Paso Robles City Council
March 17, 2026

THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO REMOVE (
10) EXISTING OAK TREES, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE IN
POOR/VERY POOR CONDITION PER THE PROJECT'S ARBORIST REPORT.

THE TOTAL DIAMETER OF PROPOSED OAKS TO BE REMOVED IS 176". PER THE PRMC 10.01 .050( E
)
, 25%
OF TOTAL DIAMETER IS REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED; 25% OF 17 6" = 44", THEREFORE (29) 1.5" CALIPER

MITIGATION OAKS ARE REQUIRED
ALL OAK TREE REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE IRRIGATED.

REPLACEMENT OAK TREE - MIN. 1.5" CALIPER TREE
CONCEPTUAL PLANTING LEGEND - SEE PLANT PALETTE ON L2.0
--PRIVACY HEDGE--�

FOR SCREENING
0 6' HIGH

PRIVACY FENCE

BETWEEN
YARDS

ORETENTIO
BASIN
I
I 0

EXISTING

WOODED AREA

TO REMAIN

BIORETENTION BASIN
1-7
• 00
I I
] 0
)
I
l,--------
____________________________ J __ � �
/ '--. _./ ----
BASIN MAINTENANCE 1
1 - -- -- -
7 ACCESS
1 - - �-� - - ........ - - - -- - - - -a---� - - -<>-- - - - - - - - - - - - =1- - - - -- - -� - -_J -__ _ -

EVERGREEN ELM, GOLDEN RAIN, CRAPE MYRTLE
SEE L 1. 1 FOR SPECIFIC FRONTAGE NOTES
O@/, AMERICAN BOXWOOD, SILVER SHEEN, CALIFORNIA PRIVET, FLAX LILY, AGAVE AMERICANA, BLUE STAR JUNIPER

Q CALIFORNIA LILAC
@ OLEANDER - FOR PRIVACY SCREENING

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
� BLUE OAT GRASS, MUHLY GRASS, QUARTZ CREEK RUSH, CARMAN'S JAPANESE RUSH, ELK BLUE RUSH NORTH
0 10 20 40 Arris

STUDIO ARCHITECTS
�-
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
420 Creston Road
>coo
1"=40'@11xl7
,_
Paso Robles, CA
L 1.0
Exhibit C

I
I
I
r
CJ
CJ
��--STREET TREES (ST) (CRAPE MYRTYLE OR GOLDEN RAIN) SPACED MAX 50' O.C. WITHIN 6' OF THE SIDEWALK

LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
PER PRMC 21.45.020 B - LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A MINIMUM OF 30% LIVE PLANT MATERIAL AT MATURITY

FRONTAGE
THE PROJECT'S FRONTAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 4,685 SF (INCLUDING THE FRONT YARDS OF BUILDINGS 1 & 2) THEREFORE A MIN. 1,405 SF SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLANT

SYMBOLS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THERE SHALL BE A LIVE GROUND COVER THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA.

WEST PROPERTY LINE

THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE IS APPROXIMATELY 1096 SF THEREFORE A MIN. 329 SF SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLANT SYMBOLS SHOWN

ON THIS PLAN, THERE SHALL BE A LIVE GROUND COVER THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA.

PARKING AREA

THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO THE PARKING IS
APPROXIMATELY 775 SF THEREFORE A MIN. 233 SF SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLANT SYMBOLS SHOWN

ON THIS PLAN, THERE SHALL BE A LIVE GROUND COVER THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA.

LoJ
,-------------
T _-_- - -� -_-_-_- -_-_- -
-�--STREET TREES (ST) (CRAPE MYRTYLE OR GOLDEN RAIN) SPACED MAX 50' O.C. WITHIN 6' OF THE SIDEWALK
NORTH
ENLARGED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE AND FRONTAGE PLAN 0 5 10
=2
12 �� I
-6
II

TRASH ENCLOSURE
20 Arris

STUDIO ARCHITECTS
----METAL ROOFING
8'-4"
6'-0"
T.O. WALL
�--SPLIT FACE BLOCK,
AIRVOL "04B407C"
(SEE IMAGE BELOW)
---STEEL FRAMED GATE POSTS
& ROOF STRUCTURE,

PAINTED BLACK
-- -METAL GATES,

PAINTED BLACK
---6" WIDE CURB
'-----+- TRASH DOORS
ABLE TO OPEN 180
DEGREES. CANE

BOLTS PROVIDED
�-
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
420 Creston Road
>coo
1"=20'@11xl7
,_
Paso Robles, CA
Ll.1
Exhibit C

EVERGREEN ELM GOLDEN RAIN

AMERICAN BOXWOOD SILVER SHEEN

QUARTZ CREEK RUSH BLUE OAT GRASS

BLUE STAR JUNIPER MUHLY GRASS

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PALETTE

CRAPE MYRTLE

CALIFORNIA PRIVET

AGAVE AMERICANA

VARIEGATED CENTURY PLANT

CARMAN'S JAPANESE RUSH

OLEANDER

FLAX LILY

CALIFORNIA LILAC

ELK BLUE RUSH

WATER CONSERVATION

WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
THE FOLLOWING WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THIS PROJECT:
• WATER CONSERVING PLANTS, DEFINED AS "LOW" OR "VERY LOW" IN THE "WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES" (WULCOS IV,UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION), SHALL BE UTILIZED IN 75% OF THE TOTAL PLANT AREA. • IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE SEPARATED INTO DISTINCT HYDROZONES BASED ON PLANT MATERIAL TYPES, EXPOSURE, AND ORIENTATION.
• SOIL AMENDMENTS AND A 3" LA YER OF MEDIUM BARK MULCH SHALL BE UTILIZED TO IMPROVE WATER HOLDING CAPACITY OF SOIL AND INHIBIT EVAPORATION. • LAWN IS NOT USED.

STATEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING IRRIGATION DESIGN

THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF IRRIGATION DESIGN UTILIZED ON THIS PROJECT ARE DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AS CONSERVING WATER AND IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. • ALL IRRIGATION SHALL BE DRIP OR DRIP-TYPE AND/OR MICROSPRAY SYSTEMS ONLY. LOW PRECIPITATION RATE HEADS TO BE USED TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF. • IRRIGATION HYDROZONES SHALL ADJUST ACCORDING TO WATER NEEDS AND WEATHER. • UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM MASTER VALVE.
• UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM "SMART CONTROLLER" WITH WATER BUDGETING FEATURE. • UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM FLOW SENSOR.
• UTILIZATION OF RAIN SHUT-OFF DEVICE CONNECTED TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.

Arris Studio Architects 420 Creston Rood, Paso Robles, CA 12/20/2024 Site Area Sq. Ftg.

Total Site Area 369,388 SF
Site Area % Sq.Ftg.

Hardscape/Building Area 16% 60,741 SF
Non-Irrigated Landscape Area 27% 100,218 SF
Irrigated Landscape Area 56% 208,429 SF
landscape Area Percentage (Net Area) 343%

HYDROZONE CHART & LANDSCAPE WATER USE SUMMARY
Maximum Annual Water Allowance (MAWA)
total square footage of landscape I 208,429 SF
Hist ET for the area I 49 IN/YR
Conversion Factor (to gallons) 0.62
ET Adjustment Factor (ETAF) 0.7
MAWA 5926 ccf/yr
MAWA 4,432,451 gal/yr

HYDROZONE CHART
Hydrozone # 1- Low/ Very Low (Shrub Drip) Plant Factor 0.3 I
square footage of hydrozone I 208,429 SF
hydrozone irrigation efficiency I 0.86
EAWU 2208863 gal/yr
EAWU 2953 ccf/yr

ESTIMATED ANNUAL WATER USE
EAWU 2,208,863 gal/yr
EAWU 2953 ccf/yr

LANDSCAPE WATER USE SUMMARY
MAWA 4,432,4Sl EAWU<MAWA 2973
(this number must be ccf saved
EAWU 2,208,863 positive)
PERCENTAGE OF MAWA USED 50 %
NORTH
420 Creston Road
�-
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
>coo
NOTE: PLANT IMAGERY SHOWN IS REPRESENTATIVE ONLY. FINAL SELECTIONS MAY VARY. 10 20 40 Arris ,_ Paso Robles, CA STUDIO ARCHITECTS L2.0
Exhibit C

THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO REMOVE (
10) EXISTING OAK TREES, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE IN
POOR/VERY POOR CONDITION PER THE PROJECT'S ARBORIST REPORT.

THE TOTAL DIAMETER OF PROPOSED OAKS TO BE REMOVED IS 176". PER THE PRMC 10.01 .050( E
)
, 25%
OF TOTAL DIAMETER IS REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED; 25% OF 17 6" = 44", THEREFORE (29) 1.5" CALIPER

MITIGATION OAKS ARE REQUIRED
ALL OAK TREE REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE IRRIGATED.

