Paso Robles City Council
April 21, 2026

CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES
"The Pass of the Oaks"
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Addendum

Tuesday, April 21, 2026, 5:00 PM
Tuesday, April 21, 2026, 6:00 PM
Centennial Park - Norris Room
600 Nickerson Drive
Paso Robles, CA 93446
The agenda addendum includes public comments received for items Q4 and R3. It also includes corrections, shown in red or redline, to the following items:
• P7 – Exhibit A to Attachment 1 – Update to Section 1.3 History Q5 – Exhibit A to Attachment 5 – Update to Site Specific Conditions of Approval Engineering and Utilities
•
• R1 – Attachment 1 – Update to Section 7
Residents can livestream the meeting at www.prcity.com/youtube, and call (805)865-7276 to provide public comment via phone. The phone line will open just prior to the start of the meeting and remain open throughout the meeting to ensure the opportunity to comment on each item heard by the Council, other than brief reports and announcements by staff or the Council.

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

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

Pages
P. CONSENT CALENDAR
*7. Approval of Resolution Adopting the 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
4 - 56
Paul Patti, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal
CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15306, Information Collection, and 15262, Planning Studies.

Recommendation: Approve Resolution 26-XXX, adopting the 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and finding this action exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 and 15262.

City Council Agenda April 21, 2026
Q. PUBLIC HEARINGS
*4. Continued from April 7, 2026 meeting - Introduce First Reading by Title Only an Amendment to Chapter 21.52 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code Updating Standards Related to Temporary, Prohibited, and Nonconforming Signs (RZN25-07, P25-0117)
57 - 80
Darcy Delgado, Associate Planner
CEQA Determination: The proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines §15060(c) provides that “[a]n activity is not subject to CEQA if … the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378.” Even if the proposed ordinance is considered a “project” subject to CEQA, it is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15320 (Class 20).

Recommendation: Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance XXXX, amending Chapter 21.52 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code. *5. Approval of the Oak at Ardmore Project, Including a Zoning Map Amendment, a Special Planned Development Overlay Zoning Designation, and an Oak Tree Removal
81 - 1314
Darcy Delgado, Associate Planner
CEQA Determination: On February 20, 2024, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a commercial/industrial project (“Covelop”) consisting of 240,000 square feet of floor area spanning six buildings for this project site. Staff recommends the City Council approve an addendum to the 2024 MND for the original Covelop project. The Addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the residential 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.

Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council approve the project by taking the following actions:
a. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(A), certifying an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 25-14, Rezone 25-03, Modification 26-04, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Oak Tree Removal 25-09; and
b. Introduce for first reading, by Title only, Ordinance XXXX, approving Rezone 25- 03 regarding updates to the El Paso de Robles Zoning Code and Zoning Map; and c. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(B), approving an allocation of 154 Surplus Density Units to Parcel 025-362-050; and
d. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(C), approving Planned Development 25-14, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Modification 26-04; and e. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(D), approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255; and f. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(E), approving Oak Tree Removal 25-09.

R. DISCUSSION ITEMS
*1. Second Reading by Title Only and Adoption of Ordinance 1168 Authorizing an Amendment to the CalPERS Contract to Reduce the Cost-Sharing Agreement for Unrepresented Confidential, Professional, and Management Employees in the Police and Fire Safety Member C
1315 - 1326
Shannon Foutz, Human Resources/Risk Manager
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.

City Council Agenda April 21, 2026 Page 2 of 1344
Recommendation: Approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance 1168 authorizing 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. Approval of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Homelessness and Affordable Housing Compact and Receipt of Regional Homeless Services Inventory 1327 - 1344
Ashlee Hernandez, Homeless Services Manager
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: Approve Resolution 26-XXX approving the San Luis Obispo County Regional Homelessness and Affordable Housing Compact and receive the Regional Homeless Services Inventory.

City Council Agenda April 21, 2026 Page 3 of 1344
Council Agenda Report
From: Paul Patti, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal
Subject: Approval of Resolution Adopting the 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan CEQA Determination: The City finds that this action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15306, Information Collection, and 15262, Planning Studies.

Date: April 21, 2026
Facts

1. A Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) is a long-term planning document that identifies natural disaster risks in a community. It also incorporates mitigation strategies and actions to reduce impacts from possible future disasters, including, but not limited to, adverse weather; agricultural pests and disease; biological agents; dam incidents; drought and water storage; earthquake; flooding; landslides and debris flows; subsidence; wildfire; and human-caused hazardous materials incidents.

2. Pursuant to the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the City is required to identify the risks to lives and property created by natural and artificial hazards, and to formulate a set of goals, objectives, and actions to mitigate risks created by these hazards

3. The City’s LHMP can be viewed in its entirety in Exhibit A of Attachment No. 1. The City’s LHMP is also Annex E of the San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and can be viewed in its entirety in Attachment No. 2. The MJHMP includes all 22 local jurisdictions throughout San Luis Obispo County.

4. The City adopted the current LHMP in 2019. The proposed 2025-2030 LHMP would supersede the existing LHMP.

5. Federal regulations governing assistance from the FEMA provide that local jurisdictions must have a FEMA-approved LHMP in order to apply for Hazard Mitigation Grants and disaster relief.

6. Both the LHMP and the MJHMP were prepared by WSP Consulting Group, under contract with multiple SLO County agencies.

7. Copies of the draft LHMP were submitted to the California Office of Emergency Services and to FEMA.

Both agencies provided comments, which were incorporated into the plan. On December 29, 2025, FEMA reported that they were satisfied with the revised draft LHMP (See Attachment No. 3).

Stakeholder and Public Outreach
Public involvement tools included outreach through social media, disseminating an online public survey, utilizing the City of San Luis Obispo’s City Hall web platform, and community workshops. To promote the workshops, County staff reached out to local media outlets and stakeholders to inform the public of the opportunity to participate and posted on several community calendars and local government websites.

The public workshops occurred on January 14, 2025, at the Katcho Achadjian Government Center in San Luis Obispo and virtually on May 29, 2025.

Options

1. Take no action.

2. Adopt the 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Annex E).

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
The requirement for local jurisdictions to prepare a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was established by Congress through the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. Maintaining an up-to-date LHMP is a prerequisite for eligibility for competitive state and federal grant funding. These funds support capital improvements that reduce long-term risk to public infrastructure and safety, such as stormwater system upgrades to minimize flood impacts. As such, adoption and periodic update of the LHMP is not only a regulatory requirement, but also a critical step in securing external funding and advancing the City’s resilience goals.

The LHMP is also developed through a coordinated regional approach, reflecting collaboration among multiple jurisdictions and partner agencies. This regional coordination strengthens the City’s ability to address hazards that cross jurisdictional boundaries, align mitigation priorities, and improve competitiveness for grant funding opportunities that favor multi-agency and regionally consistent planning efforts.

The LHMP identifies and evaluates hazards with the highest likelihood of occurrence in the City, including:
 Adverse Weather: Thunderstorm/Heavy Rain/Hail/Lightning/Dense Fog/Freeze  Adverse Weather: High Wind/Tornado
 Adverse Weather: Extreme Heat
 Agricultural Pest Infestation, Plant Disease, Tree Mortality  Biological Agents (Naturally Occurring)
 Dam Incidents
 Drought and Water Storage
 Earthquake
 Flooding
 Landslides and Debris Flows
 Subsidence
 Wildfires
 Human-Caused: Hazardous Materials
Development of the City’s LHMP was led by an interdisciplinary Hazard Mitigation Plan Revision Group, consisting of the Fire Chief, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal, Police Commander, Finance Manager, City Planner, Public Works Operations Manager, Solid Waste and Recycling Manager, and Recreation Services Manager. This cross-departmental collaboration ensures that the plan reflects a comprehensive assessment of risks, operational considerations, and mitigation priorities across all City functions.

Fiscal Impact
The San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) total cost was $245,030.

Participation in the countywide MJHMP allowed the County to secure a federal grant covering 75% of total development costs. The remaining 25% of costs were divided on a per capita basis among the participating agencies, requiring the City to contribute $3,500.

Recommendation
Approve Resolution 26-XXX, adopting the 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and finding this action exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 and 15262.

Attachments

1. Resolution 26-XXX - 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan a. Exhibit A – 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (Annex E)

2. San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan – 2025-2030 Link

3. FEMA Approval Letter – December 29, 2025

Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES ADOPTING THE 2025-2030 LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND FINDING THIS ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO STATE GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15306 AND 15262.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as set forth in 44 CFR Part 201 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to identify the risks to lives and property created by natural and artificial hazards to the City, and to formulate a set of goals, objectives, and actions to mitigate risks created by these hazards; and WHEREAS, the process of preparing the Plan included consultation with other affected governmental agencies, and a public outreach program; and WHEREAS, the Draft Plan was submitted to the California Office of Emergency Services (CAL OES), and to FEMA for their review and comment; and
WHEREAS, comments received from CAL OES and FEMA were incorporated into the plan; and WHEREAS, in December 2025, the County of San Luis Obispo Office of Emergency Services notified the City that FEMA determined that the plan is eligible for final approval, pending adoption by the City of El Paso de Robles; and
WHEREAS, the 2025-2030 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan is provided as Exhibit A to this resolution.

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

Section 1. All of the above Recitals and Findings are true and correct, and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. This action is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15306, Information Collection, and 15262, Planning Studies.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect on the date it is approved by City Council.

APPROVED by the City Council of the City of El Paso de Robles by the following vote on April 21, 2026.

Attachment 1
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2025-20230

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-1 Annex E Paso Robles
E.1 Community Proˎle
E.1.1 Mitigation Planning History and 2025 Process
This annex was updated in 2025 to build upon the previous version created for the 2019 San Luis Obispo Hazard Mitigation Plan update. The City of Paso Robles initial Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was completed February 2016; these previous mitigation plans are referenced several times by the City’s General Plan. A review of jurisdictional priorities found no significant changes in priorities since the last update. More details on the planning process and how the jurisdictions, service districts and stakeholders participated, as well as how the public was involved during the 2025 update, can be found in Chapter 3 of the Base Plan.

The City’s Local Planning Team (LPT) held responsibility for implementation and maintenance of the plan. Table E-1 summarizes the City’s planning team for the plan revision process, and Table E-2 summarizes various stakeholder groups, neighboring communities, and local agencies which supported or coordinated on this HMP update.

Table E-1 Paso Robles Hazard Mitigation Plan Revision Planning Group

DEPARTMENT OR STAKEHOLDER TITLE
Fire and Emergency Services Department Fire Chief
Fire and Emergency Services Department Battalion Chief
Finance Department Finance Manager
Community Development Department City Planner
Police Department Commander
Public Works Operations Manager
Utilities Department Solid Waste & Recycling Manager
Community Services Recreation Services Manager
Table E-2 Paso Robles Stakeholder Groups, Neighboring Communities, and Local Agencies

STAKEHOLDER GROUP NAME
Agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities: Regional Water Quality Control Board Agencies that have the authority to regulate development: County Planning Neighboring communities San Luis Obispo Fire Safe Council Representatives of business academia, and other private orgs: Althouse & Meade Representatives supporting underserved communities Community Action Partnership of SLO E.1.2 Geography and Climate
Paso Robles is located in northern San Luis Obispo County, California, approximately halfway between the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is 19.4 square miles (12,534.7 acres) and 24 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean. Paso Robles is considered to be in the most northern area of Southern California.

Exhibit A

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-2 Paso Robles is bordered on the south and west by the rugged mountainous ridges of the Santa Lucia Coastal Range, to the east by the low hills of the La Panza and Temblor Ranges, and to the north by the low hills and flat-topped mesas of the Diablo Range. The highest elevations in the vicinity are located in the Santa Lucia Coastal Range where many peaks are 2,000 to 3,400 feet above mean sea level. Substantial ridgelines are distributed throughout the western, southern, and eastern portions of the City. The Mediterranean climate of the region and coastal influence produce moderate temperatures year round, with rainfall concentrated in the winter months.

Within the City limits, the Salinas River, U.S. Highway 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad divides the City east to west at the center of the City. The City is bounded by steep hills and canyons on the west, and open rolling hills to the east. Suburban residential development frames the City on the southern and eastern edges, with lower density residential development to the north and west of the City. Agricultural uses both north and south of the City eventually give way to the unincorporated communities of Templeton and San Miguel, approximately 5 miles south and 9 miles north, respectively.

Figure E-1 displays a map of the City of Paso Robles planning area.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-3 Figure E-1 The City of Paso Robles

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-4 E.1.3 History
The Paso Robles area was home to several Native American tribes for thousands of years before the mission era.

In 1857, James and Daniel Blackburn purchased the Rancho Paso de Robles Mexican land grant. The land was a rest-stop for travelers of the Camino Real trail, and was known for its mineral hot springs. In 1864, the first El Paso de Robles Hotel was constructed and featured a hot mineral springs bath house. In 1886, after the coming of the Southern Pacific Railroad, work began on laying out a town site, with the resort as the nucleus.

Paso Robles incorporated as a City in 1889. That same year, construction began on the current El Paso de Robles Hotel, which opened for business in 1891.

For a time, Paso Robles was known as the “Almond City” because the local almond growers created the largest concentration of almond orchards in the world. The ranchers in the outlying areas were very important to the Paso Robles area. On these ranches were cattle and horses, grain crops (primarily wheat and barley), garden produce and fruit and nut orchards. Many of these ranch lands and orchards have become vineyards for the many wineries which currently draw tourists to the area.

Wine grapes were introduced to the Paso Robles soil in 1797 by the Spanish conquistadors and Franciscan missionaries. The first vineyardists in the area were the Padres of the Mission San Miguel, and their old fermentation vats and grapevine artwork can still be seen at the Mission, north of the City of Paso Robles. Commercial winemaking in the Paso Robles region dates back to 1882 when Andrew York, a settler from Indiana, established the Ascension Winery at what is now York Mountain Winery. Paso Robles’ reputation as a premier wine region became established in the 1920s and 30s, and continues to this day.

Paso Robles has a “Council-Manager” general law form of government where the City Manager is appointed by the City Council and is the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipal Corporation.

The City Council acts as the board of directors of the municipal corporation and meets in a public forum where citizens may participate in the governmental process.

The City Council consists of five members. Four Council Members are elected by district, and the Mayor is elected at-large, on a non-partisan basis. Residents elect the Mayor and four Council members, making each accountable to the citizenry. Council members serve four-year overlapping terms. The mayor is directly elected and serves a four-year term. The City Council establishes City policies, approves ordinances and resolutions, makes land use decisions, approves agreements and contracts, hears appeals on decisions made by City staff or advisory committees, and sets utility rates. The Mayor and City Council members receive a monthly stipend set by resolution.

The City Manager is the Chief Executive Officer of the City. The City Manager is appointed by the City Council to enforce city laws, to direct the operations of city government, to prepare and manage the municipal budget, and to implement the policies and programs initiated by the City Council. The City Manager is responsible to the City Council, and directs departments and operations.

The City Attorney is appointed by the City Council and works under contract to the City. The City Attorney is the legal advisor for the council. He or she provides general legal advice on all aspects of city business and represents the City in legal actions.

The City Clerk is an appointed official. The City Clerk is charged with responsibility of maintaining records of council actions, permanent records of all city transactions and documents, and

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-5 coordinating the city’s elections. The Deputy City Clerk is an appointed staff position that assists the City Clerk in carrying out all duties.

The City Treasurer is an elected official who acts as the custodian of all public funds belonging to or under the control of the City. The City Treasurer’s duties are mandated by state law and city policies. These duties include accounting for the receipt and disbursement of all City funds, the management of the City's Investment Portfolio, and reporting investment activity to the City Council. The primary mission of the City Treasurer is the safeguarding of City funds with the goals of preservation of capital balances, ensuring liquidity to meet the daily, weekly, monthly and annual cash needs of the City and investing idle funds to generate revenues to the city without compromising the goals of safety and liquidity. Boards, commissions and special committees composed of local citizens are frequently appointed by the City Council to advise the City Council in one or more aspects of city government. Typical advisory committees include Parks & Recreation, Streets and Utilities, Airport, Youth Commission, and Senior Citizens. The Planning Commission implements Council development and land use policy, and makes recommendations for policy revisions.

One of the major investments the City makes is the City’s work force. City employees perform the day-to-day functions necessary to provide services to the community. Department heads administer specific functions of city government and are responsible to the City Manager. Such positions are Public Works Director, Community Development Director, Community Services Director, Administrative Services Director, Utilities Director, and Police and Fire Chiefs.

E.1.4 Economy
Based on the 2023 American Community Survey (ACS) Paso Robles’ labor force is estimated to be 14,363 persons. The City has a relatively diverse economy, with no single sector or industry making up more than 20% of all jobs. The educational services, health care and social services accounts for 18.3% of jobs, followed by Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (12.3%), manufacturing (12.0%), and retail trade (10.5%). While the City’s manufacturing sector has declined some – as recently as 2001 it represented 23.2% of the local economy – Paso Robles is one of the few areas in the region where manufacturing still accounts for a sizable fraction of employment. By comparison, manufacturing in San Luis Obispo County as a whole is approximately 6.0%.

The City’s largest employers include Paso Robles School District, Firestone Walker, Walmart, Applied Tech., City of Paso Robles, IQMS, Joslyn-Sunbank, Zurn, Target, Lowes, and Cuesta College. At 4.2%, the City’s unemployment rate is similar to what it was in 2017 (4.5%). This has been accompanied by a 36% increase in per capita income, from $31,991 in 2018 to $43,615 in 2023.

Table E-3 shows how Paso Robles’ labor force breaks down by industry and Table E-4 shows breakdown by occupation based on estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey.

As the leading agricultural business in the county, the area's wine industry attracts more than half a million visitors to San Luis Obispo County annually. A 2014 study of the Paso Robles and Greater San Luis Obispo County Wine and Wine Grape industries shows that of the $924 million of total value added to the regional economy by the wine industry, about $417 million is attributable to wine grape production and $398 million to wine production. The remaining $109 million is the value added from wine-related tourism to the area.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-6 Table E-3 City of Paso Robles Employment by Industry (2023) INDUSTRY # EMPLOYED
%

EMPLOYED
Population (2023) 24,493
In Labor Force 14,985 61.2
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and
hunting, and mining
730 5.1
Construction 949 6.6
Manufacturing 1,754 12.2
Wholesale trade 350 2.4
Retail trade 1,506 10.5
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities
382 2.7
Information 213 1.5
Finance and insurance, and real
estate and rental and leasing
806 5.6
Professional, scientific, and
management, and administrative
and waste management services
1,764 12.3
Educational services, health care
and social assistance
2,630 18.3
Arts, entertainment, recreation, and
accommodation and food services
1,871 13
Other services, except public
administration
607 4.2
Public administration 801 5.6
Unemployed 622 2.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2018-2023 5-Year Estimates, www.census.gov/ Table E-4 City of Paso Robles Employment by Occupation (2023) INDUSTRY # EMPLOYED
%

EMPLOYED
Population (2023) 24,493
In Labor Force 14,363 61.2
Management, business, science,
and arts occupations
5,250 36.6
Service occupations 2,638 18.4
Sales and office occupations 3,212 22.4
Natural resources, construction, and
maintenance occupations
1,642 11.4
Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations
1,621 11.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2018-2023 5-Year Estimates, www.census.gov/ E.1.5 Population
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the City’s 2023 population as 31,399, down from 31,656 at the 2018 American Community Survey. Table E-5 shows an overview of key social and demographic characteristics of the City taken from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-7 Table E-5 City of Paso Robles Demographic and Social Characteristics, 2018-2023 CITY OF PASO ROBLES 2018 2023 % CHANGE
Population 31,656 31,399 -.81%
Median Age 38.4 38.8 +1.04%
Total Housing Units 12,590 12,688 +.78%
Housing Occupancy Rate 96.2% 94.6 -1.67%
% of Housing Units with no Vehicles Available 3.2% 3.9% +21.9% Median Home Value $433,900 $648,400 +49.44%
Unemployment 3.8% 4.2% +10.5%
Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes) 23.8 23.9 +.42%
Median Household Income $92,559 $119,341 +28.94%
Per Capita Income $31,991 $43,615 +36.34%
% of Individuals Below Poverty Level 11.8% 12.8% +8.47% # of Households 12,109 11,676 -3.58%
Average Household Size 2.60 2.67 +2.69%
% of Population Over 25 with High School
Diploma

84.2% 88.7% +5.34%
% of Population Over 25 with Bachelor’s Degree
or Higher

23.8% 29.1% +22.27%
% with Disability 11.4% 13.1% +14.91%
% Speak English less than "Very Well" 12.0% 13.6% +13.33% Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2012-2017 5-Year Estimates, www.census.gov/ Despite the economic gains discussed in the previous section, the number of individuals living below the poverty level has stayed relatively constant, and it is the same as the County (12.8%) and slightly above the state of California (12%). The percentage of population over 25 with a high school diploma in Paso Robles (88.7%) is between the County (91.8%) and the State (84.6%) average. The number of individuals who speak English less than very well is also significantly above the County average (5.8%), though still below the State average (17.3%).

E.1.6 Development Trends
According to the 2003 General Plan Land Use Element (revised in April 2014) approximately

78.1% (8,639 acres) of the City’s total land area is developed as residential, commercial, mixed use and industrial land, and public facilities uses. The remaining land is made up of 2,448 acres of agriculture (7.3%) and parks and open space (14.5%).

Table E-6 shows the potential land use categories for the 2025 build-out population of 44,000 persons as identified in the City’s General Plan. However, as noted in the revised Land Use Element, it is expected that an additional 20 years (2045) or longer will be needed to reach the 44,000 persons build-out population.

Table E-6 General Plan Development Potential (2014 Update)

LAND USE CATEGORY ACREAGE PERCENT
Commercial 1,271 10.0%
Business Park/Industrial 1,721 13.5%
Other/Public Facilities 1,947 15.3%
Agriculture & Open Space 2,572 20.0%

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-8

LAND USE CATEGORY ACREAGE PERCENT
Residential 5,228 41.2%
Total 12,739 100%
Source: City of El Paso de Robles General Plan 2003 Land Use Element, as amended April 1, 2014 When the General Plan Update was adopted in 2003, based on the pace of development activity at that time, it was anticipated that residential build-out of the City, resulting in a population of 44,000, would occur by 2025. However, the national economic slowdown that began in 2007, coupled with the history of periodic slowdowns over prior decades, has caused the City to consider that build-out and an attendant population of 44,000 may take more than 20 additional years, not until 2045 or longer, to attain.

In 2021, the City of Paso Robles received grants from the State of California to support technical assistance, planning document preparation, and process improvements aimed at accelerating housing production. The funds have been used to update the City’s Zoning Code (title 21). Updated zoning and land use maps can be found on the City’s website.

The LPT noted that there is significant growth in both commercial and residential. Approximately four million square feet of commercial space and 5,000 new homes in the planning or development stages.

Specific to hazards, analysis of parcels developed between 2019-2024 (since the last update of this HMP) indicated some growth in areas prone to flood (0.2% annual chance zone), landslide, liquefaction, and wildfire (see Development Trends subsections in base plan Chapter 5 for specific counts). While these trends may indicate some increase in community vulnerability, they do not account for site specific investigations or compliance with local regulations that may reduce risk during development. For all other hazards identified in Section E.3.3, the city’s net vulnerability has not increased or decreased due to changes in development since the previous plan was approved.

E.2 Hazard Identiˎcation and Summary
The Paso Robles planning team identified the hazards that affect the City and summarized their frequency of occurrence, spatial extent, potential magnitude, and significance specific to their community (see Table E-7). There are no hazards that are unique to Paso Robles. The overall hazard significance takes into account the geographic area, probability and magnitude as a way to identify priority hazards for mitigation purposes. This is discussed further in the Vulnerability section.

