholds, this impact would be considered potentially significant.
Table 7
Estimated Construction Emissions Without Mitigation
Construction
Phase
Construction
Years
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
R
O
G
N
OX
PM10 Tota
l
PM2
.5
Dus
t
Exh
aust
To
tal
Phase 1 & 2 2012 - 2014 8.5
7 69.
87 18.3
5 3.37 21.
72 12.8
4 Phase 3 Year 2017 3.6
9 23.
24 0.36 1.33 1.69
1.34 Assumes development of Project Phases 1 and 2 could occur simultaneously.
Refer to Appendix C for modeling output files and assumptions.
Table 8
Estimated Construction Emissions Without Mitigation
in Comparison to SLOCAPCD Significance Thresholds
Project Phases 1 & 2 (Construction Years 2012-2014)
Criteria Emissions
SLOCAPCD
Significance
Threshold
Exceed
Significance
Threshold?
Maximum Daily Emissions (ROG+NOX): 78.44 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No Maximum Quarterly Emissions (ROG+NOX): 2.6 tons/qtr 2.5 tons/qtr Yes Maximum Daily Emissions (DPM): 3.37 lbs/day 7.0 lbs/day No Maximum Quarterly Emissions (DPM): 0.12 tons/qtr 0.13 tons/qtr No Maximum Quarterly Emissions (Fugitive PM): 0.3 tons/qtr 2.5 tons/qtr No Detailed construction phasing information is not yet available. Emissions were quantified based on default construction schedule durations contained in the CalEEMod computer model. Emissions associated with the application of architectural coatings were averaged over the duration of the building construction phase.
Refer to Appendix C for modeling output files and assumptions.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 10 of 47 Exhibit F
9 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table 9
Estimated Construction Emissions Without Mitigation
in Comparison to SLOCAPCD Significance Thresholds
Project Phase 3 (Construction Year 2017)
Criteria Emissions
SLOCAPC
D
Significance
Threshold
Exceed
Significance
Threshold?
Maximum Daily Emissions (ROG+NOX): 26.93
lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Maximum Quarterly Emissions (ROG+NOX): 0.90 tons/qtr 2.5 tons/qtr No Maximum Daily Emissions (DPM): 1.30 lbs/day 7.0 lbs/day No Maximum Quarterly Emissions (DPM): 0.04 tons/qtr 0.13 tons/qtr No Maximum Quarterly Emissions (Fugitive PM): 0.01 tons/qtr 2.5 tons/qtr No Detailed construction phasing information is not yet available. Emissions were quantified based on default construction schedule durations contained in the CalEEMod computer model. Emissions associated with the application of architectural coatings were averaged over the duration of the building construction phase.
Refer to Appendix C for modeling output files and assumptions.
Significance After Mitigation
With mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Measure Summary, (Attachment 4), which includes SLOAPCD-recommended Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment, and additional mitigation measures included to encourage the reuse and recycling of construction materials and the use of heavy-duty construction equipment meeting CARB’s Tier 3 engine emission standards, short-term construction-generated emissions would be reduced to below 2.5 tons/quarter and would not exceed SLOCAPCD significance thresholds. With mitigation incorporated this impact would be considered less than significant.
Long-term Operational Emissions
Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be predominantly be the result of mobile sources. To a lesser extent, emissions associated with area sources, such as landscape maintenance activities, as well as, use of electricity and natural gas would also contribute to increased emissions.
Operational emissions were quantified using the CalEEMod computer program based on the default modeling parameters contained in the model for San Luis Obispo County. The trip-generation rates and non-employee trip distances were adjusted to reflect anticipated project-specific characteristics. Estimated long-term operational emissions are summarized in Table 10. Emissions modeling assumptions and results are included in Appendix C of the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Impact Assessment (see Attachment 4).
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 11 of 47 Exhibit F
10 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Table 10
Estimated Operational Emissions Without Mitigation
Source
Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs/day)
RO
G
NO
X
PM10 Total
PM2.
5 Fug
itive
Exh
aust
Tot
al(1)
Phases 1 & 2 (Operational Year 2014)
Summer Conditions 7.9
2 9.02 5.64 0.23 5.97 0.53
Winter Conditions 8.2
3 9.47 5.64 0.23 5.98 0.53
Phases 1, 2 & 3 (Operational Year 2018)
Summer Conditions 9.3
9 9.22 7.50 0.27 7.93 0.51
Winter Conditions 9.6
7 9.58 7.50 0.27 7.93 0.51
1. May include indirect emissions from energy use not reflected in exhaust and fugitive categories.
Refer to Appendix C for modeling output files and assumptions.
Operational emissions are compared to the SLOCAPCD’s significance thresholds in Table 11. As indicated in Table 11, operational emissions are not projected to exceed SLOCAPCD’s significance thresholds. Longterm operational emissions attributable to the proposed project would be considered less than significant.
Table 11
Estimated Operational Emissions
in Comparison to SLOCAPCD Significance Thresholds
Criteria Emissions
SLOCAPCD
Significance
Threshold
Exceed
Significanc
e
Threshold?
Maximum Daily ROG+NOX Emissions (Winter): 19.25 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Maximum Annual ROG+NOX Emissions: 3.39 tons/year 25 tons/year No Maximum Daily DPM Emissions: 0.004 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day No Maximum Daily Fugitive PM Emissions: 7.5 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No Maximum Annual Fugitive PM Emissions: 1.18 tons/year 25 tons/year No Maximum Daily CO Emissions: 43.14 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No Represents maximum emissions associated with the proposed project, including interim year 2014 and buildout year 2018 conditions, as noted in Table 10. DPM emissions assume heavy-duty trucks constitute 0.015831 percent of the fleet mix, based on default model parameters contained in CalEEMod for San Luis Obispo County.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 12 of 47 Exhibit F
11 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? (Source: 11)
Discussion: The exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations may potentially occur during construction and long-term operation of the proposed project. Short-term exposure to TACs during the construction phase would be primarily associated with emissions from diesel-fueled off-road equipment.
Long-term exposure to pollutant concentrations are typically associated with potential increases in localized concentrations of mobile-source CO at nearby congested roadway intersections and TACs associated with increased exposure to motor vehicle traffic, particularly among roadways that experience high volumes of diesel-fueled trucks. Potential increases in localized concentrations of pollutants associated with short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project are discussed separately, as follows:
Quality Impacts
Naturally-occurring asbestos, which was identified as a TAC in 1986 by CARB, is located in many parts of California and is commonly associated with ultramafic rock. The project site is not located near any areas that are likely to contain ultramafic rock. As a result, risk of exposure to asbestos during the construction process would be considered less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions during construction from the use of off-road diesel equipment for site grading and excavation, paving and other construction activities. Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily associated with long-term exposure and associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of dieselpowered construction equipment, however, would be temporary and episodic and would occur over a relatively large area. In addition, as noted in “Impact C” above, uncontrolled construction-generated emissions of DPM would not exceed corresponding SLOAPCD’s significance thresholds. However, site preparation and grading activities could result in increased emissions of fugitive dust which could adversely affect nearby receptors. As a result, short-term increases of fugitive dust would be considered potentially significant.
Long-term Air Quality Impacts
Toxic Air Contaminants
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the long-term operation of any major onsite stationary sources of TACs, nor would project implementation result in a significant increase in diesel-fueled vehicles traveling along area roadways. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of sensitive land uses within approximately 500 feet of a major transportation corridor.
Furthermore, as noted in Impact C, operational emissions of DPM would not exceed SLOAPCD’s corresponding threshold of 1.25 lbs/day (refer to Table 5). For these reasons, long-term exposure to TACs would be considered less than significant.
Mobile-Source Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is the primary criteria air pollutant of local concern associated with the proposed project.
Under specific meteorological and operational conditions, such as near areas of heavily congested vehicle traffic, CO concentrations may reach unhealthy levels. If inhaled, CO can be adsorbed easily by the blood stream and can inhibit oxygen delivery to the body, which can cause significant health effects ranging from slight headaches to death. The most serious effects are felt by individuals susceptible to oxygen deficiencies, including people with anemia and those suffering from chronic lung or heart disease.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 13 of 47 Exhibit F
12 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Mobile-source emissions of CO are a direct function of traffic volume, speed, and delay. Transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. For this reason, modeling of mobile-source CO concentrations is typically recommended for sensitive land uses located near signalized roadway intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or F).
Based on the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project, nearby signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better, under existing-plus-project conditions. With implementation of planned future roadway improvements, nearby signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS D, or better, under future plus project conditions (Penfield & Smith 2012). In comparison to the CO screening criteria, implementation of the proposed project would not result in or contribute to unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E, or worse) at nearby intersections. In addition, implementation of the proposed project would not result in localized emissions of CO that would exceed SLOAPCD’s localized CO significance threshold of 550 lbs/day. As noted earlier in this report, a majority of the project-generated emissions would be attributable to mobile sources, which would be generated on roadways throughout the basin. For the reasons discussed above and given the relatively low background CO concentrations in the project area, this impact would be considered less than significant.
