DRAFT Main West Tank Replacement Project

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF PASO ROBLES PUBLIC AND AGENCY REVIEW PERIOD: 8/27/18 – 9/25/18

1. PROJECT TITLE: Main West Water Tank Replacement

2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Paso Robles 1000 Springs Street, Paso Robles CA 93446 Contact: David Foote (consultant) Phone: (805) 781-9800 Email: [email protected]

3. PROJECT LOCATION: The property is bounded by West 19th Street, Locust Street and West 21th Street

4. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Facility

5. ZONING: Public Facility

6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is located at West 19th Street on the site of the existing city water tank. The overall site is comprised of four parcels: APN’s 008-206-001, 008-206-002, 008-204-001 and 008- 202-002.

The purpose of the project to be undertaken by the City is to construct a new water storage tank intended to replace the existing 21st Street Reservoir. The existing 4 million-gallon (MG) reservoir has reached the end of its useful life and is to be replaced with a new single 4 MG partially buried pre-stressed concrete tank on the site of the existing reservoir. The project also includes a temporary reservoir access road from 19th Street, site drainage, piping, controls, and other appurtenances.

The Preliminary Design Report prepared by Water Systems Consulting, Inc. contains detailed project information and technical studies referenced in this Initial Study and is available at the City address above for review.

1 Site Access Site access is expected to remain the same. No work is expected to occur on the northern access road. A temporary construction access road may be installed to the south to construct the utility corridor and will be re-graded with erosion controls post-construction.

Construction Materials and Seismic Considerations The materials of construction for the proposed reservoir will include reinforced concrete foundations, columns and roof slab. The perimeter ring wall will consist of a cast-in-place concrete wall prestressed by post-tensioned high-strength steel strand. The structural design of the Main West Tank will be based upon current engineering standards including the lateral seismic loads and hoop stresses created by static and dynamic water pressure according to the 2016 California Building Code, all other applicable codes, and geotechnical criteria relative to foundation materials and site-specific seismic data. The seismic design criteria will be based upon the project Site location in seismic Zone 4. The data developed by the geotechnical engineer establishes site ground accelerations based upon native subgrade formations. This project-specific seismic data will also be used for the estimate of hydrodynamic forces on the reservoir perimeter wall associated with seismic ground motions.

Site surfacing An aggregate base gravel area will be constructed around the tank to facilitate operations and maintenance access to the tank as well as provide a surface for draining storm watershed from the tank. The asphalt paved area will provide a necessary semi-impermeable surface for directing storm water flow to a series of collection points which will converge within the drainage manhole on the eastern side of the tank. On the northeast, east, and southeast sides of the tank the asphalt area will be a minimum 15-foot offset from the outside edge of the tank. On the western side of the tank the gravel area will extend roughly to the edge of the hill providing a large laydown area for future maintenance equipment, vehicles, or materials.

Off-site Improvements A new 18-inch water pipeline will be constructed in 19th Street to provide a robust new connection to the existing West Main Zone distribution system. This new pipeline will be constructed and will connect to the existing Main West Zone at the following three locations: • 19th Street and Locust Street intersection (existing 6-inch); • 19th Street and Chestnut Street intersection (existing 10-inch); and • 19th Street and Olive Street intersection (existing 4-inch to be upgraded to 10- inch per City of Paso Robles Water System Master Plan ). • A new 8-inch water pipeline will be constructed from the tee connection at the 19th Street and Locust Street intersection.).

Drainage, Water Quality and Compliance with Post-Construction Requirements The Site will be required to meet applicable and appropriate requirements to reduce and/or attenuate runoff and minimize off site flow from the following entities: California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (Water Board) Post-Construction Requirements, City of Paso Robles, and County of San Luis Obispo (County).

The project design will remove the existing tank structure and replace it with a tank with substantially less surface area footprint on the site. By reducing the overall impervious area the project is not subject to the Post-Construction Requirements of the Water Board. WSC demonstrates compliance with the General Permit in Attachment A of the Drainage TM

2 (Appendix A) contained in the Preliminary Design Report referenced above. Stormwater from the impervious areas (tank roof) will be collected into a main offsite drain which will be deposited to a swale at the bottom of the property. Run-off volumes will not exceed current conditions. Ground disturbance will be re-vegetated with a seed mix comprised of fast growing California native grasses combined with a range of native herbaceous plants such as buckwheat and Deer Weed. Seeded areas will not be irrigated.

Construction Duration It is assumed the tanks and access road could be completed within 260 working days of NTP with the project ending in August 2019. This project would be completed over the winter season between 2018 and 2019 and the schedule does not include delays due to poor weather conditions.

Maps, Figures and Attachments

The Location Map and Site Plan are shown on Figures 1 and 2 attached at the end of the IS. The referenced Visual Simulations, Biological Assessment and Phase 1 Archaeological Surface Survey are attached to the IS.

7. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:

The entire property (17.9 acres) is composed of an east-west trending ridge with north and south facing slopes. A majority of the land is undeveloped Oak savannah (15.9 acres) consisting of annual grasses and oak trees. The smaller developed reservoir site (Site) is cut into the east- west trending ridge at roughly the highest point of the property and is enclosed with a chain link fence with the Site comprised of the existing reservoir with a surrounding access road. The Site defined by the current fence line is between 921 and 923 feet (ft) above mean sea level (msl) and is approximately 1.6 acres. Roughly half of the Site is comprised of the footprint of the existing reservoir. The remaining area is graded and exposed layers of artificial fill that were placed in the grading for the existing reservoir. The fill appears to be derived from the onsite Paso Robles Formation during the previous site development. A paved access road to the north of the Site from 21st Street also accounts for about 0.4 acres of the larger property.

Surrounding land uses: West: City limit line, unincorporated rural lands North: Residential single family (RSF1 and RSF4) East: Residential single family (RSF4) South: Residential single family (RSF4)

8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (e.g., PERMITS, FINANCING APPROVAL OR PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT):

None identified

3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology / Water Emissions Materials Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

August 10, 2018 Date David Foote, Firma Consultants Signature:

4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. “Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “"Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Discussion: see item C below b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Discussion: see item C below c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources 1,17) Discussion: Environmental Setting: The project site is on a ridgeline that is visible from surrounding residential land uses. The existing water tank, though painted a neutral color, is exposed to view from the south and less so from the east and north. The tank site is not particularly visible from unincorporated land to the west. Visual simulations of the existing and proposed condition are attached to this Initial Study. The site is not in a designated scenic area. The site does not have unique scenic resources such as rocks or historic structures. Regulatory Setting: The City’s Conservation Element of the General Plan (2003) identifies the ridgeline west of Paso Robles in unincorporated area as a prominent and important viewshed on Figures C-3 and C-4. The project site itself is not part of that ridge and is subordinate to the westerly ridgeline. Existing developed land wraps around three sides of the site. The site is not identified as a visual gateway or landmark in the Conservation Element. The site contains oak woodlands on the down slope areas from the tank site. Conservation Element C-5B contains the following policy directives applicable to this project: POLICY C-5B: Hillsides: Protect hillsides as a visual amenity, by implementing design standards that call for: b. Limiting the amount of grading; c. Providing substantial amounts of landscaping; d. Incorporating architectural treatment that enhances the form of the hillside rather than conflicting with it; f. Preventing development of new buildings that project above the ridgeline unless adequately mitigated with landscaping; g. Ensuring sensitive design of development on steep slopes, and on the crest of major ridgelines, shown on Figure C-4.

Considerations for development on steep slopes shall include the following: • Avoid slope stability hazards by restricting development on slopes of 35 percent or greater. • Site-specific visual assessments (with and without the project) to thoroughly evaluate the visual effects of development proposals on slopes of 30 percent or greater. As discussed below a visual assessment and simulation was prepared to identify impacts and design methods to reduce visibility. .

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Impact Analysis: Measures including in the Project design to minimize visual impacts include:  Reservoir Placement: The tank will be positioned as far west as possible with considerations for grading and the required cut slopes to achieve subgrade elevations. This positioning will allow the tank to be up against the ridge, will maximize staging area available for construction activities, and allow for development of the eastern half of the Site (e.g., detention basin or future additional storage tank).  Color: “Native” and/or “neutral” colors will be evaluated for the tank surface to blend the tank in with the surrounding landscape to the extent practical.  Lighting: Lighting for nighttime operation and security will be specified. Exterior lights will be controlled with motion detectors to minimize visual impacts during the night. The attached visual simulation of the proposed water tank shows the existing condition with the existing tank compared to the proposed condition with the new tank. The new tank will be 4 feet taller than the existing tank. The overall length of the existing tank as viewed from the north and south is about 333 feet. The new tank is approximately 142 feet in diameter, a 50 to 60% reduction on overall mass on the site. Because the new work is substantially all within the existing graded pad, no visual impacts from grading are identified. The construction access road exists and though it may be improved for access the road does not involve significant new grading on slopes over 30%. The siting of the new tank partially buries the tank to avoid a higher profile on the ridge. The tank does not silhouette on the ridge and the ridge beyond and backdrop trees are visible behind the tank ((Visual Simulation Figure 5). The tank is lower than the ridge uphill to the west. The new tank is screened substantially from the Villa Drive neighborhood by existing trees. Likewise, the landform obscures the tank from Chestnut Street due to the position of the new tank set to the west of the pad. The new tank is highly visible, as is the existing tank, from the south on Hillcrest Drive and from 42 Terrace Hill Drive. The simulations shown from these locations are representative of the views from the rear yards of residences along these streets. Views from the actual public streets are very limited with 44 Hillcrest being one of the only views from the end of the street itself (Visual Simulation Figure 6). Typically, visual impacts are determined for views from the public streets and other public areas, not residential back yards. Although the proposed tank is about 4 feet taller than the existing tank, the overall size is about 50 to 60% less mass on the site than the existing tank due to the fact the tank is partially buried. The simulations show the proposed color of the tank as a neutral /natural color paint. As a result, the Project condition will be more congruent with the surrounding than the existing highly visible tank, therefore no significant adverse visual impact is identified. Mitigation: None required. d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1, 2, 10) Discussion: As a standard condition of approval for new development, the City requires that all existing and/or new lighting shall be shielded so as to be directed downward in such a manner as to not create off-site glare or adversely impact adjacent properties. The style, location and height of the lighting fixtures shall be submitted with the building plans and shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director or his designee. Compliance with this requirement would reduce impacts from nighttime lighting to less than significant. Replacement security lighting will be compliant with the City standard Conditions of Approval for the use of down-directed, shield fixtures. In addition, proposed landscape screening will substantially block site lights. Mitigation:

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

None required.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the forest and Range Assessment Project and the forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: 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? Discussion: Not applicable b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Discussion: Not applicable c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion: Not applicable

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 11,19)

Discussion: SLOAPCD maintains an emissions inventory within the District using monitoring data and data provided by CARB (SLOAPCD 2012). The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District is in non- attainment with the CAAQS for ozone and PM10, and with the NAAQS for ozone, but only in the eastern portion of the County, far from the project location.

Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units (SLOAPCD 2012).

The project is a replacement of existing facilities and would not change the current limited operational emissions, and is therefore consistent with the SLO APCD Clean Air Plan. See discussion below for construction stage emissions analysis. b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 11) Discussion: Impact Analysis:

Based on the screening factors and significance thresholds in the SLO APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tables 2-2 and 3-4, construction stage emissions were calculated as follows for 28,000 c.y of earthwork: • Diesel PM 1.14 lbs/day Threshold: <25 lbs/day • ROG 4.7 lbs/day Threshold: <25 lbs/day • NOx 21.8 lbs/day Threshold: <25 lbs/day • PM10 0.025 tons (total) Threshold: 0.75 tons /ac /month

These emission levels are all below the applicable mitigation threshold shown on Table 3-4 in the Handbook.

Fugitive dust from construction has the potential to result in a violation of SLOAPCD Rule 401 (Visibility) and/or Rule 402 (Nuisance) without mitigation. Impacts would be significant but reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The following standard SLOAPCD dust control measures shall be implemented: a. The amount of the disturbed area shall be minimized; b. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60- minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water or an APCD-approved dust suppressant should be used whenever possible; c. All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; f. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; g. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; h. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114; i. Wheel washers and/or rumble strips shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets; and j. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Source: 11) Discussion: All impacts are temporary and would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 11) Discussion: The proposed Project is not located in areas where naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) may occur.

Diesel particulate matter has been identified as a toxic air contaminant. Although diesel particulate matter emissions are expected to be below SLOAPCD thresholds, the proximity of sensitive receptors to a construction site constitutes a special condition whereby potential public health risk must be minimized. Due to the proximity of the Bauer-Speck elementary school on Chestnut (800 feet away) and several residences within 300 feet, idling of construction equipment could pose a significant health risk to these sensitive receptors due to diesel particulate matter emissions. Therefore, implementation of idling restrictions listed in Mitigation Measure AQ-2 is required to ensure that impacts would remain at less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: The applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: • Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit. e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Source: 11) Discussion: Not applicable.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source 15) Discussion: Environmental Setting: According to the attached Biological Report prepared by Althouse and Meade (February 2018) habitat types identified and mapped in the Project Study Area consist of anthropogenic, blue oak woodland, and chaparral. Botanical surveys conducted in 2018 identified 20 species, subspecies, and varieties of vascular plants in the Study Area. Habitat and soil conditions in the Study Area are not suitable for special status plants. No special status plant species or subspecies were observed in the Study Area. Wildlife species detected in the Study Area include 14 birds and 3 mammals. Appropriate habitat is present on the property for five special status animals. No special status animals were detected in the Project Study Area. Impact Analysis: Roosting bats and/or maternal bat colonies are a sensitive species. Although they have a low potential to occur in the Study Area in trees with appropriate cavities, if oak trees are on final grading plans call for removal or significant trimming, the following mitigation measure should be implemented.

No existing oak trees are proposed for removal, however the measure below is a contingency should construction conditions require an unanticipated oak tree removal.

Mitigation Measure:

BR‐1. Prior to removal of any trees over 6 inches DBH, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, with prior approval from CDFW, will install one-way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2,15) Discussion: Environmental Setting: Refer to item (e) below for discussion of Blue Oak woodland a locally identified important resource. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Discussion: No jurisdictional wetlands are present on the site. d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Discussion: Regulatory Setting: Migratory non-game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take (as defined therein) of all native birds and their active nests, including raptors and other migratory non-game birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). Impact Analysis: Impacts to nesting birds could potentially occur if work activities are conducted during the nesting season. Birds may nest in the oak trees, chaparral shrubs, on structures, or on the ground in or immediately adjacent to the work area. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys should be conducted prior to construction activities at the site.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Mitigation Measure:

BR‐2. To mitigate potential impacts to nesting birds, within one week of ground disturbance activities, if work occurs between February 1 and September 1, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. If surveys do not locate nesting birds, construction activities may be conducted. If nesting birds are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of nests until chicks are fledged. A preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the report. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer depending upon site conditions. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Discussion: Environmental Setting:

Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland habitat occurs in varying density and quality around the perimeter of the Study Area. A total of 4.8 acres of oak woodland habitat occurs in the Study Area. Moderately dense blue oak woodland occurs on the slopes of the south, west, and east portions of the Study Area. The density of trees in the woodland increases in the northern region of the Study Area. At the northern entrance to the fenced water storage site there is a stand of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) within the oaks and one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) individual. The density of trees decreases in the far southwest region of the Study Area as it approaches 19th Street. At this location, the habitat becomes more disturbed, likely due to vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

Understory vegetation in the blue oak woodland habitat on the property is composed of annual grasses and forbs in most areas. Wild oat (Avena sp.) dominates this vegetation. There is evidence of recent disking of the grassy understory. Regulatory Setting: The City Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan contains the following goals, policies and action items related to protecting native oak trees.

GOAL C-3: Biological Resources. As feasible, preserve native vegetation and protected wildlife, habitat areas, and vegetation, through avoidance, impact mitigation, and habitat enhancement.

POLICY C-3A: Oak Trees. Preserve existing oak trees and oak woodlands. Promote the planting of new oak trees. Action Item 1. Implement the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Action Item 2. Plant oaks in parks and on other City-owned properties. Care shall be taken to plant new and replacement oak trees in locations and settings that will be appropriate to their species (e.g., avoiding mitigation that would not be suitable). Action Item 3. Encourage and/or require new development to include the planting of new oaks where feasible and appropriate.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated POLICY C-3B: Sensitive Habitat. Incorporate habitats into project design, as feasible, including: oak woodlands, native grasslands, wetlands, and riparian areas. Action Item 1. As part of the environmental review of new development projects:  Biological studies/surveys will be prepared when appropriate to assess habitat value.  Alternatives to habitat removal will be explored; and  Input will be sought from other public agencies with expertise in biological resources.

Oak trees and oak woodlands are considered a sensitive resource in the City subject to requirements for assessment of development impacts, planting of new oak trees as part of projects and compliance with ordinance regulating changes or removals of oak trees. Inconsistency with these policies would be a potentially significant impact The City Oak Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code 10.01) contains requirements for the preservation, protection, pruning and removal of native oak trees. The ordinance states in part: 10.01.070 - Preservation and maintenance of existing oak trees. As a general rule, the existing ground surface within the CRZ of any oak tree shall not be cut, filled, compacted or pared. Excavation adjacent to any oak tree shall not be permitted where, in the judgment of the director, damage to the root system will result. Exceptions may be approved by the director based on consultation with a certified arborist from the city's list of approved arborists, at the cost of the developer, resulting in reasonable assurance that the tree will not be damaged. Anticipated exceptions include making allowances to construct planned public improvements such as roads and sidewalks when it is not feasible to design the public improvements in a manner that will avoid encroachment into the CRZ. The following criteria are to be used when considering permission to encroach into the CRZ of an oak tree: A. When proposed developments encroach into the CRZ of any oak tree, whether the tree is located on the property being developed or on an adjacent property, special construction techniques to protect the roots shall be required by the director with respect to any application for a building, grading or development permit. During construction, such protection measures may include, but not be limited to, installing a tree protection fence around the CRZ(s) of a tree or trees to be preserved. All development applications, where oak trees may be affected by development, shall include a certification by a registered civil engineer or land surveyor attesting to the accuracy of the tree trunk and CRZ locations. Development inconsistent with these provisions would be considered a significant impact.

Impact Analysis: The proposed project would potentially impact up to approximately 0.23 acres of oak woodland habitat by development of a storm drain and vegetated swale that exist adjacent to the existing access road. The area of potential impact is near the bottom of the road where several oaks exist near the work area and is delineated on Figure 6 in the Biological Report attached. Final grading plans were not available to review at the time this report was prepared.