Table E-7 City of Paso Robles – Hazard Summaries

HAZARD GEOGRAPHIC
AREA

PROBABILITY

OF FUTURE

OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE/

SEVERITY
(EXTENT)

OVERALL

SIGNIFICANCE
Adverse Weather: Thunderstorm/ Heavy
Rain/Hail/Lighting/Dense Fog/Freeze
Significant Highly Likely Limited Medium
Adverse Weather: High Wind Significant Highly Likely Limited Low Adverse Weather: Extreme Heat Extensive Highly Likely Limited Medium Agricultural Pest Infestation and Disease Limited Highly Likely Negligible Low Biological Agents (naturally occurring) Extensive Occasional Negligible Low Dam Incidents Significant Occasional Limited Low

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-9

HAZARD GEOGRAPHIC
AREA

PROBABILITY

OF FUTURE

OCCURRENCE

MAGNITUDE/

SEVERITY
(EXTENT)

OVERALL

SIGNIFICANCE
Drought and Water Shortage Extensive Likely Limited High Earthquake Significant Likely Critical High
Flood Significant Likely Limited High
Landslides and Debris Flow Significant Likely Critical High Subsidence Significant Occasional Negligible Low
Wildfire Extensive Highly Likely Critical High
Human Caused: Hazardous Materials Limited Highly Likely Negligible Low Geographic Area
Limited: Less than 10% of planning area
Significant: 10-50% of planning area
Extensive: 50-100% of planning area
Probability of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in next
year or happens every year.

Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of occurrence in
next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or
less.

Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of occurrence
in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to
100 years.

Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in next
100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than
every 100 years.

Magnitude/Severity (Extent)
Catastrophic—More than 50% of property severely
damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than 30 days;
and/or multiple deaths
Critical—25-50% of property severely damaged;
shutdown of facilities for at least two weeks; and/or
injuries and/or illnesses result in permanent disability Limited—10-24% of property severely damaged;
shutdown of facilities for more than a week; and/or
injuries/illnesses treatable do not result in permanent disability
Negligible—Less than 10% of property severely
damaged, shutdown of facilities and services for less
than 24 hours; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid
Significance
Low: minimal potential impact
Medium: moderate potential impact
High: widespread potential impact
E.3 Vulnerability Assessment
The intent of this section is to assess Paso Robles’s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Section 5.3 Risk Assessment in the main plan. This vulnerability assessment analyzes the population, property, and other assets at risk to hazards ranked of medium or high significance that may vary from other parts of the planning area.

The information to support the hazard identification and risk assessment was based on the City’s previous LHMP. A Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Guide and associated worksheets was distributed to each participating municipality or special district to complete during update process in 2025. Information collected was analyzed and summarized in order to identify and rank all the hazards that could impact anywhere within the County, as well as to rank the hazards and identify the related vulnerabilities unique to each jurisdiction.

Each participating jurisdiction was in support of the main hazard summary identified in the Base Plan (See Table 5-2). However, the hazard summary rankings for each jurisdictional annex may vary slightly due to specific hazard risk and vulnerabilities unique to that jurisdiction. Identifying these differences helps the reader to differentiate the jurisdiction’s risk and vulnerabilities from that of the overall County.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-10 Note: The hazard “Significance” reflects overall ranking for each hazard, and is based on the City of Paso Robles’s HMPC member input from the Data Collection Guide and the risk assessment developed during the planning process (see Section 5.1 of the Base Plan), which included a more detailed qualitative analysis with best available data.

E.3.1.1 Other Hazards
The following hazards identified in the base plan HIRA are not identified within this jurisdictional annex due to low or no risk or insignificant anticipated impacts (non-coastal) and are not considered further mitigation actions:
x Coastal Storms/Coastal Erosion/Sea Level Rise
x Tsunami
E.3.2 Assets at Risk
This section considers Paso Robles’s assets at risk, including values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure, historic assets, economic assets and growth and development trends.

E.3.2.1 Values at Risk
The following data on property exposure is derived from San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s data. This data should only be used as a guideline to overall values in Paso Robles. Table E-8 shows the exposure of properties (e.g., the values at risk based on improvement and content values only) broken down by property type for the City of Paso Robles. Refer to the Base Plan Section 5.2 (HIRA Asset Summary) for more details on value information, content calculations, and overall parcel analysis methodology.

Table E-8 Property Exposure for the City of Paso Robles by Property Types

PROPERTY TYPE STRUCTURE
COUNT

IMPROVED VALUE ESTIMATED

CONTENT VALUE

TOTAL VALUE
Agricultural 28 $65,247,121 $65,247,121 $130,494,242
Commercial 645 $692,009,096 $692,009,096 $1,384,018,192 Exempt 64 $34,925,072 $34,925,072 $69,850,144
Industrial 122 $166,136,395 $249,204,593 $415,340,988
Mixed Use 202 $57,377,172 $57,377,172 $114,754,344
Mobile/Manufactured Homes 328 $59,791,723 $29,895,862 $89,687,585 Multi-Family Residential 536 $400,738,884 $200,369,442 $601,108,326 Residential 8,660 $2,422,545,360 $1,211,272,680 $3,633,818,040 Vacant Improved 93 $54,306,319 - $54,306,319
Total 10,678 $3,953,077,142 $2,540,301,037 $6,493,378,179 Source: San Luis Obispo County Assessor Data November 15, 2024, WSP GIS Analysis E.3.2.2 Critical Facilities and Infrastructure
A critical facility may be defined as one that is essential in providing utility or direction either during the response to an emergency or during the recovery operation. See Section 5 of the Base Plan for more details on the definitions and categories of critical facilities and Appendix E for details on names, addresses, and specific hazard vulnerabilities (where applicable).

An inventory of critical facilities in the City of Paso Robles from San Luis Obispo County GIS is provided in Table E-9 and illustrated in Figure E-1.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-11 Table E-9 City of Paso Robles’s Critical Facilities

FACILITY TYPE COUNTS
Communications 10
Energy 2
Food, Hydration, Shelter 3
Hazardous Materials 9
Health and Medical 4
Safety and Security 26
Transportation 20
Water Systems 1
Landfills 1
Total Count 76
E.3.2.3 Transportation and Lifeline Facilities
Major transportation and lifeline facilities are located adjacent to US Highway 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad line, both of which serve as vital links for regional commerce, emergency response, and daily travel, traversing through the City. Damages to these transportation corridors would impact not only Paso Robles but the entire region.

Other lifelines include Niblcik Bridge, 13th Street Bridge, Highway 46E Bridge, Highway 46W and G14 (Nacimiento Lake Drive).

E.3.2.4 Historic and Cultural Resources
The National Register of Historic Places contains five sites in the City of Paso Robles:
x Bank of Italy (aka Old Bank of America), 1245 Park St. x Brewster-Dutra House (aka Moye House), 1803 Vine St.
x Carnegie Library, City Park, 800 12th St.
x Lincoln School (aka Adelaida School), 9000 Chimney Rock Rd. (outside City limits) x Paso Robles Almond Growers Association Warehouse (aka Farmers' Alliance Building), 525 Riverside Ave.

There is also one California State Historical Landmark located in Paso Robles: the Estrella Adobe Church.

E.3.2.5 Natural Resources
Incorporating natural resources into benefit-cost analyses for future projects is essential, as they provide not only environmental benefits but also opportunities to leverage additional funding.

Projects that support both infrastructure development and the protection of sensitive ecosystems can align with broader community goals, maximizing both economic and environmental returns. Recognizing and preserving natural assets can create opportunities to achieve multiple objectives simultaneously, such as enhancing biodiversity, improving climate resilience, and mitigation natural hazards. For instance, protecting wetlands areas protects sensitive habitat as well as attenuates and stores floodwaters.

In Paso Robles, key natural assets include the Salinas Riverbed, which provides ecological benefits and serves as a foundation for recreational spaces like the Riverwalk, offering walking trails and open space for residents and visitors. Additionally, open space areas throughout the

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-12 city play a crucial role in maintaining air and water quality, supporting wildlife corridors, and offering scenic and recreational opportunities that enhance residents quality of life.

E.3.2.6 Economic Assets
Key economic assets in Paso Robles play a vital role in driving the local economy, supporting jobs, and attracting both residents and visitors. These assets span a diverse range of industries, from retail and hospitality to commercial and industrial enterprises, contributing to the city's longterm economic growth and resilience. These assets include: the downtown corridor, car dealerships, Lowe’s Plaza, Woodland Plaza, Target Center, Airport commercial businesses, and Commerce Road businesses.

E.3.3 Estimating Potential Losses
Note: This section details vulnerability to specific hazards of high or medium significance, where quantifiable, and/or where (according to HMPC member input) it differs from that of the overall County.

Table E-8 above shows Paso Robles’s exposure to hazards in terms of number and value of structures. San Luis Obispo County’s parcel and assessor data was used to calculate the improved value of parcels. The most vulnerable structures are those in the floodplain (especially those that have been flooded in the past), and buildings built prior to the introduction of modernday building codes. Impacts of past events and vulnerability to specific hazards are further discussed below (see Section 4.1 Hazard Identification for more detailed information about these hazards and their impacts on San Luis Obispo County as a whole).

E.3.3.1 Adverse Weather: Thunderstorm/Heavy Rain/Hail/Lightning/Dense Fog/Freeze Paso Robles’s risk and vulnerability to this hazard does not differ substantially from that of the County overall. The entire property and facility inventory, as well as the population of the City as noted in Section E.3.2, is exposed to the impacts of thunderstorm/heavy rain/dense fog/freeze due to the widespread nature of these hazards. The typical impacts to people, structures, and critical facilities/lifeline are discussed in Section 5.3.2.7 of the base plan. Specific to the City, as part of the North County Inland area, Paso Robles experiences similar patterns of seasonal weather, including occasional winter storms that bring periods of heavy rainfall and the potential for localized flooding. Thunderstorms and lightning are infrequent but can occur, sometimes bringing hail and brief downpours and pose public safety hazards to those working or recreating outdoors and potential power outages to structures. Dense fog, particularly in the early mornings, can affect visibility and transportation safety which may result in vehicle damage and injury. The overall significance rating of this hazard for Paso Robles is medium. The tables below show key climate variables such as extreme temperatures, precipitation totals, and the frequency of specific weather events. Weather data for the North County Inland Area, Paso Robles Weather Station, can be found in Section 5.3.1 of the Base Plan.

Table E-10 Paso Robles Climate Summary Table – Weather (Period of Record:
01/01/1894 - 04/15/2025)

SUMMARY
PERIOD

MONTHLY
MEAN

MAXIMUM
TEMP.

MONTHLY
MEAN

MINIMUM
TEMP.

DAILY

EXTREME
HIGH
TEMP
DAILY

EXTREME
HIGH
DATE
DAILY

EXTREME

LOW TEMP
DAILY

EXTREME

LOW DATE

MAXIMUM
TEMP. Հ
90°F
MEAN #
DAYS

MINIMUM
TEMP. Ձ
32°F MEAN
# DAYS
Winter 61.9 °F 33.9 °F 87 °F 12/4/1958 0 °F 1/6/1913 0 41.7 Spring 73.2 °F 41 °F 110 °F 5/31/1910 20 °F 3/2/1971 6.5 7.9 Summer 90.8 °F 49.6 °F 117 °F 8/13/1933 31 °F 6/15/1973 54.5 0

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-13

SUMMARY
PERIOD

MONTHLY
MEAN

MAXIMUM
TEMP.

MONTHLY
MEAN

MINIMUM
TEMP.

DAILY

EXTREME
HIGH
TEMP
DAILY

EXTREME
HIGH
DATE
DAILY

EXTREME

LOW TEMP
DAILY

EXTREME

LOW DATE

MAXIMUM
TEMP. Հ
90°F
MEAN #
DAYS

MINIMUM
TEMP. Ձ
32°F MEAN
# DAYS
Fall 79.7 °F 41.8 °F 115 °F 9/7/2020 14 °F 11/17/1958 21.1 12.6 Annual 76.5 °F 41.6 °F 117 °F 8/13/1933 0 °F 1/6/1913 82.4 63.2 Source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) https://wrcc.dri.edu/ * Winter is defined as December, January, and February
** Summer is defined as June, July, and August
Table E-11 Paso Robles Climate Summary Table – Precipitation (Period of Record:
01/01/1894 - 04/15/2025)

SUMMARY
PERIOD
PRECIP.

MEAN
PRECIP.

HIGH
PRECIP.

HIGH YEAR
PRECIP.

LOW
PRECIP.

LOW YEAR
PRECIP. 1
DAY

MAXIMUM
PRECIP. 1
DAY

MAXIMUM
DATE
PRECIP. Հ

1.00 IN.

MEAN #
DAYS
Winter 9.06 in. 26.18 in. 1969 2.03 in. 1964 5.25 in. 12/6/1966 2.4 Spring 3.77 in. 12.84 in. 1995 0 in. 1997 4.7 in. 3/10/1995 0.7 Summer 0.13 in. 2.82 in. 2015 0 in. 1900 2.29 in. 7/19/2015 0 Fall 2.07 in. 7.64 in. 1900 0.02 in. 1980 3.88 in. 10/14/2009 0.3 Annual 14.88 in. 29.19 in. 1941 2.78 in. 2013 5.25 in. 12/6/1966 3.5 Source: Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) https://wrcc.dri.edu/ * Winter is defined as December, January, and February
** Summer is defined as June, July, and August
E.3.3.2 Adverse Weather: High Wind/Tornado
Paso Robles’ risk and vulnerability to this hazard does not differ substantially from that of the County overall significance rating of low. While these hazards are not common in the region, they can occasionally occur during strong storm systems, particularly in the winter months. Paso Robles may experience gusty winds capable of causing minor damage and tornado activity is extremely rare across the county. The entire property and facility inventory, as well as the population of the City, is exposed to the impacts of high wind and tornado due to the widespread nature of this hazard. The typical impacts to people, structures, and critical facilities/lifeline are discussed in Section 5.3.3.7 of the base plan. The City has 328 mobile homes, which if unanchored, may be more susceptible to damage from high wind/tornado; an estimated 876 persons live in these homes based on an average household size of 2.67.

E.3.3.3 Adverse Weather: Extreme Heat
Extreme heat is a medium significance hazard for Paso Robles. The entire property and facility inventory, as well as the population of the City, is exposed to the impacts of extreme heat due to the widespread nature of this hazard. The typical impacts to people, structures, and critical facilities/lifeline are discussed in Section 5.3.4.7 of the base plan. The monthly mean maximum summer temperature for the Paso Robles NOAA weather station is 90.8°F; however, temperatures up to 117°F have been recorded (see Table E-10). Recent heatwaves have led to a significant increase in heat-related emergency calls, particularly impacting the elderly, children, outdoor workers, and residents without air conditioning. Additionally, rising temperatures and more frequent heat waves are increasing the likelihood of more extreme heat events in the future.

The local economy heavily relies on viniculture. This industry is particularly vulnerable, as extreme heat can damage grape yields and worker health. Infrastructure faces added stress due to increased strain and wildfire risk which may lead to power shutoffs, and can limit access

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-14 to cooling centers and essential services. Social vulnerability further compounds these risks in lower-income areas with fewer resources for heat resilience.

E.3.3.4 Agricultural Pest Infestation, Plant Disease, and Tree Mortality Paso Robles received a low significance ranking from the LPT for agricultural pest infestation, plant disease, and tree mortality. According to the United States Forest Service over 100 million trees have died in California and more continue to die due to many years of drought that have weakened trees and left millions of acres of forestland highly susceptible to insect attacks. The County of San Luis Obispo Assessor data shows that 10,288 properties are exposed to tree mortality hazard zones, with a total value of over $5.8 billion as shown in Table E-12 below. The property types with the highest total values include residential ($3.5 billion), commercial ($1.1 billion), and multi-family residential ($600 million). According to CAL FIRE, Paso Robles has some areas in the Tier 2 High Hazard zones for tree mortality.

Land use in Paso Robles is mostly agriculture and rural residential areas. Pests and diseases that target agriculture such as the Vine mealybug as well as the glassy-winged sharpshooter that target grapevines could cause economic damage if not contained.

Table E-12 Properties Exposed to Tree Mortality Hazard Zones

PROPERTY TYPE PROPERTY
COUNT

IMPROVED VALUE ESTIMATED

CONTENT VALUE

TOTAL VALUE POPULATION
Agricultural 1 $5,571,999 $5,571,999 $11,143,998
Commercial 552 $551,188,839 $551,188,839 $1,102,377,678 Exempt 60 $34,925,072 $34,925,072 $69,850,144
Industrial 78 $101,380,896 $152,071,344 $253,452,240
Mixed Use 196 $55,735,522 $55,735,522 $111,471,044
Mobile/Manufactured
Homes
323 $54,043,369 $27,021,685 $81,065,054 846
Multi-Family Residential 535 $400,532,940 $200,266,470 $600,799,410 1,402 Residential 8,477 $2,366,637,072 $1,183,318,536 $3,549,955,608 22,210 Vacant Improved 66 $41,695,138 $0 $41,695,138
Total 10,288 $3,611,710,847 $2,210,099,467 $5,821,810,314 24,458 Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data November 15, 2024, CAL FIRE, FRAP, TMTF October 2022, WSP GIS Analysis Paso Robles also has 62 critical facilities exposed to tree mortality hazard zones. The FEMA lifeline with the most facilities exposed is safety and security with 20 facilities, as shown in Table E-13
Table E-13 Critical Facility Assets Exposed to Tree Mortality Hazard Zones by FEMA Lifelines COMMUNICATIONS

ENERGYFOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIALHEALTH AND MEDICALSAFETY AND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION WATER SYSTEMS

TOTAL COUNT
10 2 3 6 4 20 16 1 62
Source: San Luis Obispo County, CAL FIRE, FRAP, TMTF October 2022, CalARP, HIFLD, NBI, NID, WSP Analysis

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-15 Biological Agents (Naturally Occurring)
The Paso Robles LPT gave biological agents a low overall significance rating. Paso Robles risk and vulnerability to this hazard does not differ substantially from that of the county’s overall.

Disease outbreaks usually occur in densely populated areas, where person to person proximity provides ample opportunity for transmission of illnesses. Places of work and business, schools and high-population public spaces are of particular concern when the threat of transmissible illness occurs. More information on biological agents can be found in Section 5.3.6 of the base plan.

E.3.3.5 Dam Incidents
The City of Paso Robles rated dam incidents a low significance hazard. Paso Robles is affected by drainage from Salinas Dam as it travels down the Salinas River (Figure E-2). The Salinas Dam is a 135-ft tall concrete arch dam that holds over 43,000 acre-feet of water and is rated a high-hazard potential dam. Within the City of Paso Robles, 60 people and 50 structures exist within the modeled dam inundation zone (Table E-14). Six pieces of critical infrastructure in Paso Robles also exist within the dam inundation zone (Table E-15, notably portions of Highway 101. Appendix E provides additional detail of critical facilities at risk from dam inundation hazards. Section 5.3.8 of the Base Plan provides additional information on dam-related hazards in the county.

Figure E-2 Salinas Dam Inundation Zone Near Paso Robles

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-16 Table E-14 Improved Properties Exposed to Dam Inundation by Property Type

PROPERTY TYPE

STRUCTURE

COUNT POPULATION
Commercial 21 -
Exempt 2 -
Industrial 4 -
Multi-Family
Residential
1 3
Residential 22 58
Total 50 60
Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data 2024, Division of Safety of Dams, Department of Water Resources, WSP GIS Analysis Table E-15 Critical Facility Assets Exposed to Dam Inundation COMMUNICATIONS ENERGY FOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTER HAZARDOUS MATERIAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION

WATER SYSTEMS TOTAL COUNT
1 1 - - - - 4 - 6
Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data 2024, Division of Safety of Dams, Department of Water Resources, WSP GIS Analysis E.3.3.6 Drought and Water Shortage
The City LPT gave drought a high overall significance rating. Until 2015, all water demands in the City were met with groundwater. Currently, the City of Paso Robles relies on a combination of surface water supplies and groundwater to provide potable water to all water customers. In a normal year, over 50% of the City’s water is supplied by seven relatively-shallow wells located along the Salinas River corridor. Surface water from the Nacimiento Water Project and groundwater from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin is used to supplement the Salinas River wells. Additionally, a recently implemented recycled water program treats wastewater to a tertiary level for safe reuse in irrigation and other non-potable applications. These measures have helped increase the City’s resilience to drought.

The Paso Robles Water Division (PRWD) serves approximately 9,200 residential, 800 commercial, and 400 irrigation customers. PRWD manages 19 wells, two arsenic removal treatment systems, one micro-filtration water treatment plant, six booster stations, four reservoirs, and 172 miles of water mains. PRWD also maintains the distribution system, repairs leaks, and installs customer connections and fire hydrants.

Section 5.3.9.7 of the Base Plan includes an analysis of the vulnerability of people, property, facilities, and other assets to this hazard countywide. Specific to the City, according to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s water loss audit revealed some inefficiencies in metering accuracy, leakage detection, and system monitoring, with a validity score of 65 out of 100. Additionally, the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin remains classified as critically over drafted and requires ongoing management strategies to prevent declining

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-17 groundwater levels, land subsidence, and water quality issues. However, analysis in the City’s UWMP anticipates having enough water to meet demand in single and multiple dry year scenarios, as is displayed in Table E-16. While the direct impacts to people are low, the City is more vulnerable to the impacts of drought than the county as a whole as there is more exposure to agricultural damage in the surrounding area, as well as the potential for subsidence-related damage to linear infrastructure due to groundwater withdrawal (see Subsidence section).

Table E-16 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison

DROUGHT
YEAR

SUPPLY/DEMAND/

DIFFERENCE
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year Supply totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Demand totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Second Year Supply totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863 Demand totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Third Year Supply totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Demand totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fourth Year Supply totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863 Demand totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Fifth Year Supply totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Demand totals 6,515 7,102 7,689 8,277 8,863
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Paso Robles 2020 UWMP
E.3.3.7 Earthquake
Historically, most of the earthquakes that have occurred near Paso Robles have originated from movement along the San Andreas Fault, which is located approximately 38 miles northeast of the City limits. The only known mapped fault within the City of Paso Robles is the Rinconada fault. The potentially active Rinconada fault is mapped through southwestern Paso Robles and crosses Highway 101 just south of Spring Street. A trace of the fault is also identified as running up Spring Street, which corresponds to a line of hot springs that once existed in this area but have since been capped and buried. As a potentially active fault, the Rinconada presents a moderate fault rupture hazard to the City. Further studies to evaluate the activity of the faults are warranted, prior to placing structures near the mapped fault traces.

The northern end of the potentially active La Panza fault is located about 20 kilometers (12.43 miles) southeast of Paso Robles, near the town of Creston. The northwest striking La Panza fault is about 75 kilometers (46.6 miles) long. The Huerhuero fault is a possible extension of the La Panza and is mapped trending northwest along Huerhuero Creek south of Highway 46 but is not within the current City limits.

While no large earthquakes greater than Mw 5.0 have occurred recently within the City limits, a number of relatively large earthquakes outside Paso Robles have caused damage within San Luis Opisbo County and neighboring counties. The 2003 San Simeon Earthquake for example led to significant damage in the City of Paso Robles. Most notably, an unreinforced masonry building in the city, the Acorn Building, collapsed in this quake and killed two women who were inside at the time. The quake also triggered the eruption of two sulfur hot springs in the city, one of which was beneath the parking lot of the recently opened city hall and library building. There were several other unreinforced masonry buildings in the city which experienced extensive damage, however no structures with even partial seismic retrofitting collapsed, highlighting the

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-18 importance and life-saving potential of this mitigation effort. Outside of Paso Robles, the damages in this event were far less severe.

In addition to being at risk of ground shaking as a result of a fault rupture, the City is also susceptible to the effects of liquefaction. The areas of Paso Robles, shown in Figure E-3 below, that have a high potential to be underlain by potentially liquefiable sediments are those areas underlain by younger alluvium. Portions of the City that are located in the low-lying areas adjacent to the Salinas River (or its tributaries) appear to have the highest potential for liquefaction. Site specific studies are needed to evaluate if a geologic unit actually contains potentially liquefiable materials, and if they require mitigation for development. Refer to Section 5 of the Base Plan for additional details on the City’s risk to liquefaction.