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? (Source: 11)
Discussion: The proposed project would not result in the installation of any equipment or processes that would be considered major odor-emission sources. However, construction of the proposed project would involve the use of a variety of gasoline or diesel-powered equipment that would emit exhaust fumes. Exhaust fumes, particularly diesel-exhaust, may be considered objectionable by some people. In addition pavement coatings and architectural coatings used during project construction would also emit temporary odors.
However, construction-generated emissions would occur intermittently throughout the workday and would dissipate rapidly within increasing distance from the source. As a result, short-term construction activities would not expose a substantial number of people to frequent odorous emissions. For these reasons, potential exposure of sensitive receptors to odorous emissions would be considered less than significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 14 of 47 Exhibit F
13 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
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?
(Source: Attachment 6,7&8)
Discussion (a-f):
a. The project site contains 20 acres of annual grassland and 1 acre of coyote brush scrub (Althouse and Meade). Neither of these vegetation communities is protected. Annual grassland is sometimes referred to as non-native grassland and is dominated by wild oats, mustard, and brome grasses. The coyote brush scrub is associated with areas identified as previously disturbed and left untended; the species composition is similar to those found in the vicinity.
Vegetation removal and construction activities associated with the proposed project could have adverse impacts to nesting birds if conducted during the nesting season (March 15 through August 15). The potential for adverse effects to nesting birds can be reduced through mitigation measures. See Attachment 3, Mitigation Measures Summary.
The property is located within a San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) migration corridor and the site grassland provides suitable habitat for this species. The SJKF is listed by the State as a “threatened” species, and Federally listed as an “endangered” species. The SJKF and their habitat are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Due to the site’s isolated location in the migration corridor, construction of the project has a low potential to result in direct take of kit fox, however the potential can be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of standard construction-related kit fox protection measures. Impacts to their habitat would be considered significant unless mitigated. The project incorporates on-site mitigation as well as off-site mitigation. A Kit Fox Habitat Evaluation was prepared for this project. It resulted in recommended habitat mitigation of 2:1, which was confirmed by the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicant will coordinate with the City and the California Department of Fish and Game to execute appropriate mitigation as provided in Attachment 3, Mitigation CC Resolution 12-113 Page 15 of 47 Exhibit F
14 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Measures Summary.
There are no wetlands located on the project site, therefore there will be no impacts to wetland resources as a result of this project. There are also no creeks, streams or other surface water resources located on the site.
There are 3 oak trees on the property adjacent to Experimental Station Road that are in healthy condition.
None of the trees are proposed for removal, and they will be protected per the project arborist’s recommendations during construction in compliance with the City’s Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The trees are not within areas proposed for construction, however frontage improvements will need to be designed around the trees. Therefore, impacts to the oak trees will be less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated.
There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or other related plans applicable in the City of Paso Robles.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(Source: Attachment 8)
Discussion (a-d): There are no historic resources (as defined), located on the site. There are also no archaeological or paleontological resources known to be present on the site or in the near vicinity. Since the property is not located within proximity to a creek or river or known cultural resource it is unlikely that there are resources located on the site. Additionally, a prior project (General Plan Amendment and Rezone) approved for this project site required contacting the State Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and contacting all known local tribes, to determine if this property is a “sacred site” in accordance with Senate Bill 18. The NAHC was contacted again for review of this project and no Native American Tribes have reported that this property was previously used by Native Americans or that it is a sacred site.
There are no known 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.
Therefore, this project will result in less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 16 of 47 Exhibit F
15 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. (Sources: 1, 2, & 3)
Discussion: The potential for and mitigation of impacts that may result from fault rupture in the project area are identified and addressed in the General Plan EIR, pg. 4.5-8. 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 AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones within City limits. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
(Sources: 1, 2, & 3)
Discussion: The proposed project will be constructed to current CBC codes. The General Plan EIR identified impacts resulting from ground shaking as less than significant and provided mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the design of this project including adequate structural design and not constructing over active or potentially active faults. Therefore, impacts that may result from seismic ground shaking are considered less than significant.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 2 &
3)
Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in an area with soil conditions that have a low potential for liquefaction or other type of ground failure due to seismic events and soil conditions.
To implement the EIR’s mitigation measures to reduce this potential impact, the City has a standard condition to require submittal of soils and geotechnical reports, which include site-specific analysis of liquefaction potential for all building permits for new construction, and incorporation of the recommendations of said reports into the design of the project.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 17 of 47 Exhibit F
16 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv. Landslides?
Discussion: Per the General Plan Safety Element, the project site is in an area that is designated a lowrisk area for landslides. Therefore, potential impacts due to landslides is less than significant. b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? (Sources: 1, 2, & 3)
Discussion: Per the General Plan EIR the soil condition is not erosive or otherwise unstable. As such, no significant impacts are anticipated. A geotechnical/ soils analysis will be required prior to issuance of building permits that will evaluate the site specific soil stability and suitability of grading and retaining walls proposed. This study will determine the necessary grading techniques that will ensure that potential impacts due to soil stability will not occur. An erosion control plan shall be required to be approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of site grading.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Discussion: See response to item a.iii, above.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the California Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Discussion: See response to item a.iii, above.
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?
Discussion: The development will be connected to the City’s municipal wastewater system, therefore there would not be impacts related use of septic tanks.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 18 of 47 Exhibit F
17 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
greenhouse gasses?
Discussion (a-b):
GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the CalEEMod computer program.
Construction equipment load factors were adjusted to reflect those currently identified in the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (2011). Equipment requirements, hours of use, construction employee trips, and equipment emission factors were based on the default parameters contained in the models. Operational vehicle tripgeneration rates and non-employee commute trip distances were adjusted to reflect anticipated project-specific conditions. Modeling assumptions and output files are included in Attachment 5, Appendix C of this report.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Project-generated emissions exceeding the SLOAPCD recommended significance thresholds for GHG emissions, as summarized in Table 12, would be considered to have a potentially significant impact on the environment, which could conflict with implementation of applicable plans, policies and regulations pertaining to the reduction of GHG emissions, including AB 32.
Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 from mobile sources. To a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as CH4 and N2O, would also be generated. Short-term and long-term GHG emissions associated with the development of the proposed project are discussed in greater detail, as follows:
Short-term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Estimated increases in GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed project are summarized in Table 14. Based on the modeling conducted, annual emissions of greenhouse gases associated with construction of the proposed project would range from approximately 77 to 566 MTCO2e, depending on the specific facilities being constructed. In total, over the life of the project, combined construction-generated emissions would total approximately 1,426 MTCO2e. There would also be a small amount of GHG emissions from waste generated during construction; however, this amount is speculative. Actual emissions may vary, depending on the final construction schedules, equipment required, and activities conducted.
Table 14
Annual Construction-Generated GHG Emissions
Construction Year GHG Emissions/Construction Year
(MTCO2e/Year)
Year 2012 327.33
Year 2013 566.68
Year 2014 77.03
Year 2017 455.13
Refer to Appendix C for modeling assumptions and results.
Long-term Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Estimated long-term increases in GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are summarized in Table 15. Based on the modeling conducted, operational GHG emissions would be predominantly associated with mobile sources and energy use, which would constitute roughly 90 percent of total project-generated GHG emissions. To a lesser extent, GHG emissions would also be associated with solid waste generation, as CC Resolution 12-113 Page 19 of 47 Exhibit F
18 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
well as, water use and conveyance.
Table 15
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Year 2020)
Without Mitigation
Source
Net Change in Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
Construction (Amortized)(1) 57
Energy Use 861
Motor Vehicles 806
Waste Generation 72
Water Use and Conveyance 17
Carbon Sequestration -24
Total: 1,813
SLOAPCD Significance Threshold: 1,150
Exceeds Significance Threshold?: Yes
1. Based on a combined total of approximately 1,426 MTCO2e amortized over an average project life of 25 years.
2. Carbon sequestration includes changes in onsite vegetation, including proposed vineyard and orchard areas.
Assumes 20 acres of initial grassland, 5.3 final acres of vineyard, and planting of an estimated 762 trees, including fruit orchard and miscellaneous domestic landscaping trees.
Refer to Appendix C for modeling assumptions and results.
As noted in Table 15, the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 1,813 MTCO2e/year.
Project-generated GHG emissions would exceed the SLOAPCD’s significance threshold of 1,150 MTCO2e/year. Project-generated GHG emissions would be considered to have a potentially significant impact on the environment, which could conflict with implementation of applicable plans, policies and regulations pertaining to the reduction of GHG emissions, including AB 32. Mitigation Measures are provided in Attachment 3, Mitigation Measures Summary.
Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of GHG-reduction mitigation measures sufficient to reduce GHG’s to below the SLOAPCD’s GHG significance threshold of 1,150 MTCO2e/year, this impact would be considered less than significant. Examples of GHG-reduction measures, including those currently being considered for implementation by the proposed project applicant, are summarized below. Additional information regarding many of these mitigation measures is included in Attachment 3, Mitigation Measures Summary.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures:
Install high-efficiency (e.g, LED) exterior lighting. Install EnerSaver systems in guest rooms.
Increase building energy efficiencies beyond Title 24 standards. Participate in SLO Car Free program.
Participate in FunRide program. Includes an onsite designated parking space for a FunRide vehicle. Provide a shuttle service for guests to local destinations. Include provisions to provide bicycle parking facilities, end of trip facilities (i.e., showers, lockers, etc. to promote employee and guest bicycle use.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 20 of 47 Exhibit F
19 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Provide onsite bicycle rentals to promote bicycle use for guests. Provide pedestrian access to the nearby public transit stop. Include installation of low-flow bathroom and kitchen faucets, low-flow toilets, and low-flow showers. Install water efficient irrigation systems.
Estimated GHG emissions, with implementation of the above measures currently being considered, are summarized in Table 16. As noted, implementation of the mitigation measures currently being considered would reduce operational GHG emissions from a total of 1,813 MTCO2e/year to approximately 1,561 MTCO2e/year; an estimated reduction of approximately 252 MTCO2e/year. As also noted in Table 15, increased carbon sequestration provided by the proposed onsite vineyard and orchard would reduce GHG emissions by an average of approximately 24 MTCO2e/year. Actual GHG reductions would depend on the measures ultimately included.
Based on the measures currently identified, additional reductions in GHG emissions in excess of approximately 411 MTCO2e/year would be required to reduce operational emissions to below the SLOAPCD’s significance threshold of 1,150 MTCO2e/year. Additional reductions could be achieved through implementation of additional GHG-reduction measures, such as the installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. Actual reductions associated with solar PV systems would depend on various factors including final site and building design, solar orientation of roof-top areas, and the size and design of the system installed. For instance, assuming power generation from solar PV systems of 500,000 to 750,000 kWh/year, associated reductions in GHG emissions would range from approximately 154 to 225 MTCO2e/year, respectively. Implementation of additional onsite mitigation and/or payment of fees to the SLOAPCD for offsite mitigation, as required by Mitigation Measure GHG-1, would reduce this impact to a less-thansignificant level.
Table 16
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Year 2020)
With Mitigation
Source
Net Change in Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
Construction (Amortized)(1) 57
Energy Use(2) 651
Motor Vehicles(3) 792
Waste Generation 72
Water Use and Conveyance(4) 14
Carbon Sequestration(5)-24
Total: 1,561
SLOAPCD Significance Threshold: 1,150
Exceeds Significance Threshold?: Yes
Remaining GHG Emissions to be Mitigated: 411
1. Based on a combined total of approximately 1,426 MTCO2e amortized over an average project life of 25 years.
2. Assumes an estimated 20% above Title 24 energy-efficiency standards, including installation of the EnerSaver system. Includes installation of exterior LED lighting and an estimated energy use reduction of 75% in comparison to standard incandescent lighting.
3. Includes participation in SLO Car Free and FunRide programs, designated parking space for a FunRide automobile, implementation of a guest shuttle system, installation of facilities to promote bicycle use and access CC Resolution 12-113 Page 21 of 47 Exhibit F
20 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
to local transit. Based on the following assumptions:
SLO Car Free: Assumes five percent of trips originating from southern California would participate in SLO Car Free for estimated annual reductions of 16,671 vehicle miles traveled. FunRide: Based on information provided by FunRide staff, inclusion of a designated parking space for a FunRide vehicle at the hotel would achieve estimated annual reductions of approximately 18,000 VMT.
Shuttle Service: Based on a shuttle trip-generation rate of 0.174/room, provided by the project applicant for similar hotels. Assumes 225 rooms at buildout with annual reductions in guest related VMT of 29,807 miles.
Bicycle & Transit: Includes provisions to provide bicycle parking facilities, end of trip facilities (i.e., showers, lockers, etc.), proximity to existing or planned future bicycle paths, and access to existing or planned public transit service. Combined estimated reductions in local employee and guest trips of 11,542 VMT.
4. Includes installation of low-flow bathroom and kitchen faucets, low-flow toilets, low-flow showers, and installation of water efficient irrigation systems. Based on CalEEMod default reductions in water use.
5. Carbon sequestration includes changes in onsite vegetation, including proposed vineyard and orchard areas.
Assumes 20 acres of initial grassland, 5.3 final acres of vineyard, and planting of an estimated 762 trees, including fruit orchard and miscellaneous domestic landscaping trees. Carbon sequestration for trees is based on an average annual reduction calculated over a period of approximately 20 years.
Refer to Appendix C for modeling assumptions and results.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Discussion: The project would use industry-standard landscape and building maintenance products which would be stored in compliance with all applicable safety requirements. 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. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Discussion: See VIII a. above.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Discussion: The proposed hotel resort project will not emit hazardous materials and will not impact schools within CC Resolution 12-113 Page 22 of 47 Exhibit F
21 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
the vicinity.
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?
Discussion: The project site is not identified as a hazardous site per state Codes. 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?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Discussion: (e. & f.) The project site is not located within an airport safety zone. g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Discussion: The project will not impair or interfere with adopted emergency response routes or plans. h. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion: The project is not in the vicinity of wildland fire hazard areas.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Discussion: The proposed project is designed to retain stormwater on-site through installation of various lowimpact development (LID) features. The project was been designed to reduce impervious surfaces, preserve CC Resolution 12-113 Page 23 of 47 Exhibit F
22 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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.
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., Would
the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
Would decreased rainfall infiltration or
groundwater recharge reduce stream
baseflow? (Source: 7)
Discussion: 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. The General Plan accounts for water resource demand for a combination of resort and residential land uses on this property. Water demand was calculated for the proposed project and it is determined that the project with all resort uses, including landscaping, vineyards and orchards, would use 63% as much water as would be needed for multi-family development currently planned for under existing zoning (136 dwelling units). Therefore, this project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater basin, and impacts to groundwater resources would be less than significant. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? (Source: 10) Discussion: 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. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(Source: 10)
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 24 of 47 Exhibit F
23 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion: See IX c. above. Drainage resulting from development of this property will be maintained onsite and will not contribute to flooding on- or off-site. Thus, flooding impacts from the project are considered less than significant.
e. 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? (Source: 10)
Discussion: As noted in IX a. above, surface drainage will be managed onsite and will not add to offsite drainage facilities. Additionally, onsite LID drainage facilities will be designed to clean pollutants before they enter the groundwater basin. Therefore, drainage impacts that may result from this project would be less than significant.
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Discussion: See answers IX a. – e. This project will result in less than significant impacts to water quality. g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map?
Discussion: 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.
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Discussion: See IX h. above.
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Discussion: See IX h. above. Additionally, there are no levees or dams in the City. j. Inundation by mudflow?
Discussion: 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. k. Conflict with any Best Management
Practices found within the City’s Storm
Water Management Plan?
Discussion: The project will implement the City’s Storm Water Management Plan - Best Management Practices, and would therefore not conflict with these measures. l. Substantially decrease or degrade watershed
storage of runoff, wetlands, riparian areas,
aquatic habitat, or associated buffer zones?
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 25 of 47 Exhibit F
24 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion: 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.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
Discussion: The project is largely surrounded by non-residential land uses, except for low density residences located to the east of the site. Additionally, the eastern area of the project site is proposed to include lowdensity “extended stay” cottage type accommodations that would provide a smooth transition to the residential development to the east of the project. The project will therefore not physically divide an established community.
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Discussion: The existing entitlements were not adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. 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. It also includes an amendment to the Borkey Area Specific Plan for consistency. The proposed change of land use designation and zoning would complement and be compatible with the surrounding land. c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Discussion: There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans established in this area of the City. Therefore there would be no conflicts.
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
(Source: 1)
Discussion: There are no known mineral resources at this project site. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1)
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 26 of 47 Exhibit F
25 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Discussion: There are no known mineral resources at this project site.
XII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? (Source: 1)
Discussion: The project site is located outside noise impacts zones as mapped in the City’s General Plan Noise Element that may result from Highway 46, thus noise will not significantly impact use of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project includes land uses such as lodging, retail, wellness center and a restaurant, which do not create excessive noise that may impact surrounding properties. b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Discussion: The project may result in short term construction noise and vibration from machinery, however, the construction noise is not anticipated to be excessive nor operate in evening hours. Therefore, impacts from groundborne vibration noise would be considered less than significant. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Discussion: As noted in XII a. the proposed land use does not create significant noise, and would therefore not result in contributing permanent increases in ambient noise levels. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Discussion: See XII a. – c. above.