REPLACEMENT OAK TREE - MIN. 1.5" CALIPER TREE
CONCEPTUAL PLANTING LEGEND - SEE PLANT PALETTE ON L2.0
--PRIVACY HEDGE--�

FOR SCREENING
0 6' HIGH

PRIVACY FENCE

BETWEEN
YARDS

ORETENTIO
BASIN
I
I 0

EXISTING

WOODED AREA

TO REMAIN

BIORETENTION BASIN
1-7
• 00
I I
] 0
)
I
l,--------
____________________________ J __ � �
/ '--. _./ ----
BASIN MAINTENANCE 1
1 - -- -- -
7 ACCESS
1 - - �-� - - ........ - - - -- - - - -a---� - - -<>-- - - - - - - - - - - - =1- - - - -- - -� - -_J -__ _ -

EVERGREEN ELM, GOLDEN RAIN, CRAPE MYRTLE
SEE L 1. 1 FOR SPECIFIC FRONTAGE NOTES
O@/, AMERICAN BOXWOOD, SILVER SHEEN, CALIFORNIA PRIVET, FLAX LILY, AGAVE AMERICANA, BLUE STAR JUNIPER

Q CALIFORNIA LILAC
@ OLEANDER - FOR PRIVACY SCREENING

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
� BLUE OAT GRASS, MUHLY GRASS, QUARTZ CREEK RUSH, CARMAN'S JAPANESE RUSH, ELK BLUE RUSH NORTH
0 10 20 40 Arris

STUDIO ARCHITECTS
�-
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
420 Creston Road
>coo
1"=40'@11xl7
,_
Paso Robles, CA
L 1.0
Exhibit D

I
I
I
r
CJ
CJ
��--STREET TREES (ST) (CRAPE MYRTYLE OR GOLDEN RAIN) SPACED MAX 50' O.C. WITHIN 6' OF THE SIDEWALK

LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
PER PRMC 21.45.020 B - LANDSCAPE PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A MINIMUM OF 30% LIVE PLANT MATERIAL AT MATURITY

FRONTAGE
THE PROJECT'S FRONTAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 4,685 SF (INCLUDING THE FRONT YARDS OF BUILDINGS 1 & 2) THEREFORE A MIN. 1,405 SF SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLANT

SYMBOLS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, THERE SHALL BE A LIVE GROUND COVER THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA.

WEST PROPERTY LINE

THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE IS APPROXIMATELY 1096 SF THEREFORE A MIN. 329 SF SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLANT SYMBOLS SHOWN

ON THIS PLAN, THERE SHALL BE A LIVE GROUND COVER THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA.

PARKING AREA

THE PROJECT'S LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO THE PARKING IS
APPROXIMATELY 775 SF THEREFORE A MIN. 233 SF SHALL BE COVERED WITH LIVE PLANT MATERIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE PLANT SYMBOLS SHOWN

ON THIS PLAN, THERE SHALL BE A LIVE GROUND COVER THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPED AREA.

LoJ
,-------------
T _-_- - -� -_-_-_- -_-_- -
-�--STREET TREES (ST) (CRAPE MYRTYLE OR GOLDEN RAIN) SPACED MAX 50' O.C. WITHIN 6' OF THE SIDEWALK
NORTH
ENLARGED CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE AND FRONTAGE PLAN 0 5 10
=2
12 �� I
-6
II

TRASH ENCLOSURE
20 Arris

STUDIO ARCHITECTS
----METAL ROOFING
8'-4"
6'-0"
T.O. WALL
�--SPLIT FACE BLOCK,
AIRVOL "04B407C"
(SEE IMAGE BELOW)
---STEEL FRAMED GATE POSTS
& ROOF STRUCTURE,

PAINTED BLACK
-- -METAL GATES,

PAINTED BLACK
---6" WIDE CURB
'-----+- TRASH DOORS
ABLE TO OPEN 180
DEGREES. CANE

BOLTS PROVIDED
�-
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
420 Creston Road
>coo
1"=20'@11xl7
,_
Paso Robles, CA
Ll.1
Exhibit D

EVERGREEN ELM GOLDEN RAIN

AMERICAN BOXWOOD SILVER SHEEN

QUARTZ CREEK RUSH BLUE OAT GRASS

BLUE STAR JUNIPER MUHLY GRASS

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PALETTE

CRAPE MYRTLE

CALIFORNIA PRIVET

AGAVE AMERICANA

VARIEGATED CENTURY PLANT

CARMAN'S JAPANESE RUSH

OLEANDER

FLAX LILY

CALIFORNIA LILAC

ELK BLUE RUSH

WATER CONSERVATION

WATER CONSERVATION NOTES
THE FOLLOWING WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THIS PROJECT:
• WATER CONSERVING PLANTS, DEFINED AS "LOW" OR "VERY LOW" IN THE "WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES" (WULCOS IV,UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION), SHALL BE UTILIZED IN 75% OF THE TOTAL PLANT AREA. • IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE SEPARATED INTO DISTINCT HYDROZONES BASED ON PLANT MATERIAL TYPES, EXPOSURE, AND ORIENTATION.
• SOIL AMENDMENTS AND A 3" LA YER OF MEDIUM BARK MULCH SHALL BE UTILIZED TO IMPROVE WATER HOLDING CAPACITY OF SOIL AND INHIBIT EVAPORATION. • LAWN IS NOT USED.

STATEMENT OF WATER CONSERVING IRRIGATION DESIGN

THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF IRRIGATION DESIGN UTILIZED ON THIS PROJECT ARE DIRECTED SPECIFICALLY AS CONSERVING WATER AND IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. • ALL IRRIGATION SHALL BE DRIP OR DRIP-TYPE AND/OR MICROSPRAY SYSTEMS ONLY. LOW PRECIPITATION RATE HEADS TO BE USED TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF. • IRRIGATION HYDROZONES SHALL ADJUST ACCORDING TO WATER NEEDS AND WEATHER. • UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM MASTER VALVE.
• UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM "SMART CONTROLLER" WITH WATER BUDGETING FEATURE. • UTILIZATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM FLOW SENSOR.
• UTILIZATION OF RAIN SHUT-OFF DEVICE CONNECTED TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.

Arris Studio Architects 420 Creston Rood, Paso Robles, CA 12/20/2024 Site Area Sq. Ftg.

Total Site Area 369,388 SF
Site Area % Sq.Ftg.

Hardscape/Building Area 16% 60,741 SF
Non-Irrigated Landscape Area 27% 100,218 SF
Irrigated Landscape Area 56% 208,429 SF
landscape Area Percentage (Net Area) 343%

HYDROZONE CHART & LANDSCAPE WATER USE SUMMARY
Maximum Annual Water Allowance (MAWA)
total square footage of landscape I 208,429 SF
Hist ET for the area I 49 IN/YR
Conversion Factor (to gallons) 0.62
ET Adjustment Factor (ETAF) 0.7
MAWA 5926 ccf/yr
MAWA 4,432,451 gal/yr

HYDROZONE CHART
Hydrozone # 1- Low/ Very Low (Shrub Drip) Plant Factor 0.3 I
square footage of hydrozone I 208,429 SF
hydrozone irrigation efficiency I 0.86
EAWU 2208863 gal/yr
EAWU 2953 ccf/yr

ESTIMATED ANNUAL WATER USE
EAWU 2,208,863 gal/yr
EAWU 2953 ccf/yr

LANDSCAPE WATER USE SUMMARY
MAWA 4,432,4Sl EAWU<MAWA 2973
(this number must be ccf saved
EAWU 2,208,863 positive)
PERCENTAGE OF MAWA USED 50 %
NORTH
420 Creston Road
�-
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
>coo
NOTE: PLANT IMAGERY SHOWN IS REPRESENTATIVE ONLY. FINAL SELECTIONS MAY VARY. 10 20 40 Arris ,_ Paso Robles, CA STUDIO ARCHITECTS L2.0
Exhibit D

S S
S
S S
S
S
755
760 765
770 775 780
785
754
756
757
758
759 762
761764 763
766
767 768 769 771 773 772 774 777 776 778 779 781 782 783784 755
760
765
770
775 780 751752753
754
756 757 758 759 761 762 763 764 766 767 768 769
771 772 773 774 776 777 778
779
770
775
767
768
769
771
772
773
774
776
777
778
779
777
778
779
775
780
785
776
777
778
779
781
782
783
784
786
787
785 783 783 786 787
786 787 788
788
789 789
775
780
774
776
777
778
779
781
782
783
784

S S W W W FW FW FW FW
E E
W

FW FW SD SD SD SD SD SD

S S S S S S S S
S
S S

E E E E E
E
E E

FW FW FW W W W

FW FW FW FW FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
FW
W
W
FW
S
S
E
E W FW

FW SD SD
FW
FW FW
W W
E E
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
RIM=776.58' INV 8" E=766.79' INV 8" W=766.78'
RIM=785.17' INV 8" S=771.21' INV 8" E=771.22' INV 8" W=771.19' 2.0%