Based on the vulnerability analysis conducted, the city contains 10,678 improved parcels with a total estimated value of $6.5 billion exposed to liquefiable soils. The vast majority of these parcels are located within low liquefaction susceptible areas, with 545 parcels located in moderate susceptibility areas and only 36 parcels located in high susceptibility areas. There are also 75 critical facilities found in liquefaction susceptible areas. These details are summarized in Table E-17 and Table E-18.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-19 Figure E-3 Paso Robles Liquefaction Susceptibility

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-20 Table E-17 City of Paso Robles Improved Properties Exposed to Liquefaction Potential by Property Type

PROPERTY TYPE STRUCTURE
COUNT
HIGH

STRUCTURE
COUNT

MODERATE

STRUCTURE

COUNT LOW
TOTAL

STRUCTURE
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

ESTIMATED

CONTENT
VALUE

TOTAL VALUE POPULATION
Agricultural - - 28 28 $65,247,121 $65,247,121 $130,494,242 - Commercial 14 54 577 645 $692,009,096 $692,009,096 $1,384,018,192 -Exempt - 2 62 64 $34,925,072 $34,925,072 $69,850,144 - Industrial 6 8 108 122 $166,136,395 $249,204,593 $415,340,988 -Mining - - - 0 $0 $0 $0 - Mixed Use - 1 201 202 $57,377,172 $57,377,172 $114,754,344 -Mobile/ Manufactured Homes 1 2 325 328 $59,791,723 $29,895,862 $89,687,585 859
Multi-Family Residential
2 - 534 536 $400,738,884 $200,369,442 $601,108,326 1,404 Residential 12 467 8,181 8,660 $2,422,545,360 $1,211,272,680 $3,633,818,040 22,689 Vacant Improved 1 11 81 93 $54,306,319 $0 $54,306,319 -Total 36 545 10,097 10,678 $3,953,077,142 $2,540,301,037 $6,493,378,179 24,953 Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data November 15, 2024, WSP GIS Analysis

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-21 Table E-18 Critical Facility Assets Exposed to Liquefaction Susceptibility by FEMA Lifeline

LIQUEFACTION

SUSCEPTIBILITY

CATEGORY

COMMUNICATIONS ENERGYFOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIALHEALTH AND MEDICALSAFETY AND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION WATER SYSTEMS TOTAL
COUNT
High Liquefaction
Susceptibility
- 1 - - - - 4 - 5
Moderate Liquefaction
Susceptibility
3 1 1 2 1 1 4 - 13
Low Liquefaction
Susceptibility
7 - 2 7 3 25 12 1 57
Source: San Luis Obispo County, CalARP, HIFLD, NBI, NID, FCWCD, WSP Analysis E.3.3.8 Flood
Flooding remains a High Significance hazard for the City of Paso Robles. The City is primarily vulnerable to riverine and localized flood events, both of which have caused serious impacts historically. Major floods were recorded during the storms of 1969, 1973, 1978, 1995, 2001, 2004–2005, 2005–2006, and 2010–2011. In January 2023, severe rains again triggered flooding across Paso Robles, resulting in infrastructure damage, washouts, trail erosion, and emergency repairs at critical facilities like the wastewater treatment plant and landfill. The city activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in response to the storm, and multiple roads, schools, and businesses experienced closures.

Paso Robles is particularly susceptible to flooding along its major creek systems and low-lying areas, where intense rainfall can overwhelm stormwater drainage infrastructure. Rapid runoff from steep areas surrounding the city can also lead to flash flooding, particularly in areas where natural vegetation has been altered by development or wildfire. As the city continues to experience growth, with new homes and millions of square feet of commercial space planned or under development, careful stormwater management and flood resilience planning remain essential.

Refer to the Flood Section of the Base Plan for additional information on regional flood hazards, flood mitigation activities, and historical flood events affecting the City.

Values at Risk
Based on the updated analysis, 82 improved parcels in the City are located within the FEMA 1% annual chance floodplain, with a combined improved and content value of approximately $58.2 million and an estimated loss of about $14.5 million. In contrast, the 0.2% annual chance floodplain includes 5,781 improved parcels with a combined value exceeding $3.05 billion and an estimated loss of approximately $764.3 million. This represents a dramatic increase in the number of parcels and total value at risk between the 1% and 0.2% flood scenarios, indicating that a larger portion of the city's assets would be impacted by more extreme flood events.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-22 Figure E-4 Paso Robles DWR & FEMA Flood Hazards with Flooded Structures

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-23 Population at Risk
Approximately 144 people are at risk within the FEMA 1% annual chance floodplain. In the 0.2% annual chance flood zone, the at-risk population rises sharply to an estimated 13,134 people, primarily associated with residential and multi-family residential parcels. This highlights the much broader exposure of the city's population under more severe flood scenarios.

Table E-19 and Table E-20 show those improved properties and populations exposed to the 1% and 0.2% annual chance flood zones, below.

Table E-19 City of Paso Robles Improved Properties Exposed to FEMA Riverine 1% Flood Hazard by Property Type

PROPERTY TYPE PARCEL
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

CONTENT
VALUE

TOTAL VALUE LOSS

ESTIMATE

POPULATION
Commercial 16 $15,144,859 $15,144,859 $30,289,718 $7,572,430 - Exempt 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 -
Industrial 5 $2,529,226 $3,793,839 $6,323,065 $1,580,766 - Mixed Use 1 $143,661 $143,661 $287,322 $71,831 -
Mobile/Manufactured
Homes
1 $491,141 $245,571 $736,712 $184,178 3
Multi-Family Residential 5 $1,483,453 $741,727 $2,225,180 $556,295 13 Residential 49 $11,993,858 $5,996,929 $17,990,787 $4,497,697 128 Vacant Improved 2 $310,751 $0 $310,751 $77,688 -
Total 82 $32,096,949 $26,066,585 $58,163,534 $14,540,884 144 San Luis Obispo Assessor Data November 15, 2024, FEMA NFHL Effective Date 6/6/2024, WSP GIS Analysis Table E-20 City of Paso Robles Improved Properties Exposed to FEMA Riverine 0.2% Flood Hazard by Property Type

PROPERTY TYPE PARCEL
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

CONTENT
VALUE

TOTAL VALUE LOSS

ESTIMATE

POPULATION
Agricultural 1 $5,571,999 $5,571,999 $11,143,998 $2,786,000 - Commercial 463 $360,141,299 $360,141,299 $720,282,598 $180,070,650 - Exempt 49 $32,361,720 $32,361,720 $64,723,440 $16,180,860 - Industrial 62 $61,078,205 $91,617,308 $152,695,513 $38,173,878 - Mixed Use 172 $52,735,210 $52,735,210 $105,470,420 $26,367,605 - Mobile/Manufactured
Homes
266 $43,113,866 $21,556,933 $64,670,799 $16,167,700 697 Multi-Family Residential 466 $326,978,664 $163,489,332 $490,467,996 $122,616,999 1,221 Residential 4,281 $955,180,777 $477,590,389 $1,432,771,166 $358,192,791 11,216 Vacant Improved 21 $14,794,607 $0 $14,794,607 $3,698,652 - Total 5,781 $1,851,956,347 $1,205,064,189 $3,057,020,536 $764,255,134 13,134 Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data November 15, 2024, FEMA NFHL Effective Date 6/6/2024, WSP GIS Analysis Insurance Coverage, Claims Paid, and Repetitive Losses
The City joined the NFIP on September 16, 1981. The current adopted effective map is dated June 6, 2024. As of May 12, 2025, NFIP records show 36 active flood insurance policies in the City, totaling $10,695,000 in coverage. Of these, 20 policies are in A zones, and the rest are in B, C, or X zones.

Since joining the NFIP, the City has recorded 11 flood loss claims totaling $153,642, all for residential properties. According to the OpenFEMA dataset accessed in 2024, the City currently does not have any Repetitive Loss (RL) or Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) properties.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-24 The City does not currently participate in the Community Rating System (CRS).

Critical Facilities at Risk
In Paso Robles, 12 critical facilities are located within the 1% annual chance (100-year) floodplain. These facilities are primarily concentrated in transportation, with 11 facilities exposed, along with one facility classified under energy. Although relatively limited in number, their exposure could impact critical mobility and utility functions during a major flood event.

In the broader 0.2% annual chance (500-year) floodplain, the number of critical facilities increases significantly to 41. This includes seven communications facilities, three food, hydration, and shelter facilities, four hazardous material facilities, three health and medical facilities, 17 safety and security facilities, six transportation-related facilities, and one water system facility. The sharp increase in exposed assets between the 1% and 0.2% flood scenarios highlights the importance of considering high-consequence flood events when planning for hazard mitigation and critical facility resilience.

Table E-21 and Table E-22 show critical facilities exposed to 1% and 0.2% flood hazards, below.

Table E-21 City of Paso Robles Critical Facility Assets Exposed to FEMA and DWR Awareness 1% Flood Hazards by Jurisdictions and FEMA Lifelines

JURISDICTION

COMMUNICATIONS ENERGYFOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIALHEALTH AND MEDICALSAFETY AND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION WATER SYSTEMS TOTAL COUNT Paso Robles - 1 - - - - 11 - 12
Source: San Luis Obispo County, FEMA NFHL Effective Date 6/6/2024, DWR, USACE Comprehensive Study, CalARP, HIFLD, NBI, NID, FCWCD, WSP Analysis.

Table E-22 City of Paso Robles Critical Facility Assets Exposed to FEMA 0.2% Flood Hazards by Jurisdictions and FEMA Lifelines

JURISDICTION

COMMUNICATIONS ENERGYFOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIALHEALTH AND MEDICALSAFETY AND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION WATER SYSTEMSTOTAL COUNT Paso Robles 7 - 3 4 3 17 6 1 41
Source: San Luis Obispo County, FEMA NFHL Effective Date 6/6/2024, DWR, USACE Comprehensive Study, CalARP, HIFLD, NBI, NID, FCWCD, WSP Analysis.

E.3.3.9 Landslides and Debris Flow
Paso Robles is considered to have a high overall significance rating for landslides and debris flow in certain areas of the city. In the past twenty-five years, there have been three notable landslide and debris flow events in or near Paso Robles. In 1995 a landslide on a hillside west of Olive Street (just north of Hilltop Drive) slid into the back of two homes after a series of winter storms. The hillside area that slid was approximately 150 wide by 40 feet high, and the slope of the hillside was about 30%.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-25 During December 22, 2003, numerous small landslides occurred as a result of the San Simeon Earthquake. Particularly noticeable was a landslide along State Routes 46 and 41, east and west of downtown. The larger surficial slides were observed in the Franciscan Formation along State Route 46. Surficial slides were also observed along River Road in Paso Robles.

Landslides throughout the city have a high potential of occurring along the Huehuero Creek and along Highway 101 as shown in Figure E-5. Table E-23 shows the properties (and associated population) exposed to landslide potential with 10,102 properties with a total value of over $5.8 billion exposed to landslide potential. There are 78 critical facilities in landslide potential zones including 35 facilities in high potential zones, as shown in Table E-24 below. Figure E-5 shows, in map form, where these landslide potential areas are in and near the city. Some areas with high potential include the areas directly west of Highway 101 as well as the areas within and surrounding Paso Robles Municipal Airport.

Table E-23 Improved Properties Exposed to Landslide Potential in Paso Robles

PROPERTY TYPE STRUCTURE
COUNT

IMPROVED
VALUE

ESTIMATED

CONTENT VALUE

TOTAL VALUE POPULATION
Agricultural 28 $65,247,121 $65,247,121 $130,494,242 -
Commercial 580 $527,357,484 $527,357,484 $1,054,714,968 - Exempt 62 $33,252,248 $33,252,248 $66,504,496 -
Industrial 109 $130,989,383 $196,484,075 $327,473,458 - Mining 0 $0 $0 $0 -
Mixed Use 201 $57,137,172 $57,137,172 $114,274,344 -
Mobile/Manufactured Homes 325 $58,308,049 $29,154,025 $87,462,074 852 Multi-Family Residential 534 $388,534,836 $194,267,418 $582,802,254 1,399 Residential 8,182 $2,313,872,645 $1,156,936,323 $3,470,808,968 21,437 Vacant Improved 81 $45,901,912 $0 $45,901,912 -
Total 10,102 $3,620,600,850 $2,259,835,865 $5,880,436,715 23,687 Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data November 15, 2024, WSP GIS Analysis Table E-24 Critical Facility Assets Exposed to Landslide Potential by FEMA Lifelines

LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL

COMMUNICATIONSENERGYFOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL SAFETY AND SECURITY TRANSPORTATIONWATER SYSTEMSTOTAL COUNT High 4 1 2 - 6 9 12 1 35
Moderate 1 - - - 5 5 1 - 12
Low 1 - 1 - 1 6 22 - 31
Total 78
Source: San Luis Obispo County, CalARP, HIFLD, NBI, NID, FCWCD, WSP Analysis

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-26 Figure E-5 Landslide Potential in Paso Robles

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-27 E.3.3.10 Subsidence
The Paso Robles LPT gave subsidence a high overall significance rating. Section 5.3.13.7 of the Base Plan includes an analysis of the vulnerability of people, property, facilities, and other assets to this hazard countywide and the typical impacts are similar in and around Paso Robles.

While subsidence does not typically affect people, it can result in foundation damages and damages to linear infrastructure. Infrastructure that should be monitored within Paso Robles assets includes the Municipal Airport and associated runways. The map of subsidence areas provided below indicates potential for subsidence in and around the Airport. According to the United States Geologic Survey, it is likely that concentrated pumping is responsible for localized land subsidence in Paso Robles. Small amounts of subsidence owing to seasonal changes in groundwater levels may be elastic and recoverable. However, many formerly reliable wells have gone dry. According to the 2019 Paso Robles Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Paso Robles has

1.90 square miles of subsidence-prone areas along the Salinas River and Huerhuero Creek, as well as in the east and southeast portions of the city. It will be important to monitor groundwater extraction, as this is the main cause of subsidence in California. Additionally, land elevation should also be monitored to prevent any subsidence-related hazards in the city.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-28 Figure E-6 City of Paso Robles’ Subsidence Susceptibility

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-29 E.3.3.11 Wildfire
In recent years, fire seasons have become longer and more intense, challenging the City’s firefighting resources and community resilience. Based on weather factors such as wind, humidity, and temperature, the region experiences severe fire weather around the City of Paso Robles. Many areas throughout the City are highly susceptible to large conflagrations. One area of high concern is the Salinas Riverbed corridor. The riverbed corridor encompasses over 680 acres, much of it heavily forested. The brush and dead fuels provide a significant source of fuel.

Vegetation management is conducted within the riverbed since 2021 with permitting through the State Water Board. Paso Robles is the first jurisdiction in the State to obtain these annual permits.

Emergency Response personnel responded to 115 fires in the riverbed corridor in 2018. From January 1-June 30, 2019, Emergency Response personnel responded to 63 fires. Thus, the risk of fire in the riverbed jumping out of the bed and racing through the rest of the community is unacceptably high. Fires in the riverbed corridor threaten critical City infrastructure, nearby residential and commercial properties, and the health and safety of all residents and visitors in the area. On July 16, 2019, the City of Paso Robles proclaimed a local emergency related to the riverbed fires.

Following the methodology described in the wildfire hazard Section 5.3.15 Wildfire of the Base Plan, along with the GIS parcel analysis discussed in more detail under Section 5.2 Asset Summary, a wildfire vulnerability analysis for the City of Paso Robles was completed. The assessment was performed using GIS, and results indicate that there were neither parcels nor critical facilities in wildfire severity hazard zones within the boundaries of the City of Paso Robles. However, wildfire hazards have been rated by the City’s planning team as holding High Significance based on the community’s experience and historical evidence.

In the City of Paso Robles, 3,137 properties are situated within wildfire hazard severity zones ranging from moderate to very high. Of these none are located in the Very High Severity Zone, while 1,946 properties fall within the High Severity Zone. Collectively, these properties represent a total assessed value of $2,507,771,547 and impact approximately 7,407 residents across all fire hazard severity zone ratings. Table E-25 shows the properties in the City exposed to wildfire severity. Figure E-7 depicts the Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the City of Paso Robles.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-30 Table E-25 City of Paso Robles Improved Properties Exposed to Fire Hazard Severity Zones by Property Type

PROPERTY TYPE

STRUCTURE COUNT

VERY HIGH

STRUCTURE COUNT
HIGH

STRUCTURE COUNT

MODERATE

TOTAL STRUCTURE

COUNT IMPROVED VALUE ESTIMATED CONTENT VALUE TOTAL VALUE POPULATION Agricultural - 13 2 15 $53,043,345 $53,043,345 $106,086,690 - Commercial - 112 34 146 $271,810,539 $271,810,539 $543,621,078 - Exempt - 10 3 13 $3,778,572 $3,778,572 $7,557,144 - Industrial - 51 9 60 $112,879,072 $169,318,608 $282,197,680 - Mixed Use - 13 6 19 $6,740,565 $6,740,565 $13,481,130 - Mobile/Manufactured Homes - 91 41 132 $32,002,031 $16,001,016 $48,003,047 346 Multi-Family Residential - 91 48 139 $145,559,221 $72,779,611 $218,338,832 364 Residential - 1,522 1,034 2,556 $837,149,164 $418,574,582 $1,255,723,746 6,697 Vacant Improved - 43 14 57 $32,762,201 $0 $32,762,201 - Total 0 1,946 1,191 3,137 $1,495,724,710 $1,012,046,837 $2,507,771,547 7,407 Source: San Luis Obispo Assessor Data November 15, 2024, CAL FIRE - FHSZ Phase 3 March 10, 2025, WSP GIS Analysis

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-31 Figure E-7 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Paso Robles Area

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 32 Table E-26 shows critical facilities in Paso Robles that are exposed to wildfire severity, categorizing them by severity zones. The exposure of these critical assets to wildfire hazards poses significant risks to transportation and communication facilities. The tables below show that there are twenty (20) critical facilities exposed to high fire hazard severity zones, six (6) exposed to moderate fire hazard severity zones, and none exposed to very high fire severity zones.

Table E-26 Critical Facility Assets Exposed to Fire Hazard Severity FIRE
HAZARD

SEVERITY
ZONE

COMMUNICATIONS ENERGYFOOD, HYDRATION, SHELTERHAZARDOUS MATERIALHEALTH AND MEDICALSAFETY AND SECURITYTRANSPORTATION WATER SYSTEMSTOTAL COUNT Very
High
- - - - - - - - 0
High - - - 5 1 5 8 1 20
Moderate - - - 2 - 2 2 - 6
Total 0 0 0 7 1 7 10 1 26
Source: San Luis Obispo County, CAL FIRE - FHSZ Phase 3 March 10, 2025, CalARP, HIFLD, NBI, NID, WSP Analysis E.3.3.12 Human Caused: Hazardous Materials, including Emerging Contaminants The Paso Robles LPT rated hazardous materials incidents as having low overall significance.

To date, there is a low risk for exposure to known Human Caused: Hazardous Materials; however, as technology and research advances, existing materials may prove to be hazardous and may require additional oversight, handling, and advanced treatment. The Cal OES Spill Release Reporting Center reports 60 hazardous materials incidents in the City of Paso Robles from January 1st, 2019 through December 20th, 2024. This likely excludes a number of unreported minor spills. The 60 reported incidents constitutes 13.2% of the hazardous materials incidents reported countywide during the same time frame and averages out to roughly 10 incidents per year.

E.4 Capability Assessment
Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This capabilities assessment is divided into five sections: regulatory mitigation capabilities, administrative and technical mitigation capabilities, fiscal mitigation capabilities, mitigation outreach and partnerships, and other mitigation efforts.

To develop this capability assessment, the jurisdictional planning representatives used a matrix of common mitigation activities to inventory which of these policies or programs were in place.

The team then supplemented this inventory by reviewing additional existing policies, regulations, plans, and programs to determine if they contributed to reducing hazard-related losses.

During the plan update process, this inventory was reviewed by the jurisdictional planning representatives and Wood consultant team staff to update information where applicable and note ways in which these capabilities have improved or expanded. Additionally, in summarizing current capabilities and identifying gaps, the jurisdictional planning representatives also

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 33 considered their ability to expand or improve upon existing policies and programs as potential new mitigation strategies. The City of Paso Robles’s capabilities are summarized below.

E.4.1 Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
Table E-27 City of Paso Robles Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities

REGULATORY TOOL YES/NO COMMENTS
General plan Yes Current General Plan on City Website
Zoning ordinance Yes New version of Zoning Code
Subdivision ordinance Yes See City Website.

Growth management ordinance Yes See City Website
Floodplain ordinance Yes Floodplain Management Ordinance (2008) Other special purpose ordinance
(stormwater, water conservation,
wildfire)
Yes Hazardous Fuels Reduction Ordinance (2019)
Storm Water Management Ordinance (2013)
Building code Yes 2016 California Building Code, Title 17 Municipal Code (See Website)
Fire department ISO rating Yes ISO Rating 03/3X
Building Department ISO Rating Yes ISO Rating 2/3
Erosion or sediment control program Yes Ongoing Public Works/ Development Review Process Stormwater management program Yes Public Works
Site plan review requirements Yes See 2024 Zone Code Update Capital improvements plan Yes Revolving Five Year Program Economic development plan Yes See 2024 Economic Strategy Local emergency operations plan Yes EOC Emergency Plan and Annexes Other special plans No
Flood Insurance Study or other
engineering study for streams
Yes FEMA LOMR by project when applicable, City
Engineer
Elevation certificates (for floodplain
development)
Yes FEMA/ Floodplain Development requirements
ongoing, City Engineer
Discussion on Existing Building Codes, Land Use and Development Regulations In Paso Robles, existing building codes, land use polices, and development regulations are actively managed through a coordinated and collaborative approach among key city departments. The LPT noted that the Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Departments meet weekly to discuss development projects, permitting, safety concerns, and any code-related issues that may arise.

The city follows California Building Standards Code (Title 24), including locally adopted amendments that reflect Paso Roble’s unique climate, topography, and hazards. The codes address structural integrity, fire safety, energy efficiency, and accessibility, and are enforced through the City’s Building Division. In addition, the Paso Robles Municipal Code includes local ordinances and development standards that guide land use, environmental protection, grading, stormwater management, and hazard area restrictions.

The Planning Division oversees the implementation of the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and other long-range planning tools to ensure that growth occurs in a safe and sustainable manner. The Fire Department plays a critical role in reviewing site plans and construction documents to verify compliance with fire codes and defensible space requirements, especially important in areas at risk of wildland-urban interface fires or other emergencies.

Together, these departments use a proactive, integrated approach to managing risk and

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 34 enforcing regulations that protect the health, safety, and welfare of Paso Robles residents.

Anyone seeking to understand the full scope of applicable rules and procedures is encouraged to consult the Paso Robles Municipal Code, which outlines all relevant ordinances and regulations related to development, safety, and hazard mitigation.

E.4.2 Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities
Table E-28 identifies the personnel responsible for activities related to mitigation and loss prevention in Paso Robles.

Table E-28 City of Paso Robles Administrative/Technical Mitigation Capabilities

PERSONNEL RESOURCES YES/
NO

DEPARTMENT/

POSITION

COMMENTS
Planner/engineer with knowledge of
land development/land management
practices
Yes Community
Development
Department
(Planning Division)
Develops and maintains the General
Plan, Including the Safety Element.

Develops area plans based on the
General Plan, to provide more detailed
guidance for the development of more
specific areas. Reviews private
development projects and proposed
capital improvements projects and
other physical projects involving
property for consistency and conformity
with the General Plan. Anticipates and
acts on the need for new plans,
policies, and Code changes. Applies
the approved plans, policies, code
provisions, and other regulations to
proposed land uses.

Engineer/professional trained in
construction practices related to
buildings and/or infrastructure
Yes Community
Development
Department (Building
Division)
Oversees the effective, efficient, fair,
and safe enforcement of the California
Building Code.

Planner/engineer/scientist with an
understanding of natural hazards
Yes Community
Development
(Building and
Engineering
Divisions)
Reviews Grading and Building Plans to
ensure that development is in
compliance with existing policies and
codes relating to mitigation of natural
hazards.

Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Administrative
Services GIS
Full time building official Yes Community
Development
Department/Building
Official
Floodplain manager Yes Community
Development
Department
(Engineering
Division)
Reviews and ensures that new
development proposals do not increase
flood risk, and that new developments
are not located below the 100-year
flood level. In addition, the Floodplain
Administrator is responsible for
planning and managing flood risk
reduction projects throughout the City.

Emergency manager Yes Emergency Services
(Fire Chief)
Coordinates local response and relief
activities within the Emergency
Operation Center, and works closely

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 35

PERSONNEL RESOURCES YES/
NO

DEPARTMENT/

POSITION

COMMENTS
with county, state, and federal partners
to support planning and training and to
provide information and coordinate
assistance.