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
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
(Sources: 1, 4)
Discussion: 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.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 27 of 47 Exhibit F
26 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1)
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Discussion (a-c): The project site is currently undeveloped, vacant land and jobs created can be absorbed by the local and regional employment market, and will not create the demand for new housing or population growth or displace housing or people.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: 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 of the public services:
a. Fire protection? (Sources: 1,10)
b. Police protection? (Sources: 1,10)
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities? (Sources: 1,10)
Discussion (a-e): 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, and the incremental impacts to services can be mitigated through payment of development impact fees. Therefore, impacts that may result from this project on public services are considered less than significant.
XV. RECREATION
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 28 of 47 Exhibit F
27 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
Discussion (a&b):
As a commercial development project that will not encourage new housing demands and use of recreational facilities, it will not result in impacts to recreational facilities.
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures or
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Discussion: The proposed project provides frontage improvements that includes a sidewalk and Class II bike lane which is consistent with City standards and the 2009 Bike Master Plan. A transit stop is located within one block from the project site on Buena Vista Drive (in front of Cuesta Community College). The project is consistent with the policies of the City’s 2011 Circulation Element by providing facilities for multiple modes of transportation.
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
(Source: Attachment 9)
Discussion (a,b): The traffic study prepared for this project by Penfield & Smith evaluated project related traffic impacts for existing plus-project traffic conditions. The study determined that no project-specific impacts are projected for either Buena Vista Drive or the 4 nearby intersections, including SR 46/Buena Vista; SR 46/Golden Hill; N. River Rd/River Oaks Dr.; Buena Vista/Dallons Rd.
The applicant shall be required to pay transportation impact fees established by City Council in affect at the time of occupancy to mitigate future impacts with planned improvements by the City and Caltrans.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 29 of 47 Exhibit F
28 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Discussion: The project site is not located within an airport land use planning area. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Discussion: There are no hazardous design features associated with, planned for or will result from this project.
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion: The project will not impede emergency access, and is designed in compliance with all emergency access safety features and to City emergency access standards. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such facilities?
Discussion: The project incorporates multi-modal transportation facilities and access such as bike lanes, sidewalks, walkways and is located near a transit stop. Therefore, it does not conflict with policies and plans regarding these facilities.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Discussion: The project will comply with all applicable wastewater treatment requirements required by the City, RWQCB and the State. Therefore, there will be no impacts resulting from wastewater treatment from this project.
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Discussion: Per the City’s General Plan EIR, Urban Water Management Plan, and Sewer System Management Plan, the City’s water and wastewater treatment facilities are adequately sized, including CC Resolution 12-113 Page 30 of 47 Exhibit F
29 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
planned facility upgrades, to provide water needed for this project and treat effluent resulting from this project. Therefore, this project will not result in the need to construct new facilities. c. Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Discussion: 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. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Discussion: As noted in section IX on Hydrology, this project will use less water for the proposed project than planned for under existing zoning. The project can be served with existing water resource entitlements available and will not require expansion of new water resource entitlements. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the projects projected demand in
addition to the providers existing
commitments?
Discussion: Per the City’s SSMP The City’s wastewater treatment facility has adequate capacity to serve this project as well as existing commitments.
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Discussion: Per the City’s Landfill Master Plan, the City’s landfill has adequate capacity to accommodate construction related and operational solid waste disposal for this project. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion: The project will comply with all federal, state, and local solid waste regulations.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 31 of 47 Exhibit F
30 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Discussion: As noted within this environmental document, and with the mitigation measures outlined in the document, the projects 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 as well as no impact to fish and wildlife populations. The site is routinely maintained and mowed, so impact to fish, wildlife, of plant habitat is less than significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
Discussion: The project will not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Discussion: The project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 32 of 47 Exhibit F
31 EARLIER ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND MATERIALS.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis and Background / Explanatory Materials Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:
1 City of Paso Robles General Plan City of Paso Robles Community Development Department
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
2 City of Paso Robles Zoning Code Same as above
3 City of Paso Robles Environmental Impact Report for General Plan Update
Same as above
4 2005 Airport Land Use Plan Same as above
5 City of Paso Robles Municipal Code Same as above
6 City of Paso Robles Water Master Plan Same as above
7 City of Paso Robles Urban Water Management Plan 2005 Same as above 8 City of Paso Robles Sewer Master Plan Same as above
9 City of Paso Robles Housing Element Same as above
10 City of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of
Approval for New Development
Same as above
11 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Guidelines for Impact Thresholds
APCD
3433 Roberto Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
12 San Luis Obispo County – Land Use Element San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
13 USDA, Soils Conservation Service,
Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County,
Paso Robles Area, 1983
Soil Conservation Offices
Paso Robles, Ca 93446
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 33 of 47 Exhibit F
32 Attachments:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan
3. Mitigation Measure Summary
4. Air Quality and GHG Assessment (On-file in Community Development Department)
5. San Joaquin Kit Fox Evaluation (On-file in Community Development Department)
6. Arborist Report (On-file in Community Development Department)
7. Traffic Study (On-file in Community Development Department) CC Resolution 12-113 Page 34 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 35 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 36 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 37 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 38 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 39 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 40 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 41 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 42 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 43 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 44 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 45 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 46 of 47 Exhibit F
CC Resolution 12-113 Page 47 of 47 Exhibit F
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION 26-XXX (B)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 25-02 (P25-0027)
WHEREAS, Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd, (applicant) has applied for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezoning entitlements (project) to expand the existing Allegretto Resort at 2700 Buena Vista Drive to the neighboring 10.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive in the City of Paso Robles (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, 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; and WHEREAS, consistent with Paso Robles Municipal Code Sections 21.08.020 and 21.10.050, the City Council is the review authority for General Plan Amendments based on a recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Consistent with Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 21.09.020.B, multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated for any of the applications; and
Attachment 3
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65356(a) provides that cities shall adopt or amend a general plan by resolution; 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, on March 17, 2026, the City Council 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Findings. Based upon the facts and analysis presented in the staff report and public testimony received, the City Council makes the following findings:
General Plan Amendment Findings
A. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with all other provisions of the general plan including:
a. Land Use Goal 1, which is to “Strive to maintain a balanced community, where the majority of residents can live, work, and shop” supported by Land Use Policy 1A, which is to “Provide an appropriate mix and diversity of land uses.” b. Land Use Policy 2B, Action Item 2, which is to “Adopt design standards to clearly articulate how important public views, gateways and landmarks are to be maintained/ enhanced”. c. Land Use Policy 2B, Action Item 4, which is to “Continue to enhance the downtown as a priority.”
d. Land Use Policy 2D, which is to “Strive to maintain and create livable, vibrant neighborhoods and districts with:
Attractive streetscapes,
A pedestrian friendly setting,
Coordinated site design, architecture, and amenities, Adequate public and private spaces; and,
A recognizable and high quality design aesthetic.”
e. Land Use Policy 2H, which is to “Continue to revitalize the historic Downtown. Focus efforts on developing Downtown Paso Robles as the specialty retail, government, office, cultural, conference, and entertainment center of the City and North County region” supported by Action Item 1, which is to “ Continue requiring new projects to implement
Attachment 3
the adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and to adhere to the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance.”
f. Land Use Policy 2I, which is to “Encourage infill development as a means of accommodating growth, while preserving open space areas, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and enhancing livability/quality of life. Infill includes:
1. Mixed use development in the Downtown and/or in areas within walking distance to transit, employment centers, and commercial services where the environmental impacts of the development would be minimized”. g. Circulation Policy 1B, which is to “Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)”, supported by Action Item 1.e, which is “New specific plans shall include a mix of uses that are well connected for all modes and built at higher densities to help minimize the number of single occupant vehicle trips and reduce vehicle miles traveled“, and Action Item 4, which is “To the extent feasible, maintain a general plan that provides for a reasonable, ongoing balance between jobs and housing units of various types to maximize the potential for residents to live in the community in which they work. This approach reduces the potential for longer vehicle commutes and reduces City-generated and Countywide VMT.”
h. Conservation Policy 2B, which is to “Implement programs to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), especially by single occupant vehicles, including providing opportunities for mixed-use projects” supported by Action Item 4, which is to “Encourage infill development.”
B. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city because it is a resort lodging overlay in an existing resort lodging overlay area. The General Plan Amendment is a reasonable extension of the Parks and Open Space with Resort Lodging Overlay designation.