Oak trees are not expected to be removed for the project, but some earthwork could impact oak tree critical root zones (CRZ). Measures BR-3 through BR-6 address impacts to the CRZ. Though no oaks are identified for removal, the measure BR-7 below is a contingency should construction conditions require an unanticipated oak tree removal.

Mitigation: As a standard condition of approval for new development, the City requires that any existing Oak trees located on the project site shall be protected and preserved as required in City Ordinance No.835 N.S., Municipal

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Code No. 10.01 "Oak Tree Preservation", unless specifically approved to be removed. An Oak tree inventory shall be prepared listing the Oak trees, their disposition, and the proposed location of any replacement trees required. In the event an Oak tree is designated for removal, an approved Oak Tree Removal Permit must be obtained from the City, prior to removal. Compliance with this requirement and the mitigation measures below would reduce impacts on Native oak trees to less than significant. BR‐3. Tree canopies and trunks within 50 feet of proposed disturbance zones should be mapped and numbered by a certified arborist or qualified biologist and a licensed land surveyor. Data for each tree should include date, species, number of stems, and diameter at breast height (dbh) of each stem, critical root zone (CRZ) diameter, canopy diameter, tree height, health, habitat notes, and nests observed. BR‐4. An oak tree protection plan shall be prepared and approved by the City of Paso Robles if impacts to oak trees are anticipated. BR‐5. Impacts to the oak canopy or critical root zone (CRZ) should be avoided where practicable. Impacts include pruning, any ground disturbance within the dripline or CRZ of the tree (whichever distance is greater), and trunk damage. BR‐6. Impacts to oak trees shall be assessed by a City approved licensed arborist or qualified biologist. Mitigations for impacted trees shall comply with the City of Paso Robles tree ordinance. BR‐7. In the event final plans or construction conditions require the removal of any native oak tree(s) the following measures shall be implemented: Replacement oaks for removed trees must be equivalent to 25% of the diameter of the removed tree(s). For example, the replacement requirement for removal of two trees of 15 inches dbh (30 total diameter inches), would be 7.5 inches (30" removed x 0.25 replacement factor). This requirement could be satisfied by planting five 1.5-inch trees, or three 2.5-inch trees, or any other combination totaling 7.5 inches. A minimum of two 24-inch box, 1.5-inch trees shall be required for each oak tree removed. Replacement trees should be seasonally maintained (browse protection, weed reduction and irrigation, as needed) and monitored annually for a time period to be determined by the City. Replacement trees shall be of local origin, and of the same species as was impacted or removed. 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? Discussion: There is no adopted plan applicable to this site.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (Source: 16) Discussion: Environmental Setting: The project property (designated Villa Lot 2) was owned by H.M. Allen and his wife (no first name available) by 1891. This large hillside parcel was then subdivided as the Allen Subdivision sometime before 1898 (City of Paso Robles 1899) into very small lots. There is no evidence that any improvements, in the form of residences, were ever made to any of the lots before 1921. To serve the domestic water needs of the City of El Paso de Robles and its growing population the existing water tank was constructed in 1921/22. It is made of

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated un-reinforced concrete, and has a capacity of four million gallons. A roof support structure and composition roof was added ca. 1961. Due to its age, the existing tank is potentially a significant historic structure. The tank is not a designated historic structure currently. A record search included inventories for the State Historic Property Data Files, National Register of Historic Places, National Register of Determined Eligible Properties, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest, California OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the CalTrans State and Local Bridge Surveys. A search of the State Historic Property Files indicated that six historic [structural] properties are recorded within the study area, primarily at the south of the hill where the tank is located. These properties are all single-family residences dating from 1912 to 1938. The core of one of the homes, at 213 18th Street, was formerly a livery stable moved from Spring Street. Regulatory Setting:

Criteria for Evaluation The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) uses the same basic criteria as well, and the significance of the existing 21st Street reservoir has also been assessed with regard to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Appendix K, and revised effective February 1999 (Public Resources Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). Specifically, a resource is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHP)(Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) (1) if it meets one of the following four criteria: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Cultural resources that meet one or more of these criteria are defined as historical resources under CEQA.

The Paso Robles Historic Preservation Ordinance (2008), Article V. Historic Preservation, Chapter 21.50, HISTORIC PRESERVATION addresses the procedures to be followed when dealing with a potential historic property that is not on the City’s list: 21.50.150 Undesignated Structures CEQA Review. Prior to the issuance of a permit pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 for the demolition or relocation of any structure that is not a Historic Landmark, Contributor to a Historic District, or included

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated on the Paso Robles Historic Resources Inventory, the Community Development Director, within thirty (30) days of receipt of a permit request to demolish or relocate a structure, shall determine whether the structure has potential historic significance based on the criteria for the designation of Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts in this ordinance. If the Community Development Director determines that such potential exists, the structure shall not be demolished or relocated unless and until an environmental assessment is completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This will entail the preparation of an Initial Study to determine the level of environmental review to be prepared by the City in conjunction with any such demolition. The cost of conducting this environmental assessment shall be borne entirely by the applicant for the demolition permit. If an environmental impact report is completed and findings indicate that demolition of the structure would have a significant effect on the environment, the structure shall not be demolished or relocated unless the City Council subsequent to a consultation with the Planning Commission makes one or more of the following findings: 1) That the Demolition or Relocation of the structure is necessary to proceed with a Project consistent with and supportive of identified goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the demolition of the structure will not have a significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this division or the potential effect is outweighed by the benefits of the new Project; 2) In the case of an application for a permit to relocate, that the structure may be moved without destroying its historic or architectural integrity and importance; or, 3) That the demolition or relocation of the structure is necessary to protect or to promote the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City, including the need to eliminate or avoid blight or nuisance. Impact Analysis:

The 21st Street reservoir is close to 100 years in age. It has been subjected to repeated improvements and repairs over the years. It has undergone considerable alteration in order to address both minor and major issues with the reservoir’s structural integrity.

On the basis of the Historic Structure Assessment (CRMS, July 2108), the 21st Street reservoir does not meet criteria A, B,C or D of the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for significance. This building also fails to meet criteria A, B, C or D for significance as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It also fails to meet the criteria for designation as a historic landmark under section 21.50.080 or as a point of interest under section 21.50.100 of the City of Paso Robles Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Historic Resources Group: 2011). Documentation of the resource including photographing the reservoir when the roof has been removed and the interior has been drained and exposed will constitute sufficient mitigation of the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project.

Mitigation: CR-1: To mitigate significant impacts upon a potentially significant historic property /structure, prior to demolition of the existing tank structure, the project Archaeologist complete a state Historic Resources Inventory by completing photographic inventory once the roof is off the tank. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?(Source: 1,16) Discussion:

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Environmental Setting:

According to the Cultural Resources Inventory prepared by Cultural Resource Management Services, (February 2018), at the time of European contact, the Paso Robles region was primarily occupied by a branch of the northern-most Chumash, the Obispeño, of the Hokan linguistic group (Gibson 1982). This group inhabited coastal and inland areas between Malibu and the vicinity of San Simeon (Kroeber 1925; Gibson 1982). Also present in the region historically were the Migueleño Salinan (Greenwood 1978). The Salinan were bordered by the Esselen and Costanoan to the north, Yokuts to the east and the Chumash to the south. Examination of mission records reveals that members of the Salinan Nation inter-married into the northern portion of San Luis Obispo County, including the Paso Robles area.

No cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 500-foot radius of the project area; no prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified. A search of the State Historic Property Files indicated that six historic [structural] properties are recorded within the study area, primarily at the south of the hill where the tank is located. These properties are all single-family residences dating from 1912 to 1938. The core of one of the homes, at 213 18th Street, was formerly a livery stable moved from Spring Street. Regulatory Setting: The City Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan contains the following policies related to cultural resources: POLICY C-6B: Archaeological Resources: Strive to preserve/protect “unique archaeological resources” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Action Item 1. Require the preparation of archaeological studies and/or preliminary evaluation reports for new developments that are subject to CEQA and the site could potentially contain a “unique archaeological resource.” Incorporate mitigation measures identified by such studies into the development.

Per the requirements of the Conservation and Open Space Element, CEQA, and AB-52, letters were sent to Native American tribes, organizations and individuals. The list of recipients was provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and is comprised of those groups and individuals thought to have a cultural interest in this area, notifying them of the proposed project, inviting them to consult, and requesting information or concerns regarding the proposed project. The AB 52 notification letter was sent on January 4, 2018. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council and the Salinan Tribe acknowledged receipt but had no comments or concerns. The 90 day comment period ended April 4, 2018.

Impact Analysis:

No evidence of prehistoric or historic artifacts, features, or other indications of significant cultural resources were found during the ground surface survey.

Due to the fact that no evidence of significant cultural resources was located on the subject property, no further archaeological investigations are recommended along the pipeline route. While it is unlikely that subsurface remains are present, the nature of surface survey does not preclude the possible existence of such remains.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Mitigation:

CR-2: If prehistoric or historic cultural materials, including human remains, are encountered during any phase of pipeline or property excavation or development, the work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment of the resources and proper mitigation measures be formulated, if necessary. If human remains are encountered Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed.