Grant writer Yes Emergency Services
Other personnel
GIS Data Resources (Hazard areas,
critical facilities, land use, building
footprints, etc.)
Yes GIS
Warning Systems/Services (Reverse
9-11, cable override, outdoor warning
signals)
Yes Reverse 911 and
EAS activated
through Sherriff’s
Department
Procurement Services Manager Yes Administrative
Services
Provides a full range of municipal
financial services and administers
several licensing measures.

E.4.3 Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities
Table E-29 identifies financial tools or resources that the City could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities.

Table E-29 City of Paso Robles Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

ACCESSIBLE/

ELIGIBLE

TO USE (YES/NO) COMMENTS
Community Development Block Grants N
Capital improvements project funding Y
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes
Y
Fees for water, sewer, gas, or electric
services
Y
Impact fees for new development Y
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds
Y
Incur debt through special tax bonds Y
Incur debt through private activities N
Withhold spending in hazard prone areas N
E.4.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships
The City conducts several ongoing public education or information programs, such as for fire safety, disaster preparedness, wildland preparedness, responsible water use, FOG (fats, oils and greases), and storm water public education.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 36 Table E-30 City of Paso Robles Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships

CAPABILITY TYPE YES/NO NOTES
Hazard Awareness/Education
Campaigns

Firewise *Pending Application submitted. Awaiting
approval.

Storm Ready No
Severe Weather Awareness Week Yes Extreme Heat and Flooding community awareness
School programs Yes E.D.I.T.H. contests, AARBF Burn
Relay
Other Yes Community Risk Reduction
Program, Wildfire Preparedness,
Community AED Program, Weed
Abatement, National Fire
Prevention Week, C.E.R.T.,
Smoke/CO Detector Program
Methods Used to Communicate
Hazard Info. to the Public
Press Releases, PulsePoint
Local News Yes Press Releases, On-Camera
Interviews
Social media Yes Press Releases, Events, PRFES
Website
(https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/)
Community Newsletters No CERT
Mailings Yes Weed Abatement Program
Community Events Yes Safety Fest, CA Great Shakeout
Earthquake Awareness Event,
Wildfire Preparedness, Fire
Department Open House, National
Night Out, Hometown Heroes, Dia
de Los Muertos, AARBF Burn
Relay,
Other Yes Presentations, City-wide digital
signage
Organizations that represent or
work with underserved or vulnerable
communities
American Red Cross Yes Post-Disaster Assistance, “Sound the Alarm”
Salvation Army No
Veterans Groups Yes Senior Safety
Environmental/Conservation Groups No
Homeowner/Neighborhood
Associations
Yes Quail Run, Traditions
Chamber of Commerce Yes
Community Organizations (Lions,
Kiwanis, etc.)
Yes Rotary
Others Yes SLO County Fire Safe Council,
LISTOS, Promotores Collaborative
of San Luis Obispo County, CERT,

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 37

CAPABILITY TYPE YES/NO NOTES
Disaster Preparedness Action
Committee (DPAC)
E.4.5 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The City of Paso Robles participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The current adopted effective map is dated June 6, 2024. This participation allows residents and property owners within the City to purchase federally backed flood insurance. The City collaborates with FEMA and San Luis Obispo County on flood risk mitigation efforts, including updates to flood maps that inform insurance requirements and building standards. In Paso Robles, the floodplain manager is designated by the municipal code to oversee floodplain management activities. This role is assigned to the City Engineer.

Following flood or other damage events, the City enforces substantial improvement /substantial damage provisions by evaluating damaged properties to determine if they meet thresholds requiring them to comply with updated floodplain management standards. If substantial damage is determined, properties must undergo upgrades to meet current floodplain standards before they can be repaired or rebuilt. This process helps to reduce future risk by ensuring that postevent repairs and reconstructions contribute to long-term flood resilience. The city does not participate in the NFIP’s Community Rating System (CRS).

E.4.6 Other Mitigation Efforts
Other mitigation efforts the City has conducted include:
x Riverbed Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program
x Weed Abatement Program
x Fuel Breaks
x Un-reinforced Masonry Building Retrofit Ordinance (retrofits completed) E.4.7 Opportunities for Enhancement
Based on the capabilities assessment, the City of Paso Robles has several existing mechanisms in place that already help to mitigate hazards. In addition to these existing capabilities, there are also opportunities for the City to expand or improve on these policies and programs to further protect the community. Future improvements may include providing training for staff members related to hazards or hazard mitigation grant funding in partnership with the County and Cal OES. Additional training opportunities will help to inform City staff members on how best to integrate hazard information and mitigation projects into their departments.

Continuing to train City staff on mitigation and the hazards that pose a risk to the City of Paso Robles will lead to more informed staff members who can better communicate this information to the public.

E.5 Mitigation Strategy
E.5.1 Mitigation Goals and Objectives
The City of Paso Robles adopts those hazard mitigation goals and objectives developed by the County Planning Team and described in Section 7 of the Base Plan: Mitigation Strategy.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex 38 E.5.1.1 Continued Compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program The City has been an NFIP participating community since 1981. In addition to the mitigation actions identified herein the City will continue to comply with the NFIP. This includes ongoing activities such as enforcing local floodplain development regulations, including issuing permits for appropriate development in Special Flood Hazard Areas and ensuring that this development is mitigated in accordance with the regulations. This will also include periodic reviews of the floodplain ordinance to ensure that it is clear and up to date and reflects new or revised flood hazard mapping.

E.5.2 Completed 2019 Mitigation Actions
During the 2025 planning process the City of Paso Robles Planning Team reviewed all the mitigation actions from the 2019 plan. During the 2025 planning process the Planning Team identified that of their twenty-one (21) mitigation actions from 2019, four (4) were completed, one (1) was deleted, five (5) were deferred; and sixteen (16) of the actions are ongoing.

Table E-31 Paso Robles Completed and Deleted Mitigation Actions 2019
ACTION
ID

HAZARD(S)

ADDRESSED

MITIGATION ACTION TITLE LEAD
AGENCY

ACTION STATUS
NOTES
PR.3 Flood,
Landslide,
Wildfire
Establish a county evacuation and repopulation plan. Make sure this plan works with other municipalities so that
people are not receiving conflicting
information about where to evacuate to.

Benefit: Reduce death and injury;
organized and systemic approach to
evacuation of area with predesignated
locations on where to go
Emergency
Services
Department
Completed. SLO
County Plan
approved 9/2024
PR.5 Drought Develop a drought contingency plan to
provide an effective and systematic
means of assessing drought conditions,
develop mitigation actions and programs
to reduce risks in advance of drought,
and develop response options that
minimize hardships during drought.

Public Works
Department
Completed.

Adopted Water
Storage
Contingency Plan
in 2021
PR.7 Adverse
Weather:

Extreme Heat
Initiate an extreme heat public
awareness and educational campaign to
discuss the dangers of extreme heat,
steps each individual can personally
take during periods of extreme heat and
ways to reduce energy consumption
during periods of extreme heat.

Emergency
Services
Department
Completed. Utilized
as needed -
Community Risk
Reduction Division
Created to Monitor
this and other
Public Safety
needs
PR.11 Flood Partner with propane companies and
regulating agencies to secure tanks
located in special flood hazard areas.

Emergency
Services
Department
Deleted. No
propane tanks
located in flood
hazard areas - City
utilizes natural gas
PR.20 Earthquake Develop an inventory of public and
community building that may be
particularly vulnerable to earthquake
damage, including pre-1940s homes
and with cripple wall foundations
Information
Technology
(GIS)
Completed. All Pre33 buildings
retrofitted or
demolished

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-39 E.5.3 Mitigation Actions
The planning team for the City of Paso Robles identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the risk assessment. Background information and information on how each action will be implemented and administered, such as ideas for implementation, responsible office, potential funding, estimated cost, and timeline, are also included. Actions were prioritized using the process described in Section 7.2.1 of the Base Plan. Timeline and project cost definitions are noted in Section 7.3.2 of the Base Plan. Actions with an ‘*’ are those that mitigate losses to future development.

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-40 Table E-32 City of Paso Robles Mitigation Action Plan

MITIGATION
ACTION
NUMBER

PRIMARY HAZARD(S)

MITIGATED

DESCRIPTIONS/BACKGROUND/BENEFITS LEAD AGENCY
& PARTNERS

ESTIMATED COST &

POTENTIAL FUNDING

SOURCES
2025

PRIORITY

TIMELINE STATUS/IMPLEMENTATION
NOTES
PR.1 Drought and Water
Shortage, Flood, Landslides and Debris Flow, Wildfire, Subsidence Integrate the hazard analysis and mitigation strategy into the General Plan’s Safety Element.

City Manager’s Office
Little to no cost. Staff Time, General Fund
Low 1-2 yrs Can leverage 2025 HMP update
PR.2 Dam Incident, Flood,
Landslides and Debris Flow, Wildfire, Subsidence
Create a GIS-based pre-application review for new construction and major remodels in hazard areas, such high wildfire severity zones, moderate landslide susceptibility areas,subsidence-prone areas and dam failure inundation zones.

Community Development Department/ Fire and Emergency Services Less than $10,000. FEMA HMA/Staff Time/General Fund
Low 3-5 yrs. Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Local Responsibility Area map received 3/2025 and PR Muni Code ordinance amendment presented to City Council.

PR.3 Dam Incident Develop a public outreach program that informs property owners located in the dam inundation areas about hazard awareness and voluntary flood insurance.

Public Works Department
Little to no cost. Staff Time/General Fund
Low 2-3 yrs. Deferred
PR.4 Drought and Water
Shortage; Subsidence
Develop measures to achieve a higher level of irrigation efficiency with respect to plant water requirements, through assistance programs to customers.

Utilities Department
Little to no cost. Staff Time/General Fund
Low 2-3 yrs. Recycled Water Connected
from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to the East Side of the City under the Salinas River PR.5 Flood Acquire, relocate, elevate, and/or floodproof public works critical facilities that are located within the 100-year floodplain.

Public Works Department
$500,000 to $1,000,000. FEMA HMA
High More than 5
yrs.

Deferred

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-41

MITIGATION
ACTION
NUMBER

PRIMARY HAZARD(S)

MITIGATED

DESCRIPTIONS/BACKGROUND/BENEFITS LEAD AGENCY
& PARTNERS

ESTIMATED COST &

POTENTIAL FUNDING

SOURCES
2025

PRIORITY

TIMELINE STATUS/IMPLEMENTATION
NOTES
PR.6 Flood Reinforce roads from flooding through
protection activities, including elevating the road and installing/widening culverts beneath the road or upgrading storm drains.

Public Works Department
$500,000 to $1,000,000. FEMA HMA
High More than 5
yrs.

Paso Robles Storm Drain Master Plan approved 1/2025
PR.7 Flood Develop a public outreach program that
educates property owners about voluntary flood insurance (targeted at areas that historically flood, but are not acknowledged on FEMA flood insurance rate maps) Public Works Department
Little to no cost. Staff Time/General Fund
Low 2-3 yrs. Deferred
PR.8 Flood Increase participation in the NFIP by entering the Community Rating System program which through enhanced floodplain management activities would allow property owners to receive a discount on their flood insurance.

Public Works Department
Little to no cost. Staff Time/General Fund
Low 1 yr. Deferred
PR.9 Hazmat Continue to monitor the manufacture, storage, and transport of hazardous materials by working with environmental health and public safety agencies to identify effective mitigation actions or requirements that will help reduce the risk of incidents, including the spread of released materials.

Fire and Emergency Services
Little to no cost. Staff Time/General Fund
Low Annual
implementation
On going monitoring with collaborative

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-42

MITIGATION
ACTION
NUMBER

PRIMARY HAZARD(S)

MITIGATED

DESCRIPTIONS/BACKGROUND/BENEFITS LEAD AGENCY
& PARTNERS

ESTIMATED COST &

POTENTIAL FUNDING

SOURCES
2025

PRIORITY

TIMELINE STATUS/IMPLEMENTATION
NOTES
PR.10* Landslides and Debris
Flow, Subsidence
Establish local zoning regulations that require the stabilization of landslide-prone areas and land subsidence hazard areas before new development can occur, through stability improvement measures such as the inclusion of interceptor drains, in-situ soil piles, drained earth buttresses, and subdrains.

Community Development Department
Little to no cost. Staff Time/General Fund
Low 2-3 yrs. Ongoing basis
PR.11 Wildfire Create a new vegetation management program that provides vegetation management services to elderly, disabled, or low-income property owners who lack the resources to remove flammable vegetation from around their homes.

Fire and Emergency Services
Less than $10,000. FEMA HMA
High 3-5 yrs. Chipping Program in
Development Stage
PR.12 Wildfire Implement a fuel modification program for new construction by requiring builders and developers to submit their plans, complete with proposed fuel modification zones, to the local fire department for review and approval prior to beginning construction.

Community Development Department/ Fire and Emergency Services Less than $10,000. FEMA HMA
High 2-3 yrs. Awaiting 2025 CBC and CFC
updates to determine new requirements.

PR.13 Wildfire Ability to fast track cleanup efforts in the Salinas Riverbed with approvals through Fish and Wildlife, or other agencies involved in environmentally sensitive areas Emergency Services Department
Less than $10,000. General funds; FEMA HMA
High 1 yr. Contracts with State Water
Board in Place & Annual Vegetation Management and Fire Breaks Maintained within the Salinas Riverbed PR.14 Earthquake Implement Digital “Collector” App for damage inspection program (DINS)
Information Technology (GIS)
Already Purchased. General Fund
Medium 2 Years In BETA testing period

Annex E: City of Paso Robles
County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-43

MITIGATION
ACTION
NUMBER

PRIMARY HAZARD(S)

MITIGATED

DESCRIPTIONS/BACKGROUND/BENEFITS LEAD AGENCY
& PARTNERS

ESTIMATED COST &

POTENTIAL FUNDING

SOURCES
2025

PRIORITY

TIMELINE STATUS/IMPLEMENTATION
NOTES
PR.15 Earthquake Implement Applied Technology Council
Placards and Evaluation Forms
Community Development Department
Little to No Cost. General Fund
Low 2 Years Deferred
PR.16 Adverse Weather: Heavy
Rain/Hail/Lighting/Dense Fog/FreezeThunderstorm; Adverse Weather: High Wind; Adverse Weather: Extreme Heat Through newsletters, advertisements, speaking engagements and other public contacts, educate the general public and key stakeholders on the issues, responsibilities, and current efforts and successes in the area of hazard mitigation and disaster preparedness related to adverse weather.

Community Development Department/ Fire and Emergency Services Little to no cost. General Fund
Medium Annual
Implementation
All Emergency-Based Press Releases translated into Spanish as of 1/2025

Annex E: City of Paso Robles

County of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan | City of Paso Robles | 2025-2030 Annex E-44 E.6 Implementation and Maintenance
Moving forward, the City will use the mitigation action table in the previous section to track progress on implementation of each project. Implementation of the plan overall is discussed in Section 7 of the main plan.

E.6.1 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
The information contained within this plan, including results from the Vulnerability Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy will be used by the City to help inform updates and the development of local plans, programs and policies. The Engineering Division may utilize the hazard information when implementing the City’s Community Investment Program and the Planning and Building Divisions may utilize the hazard information when reviewing a site plan or other type of development applications. The City will also incorporate this LHMP into the Safety Element of their General Plan, as recommended by Assembly Bill (AB) 2140.

As noted in Section 8 Plan Implementation, the HMPC representatives from Paso Robles will report on efforts to integrate the hazard mitigation plan into local plans, programs and policies and will report on these efforts at the annual HMPC plan review meeting.

E.6.2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Updating the Plan
The City will follow the procedures to monitor, review, and update this plan in accordance with San Luis Obispo County as outlined in Section 8 of the Base Plan. The City will continue to involve the public in mitigation, as described in Section 8.3 of the Base Plan. The Fire Chief will be responsible for representing the City in the County HMPC, and for coordination with city staff and departments during plan updates. The City realizes it is important to review the plan regularly and update it every five years in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act Requirements as well as other State of California requirements.

Attachment 2
https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/Vi
ew/40867/02--San-Luis-Obispo-CountyMJHMP-2025-2030----2025-2030-LocalHazard-MItigation-Plan-Item---2026-04-21- City-Council-Meeting-Agenda

U.S. Department of Homeland Security
FEMA Region 9
1111 Broadway, Suite 1200
Oakland, CA 94607
www.fema.gov
December 29, 2025
Scott Milner
Emergency Services Coordinator
County of San Luis Obispo Office of Emergency Services
1055 Monterey Street, Suite D430
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Reference: Hazard Mitigation Plan Review for San Luis Obispo County, CA Dear Scott Milner:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has completed its review of the 2025 San Luis Obispo County Hazard Mitigation Plan in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 201, Section 6 (44 CFR 201.6) for local hazard mitigation plans.

All mandatory requirements associated with 44 CFR 201.6 for local hazard mitigation plans have been met and the plan is eligible for final approval, pending its adoption by San Luis Obispo County and its planning participants. Formal adoption documentation must be submitted to FEMA Region 9 within one calendar year from the date of this letter.

FEMA’s review did identify the need for a revision in the dam safety section to fulfill the eligibility requirements for the Rehabilitation of the High Hazard Potential Dam (HHPD) grant program, which is outlined in the enclosed Plan Review Tool. This revision is considered optional and is only required to maintain eligibility for the HHPD program.

Please note that while local hazard mitigation plans may include additional content to meet Element H: Additional State Requirements or other local objectives, FEMA’s Approvable Pending Adoption (APA) status does not constitute review or approval of any content exceeding FEMA’s mitigation planning requirements.

If you have any questions regarding the planning or review processes, please contact the FEMA Region 9 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Alison Kearns
Planning and Implementation Branch Chief
Mitigation Division
FEMA Region 9

County of San Luis Obispo Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Completion Notice December 29, 2025

Enclosure (1)
San Luis Obispo County Plan Review Tool, dated December 29, 2025 Status of Participating Jurisdictions, dated December 29, 2025 cc: Robyn Fennig, State Hazard Mitigation Officer, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Victoria LaMar-Haas, Hazard Mitigation Planning Chief, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services

County of San Luis Obispo Hazard Mitigation Plan Review Completion Notice December 29, 2025

Status of Participating Jurisdictions as of December 29, 2025 Jurisdictions Adopted and Approved
# Jurisdiction Adoption Receipt Date
Jurisdictions Approvable Pending Adoption
# Jurisdiction
1 County of San Luis Obispo
2 City of Arroyo Grande
3 City of Atascadero
4 City of Grover Beach
5 City of Morro Bay
6 City of Paso Robles
7 City of Pismo Beach
8 City of San Luis Obispo
9 Avila Beach Community Services District
10 Cambria Community Services District
11 Cayucos Sanitary District
12 Ground Squirrel Hollow Community Services District
13 Heritage Ranch Community Services District
14 Los Osos Community Services District
15 Nipomo Community Services District
16 Oceano Community Services District
17 Port of San Luis Harbor District
18 San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District 19 San Miguel Community Services District
20 San Simeon Community Services District
21 South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District
22 Templeton Community Services District

Council Agenda Report
From: Darcy Delgado, Associate Planner
Subject: Continued from April 7, 2026 meeting - Introduce First Reading by Title Only an Amendment to Chapter 21.52 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code Updating Standards Related to Temporary, Prohibited, and Nonconforming Signs (RZN25-07, P25-0117) CEQA Determination: The proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA.

State CEQA Guidelines §15060(c) provides that “[a]n activity is not subject to CEQA if … the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378.” Even if the proposed ordinance is considered a “project” subject to CEQA, it is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15320 (Class 20).

Date: April 21, 2026
Facts

1. The City of El Paso de Robles regulates signs as specified in Chapter 21.52 (“Signs”) of the Paso Robles Municipal Code.

2. Signs significantly affect the aesthetic appeal of the City and its streetscapes, influence the quality of the visual environment, and shape perceptions of local economic conditions, as well as present safety, traffic, and circulation issues.

3. The City has a reputation as a community with native beauty, unique visitor attractions such as wineries, and distinctive architecture with a historic downtown, all of which makes tourism a staple of the City’s economy. Updating the sign code helps balance community design goals with free speech protections, providing clearer guidance for applicants, staff, and enforcement while supporting orderly development.

4. Best practices and relevant constitutional case law emphasize regulating signs based on objective, “time, place, and manner” standards—such as size, height, location, lighting, and duration—rather than the message displayed on the sign. Therefore, it is appropriate to amend the existing sign rules from time to time to keep up with best practices.

5. This zoning code text amendment would update Chapter 21.52 (“Signs”) to align with best practices in a content-neutral manner that safeguards fundamental free speech rights, while also protecting the community’s aesthetic and safety objectives, enhances the City’s visual environment so as to foster commerce and tourism, minimize visual clutter, and serves the public health, welfare and safety and traffic safety and circulation concerns.

6. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 10, 2026, and considered the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and accepted public testimony regarding the project, and on four-consecutive votes of 4-0-3 (Commissioners Christensen, Marlow, and Lorenz were absent) voted to recommend the City Council approve the zoning code text amendment.

7. The City Council originally held a public hearing on April 7, 2026. As a result of public testimony provided during the hearing, the City Council voted to continue this item to April 21, 2026 to allow the public additional time to review the proposed changes.

Options

1. Take no action;

2. Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance XXXX amending Chapter 21.52 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code;

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Issued Raised at April 7, 2026 hearing
During the April 7, 2026 hearing’s public testimony, a number of questions were raised about the City’s Portable Sign standards (also referred to as sidewalk signs, sandwich signs or A-frame signs). Portable signs are not regulated under the Title 21 Zoning Code - Sign Ordinance but have been regulated since 1993 as “street furniture” under the Title 11, Streets and Sidewalk Code. The proposed Sign Ordinance amendments do not make any changes to the City’s Portable Sign regulations.

Staff will meet with stakeholders who raised questions during the April 7 City Council meeting in advance of the April 21 meeting. Any feedback or discussions resulting from those meetings will be included as part of the staff presentation for this item.

Analysis and Conclusions
The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code Sign Ordinance is intended to preserve the City’s ability to regulate signage in a manner that benefits the community as a whole, while also safeguarding constitutionally protected free speech. The update addresses regulations related to prohibited signs, temporary signs, and nonconforming signs, and includes minor revisions to Section 21.52.110, “Administration and Enforcement.” Overall, the amendment is considered a “cleanup” action designed to clarify existing provisions and bring the City’s sign regulations into alignment with current case law and industry best practices.

The ordinance proposes revisions to the “prohibited signs” provisions in Section 21.52.040 by expanding and refining the definitions of “Flashing or Moving Signs” and “Vehicle or Trailer-Mounted Signs.” It also introduces new definitions for “Obsolete Signs,” “Obstruction of Ingress or Egress,” and “Signs in the Public Right-of-Way,” which are intended to address common enforcement challenges and provide clearer guidance to property owners, businesses, and staff.

In addition, the ordinance reorganizes and clarifies the City’s regulations on “temporary signs” under Section 21.52.090 to improve usability and ensure consistent application. Minor clarifications are also included for administrative and enforcement procedures in Section 21.52.110 to enhance transparency and effectiveness in implementation.

The proposed amendments are content-neutral and reflect “time, place, and manner” regulations that are consistent with applicable legal standards. The City Council is being asked to approve the proposed text amendments, which are provided with track changes in Attachment 1. A recommended action is included in Attachment 2, Exhibit A, where the amendments to Chapter 21.52 are presented in a clean (non-tracked) format.

Fiscal Impact
This Zoning Code amendment would not directly impact the City’s fiscal resources.

CEQA
The proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines §15060(c) provides that “[a]n activity is not subject to CEQA if … the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378.” Even if the proposed ordinance is considered a “project” subject to CEQA, it is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15320 (Class 20).

Recommendation
Introduce for first reading by title only Ordinance XXXX, amending Chapter 21.52 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code.

Attachments

1. Chapter 21.52 Amendments with Redlines

2. Ordinance XXXX – Sign Ordinance Amendment
a. Exhibit A – Amended Chapter 21.52

3. Legal Notice

Attachment 1

21.52.040 Prohibited signs.

Those classes of signs designated in this section are expressly prohibited and shall not be erected in any zoning district.