The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography; is suitable in terms of the provision of public and emergency vehicle access and public services and utilities; and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
Section 3. Environmental Determination. 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
Attachment 3
and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164. On March 17, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution ___ approving an Addendum to the previously adopted 2012 MND 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.
Section 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 25-02 to change the Land Use Designation from Public Facilities (PF) to Parks and Open Space, Resort Lodging Overlay (POS-R/L) attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City’s offices at 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446. The City Clerks is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
Section 7. Execution of Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission shall sign this Resolution and the Secretary to the Commission shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
Approved this 17th day of March 2026, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A - General Plan Map Amendment 25-02
Exhibit B – BASP GP
Exhibit C – BASP Zoning Exhibit
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C Page 538 of 772 City Council Agenda March 17, 2026 Attachment 4
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX N.S.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES APPROVING ALLEGRETTO RESORT EXPANSION, REZONE 25-02, AND BORKEY SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 26-01 TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES FOR 2700 BUENA VISTA DRIVE (P25-006)
WHEREAS, Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd., (applicant) has applied for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezoning entitlements (project) to expand the existing Allegretto Resort at 2700 Buena Vista Drive to the neighboring 10.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive in the City of Paso Robles (APN 008-121-021)(the property); and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently under contract with Cuesta College to purchase the vacant 10.8-acre site, also known as the “Bow-Tie” site; and
WHEREAS, the property has a Public Facilities (PF) General Plan land use classification and 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 rezone the property’s land use classification and zoning classification from PF to Parks and Open Space (POS) 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.” This requires amending the City’s Land Use and Zoning Maps; 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 breakfast inns, an similar forms of visitor-serving lodging (along with related accessory/ancillary land uses)”; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has additionally requested Specific Plan Amendment 26-01 to amend the Borkey Area Specific Plan to rezone the property from Public Facilities to Parks and Open Space, Resort Lodging Overlay (POS/RL), consistent with General Plan Amendment 25-02 and Rezone 25-02. This requires amending Borkey Area Specific Plan Map D-1, “Proposed General Plan Designations” and Map D-2, “Proposed Zoning Designations”; 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, 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; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Paso Robles Municipal Code Sections 21.08.020 and 21.14.040, the City Council is the review authority for Specific Plan Amendments based on a recommendation by the Planning
Attachment 4
Commission. Consistent with Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 21.09.020.B, multiple applications for the same project shall be processed concurrently and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated for any of the applications; 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 to introduce this ordinance for first reading on March 17, 2026 to consider Specific Plan Amendment 26-01 and Rezone 25-02 for the project, which is required to be adopted by ordinance under the Paso Robles Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. Based on the facts and analysis presented to it, including all written and oral testimony, the City Council hereby finds and determines:
Specific Plan Amendment Findings
a. The specific plan amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan including Land Use Goal 1 supported by Land Use Policy 1A; Land Use Policy 2B, Action Item 2; Land Use Policy 2B, Action Item 4; Land Use Policy 2D; Land Use Policy 2H supported by Action Item 1; Land Use Policy 2I; Circulation Policy 1B supported by Action Items 1.e and 4; and Conservation Policy 2B supported by Action Item 4. b. The specific plan amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community because it is a minor expansion of the POS-R/L zoning district located immediately south of the subject property.
c. The specific plan amendment includes provisions that ensure that adequate public facilities will be available to serve the range of development described in the plan because the project would be subject to development impact fees to ensure the applicant pays a fair share toward public facilities.
d. The specific plan amendment results in the development of desirable character and use types that will be compatible with the surrounding area, provides effective buffering from adjacent uses, and includes policies for the protection of prominent ridgelines, oak trees, and other natural resources because it is a minor extension of the adjacent POS-R/L zoning district and the property is not on a prominent ridgeline.
Rezone Amendment Findings
a. The rezone amendment is internally consistent with the provisions of the zoning code including Parks and Open Space zoning with Lodging Overlay:
Attachment 4
i. The Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning with lodging (L) overlay zoning district is intended to provide a means through which the City Council (and, through the development review process, the Planning Commission) can consider and selectively provide appropriate locations for resort hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, and similar forms of visitor-serving lodging (along with related accessory/ancillary land uses). The Allegretto Resort expansion project will provide visitor serving lodging on a site adjacent to the existing resort. ii. The City’s adopted economic development strategy establishes the goal of developing the city into an “end destination” tourist attraction. Providing a Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning with lodging (L) overlay zoning district can assist in achieving this goal by encouraging consideration of appropriate locations for resorts, lodging, and related/ancillary land uses (without providing the broader range of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses and the accompanying neighborhood and environmental impacts that are associated with a commercial or industrial general plan or zoning designation). The L overlay zoning district can be established on any property, subject to approval of a zone change application.
The Allegretto Resort expansion project will provide an end destination tourist attraction on a site adjacent to the existing resort.
iii. Considerations upon which to base approval or denial of the Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning with lodging (L) overlay zoning district application shall include, but not be limited to, adequacy of streets and highways to handle the anticipated traffic and compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. The City Council may determine not to consider a Parks and Open Space (POS) zoning with lodging (L) overlay zoning district application without the accompanying site plan and elevation designed to demonstrate how the design of the project could be considered compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Allegretto Resort expansion includes a development plan that provides site planning and architectural design that complements the existing Allegretto Resort. b. The amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of the city because it is a resort lodging overlay in an existing resort lodging overlay area. The general plan amendment is a reasonable expansion of the Parks and Open Space with Resort Lodging Overlay designation. The affected site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography; is suitable in terms of the provision of public and emergency vehicle access and public services and utilities; and is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the kind and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate to ensure that the proposed use(s) and/or development will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the property is located.
Section 3. Approval. The City Council hereby ordains the zoning district of the property located at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive (APN 008-121-021) shall be changed to Parks and Open Space, Resort Lodging Overlay (POS-R/L), as depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. Approval. The City Council hereby ordains the property located at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive (APN 008-121-021) shall be rezoned to the Parks and Open Space, Resort Lodging Overlay (POS-R/L) zoning district, as depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Attachment 4
Section 5. Environmental Determination. 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.
On March 17, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution ___ approving an Addendum to the previously adopted 2012 MND 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.
Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 7. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City’s offices at 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its passage and adoption as provided by Government Code section 36397.
Section 9. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published at least five (5) days prior to the meeting at which the proposed Ordinance is to be adopted and shall post a certified copy of the proposed Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk. Within fifteen (15) days of the adoption of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause a summary of the Ordinance to be published, including the vote for and against the same, in accordance with Government Code Section 36937.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council held on March 17, 2026, for first reading by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles, and adopted on the ___ day of ______, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
Attachment 4
ATTEST:
Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Specific Plan Amendment Map D-1 General Plan Map Exhibit B – Specific Plan Amendment Map D-2 Zoning Map
Exhibit C – City Zoning Map Amendment
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
CITY ZONING MAP
Attachment 5
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC 26-XXX (C)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 25-06 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 24-10 (P25-0027) WHEREAS, Ayres Paso Robles, Ltd., (applicant) has applied for a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rezoning entitlements(project) to expand the existing Allegretto Resort at 2700 Buena Vista Drive to the neighboring 10.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive in the City of Paso Robles (APN 008-121-021)(the property); and WHEREAS, the applicant is currently under contract with Cuesta College to purchase the vacant
10.8-acre site, also known as the “Bow-Tie” site; and
WHEREAS, the property has a Public Facilities (PF) General Plan land use classification and 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 rezone the property’s land use classification and zoning classification from PF to Parks and Open Space (POS) 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.” This requires amending the City’s Land Use and Zoning Maps; 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 breakfast inns, an similar forms of visitor-serving lodging (along with related accessory/ancillary land uses)”; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has additionally requested Specific Plan Amendment 26-01 to amend the Borkey Area Specific Plan to rezone the property from Public Facilities to Parks and Open Space, Resort Lodging Overlay (POS/RL), consistent with General Plan Amendment 25-02 and Rezone 25-02. This requires amending Borkey Area Specific Plan Map D-1, “Proposed General Plan Designations” and Map D2, “Proposed Zoning Designations”; 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, 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; and WHEREAS, consistent with the Paso Robles Municipal Code Sections 21.08.020, 21.10.050, and
21.14.040, the City Council is the review authority for General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments based on a recommendation by the Planning Commission. Consistent with Paso Robles Municipal Code Section 21.09.020.B, multiple applications for the same project shall be processed
Attachment 5
concurrently and approved or denied by the highest review authority designated for any of the applications; 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 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: Findings. Based upon the facts and analysis presented in the staff report and public testimony received, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
Conditional Use Permit Findings
A. Consistency. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; and is allowed within the applicable zoning district, subject to the granting of a conditional use permit or development plan, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this zoning code and the Municipal Code because the City Council is concurrently amending the General Plan Land Use designation and the Borkey Specific Plan zoning designation for the site from Public Facilities to Parks and Open Space with Resort Lodging Overlay. The proposed use is consistent with the Open Space with Resort Lodging Overlay.