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Discussion: Based on the surface evidence of past landform modification and extensive cut, the potential of paleontological resources is low. d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: Based on the records search, and the fact that the knoll top was removed by previous grading, there is no evidence of the presence of human remains on the site. In the event human remains are found, Mitigation Measure CR-2 above would apply.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent 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. (Sources: 1, 2, 3 & 17) Discussion: The potential for and mitigation of impacts that may result from fault rupture in the project area are identified and addressed in the General Plan EIR, pg. 4.5-8. There are two known fault zones on either side of the Salinas Rivers valley. The Rinconada Fault system runs on the west side of the valley, and grazes the City on its western boundary. The San Andreas Fault is on the east side of the valley and is situated about 30 miles east of Paso Robles. The City of Paso Robles recognizes these geologic influences in the application of the California Building Code (CBC) to all new development within the City. Review of available information and examinations indicate that neither of these faults is active with respect to ground rupture in Paso Robles. Soils and geotechnical reports and structural engineering in accordance with local seismic influences would be applied in conjunction with any new development proposal. Based on standard conditions of approval, the potential for fault rupture and exposure of

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated persons or property to seismic hazards is not considered significant. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within City limits.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1, 2, 3 & 17) Discussion: The proposed project will be constructed to current California Building Code and all other applicable codes for the type of structure. The General Plan EIR identified impacts resulting from ground shaking as less than significant and provided mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the design of this project including adequate structural design and not constructing over active or potentially active faults. Therefore, impacts that may result from seismic ground shaking are considered less than significant.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 2,3 & 17) Discussion: In accordance with the General Plan Safety Element and the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the project site is located in an area with low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, impacts that may result from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, are considered less than significant.

b. Landslides? Discussion: The Preliminary Soils Report for the project identified evidence of surficial instability on the existing fill slopes, including surficial scarp, erosion gullies, and voids likely from animal burrowing or erosion. The Preliminary Soils Report includes measures that will be included in the project grading plans and specification to minimize significant impacts.

c. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Sources: 1, 2, 3 &17) Discussion: See (b) above. d. 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? (Source:10,17) Discussion: As a standard condition of approval for new development, the City requires a Preliminary Soils and/or Geology Report providing technical specifications for grading of the site shall be prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer. Compliance with this requirement would reduce impacts from soils and geologic conditions to less than

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated significant.

e. 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? Source: 1,2,3) Discussion: In accordance with the General Plan Safety Element and the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the project site is located in an area with low to moderate potential for expansive soils. Therefore, in compliance with grading and building standards, impacts that may result from expansive soils are considered less than significant.

f. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: Not applicable

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Source :18, 19) Discussion:

Regulatory Setting: The City’s adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a long-range plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from City government operations and community activities within Paso Robles and prepare for the anticipated effects of climate change. The CAP will also help achieve multiple community goals such as lowering energy costs, reducing air pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health and quality of life.

Impact Analysis: The SLO APCD has recommended a GHG emissions significance threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e per year to achieve the aggregate emission reductions of 13,788 MT CO2e/yr. needed in SLO County Region by 2020 to meet AB 32 reduction targets. According to the APCD Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Significance Thresholds and Supporting Evidence document (2012), about 5% of all future projects would exceed that threshold and have to implement feasible mitigation measures to meet their CEQA obligations. These projects would account for approximately 19% of all GHG emissions anticipated to occur between now and 2020 from new land use development in SLO County.

The APCD recommends that project applicants and lead agencies use CalEEMod modeling to estimate a project’s GHG emissions, based on project specific attributes, to determine if they are above or below this “Bright-Line” Threshold. Modeling is appropriate for most land use developments. According to the APCD, this threshold level is approximately equivalent to the operational GHG emissions associated with a 70- unit

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated residential subdivision in an urban setting (49- unit rural development) or a 40,000 sq. ft. strip mall in an urban setting. With 23 to 25 percent mitigation effectiveness the 1,150 MT CO2e threshold would achieve approximately 13,800-14,200 MT CO2e/yr. in GHG emissions reductions from new development subject to CEQA from now through 2020. The Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 MT CO2e/yr. is expected to capture a total of 56 projects over the next 10 years; 26 residential projects and 30 non-residential projects.

The Proposed project will not have a substantial change in operational energy demand because it is a replacement project, only construction stage emissions would contribute an impact. Modeling does not appear warranted based on the size of projects anticipated to exceed the threshold described above (refer also to discussion of project construction activities under Air Quality above).

GHG emissions would be offset by the proposed planting of screen trees around the site. This action implements City Climate Action Plan measure C-7. Other City operations measures are not applicable to this Project.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in GHG emissions that would have a significant effect on the environment nor conflict with the City Climate Action Plan, and SLOAPCD, SLOCOG, and County GHG emissions reduction targets in compliance with AB 32, or SB 32, no mitigation is required. b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses? Discussion: See (a) above.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Discussion: Environmental Setting:

The demolition of the existing facilities may involve removal of hazardous materials. The facility may have lead paint on some features that requires special demolition to avoid inhalation and contact with lead. There are records showing transit pipe in the site area on the City Water Atlas. Transit (Asbestos Concrete) was a common pipe for municipal water systems before the EPA identified asbestos as a hazardous material.

Regulatory Setting:

The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District is delegated authority by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the Federal Asbestos NESHAP regulations specified in 40 CFR 61, Subpart M. There are specific requirements and procedures delineated in this regulation which pertain to

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated certain demolition and renovation projects. All non-residential demolitions of any kind of structure or asbestos containing material disturbance are required to be approved in advance by the District.

The removal of lead paint is regulated by multiple California statutes including the California Code of Regulations, the Health and Safety Code and the Labor Code. Impact Analysis: Under State and Federal law, the presence of crushed or friable asbestos and airborne lead containing materials constitute a health threat. Therefore, improper identification and removal of materials with lead and asbestos during demolition is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to approval of final project plans and specification the City shall conduct all legally stipulated asbestos and lead presence surveys and develop a specification for removal, handling and disposal of asbestos and lead containing materials compliant with state and federal law.

Other construction activities on the Project Site may involve the limited transport, storage, usage, or disposal of other hazardous materials, such petroleum products for fueling and servicing of construction equipment. The potential impact associated with the temporary use and storage of hazardous materials for construction is considered less than significant because this short-term activity would be subject to federal, state, and local health and safety requirements for the proper handling and use of fueling and other petroleum and automotive products. This impact is considered less than significant because:  The limited transport, storage, usage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be temporary for the duration of construction of the tank.  The fueling and servicing of construction equipment would cease upon project completion;  The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials is regulated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) (22 Cal. Code of Regulations Section 66001, et seq.). Mitigation for the potential release of hazardous materials associated with the use of hazardous materials on the project site will be provided by compliance with local, state, and federal regulations.  The project is required to comply with the California Building Code and Fire Code.

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Discussion: Refer to item ‘a’ above. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Discussion: See (a) above d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Discussion: In accordance with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), under Government Code Section 65962.5(a), none of the properties proposed for this project are listed in the database of hazardous substance release sites as having record of hazardous materials located there. Therefore, it is unlikely that the project would result in exposing or creating a hazard to the public or 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? Discussion: Not applicable f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Discussion: Not applicable g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Discussion: The Project would not change the existing site and neighborhood access and egress for emergencies. h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The proposed facility is in a wildland fire high-risk area, however, the structure is non- flammable and no potential for a significant impact is identified.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Discussion: The project is designed to meet the NPDES General Permit requirements and no significant stormwater quality impacts are identified.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., Would the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Would decreased rainfall infiltration or groundwater recharge reduce stream baseflow? (Source: 7) Discussion: The Project is replacement of an existing water tank facility and will reduce the developed footprint on the site as compared to the existing condition, resulting in more permeable surface available for infiltration of stormwwater. No adverse effect is identified for groundwater supply, infiltration and stream base flow. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? (Source: 10, 17)

Discussion: Environmental Setting:

Existing site runoff is conveyed overland as sheet flow and through storm drain pipes to existing City storm drain system . In 2013 the City experienced a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system telemetry glitch between the well field that provides the water to the tank and the tank itself. This resulted in a tank overflow which caused significant erosion to the north slope of the tank site. The overflow highlighted the need to provided adequate drainage to the tank site to protect the slope and surrounding areas from flooding and potential slope failure. The basis for the WSC Preliminary Design Report drainage analysis is to primarily handle an emergency tank overflow scenario like that which occurred in 2013. In addition, the Site will be required to meet applicable and appropriate requirements to reduce and/or attenuate runoff and minimize off site flow from the following entities: California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region (Water Board) Post-Construction Requirements, City of Paso Robles, and County of San Luis Obispo (County).

The following information from the Preliminary Design Report by WSC for the project details two strategies for addressing stormwater and tank overflow concerns:

The western third of the site will be paved with a 6-inch asphalt curb surrounding the paved area. This curb will contain runoff within the impermeable areas (i.e., asphalt and tank roof). The curbs will terminate at two concrete swale locations at the north and south entrance points into the site. The tank roof will be sloped 1.5 percent radially outwards from the center and have eight roof drains that circumvent the outer rim of the tank roof. Each roof drain will be 6 inches in diameter and will deposit at the base of the tank onto the asphalt

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated paved area. The immediate paved area around the tank will be sloped 2 percent away from the tank base. All other areas of the asphalt will be sloped 2 percent towards three storm drain inlets. Two inlets will be constructed within the curb with one to the northeast and the other to the southwest. The third inlet will be a 24-inch square catch basin placed within the concrete swale at the north entrance to the site. The three inlets will discharge via gravity to the drain manhole located to the southeast of the tank or will be deposited, as one option under review, into a detention basin.