A. A. Bench Signs. Bench signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited.

B. B. Conflict with Traffic Control Signs. Any sign or sign structure that by color, wording, or location resembles or conflicts with any traffic control sign or device is prohibited.

C. C. Feather Signs. Feather signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited.

D. D. Inflatable Signs. Inflatable signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited.

E. E. Flashing or Moving Signs. Any sign that rotates (except for flags, pennants, and other similar types of signs), flashes, changes, reflects, blinks, or appears to do any of the foregoing-except for those signs that only portray time and temperature-is prohibited.

F. F. Off-Premises Signs. Off-premises signs are prohibited, except for billboards (see Title 19), authorized temporary signs, and directory signs that are in conformance with this chapter, or any other off-premises sign that is allowed by this chapter.

G. G. Pole Signs. New pole signs are prohibited except as approved as a highway-oriented sign consistent with Subsection 21.52.080(H) (Highway Oriented Signs).

H. H. Traffic HazardHazards. Any sign that creates a safety hazard by obstructing the clear view of pedestrian and vehicular traffic is prohibited.

I. I. Vehicle-MountedVehicle or Trailer-Mounted Signs. Vehicle-mounted signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited. This section is not intended to prohibit the display of commercial message that may cover all or part of a vehicle and that serves the purpose of advertising a commercial message as long as that vehicle is in operation and whose primary purpose is for regular transportation. The following criteria may be used in determining whether the primary purpose of the motor vehicle is a sign. It is not necessary that any one or all the listed criteria are met in order to determine that a sign is a prohibited vehicle-mounted sign:

1. 1. Whether the vehicle is in operating conditionoperational, currently registered, and licensed to operate on public streets when applicable.

Attachment 1

2. Whether the vehicle remains stationary while prominently displaying signage during business hours.

3. Frequency and location of parking designed to expose signage to public view.

2. While the business is open, the vehicle is not moved, and the vehicle is so parked or placed that the signs thereon are displayed to the public.

3. Whether the vehicle is regularly parked in a location and in a manner so as to be observed by passers-by.

4. 4. Whether the vehicle is activelyroutinely used as a vehicle in the daily function of the business to which such signs relateoperation.

5. 5. Whether the sign includessignage contains directional copy that would only be applicable if parked in therelevant only to the immediate vicinity of the use.

This prohibition also applies when:
(a) The advertising medium is a separate structure or device attached to the vehicle.
(b) The copy is readily changeable.
(c) The sign or device exceeds nine square feet and is parked on or near business premises primarily to advertise or direct attention to that business.

J. Obsolete Signs. Signs that no longer identify a bona fide business or activity conducted on the premises shall be removed within sixty (60) days of business closure.

K. Obstruction of Ingress or Egress. Signs shall not block free ingress or egress to any door, window, or fire standpipe, except as required or allowed by law.

L. Signs in Public Right‑ of‑ Way. Signs located within or encroaching upon any public property or public right‑ of‑ way are prohibited, except Governmental, regulatory, traffic, or any other signs as required by law.

21.52.090 - Temporary signs.

A. A. Purpose. In addition to Section 21.52.01021.52.010 (Purpose and Applicability) of this chapter, the purpose of this section is to ensure that temporary signs do not create a distraction to the traveling public by limiting the proliferation of temporary signs and eliminating aesthetic blight and litter that are detrimental to the public'spublic’s health, safety, and general welfare.

B. B. General Standards for All Temporary Signs.

Attachment 1

1. 1. Temporary Sign Content Neutrality. All regulations and standards in this section are to be exercised in light of the city'scity’s content neutrality policy. These provisions are not intended to limit, censor, or restrict free speech.

2. 2. Relationship to Permanent Sign Regulations. The number and area of temporary signs shall not be included in the calculation of permanent sign area.

3. Illumination Prohibited. Temporary signs shall not be illuminated.

3. 4. Secure Placement. All temporary signs shall be installed securely in the ground or attached to a building. Banner signs shall be installed on a building wall.

5. Sign Placement. Temporary signs are allowed on private property only subject to permission of the property owner.

6. Design Standards. "Day-glow" and fluorescent colors are prohibited. Lettering shall be of professional quality, done in uniform, readily legible characters. Signs shall be constructed of materials that can withstand outdoor weather conditions, such as cloth, canvas, or vinyl plastic. Paper and cardboard are prohibited materials.

7. Noncommercial Signs. In each instance and under the same conditions to which this chapter permits any sign, a sign containing an ideological, religious, or other noncommercial speech shall be permitted wherever commercial signage is permitted.

84. Permitting. Temporary signs shall be exempt from fee and permit requirements unless a modification is requested for temporary commercial signs consistent with Section 21.52.060 (Sign Permit, Sign Program, and Modification Requirements).

C. Temporary Sign Standards: Location, Size, and Quantity. Temporary commercial signs shall conform to the following regulations unless a modification is approved by the applicable review authority consistent with Section 21.52.060 (Sign Permit, Sign Program, and Modification Requirements).

C. Temporary Commercial Signs

1. 1. Location.
a. a. Temporary Commercial Signs. Temporary commercial
signs shall be allowed:
i. i. In residential zoning districts:
(a) (a) On properties with a legally established
business that is the primary use on the property
(specifically excluding home occupation businesses,
family day care homes, limited residential care
facilities, and similar uses where residential use is
the primary use on the property);

Attachment 1
(b) (b) On properties where a city building permit
has been issued and is actively under construction;
(c) (c) On properties where there is a garage, yard,
estate sale; and
(d) (d) On properties listed for sale or lease.
ii. ii. In nonresidential zoning districts.
b. Temporary Noncommercial Signs. Temporary noncommercial signs shall be allowed on any property in residential zoning districts.

2. 2. Size and Quantity. Temporary signs shall not in the aggregate exceed one square foot per linear foot ofmay be up to 32 square feet in area but shall not exceed 6 feet in height when placed on a building or tenant space frontage. For properties without a building, temporary signs shall not in the aggregatecollectively exceed thirty-two32 square feet in total area.

3. 3. Quantity. No property shall have more than two temporary signs at one time. In the case of a multi-tenant center, no business shall have more than two temporary signs at any one time.

4. 4. Duration and Removal. Temporary signs shall be posted for no more than thirty consecutive days, separated from other occasions by a period of not less than thirty days, and for no more than a cumulative ninety days within any calendar year. Any such sign shall be removed within seven days of the conclusion of any time-specific event associated with such signage. Temporary construction signs shall be removed at time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Temporary noncommercial signs may be posted for a total of ninety days in a calendar year. If a temporary noncommercial sign is related to a specific event, it shall be removed no later than seven days following said event.

5. 5. Exception for New Businesses. During the first thirty days that a new business is open, there are no limitations on the size, location, and nature of a banner sign, as long as the sign(s) does not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare.

D. Temporary Noncommercial Signs

1. Location. Temporary noncommercial signs shall be allowed on any property in residential zoning districts. Temporary signs are allowed on private property only with the permission of the property owner or lawful occupant of the premises, including tenants or residents who have legal authority to place signs on the property

Attachment 1

2. Size and Quantity. Temporary signs shall not exceed six square foot per linear foot of building or tenant space frontage.

3. Duration and Removal. Temporary noncommercial signs may be posted for a total of ninety days in a calendar year. If a temporary noncommercial sign is related to a specific event, it shall be removed no later than seven days following said event.

4. Speech. In each instance and under the same conditions to which this chapter permits any sign, a sign containing an ideological, religious, or other noncommercial speech shall be permitted wherever commercial signage is permitted.

21.52.100 - Nonconforming signs—Copy changes.

A nonconforming sign shall not be structurally altered, increased in area, relocated, or used or modified in a manner that would change the physical characteristics of the sign. Changes to sign copy on nonconforming signs shall require a sign permit subject to review and approval by the development review committee.

Attachment 1

21.52.110 - Administration and enforcementEnforcement.

A. A. Abatement.

1. 1. Nuisance Abatement. Signs not in compliance with this chapter may be declared to be a public nuisance, and be abated in compliance with the requirements of the city'scity’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.06 (Nuisance Abatement). Alternatively, signs not in compliance with this Chapter and deemed to be a minor violation by the enforcement officer may be enforced through the city'scity’s administrative citation process as set forth in Chapter 1.03 (Administrative Citation) of the Municipal Code.

2. 2. Summary Abatement. Signs located in the public right-of-way may be declared to be a public nuisance subject to summary abatement by the city'scity’s enforcement official, as defined in Municipal Code Chapter

9.06 (Nuisance Abatement). In addition to any criminal or civil penalties prescribed by law, the actual costs of abatement of such signs shall become a debt owed to the city by the person responsible for or causing placement of the sign.

B. B. Abandoned Signs. A sign shall be deemed abandoned in the following circumstances:

1. 1. Change in Use. Any sign advertising a use, occupancy or product that has not existed for a period of one hundred eighty consecutive calendar days shall be deemed obsolete or abandoned. It shall be unlawful for any sign owner, the occupant of such premises, or the owner of any such premises to fail or refuse to remove an abandoned or obsolete sign or sign support, pole or structure following an order to do so.

2. 2. Expiration of Event. The property owner or person responsible for the installation of a temporary sign authorized by this chapter relating to a specific event shall remove the sign promptly following the expiration of the event unless different time limits apply to the sign as specifically provided for in this chapter. Any such sign relating to a specific event shall be deemed obsolete or abandoned seven days following said event.

If the city removes the sign following its abandonment, the removed sign will be held by the city for a period of thirty days and the property/sign owner notified of the same. Failure to respond to the notification may result in the destruction of the sign or disposal by the city.

C. C. Failure to Maintain. All signs shall be kept in a good state of repair and preservation. A sign may be deemed abandoned if, after ninety days written notice to the permit holder, the permit holder has failed or refused to maintain the sign.

Upon such declaration, the sign may be considered abandoned and abated as provided in Subsection 21.52.110(B) (Abandoned Signs) of this section.

Attachment 1
D. D. Hazardous or Unsafe Signs. The enforcement official, upon identification of a hazardous or unsafe sign, shall give written notice to the property owner and/or party responsible for the sign or the condition or conditions that render the sign hazardous or unsafe, and an order to abate the public nuisance caused by the existence of the hazardous or unsafe sign.

Hazardous and unsafe signs include, but are not limited to, signs that obstruct views of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at street intersections or driveways, signs that create a glare or other visual distraction that impedes a driver'sdriver’s ability to see, and signs that are dilapidated, structurally unsound or pose a fire threat.

The enforcement official shall determine an appropriate time period for abatement of the public nuisance based on the degree of hazard. At the expiration of the time period, if the hazard has not been voluntarily abated, the enforcement official shall proceed to abate the nuisance in compliance with the procedures contained in Municipal Code Chapter 9.06.

E. E. (Right of Entry). When it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or when the enforcement official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists any sign or a condition that makes such sign unsafe, abandoned, illegal or nonconforming, the enforcement official may petition the court to enter the lot, building, or premises on which such sign is located at all reasonable times to inspect the sign or to perform any duty imposed by this chapter.

Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES AMENDING CHAPTER 21.52 OF THE EL PASO DE ROBLES MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIGNS AND

FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, Chapter 21.52 of the El Paso de Robles Municipal Code regulates the placement, design, and maintenance of signs within the City ; and
WHEREAS, best practices now emphasize regulating signs based on objective, physical characteristics, such as size, height, location, lighting, and duration, rather than the message displayed on the sign itself ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that updating the “Temporary Signs,” “Prohibited Signs,” “Nonconforming Signs,” and related provisions of Chapter 21.52 will modernize the regulations in keeping with best practices that emphasize content neutral, objective standards such as size, height, lighting, and location ; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which it received a staff report, considered all public testimony, and reviewed the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 21.52; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC 26-012 recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 21.52; and WHEREAS, the City Council originally held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments on April 7, 2026. As a result of public testimony provided during the hearing, the City Council voted to continue the public hearing to April 21, 2026 to allow the public additional time to review the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendments, at which it received a staff report, considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission, considered all public testimony, and reviewed the proposed ordinance WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

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

Section 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds that the proposed ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it does not qualify as a “project” under CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines §15060(c) provides that “[a]n activity is not subject to CEQA if … the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378.” Here, the proposed ordinance does not qualify as a “project” as defined in State CEQA Guidelines section 15378 for at least two different reasons.

First, Section 15378 defines a project as an activity that “has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change

Attachment 2
in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(a).) Here, the proposed ordinance will not result in any construction or development, and it will not have any effect that would physically change the environment. Accordingly, it is not a “project” subject to CEQA. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15060(c).)
Second, Section 15378 explicitly excludes from its definition of “project” the following:
“organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(5).) The proposed ordinance consists of administrative and organizational amendments to Chapter 21.52 of the El Paso de Robles Municipal Code that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Accordingly, it is not a project subject to CEQA.

Even if the proposed ordinance is considered a “project” subject to CEQA, it is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15320 (Class 20). Class 20 consists of “changes in the organization or reorganization of local governmental agencies where the changes do not change the geographical area in which previously existing powers are exercised. The proposed ordinance is limited to amending Section 21.52.040, “Prohibited Signs,” Section 21.52.090, “Temporary Signs,” Section 21.52.100, “Nonconforming Signs – Copy Changes,” and Section

21.52.110, “Administration and Enforcement,” of Title 21 of the Municipal Code to better align the types of prohibited, temporary, and nonconforming signs with best practices in an even-handed manner that safeguards fundamental free speech rights, while also protecting the community’s aesthetic and safety objectives, enhances the City’s visual environment so as to foster commerce and tourism, minimize visual clutter, and serves the public health, welfare and safety and traffic safety and circulation concerns. Further, the Zone Text Amendment is exempt from CEQA under the “common sense exemption” set forth in State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which provides that an activity is not subject to CEQA “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” As explained above, the ordinance merely makes objective updates to the standards for signs and does not allow any new types or intensities of land use activities. Lastly, none of the exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply:
there is no potential for cumulative impacts; there are no unusual circumstances that would have a significant impact on the environment due to the adoption of the Ordinance; the Ordinance would not negatively impact scenic resources within a duly designated scenic highway; there is no record of hazardous waste and the Ordinance has no potential to impact historic resources.

The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption for this Ordinance with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. Amendment of Chapter 21.52. Section 21.52.040, “Prohibited Signs,” Section 21.52.090, “Temporary Signs,” Section 21.52.100, “Nonconforming Signs – Copy Changes,” and Section

21.52.110, “Administration and Enforcement,” of Chapter 21.52, “Signs,” of the El Paso de Robles Municipal Code are hereby repealed and replaced read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All other provisions of Chapter 21.52 remain in full force and effect unless otherwise specifically provided herein.

Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section,

Attachment 2
subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

Section 6. 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 April 21, 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 – Amended Chapter 21.52 (Sign Ordinance)

Exhibit A

EXHIBIT A

21.52.040 Prohibited signs.

Those classes of signs designated in this section are expressly prohibited and shall not be erected in any zoning district.

A. Bench Signs. Bench signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited.

B. Conflict with Traffic Control Signs. Any sign or sign structure that by color, wording, or location resembles or conflicts with any traffic control sign or device is prohibited.

C. Feather Signs. Feather signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited.

D. Inflatable Signs. Inflatable signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited.

E. Flashing or Moving Signs. Any sign that rotates (except for flags, pennants, and other similar types of signs), flashes, changes, reflects, blinks, or appears to do any of the foregoing-except for those signs that only portray time and temperature-is prohibited.

F. Off-Premises Signs. Off-premises signs are prohibited, except for billboards (see Title 19), authorized temporary signs, and directory signs that are in conformance with this chapter, or any other off-premises sign that is allowed by this chapter.

G. Pole Signs. New pole signs are prohibited except as approved as a highway-oriented sign consistent with Subsection 21.52.080(H) (Highway Oriented Signs).

H. Traffic Hazards. Any sign that creates a safety hazard by obstructing the clear view of pedestrian and vehicular traffic is prohibited.

I. Vehicle or Trailer-Mounted Signs. Vehicle-mounted signs as defined in Section 21.52.020 (Definitions) are prohibited. This section is not intended to prohibit the display of commercial message that may cover all or part of a vehicle and that serves the purpose of advertising a commercial message as long as that vehicle is in operation and whose primary purpose is for regular transportation. The following criteria may be used in determining whether the primary purpose of the motor vehicle is a sign. It is not necessary that any one or all the listed criteria are met in order to determine that a sign is a prohibited vehiclemounted sign:

1. Whether the vehicle is operational, currently registered, and licensed to operate on public streets when applicable.

2. Whether the vehicle remains stationary while prominently displaying signage during business hours.

3. Frequency and location of parking designed to expose signage to public view.

Exhibit A

4. Whether the vehicle is routinely used in the daily business operation.

5. Whether the signage contains directional copy relevant only to the immediate vicinity.

This prohibition also applies when:
(a) The advertising medium is a separate structure or device attached to the vehicle.
(b) The copy is readily changeable.
(c) The sign or device exceeds nine square feet and is parked on or near business premises primarily to advertise or direct attention to that business.

J. Obsolete Signs. Signs that no longer identify a bona fide business or activity conducted on the premises shall be removed within sixty (60) days of business closure.

K. Obstruction of Ingress or Egress. Signs shall not block free ingress or egress to any door, window, or fire standpipe, except as required or allowed by law.

L. Signs in Public Right‑of‑Way. Signs located within or encroaching upon any public property or public right‑of‑way are prohibited, except Governmental, regulatory, traffic, or any other signs as required by law.

21.52.090 - Temporary signs.

A. Purpose. In addition to Section 21.52.010 (Purpose and Applicability) of this chapter, the purpose of this section is to ensure that temporary signs do not create a distraction to the traveling public by limiting the proliferation of temporary signs and eliminating aesthetic blight and litter that are detrimental to the public’s health, safety, and general welfare.

B. General Standards for All Temporary Signs.

1. Temporary Sign Content Neutrality. All regulations and standards in this section are to be exercised in light of the city’s content neutrality policy.

These provisions are not intended to limit, censor, or restrict free speech.

2. Relationship to Permanent Sign Regulations. The number and area of temporary signs shall not be included in the calculation of permanent sign area.

3. Secure Placement. All temporary signs shall be installed securely in the ground or attached to a building. Banner signs shall be installed on a building wall.

Exhibit A

4. Permitting. Temporary signs shall be exempt from fee and permit requirements unless a modification is requested for temporary commercial signs consistent with Section 21.52.060 (Sign Permit, Sign Program, and Modification Requirements).

C. Temporary Commercial Signs

1. Location.
a. Temporary Commercial Signs. Temporary commercial signs shall be allowed:
i. In residential zoning districts:
(a) On properties with a legally established business
that is the primary use on the property (specifically
excluding home occupation businesses, family day
care homes, limited residential care facilities, and
similar uses where residential use is the primary use
on the property);
(b) On properties where a city building permit has been issued and is actively under construction;
(c) On properties where there is a garage, yard, estate sale; and
(d) On properties listed for sale or lease.
ii. In nonresidential zoning districts.

2. Size and Quantity. Temporary signs may be up to 32 square feet in area but shall not exceed 6 feet in height when placed on a building or tenant space frontage. For properties without a building, temporary signs shall not collectively exceed 32 square feet in total area.

3. Quantity. No property shall have more than two temporary signs at one time. In the case of a multi-tenant center, no business shall have more than two temporary signs at any one time.

4. Duration and Removal. Temporary signs shall be posted for no more than thirty consecutive days, separated from other occasions by a period of not less than thirty days, and for no more than a cumulative ninety days within any calendar year. Any such sign shall be removed within seven days of the conclusion of any time-specific event associated with such signage.

Temporary construction signs shall be removed at time of issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Exhibit A

5. Exception for New Businesses. During the first thirty days that a new business is open, there are no limitations on the size, location, and nature of a banner sign, as long as the sign(s) does not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare.

D. Temporary Noncommercial Signs

1. Location. Temporary noncommercial signs shall be allowed on any property in residential zoning districts. Temporary signs are allowed on private property only with the permission of the property owner or lawful occupant of the premises, including tenants or residents who have legal authority to place signs on the property

2. Size and Quantity. Temporary signs shall not exceed six square foot per linear foot of building or tenant space frontage.

3. Duration and Removal. Temporary noncommercial signs may be posted for a total of ninety days in a calendar year. If a temporary noncommercial sign is related to a specific event, it shall be removed no later than seven days following said event.

4. Speech. In each instance and under the same conditions to which this chapter permits any sign, a sign containing an ideological, religious, or other noncommercial speech shall be permitted wherever commercial signage is permitted.

21.52.100 - Nonconforming signs—Copy changes.

A nonconforming sign shall not be structurally altered, increased in area, relocated, or used or modified in a manner that would change the physical characteristics of the sign. Changes to sign copy on nonconforming signs shall require a sign permit subject to review and approval by the development review committee.

21.52.110 - Administration and Enforcement.

A. Abatement

1. Nuisance Abatement. Signs not in compliance with this chapter may be declared to be a public nuisance, and be abated in compliance with the requirements of the city’s Municipal Code Chapter 9.06 (Nuisance Abatement). Alternatively, signs not in compliance with this Chapter and deemed to be a minor violation by the enforcement officer may be enforced through the city’s administrative citation process as set forth in Chapter 1.03 (Administrative Citation) of the Municipal Code.

2. Summary Abatement. Signs located in the public right-of-way may be declared to be a public nuisance subject to summary abatement by the

Exhibit A
city’s enforcement official, as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 9.06 (Nuisance Abatement). In addition to any criminal or civil penalties prescribed by law, the actual costs of abatement of such signs shall become a debt owed to the city by the person responsible for or causing placement of the sign.

B. Abandoned Signs

1. Change in Use. Any sign advertising a use, occupancy or product that has not existed for a period of one hundred eighty consecutive calendar days shall be deemed obsolete or abandoned. It shall be unlawful for any sign owner, the occupant of such premises, or the owner of any such premises to fail or refuse to remove an abandoned or obsolete sign or sign support, pole or structure following an order to do so.

2. Expiration of Event. The property owner or person responsible for the installation of a temporary sign authorized by this chapter relating to a specific event shall remove the sign promptly following the expiration of the event unless different time limits apply to the sign as specifically provided for in this chapter. Any such sign relating to a specific event shall be deemed obsolete or abandoned seven days following said event.

If the city removes the sign following its abandonment, the removed sign will be held by the city for a period of thirty days and the property/sign owner notified of the same. Failure to respond to the notification may result in the destruction of the sign or disposal by the city.

C. Failure to Maintain. All signs shall be kept in a good state of repair and preservation. A sign may be deemed abandoned if, after ninety days written notice to the permit holder, the permit holder has failed or refused to maintain the sign.

Upon such declaration, the sign may be considered abandoned and abated as provided in Subsection 21.52.110(B) (Abandoned Signs) of this section.

D. Hazardous or Unsafe Signs. The enforcement official, upon identification of a hazardous or unsafe sign, shall give written notice to the property owner and/or party responsible for the sign or the condition or conditions that render the sign hazardous or unsafe, and an order to abate the public nuisance caused by the existence of the hazardous or unsafe sign.

Hazardous and unsafe signs include, but are not limited to, signs that obstruct views of pedestrian and vehicular traffic at street intersections or driveways, signs that create a glare or other visual distraction that impedes a driver’s ability to see, and signs that are dilapidated, structurally unsound or pose a fire threat.

The enforcement official shall determine an appropriate time period for abatement of the public nuisance based on the degree of hazard. At the expiration of the time period, if the hazard has not been voluntarily abated, the enforcement official

Exhibit A
shall proceed to abate the nuisance in compliance with the procedures contained in Municipal Code Chapter 9.06.

E. Right of Entry. When it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or when the enforcement official has reasonable cause to believe that there exists any sign or a condition that makes such sign unsafe, abandoned, illegal or nonconforming, the enforcement official may petition the court to enter the lot, building, or premises on which such sign is located at all reasonable times to inspect the sign or to perform any duty imposed by this chapter.