B. Compatibility. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the Allegretto Resort Expansion will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity because the resort expansion will complement the existing Allegretto resort campus. Additionally, the site is adjacent to city streets on three sides and provides setbacks to existing large lot single family neighborhood to the east.
C. Suitability.
1. The site is physically suitable in terms of:
a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, site improvements, loading, and parking because the site is an expansion to an existing resort facility with ample room for access, parking, and drainage.
b. Streets and highways adequate to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (such as fire and medical) access because the site is adjacent to Buena Vista Road and Dallons Road, and the proposed uses will not generate trips that would exceed the capacity of local roads.
Attachment 5
c. Public protection services (such as fire protection, police protection, etc.) because the site is of sufficient width to accommodate fire apparatus and a fire truck turnaround throughout the project site.
d. The provision of utilities (such as potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) because water, sewer, and other utilities are available to the site and commercial/college campus uses were anticipated on this site by the City’s planning for water, sewer and solid waste. The project will be required to work with the Utilities department to design the project in a manner that provides the necessary water pressure to the facility.
2. The type, density, and intensity of the resort expansion will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located because the project consists of development a large vacant site to accommodate an expansion to an existing adjacent facility on site surrounded on three sides by city streets.
Development Plan Findings
A. The design and intensity (density) of the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies established by the general plan because the property would be in a Parks and Open Space Resort Lodging Overlay (POS-R/L) land use category, the purposes of which are:
1. 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 visitorserving lodging (along with related accessor / ancillary land uses); and
2. Assist the city in a the adopted economic development strategy to develop El Paso de Robles into an end destination tourist attraction encouraging consideration of appropriate locations for resorts, lodging, and related/ancillary land use.
Additionally, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU-2I, which is to “Encourage infill development as a means of accommodating growth, while preserving open space areas, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and enhancing livability/quality of life”.
B. The design and intensity (density) of the proposed project is consistent with the policies and development standards established by any applicable specific plan, special planned development, or master development plan because the City Council is concurrently amending the General Plan Land Use designation and the Borkey Specific Plan zoning designation for the site from Public Facilities to Parks and Open Space with Resort Lodging Overlay, and The proposed use is consistent with the Open Space with Resort Lodging Overlay. The site development that would accommodate an expansion to the Allegretto Resort is consistent with the goals of the Resort Lodging Overlay and city’s Economic Development Strategy.
C. The design and intensity (density) of the proposed project is consistent with the zoning code, including the purpose and intent of the zoning districts in which a development project is located as well as applicable design and development standards. The site would be in the designated POSR/L zoning district the purpose of which is to “selectively provide appropriate locations for hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts inns, and similar forms of visitor-serving lodging (along with related
Attachment 5
accessor / ancillary land uses)”. The project will provide multiple resort lodging buildings including conference center and viticulture building that will complement the existing Allegretto Resort.
D. The design and intensity (density) of the proposed project is consistent with all other adopted codes, policies, standards, and plans of the city, including design guidelines adopted by resolution by the planning commission.
E. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to property or other improvements in the vicinity because it is a well-designed resort lodging project.
F. The proposed project accommodates the aesthetic quality of the city as a whole, especially where development will be visible from gateways to the city and scenic corridors and contributes to the orderly development of the city as a whole because it is a well-designed residential project. The resort lodging buildings will complement the architecture, design, and site amenities as the existing Allegretto Resort project located adjacent to the project.
G. The proposed project is compatible with, and is not detrimental to, surrounding land uses and improvements, provides appropriate visual appearance, and contributes to the mitigation of any environmental and social (such as privacy) impacts because it is a well-designed resort lodging project expanding an existing use with buildings in scale with other buildings in the vicinity. The project is also required to conform with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted with the approved MND Addendum to this project.
H. The proposed development plan is compatible with existing scenic and environmental resources such as hillsides, stream courses, oak trees, vistas, historic buildings and structures because the project is located on a vacant but disturbed site. The project is also required to conform with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted with the approved MND Addendum to this project.
Section 3: Environmental Determination. 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. On March 17, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution ___ approving an Addendum to the previously adopted 2012 MND for Planned Development 25-06, Conditional Use Permit 26-03,
Attachment 5
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.
Section 4: Approval. Given the foregoing, the City Council approves, subject to the conditions and standards contained in Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2, Exhibit A-3, and Exhibit B, incorporated herein by this reference:
a. Conditional Use Permit 26-03 to establish 172,000 square feet that includes 93 new hotel keys, a spa, a conference center, viticulture building, and various other ancillary buildings; and b. Development Plan PD 25-06 for development review of physical changes to the site.
Section 5: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 6: Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City’s offices at 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446. The City Clerk is the custodian of the record of proceedings.
Section 7: Execution of Resolution. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th day of March 2026, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:
Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibits
1. Exhibit A-1: Planning Site-Specific Conditions of Approval
2. Exhibit A-2: Engineering Site-Specific Conditions of Approval
3. Exhibit A-3: Emergency Services Site-Specific Conditions of Approval
4. Exhibit B: Standard Conditions of Approval
5. Exhibit C-Y: Architectural Plans
6. Exhibit Z-JJ: Civil Plans
7. Exhibit KK-LL: Landscape Plans
EXHIBIT A-1
DRAFT - Site Specific Conditions of Approval – Ayres Resort Expansion
Planning Division Conditions:
NOTE: In the event of conflict or duplication between standard and site-specific conditions, the site-specific condition shall supersede the standard condition.
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the Conditions of Approval established by this Resolution, and it shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the following Exhibits:
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION
A1 Site-Specific Conditions – Planning and (this document) A2 Site-Specific Conditions – Engineering and Utilities A3 Site-Specific Conditions – Emergency Services
B Standard Conditions of Approval
C Title Page – Description and Requirements
D Site Plan
E Phasing Plan
F Aerial Site Plan
G Allegretto Conference Center Elevations
H Allegretto Restaurant Elevations
I Allegretto Spa Hotel Elevations
J Allegretta Hotel Elevations
K Allegretto Piazza Elevations
L Allegretto Abbey Elevations
M Allegretto Outbuilding Elevations
N Allegretto Villas Elevations
O Exterior Materials
P Programmatic Site Plan
Q Conference Center Floor Plan
R Restaurant Floor Plan
S Spa Hotel Floor Plan
T Allegretta Hotel Floor Plan
U Piazza Floor Plan
V Abbey Floor Plan
W Outbuildings Floor Plans
X Villas Floor Plans
Y Trash Enclosure Elevations and Floor Plan
Z Title Page – Overall Site
AA Buena Vista Drive Frontage Improvements
BB Dallons Drive – West Frontage Improvements
CC Dallons Drive – East Frontage Improvements
DD Preliminary Grading North West
EE Preliminary Grading South West
FF Preliminary Grading North
GG Preliminary Grading North East
HH Preliminary Underground West
II Preliminary Underground East
JJ Preliminary Site Cross Sections
EXHIBIT A-1
KK Conceptual Landscape Plan
LL Plant Materials, Photos, and Welo Worksheet
2. Approval of this project is valid for a period of two (2) years from date of approval. Unless construction permits have been issued and site work has begun, the approval of Planned Development 25-06 shall expire on March 17, 2028. The Planning Commission may extend this expiration date if a Time Extension application has been filed with the City along with the fees before the expiration date.
3. Approval of this project includes the following entitlements:
GPA 25-02 – General Plan Amendment to POS
RZN 25-02 – Rezone to Resort Overlay – POS-R/L
PD 25-06 – Master Development Plan
Borkey Specific Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
the approval for the Allegretto Expansion project as designed in Exhibits A-LL.
4. In conjunction with building plan check process for each of the resort buildings as part of a Site Plan Review application prior to building plan check, Planning Staff shall review the plans with the DRC to determine consistency with the plans approved by this Master Development Plan (Exhibits A-LL) listed in this document.
5. The project shall provide a minimum 10-foot landscape setback along street frontages between the back of the public sidewalk and the starting of a parking lot, parallel drive or building.
6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Viticulture building, a major site plan review shall be applied for and approved by the DRC. The site plan review will provide final details for the building architecture and materials and site planning, landscaping and any outdoor activities or storage.
7. The Viticulture building is intended to be an accessory use to the Allegretto Resort. Wine production shall be limited as follows:
- All wine production activities shall be conducted indoors - Wine production shall be limited to the operating hours of 7am to 7pm, this includes truck deliveries in and out of the facility.