2.2%

1.5%
3:1
(12.0%)
3:1

0.5%

8.6%

8.3%
TBM: FOUND BRASS CAP IN WELL MONUMENT
TCS #94 ELEV = 778.797' FOUND BRASS CAP

IN WELL MONUMENT
TCS #108 ELEV = 777.717'
RIM=773.21' INV 6" NE=765.00' INV 8" E=763.85' INV 8" W=763.54' 2:1
3:1
2:1
780
781
782
783
781
782
783
780
781
782
783 784 784
770
775
780
782 782782
783
770
775
775
774
776
777
778
775
780 780
780
774 776 777 778 779 779 779
779 779
781
782
784
778
760
760
765
761
761
762
762
763
763
764
2:1
BUILDING #1 FFE: 781.50
BUILDING #2 FFE: 784.00
BUILDING #3 FFE: 782.50
BUILDING #4 FFE: 784.00
(776.7 FG)
(774.0 FG)
(779.7 FG)
(772.5 FG) CONFORM
(773.4 FG)
BUILDING #1 FFE: 781.50
BUILDING #2 FFE: 784.00 BUILDING #4 FFE: 784.00
BUILDING #3 FFE: 782.50
781.14 FS
777.66 SS INV
778.00 SS INV
BUILDING #5 FFE: 780.00
BUILDING #8 FFE: 778.50 BUILDING #8 FFE: 778.50 BUILDING #9 FFE: 779.00BUILDING #9 FFE: 779.00 BUILDING #10 FFE: 780.00 BUILDING #10 FFE: 780.00
BUILDING #12 FFE: 782.00 BUILDING #7 FFE: 783.50
(776.0 FG)
BUILDING #5 FFE: 780.00
(779.0 FG)
778.34 FS/LP
778.64 FS
774.34 SS INV
764.20 SS INV
783.42 FS
775.62 FS
780.03 FS
769.89 SS INV
782.87 FS
779.14 SS INV
780.00 SS INV
775.86 FL
775.38 FL
777.05 TC
776.55 FL
780.15 FL
781.02 FL
783.5 FG
H=1.0-FT
(778.6 FG)
(782.4 FG) (785.5 FG) (785.4 FG) (788.4 FG) (789.0 FG) 782.2 FG (788.6 FG) 784.00 FS H = 5-FT (MAX)
779.84 FS
775.84 SS INV
773.80 FS
767.27 SS INV
781.1 FG
H=4.3-FT
783.5 FG
H=2.1-FT
BUILDING #6 FFE: 784.00
BUILDING #6 FFE: 784.00
777.5 FG/TW
778.0 FG/TW
(774.6 FG)

1.2% 782.60 FS
781.3 FG
781.5 FG
780.0 FG
779.0 FG
777.8 FG
(775.9 FG)
3:1 2:1
SS @ 2.3%
SS @ 2.3%
(770.0 FG)
780.00 SS INV
779.50 SS INV
779.84 FS
775.32 SS INV
775.42 TG
774.12 INV
778.08 TG
772.07 INV 3.6%
SS @ 7.8%
(784.8 FG)
(786.0 FG) 783.30 FS

4.5%
779.68 FS 781.00 FS
BUILDING #7 FFE: 783.50
BUILDING #11 FFE: 781.50
BUILDING #11 FFE: 781.50
BUILDING #12 FFE: 782.00
780
776777778 779 S:\All Jobs\2024 All Jobs\240621 - 420 Creston Road - Montage\02_Working Drawings\Entitlement Drawings\02_ONSITE\C-2 GRADING SHEET.dwg, C-2.1, Nov 14, 2025 11:42am, Logan 1ST ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Revisions:

Project Engineer: Project Manager: Date: AV Job No: Scale: PER PLAN Sheet Size: 24" x 36" Ext:

Engineer of Record: Plan Prepared By: The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the original site for which they were
prepared and publication thereof is expressly limited to such use. Reproduction or publication by any method,
in whole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans and specifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,
Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of these restrictions. Ashley
&Vance ENGINEERIN G, IN
C. 1229 Carmel Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 545-0010 www.ashleyvance.com C I V I L S T R U C T U R A L

PLAN REVIEW SET

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EE
I N
C 77354 TS C

TA E OF
I GER
IA
I FO

CAL V I L NR
R
E PR

S ED RET OF ON

I LA GNE

SS I KATHLE EN ALLWINE
N
20 0 20 40 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' 420 CRESTON ROAD 420 CRESTON PASO ROBLES, CA 93446 EMD
KEA
11/14/2025
240621 PRELIMINARY

GRADING AND

DRAINAGE PLAN
C-2.1
1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 141 DIAL TOLL FREE 811 OR
(1-800-422-4133) AT LEAST TWO DAYS

BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
P/L
(E) P/L PER NORTH COAST ENGINEERING TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR MERGER TO BE COMPLETED. P/L P/L
(E) P/L PER NORTH COAST ENGINEERING TOPOGRAPHIC
SURVEY/ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR MERGER TO BE COMPLETED.

TYP 1.5%
TYP 1.5%
TYP 1.5%
TYP 1.5% TYP 1.5% TYP 1.5%
TYP 1.5%
(E) POWER POLE AND GUY WIRE. GUY WIRE TO BE RELOCATED
(E) 1" WATER METER WITH
(P) RP ASSEMBLY FOR

LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION, BY OTHERS
(E) POWER POLE AND GUY WIRE

BEHIND BACK OF SIDEWALK
(E) WATER METER
(E) EXTENET VAULT
(E) BELL MH
(P) 6" FIRE WATER SERVICE

AND DDCV ASSEMBLY
(P) WATER SERVICE, RP
ASSEMBLY AND 2-INCH WATER METER
(P) STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN
(P) BASIN OVERFLOW
8-IN SS @ S=9.9%
(P) UNDERGROUND

STORMWATER CHAMBERS
GENERAL NOTES: ALL EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE ALL POINTS OF CONNECTION AND VERIFY ALL CLEARANCES. MATERIAL DEPTH AND LOCATION SHALL BE IDENTIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. IF THERE ARE ANY DIFFERENCES FROM PLAN WITH ANY OF THESE ITEMS, ENGINEER OF WORK SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY: NORTH COAST ENGINEERING, JUNE 2024 A PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ALONG THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE WILL PREVENT THE PROJECT FROM RECEIVING STORMWATER RUN-ON FROM THE NEIGHBORING SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST. POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER NOTES: 1. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN WMZ 1. 2. THE PROJECT WILL CREATE OR REPLACE MORE THAN 22,500 SF OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACING. 3. THE PROJECT WILL DISTURB APPROXIMATELY 2.6 AC. 4. THE PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO RETAIN THE 95TH PERCENTILE STORM EVENT. FLOOD CONTROL NOTES: 1. THE PROJECT, IN ITS FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITION, IS REQUIRED TO MATCH THE PREDEVELOPMENT STORMWATER PEAK FLOWS UP TO THE 100-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM EVENT. UTILITY NOTES: 1. UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO BE PROVIDED FOR EACH UNIT (24 TOTAL UNITS) INCLUDING DOMESTIC WATER SUBMETERS. 2. ALL UTILITIES ON SITE WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, AND ALL OTHER UTILITIES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF PASO.

GRADING INFORMATION NOTES: CUT QUANTITY: 1000 CUBIC YARDS FILL QUANTITY: 8000 CUBIC YARDS NET QUANTITY: 7000 CUBIC YARDS IMPORT *NOTE: THE ABOVE QUANTITIES ARE FOR PLANNING AND PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY. SHRINKAGE; CONSOLIDATION AND SUBSIDENCE FACTORS; LOSSES DUE TO CLEARING AND DEMOLITION OPERATIONS; AND TRENCHING FOR UTILITIES AND FOUNDATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE BASED ON THE APPROXIMATE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXISTING GRADES AND PROPOSED

FINISHED GRADES OR PAVEMENT SUBGRADES, AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS, AND SHOULD VARY ACCORDING TO THESE FACTORS AND LOSSES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM AN EARTHWORK ESTIMATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING A LUMP SUM BID PRICE FOR EARTHWORK. THE BID PRICE

SHALL INCLUDE COSTS FOR ANY NECESSARY IMPORT AND PLACEMENT OF EARTH MATERIALS OR THE EXPORT AND PROPER DISPOSAL OF EXCESS EARTH MATERIALS. RETAINING WALL INFORMATION: RETAINING WALL ALONG EAST PROPERTY LINE LENGTH: 340 FT MAX HEIGHT: 5 FT (CUT) RETAINING WALL ALONG WEST PROPERTY LINE: LENGTH: 110 FT MAX HEIGHT: 4 FT (FILL) P/L
P/L
(E) OVERHEAD PG&E LINES
TYP 1.5% 30' PG&E EASEMENT 30' PG&E EASEMENT 45' PG&E EASEMENT 25' SETBACK 5' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 15' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 5' SETBACK 5' SETBACK
10' SETBACK
15' SETBACK
TYP 1.5%
TYP 1.5% TYP 1.5%
TYP 1.5%
(P) BIORETENTION

PLANTER
(P) BIORETENTION

PLANTER
(P) WATER LINE
(P) FIREWATER LINE
(P) SEWER LINE
(P) ELECTRICAL LINE
(P) STORMDRAIN
(P) FENCE
LEGEND
SD SD
W W
FW FW
S S
E E
(P) STAIRS (P) STAIRS
(P) STAIRS (P) STAIRS
(P) STAIRS
(P) STAIRS
(P) STAIRS
(P) STAIRS
(P) GATE FOR RETENTION

BASIN MAINTENANCE ACCESS
(P) FIRE HYDRANT GRADING IS ALLOWED 10' INTO AGREEMENT WITH PG&E THE 30' EASEMENT PER (E) 10" VCP SEWER MAIN PER AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY.
(E) APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF 12" AC WATERLINE

PER UTILITY ATLAS
(E) APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF 4" CI WATERLINE PER

UTILITY ATLAS
(P) TRASH ENCLOSURE
(P) TRASH ENCLOSURE
(P) STEPS
(P) STEPS (P) STEP
(P) STEP
S:\All Jobs\2024 All Jobs\240621 - 420 Creston Road - Montage\02_Working Drawings\Entitlement Drawings\02_ONSITE\C-2 GRADING SHEET.dwg, 11/14/2025 11:42:37 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 Exhibit E