Attachment 3

Emery-Drayton, Andrea
Q4 - Public Comment

Midkiff, Linda
Q4 - Public Comment

Melissa Martin
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Heather Roda & T earn
Monday, April 20, 2026 9:41 PM
City Clerk
Sign Ordinance
Follow up
Flagged
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Roda, Heather
oa - Public Comment
. Learn why this is important
Hi there it has come to our attention the newly proposed city sign ordinance has no provision for open house signs. I'm just writing to help bring attention to it since it seems. it must have been an oversight ;)
With appreciation, Heather
Check out our videos atyoutube.com/@TheRodaTeam
- PlatinumTeamProperties.com
OUR MISSION: TO P RVICE RESULTING IN RELATIONSHIPS THAT LAST A LIFETIME! Who do you know that would love to start their real estate journey with us? Call us today or visit us toda
Team Member/REALTOR: Co
Team • •
hour
: Randi Mansfield:

PLEASE SEND ANY PRELIMS OR DISCLOSURES TO:

Thank you:)
1 (during biz
(during biz hours)

Council Agenda Report
From: Darcy Delgado, Associate Planner
Subject: Approval of the Oak at Ardmore Project, Including a Zoning Map Amendment, a Special Planned Development Overlay Zoning Designation, and an Oak Tree Removal CEQA Determination: On February 20, 2024, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a commercial/industrial project (“Covelop”) consisting of 240,000 square feet of floor area spanning six buildings for this project site. Staff recommends the City Council approve an addendum to the 2024 MND for the original Covelop project. The Addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the residential Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164.

Date: April 21, 2026
Facts

1. Covelop, Inc. & MD3 Investments (“Applicant”) has applied for entitlements for a 154-unit residential subdivision on an approximate 12.98-acre property located at 2930 Union Road (Lots 6 & 13 of APN 025-362-050).

2. The General Plan designation is Commercial Service (“CS”) and the zoning designation is Commercial/Light Industrial with a Planned Development Overlay and Special Planned Overlay “F” (C3-PD, District “F” Overlay).

3. The entitlements associated with the Project request include a Zoning Code Amendment (“RZN 25- 03) requesting an amendment to the Zoning Map and Zoning Code to revise the designation of the subject property to include the addition of a Mixed-Use (“MU”) Overlay and a Special Planned Development (“SPD”) Overlay (“Overlay K”), Planned Development 25-14 (“PD25-14”), Modification 26-04 (“MOD26-04”), Conditional Use Permit 25-05 (“CUP25-05”), Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255 (“VTTM 3255”), and Oak Tree Removal 25-09 (“OTR 25-09”).

4. In addition to the rezoning request for the MU Overlay, the project will require an allocation of 154 General Plan surplus density units to be allocated from the Cycle 2 Surplus Density Unit pool.

5. Past approvals for this site included a commercial/industrial project (“Covelop”) which consisted of 240,000 square feet of floor area spanning six buildings across the project site. On February 20, 2024, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND” or “2024 MND”) for the Covelop project.

6. The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee on December 15, 2025. The Development Review Committee was overall supportive of the project, but needed clarification on what aspects of the project were requiring modifications such as property setbacks and retaining wall heights. Additional information has since been provided by the Applicant and are included in the discussion below.

7. An Addendum to the 2024 MND has been prepared and is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the proposed residential Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the 2024 MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164.

8. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 24, 2026, and considered the facts as presented in the staff report prepared for this project, and accepted public testimony regarding the project, and on five-consecutive votes of 5-1-1 (Commissioner Marlow absent) voted to recommend the City Council approve the project and associated environmental documents.

Community Outreach
Before both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City sent notices to all owners and tenants of properties within 300 feet of the property and a notice was published in the New Times.

Options
After consideration of any public testimony, the City Council should consider the following options:

1. Take no action;

2. Recommend approval of the project by taking the following actions:
a. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(A), certifying an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 25-14, Rezone 25-03, Modification 26-04, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Oak Tree Removal 25-09; and
b. Introduce for first reading, by title only, Ordinance XXXX, approving Rezone 25-03 regarding updates to the El Paso de Robles Zoning Code and Zoning Map; and c. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(B), approving an allocation of 154 Surplus Density Units to Parcel 025-362-050; and
d. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(C), approving Planned Development 25-14, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Modification 26-04; and
e. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(D), approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255; and f. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(E), approving Oak Tree Removal 25-09.

3. Provide alternative direction to staff.

Analysis and Conclusions
Summary of Request
The project proposes the development of a 154-unit residential subdivision consisting of for-sale, townhome-style units. The project includes the following entitlement requests:
 Rezone 25-03 (“RZN25-03”):
o To establish a Mixed-Use Overlay to allow residential uses by-right, in addition to a request for an allocation of 154 surplus density units; o To establish a Special Planned Development Overlay (“SPD Zoning Overlay K”) to allow:
 Reduced setbacks including zero lot line development as part of the associated development plan;
 Exceptions to the Special Planned Development Overlay “F” designation as outlined by PRMC Section 21.04.070, to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land;
 Minimum lot size, parking requirements, and common recreation amenities.  Planned Development 25-14 (“PD25-14”) and Conditional Use Permit 25-05 (“CUP25-05”):
o To establish a 154-unit residential development;
 Modification 26-04 (“MOD26-04”)
o To allow deviations from specific Zoning Code development standards, including:

 Objective Design Standard Tier 1 – A portion of the project’s frontage along Ardmore Road (facing west) will not have pedestrian-oriented entries along the street frontage;
 Objective Design Standard Tier 4 – The project incorporates only one (1) out of the two (2) required design strategies for roofs;
 Objective Design Standard Eave Projections – The project will have eaves that project between 0 and 12 inches beyond the roofline, instead of the required 18 inches;
 Hillside Development Standards – The project will include retaining walls in five locations throughout the project site in which the heights exceed the six-foot maximum height by more than two feet; and
 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255 (“VTTM 3255”):
o To subdivide the site into 154 individual fee-simple residential lots, ten common lots, and the proposed right-of-way for the Ardmore Road extension; and  Oak Tree Removal 25-09 (“OTR25-09”)
o To allow the removal of six (6) Valley Oak trees totaling 265-inches, and the replanting of thirty-four (34) 2-inch diameter mitigation Oak trees.

Background/Project History
On February 20, 2024, the City of Paso Robles City Council approved a mixed-use commercial and light industrial project for the site, consisting of approximately 240,000 square feet of floor area across six buildings.

Since that approval, the applicant has reevaluated the site’s development potential in response to evolving market conditions, the City’s housing objectives, and the City’s Five-Year Economic Development Strategic Plan. Based on this reassessment, the applicant now proposes a residential project that reflects a balanced approach to housing by incorporating units that are affordable by design, supporting homeownership opportunities, and leveraging the site’s urban location to provide residents with convenient access to employment opportunities, transit, services, and community amenities.

General Description
The project site is situated approximately 0.25 miles south of Highway 46 East and 2.3 miles east of downtown Paso Robles, with existing access provided from Ardmore Road. The property is zoned Commercial/Light Industrial (C3) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. It is also subject to Special Planned Development Overlay “F,” which includes various stipulations intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent residentially zoned properties.

Mixed Use Overlay and Special Planned Development Overlay “K” The rezone to include the MU Overlay is necessary so that the project may be developed with residential uses by-right, since the C3, PD zoning is not a residential zoning district.

The SPD Overlay “K” is necessary for the project since, due to the nature of the townhomes being attached, zero lot line development can only be established with the special overlay. Also, as part of the SPD Overlay, the site is seeking to be relieved from a stipulation created by Overlay “F” and to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land, which is no longer necessary since it was originally intended to separate residentially zoned land from commercial development on the site.

The attached draft Ordinance (Attachment 3) outlines the findings supporting approval of both the MU Overlay and SPD Overlay “K.”
Image 1: Proposed Zoning Overlays
Phase Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The proposed project will subdivide Lots 6 and 13 of APN 025-362-050 into 154 individual fee-simple residential lots ranging from 1,563 to 5,058 sq. ft., ten common lots ranging from 477 to 68,436 sq. ft., and the proposed right-of-way for the Ardmore Road extension. The Project is proposed to be developed in two phases.

Amenities proposed in Phase 1 include an approximately 3,000-square-foot clubhouse, an outdoor pool, and a covered patio with dining and seating areas. Supporting features surrounding the clubhouse include pool cabanas, parcel lockers, and a mail kiosk, all with convenient access from nearby residential buildings.

Additional amenities include bicycle parking, picnic areas, and a network of public sidewalks connecting each amenity area to the broader pedestrian circulation system.

Image 2: Proposed phasing overlaid illustrative site plan Image 3: Close-up view of Clubhouse and Basin B

Phase 1 also includes two drainage basins, one of which is designed to function as an active recreational amenity. Basin “B,” located adjacent to the clubhouse, will incorporate a “no-mow” turf substitute and be encircled by a meadow trail walking loop. This area is intended to accommodate informal activities such as small group sports and community gatherings, and will include a temporary soccer net to support casual play.

Additional amenities are proposed in Phase 2, including a large playground located in the southwest corner of the site. According to the Applicant’s Preliminary Play Equipment Schedule, a minimum of 17 pieces of play equipment are proposed. To ensure timely installation, a condition of approval has been included in Resolution D requiring that the tot lot be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 100th residential unit.

Image 4: Close-up of playground
Townhome Design and Architecture
The project consists of 34 residential buildings containing a total of 154 townhome units, resulting in an overall density of 11.86 dwelling units per acre. All units will be air gapped. Four primary building types are proposed: Townhome-A Front-Loaded (4-Pack and 5-Pack) and Townhome-B Alley-Loaded (4-Pack and 5-Pack). The key distinction between these types is garage orientation: Front-Loaded models feature garages at the front of the unit, while Alley-Loaded models provide rear-access garages via shared alleys.

Notably, the townhomes along Ardmore Road feature enhanced rear frontage treatments, including

shorter fencing, upgraded landscaping, and a courtyard-oriented design that strengthens the pedestrian connection and enhances the overall streetscape character.

Image 5: Typical townhome rendering
All units will include a private entry, an attached one- or two-car garage, and a private outdoor area. All townhomes will share a consistent architectural language characterized by similar massing, complementary rooflines, and cohesive color and material palettes to create a unified yet visually interesting streetscape. Subtle variations in unit design, façade articulation, and roof pitch help break up massing and enhance neighborhood character.

All townhomes will share a consistent architectural language characterized by similar massing, complementary rooflines, and cohesive color and material palettes to create a unified yet visually interesting streetscape. Subtle variations in unit design, façade articulation, and roof pitch help break up massing and enhance neighborhood character. Townhome-A buildings are oriented along internal drive aisles and feature horizontal offsets and varied rooflines to create rhythm and reduce visual bulk.

Townhome-B buildings incorporate vertical massing breaks and rear-loaded garages to foster a pedestrian-scaled environment along internal walkways. Building heights range from 28 to 30 feet above finished floor.

Parking
Pursuant to PRMC Section 21.48.030, a minimum of 308 residential parking spaces and 31 guest spaces are required. The project provides 282 garage spaces and 90 driveway spaces, totaling 372 residential parking spaces, along with 33 guest spaces. Guest spaces are evenly distributed throughout the site, with a greater concentration of spaces being located in front of the club house for ease of access. In addition, Ardmore Extension will include 26 parallel parking spaces along both sides of the street.

Waste Enclosures
The project proposes a total of eight (8) screened waste storage enclosures to serve the proposed buildings. Each enclosure is designed to accommodate refuse, recycling and organics bins in compliance with PRMC Section 21.51.030.

Fencing
The project proposes a variety of fencing types throughout the site to ensure privacy, safety, and design cohesion. Perimeter horizontal wood-slat fencing will be used along the entire property boundary to define the residential edge, screen adjacent uses, and provide privacy for future residents. The wood slats will be finished in a neutral, natural stain that complements the overall architectural palette and landscaping. Shorter, 3-foot fencing was initially proposed along the rear property line of the Ardmore Road townhomes to enhance the pedestrian experience, however, per direction from the Planning Commission, it was requested the applicant evaluate an alternative fence at this location that would be taller and more durable given its proximity to Ardmore Road. The City Council will be asked to determine the final appropriate fencing type along this section of the project’s frontage on Ardmore Road. Additional fencing materials are discussed in the following section.

Image 6: Fencing plan
Development Plan Modifications
Setbacks
A modification from the setback standards outlined in PRMC Section 21.36.050-1 is requested to allow varying reduced front, side, and rear setbacks, including zero-foot setbacks in instances where townhomes feature shared walls along zero-lot lines or alley-loaded designs with zero-foot front setbacks.

This modification is necessary to achieve the proposed density while maintaining the project’s front- and rear-loaded quad and quasi-plex design concept, which reduces lot sizes and supports the City’s goal of providing attainable housing that is affordable by design.

Objective Design Standards
a. A modification from the Building Orientation Tier 1 Design Strategy outlined in PRMC Section

21.50.050.B.1 is requested to waive the requirement that townhomes along Ardmore Road include pedestrian-oriented entries facing the street. To address the intent of the standard and maintain a strong streetscape presence, the rear elevations have been enhanced with upgraded frontage treatments, including dual-sided landscaping, and courtyard-oriented designs featuring covered porches designed to appear as front entries. These elements create the visual impression

of pedestrian entryways, strengthening the streetscape and enhancing the overall appearance along Ardmore Road. All mechanical equipment will be fully screened, and a mix of shrubs and trees will further soften and enrich the pedestrian environment. Gates are not proposed. Fence maintenance will be managed by the HOA to ensure routine upkeep and timely repairs, preventing deterioration. As a result of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for a taller fence, Image 7a below demonstrates an alternative fencing material that, although taller, could achieve the desired effects of improving the streetscape along this section of Ardmore Road.

Image 7: original proposal - 3-foot-tall fencing along Ardmore Road Image 7a: Planning Commission recommended 6-foot-tall fencing along Ardmore Road (staff recommending pilasters be added to the wall, 25-feet on center)

b. A modification to the Tier 4 Design Strategies (Roofs) outlined in PRMC Section 21.50.050.E is requested to allow implementation of one complete strategy, supplemented by portions of other strategies, rather than requiring two complete strategies.

The project fully complies with Strategy 6.c, incorporating gables along at least 40% of all façade lengths. In addition, the design integrates key elements from several other strategies, collectively achieving the intent of promoting architectural variety and visual interest. These elements include:
 Roof height variations exceeding 18 inches on most elevations.  Dormers provided along certain right-of-way-facing facades in accordance with Sub-Standard 1, though covering less than 50% of those elevations.
 Substantial eave and rake projections consistent with Sub-Standard 2, though slightly less than 2 feet in depth.
 Accent standing seam metal roofing consistent with Sub-Standards 5 and 7, applied to less than 25% of some roof lines and under 50% of the total roof area. c. A modification to the eave projection standards in PRMC Section 21.50.060.C.2.c is requested to allow eaves to project between 0 and 12 inches beyond the roofline, instead of the required 18 inches. Due to the project’s affordable design, featuring smaller lot sizes and reduced or zero-lotline setbacks, eaves extending more than 12 inches would encroach over the exterior property lines. Additionally, in certain instances where interior lot lines terminate at the roof edge, zeroinch eaves are proposed. Because the project provides one complete roof objective design standard along with key elements from five additional objective design standards, the reduction in eave projection would not diminish architectural variety or the overall visual interest of the roof.
d. A modification to PRMC Section 21.81.040.D.1.a is requested to allow rear-yard retaining walls to exceed the six-foot maximum height by two feet or more in limited instances, consistent with PRMC Section 21.81.050. Due to both onsite and offsite topographical and drainage constraints, this modification is necessary to facilitate development and support required drainage basins .

In five locations, retaining walls exceed six feet in height; however, in only two of these instances does the visible height exceed six feet (Sections B and F). The applicable section drawings on Sheet A31 from Exhibit D of Attachment 5 are summarized below:
 Section A: An eight-foot retaining wall with a concrete bypass channel is proposed along the southern property line behind Lots 88–92. When standing at the adjacent property line, on the opposite side of the four-foot-wide bypass channel, the exterior visible height of the wall is approximately five feet. The retaining wall is not visible from within the site.  Section B: A six-foot nine-inch retaining wall is proposed along the eastern property line behind Lot 79 and is visible from the interior of the lot. This condition occurs entirely within the private rear yard, does not result in offsite visual impacts, and is driven by site-grading constraints necessary to accommodate development. The wall configuration will be apparent to future property owners at the time of purchase and does not create an unreasonable visual condition.

 Section C: An eight-foot retaining wall is proposed along the east side of Basin C. The wall is only visible from within the site. When standing at the edge of Basin C, which will be fenced, the visible height is less than six feet. In addition, when the basin contains water, the visible height of the wall is further reduced.
 Section F: An eight-foot six-inch retaining wall is proposed along the north side of Basin C and Lot 17. This wall boarders an agricultural field and will be visible from offsite. Due to onsite and offsite drainage patterns and site-grading constraints, Basin C must be located in this position, and the associated retaining wall is necessary to support the basin and ensure compliance with stormwater performance standards.
 Section G: An eight-foot nine-inch retaining wall is proposed along the west side of Lots 106– 109. Due to the sloping topography to the west, the visible height of the wall is less than six feet at a distance of approximately ten feet from the wall. This property line is shared with Spurr Construction and is bordered by an existing six-foot-tall chain-link fence with privacy slats, which effectively reduces the visible height to less than six feet.  Section H: Similar to Section G, an eight-foot one-inch retaining wall is proposed along the west side of Lots 110–113. While the topography slopes more gently in this area, the wall is adjacent to Spurr Construction and screened by an existing six-foot-tall chain-link fence with privacy slats, which effectively reduces the visible height to less than six feet.

Image 8: Retaining wall height modifications
Affordability Component
As part of the entitlement project, City staff and the applicant have coordinated on an affordable housing component. The applicant proposes to model the component after the County of San Luis Obispo’s

Regional Housing Incentive Program, a point-based system designed to simplify access to development incentives similar to the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Program. The applicant has proposed to contribute an in-lieu fee equivalent to two points in the County system, payable to the City for use in a future tax-credit affordable housing project. This structure would allow the contribution to be leveraged through state, federal, and tax-exempt financing programs, significantly amplifying available nonprofit housing funds.

While staff recognize that the City Council has not formally adopted the County’s incentive plan, it provides a useful framework to advance the Council’s goals and objectives for increasing affordable housing until a more detailed Council policy is established. The following condition of approval provides the framework for how the in-lieu contribution will be implemented:

Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any residential unit within the project, the project applicant shall provide an affordable housing in-lieu contribution in the one-time payment amount of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) to the City of Paso Robles. The City may deposit the funds into any City-designated affordable housing or housing-related fund, to be used to support the development, financing, or leveraging of income-restricted housing within the City. The obligation established by this condition shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the project applicant and all successors and assigns. Payment of the contribution required by this condition shall satisfy the project’s affordable housing contribution associated with this entitlement.

Oak Trees
There are a total of eight (8) oak trees located on the subject property. Certified Arborist Rodney Thurman, with Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting Inc. (“HTACI”), prepared an Arborist Report for the initial Covelop project in 2022 to evaluate the oak trees on the Project site. At that time, Trees # 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11, were in poor or very poor condition, with imminent catastrophic failure due to internal fungal root and butt rot. Two additional trees (Tree # 11 and 13) were proposed for protection and were assessed as being in poor and good condition, respectively. An Oak Tree Removal Permit (OTR23-11) was subsequently approved for the removal of the six trees.

Since that assessment, Tree #3 has since fallen. In light of this and the project’s change from an industrial to a residential use, HTACI prepared an updated assessment in July 2025 to reevaluate Tree #13, which was previously identified as being in good condition but at high risk of trunk failure due to advanced internal decay. A July 2025 reassessment was conducted by HTACI that reconfirmed that Tree #13, a 42- inch native oak, remains at high risk of structural failure. Resistograph testing showed significant internal decay, with up to 77% radial wood loss in some areas. While the tree was previously proposed for retention under the industrial use scenario with protective fencing, the transition to residential use introduces more frequent and prolonged public access, including by children. Due to the increased potential for injury, the consulting arborist recommends removal of Tree #13. As such, Tree #10 remains as the only tree to be protected and preserved as part of the project.

Oak tree removals approved as part of this Project will be mitigated in accordance with the City Zoning Code, requiring replacement plantings on an inch for inch basis of 25% of the inches of diameter at breast height of the oak trees removed. In this case, the project is asking for the removal of six (6) Valley Oak trees totaling 265-inches and would require the on-site planting of thirty-four (34) 2-inch diameter mitigation Oak trees.

Image 9: Oak tree replacement calculations
Summary of Planning Commission Hearing
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2026. The majority of the Planning Commissioners who were present at the meeting voted for the City Council to approve the project, however there were concerns with final fencing details and noise impacts of existing uses that the Commission asked to be brought to the City Council’s attention for final input.

Regarding the 3-foot fence initially proposed for the two townhome buildings with the backyards facing Ardmore Road, it was requested that the applicant evaluate an alternative fence material at this location that would be taller and more durable given its proximity to Ardmore Road. The applicant was asked to provide options to the City Council, and for a final design to be selected as part of the City Council’s motion for Resolution C.

Image 10: 6-foot split face wall along Ardmore frontage Regarding the Commission’s concerns of noise from existing commercial/industrial uses impacting the future buyers of the residential subdivision, the Planning Commission requested Planning staff to

coordinate with the applicant and come up with language that could be inserted as a condition of approval to Resolutions C and D, alerting buyers of the site’s proximity to existing commercial (C3) uses. In essence, the condition would act as a disclosure and would protect the existing surrounding uses from neighborhood complaints, so long as the existing businesses are operating within the approvals of their respective entitlements.

Applications recommended deed disclosure
Fiscal Impact
Approval of the Project is not anticipated to result in any negative fiscal impacts to the City. The proposed residential development is expected to generate ongoing, long-term positive fiscal benefits through increased property tax revenues, building permit and plan check fees, and one-time development impact fees associated with 154 new residential units.

In addition, the Project is expected to contribute modest ongoing General Fund revenues through increased service population, including potential sales tax from construction-related activity and future

household consumption, as well as other routine municipal revenue sources. Furthermore, the Project includes an affordable housing in-lieu contribution of $60,000, which will provide additional funding support for future income-restricted housing opportunities within the City.

Overall, the Project is expected to provide a net positive fiscal benefit to the City over time while not creating any new long-term operational or maintenance obligations beyond those already anticipated within existing service levels.

CEQA
On February 20, 2024, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a commercial/industrial project (“Covelop”) consisting of 240,000 square feet of floor area spanning six buildings for this project site. As lead agency, and as part of the City’s due diligence, the City required a supplemental Noise Analysis, supplemental Arborist Report, and supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis to determine if the proposed Project would result in any new or more severe significant effects not identified in the original MND. Based on these studies, and a full analysis of the scope of the Project, and the previously adopted 2024 MND, none of the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental document to be prepared is triggered. In particular, there have been no: (1) substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; and (3) new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous MND was adopted that shows: (a) the Project would have significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; (b) the Project would have more severe environmental effects; or (4) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible or new mitigation measures now exist and would be feasible and would reduce significant effects. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164.

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

Recommendation (Option 2)
It is recommended that City Council approve the project by taking the following actions:
a. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(A), certifying an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planned Development 25-14, Rezone 25-03, Modification 26-04, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Oak Tree Removal 25-09; and b. Introduce for first reading, by Title only, Ordinance XXXX, approving Rezone 25-03 regarding updates to the El Paso de Robles Zoning Code and Zoning Map; and c. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(B), approving an allocation of 154 Surplus Density Units to Parcel 025- 362-050; and
d. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(C), approving Planned Development 25-14, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Modification 26-04; and

e. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(D), approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255; and f. Approve Resolution 26-XXX(E), approving Oak Tree Removal 25-09.