Alternatively, water from the 16-inch Tank Drain Pipeline, 6-inch tank underdrains, and the storm drain inlets will converge into the drain manhole. The water will be discharged from the manhole into the 18-inch Site Drain Pipeline and deposited at the base of the property in the vegetative swale. If the onsite detention basin alternative is preferred the surface water collected from the storm drain inlets will be discharged to the detention basin, temporarily detained, and then discharged via a reduced flow rate into the 18- inch Site Drain Pipeline to the base of the property. Water from the 16-inch Tank Drain Pipeline and the 6-inch tank underdrains will only discharge to the drain manhole even if the detention basin alternative is chosen.

Regardless if the onsite detention basin alternative is chosen, a vegetative swale will be constructed at the base of the southern end of the property. The 18-inch Site Drain Pipeline will discharge to the vegetated swale at located near the junction of 19th and Locust Streets. The Drainage Analysis TM provides the supporting analysis and calculations for the swale sizing. The vegetative swale dimensions are designed using the tank overflow rate (3.90 CFS or 1,750 gpm) as the influent flow rate which is higher than the assumed design storm (see Section 2.4 of the Drainage Analysis TM.)

Regulatory Setting: As a standard condition of approval for new development, the City requires that Projects meet the NPDES General Permit and Storm Water Ordinance requirements that address water quality and post construction runoff:

• A complete grading and drainage plan shall be prepared for the project by a registered civil engineer and subject to approval by the City Engineer. The project shall conform to the City’s Storm Water Discharge Ordinance.

• A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan per the State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity shall be provided for any site that disturbs greater than or equal to one acre, including projects that are less than one acre that are part of a larger plan of development or sale that would disturb more than one acre.

Impact Analysis: With implementation the General Permit and Storm Water Ordinance requirements, the project could not result in flooding on- or off-site since it would not increase or modify historic drainage flows, therefore, potential impacts from this project that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (Source: 10) Discussion:

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

With implementation the General Permit and Storm Water Ordinance requirements in item (c) above, the project could not result in flooding on- or off-site since it would not increase or modify historic drainage flows, therefore, potential impacts from this project that would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, would be less than significant.

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 10) Discussion: With implementation the General Permit and Storm Water Ordinance requirements item (c) above, the project could not result in creating or contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, potential impacts to the existing and/or planned stormwater drainage systems and water quality would be less than significant. f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Discussion: The proposed project does not propose land uses or other activities that could otherwise substantially degrade water quality, therefore, potential impacts from this project on water quality would be less than significant. g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Discussion: The proposed project could not result in impacts by structures that would impede or redirect flood flow within a 100-year flood hazard area because the site is not in a flood zone. h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Discussion: The proposed project could not result in impacts by structures that would impede or redirect flood flow within a 100-year flood hazard area because the structures are not in a flood zone. i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated failure of a levee or dam? Discussion: In accordance with the General Plan Safety Element, the project does not include structures that would be within the dam inundation flood hazard zone. The project design will provide an upgraded structure seismically and well as address tank overflow and rupture issues, resulting in a lessened level of flooding due to rupture. j. Inundation by mudflow? Discussion: The project site is on high ground with little uphill watershed contributing to potential mudflow. Refer to discussion under items ‘c’ and ‘i’ above related to overflow and breakage leading to mudflow. k. Conflict with any Best Management Practices found within the City’s Storm Water Management Plan? (Source 17) Discussion : The project will incorporate BMPs for stormwater management which are consistent with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan, and in compliance with requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, see (c) above. l. Substantially decrease or degrade watershed storage of runoff, wetlands, riparian areas, aquatic habitat, or associated buffer zones? Discussion: The project will incorporate Storm Water Ordinance development features to manage stormwater on the project site. New stormwater runoff will therefore not impact watershed storage, wetland, riparian areas, aquatic habitat or buffer zones.

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? Discussion: The project replaces a facility in its existing location and will not divide the community. b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Discussion: Refer to discussion of consistency with plans and policies related to Cultural Resources and Biology in sections IV and V above.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: There is no applicable plan that would be affected by this project.

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Source: 1) Discussion: Not applicable. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Source: 1) Discussion: Not applicable.

XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Source: 1)

Discussion: Operational Noise The operation of the proposed water tank facility would not result in an increase in noise levels above the existing condition. Short Term Construction Noise

Environmental Setting: The Noise Element includes projections for future noise levels from known stationary and vehicle-generated noise sources. According to the Noise Element, the Project Site is within an area where future noise levels are expected to remain well below an acceptable threshold.

Regulatory Setting: The Noise Element establishes a threshold for acceptable exterior noise levels for sensitive uses (such as residences) for construction generated noise from stationary sources, as determined at the property line of the receiving land use:

Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Noise Sources

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Daytime Nighttime2 Standard (7AM to 10PM) (10PM to 7AM) Hourly Leq, dB 50 45

Maximum Level, dB 70 65

Maximum Level, dB-Impulsive Noise 65 60

The City’s Noise Ordinance (Ord No 466 N.S.) limits construction operations to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

Impact Analysis:

The Noise Element identifies a range of 75-95 dBA 50 ft from the noise source as a typical level of noise intensity on a construction site. Noise modeling for construction on a similar site using excavators and bulldozers found that construction activities would result in typical temporary noise levels of 70 dBA Leq a distance of 200 feet from the construction noise source, assuming an uninterupted straight line of noise travel. Topography can attenuate noise if the landform interrupts or shields the line of sight from the receptor to the noise sources. In the case of this site, residences exist both uphill and downhill of the construction site.

Residences occur at distances of 210 to 666 feet from the edge of the construction area. Residences off the end of 21st Street are uphill of the site (252 ft. away) and residences off Locust Street (424 ft. away) and Villa (666 ft. away) are downhill form the site. A school exists downhill on Chestnut Street 835 feet away. Because noise attenuates at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source, the nearest sensitive noise receptors uphill of the site at the end of 21st Street would experience noise levels of about 68- 70 dBA which is within the 70 dBA maximum level City threshold of significance for construction noise.

Noise levels on Villa and Locust Streets would be about 60-62 dBA and noise levels at the school site would be 58 dBA. Due to the shape of the hilltop knoll the tank is to be constructed on, generally only equipment at the nearest edge of the work area would have line of sight proximity to receptors. Thus, when equipment is at the center of the site or edges furthest from a receptor, landform would generally interrupt the line of site and reduce noise levels further. Temporary noise impacts to sensitive receptors associated with construction that is compliant with the Noise Ordinance Site are considered less than significant, however if work occurs outside Noise Ordinance specified hours or if equipment is not properly muffled, significant temporary impacts could result. Mitigation:

N‐1: Construction Hours. Unless otherwise provided for in a validly issued permit or approval, noise- generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm. Noise-generating construction activities shall not occur on Sundays or City holidays.

N‐2: Construction Equipment Noise. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhausted mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds should be closed during equipment operation.

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated groundborne noise levels? Source:17) Discussion: Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-related activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would likely require the use of various off-road equipment, such as tractors, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. The use of major groundborne vibration-generating construction equipment, such as pile drivers, is not anticipated to be required for this project. Groundborne noise and vibration levels associated with this project by construction equipment would not be anticipated to exceed City standards. As a result, this impact would be considered less than significant. c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Source:1,19) Discussion: see (a) above. d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Discussion: Refer to impact analysis and mitigation measures under item ‘a’ above.

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 4) Discussion: Not applicable.

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1) Discussion: The project replaces an existing facility and is sized to meet existing demand and planned growth and would not induce growth directly. b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: Not applicable. c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: Not applicable.

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? (Sources: 1,10) Discussion: Not applicable. b. Police protection? (Sources: 1,10) Discussion: Not applicable. c. Schools? Discussion: Not applicable. d. Parks? Discussion: Not applicable. e. Other public facilities? (Sources: 1,10) Discussion: Not applicable.

XV. RECREATION a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Discussion: Not applicable.

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion: Not applicable.

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Discussion: The project replaces and existing water tank and will not add new traffic to the street system, other than short-term construction traffic. b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Discussion: Not applicable. c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Discussion: Not applicable. d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Discussion: No changes to public roads are proposed that would result in new hazards. e. Result in inadequate emergency access? Discussion: Not applicable. f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion: Not applicable.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Discussion: Not applicable, there is no wastewater component to the project. b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion: This topic is addressed in other sections of the IS. c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Discussion: No substantial stormwater facilities are proposed, refer to Section IX for impact and mitigation discussion related to drainage. d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Discussion: Not applicable, the project has no domestic water demand and landscape screening irrigation will be temporary. e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? Discussion: Not applicable, the project has no wastewater component. f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated

Discussion: Not applicable. g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: Construction and demolition waste and debris would be transported to the Chicago Grade landfill in Atascadero. The landfill has programs to divert demolition debris and recycle. The facility has a capacity until the year 2042 under the current operating permit. For these reasons not significant solid waste impact is identified.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Discussion: With mitigation, the Project will not remove or adversely impact any sensitive plant or animal species or eliminate examples of California history or pre-history. These topics are addressed in IS sections IV and V and mitigation measures are presented there to reduce potentially significant effects to less than significant. b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Discussion: The Project will not substantially contribute to any cumulatively considerable impact. The effects of the project are largely short term construction stage impacts. c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: The operation of the water tank will not result in any effects to the environment or people. As a facility replacement project, the Project is not growth inducing. All impacts are related to temporary construction

Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated effects.

36 EARLIER ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND MATERIALS.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).