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 LOT
5 MB
17 87
LOT
MB
PARCEL ·1
PRAL 77-351
PAUL G. ASHTON
TRUST
APN 009-541-009
I
71 HOLLY SMITH
APN 009-523-002
I PARC.EL 2 �RAL 07-0275
RICHARD S. COOK
TRUST
APN 009-523-006
LOT
5 MB
I 5
87 FOUND 3/+" IRON PIPE
PER R1 (NO TAG )
FR. LOTS 4
& LOT 5
2 MB 71

BEECHWOOD LLC
APN 009-523-004
_J
6 I
I
I
--
LOT
FR,
A
LOT P
MB 31
7 & LOT FR, LOT 5 2 MB 2 MB 71
I') '""'
N
O i--c--J
zo
a.~
w I WI o- o" 2/<l __,<lJ >? I
-o XO> za, �� )-O
iiJO
Q, tz
., �Q,
"'
EASEMENT ITEMS REFERENCED FOR PRELIMINARY TITI.E REPORT NO FDLC-512500377-RB PREPARED BY FIDEUlY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY DATED OCTOBER 30 2025 ITEM NO. OWNER OF EASEMENT RECORDING INFORMATION PURPOSED DISPOSmON 7 PASO ROBLES WATER COMPANY JUNE 15, 1894, BOOK 24, PAGE ROAD TO REMAIN 174 OF DEEDS
10 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 2025-001176, O.R. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL TO REMAIN

PURPOSES
8 LOT 9 7·1
2 MB 7-1
(/)(0
:J(',J (l'.O
1-- /
�;.-;
1-- "'
:, I
om 0
<r□
2z O"- >.,

FR LOT L
A MB 31

LOT 'JO
2 MB 71
Zo
:, I "-r ,,,
(/)
"'
wl __,a,
<rO
s:O
Bf
.,
I')
(l'.O WI Z~
Zl'l W<lJ O'. I
0, Oo s;o
c3z
Q,
.,
SYMSOL LEGEND: - ' -- FENCE LINE RETAINING WALL -ss-- SEWER MAIN [egl - PG&E BOX - G-w--WATER MAIN -GAS MAIN l!iMl GAS METER -ETC-ELEC/TELEPHONE/CABLE Ifill - TELEPHONE BOX □HE--CL OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC � SIGNAL BOX i:::::JeD

BETWEEN POLES
DROP INLET AT CURB � CABLE T.V. BOX
I
!§I
DROP INLET llill

ELECTRIC BOX
® STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (v TELEPHONE MANHOLE
V
FIRE HYDRANT o--¢ STREET LIGHT
@) WATER WELL JP-0- JOINT POLE
I><] WATER VAL.VE PP-0- POWER POLE
li!lil WATER MffiR � GUY WIRE
® SEWER MANHOLE � MONITORING WELL
oco SEWER CLEANOUT �

BENCH MARK

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
LOT
TRACT
6 MB
19 219
75 CITY OF p APN 009 A__S
5 0
4 ROBLES 1-019
f
�
UND I� IRON PIPE 57
51" PER R2
f�U�� I: IRON PIPE
51 PER R2 \

BRUCE &
APN ooJ:ARIA SZLAVIK -531-032
PARCEL 2
PRAL 03-0156

GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0
�-- --
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 30 ft.

REFERENCES:

R1 23 PM 74
R2 61 PM 65
SUSDIVISION NOTES:
f.�
UND 1 • JRON PJPE 57
51• PER R2

RICHARD DANE CLARK LIVING TRUST
C/0 AGENT
AGENT:

STEPHEN ROSS
MONTAGE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
23945 CALSBASAS ROAD, SUITE 207
CALAGASAS, CA 901 302
818-652-6701
srossOmontogedev.com

MICHAEL STANTON, PLS

MBS LAND SURVEYS
3559 SOUTH HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805-594-1960
ATTN: KERRY MARGASON
[email protected]
ASSESSOR'S PARCEi NI JMAER
009-541-010 & 009-541-011 ==
R2
WATER & SEWER:

CITY OF PASO ROBLES
ELECTRIC; PG&E
TELEPHONE: AT&T
CABLE TV; SPECTRUM
GAS: SOUTHERN CAL GAS
EASEMENT NOTE:
[�UNO 1 • IRON PIPE .,,..,.,.r
57 51• PER RZ -_/
ROAD EASEMENTS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 24 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 174 ARE BLANKET IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE PLOTTED.

SITE DATA:

ADDRESS: 420 CRESTON ROAD. PASO ROBLES. CA. 93446
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 009-5-41-010 & 011

EXISTING CONDITIONS

TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 3254

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
BEING A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, FOR 24 RESIDENTIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS, OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF DOCUMENT NO. 2022-014759 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS FILED IN THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, COUNlY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, LYING IN THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES, COUNlY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
r\/7�
AT THE REQUEST OF MONTAGE DEVELOPMENT, INC. LJuLI�
MICHAEL B. STANTON, PLS 5702
3559 SOUTH HIGUERA ST.
lt•i?l"§-i!hi?##i-•���-��
l
�-9��6
0 •
CA 93401
Jcnucry 1 6, 2026 JOB #25-209 SHEET 1 OF J
Exhibit F

�
1 o-r 17
s MB B7
1 o-r 15
s MB 87
I
fR. Lo-r P
A MB 3'I
\,,l �l..!-l-,--_
-_-_ -_-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
-
_
�
_
-
_
-
_
-
f
_
R
_
_
-
_LQ:.
-
,
--r._
-
_
-
Q
-_
-_ _- -_- _-_-_�_-=-_-_- --=-_- _-=-_--=-
_-=-
_-
_
--=--=--=-
__
-- j�
_
-
_
-
_
--+�-
_
-
_
-
7J7\
--
N1
-
5 �
�-& SARAH MAGGARD \ • _ , APN "'069,�41-007
\
I
I
ii
I

HOLLY SMITH
APN oog-523-002
I
-- --
� PARCtl 2
RAL 01-0275 fR.

I
RICHARD S. COOK
06�':.il3-006
APN
& L01 Lm 1
L( & 6 fR. LO-r 6 2 MB Lo-rs
MB 71 LO-r 5 2 & w "'
MB 1'1 "' f--N
2 zO
0 WI [j I uBEECHW00
5 �3
���4 fl_- Z"l
o
"'
APN 009- __J
"' >1 I zm
xm >-0
a8 __JQ
w
"-z l;jz
fl_ :>'!c
<
8 71 2
fR LO-r L
A MB 31
ui<D :::,N
(l'.O
>- I
<-i "'"'>--1 ::,D CJ)
O
0 z
fl_
<
zo
:::, I <-I")
"'
WC/J I
m __Jo 9io
I
uz
fl_
<
PARCE:L ·1
1'1 03-0·156
PRAL
;;;
(l'.O WI zZ") W"1
Cl'. I
CJ) DO
,:o
c§z
fl_
<

GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0
�-- --
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 30 ft.

CITY OF PASO ROBLES
APN 009-541-019

BRUCE & MARIA SZLAVIK
APN 009-531-032
pARCE'.L 2
PRAL 03-0156

CONDOMI UM UNITS AND

PROPO ED UTILITIES

TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 3254
BEING A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION, FOR 24 RESIDENTIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUIA UNITS, OF PARCELS 1 AND 2 OF DOCUMENT NO.
2022-014759 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS FILED IN THE COUNTY

RECORDER'S OFFICE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, LYING IN THE CITY

OF PASO ROBLES, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
AT THE REQUEST OF MONTAGE DEVELOPMENT, INC. LJuLI�
r\/7� MICHAEL B. STANTON, PLS 5702
3559 SOUTH HIGUERA ST.
lt•i?l"§-i!hi?!#i-•���-��
l
�-9��6
0 •
CA 93401
Jcnucry 1 6, 2026 JOB f/-25-209 SHEET 2 OF 3
Exhibit F

0 0
0 ,,;

BRICK/STONE VENEER
BASE

TRIANGULAR
12 ROOF VENTS -----=d���"--

RECESSED VINYL WINDOWS
W / 2" DEEP x 3.5" WIDE
DECORATIVE TRIM & 2"

DEEP WINDOW SILL
MAIN ROOF� +30'

FIBER CEMENT BOARD

AND BATTEN
r_2'-0"
EAVE,
TYP.

FIBER CEMENT BOARD

AND BATTEN
BUILDING TYPE 2 - ELEVATIONS (SCHEME A)

COMP SHINGLE ROOFING
24" OVERHANGS W / 16"
DEEP CORBELS@ 3' O.C.

BRICK/STONE VENEER
BASE
�---� COVERED PORCH ENTRIES@
BUILDINGS 1 & 2 ALONG
CRESTON PER PRMC 21.50.070

RECESSED VINYL WINDOWS
W / 2" DEEP x 3.5" WIDE
DECORATIVE TRIM & 2"

DEEP WINDOW SILL

FIBER CEMENT BOARD

AND BATTEN
COVERED PORCH ENTRIES@
BUILDINGS 1 & 2 ALONG
CRESTON PER PRMC 21.50.070

PRIVACY SCREEN WALL

DIVIDING SHARED ENTRY
PORCH

CRAFTSMAN STYLE

COLUMNS AT ENTRIES
FRONT PORCH ENTRIES@ BUILDINGS 1 & 2
9 - M.UCH21.20:IS
420 Creston Road ""
·-
l"•l0'-0"011'11
Paso Robles, CA A4.la

TENTATIVE TRACT
NO. 3254
BEING A ONE LOT SUBDMSION, FOR 24 RESIDENTIAL AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS, OF PARCELS I AND 2 OF DOCUMENT NO. 2022-014759 OF OFFICIAL

RECORDS FILED IN THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, LYING IN THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AT THE REQUEST OF MONTAGE DEVELOPMENT, INC.