- All lighting shall be dark sky compliant and fully shielded. - Wine production shall be limited to 5,000 cases per year. - All equipment shall be stored in doors or within the accessory outdoor storage area subject to the screening conditions outlined in this resolution.
8. As part of the site plan review process for the Viticulture building, the accessory storage yard shall be reviewed for screening details including decorative wall/fencing, landscaping, and final location.
9. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, its officers, employees, or agents to attacks, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City concerning this project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the city council, planning commission, or development services director. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
EXHIBIT A-1
10. All new lighting shall be shielded and directed downward in such a manner as to not create off-site glare or adversely impact adjacent properties. Details of exterior wall mounted light fixtures as well as free standing pole lights shall be provided with the construction drawings for each building.
11. The project shall comply with the City’s noise ordinance (PRMC21.60) which regulates both exterior and interior noise standards during daytime and evening hours.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project final landscape and irrigation plan shall be provided that indicates compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
13. The solar panel structure, including support posts, roof, and facia shall be painted a corresponding color as the resort buildings. Final details shall be reviewed and approved by the DRC prior to the issuance of a building permit for the solar structures.
14. The trash enclosure colors details shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a building permit for the enclosure.
15. At the time of submittal for building plan check, plans shall be provided that verify that the concrete area adjacent to trash enclosures has been designed in a manner that will handle the weight of trash pick up vehicles.
16. If Ayres resort submits a condominium map to provide for the Villa units to have separate ownership, these units shall not be short-term rentals since they are not located in a residential zoning district.
17. Proposed site plan shows building parking lots, access driveways, and other improvements over existing lot lines between APNs 025-410-019, 025-410-020, and 025-410-021. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for first building, a lot merger shall be processed and recorded.
18. All applicable environmental mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting plans shall be complied with.
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 APCD-approved 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.
EXHIBIT A-1
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. 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
EXHIBIT A-1
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 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
EXHIBIT A-1
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.
BIO-8: 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-9: 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-10: 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.
EXHIBIT A-1
BIO-11: 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.
BIO-12: Prior to final inspection, or occupancy, whichever comes first, should any long internal or perimeter fencing be proposed or installed, the applicant shall do the following to provide for kit fox passage:
a. If a wire strand/pole design is used, the lowest strand shall be no closer to the ground than 12 inches.
b. If a more solid wire mesh fence is used, 8" x 12" openings near the ground shall be provided every 100 yards.
Upon fence 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.
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 gasfueled 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
EXHIBIT A-1
and shall provide the appropriate on-site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City of Paso Robles Development Standards for Solid Waste Services.
EXHIBIT A-2
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
P25-0027
A. GENERAL ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS
A.1 General Code, Engineering, and Utility Compliance
For each phase of the project, the Applicant/Developer shall design, permit, and construct all required public and private improvements, in accordance with the City of Paso Robles Municipal Code, adopted Ordinances, City Standard Details and Specifications, the approved exhibits, all Engineering Conditions of Approval, and all other applicable local, State and Federal regulations.
A.2 City Standards
All improvements, both public and private, shall be consistent with the latest edition of the City Standard Details and Specifications except where the Applicant/Developer has requested and been granted a formal design exception by the City Engineer. Design exceptions shall be submitted, as required by the City Engineering Standard Details and Specifications and shall be accompanied by the required application and review fee.
The Applicant/Developer shall summarize the need for the request, alternatives, and may be asked to propose final construction details, specifications, and minimum construction tolerances/testing for review and approval by the City Engineer in support of the request. The request shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to submittal of complete improvement plans.
A.3 Project Phasing and Buildout
The project may be developed in phases, subject to review and approval of each phase by the Director of Community Development and City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. All infrastructure and improvements necessary to serve each phase shall be constructed or otherwise provided as part of that phase. All required off-site improvements, including frontage improvements, shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
A.4 Substantial Conformance
The project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with these Conditions of Approval, and it shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the following exhibits:
a) Site-Specific Conditions of Approval
b) Site Plan
c) Drainage Concept Plan
d) Stormwater Control Plan
e) Landscape Plan
f) Utility Plan
EXHIBIT A-2
A.4 Concept Utility Plans
The locations, alignments, and sizes of all utilities shown on the site plan, including but not limited to water, recycled water, sewer, fire lines, and storm drains, are schematic only and subject to change. Final utility design and placement shall be determined upon submittal of improvement plans for review and approval by the City, ensuring compliance with all applicable City standards and requirements.
A.5 Utilities Serving Property
Separate utilities, including water, recycled water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and internet shall be served to the facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and serving utility companies and Utilities Department. All public and private wet utility mains/laterals shall be shown on the public improvement plans and shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City Standard Details and Specifications unless a waiver or alternate standard is approved by the City Engineer. The plans shall clearly delineate and distinguish public and private improvements.
A.6 Public Right-of-Way Encroachment Permit
All work within or affecting the public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit issued by the City. Such work shall not commence until the required encroachment permit has been obtained and all applicable Improvement Plans have been approved by the City Engineer. All work shall be performed in accordance with the approved permit, City standards, and applicable State and Federal regulations.
A.7 Insurance – Work Within Public Right-of-Way
Prior to the issuance of any encroachment permit or commencement of work within the public right-of-way, the Applicant/Developer and its contractors shall procure and maintain insurance in forms and amounts acceptable to the City’s Risk Manager. Such insurance shall include, at a minimum, commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation coverage, naming the City, its officers, officials, employees, and agents as additional insureds. Certificates of insurance and required endorsements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to permit issuance and shall remain in effect for the duration of the permitted work. Coverage limits, endorsements, and any additional requirements shall be subject to approval by the City and may be adjusted based on the scope and risk of the work consistent with the terms of the City Encroachment Permit.
A.8 Underground Existing Overhead Lines
All existing overhead utility lines, including power, communication, and cable facilities, located within or fronting the project site along Buena Vista Drive shall be placed underground. Undergrounding shall be completed at the Applicant/Developer’s expense and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, unless an alternative timing or method is approved in writing by the City Engineer.
EXHIBIT A-2
No new overhead utility lines, facilities, or appurtenances shall be installed within or fronting the project site along Buena Vista Drive or Dallons Drive. All new utility installations shall be placed underground to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
A.9 Fee Agreement
Prior to the submittal of any plans for City plan review, the Applicant shall enter into a Fee Agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to reimburse the City for all costs associated with review, inspection, administration, and implementation of the project.
EXHIBIT A-2
B. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS
B.1 Public Right-of-Way & City Easement Improvement Plans The Applicant/Developer shall prepare and submit complete Public Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for all public infrastructure within the public rightof-way and within any separate easement areas on the project site. The Improvement Plans shall include, as applicable, public street frontage improvements, encroachments within the public right-of-way, public utilities, storm drain facilities within or discharging to the public right-of-way, traffic control devices, signing and striping, ADA facilities, and related appurtenances. Private on-site improvements that do not lie within or affect the public right-of-way are excluded from this condition.
All public right-of-way Improvement Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permit, encroachment permit, engineering permit, or building permit that relies upon or impacts the public right-of-way.
No grading, demolition, excavation, utility installation, or construction activities within the public right-of-way, or affecting public streets, sidewalks, drainage facilities, or utilities, shall commence until all applicable public improvement plans have been approved and all required City permits have been issued.
B.2 Improvement Plan Approval Required Prior to Building Permits All required improvement plans for the project—including public right-of-way improvement plans, on and off-site public infrastructure plans, and consolidated on-site improvement plans—shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permit, unless otherwise expressly approved by the City Engineer.
No building permit shall be issued for any structure that relies upon, is served by, or impacts required public or private improvements until the applicable improvement plans have been approved and all related engineering conditions have been satisfied to the City’s satisfaction.
B.3 Public Street Frontage, Driveway & Pedestrian Improvements The Applicant/Developer shall design, permit, bond, and construct all public street frontage, driveway, and pedestrian improvements shown or required by the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Such public improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
Public street frontage improvements along Dallons Drive and Buena Vista Drive, including pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, parkway landscape including street trees, and related roadway features.
All driveways connecting to public streets, including driveway aprons, curb returns, sidewalk reconstruction, and transitions between public and private improvements.
EXHIBIT A-2
Sidewalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian facilities within the public right-of-way, including all ADA-compliant improvements and upgrades required as a result of the project.
Signing, striping, pavement markings, traffic control devices, meidans, and street lighting necessary to serve the project or maintain public safety; and Any other frontage or access-related improvements within or affecting the public right-of-way that are shown on the approved plans or determined to be necessary by the City Engineer.
All frontage and access improvements shall be fully detailed on Improvement Plans approved by the City Engineer and shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any building served by such improvements (unless an alternative timing is expressly approved by the City).