Attachments

1. Vicinity Map

2. Resolution 26-XXX(A) certifying an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration a. Exhibit A. Addendum to MND
b. Exhibit B. Noise Assessment
c. Exhibit C. Air Quality and GHG Assessment
d. Exhibit D. Oak Tree Assessment
e. Exhibit E. 2024 MND
f. Exhibit F. Project Plans
g. Exhibit G. Project Description

3. Ordinance XXXX approving Rezone 25-03
a. Exhibit A. Zoning Map Changes
b. Exhibit B. Zoning Ordinance Changes

4. Resolution 26-XXX(B) approving an allocation of 154 Surplus Density Units to Parcel 025-362-050 a. Exhibit A: Surplus Density Units Cycle 2 Tracking

5. Resolution 26-XXX(C) approving Planned Development 25-14, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, and Modification 26-04
a. Exhibit A. Site Specific Conditions of Approval, Planning b. Exhibit B. Site Specific Conditions of Approval, Engineering and Utilities c. Exhibit C. Standard Conditions of Approval
d. Exhibit D. Project Plans

6. Resolution 26-XXX(D) approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255 a. Exhibit A. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
b. Exhibit C. Standard Conditions of Approval
c. Exhibit D. Project Plans

7. Resolution 26-XXX(E) approving Oak Tree Removal 25-09 a. Exhibit A. Oak Tree Location Map
b. Exhibit B. Arborist Report, 2022
c. Exhibit C. Arborist Supplemental Memo, 2025
d. Exhibit D. Site Specific Conditions of Approval

8. Legal Notice Affidavit

9. Mail Notice Affidavit

Attachment 1
Project Site

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION 26 -XXX(A)

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

CERTIFYING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD25-14, MODIFICATION 26-04, REZONE 25-03, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 3255, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 25-05, AND OAK TREE REMOVAL 25-09
2930 UNION ROAD, APN 025-362-050
WHEREAS, Covelop, Inc. & MD3 Investments (“applicant”) applied for entitlements for a mixed-use commercial and light industrial project consisting of approximately 240,000 square feet of commercial/light-industrial space spanning six buildings on a +/- 12.98-acre property located at 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 of APN 025-362-050 (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, in 2024 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 the Project encompassed by Planned Development 22-20, Oak Tree Removal 23-11, Modification 26-04, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map PR 22-0054, and Conditional Use Permit 23-14; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2024, Resolution 24-016 of the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“2024 MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Project (SCH# 2023090132); and
WHEREAS, since the time of approval, the applicant has reevaluated the site’s development potential considering evolving market demands, the City’s housing objectives, and the City’s 5-year Economic Development Strategic Plan and now proposes certain changes to the Project; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to replace the previously approved development with the development of a 154-unit residential multi-family housing development (“Revised Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project applicant is now seeking the following entitlements to allow for construction of the Revised Project: Rezone to include a Mixed-Use Overlay, Special Planned Development Overlay, Planned Development, Conditional Use Permit, a Development Plan Modification, a Phased Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TR 3225), and Oak Tree Removal; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation is Commercial Service (CS) and the zoning designation is Commercial/ Light Industrial with a Planned Development Overlay and special district “F” overlay (C3-PD, District “F” Overlay); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested Planned Development 25-14, Conditional Use Permit 25-05, Modification 26-04, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255, and Oak Tree Removal 25-09, which includes the site planning, architecture, subdivision layout, various development standard modifications, and oak tree removals necessary for the Revised Project; and

Attachment 2
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2025, the City Council of the City of Paso Robles approved Resolution 25-124, authorizing a reservation of 154-units from the Cycle 2 Surplus Density Unit pool to be applied to this project site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested RZN 25-03, requesting the site be rezoned to include the MU Overlay to allow residential uses by-right, which would enable an allocation of units to be assigned to the subject property. The purpose of the MU Zoning Overlay zoning is to provide for locations appropriate for development of multi-family residential in nonresidential zoning districts, either in combination with commercial uses or as stand-alone residential development projects; and WHEREAS, as part of RZN 25-03, and in accordance with Section 21.11.050 of the Zoning Code, the applicant is also requesting SPD Zoning Overlay K be established to allow:
 Reduced setbacks including zero lot line development as part of the associated development plan; and
 Exceptions to the Special Planned Development Overlay “F” designation as outlined by PRMC Section 21.04.070, to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land.
 Minimum lot size, parking requirements, and common recreation amenities.

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an MND has been adopted, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances to determine whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that an addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Revised Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the 2024 MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164. The Addendum is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, by way of preparation of an addendum for the Revised Project, staff evaluated the proposed changes to the Project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review outlined in Public Resources Code section 21166, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 by preparing an Initial Study and accompanying technical reports (Addendum) including an updated Acoustics Study (Exhibit B), Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas assessment (Exhibit C), and Oak Tree Assessment (Exhibit D); and WHEREAS, based on that evaluation, staff concluded pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the proposed changes to the Project will not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the 2024 MND, and that no mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, and therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is required; and

Attachment 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, only minor technical changes or additions to the MND were necessary and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred, therefore an Addendum to the 2024 MND was prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (c), the Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review, but can be included within the public record with the final 2024 MND; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2026 to consider the Addendum to the adopted 2024 MND prepared for the Revised Project, and to accept public testimony on the Planned Development, Conditional Use Permit, Modification, Rezone, VTTM, and Oak Tree Removal; and WHEREAS, based on the information and analysis contained in the Addendum prepared for the Revised Project and testimony received as a result of the public notice, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the Revised Project would result in significant effects on the environment not previously studied in the 2024 MND.

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

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

Section 2. Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the 2024 MND and Addendum, any oral or written comments received, and the administrative record prior to making a recommendation on the Revised Project. The City Council finds that the Addendum and 2024 MND contain a complete and accurate reporting of all the environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project. The City Council further finds that the Addendum has been completed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council therefore adopts the Addendum to the 2024.

Section 3. Based on the substantial evidence set forth in the record, including but not limited to, the 2024 MND, the Addendum, and all related information presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that the Project necessitate only minor modifications to the 2024 MND. Therefore, pursuant to State CEQA section 15164, an Addendum to the 2024 MND is the appropriate document for the Revised Project.

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

A. will not result in substantial changes that would require major revisions of the 2024 MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and B. will not result in substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is developed that would require major revisions of the 2024 MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and
C. does not present new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the 2024 MND documents were certified showing any of the following:

Attachment 2
(i) the Revised Project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the 2024 MND;
(ii) that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the 2024 MND;
(iii) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the lead agency declined to adopt such measures; and (iv) that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the lead agency declined to adopt.

Section 4. Having considered the Addendum, the administrative record, the 2024 MND and all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that all environmental impacts of the Revised Project have been addressed within the 2024 MND and the Addendum. The City Council finds that no new or additional mitigation measures are required. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the administrative record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in any significant environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the 2024 MND. The City Council finds that the Addendum contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Revised Project and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

APPROVED this 21st day of April 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

John R. Hamon, Jr., Mayor
ATTEST:

Melissa Martin, City Clerk
Exhibit A – CEQA Addendum/Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit B – Noise Assessment
Exhibit C – Air Quality and GHG Assessment
Exhibit D – Oak Tree Assessment
Exhibit E – 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration
EXHIBIT F – Project Plans
EXHIBIT G – Project Description

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1

CEQA ADDENDUM
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
SCH No. 2023090132
The Oak at Ardmore Townhouses
Assessor Parcel Number: 025-362-050
Location: 2930 Union Road
Paso Robles, CA
Planned Development (PD25-14)
Rezone (RZN 25-03)
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 3255)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP25-05)
Oak Tree Removal (OTR25-09)
Applicant:

Covelop, Inc. & MD3 Investments
PO Box 12910
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Lead Agency:

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

Darcy Delgado, Associate Planner
[email protected]
(805)237-3970
Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Determination
The City of Paso Robles is processing an application for the Oak at Ardmore Townhouses, a 154-unit residential project (“ Project”) located at 2930 Union Road (APN: 025-362-050). The Project will replace the previously approved Covelop development at this same location, which was originally entitled with a mixed-use commercial and light industrial project consisting of approximately 240,000 square feet of commercial/light-industrial space spanning six buildings.

This document constitutes an Addendum to the February 2024 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND or 2024 MND) prepared for the Covelop development (Planned Development 22-20, Conditional Use Permit 22-20, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 22-0054, Oak Tree Removal 23- 11). This Addendum evaluates whether the Project would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require any new or modified mitigation measures as compared to the 2024 MND which required minimal mitigation measures specific to biological and cultural resources.

As lead agency, and as part of the City’s due diligence, the City required a supplemental Noise Analysis, supplemental Arborist Report, and supplemental Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis to determine if the Project would result in any new or more severe significant effects not identified in the original MND. Based on these studies, and a full analysis of the scope of the Project, and the previously adopted 2024 MND, none of the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental document to be prepared is triggered. In particular, there have been no: (1) substantial changes in the project that will require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect; and (3) new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time the previous MND was adopted that shows: (a) the Project would have significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; (b) the Project would have more severe environmental effects; or (4) mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible or new mitigation measures now exist and would be feasible and would reduce significant effects. Therefore, an addendum is the appropriate document under CEQA to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of development previously analyzed for the site in the MND as provided for in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and 15164.

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

B. Background
Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
On February 20, 2024, the City of Paso Robles City Council approved a mixed-use commercial and light industrial project consisting of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (PR22-0054) to subdivide Lot 6 into two parcels; a Conditional Use Permit/Development Permit (PD22-20) for the construction of six commercial/light industrial buildings; and an Oak Tree Removal Permit (OTR23-11) for the removal of six oak trees. The entitlement was supported by a Mitigated Negative Declaration with specific conditions of approval and accompanying mitigation measures.

Since the time of approval, the applicant has reevaluated the site’s development potential considering evolving market demands, the City’s housing objectives, and the City’s 5-year Economic Development Strategic Plan. The applicant is proposing a new project on the site that reflects a balanced approach to providing housing that is affordable by design, supports homeownership opportunities, and leverages the site’s urban location to offer residents convenient access to jobs, transit, services, and community amenities.

The proposed Project now includes a Mixed-Use and Special Planned Development overlay zoning district, a Phased Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TR 3225), Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development, Development Plan Modification, and Oak Tree Removal Permit to facilitate the development of a 154-unit residential multi-family housing development.

Therefore, the Project applicant is now seeking the following entitlements to allow for construction of a residential project consistent with the 2024 MND, related CEQA documents, and the City’s General Plan:
• Rezone to include a Mixed-Use Overlay
• Special Planned Development Overlay
• Planned Development
• Conditional Use Permit
• Phased Vesting Tentative Tract Map
• Oak Tree Removal
C. Addendum Purpose
The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the consistency of the Project with the type and intensity of uses previously analyzed for the site in the 2024 MND and related environmental documents. As documented in this Addendum, none of the conditions stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have been met and therefore there is no need for a subsequent environmental impact report. This Addendum, together with the MND, and those previous environmental documents incorporated by reference, will be relied on by the City when considering approval of the Project.

This Addendum has been prepared to comply with CEQA Guidelines section 15164 and Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21166.1 The Addendum uses an environmental checklist to evaluate each environmental topic area within Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. This 1 / See Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 656, 668.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
Addendum applies to the current action only; any future development proposals that are not part of the proposed Project will be subject to their own consistency determinations and potential subsequent CEQA review.

D. CEQA Framework for Addendum
CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15164 provide that an addendum to an adopted MND may be prepared when the conditions for subsequent or supplemental review are not present. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164.)2
Subsequent or supplemental review is only required when substantial changes to a project require major revisions of a previous environmental document due to new or increased substantial environmental impacts, or where new information of substantial importance has been uncovered that indicates the project would create new impacts or increase the severity of existing impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162, subd. (a), 15164, subd. (b).) Subsequent environmental review is only necessary if one or more of the following has occurred:
• Substantial changes are proposed for the project that will require major revision of a previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; • Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, requiring major revision to a previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified ones;
• New information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known without the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Negative Declaration was adopted shows any of the following:
o The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration.
o Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than disclosed in the previous Negative Declaration.
o Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt them. o Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous document would substantially reduce one or more 2 / When project changes “[do] not raise any new effects which the [MND] had not already reviewed and analyzed” then preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not warranted. (River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 177; see also Santa Teresa Citizen Action Group v. City of San Jose (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 689, 704.)
Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
significant effects, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measures or alternative.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is a +/- 12.98-acre property located at 2930 Union Road, Lots 6 & 13 of APN 025-362-050, in the City of Paso Robles and is situated 0.25 miles south of Highway 46 East and

2.3 miles east of downtown Paso Robles. The site has existing access from Ardmore Road. The parcel is zoned Commercial/Light Industrial (C3) and has Planned Development (PD) overlay and Special Planned Overlay “F” (C3-PD, District “F” Overlay).

The Project is a 154-unit residential subdivision, including ten common lots, a private clubhouse, right-of-way dedication for the Ardmore Road extension, subdivision improvements including private access roads, pedestrian walkways, drainage conveyance systems, retention basins, waste enclosures, street lighting, and utility connections. The project includes the following entitlement requests:
• Rezone 25-03 (“RZN25-03”):
o To establish a Mixed-Use Overlay to allow residential uses by-right, in addition to a request for an allocation of 154 surplus density units; o To establish a Special Planned Development Overlay (“SPD Zoning Overlay K”) to allow:
 Reduced setbacks including zero lot line development as part of the associated development plan;
 Exceptions to the Special Planned Development Overlay “F” designation as outlined by PRMC Section 21.04.070, to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land;
• Planned Development 25-14 (“PD25-14”) and Conditional Use Permit 25-05 (“CUP25-05”):
o To establish a 154-unit residential development;
• Modification 26-04 (“MOD26-04”)
o To allow deviations from specific Zoning Code development standards, including:
 Objective Design Standard Tier 1 – A portion of the project’s frontage along Ardmore Road (facing west) will not have pedestrian-oriented entries along the street frontage;
 Objective Design Standard Tier 4 – The project incorporates only one (1) out of the two (2) required design strategies for roofs;  Objective Design Standard Eave Projections – The project will have eaves that project between 0 and 12 inches beyond the roofline, instead of the required 18 inches;
 Hillside Development Standards – The project will include retaining walls in five locations throughout the project site in which the heights exceed the six-foot maximum height by more than two feet; and
Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map 3255 (“VTTM 3255”):
o To subdivide the site into 154 individual fee-simple residential lots, ten common lots, and the proposed right-of-way for the Ardmore Road extension; and • Oak Tree Removal 25-09 (“OTR25-09”)
o To allow the removal of six (6) Valley Oak trees totaling 265-inches, and the replanting of thirty-four (34) 2-inch diameter mitigation Oak trees.

The Project consists of 34 residential buildings containing a total of 154 townhome units, resulting in an overall density of 11.86 dwelling units per acre. All units will include a private entry, an attached one- or two-car garage, and a private outdoor area. All townhomes will share a consistent architectural language characterized by similar massing, complementary rooflines, and cohesive color and material palettes to create a unified yet visually interesting streetscape. Subtle variations in unit design, façade articulation, and roof pitch help break up massing and enhance neighborhood character.

The proposed Clubhouse is a single-story facility centrally located within the project site, designed to offer shared indoor and outdoor amenities that promote social interaction and recreation. The building includes approximately 3,019 sq. ft. of interior space, plus an adjacent covered patio and pool deck. Outdoor amenities include a 1,177 sq. ft. covered patio for dining and seating, a 711 sq. ft. pool, and a 2,455 sq. ft. pool deck with lounge furniture. Together, the clubhouse and outdoor spaces serve as the neighborhood’s primary gathering hub.

The proposed landscape plan covers approximately 199,841 sq. ft. and emphasizes adaptive, drought-tolerant planting throughout the site. The diverse plant palette includes over 254 trees, featuring native species such as Valley Oak and California Sycamore, as well as accent and shade trees like Red Maple, Ginkgo, Marina Arbutus, Crape Myrtle, and Tulip Tree.

Landscaped areas are organized into distinct zones, including shaded pedestrian walkways, bocce ball courts, picnic spaces, passive recreation lawns, and a woodland-themed natural play Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
area. Flexible recreational spaces, such as synthetic turf mounds and temporary soccer nets, support informal activities without requiring permanent hardscape courts. Bioretention areas and stormwater basins are planted with species such as Berkeley Sedge, Muhlenbergia, and native rushes to manage runoff and promote infiltration.

Existing Zoning
The property is zoned Commercial/Light Industrial (C3) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. It is also subject to Special Planned Development Overlay “F,” which includes various stipulations intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent residentially zoned properties.

Because the C3 zoning designation does not allow residential uses by right, the project requires a Mixed-Use Overlay be applied to the site, which is described further below. The PD Overlay is applied to properties where a formal Development Plan is required, regardless of whether the project otherwise meets the standard thresholds and would trigger discretionary review.

Mixed-Use (MU) Overlay
The Project will redesignate the site with a Mixed-Use (MU) overlay to allow a phased subdivision of the property into 154 residential multi-family lots. The purpose of the MU Overlay zoning is to provide for locations appropriate for development of multi-family residential in nonresidential zoning districts, either in combination with commercial uses or as stand-alone residential development projects.

Special Planned Development (SPD) Overlay
A Special Planned Development (SPD) Overlay District “K” is also requested to allow zero-lot line development and eliminate a requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land. The purpose of the SPD overlay is to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of residential, mixed-use commercial and industrial developments, with findings to be made by the City Council in order to be approved.

The Project is intended to deliver housing that is affordable by design, featuring smaller lots and attached townhomes, while also providing neighborhood amenities and streetscape enhancements. The SPD overlay is necessary for this project since it allows the project to be designed specifically with zero-lot line setbacks, enabling the townhome configuration which is not otherwise achieved under the base C3 zoning development standards.

Also as part of the SPD Overlay, the site is seeking to be relieved from a stipulation created by Overlay “F” and to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land, which is no longer necessary since it was originally required only for commercial development.

Modifications to Objective Design Standards
The Project includes a request to modify several standards of the Paso Robles Municipal Code.

The first modification is from the Building Orientation Tier 1 Design Strategy outlined in PRMC Section 21.50.050.B.1, to waive the requirement that townhomes along Ardmore Road include pedestrian-oriented entries facing the street. To address the intent of the standard and maintain a strong streetscape presence, the rear elevations have been enhanced with upgraded frontage treatments, including 3-foot-tall wood fencing dual-sided landscaping, and courtyard-oriented Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
designs featuring covered porches designed to appear as front entries. These elements create the visual impression of pedestrian entryways, strengthening the streetscape and enhancing the overall appearance along Ardmore Road. All mechanical equipment will be fully screened, and a mix of shrubs and trees will further soften and enrich the pedestrian environment. Gates are not proposed. Fence maintenance will be managed by the HOA to ensure routine upkeep and timely repairs, preventing deterioration.

A modification to the Tier 4 Design Strategies (Roofs) outlined in PRMC Section 21.50.050.E is requested to allow implementation of one complete strategy, supplemented by portions of other strategies, rather than requiring two complete strategies. The project fully complies with Strategy

6.c, incorporating gables along at least 40% of all façade lengths. In addition, the design integrates key elements from several other strategies, collectively achieving the intent of promoting architectural variety and visual interest. These elements include:
• Roof height variations exceeding 18 inches on most elevations. • Dormers provided along certain right-of-way-facing facades in accordance with SubStandard 1, though covering less than 50% of those elevations. • Substantial eave and rake projections consistent with Sub-Standard 2, though slightly less than 2 feet in depth.
• Accent standing seam metal roofing consistent with Sub-Standards 5 and 7, applied to less than 25% of some roof lines and under 50% of the total roof area.

A modification to the eave projection standards in PRMC Section 21.50.060.C.2.c is requested to allow eaves to project between 0 and 12 inches beyond the roofline, instead of the required 18 inches. Due to the project’s affordable design, featuring smaller lot sizes and reduced or zero-lotline setbacks, eaves extending more than 12 inches would encroach over the exterior property lines. Additionally, in certain instances where interior lot lines terminate at the roof edge, zeroinch eaves are proposed. Because the project provides one complete roof objective design standard along with key elements from five additional objective design standards, the reduction in eave projection would not diminish architectural variety or the overall visual interest of the roof.

A modification to PRMC Section 21.81.040.D.1.a is requested to allow rear-yard retaining walls to exceed the six-foot maximum height by two feet or more in limited instances, consistent with PRMC Section 21.81.050. Due to both onsite and offsite topographical and drainage constraints, this modification is necessary to facilitate development and support required drainage basins. In five locations, retaining walls exceed six feet in height; however, in only two of these instances does the visible height exceed six feet.
• Section A: An eight-foot retaining wall with a concrete bypass channel is proposed along the southern property line behind Lots 88–92. When standing at the adjacent property line, on the opposite side of the four-foot-wide bypass channel, the exterior visible height of the wall is approximately five feet. Tall annual grasses grow on the adjacent property to provide natural screening from off-site minimizing offsite visual impacts. Further, there are no public vantage views from this portion of the project site, and the nearest residence is over 1,000 feet away. The retaining wall is not visible from within the site.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
• Section B: A six-foot nine-inch retaining wall is proposed along the eastern property line behind Lot 79 and is visible from the interior of the lot. This condition occurs entirely within the private rear yard, does not result in offsite visual impacts, and is driven by sitegrading constraints necessary to accommodate development. The wall configuration will be apparent to future property owners at the time of purchase but does not create an unreasonable visual condition.
• Section C: An eight-foot retaining wall is proposed along the east side of Basin C. The wall is only visible from within the site. When standing at the edge of Basin C, which will be fenced, the visible height is less than six feet. In addition, when the basin contains water, the visible height of the wall is further reduced. Drainage basin landscaping will further help soften the massing of the wall.
• Section F: An eight-foot six-inch retaining wall is proposed along the north side of Basin C and Lot 17. This wall boarders an agricultural field and will be visible from offsite.

However, tall annual grasses grow on the adjacent property and will provide natural screening to minimize offsite visual impacts. The nearest residence is over 600 feet away, with variations in topography, therefore the wall will not be highly visible. Due to onsite and offsite drainage patterns and site-grading constraints, Basin C must be located in this position, and the associated retaining wall is necessary to support the basin and ensure compliance with stormwater performance standards.
• Section G: An eight-foot nine-inch retaining wall is proposed along the west side of Lots 106–109. Due to the sloping topography to the west, the visible height of the wall is less than six feet at a distance of approximately ten feet from the wall. This property line is shared with Spurr Construction and is bordered by an existing six-foot-tall chain-link fence with privacy slats, which effectively reduces the visible height to less than six feet.

Tall annual grasses grow on the adjacent property to provide natural screening from offsite minimizing offsite visual impacts. • Section H: Similar to Section G, an eight-foot one-inch retaining wall is proposed along the west side of Lots 110–113. While the topography slopes more gently in this area, the wall is adjacent to Spurr Construction and screened by an existing six-foot-tall chain-link fence with privacy slats, which effectively reduces the visible height to less than six feet.

Tall annual grasses grow on the adjacent property to provide natural screening from offsite minimizing offsite visual impacts.

Oak Tree Assessment
An Oak Tree Assessment Report was prepared by Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting (“Heritage”) in October 2022 for the previously approved Planned Development/Conditional Use Permit (PD22-20). The assessment concluded that six trees proposed for removal (Tree # 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11) were in poor or very poor condition, with imminent catastrophic failure due to internal fungal root and butt rot. Two additional trees (Tree # 11 and 13) were proposed for protection and were assessed as being in poor and good condition, respectively. An Oak Tree Removal Permit (OTR23-11) was subsequently approved for the removal of the six trees.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
Since that assessment, Tree #3 has since fallen. In light of this and the project’s change from an industrial to a residential use, Heritage prepared an updated assessment in July 2025 to reevaluate Tree #13, which was previously identified as being in good condition but at high risk of trunk failure due to advanced internal decay. A July 2025 reassessment was conducted by HTAC that reconfirmed that Tree #13, a 42-inch native oak, remains at high risk of structural failure. Resistograph testing showed significant internal decay, with up to 77% radial wood loss in some areas. While the tree was previously proposed for retention under the industrial use scenario with protective fencing, the transition to residential use introduces more frequent and prolonged public access, including by children. Due to the increased potential for injury, the consulting arborist now recommends removal of Tree #13. Oak tree removals approved as part of this Project would be mitigated in accordance with the City Zoning Code, requiring replacement plantings on an inch for inch basis of 25% of the inches of diameter at breast height of the oak trees removed. Additionally, the project has been designed in a manner to protect the Tree No. 10 and protection measures such as protection fencing will be required as conditions of approval. As a result of the trees being removed being in poor condition and mitigation oak trees will be planted on site as outlined in the City’s Oak Preservation Ordinance, this Project’s impacts on oak trees will remain as being less than significant.