December 1, 2025 JOB #25-209 SHEET 3 OF 3
Exhibit F

1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Oak Tree ImpactReport
Project Location: 420 Creston Road, Paso Robles,
Report Prepared By: Rodney D. Thurman
Professional Certifications:
• International Society ofArboriculture (ISA) Board Certified Master Arborist # PN2684BUM – Expires 6/1/2025 • ISA Urban Forest Professional – Expires6/1/2026
• ISA Utility Specialist – Expires6/1/2026
• ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification – Expires 12/31/2026 City of Paso Robles Business License: #16811 Exp. June 30, 2025 Proof of Liability Insurance: Century Surety Company- Policy #CCP1261355 Exhibit G

1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] March 17, 2025
To: Stevens Wilson – Montage Development Inc., 23945 Calabasas Road Suite 207, Calabasas, CA 91302 From: Rodney Thurman – Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Re: Oak Tree Impact Report in regard to proposed residential development at 420 Creston Road.

Mr. Wilson,
Inresponsetoyourrequest, I have assessed the condition,stabilityandpotentialforretentionoften (10) nativeoak treeslocated at 420 Creston Road in Paso Robles, California. Additionally, I have included a brief overview of non-native trees on site.

Summary:

I assessed the health and stability of ten (10) native oak trees 6 inches in diameter and larger that were growing on the property where you are proposing to construct a new housing development. Three (3) native oak trees numbered 1-3 were in fair condition and structurally sound. Seven (7) other native oaks were generally in poor or very poor condition and did not warrant retention. The proposed footprint of the project will significantly impact all of the trees including Trees 1-3. The proposed construction impacts will not allow the retention of any of the native oaks on site.

Tree replacements are required for all native oak trees removed that are six (6) inch diameter and larger. All native tree removals must be approved by city council. In total, I recommended that 10 native oak trees be removed due to construction impacts and/or poor health. The combined total diameters of the trees proposed for removal were 176 inches. According to the oak tree protection ordinance, a 25% replacement of total diameter inches removed is required. Twenty-five percent of 176 is 44 inches. Therefore twenty-nine (29) native oaks at a size of 1.5 inch caliper would be required for mitigation replacement, on site, if all trees recommended for removal are approved by the city.

There were also numerous non-native trees on site. According to the City of Paso Robles tree ordinance, there is no restriction on removing non-native trees.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
2 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Introduction:

The property is located on the south side of Creston Road between Capitol Hill Drive and Ferro Lane. You have proposed to build multiple residences on this site. Associated paved access roads and parking areas are also proposed. The terrain is relatively flat on the northern half of the property. The southern half of the property slopes off significantly to a seasonal drainage below. See Appendix A – Photographs - Photo 1.

There were ten (10) valley oak trees (Quercus lobata) on the site that measured greater than 6 inches in *diameter at standard height (DSH). There were also approximately 33 non-native trees on site.

Observations:

I conducted health and condition assessments for each native oak tree on the property with a DSH of six (6) inches and greater. I numbered each tree with a rectangular metal tag and attached it to the base of the trunk. Photos of the trees are provided in Appendix A - Photographs. Locations of each tree listed are in Appendix B - Site Map.

A chart for quick reference regarding the assessment is included in Chart 1 - Oak Tree Inventory on page 3.

To determine the condition class rating for each tree, I listed six (6) subcategories of condition with values of 1-5. One was the lowest rating and five was the highest rating. From the combined total of the six (6) categories, a condition class was assigned according to Chart 2 on page 4. A condition class rating quantification breakdown is listed in Chart 3 on page 4.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
3 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Chart 1 - Individual Oak Tree Inventory
Tree # Species Diameter Location Condition Impact % Comments 1 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 13
front of
lot at
street
fair 100 Utility pruned but structurally stable.
2 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 13
front of
lot at
street
fair 100 Utility pruned but structurally stable.
3 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 13
front of
lot at
street
fair 100 Utility pruned but structurally stable.
4 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 18
front of
lot at
driveway
very poor 100 Trunk defect due to wired girdling it.

Severely drought stressed.
5 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 13
front of
lot at
west
fenceline
poor 100 Severe drought stress
6 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 44
mid lot at
west
fenceline
very poor 100
Fire damage. 3 of 4 stems badly burned on
north side. South stem and scaffold
branch burned and not alive. Live canopy
50%. Decay present in 3 of 4 burned
stems. Large stems of tree likely to fail
due to decaying stems. Presents hazard
post development.
7 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 19
mid lot at
east prop
line
poor 100
Two-stemmed tree with included bark.

Moderate drought stress
8 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 16
mid lot at
east prop
line
poor 100
Two-stemmed tree with included bark.

Moderate drought stress
9 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 17
mid lot at
east prop
line
very poor 100
Two-stemmed tree with included bark.

Severe drought stress.
10 Valley Oak
(Quercus lobata) 10
mid lot at
east prop
line
very poor 100
Three-stemmed tree with included bark.

Moderate drought stress.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
4 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Chart 2 - Condition Class Rating
Condition Class Rating
Tree # Trunk
Condition
Growth
Rate
Structure Insects and
Disease
Crown
Development
Life
Expectancy
Rating Condition
Class
1 4 3 2 4 1 3 17 Fair
2 4 3 2 4 1 3 17 Fair
3 4 3 2 4 1 3 17 Fair
4 1 1 1 3 1 1 8 Very
poor
5 4 1 2 3 1 1 12 Poor
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Very
poor
7 1 2 1 3 3 1 11 Poor
8 2 1 1 3 2 1 10 Poor
9 2 1 1 3 1 1 9 Very
Poor
10 2 1 1 3 2 1 9 Very
Poor
Chart 3 - Condition Class Valuation
Condition Class Valuation
Condition Class Percent Rating
Excellent 81-100% 24-30
Good 61-80% 19-23
Fair 41-60% 14-18
Poor 21-40% 10-13
Very Poor 0-20% 0-9
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
5 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Discussion:

Analysis of Tree Health
Trees 1-3 were given a condition rating of fair. All of the trees had been utility pruned for power line clearance.

Although not specimen trees, they were viable. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photo 2 Tree 4 was given a condition rating of poor. It was growing along the west edge of the western driveway that enters the property. The tree had grown into the wire fence and the wire was causing damage to the trunk and compromising its structure. Additionally, the tree was moderately drought stressed and had heavy soil compaction from driveway use in its *critical root zone or CRZ. No damage to the structural roots was apparent. The main issue contributing to the low rating was the wire fence embedded into the trunk. The embedded wire had compromised the wood structure and was also an entry point for decay. Long term, the stem will become more unstable and prone to failure. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photos 3 & 4.

Tree 5 was given a condition rating of poor. The tree was growing on western property line, approximately 50 yards south of the street. It had severe drought stress which was indicated by twig die-back in the *canopy and decline of small diameter branches. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photo 5.

Tree 6 was given a condition rating of very poor. Fire had damaged 3 of 4 stems and they were severely burned on the north side. The scaffold branch growing off the south stem was completely burned with no signs of life. The remaining viable canopy was approximately 50%. Decay was present in 3 of 4 burned stems. Large stems of the tree were likely to fail due to decay. The tree will present risk to people and property post development if it is retained. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photos 6 & 7.

Tree 7 was given a condition rating of poor. The tree was located along the eastern property line at the mid-point of the parcel. It had moderate drought stress which was indicated by twig die-back in the canopy. This tree also had a multi-stem trunk with *included bark that will make it more prone to failure in the future. See Appendix A - Photographs - Photos 8 & 9.

Tree 8 was given a condition rating of poor. The tree was also located along the eastern property line at the mid-point of the parcel. It had moderate drought stress which was indicated by twig die-back in the canopy. This tree also had a multistem trunk with included bark that will make it more prone to failure in the future. See Appendix A – Photographs - Photos 10 & 11.

Tree 9 was given a condition rating of very poor. The tree was also located along the eastern property line at the midpoint of the parcel. It had severe drought stress which was indicated by twig die back and decline of small diameter branches. This tree also had a multi-stem trunk with included bark that will make it more prone to failure in the future.

See Appendix A – Photographs - Photos 10, 12 & 13.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
6 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Tree 10 was given a condition rating of very poor. The tree was also located along the eastern property line at the midpoint of the parcel. It had severe drought stress which was indicated by twig die back and decline of small diameter branches. This tree also had a multi-stem trunk with included bark that will make it more prone to failure in the future.

See Appendix A – Photographs - Photos 14 & 15.

Consideration of trees in relation to development plans:

Many of the native oak trees on the site were in poor to very poor condition, displaying structural defects and stress caused by drought and in one case a tree had been badly burned. When I assessed the trees for long term retention in relation to the proposed new homes, few were worthy of keeping. When the site development plans were overlayed, the impacts were so great that none of the native oak trees on site would survive.

Trees 1-3 were in fair condition and located next to the existing sidewalk at Creston Road. The entrance into the development is planned for this area. The impacts from the entry construction will be 100%. Based on current plans, I do not recommend these trees for retention.

Tree 4 had severely declined due to drought. Although it was a larger tree, because of the damage to the trunk caused by the embedded fence, its structure had been compromised which makes it more prone to whole stem failure. Additionally, a building and parking area are proposed in this location. I do not recommend this tree for retention.