Earlier Documents that may have been used in this Analysis and Background / Explanatory Materials

Reference # Document Title Available for Review at:

1 City of Paso Robles General Plan City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446

2 City of Paso Robles Zoning Code Same as above

3 City of Paso Robles Environmental Impact Report for General Same as above Plan Update

4 2005 Airport Land Use Plan Same as above

5 City of Paso Robles Municipal Code Same as above

6 City of Paso Robles Water Master Plan Same as above

7 City of Paso Robles Urban Water Management Plan Same as above

8 City of Paso Robles Sewer Master Plan Same as above

9 City of Paso Robles Housing Element Same as above

10 City of Paso Robles Standard Conditions of Same as above Approval for New Development

11 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District APCD Guidelines for Impact Thresholds 3433 Roberto Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

12 San Luis Obispo County – Land Use Element San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning County Government Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93408

13 USDA, Soils Conservation Service, Soil Conservation Offices Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Paso Robles, Ca 93446 Paso Robles Area, 1983 14 Bike Master Plan, 2009 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 15 Biological Report for the Main West Tank Project, Althouse Attached to IS and Meade, February 2018

37 16 Cultural Resource Inventory Survey for the Main West Tank Attached to IS Project, CRMS, February 2018 17 Main West Tank Preliminary Design Report, WSC, 2018 City of Paso Robles Community Development Department 1000 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 18 Climate Action Plan Same as above 19 -blank- 20 Main West Tank Visual Simulations, Firma, 2018 Attached to IS

38 Paso Robles PROJECT SITE Atascadero

Morro Bay San Luis Obispo

RIVERSIDE AVE

SPRING ST

21st STVINE ST PROJECT SITE

US 101

map source: Google Map

MAP

PROJECT LOCATION NORTH 1

MAIN WEST TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT file path: MAP01 file#21725 map source: WSC MAP

PROPOSED PROJECT NORTH 2

MAIN WEST TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT file path: MAP01 file#21725

Biological Report

for

Main West Tank Project

City of El Paso de Robles

Prepared for

Firma Consultants, Inc. 187 Tank Farm Road San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

ALTHOUSE AND MEADE, INC. BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1602 Spring Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 (805) 237-9626

February 2018

1108.01 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Table of Contents

Synopsis ...... iv 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Location ...... 1 1.3 Project Description ...... 1 1.4 Regulatory Framework ...... 2 1.1.1 Federal Regulations ...... 2 1.1.2 State Regulations ...... 2 1.1.3 Local Regulations ...... 3 2 METHODS ...... 4 2.1 Literature Review ...... 4 2.2 Mapping ...... 5 2.3 Field Surveys ...... 5 2.3.1 Botanical ...... 5 2.3.2 Wildlife ...... 5 3 RESULTS ...... 6 3.1 Regional Context ...... 6 3.2 Existing Conditions ...... 6 3.3 Habitat Types ...... 6 3.3.1 Anthropogenic...... 7 3.3.2 Blue Oak Woodland ...... 7 3.3.3 Chaparral ...... 7 3.4 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters ...... 7 3.5 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement ...... 7 3.6 Special Status Plant Species ...... 8 3.6.1 Introduction to California Rare Plant Ranks ...... 8 3.6.2 Introduction to CNDDB Definitions ...... 8 3.6.3 Potential Special Status Plant List ...... 8 3.7 Special Status Animal Species ...... 8 3.7.1 Introduction to CNDDB Definitions ...... 8 3.7.2 Potential Special Status Animals List ...... 9 3.7.3 Discussion ...... 11 3.8 Botanical Survey Results ...... 15 3.9 Wildlife Survey Results ...... 16 4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 18 4.1 Habitats ...... 18

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works i February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

4.1.1 Anthropogenic...... 18 4.1.2 Blue Oak Woodland ...... 18 4.1.3 Chaparral ...... 18 4.2 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters ...... 18 4.3 Nesting Birds ...... 19 4.4 Special Status Species ...... 19 4.4.1 Plants ...... 19 4.4.2 Reptiles ...... 19 4.4.3 Bats ...... 19 4.4.4 Mammals...... 19 5 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 20 5.1 Habitats ...... 20 5.1.1 Anthropogenic...... 20 5.1.2 Blue Oak Woodland ...... 20 5.1.3 Chaparral ...... 20 5.2 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters ...... 21 5.3 Nesting Birds ...... 21 5.4 Special Status Species ...... 21 5.4.1 Plants ...... 21 5.4.2 Reptiles ...... 21 5.4.3 Bats ...... 21 5.4.4 Mammals...... 22 6 PHOTOGRAPHS ...... 23 7 FIGURES ...... 25 8 REFERENCES ...... 32

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works ii February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

List of Tables

TABLE 1. BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS ...... 5 TABLE 2. HABITAT TYPES ...... 6 TABLE 3. POTENTIAL SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS LIST ...... 10 TABLE 4. PLANT LIST ...... 15 TABLE 5. WILDLIFE LIST ...... 16 TABLE 6. POTENTIAL HABITAT IMPACTS ...... 18

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ...... 26 FIGURE 2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH...... 27 FIGURE 3. CNDDB MAP - PLANTS ...... 28 FIGURE 4. CNDDB MAP - ANIMALS ...... 29 FIGURE 5. USFWS CRITICAL HABITAT MAP ...... 30 FIGURE 6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MAP ...... 31

Appendices

APPENDIX A. REGIONAL SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS LIST APPENDIX B. REGIONAL SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS LIST

Cover Page: Existing West Main water tank. January 22, 2018.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works iii February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Synopsis

• This biological report examines a 7.5-acre Study Area located in the City of Paso Robles, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The Study Area includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 008-202-001, 008-202-002, 008-204-001, 008-205-001, 008-205-001, 008-206- 001, and 008-206-002. • Habitat types identified and mapped in the Study Area consist of anthropogenic, blue oak woodland, and chaparral. • Botanical surveys conducted in 2018 identified 20 species, subspecies, and varieties of vascular plants in the Study Area. Habitat and soil conditions in the Study Area are not suitable for special status plants. No special status plant species or subspecies were observed in the Study Area. • Wildlife species detected in the Study Area include 14 birds and 3 mammals. Appropriate habitat is present on the property for five special status animals. No special status animals were detected in the Study Area.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works iv February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose This report provides information regarding biological resources associated with an approximately 7-acre Study Area in the City of Paso Robles (City). Results are reported for botanical and wildlife surveys of the Study Area conducted in January 2018. A habitat inventory and results of database and literature searches of special status species reports within a nine 7.5- minute quadrangle search area of the Study Area are also included. Special status species that could occur in the Study Area or be affected by the proposed project are discussed and lists of plant and animal species that were identified or are expected in the Study Area are provided. We provide agencies and stakeholders with information regarding biological resources in the Study Area and assess potential impacts to biological resources that could occur from the proposed project. An evaluation of the effect of the proposed project on biological resources is included, and mitigation measures are provided.

1.2 Location The Study Area consists of a 7-acre portion of an 18.8-acre property located on the western edge of the City of Paso Robles (Figures 1 and 2). The Study Area is approximately 0.75-mile west of U.S. Highway 101, north of the intersection of Locust Street and 19th Street. Approximate coordinates for the center of the Study Area are 35.63512, -120.69842 in the Paso Robles United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Elevation of the Study Area ranges from approximately 800 to 940 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

1.3 Project Description The purpose of the proposed project is to construct a new water storage tank intended to replace the existing 21st Street Reservoir located within the Study Area. Major components of the project will include: • Construction of a single 4 million-gallon, partially buried, pre-stressed circular concrete reservoir on the 1.6-acre site of the existing reservoir. To minimize visual impacts, the tank would be partially buried, and the surrounding site regraded to existing elevations, resulting in approximately 17-18 feet of tank being visible above grade. The tank would be installed as far west as possible to efficiently hug the ridge • A detention basin rehabilitated from the eastern portion of the existing reservoir that would include a drainage outlet structure located at the center of the basin and would feed into an 18-inch storm drain. The storm drain would be aligned down the southern slope of the site and discharge to a vegetative swale. The basin would also include an access ramp for maintenance. Site access is expected to remain the same via the road to the north from 21st Street. A temporary construction access road may be installed to the south of the Study Area to allow access during the construction of the utility corridor. The road would be restored to pre-project conditions once construction is complete. Planting and landscaping that would be selected and positioned in

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 1 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01 compliance with the governing screening criteria and would be specified on the respective landscape plans.

1.4 Regulatory Framework

1.1.1 Federal Regulations Endangered Species Act. The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a ‘take’ under the Endangered Species Act. Take of a federally listed threatened or endangered species is prohibited without a special permit. The Endangered Species Act allows for take of a threatened or endangered species incidental to development activities once a habitat conservation plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the USFWS and an incidental take permit has been issued. The Endangered Species Act also allows for the take of threatened or endangered species after consultation has deemed that development activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The federal Endangered Species Act also provides for a Section 7 Consultation when a federal permit is required, such as a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. “Critical Habitat” is a term within the federal Endangered Species Act designed to guide actions by federal agencies (as opposed to state, local, or other agency actions) and defined as “an area occupied by a species listed as threatened or endangered within which are found physical or geographical features essential to the conservation of the species, or an area not currently occupied by the species which is itself essential to the conservation of the species.” Section 404 Clean Water Act Regulations. The Clean Water Act provides wetland regulation at the federal level and is administered by the USACE. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. Permitting is required for filling waters of the U.S. (including wetlands). Permits may be issued on an individual basis or may be covered under approved nationwide permits. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All migratory bird species that are native to the U.S. or its territories are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is generally protective of migratory birds.