Water and Sewer
A Water Use Evaluation was prepared by Wallace Group in July 2025 to estimate projected domestic water demand and sewer flows associated with the project and was updated in November 2025 to include peak day and peak hour flow data. Landscaping water demand estimates were completed separately by RRM in August 2025.

As demonstrated by those studies, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 7.71 AFY of irrigation demand (Table 6), 33.57 AFY of domestic water demand (Table 7), and an estimated sewer flow of 20,696 gallons per day (Table 8). The project will connect to the City’s water and sewer systems.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
Noise
An Acoustic Study was completed by 45 dB in March 2023 for the previously approved commercial and light industrial project (P22-20), concluding that noise impacts would be less than significant and consistent with both daytime and nighttime standards in the Municipal Code.

In January 2025, 45 dB prepared a supplemental memo evaluating the conversion of the site to a residential housing development. The memo reconfirmed the ambient noise levels identified in the 2023 study and determined that the proposed residential use would remain compatible with surrounding conditions, with outdoor noise levels below the 65 dBA threshold and interior levels projected at DNL 36 dBA, well under the 45 dBA interior limit for Residential receiving land uses.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis was completed by LSA in April 2023 for the previously approved Covelop project (P22-20). The study found no conflicts with the 2001 Air Plan and determined that construction and operation would not generate air pollutants or GHG emissions exceeding SLO County APCD thresholds, impact sensitive receptors, or create objectionable odors.

In September 2024, LSA prepared a supplemental memo evaluating a residential project and confirmed it would also remain below all significance thresholds, concluding that no significant impacts would occur for a project with fewer than 330 multi-family units; therefore, this Project remains consistent with the prior analysis given it is 154-units.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
Biological Resources
A Biological Resources Assessment was completed by David Wolff Environmental in July 2023 for the previously approved Covelop project (P22-20), concluding that with implementation of recommended mitigation measures for nesting birds and San Joaquin Kit Fox, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project involves an equal amount of site disturbance as the approved project, and with the same mitigation measures, it will result in no significant biological impacts.

Cultural Resources
A Phase 1 Archaeological Study was completed by Padre Associates in July 2022 for the previously approved Covelop project (P22-20) and found no cultural resources within the project area, concluding that no further archaeological work is required. Since the proposed Project is within the same study area, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated.

Transportation
A Transportation Analysis was completed by CCTC in December 2022 for the previously approved Covelop project (P22-0020), concluding the project would generate 1,194 average daily trips, with 117 AM peak hour trips and 158 PM peak hour trips, and that no VMT or intersection impacts would occur.

In September 2025, CCTC compared the approved trips to the proposed trips and found that the new project would generate fewer daily and peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in lower traffic impacts than the approved project and would not cause significant impacts on intersection operations or VMTs.

III. CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
The project site has been previously analyzed under CEQA and approved for the development of a mixed-use commercial and light industrial complex. The environmental determinations for the Covelop project included environmental review in accordance with CEQA resulting in the 2024 MND that addressed potentially significant environmental impacts for Biological Resources and Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures for the 2024 MND addressed the potentially significant impacts specific to nesting birds, San Joaquin Kit Fox, and potential for encountering human remains during ground disturbance activities.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
The proposed Project is requesting a zone change to include a Mixed-Use Overlay which would allow the development to include residential uses in addition to the underlying commercial/industrial zoning. With the Project’s specific request, there would no longer be a commercial/industrial complex component. The Project involves an equal amount of site disturbance as the previously approved Covelop project, and demonstrates it will have more landscaped areas and less hardscaped areas than the previous Covelop project. Additionally, the proposed Project aligns with General Plan and Economic Strategy objectives by providing new housing opportunities within an urbanized area, increasing the City’s housing supply, and promoting community development in a compact and potentially walkable form. General Plan Land Use Policy 1A is to “provide an appropriate mix and diversity of land uses” and Policy 2I is to “Encourage infill development as a means of accommodating growth while preserving open spaces areas, reducing vehicle miles travelled and enhancing livability/quality of live.” Because development of similar scope and impact on the site has been fully evaluated through the previous MND and related CEQA documents, the Project would have no new significant effects and, with adoption of the conditions of approval and mitigation measures previously identified in conjunction with the previous 2024 MND, any significant effects previously identified would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

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

The column headings in the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G version to assess whether the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present. The checklist offers the following: (1) identification of the earlier analyses and where they are available in prior document(s) for review; (2) discusses whether proposed deviations from the previously analyzed program would involve new or substantially more severe significant impacts; (3) discusses whether new circumstances surrounding the previously-analyzed program would involve new or substantially more severe significant impacts; (4) discusses any substantially important new information requiring new analysis; and (5) describes the mitigation measures that were incorporated from the prior document(s) and the extent to which they address any site specific conditions for the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subdivision (a).) Each column is described in more detail below. The issue-area checklists are followed by a discussion that explains the results and provides site-specific analysis as warranted.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1

1. Where Was Impact Analyzed?
This column references the pages of the previous MND where information and analysis relative to the environmental issue at hand can be found.

2. Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(1), this column indicates whether proposed changes (if any) represented by the Project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the 2024 MND or that the Project will result in substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impact. A “yes” answer is only required if such new or worsened significant impact will require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed. Conversely, a “no” answer does not mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental issues, but only that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the prior approved environmental documents.

3. Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(2), this column indicates whether changed circumstances affecting the Project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the 2024 MND or will result in substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. A “yes” answer is only required if such new or worsened significant impacts will require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” A “yes” answer is only required if such new or worsened significant impacts will require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed. Conversely, a “no” answer does not mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental issue, but only that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the prior approved environmental documents.

4. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, subdivision (a)(3), this column indicates whether new information “of substantial importance” is available requiring an update to the analysis of the 2024 MND to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigations remain valid. Any such information is only relevant if it “was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR.” To be relevant in this context, such new information must show one or more of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.

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

5. What Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigation Measures Address Impacts Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3, this column indicates whether the 2024 MND and/or the findings adopted by the lead agency provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “n/a” is indicated, this environmental review concludes that the impact does not occur with this Project and therefore no mitigation is needed.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
B. Checklist and Discussion

1. AESTHETICS.

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

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

Discussion: The project site is adjacent to an urbanized area of the City with existing commercial and industrial development to the west and residential uses to the east. The site has some visibility from local roadways, but is mostly surrounded by open fields. Existing uses on the project site consist of abandoned agricultural structures and a +/- 12 acres of horse pasture. The visual quality of the site is moderately high since it is mostly undeveloped. The site is not within or adjacent to a scenic vista, gateway, or scenic highway as designated by the City’s General Plan or other adopted plans or policies. Therefore, the Project could not result in a substantial impact on scenic resources.

The Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impacts to aesthetics. The Project is subject to both the Special Planned Development (SPD) and Planned Development (PD) process and requires the Planning Commission and City Council to make specific findings, including that the Project would not have an adverse effect on public views from nearby roadways and other public vantage points and that the design and intensity of the Project would not be a disharmonious or disruptive element of the neighborhood, that the project is sensitive to the natural topography of the site. Consistent with the MND, the SPD and PD process would ensure that the Project is developed in a manner that does not degrade existing visual character and quality. The SPD Overlay “K” is necessary for the project since, due to the nature of the townhomes being attached, zero lot line development can only be established with the special overlay. Zero-lot line development does not diminish the aesthetics of the project though but instead offers an opportunity for more visual variation to be contemplated as part of the project’s PD process. Also, as part of the SPD Overlay, the site is seeking to be relieved from a stipulation created by Overlay “F” and to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land, which is no longer necessary since it was originally required only for commercial development. A residential fence in place of a masonry wall will be more compatible with future residential uses along the southern boundary, creating a more harmonious transition between the two properties. Further, the modifications to the retaining wall heights as described in the project Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
description are sensitive to the natural topography of the site, minimizes alterations to the land, and maintains and enhances significant natural resources, since there is an associated development plan that includes a wellthought grading plan which has been designed to work with existing landforms where feasible, and retaining walls are located in specific, functionally necessary locations to accommodate slope conditions and support required drainage features and development. The adjustment to SPD Overlay “F” to eliminate the requirement for a solid wall adjacent to residentially zoned land will not change the aesthetics of this areas, since the original requirement was only for commercial development. As a residential project, traditional wood fencing and/or non-masonry fencing is a more compatible building material. The adjustments being made to the objective design standards are minor in scope, with architectural requirements for residential uses being more stringent than the requirements for the prior Covelop project. Overall, the massing and architecture of the residential buildings are vast improvements for this area, and will not result in more severe impacts.

The Project proposes a coordinated site lighting plan that balances visibility, safety, and design aesthetics throughout the residential community. Lighting will be installed along pedestrian walkways, drive aisles, parking areas, and shared community spaces. In the time since the MND was approved, the City has adopted newer and more stringent lighting standards that this Project will be required to adhere to, including reduced heights for parking lot pole lights, reduced Kelvin rating, and more pronounced shielding of the light source. With these new standards, the Project will not result in significant new light or glare onto the surrounding properties.

Therefore, the proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts from light or glare.

In summary, the Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact to aesthetic resources. Any unanticipated impacts to aesthetic resources that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to aesthetic resources in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES.

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

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
MND, p. 6 No No No None required.

Discussion: The project site is designated in the General Plan and is zoned on the City’s Zoning Map for commercial development. The property is not identified in the City General Plan, Conservation Element (Figure OS-1, Important Farmland) as having either prime or unique farmland of statewide importance. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts on converting prime or other significant soils to urban land uses.

The Project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use. The project site is not zoned for agriculture and is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would result in no impact.

As for forest resources, the project site does not include any forest or timberland since these resources do not exist within the City of Paso Robles and would not cause any changes to forest resources.

In summary, the Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact to agricultural or forest resources. Any unanticipated impacts to agricultural or forest resources that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to agricultural or forest resources in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

3. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
MND, p. 7-8 No No No
(Refer to 2024 LSA
Supplemental Memo)
None required.
b. 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?
MND, p. 7-8 No No
No
(Refer to 2024 LSA
Supplemental Memo)
None required.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
MND, p. 7-8 No No No
(Refer to 2024 LSA
Supplemental Memo)
None required.
d. Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
MND, p. 7-8 No No No
(Refer to 2024 LSA
Supplemental Memo)
None required.

Discussion: An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis was originally completed by LSA in April 2023 for the previously approved Covelop project. The study found no conflicts with the 2001 Air Plan and determined that construction and operation would not generate air pollutants or GHG emissions exceeding SLO County APCD thresholds, impact sensitive receptors, or create objectionable odors.

In September 2024, LSA prepared a supplemental memo evaluating the proposed residential Project and confirmed it would also remain below all significance thresholds. The memo concluded that no significant impacts would occur for a project with fewer than 330 multi-family units. Because this Project proposed 154-units, well below the 330-unit threshold, this project remains consistent with the prior analysis.

In summary, the Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact to air quality. Any unanticipated impacts to air quality that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to air quality in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. 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?
MND, p. 9-11 No No No MM BIO 1 through 2
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
MND, p. 9-11 No No No None required.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
MND, p. 9-11 No No No None required.
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish and wildlife
Species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
MND, p. 9-11 No No No None required.
e. Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.

MND, p. 9-11 No No No
(Refer to 2025 HTAC
Supplemental Memo)
None required.
f. Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
MND, p. 9-11 No No No None required.

Discussion: A Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) was originally prepared by David Wolff Environmental, LLC, dated July 24, 2023 for the previously approved Covelop project. The BRA studied the 14-acre study area for biological resources, and concluded that there are no special status plant species within the project site. Additionally, no special status wildlife species or evidence of nesting birds was identified. The BRA did indicate that the project site may provide suitable habitat to support some special-status wildlife species, based on suitable habitat and regional (less than five miles) documented occurrences. These species include the San Joaquin Kit Fox (SJKF) and migratory nesting birds. Based on the potential impacts for special status biological resources, mitigation measures were included in the original project as MMs BIO-1 and BIO-2, which would ensure the projects impacts on Biological Resources would remain less than significant. More specifically, MM BIO-1 is intended to require preconstruction surveys for nesting birds for any vegetation removal or site disturbance done during nesting season, with avoidance of non-disturbance buffer zones established for any nests. MM BIO-2 avoids direct take of SJKF by implementation of a variety of measures such as worker education training prior to issuance of grading permits, maximum speed limits during construction, covering all excavations deeper than 2 feet at the end of a work day or installing wildlife escape ramps, as well as various other measures. The proposed Project involves an equal amount of site disturbance as the original Covelop project, and with implementation of the above MMs, the project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to biological resources.

The BRA also indicated that field surveys were conducted and concluded that no wetlands, water of the U.S./State or riparian habitat occur on the project site. Additionally, there were not any other sensitive natural communities located on the site. Therefore, this project’s impacts on riparian and sensitive habitats were determined to be less than significant and remain less than significant with the proposed Project.

The BRA also indicated that there are two swale features observed onsite and were determined to not be subject to the Clean Water Act or California Fish and Game Code jurisdiction due to a lack of defined bed and bank structure. In addition, consultation with the RWQCB confirmed that similar to the Case Pacific project and Spurr project sites to the west, they would not regulate the swales as waters of the state pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act due to lack of wetland habitat and low beneficial uses. Therefore, the project’s impact on protected wetlands were determined to be less than significant and remain less than significant with the proposed Project.

The proposed Project will not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor will it substantially interfere with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. Furthermore, the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. According to Figure 4.3-2 San Joaquin Kit Fox Mitigation Area of the City of Paso Robles General Plan EIR, the project site is Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
not located within the Kit Fox Mitigation Area and considered part of the developed portion of the City, therefore, compensatory mitigation is not required.

An Oak Tree Assessment Report was prepared by Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting (“Heritage”) in October 2022 for the previously approved Covelop project. The assessment concluded that six trees proposed for removal (Tree # 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11) were in poor or very poor condition, with imminent catastrophic failure due to internal fungal root and butt rot. Two additional trees (Tree # 11 and 13) were proposed for protection and were assessed as being in poor and good condition, respectively. In October 2025, Heritage Tree Arboricultural Consulting prepared a supplemental memo evaluating the proposed residential Project with the existing oak trees. Since that assessment, Tree #3 has since fallen. In light of this and the project’s change from an industrial to a residential use, Heritage prepared an updated assessment in July 2025 to reevaluate Tree #13, which was previously identified as being in good condition but at high risk of trunk failure due to advanced internal decay. The July 2025 reassessment reconfirmed that Tree #13, a 42-inch native oak, remains at high risk of structural failure. Resistograph testing showed significant internal decay, with up to 77% radial wood loss in some areas. While the tree was previously proposed for retention under the industrial use scenario with protective fencing, the transition to residential use introduces more frequent and prolonged public access, including by children. Due to the increased potential for injury, the consulting arborist now recommends removal of Tree #13. Oak tree removals approved as part of this Project would be mitigated in accordance with the City Zoning Code, requiring replacement plantings on an inch for inch basis of 25% of the inches of diameter at breast height of the oak trees removed. Additionally, the project has been designed in a manner to protect the Tree No. 10 and protection measures such as protection fencing will be required as conditions of approval. As a result of the trees being removed being in poor condition and mitigation oak trees will be planted on site as outlined in the City’s Oak Preservation Ordinance, this Project’s impacts on oak trees will remain as being less than significant.

There are no Habitat Conservation Plans or other related plans in the City of Paso Robles; therefore, no impact will occur.

Mitigation Measures: MMs BIO-1 through BIO-2.

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

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
MND, p. 12 No No No None required.
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
MND, p. 12 No No No None required.
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
the formal cemeteries?
MND, p. 12 No No No MM CUL-1
Discussion: A Phase I archeological survey was conducted by Padre Associates, Inc. of the project site on July 1, 2022. The field investigation identified no prehistoric materials or historic cultural resources within the project site. Although the study did not identify any cultural resources, mitigation measure CUL-1 was included in the original Covelop project to require work to stop in the event that cultural materials are encountered during future ground disturbance. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the previous project’s impacts related to archeological resources were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Since the proposed Project is within the same study/disturbance area, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated consistent with the previous project. In the unlikely event that buried cultural materials are encountered during construction, CUL-1 will maintain the new Project’s impacts related to archeological resources to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
Mitigation Measures: CUL-1.

Conclusion: With implementation of the above MM, the Project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts to biological resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

6. ENERGY.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
MND, p. 13 No No No None required.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
MND, p. 13 No No No
(Refer to 2024 LSA
Supplemental Memo)
None required.

Discussion: Under the original Covelop project scope, construction activities were anticipated to be temporary and consist of site preparation, grading, construction of buildings, paving, and installation of landscaping. The same is true for the proposed Project. According to the 2024 LSA Supplemental Memo, the construction schedule for the proposed Project is not yet known, therefore, default assumptions from CalEEMod were used, which was also the case for the prior Covelop project. It is anticipated construction sequencing will be designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. The proposed Project is also subject to air quality and energy efficiency requirements which are often referred to as Green Building Standards or the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all of which are applicable standards to reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Furthermore, the City’s General Plan and Conservation Element ensures the conservation and preservation of energy resources by increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, and buildings to the use of alternative forms of energy. Additionally, based on the 2024 LSA Supplemental Memo, the project would not exceed the Efficiency Threshold for operational emissions, the Project would not conflict with the CAP, Updated Strategic Action Plan Update, or the City of Paso Robles Climate Action Plan (PRCAP). Therefore, impacts to energy resources will remain as less than significant.

In summary, the Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact to energy consumption. Any unanticipated impacts to energy consumption that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to energy consumption in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
Exhibit A

82473.03000
\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
substantially more severe
impacts?
substantially more severe
impacts?
a. Directly or indirectly cause
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
Alquist-Priolo 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. ii.Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii.Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv.Landslides?
MND, p. 13-14 No No No None required.
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
MND, p. 13-14 No No No None required.
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
MND, p. 13-14 No No No None required.
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18- 1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
MND, p. 13-14 No No No None required.
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
MND, p. 13-14 No No No None required.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
MND, p. 13-14 No No No None required.

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

Per the General Plan EIR, the project site is located in an area with soil conditions that have a low potential for liquefaction or other type of ground failure due to seismic events and soil conditions. To implement the EIR’s mitigation measures to reduce this potential impact, the City has a standard condition to require submittal of soils and geotechnical reports, which include site-specific analysis of liquefaction potential for all building permits for new construction, and incorporation of the recommendations of said reports into the design of the project. The 2024 MND relied on a Geotechnical analysis which indicated the project assumed one and two story wood or metal framed construction. Geotechnical investigations were performed to evaluate soil conditions of the site. Groundwater was not encountered to a depth of twenty feet. The new Project has been designed to not exceed two-story construction and grading has a maximum cut height of approximately 10-feet, which is nearly identical to the original Covelop project and intended to balance the site where areas need to be cut versus receive fill. Additionally, the project site is in an area that is designated a low-risk area for landslides. Therefore, potential impacts due to landslides is less than significant since the project is not substantially more severe than what was originally proposed.

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

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

There are no known paleontological or unique geologic features identified on-site. If resources are found during grading activities, appropriate recommendations will be made regarding their treatment and/or disposition; therefore, this project will result in less than significant impacts on paleontological resources and/or unique geologic features.

In summary, the Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact to geology and soils since it does not involve substantially more severe grading. Any unanticipated impacts to geology and soils that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to geology and soils in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
MND, p. 15-16 No No No
(Refer to 2024 LSA
Supplemental Memo)
None required.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
MND, p. 15-16 No No No None required.

Discussion: An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis was originally completed by LSA in April 2023 for the previously approved project. The study found no conflicts with the 2001 Air Plan and determined that construction and operation would not generate air pollutants or GHG emissions exceeding SLO County APCD thresholds, impact sensitive receptors, or create objectionable odors.

In September 2024, LSA prepared a supplemental memo evaluating the proposed residential Project and confirmed it would also remain below all significance thresholds. The memo concluded that no significant impacts would occur for a project with fewer than 330 multi-family units. Because this Project proposed 154-units, well below the 330-unit threshold, this project remains consistent with the prior analysis.

In summary, the Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe impact to GHG emissions. Any unanticipated impacts to GHG emissions that might occur as a result of the Project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts to GHG emissions in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None
Conclusion: The Project would not have any new significant or substantially more severe impacts related to GHG emissions (CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a)).

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous
materials?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.
b. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one- quarter mile of
an existing or proposed school?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in
the project area?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.
f. For a project within the vicinity
of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working on the
project area?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.
g. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.
h. Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
MND, p. 16-17 No No No None required.

Discussion: Construction of the Project would involve the temporary transport, use, and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. These materials may include paints, adhesives, surface coatings, cleaning agents, fuels, and oils that are typically associated with any urban development project. These materials would be used temporarily during construction. All potentially hazardous materials associated with construction activities would be used and stored in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations, which further minimizes the potential risk associated with construction-related hazardous materials. The project does not include use of, transport, storage or disposal of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Once construction has finished, the project would use industry-standard landscape and building maintenance products which would be stored in compliance with all applicable safety requirements to mitigate hazardous emissions. However, the project would not emit any hazardous materials and apply the appropriate precautionary storage and handling methods to ensure that hazardous materials on-site would not affect the environment or general public.

The Project is not identified as a hazardous site per Government Code section 65962.5, and the site is not situated near an airport safety zone. There are no schools within ¼ mile of the project site. Therefore, the project does not pose any potential threat related to hazardous materials.

The Project does not involve any element that might result in a new significant or substantially more severe hazards or hazardous materials impacts. Any hazards or hazardous materials impacts that may occur as a result of the project would be within the scope of those discussed in the 2024 MND. Furthermore, the City is not aware of any new circumstances or new information that might result in new significant or substantially more severe hazards or hazardous materials in relation to the Project.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
MND, p. 17-18 No No No None required.
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
MND, p. 17-18 No No No None required.
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or offsite
ii. substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site
iii. create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff
iv. impede or redirect flood
flows
MND, p. 17-18 No No No None required.
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation?
MND, p. 17-18 No No No None required.

Exhibit A

82473.03000\44735827.1
82473.03000\44807803.1
e. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
MND, p. 17-18 No No No None required.

Discussion: Water use during construction would be limited to dust control measures for grading activities. The Project will not result in releasing water or wastewater from the site. The Project is subject to several existing regulations and programs, including the City’s Storm Water Management Program and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Regulations. BMPs and PPMs are required to be incorporated into grading and construction plans for the short and long-term management and protection of water quality. The proposed Project’s Stormwater Control plans include the use of drainage management areas (DMAs) and the use of low impact designs (LIDs). Therefore, considering these factors, the impacts as a result of the development of this Project on storm water will be less than significant.

The proposed project would be on the City’s municipal water supply system, therefore it could not individually impact nearby well production. The City’s municipal water supply is composed of groundwater from the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, an allocation of the Salinas River underflow, and a surface water allocation from the Nacimiento Lake pipeline project. According to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Citywide, the City of Paso Robles anticipates a water demand of 9,451 acre-feet/year at full buildout, with supply availability projected to be 15,088 acre-feet/year to serve development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Based on UWMP indicating that City water resources exceeds the projected demand city wide, this Project’s water use will have less than significant impact on the City’s overall water system. Further, standard conditions applied to all new developments require the payment of development fees for water service expansion to mitigate its proportionate share of related impacts.

The proposed new/replaced impervious surface area is approximately 9.56-acres, nearly 2-acres less than the previously approved Covelop project. Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements (PCRs) will be satisfied through a variety of methods. Several different Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) have been designed for implementation across the site, depending on proposed surface drainage conditions and subsurface retention requirements. In conclusion, the project’s drainage system was designed to meet minimum drainage requirements outlined in the City of Paso Robles Standard Specifications and the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s PCRs. Based on the stormwater retention plan, the impact will be less than significant.

The proposed project site is generally flat, and therefore will not result in substantial erosion on or off-site. Additionally, in compliance with State and local regulations, during construction erosion and/or stormwater control measures will be implemented during site disturbance; therefore, the Project is not expected to result in substantial erosion or siltation and impacts will be less than significant.

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

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

Mitigation Measures: None required.

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

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project: Where was the impact analyzed? Do proposed changes involve new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new circumstances involving
new significant impacts or
substantially more severe
impacts?
Any new information of
substantial importance requiring
new analysis or verification?
What MND MMs address
impacts?
a. Physically divide an established
community?
MND, p. 18-19 No No No None required.
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
MND, p. 18-19 No No No None required.

Exhibit A