Tree 5 had also declined due to drought. Because of its poor vigor I anticipate it will decline further. Additionally, construction impacts from grading and paving the parking area will severely impact the roots of the tree and contribute further to its decline. Grading may also cause the tree to become unstable. If this tree were of higher quality, I would recommend creating a tree island to protect and retain it. In its current condition, I don’t anticipate it being long lived, therefore I do not recommend retention. This tree is located on the property line and you must gain permission from the adjacent owner before it can be approved for removal by the city.

Tree 6 suffered significant damage during a 2020 fire. Its structure and health has been compromised. It is not safe to retain this tree in a housing development. Current plans indicate a building is planned for this location. I do not recommend this tree for retention.

Tree 7 was in poor condition overall. In regard to health the tree rated as fair, however the tree was a two-stem with included bark which makes it prone to failure and lowered its rating for structure. Additionally, the tree is located within the footprint of a proposed building. If this tree were of higher structural quality, I would recommend redesign to protect and retain it, but as it stands, I do not recommend retention of the tree based on its poor structure.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
7 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Trees 8 & 9 were rated poor and very poor. They had declining health from years of drought stress and their structures were compromised due to included bark between their co-dominant stems which makes them prone to failure. Additionally, the trees are located within the proposed footprint of a building. If these trees were of higher structural quality, I would recommend redesign to protect and retain them, but as it stands, I do not recommend retention based on their poor structure and low vigor.

Tree 10 was rated very poor. It had declining health due to drought and its structure was compromised due to included bark between its co-dominant stems. Included bark makes the tree prone to failure. Additionally, the tree is located within the proposed footprint of a building. If this tree were of higher structural quality, I would recommend redesign to protect and retain it, but as it stands, I do not recommend retention based on its poor structure and low vigor.

Non-Native Trees - There were approximately thirty-three (33) non-native trees on site which included: Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), Almond (Prunus dulcis), Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), Ailanthus (Ailanthus altissima), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and California pepper (Schinus molle). See Appendix A - Photographs- Photos 13 - 16 for examples. According to the City of Robles Paso tree ordinance, there is no restriction on removing non - native trees. For the most part, these trees occurred along the eastern border of the property. Many were drought stressed and in severe decline.

The pines along the eastern border were young and vigorous; however, their potential for red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) infestation is high. Aleppo pines also grow to 60 or more feet tall and are prone to large branch failure.

Furthermore, pines are highly flammable. If left in place, the branches of these trees would encroach on buildings, pose failure, and fire hazards.

Oak Tree Replacements:

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

Replacement oaks being equivalent to twenty-five percent of the diameter of the removed tree(s). (For example, the replacement requirement for removal of two trees of fifteen-inch DBH (thirty total diameter inches), would be seven and onehalf inches (thirty inches removed multiplied by twenty-five hundredths replacement factor). This requirement could be satisfied by planting five, one and one-half inch caliper trees, or three, two-and one-half inch caliper trees or any other combination totaling seven and one-half inches). A minimum of two, twenty-four inch box, one and one-half inch minimum trunk caliper measurement trees shall be required for each oak tree removed.

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

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
8 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] The combined total for diameters of the trees proposed for removal is 176 inches. Twenty-five percent of that total diameter is 44 inches. Therefore, twenty-nine (29) native oaks measuring 1.5 inch caliper would be required for mitigation replacement on site, if all trees recommended for removal are approved by the city. Replacement trees shall be native California oaks endemic to the Paso Robles area. The species proposed for removal is valley oak (Quercus lobata) therefore it is the preferred species to plant back on site. Exceptions can be made by the City regarding the native oak species, but must be approved prior to planting.

Because valley oaks have a large mature size and require unrestricted root-space, planting the trees in a grove in the openspace adjacent to the existing wooded area at the south end of the parcel would be ideal. See Appendix A – Photographs - Photo 20. The trees shall be planted 30 feet on center.

Automatic irrigation shall be provided at approximately 10 gallons per tree on a weekly basis, May through October for the first 5 years after planting in order to establish the trees.

I have also provided an International Society of Arboriculture tree planting diagram in Appendix C. It is consistent with the City’s Standards and Specifications Section 8 - Appendix L. Note that tree stakes shall remain on trees no more than 2 years. Wire fencing may need to be installed around the trees to prevent deer from entering the mitigation area.

Conclusion and Recommendations:

Trees 1-3 were in fair condition and viable, however proposed new curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements including the main driveway entry to the property will not allow the retention of these trees.

Trees 4,5,7,8,9 and 10 had poor health and structure or were growing within or adjacent to proposed building footprints.

None were of high enough quality to be retained and therefore did not warrant the adjustment of building plans.

Tree replacements are required for all approved oak trees removals that are six (6) inch diameter and larger. Twenty-nine (29) native oaks at a size of 1.5 - inch caliper would be required for replacement if all trees recommended for removal are approved. Planting the trees in a grove adjacent to the existing wooded area at the south end of the parcel would be ideal.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
9 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Sincerely,
Rodney D. Thurman
ISA Certified Arborist PN-2684BUM
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification
Appendices: Photographs, Site Map, Tree Planting Specifications, Glossary of Terms Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
10 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Appendix A- Photographs
Photo 1 - Panorama view looking south into lot from Creston Road.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
11 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 2 - View of Trees 1-3 along Creston Road. New driveway entry planned for area.

Tree 1 Tree 2 Tree 3
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
12 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 3 - View south of Tree 4 from Creston Road.

Tree 4
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
13 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 4 - View south of Tree 4 trunk growing into fence. Trunk is not structurally sound.

Tree 4
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
14 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 5 - View southwest of Tree 5 - Note drought stress indicated by dead branches and sparse canopy. Tree is outside property line.

Tree 5
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
15 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 6 - View south of tree 6 – A mature valley oak that was badly burned in a June 2020 fire. The tree is alive but in very poor condition.

It is not safe to retain in a housing project.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
16 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 7 - View of Tree 6 trunk on north side – 4 of 4 primary stems were badly burned and starting to decay. The tree is not safe to retain in a housing project.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
17 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 8 - View south of Tree 7 Photo 9 - Tree 7 with included bark indicated by arrow.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
18 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 10 - View of Trees 8 & 9 - Note dead branches indicating drought stress.

Tree 8 Tree 9
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
19 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 11 - Trunkof Tree 8 withincludedbark.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
20 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photo 12 - View of Tree 9 - Note drought stress Photo 13 - Trunk of Tree 9 with included bark . indicated by dead branches and sparse canopy.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
21 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected]

Photo 14 - View of Tree 10 - Multi-stem tree Photo 15 - Trunk of Tree 10. with included bark.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
22 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Photos 16 -19 Below - Examples of non-native trees on site

Photo 16 - Pines Photo 17 - Almonds
Photo 18 - Elm Photo 19 - CaliforniaPepper
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
23 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected]

Photo 20 - View of open-space above existing oak woodland at the south end of the parcel.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
24 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Appendix B - Site Map
Black cirles indicate tree locations. Tree numbers are called out on map. See page A2.0 of plan set for full scale version.

Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
25 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Appendix C - Tree Planting Diagram
Exhibit G

*Denotes glossary term – Appendix D
26 1343 Bishop Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel: 805 234 8760 Email: [email protected] Appendix D- Glossary of Terms
• Canopy- Collectivebranchesandfoliageof a treeorgroupoftree’scrowns.Aggregateorcollectivetreecrowns. • CriticalRootZoneor CRZ- The International SocietyofArboriculture (ISA)definesCriticalRoot Zone(CRZ) asan areaequalto 1-footradiusfromthebaseofthetree’strunkforeach 1 inchofthetree’sdiameterat4.5feet above grade (referred to as Diameter at Standard Height or DSH. • Diameter atStandardHeightorDSH- Diameter oftrunkmeasured at 4.5 feet above groundlevel. • Drip-line- Area beneath the tree delineated by the outer edge ofthe tree canopy. • IncludedBark- Barkthatbecomesembeddedin a crotch(union)betweenbranchandtrunkorbetweenco-dominant stems. Causes a weakstructure.

Exhibit G

Exhibit H
City of Paso Robles
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Paso Robles 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 1000 Spring Street
Sacramento, CA 95814 Paso Robles, CA 93446
[email protected]
805-237-3970
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
File
Project Title: Montage Condos (PD24-07, MOD25-09, OTR25-04, Tentative Tract Map 3254, P24-0100) Project Applicant: Stephen Ross representing Montage Development, Inc.

Project Location – Specific: 420 Creston Road, APN 009-541-010 and 009-541-011 Project Location - City: Paso Robles Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo Project Description: The project is a Development Plan for 24 residential condos including one unit deed restricted for a very-low income household. The project also includes a request for a fence height modification, a permit to remove 10 oak trees, and a 1-lot tract map for condominium purposes.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Paso Robles Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Montage Development, Inc.

Exempt Status:

Ministerial (Sec 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Categorical Exemption. Class 32, Infill Development; CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt: The project meets all requirements of a class 32 exemption and does not meet any exception to a categorical exemption.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, the project does not meet any of the exceptions to a categorical exemption:
a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption and avoids the oak woodland and seasonal creek at the southern edge of the property. There are no resources of hazardous or critical concern designated or mapped on the property

Exhibit H
b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

The cumulative impact of residential development in the City is mitigated through the payment of development impact fees that address demands on the City’s transportation, fire, police, and recreation infrastructure. In addition, the project is required to annex into the City’s Community Facilities District 2005-1 to address its ongoing impact on fire, police, and recreation services.