1.1.2 State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that biological resources be considered when assessing the environmental impacts that are the result of proposed actions. The lead agencies determine the scope of what is considered an impact and what constitutes an “adverse effect” on a biological resource.

California Fish and Game Code. The California Fish and Game Code regulates the taking or possession of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles, as well as natural resources such as wetlands and waters of the state. It includes the California Endangered Species Act, Streambed Alteration Agreement regulations, and California Native Plant Protection Act. Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 2 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01 of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto,” and “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird” unless authorized.

California Endangered Species Act. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), similar to the federal Endangered Species Act, contains a process for listing of species and regulating potential impacts to listed species. State threatened and endangered species include both plants and wildlife, but do not include invertebrates. The designation “rare species” applies only to California native plants. State threatened and endangered plant species are regulated largely under the Native Plant Preservation Act in conjunction with the California Endangered Species Act. State threatened and endangered animal species are legally protected against “take.” CESA authorizes the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to enter into a memorandum of agreement for take of listed species to issue an incidental take permit for a state-listed threatened and endangered species only if specific criteria are met. Section 2080 of the CESA prohibits the take of species listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the Act. Section 2081 allows CDFW to authorize take prohibited under Section 2080 provided that: 1) the taking is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2) the taking will be minimized and fully mitigated; 3) the applicant ensures adequate funding for minimization and mitigation; and 4) the authorization will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species.

California Native Plant Protection Act. Section 1900-1913 of the California Fish and Game Code contains the regulations of the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. The intent of this act is to help conserve and protect rare and endangered plants in the state.

California Oak Woodland Conservation Act. This act established the Oak Woodland Conservation Program, administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board, to help local jurisdictions protect and enhance their oak woodland resources. It offers landowners, conservation groups, and cities/counties an opportunity to obtain funding for projects designed to conserve and restore California’s oak woodlands.

1.1.3 Local Regulations Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The City of Paso Robles requires that any person wishing to remove one or more oak trees from any parcel in the city shall apply in writing to the Community Development Department for a Permit to Remove. Depending on the size and health of the tree, the City may require replacement trees of the same species. Additionally, any person or agent of any person wishing to prune one or more oak trees in a manner that would involve cutting limbs of six (6) or more inches in diameter on any parcel within the City shall apply in writing to the Public Works Department for a permit. The ordinance also specifies that as a general rule, the existing ground surface within the critical root zone (CRZ) of any oak tree shall not be cut, filled, compacted or pared.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 3 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

2 METHODS

2.1 Literature Review Relevant literature, including relevant plans, policies, and biological information, was reviewed to determine what biological resources may occur near or in the Study Area. Research included: • Review of agency plans pertaining to sensitive and special-status species • Queries of special-status species occurrence records • Review of literature on sensitive species and biological resources in the Study Area and region We conducted a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB January 2018 data) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for special status species known to occur in the following nine USGS 7.5- minute quadrangles surrounding the Study Area: Bradley, San Miguel, Ranchito Canyon, Adelaida, Paso Robles, Estrella, York Mountain, Templeton, and Creston. Additional special status species research consisted of reviewing previous biological reports for the area and searching online museum and herbarium specimen records for locality data within San Luis Obispo County. We reviewed online databases of specimen records maintained by the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, the California Academy of Sciences, and the Consortium of California Herbaria. Special status species lists produced by database and literature searches were cross-referenced with the described habitat types in the Study Area to identify all potential special status species that could occur in or near the Study Area. Each special status species that could occur in or near the Study Area is individually discussed (refer to Sections 3.6 and 3.7). After review of the literature, the following criteria were used to determine the potential for special-status species to occur within the Study Area: • Present: The species was observed in the Study Area during field surveys or was confirmed from other sources. • High Potential: Habitat quality combined with CNDDB occurrences or other records indicate the species is likely to occur in the Study Area. Individuals were not observed in the project area during field surveys; however, the species would likely occur in the Study Area. • Moderate Potential: CNDDB occurrences or surveys have recorded the species within 10 miles of the project area and suitable habitat is present. The species could be present. • Low Potential: Marginally suitable habitat may occur in the project area, but individuals were not observed during surveys and are not anticipated to be present. • No Potential: Species, sign, or habitat were not observed on the site during surveys and suitable habitat is not present.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 4 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

2.2 Mapping Mapping efforts utilized hand notation on recent land survey and aerial photos. Maps were created using aerial photo interpretation, field notation, and GPS data imported to ArcGIS 10, a Geographic Information System (GIS) software program. Data were overlaid on a 2017 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial of San Luis Obispo County (USDA 2017). Biological resource constraints were mapped in the field on site. Hand notation on field maps was incorporated into point and polygon layers and overlaid on high resolution aerial photographs.

2.3 Field Surveys The Study Area consisted of all potential impact areas, including the water storage tank, detention basin, and existing and proposed fill and outlet pipeline, as well as a 100-foot buffer around these areas. The Study Area was surveyed for biological resources on January 22, 2018 by biologists Jason Dart and Greg Salas. Surveys were conducted on foot to compile species lists, search for special status plants and animals, map habitats, and to photograph the Study Area. The entire Study Area was surveyed.

TABLE 1. BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS. Survey Biologist(s) Weather Observations Activities Date Jason Dart 1/22/2018 Clear, no wind, 48̊ F Habitat Assessment Greg Salas

2.3.1 Botanical Each habitat type occurring in the Study Area was inspected, described, and catalogued (Section 3.3). All plant and animal species observed in the Study Area were identified and recorded (Sections 3.8 and 3.9). Walking transects were meandering with an emphasis on locating habitat appropriate for special status plants. Transects were utilized to map boundaries of different vegetation types, describe general conditions and dominant species, compile species lists, and evaluate potential habitat for special status species. Identification of botanical resources included field observations and laboratory analysis of collected material (Table 4). Botanical nomenclature used in this document follows the Jepson Manual, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). We also provide Jepson Manual First Edition names in brackets where nomenclature has recently changed.

2.3.2 Wildlife Wildlife documentation included observations of animal presence and wildlife sign such as nests, tracks, and scat. Observations of wildlife were recorded during field surveys in all areas of the Study Area (Table 5). Birds were identified by sight, using 10-power binoculars, or by vocalizations. Reptiles and amphibians were identified by sight, often using binoculars; traps were not used. Mammals recorded in the Study Area were identified by sight and tracks.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 5 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

3 RESULTS

3.1 Regional Context The Study Area is located in San Luis Obispo County, within the City of Paso Robles. It is situated within the Salinas River Watershed and is approximately 0.7 miles west side of the river. To the north and east, the Study Area is immediately bordered by undeveloped portions of the 18.8-acre property, with urbanized residential developments further north and east. To the south the Study Area is immediately bordered by urbanized residential developments, and to the west, the Study Area is bordered by a rural residential community.

3.2 Existing Conditions The Study Area consists of a developed water reservoir and portions of the surrounding open space area. The reservoir is a partially buried concrete tank with a wooden roof. The tank is surrounded entirely by a gravel pad, and the site is fenced in by 6-foot tall chain-link fencing with barbed wire on top. There are access gates to the site on the northwest and southwest corners. The gate at the northwest corner has a paved road that leads to 21st Street. The existing water tank is built on the top of a hill and is surrounded by blue oak woodland, with small patches of chaparral at the southwest and northeast corners. There is evidence of disking/mowing throughout the oak woodland. One additional fenced in structure exists to the south of the southern access gate.

3.3 Habitat Types Three habitat types were identified within the Study Area: anthropogenic, blue oak woodland, and chaparral. The existing reservoir area is described as anthropogenic (man-made) habitat, consisting of approximately 1.7 acres of the Study Area. The surrounding natural habitat is a manipulated blue oak woodland with an open canopy and grassy understory. It occupied 4.8 acres of the Study Area. A few small areas of chaparral habitat occupy approximately 0.5 acre of the Study Area, consisting of patches of native shrubs. Table 2 provides habitat data. The Study Area does not contain any wetlands, ephemeral pools, or drainages.

TABLE 2. HABITAT TYPES. Approximate Approximate Acreage Habitat Type Location Acreage within within Study Area Parcel The existing reservoir Anthropogenic 1.7 2.1 site Blue Oak Surrounding the 4.8 16.2 Woodland reservoir Southwest and Chaparral northeast corners of 0.5 0.5 the site Totals 7.0 18.7

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 6 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

3.3.1 Anthropogenic The existing water storage site and access road comprise 1.7 acres of the Study Area. This anthropogenic habitat consists of an asphalt-paved road, the existing water storage tank, and graveled access surrounding the tank. The tank itself is a concrete-walled structure with a wooden roof.

3.3.2 Blue Oak Woodland Blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodland habitat occurs in varying density and quality around the perimeter of the Study Area. A total of 4.8 acres of oak woodland habitat occurs in the Study Area. Moderately dense blue oak woodland occurs on the slopes of the south, west, and east portions of the Study Area. The density of trees in the woodland increases in the northern region of the Study Area. At the northern entrance to the fenced water storage site there is a stand of tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) within the oaks and one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) individual. The density of trees decreases in the far southwest region of the Study Area as it approaches 19th Street. At this location, the habitat becomes more disturbed, likely due to vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Understory vegetation in the blue oak woodland habitat on the property is composed of annual grasses and forbs in most areas. Wild oat (Avena sp.) dominates this vegetation. There is evidence of recent disking of the grassy understory.