B.4 Off-Site Infrastructure Bonding and Deferred Completion In the event that any required off-site public infrastructure improvements (including, but not limited to, street, utility, and storm drain improvements) are not fully constructed and accepted by the City prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant/Developer shall, prior to occupancy, enter into a deferred improvement agreement with the City and provide financial security to guarantee completion of the required improvements. Such security shall include performance, payment, and monument bonds, or other acceptable forms of financial assurance (including letters of credit), in amounts and forms acceptable to the City Engineer. The Certificate of Occupancy shall be withheld until the agreement is executed and all required financial assurances are posted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
EXHIBIT A-2
B.5 Public Utilities & Storm Drain Improvements within the Public Right-of-Way The Applicant/Developer shall design, permit, and construct, all public utility and storm drain improvements located within, crossing, or discharging to the public right-of-way, as shown on the approved plans or as required by the City Engineer. Such improvements include, but are not limited to:
Public water and sewer facilities within the public right-of-way, including mains, services, valves, manholes, cleanouts, and appurtenances. Public storm drain facilities within or discharging to the public right-of-way, including inlets, laterals, pipes, energy dissipation features, and connections to existing public systems.
Utility relocations, abandonments, and protections necessary to accommodate the project and avoid conflicts within the public right-of-way; and Any other public utility improvements required to support the project or protect public infrastructure, as determined by the City Engineer.
All public utility and storm drain improvements shall be shown on Improvement Plans approved by the City Engineer. No construction, trenching, or discharge affecting the public right-of-way shall occur until all applicable plans are approved and all required permits are issued.
B.6 Off-Site Intersection Improvements – Buena Vista Drive / River Oaks Drive / Dallons Drive
The Applicant/Developer shall design, permit, bond, and construct off-site public intersection improvements at the intersection of Buena Vista Drive, River Oaks Drive, and Dallons Drive, generally consistent with the approved plans and details shown on the project drawings, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Intersection improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Reconstruction and removal of existing concrete x-walk improvements, including stamped concrete, as required to accommodate the new curb geometry and pedestrian facilities.
b. ADA-compliant curb ramps, crosswalks, and pedestrian improvements, including detectable warning surfaces and associated sidewalk reconstruction. c. Modifications to signing, striping, and pavement markings necessary to support the revised intersection configuration and maintain public safety. d. Coordination with existing street lighting, including protection, relocation, or adjustment of street light facilities as required.
e. Any additional improvements within the public right-of-way necessary to fully implement the intersection design and ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian operations, as determined by the City Engineer.
All off-site intersection improvements shall be fully detailed on Improvement Plans approved by the City Engineer and shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any building served by the project, unless an alternative timing is expressly approved by the City.
EXHIBIT A-2
B.7 Off-Site Intersection Improvements – Buena Vista Drive & Experimental Station Road
The Applicant/Developer shall design, permit, and construct off-site public intersection improvements at the intersection of Buena Vista Drive and Experimental Station Road, generally consistent with the approved Vehicle Turning Exhibit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Intersection improvements shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Pavement reconstruction, resurfacing, and restriping necessary to implement the approved lane configurations, turning movements, and transitions; b) Reconstruction, replacement, or upgrade of curb ramps to provide ADAcompliant pedestrian access, including detectable warning surfaces, where existing ramps are non-compliant or impacted by the improvements. c) Crosswalks, stop bars, and pavement markings, including removal or modification of existing striping as required;
d) Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pedestrian improvements within the public right-ofway affected by the intersection work; e) Coordination with existing street lighting, including protection, adjustment, or relocation of facilities as required to accommodate the improvements. f) Any additional signing, striping, traffic control devices, or public right-of-way improvements necessary to fully implement the intersection design and maintain safe vehicular and pedestrian operations, as determined by the City Engineer. g) Curb extensions (bulb-outs), median extension, and “pork chop” island shall be constructed in accordance with City and other design standards.
All off-site intersection improvements shall be fully detailed on Improvement Plans approved by the City Engineer and shall be constructed prior to occupancy of any building served by the project, unless an alternative timing is expressly approved by the City.
B.8 Intersection Street Lighting – Buena Vista Drive and Experimental Station Road
Prior to approval of off-site improvement plans or issuance of an encroachment permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric lighting analysis for Buena Vista Drive and Experimental Station Road for review and approval by the City Engineer. The analysis shall demonstrate that proposed and existing street lighting provides illumination levels consistent with City standards and applicable Caltrans requirements for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Based on the approved photometric analysis, the Applicant shall install new street lighting along Buena Vista Drive and at the intersection of Experimental Station Road, including lighting to adequately illuminate the pedestrian crosswalk(s), or alternatively demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that existing street lighting provides sufficient illumination for crosswalk safety without additional lighting improvements.
All required street lighting improvements shall be designed, permitted, and constructed as part of the off-site public improvements and completed prior to acceptance of those improvements by the City, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
B.9 Off-Site Resurfacing and Restriping – Buena Vista Drive
EXHIBIT A-2
The Applicant/Developer shall design, permit, bond, and construct off-site pavement resurfacing and restriping improvements along Buena Vista Drive, generally consistent with the approved project exhibits and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The limits of work shall extend approximately 150 feet north of the intersection with Dallons Drive to approximately 250 feet south of the southern Buena Vista Drive intersection, or as otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
Improvements shall include, but are not limited to, pavement resurfacing, restriping, pavement markings, and related roadway restoration necessary to accommodate the approved intersection and frontage improvements and to maintain public safety. All work shall be performed in accordance with City standards and shall be fully detailed on Improvement Plans approved by the City Engineer.
Construction of these improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy of any building served by the project, unless an alternative timing is expressly approved by the City.
The following striping and pavement marking elements shall be provided within the project frontage and adjacent improvement limits pursuant to the approved Transportation Analysis and as directed by the City Engineer:
a) Travel Lanes
a. Two (2) through travel lanes (one northbound, one southbound), each approximately 11 to 12 feet in width, unless otherwise approved. b) Bike Lanes
a. Class II bike lanes provided in both directions.
b. Minimum 5-foot bike lane width, with buffered separation where feasible, consistent with City standards and CAMUTCD.
c. Bike lanes striped between the through lane and right-turn lane where applicable.
c) Right-Turn Lanes
a. Dedicated right-turn lane striping identified in the approved Transportation Analysis.
b. Proper lane tapers and transitions per CAMUTCD.
d) No-Parking / Red Curb Zones
a. No-parking zones (red curb or striping) within:
i. 20 feet of all driveways and intersections.
ii. Functional areas of intersections, as determined by the City Engineer.
b. Removal of on-street parking where required to accommodate bike lanes and sight distance.
e) On-Street Parking (Where Permitted)
a. On-street parking striping only where approved by the City Engineer. b. Typical 8-foot parking lane width where parking is allowed. f) Intersection Markings
a. High-visibility crosswalk striping at approved intersections. b. STOP bars, yield lines, and limit lines per CAMUTCD. c. Lane arrows and word markings as required.
g) Centerline & Channelization
EXHIBIT A-2
a. Double yellow centerline striping.
b. Channelization striping for medians, turn pockets, and refuge areas, where applicable.
h) Bike Lane & Parking Signage
a. Installation of all required regulatory and warning signage, including:
i. Bike lane signs
ii. No-parking signs
iii. Turn restriction signs
i) All signage to conform to CAMUTCD and City standards.
B-10 Signage, Striping, and Pavement Markings
The Applicant shall submit a comprehensive Sign and Striping Plan with the Off-Site improvement plans for work along Buena Vista for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall be consistent with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), City and Caltrans standards, and the approved off-site improvement plans, and shall include, at a minimum, the following elements as applicable:
a) Removal, relocation, or replacement of existing signs and pavement markings impacted by the project.
b) Installation of right-turn lane signage.
c) Installation of no-parking zones, including red curb and associated signage. d) Installation of pedestrian warning signage and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), where shown or required.
e) Installation of bicycle lane signage.
f) Installation of pavement striping and markings, including lane striping and channelization.
g) Identification and confirmation of lane widths.
All signing, striping, and pavement markings shall be designed and installed in conformance with the latest adopted CAMUTCD, applicable Caltrans and City standards, and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to installation.
Implementation of the approved Sign and Striping Plan shall be completed as part of the off-site public improvements and prior to acceptance of those improvements by the City, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
B.11 Driveway Improvements – Dallons Drive
A total of four (4) driveways are proposed along Dallons Drive. All proposed driveways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved project plans and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval as part of the public right-of-way Improvement Plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The Applicant/Developer shall demonstrate through the Improvement Plans and supporting technical analysis that adequate sight distance is provided for any proposed left-turn-out movements at the driveways, consistent with San Luis Obispo County (City) standards and applicable engineering standards for new driveways. If adequate sight distance cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the affected