The impacts of the build out of the City of Paso Robles were analyzed and mitigated to the maximum extent possible by the EIR of the 2003 General Plan Update. The general plan anticipated development of the site for multi-family development. c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

There are no unusual circumstances relevant to the impacts of the project, which is designed to avoid biological resources associated with the seasonal creek and related oak woodland at the southern edge of the property.
d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The site is not within or adjacent to a scenic highway. e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

No hazardous sites are listed within 1,000 feet of the project in the Department of Toxic Control’s EnviroStor database.
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

No historical resources are located on the property, which is undeveloped but disturbed. Aerial photographs from 1941 show the site was partially developed with a single-family residence near Creston Road at that time. In 1971, the site was partially developed with two single-family residences near Creston Road.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA as an infill development because:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The property has a General Plan land use category of Residential Multiple Family, Low Density 8 units per acre (RMF-8). The purposes of the RMF-8 category include providing low density multifamily developments where each building has only 2-3 units; permitting clustered housing in environmentally sensitive areas; and providing housing in close proximity to schools, shopping and other services including public transit. Each building has 2 units, which are clustered on the flatter portion of the site and away from an unnamed seasonal creek and oak woodland on the southern edge of the property. The site is located near schools and shopping centers. Creston Road is an arterial road. The site is on the City’s transit route that runs hourly on Creston Road in

Exhibit H
each direction. The site is zoned R2, which corresponds with the RMF-8 land use category.

Consistent with both the general plan and zoning ordinance, steeply sloping and oak-covered areas of the lot are excluded from the developable area of the site. The developable area is 3.1 acres and has an average slope of 9.8%. The maximum site density is 6.5 units per acre due to the slope. Twenty units are allowed on the site by right. A state density bonus of 4 units (total of 24 residential density units) is allowed in exchange for the applicant deed-restricting 1 unit for a very-low income household.

Land Use Element Policy LU2I is to “[e]ncourage infill development as a means of accommodating growth, while preserving open space areas, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and enhancing livability/quality of life.” The project would fill a vacant lot along the second most traveled arterial street in the City without impacting the adjacent oak woodland and seasonal creek.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The property is within the City, is 4.32 acres in size and is surrounded on all sides by developed sites including Creston Road to the north, Ferro Road to the east, and Capitol Hill Road to the west. The project avoids any impact to the seasonal creek at the southern property line. No jurisdictional permits from state or federal agencies are required to accomplish the project. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The project includes removal of 10 native oak trees on the site (7 of which are in poor or very poor condition) but avoids a seasonal creek at the southern edge of the property, which connects with the Salinas River approximately 500 feet west of the site. The project also avoids impacting a relatively intact oak woodland surrounding the drainage, which has limited value as habitat and as a local wildlife corridor.
d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

The project is 24 residential units. The traffic impact study prepared for the project indicates “the Project would generate 160 average daily trips (ADT), 10 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips.” The expected trips are below the threshold of significance for traffic impacts established by City policy. In addition, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The project is residential in character. The development will be subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance; no significant noise effects are anticipated.

The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District has determined that a low-rise apartment project operational in 2027 would need to include more than 88 units to have a significant greenhouse-gas impact and more than 192 units to have a significant ozone-precursor impact (CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 2023). A 24-unit project falls below the thresholds of significance for all air quality metrics of concern in the region.

The project will be required to comply with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements, which will result in a project that does not have significant impact on water quality.

Exhibit H
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Water, sewer, electrical, and gas services are available to the site. The General Plan anticipates its development, and public utilities and services (including water, sewer, and solid waste) are designed to accommodate build-out of the General Plan.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Katie Banister Phone: (805) 237-3970 Associate Planner Email: [email protected]
Signature: Date: February 4, 2026

Signed by Lead Agency
Date received for filing at OPR:

Signature: Date: Title:

Date received for filing at OPR:

Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code

1010 Marsh St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 546,8208 • FAX (805) 546,8641

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Luis Obispo,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of the New Times, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and published
weekly in the City of San Luis Obispo, County
of San Luis Obispo, and which has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, under the date of
February 5, 1993, Case number CV72789: that
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to-wit:
fr,,bv-v{,.,( r lO\
in the year 2026.

I certify ( or declare) under the the penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated at San Luis Obispo,
lj of_L.Cl.,<:J..a.;=-4--'
Patricia Horton, New Times Legals
Adm.m&PcrlODd'•NTMGAdaw/NfMGOfu/BUSINESS/PublicNoti«JProofofPub Proof of Publication of

NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL

PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Paso Robles City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the following project:

Project Description: Development of 24 residential condos 112 duplex buildings) on a vacant property. The project includes a state affordable housing density bonus, fence height
modification, subdivision map, and oak tree removal permit for 10 oak trees (P024-07, DTR25-04, MOD25-09, P24-0100).

Applicant Stephen Ross, Montage Development Inc
Location: 420 Creston Road (APN 009-541-010 and 009-541- 0ll)
CEOA Determination: The project is exempt from
environmental review as a class 32 categorical exemption for infill development projects pursuant to the State's Guidelines to lmplement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15332
Hearing Date: The City Council will hold a Public Hearing on March 3, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. at the Norris Room, Centennial Park, 600 Nickerson Drive, Paso Robles, CA 93446.

On February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project. On a vote of 6-0 (Marlow absent), the Commission recommended the City Council
approve the project
The public has the option to attend the meeting in person or to participate remotely. To participate remotely, residents can \ivestream the meeting at www.prcity.com/youtube, and call (805)865-7276 to provide live public comment via telephone.

The phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting.

Written public comments can be submitted via email to
[email protected] or US Mail (submit early) to the City Clerk, 1000 Spring Street, Paso Robles, CA 93446 provided that the comments are received prior to the time of the public hearing. Comments received prior to 12:00 noon on the day of the meeting will be posted as an addendum to the agenda. If submitting written comments, please note the agenda item by number or name. Comments on the proposed application must be received prior to the time of the hearing to be considered by the City Council.

Challenge to the application in court will be limited to issues raised at the public hearings or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearings.

Copies of the project staff report will be available for review on the City's website (www.prcity.com/meetings) on the
Friday preceding the hearing. If you have any questions, please contact tho r.omm11nity Development Department at pla•[email protected] or (805) 237-3970.

February 19, 2026
Attachment 3

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
“The Pass of the Oaks”
1000 SPRING STREET • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 • www.prcity.com

AFFIDAVIT

OF MAIL NOTICES

CITY COUNCIL NOTICING
I, Marci Reynoso , employee of the City of El Paso de Robles, California, do hereby certify that the mail notices have been processed as required for the March 3, 2026 public hearing for P24-0100 / MOD 25-09 / OTR25-04 / PD24-07 on this 20th day of February in the year 2026.

City of El Paso de Robles
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Signed:

Marci Reynoso
Attachment 4

Attachment 5
1000 SPRING STREET • PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA 93446 • www.prcity.com

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

AFFIDAVIT OF SITE NOTICES

FOR CITY COUNCIL HEARING
I, Katie Banister , employee of the City of El Paso de Robles, California, do hereby certify that a site notice at least 11 inches x 17 inches in size has been posted in a prominent place at 420 Creston Road for the March 3, 2026 City Council hearing for Development Plan 24-07, Site Plan Modification 25-09, Tentative Tract Map 3254, and Oak Tree Removal Permit 25-04 (P24-0100), on this 18th day of February 2026.

City of El Paso de Robles
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Signed:

Katie Banister

1 From: Warren Frace
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 8:14 PM
To: Katie Banister
Subject: Fwd: 420 Creston
FYI
Warren Frace
City of Paso Robles.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mary < >
Date: June 22, 2025 at 6:23:52 PM PDT
To: CDdirector <[email protected]>
Subject: 420 Creston
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
Hello Mr. Frace,
I live on Ferro Lane and would like to lodge a public comment about the proposed development at 420 Creston Road. My comment is related to the parking provisions. Based upon what I read, there will be 2 garage parking spaces per unit and 14 guest spaces. In as much as these are 4 bedroom units it is somewhat likely that there will be more than 2 drivers in a dwelling. This is based upon the fact that more young people are staying in the family home for longer periods of time. Even if only half the families have 3 vehicles you can see how quickly the extra spaces will be used up causing an overflow to parking on Creston Road and possibly Ferro Lane and Capital Hill. If only one family had a medium sized gathering you can see how easily parking will be an issue. On Ferro Lane where most places only have one parking garage/carport per unit we have a continuous parking issue. I’m concerned that this problem will be exacerbated by the new development. I am in favor of increased affordable housing but I think this project’s proposed density may be more than the neighborhood can comfortably accommodate.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

Mary Alvarado
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 6

1 From: Mary < >
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2026 4:06 PM
To: Planning
Subject: Public comment 420 Creston
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ] [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
I am wriƟng as a potenƟal neighbor for the proposed development at 420 Creston Road. I live on Ferro Lane.

I have reviewed the site plan from the agenda of June 2, 2025.

My concerns are related to the plans for guest parking. Each dwelling has 4 bedrooms. Typically we would expect that there would be 2 drivers/household. Unfortunately in this economy that is not the case. Many households have mulƟ generaƟonal families as residents. If teens or young adults live with parents, as is oŌen the case, there would be more cars than the alloƩed 2/dwelling. Since there are only 14 overflow/guest parking spaces you can see how it could be nearly impossible for a guest to find a parking space. Should a family host a party of some sort that would create more parking issues. Since the recent construcƟon on Creston road with the welcome addiƟon of a leŌ turn lane and expanded bike lane there are no streetside parking opƟons.

I have visited the Experimental StaƟon density development and parking is a nightmare.

While I recognize the need for more housing I feel that we have to be pracƟcal in design to meet the needs of the current demographics in our area. It might require fewer dwellings be built so that more parking and open space is available.

Mary E. Alvarado
Sent from my iPhone
Mary E. Alvarado
Attachment 7

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Faith Wells >
Sunday, February 8, 2026 7:27 AM
Planninq
Concerns about Creston Condo Project
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Dear Planning Commission,
. Learn why this is important
It has come to my attention via mail notice that there is a hearing to accept the development of 24 4 bedroom condos at 420 Creston Road. This concerns me deeply as a home owner at. Elm Court, which is directly across the street from the proposed development. I am writing to ask you to reject this development for many reasons but the biggest being the traffic impact.

This portion of Creston Road is one lane each direction. Currently this section of Creston Road is already impacted during morning, evening and mid-afternoon. Each weekday morning this area from South River past Elm Court is backed up with traffic from school drop off and those going to work. This backup happens without the current and ongoing construction. How is this area supposed to absorb the potential 61 + additional cars that will be added when the proposed 24 condos are built Trying to get out of Elm Court, a one way street is already difficult and quite scary. I've owned this home since December 2008 and have seen many accidents. My parents were rear-ended in this area and their car totaled due to the traffic issues. Yes, the new middle turning lane helps but with an additional 61 + cars the impact will be immense as people already do not watch for cars or pedestrians within this stretch of Creston Road.

In addition to the extremely large capacity of traffic impact from this, I fear these additional 24 condos will lower the home prices within this area of town. This area has seen quite the turn around and adding 24 condos will not help the values of homes.

Please, I ask you to vote no and to not recommend this project to move forward. Or if you would please work with the developer to lower the number of condos built. The impact of traffic alone on this two lane road will be a total mess as it is already a mess.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of rejecting this project.

Thank you,
Faith Wells
1 Attachment 8

2 ~~~~~~
Faith Wells
Attachment 8

Mar 3, 2026
Paso Robles
1000 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 420 Creston Road To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dear Paso Robles City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 24-unit housing development project at 420 Creston Rd, which includes 1 very low income unit. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) guidelines.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
Attachment 9

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to the playground requirements. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review under the Class 32 CEQA categorical exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as the applicable zoning designation and regulations; the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The project is also eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66). Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law. 2 of 3
Attachment 9

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
Attachment 9

Council Agenda Report
From: Shannon Foutz, Human Resources/Risk Manager
Subject: Approval of a Resolution and Introduction for First Reading by Title Only of an Ordinance Authorizing an Amendment to the CalPERS Contract by Reducing the Cost-Sharing Agreement for Unrepresented Confidential, Professional, and Management Employees in th
CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15060, subd. (c)(2)-(3), 15378.

Date: March 17, 2026
Facts

1. The California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL) authorizes public agencies and their employees to participate in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).

2. The City maintains a retirement contract with CalPERS covering three member categories: Police Safety, Fire Safety, and Miscellaneous (non-sworn) employees. Each category includes three benefit levels (“tiers”), with formulas that determine a member’s monthly retirement allowance based on factors including years of service, age at retirement, and reportable compensation.

3. The City’s CalPERS contract requires retirement contributions from both employees and the City.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 20516, employees may share in the cost of the employer’s CalPERS contributions above the normal member contribution required under PERL.

4. Currently, Unrepresented Confidential, Professional, and Management (MGMT) employees in the Fire Safety and Police Safety first and second tier benefit levels contribute an additional ten percent (10%) toward the employer’s contribution. Employees in the PEPRA tier contribute an additional six percent (6%).

5. The Wage and Benefit Summary approved by the City Council in December 2025 provides for a reduction in retirement cost-sharing contributions for safety managers of three percent (3%) as soon as administratively feasible, and an additional two percent (2%) effective January 3, 2027. As the first step toward implementing these adjustments, the City Council adopted Resolution 26-002 on January 14, 2026, authorizing initiation of an amendment to the employer contribution cost-sharing agreement with the California Public Employees' Retirement System.

6. The amendment process required to implement these changes is governed by CalPERS procedures and the Government Code and includes the following steps:
a. Adoption of the Resolution of Intention (Attachment 1), initiating preparation of the final contract amendment.
b. Conduct and certification of a secret ballot election of the affected employee groups, as required by Government Code Section 20474.
c. Approval of contract change at the April 21, 2026, City Council meeting. d. The contract amendment (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) becomes effective thirty (30) days following adoption.

e. The three percent (3%) cost-sharing reduction for safety managers will take effect on May 24, 2026.

7. A second contract amendment, following the same statutory process, will be presented to the City Council later this year to implement the additional two percent (2%) reduction effective January 2027.

Options

1. Take no action;

2. Approve a resolution and introduce for first reading by title only an ordinance giving notice of the City’s intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the City of Paso Robles and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System for the MGMT police and fire safety member categories.

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
At present, police and fire managers contribute an additional six percent (6%) to ten percent (10%) above their required employee contribution to the California Public Employees' Retirement System. These additional contributions directly reduce employees’ take-home pay and have increasingly been identified as a factor affecting the City’s ability to recruit and retain highly qualified public safety management personnel in an increasingly competitive labor market.

In December 2025, the City Council approved a Wage and Benefit Summary that includes a phased reduction in CalPERS cost-sharing for safety managers. Under the approved structure, the additional costshare will decrease by three percent in the first year and by an additional two percent in the second year, for a total reduction of five percent. This adjustment aligns safety manager contributions with those of POA-represented sworn officers, strengthens the City’s competitiveness among peer agencies, and advances the City’s goal of remaining an employer of first choice.

Implementation of these changes requires a formal amendment to the City’s CalPERS contract and adherence to the procedural requirements established by state law. The actions before the City Council represent the next required steps in that statutory process to effectuate the previously approved compensation adjustments. Approval will allow the City to move forward with implementation in accordance with the established timeline while ensuring full compliance with applicable legal requirements.

Fiscal Impact
The modification of CalPERS cost-sharing contributions for safety managers will decrease employee contributions and proportionately increase the City’s employer contribution obligation, as the City will assume the three percent (3%) reduction in the first year and the additional two percent (2%) reduction in the second year that are currently paid by affected employees.

The fiscal impact of this adjustment was incorporated into the recently approved MGMT Wage and Benefit Summary and aligned with the negotiation parameters established by the City Council. The resulting increase in employer retirement costs has been accounted for in the adopted budget.

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

Recommendation (Option 2)
Approve Resolution 26-XXX and introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance XXXX, giving notice of the City’s intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the City of Paso Robles and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System for the MGMT police and fire safety member categories.

Attachments

1. Resolution 26-XXX - Resolution of Intention

2. Ordinance XXXX – Approval to Amend
a. Exhibit A - CalPERS Amendment to Contract

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION

TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT

BETWEEN THE

BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

AND THE

CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF PASO ROBLES
WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and
WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract; and WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change:

To provide Section 20516 (Employees Sharing Additional
Cost) of a reduction of 3% for local safety members in the Unrepresented Confidential, Professional and Management group.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body of the above agency does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and by this reference made a part hereof.

By:_________________________________
Presiding Officer
_________________________________
Title
______________________
Date adopted and approved
(Amendment)
CON-302 (Rev. 4/96)
Attachment 1

Attachment 2

ORDINANCE XXXX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AUTHORIZING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASO ROBLES AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHEREAS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL) authorizes public agencies and their employees to participate in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS); and WHEREAS, the City maintains a retirement contract with CalPERS covering three member categories:

Police Safety, Fire Safety, and Miscellaneous (non-sworn) employees; and WHEREAS, each category includes three benefit levels (“tiers”), with formulas that determine a member’s monthly retirement allowance based on factors including years of service, age at retirement, and reportable compensation; and
WHEREAS, the City’s CalPERS contract requires retirement contributions from both employees and the City. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 20516, employees may share in the cost of the employer’s CalPERS contributions above the normal member contribution required under PERL; and WHEREAS, Unrepresented Confidential, Professional, and Management (MGMT) employees in the Fire and Police Safety first and second tier benefit levels contribute an additional ten percent (10%) toward the employer’s contribution. Employees in the PEPRA tier contribute an additional six percent (6%); and
WHEREAS, the Wage and Benefit Summary approved by the City Council in December 2025 provides for a reduction in retirement cost-sharing contributions for safety managers of three percent (3%) as soon as administratively feasible, and an additional two percent (2%) effective January 3, 2027; and WHEREAS, as the first step toward implementing these adjustments, the City Council adopted Resolution 26-002 on January 14, 2026, authorizing initiation of an amendment to the employer contribution cost-sharing agreement with the California Public Employees' Retirement System.

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. That the City Council of the above agency does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an Exhibit A and by this reference made a part hereof.

Section 3. The Mayor of the City of El Paso de Robles, or their designee, is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City.

Attachment 2
Section 4. 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 5. 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. 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
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – CalPERS Amendment to Contract

Exhibit A Page 765 of 772 City Council Agenda March 17, 2026 Exhibit
A

Exhibit
A

Exhibit
A

Exhibit
A

Exhibit
A

Exhibit
A

Exhibit
A