3.3.3 Chaparral Chaparral habitat occurs in two small patches, totaling 0.5 acre, in the southeast and northwest portions of the Study Area. These patches are characterized by dense brush, dominated by native buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus) and holly-leaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia).

3.4 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters No evidence of potential wetlands or other jurisdictional waters was observed within the Study Area during the January 2018 site visit. A roadside drainage ditch flows from the east side of Locust Street to the North side of 19th Street, which appears to channel runoff from Locust Street. It does not appear that standing water persists at this location, and no wetland vegetation or channel morphology was observed at the location.

3.5 Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Movement The blue oak woodland and chaparral habitat within and surrounding the Study Area likely provide a corridor for larger mammals to move along the outskirts of the urbanized downtown area. The reservoir site itself is completely surrounded by chain-link fencing, which would impede any moderate to large-sized mammals from entering the site or using it as a movement corridor.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 7 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

3.6 Special Status Plant Species The CNDDB and the CNPS On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California contain records for 45 special status plant species within the designated search area. Appropriate habitat and soil conditions are not present in the Study Area for special status plants (see Appendix A). Figures 3 and 5 in Section 7 depict the current GIS data for special status plant species and critical habitat mapped within a 5-mile radius of the Study Area by the CNDDB and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

3.6.1 Introduction to California Rare Plant Ranks Plant species are considered rare when their distribution is confined to localized areas, when there is a threat to their habitat, when they are declining in abundance, or are threatened in a portion of their range. The California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) categories range from species with a low threat (CRPR 4) to species that are presumed extinct (CRPR 1A). The plants of CRPR 1B are rare throughout their range. All but a few species are endemic to California. All of them are judged to be vulnerable under present circumstances, or to have a high potential for becoming vulnerable.

3.6.2 Introduction to CNDDB Definitions "Special Plants" is a broad term used to refer to all the plant taxa inventoried by the CNDDB, regardless of their legal or protection status (CDFW January 2018). Special plants include vascular plants, high priority bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hornworts), and lichens.

3.6.3 Potential Special Status Plant List Special status plant species are not expected to occur in the Study Area due to lack of suitable soil and habitat conditions. A complete list of the 45 plant species reviewed and reported from the region is included as Appendix A.

3.7 Special Status Animal Species The CNDDB contains records for 21 special status animal species within the designated search area. Appropriate habitat conditions are present on the Study Area for five special status animals (Table 3). Figures 4 and 5 in Section 7 depict the current GIS data for special status animal species and critical habitat mapped within a 5-mile radius of the Study Area by the CNDDB and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

3.7.1 Introduction to CNDDB Definitions "Special Animals" is a general term that refers to all of the animal taxa inventoried by the CNDDB, regardless of their legal or protection status (CDFW October 2017). The Special Animals list is also referred to by the CDFW as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” These taxa may be listed or proposed for listing under the California and/or Federal Endangered Species Acts, but they may also be species deemed biologically rare, restricted in range, declining in abundance, or otherwise vulnerable.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 8 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Animals listed as California Species of Special Concern (SSC) may or may not be listed under California or Federal Endangered Species Acts. They are considered rare or declining in abundance in California. The Special Concern designation is intended to provide the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, biologists, land planners and managers with lists of species that require special consideration during the planning process in order to avert continued population declines and potential costly listing under federal and state endangered species laws. For many species of birds, the primary emphasis is on the breeding population in California. For some species that do not breed in California but winter here, emphasis is on wintering range. The SSC designation thus may include a comment regarding the specific protection provided such as nesting or wintering. Animals listed as Fully Protected are those species considered by CDFW as rare or faced with possible extinction. Most, but not all, have subsequently been listed under the California Endangered Species Act or the federal Endangered Species Act. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of the California Fish and Game code authorizes the issuance of permits or licenses to take any Fully Protected species.

3.7.2 Potential Special Status Animals List Table 3 lists five special status animal species that were determined to have potential to occur in the Study Area. Federal and California state status and CDFW listing status for each species are given. Typical nesting or breeding period, habitat preference, potential habitat on site, and whether or not the species was observed in the Study Area are also provided. A complete list of the 21 species reported from the region is included as Appendix B.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 9 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

TABLE 3. POTENTIAL SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS LIST. Common and Fed/State Nesting- Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Detected Effect of Scientific Names Status Breeding Within Proposed CDFW Period Study Activity Rank Area?

Northern California Legless None/none Early spring Occurs in moist, warm, loose Low. Low quality No No Effect Lizard SSC - July soil with plant cover in habitat in understory Anniella pulchra sparsely vegetated areas of of oak woodland. beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces. Moisture is essential. Pallid Bat None/none Early spring Rock crevices, caves, tree Low. Potential to occur No No Effect Antrozous pallidus SSC - July hollows, mines, old in oak tree cavities in buildings, and bridges. Study Area. Monterey Dusky-footed None/none n/a Variety of habitats with Moderate. Adequate but No No Effect Woodrat SSC moderate to dense limited habitat Neotoma macrotis luciana understory vegetation. conditions in dense vegetation; however no sign of species was observed. Salinas Pocket Mouse None/none n/a Annual grassland and desert Low. Understory habitat No No Effect Perognathus inornatus SSC shrub in Salinas Valley, is plowed and not psammophilus with friable soils likely to support pocket mouse. American Badger None/none February – Needs friable soils in open Low. Not a substantial No No Effect Taxidea taxus SSC May ground with abundant food prey base in Study source such as California Area. No dens ground squirrels. observed. Habitat characteristics are from the Jepson Manual and the CDNNB. Abbreviations: SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 10 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

3.7.3 Discussion Of the 21 special status wildlife species evaluated, it was determined that five species have low to moderate potential to occur in the Study Area. The remaining 16 species have no potential to occur based on a lack of suitable habitat within the Study Area. The five special status species with potential to occur are described below.

A. Northern California Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra) is a California Species of Special Concern that occurs from Contra Costa to Santa Barbara County. This species includes the subspecies formerly treated as A. pulchra nigra and A. pulchra pulchra which was shown to be an invalid designation (Pearse and Pogson 2000). Northern California legless lizard inhabits friable soils in a variety of habitats from coastal dunes to oak woodlands and chaparral. Adapted to subterranean life, the silvery legless lizard thrives near native coastal shrubs that produce an abundance of leaf litter and have strong roots systems (Kuhnz et al. 2005). Areas of exotic vegetation and open grassland do not provide suitable habitat for the silvery legless lizard since these plant communities support smaller populations of insect prey and offer little protection from higher ground temperatures and soil desiccation (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Slobodchikoff and Doyen 1977). The closest reported occurrence of the northern California legless lizard is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of Study Area (CNDDB 155). This is a historical record from 1966; however, there are several additional records in the surrounding 9-quad search area. Northern California legless lizards were not observed in the Study Area during the January 2018 survey. Appropriate oak woodland and chaparral habitats are present in the Study Area; however due to the lack of leaf litter observed and regular plowing of understory habitat within the Study Area, it is very unlikely to support the northern California legless lizard. Therefore the potential for this species to occur within the Study Area is low. B. Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) is a California Species of Special Concern. The pallid bat is a large long-eared bat that occurs throughout the state and occupies a wide variety of habitats. Although most common in open, dry areas ideal for foraging with rocky outcrops for roosting, pallid bats are also found regularly in oak and pine woodlands where they roost in caves, mines, rock crevices, hollow trees and buildings (Nowak 1994). Bridges are also frequently used by pallid bats, often as night roosts between foraging periods (Pierson et al. 1996). The closest reported occurrence of the pallid bat is approximately 8.2 miles north of the Study Area, along River Road Bridge in the community of San Miguel (CNDDB 104). No pallid bats or sign of bats (such as guano) were observed on the site during the January 2018 survey. Due to the presence of oak trees potentially suitable for roosting and sparsely vegetated habitats suitable for foraging, the pallid has a low potential to occur in the Study Area. C. Monterey Dusky-footed Woodrat (Neotoma macrotis luciana) is a California Species of Special Concern known from the Santa Lucia Mountains in southern Monterey Bay to Morro Bay and northwestern San Luis Obispo County. The species occurs in oak and riparian woodland habitats. The nearest occurrence of the species is approximately seven miles west of the Study Area, at Camp Roberts (CNDDB 1). No sign of woodrats, such as middens (nests) were observed during the January 2018 survey; however appropriate habitat is present in the more densely vegetated areas of the Study Area, such as the chaparral and denser oak

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 11 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

woodland. Therefore, there is a moderate potential for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat to occur within the Study Area. D. Salinas Pocket Mouse (Perognathus inornatus psammophilus) is a rare pocket mouse listed as a California Species of Special Concern. The Salinas pocket mouse is one of three subspecies located from the Sacramento Valley, south to the San Joaquin and contiguous valleys (including Salinas Valley). It occurs in annual grassland, blue oak woodland, and desert shrub communities. It occurs in annual grassland, blue oak woodland, and desert shrub communities. Like other species of pocket mice, the Salinas pocket mouse is nocturnal and spends the day in a burrow with a plugged entrance. During periods of low temperatures, these mice will enter a period of torpor only occasionally emerging from the burrow if its cache is not large enough. The Salinas pocket mouse forages on the seeds of grasses and forbs but also seasonally eats vegetation. The nearest reported occurrence of Salinas pocket mouse is approximately 5.8 miles north of the Study Area in the community of San Miguel (CNDDB 9). This is a historical record from 1918. There are several additional current records of the species occurring between 6 to 9 miles west of the Study Area at Camp Roberts. Appropriate habitat is present in the Study Area in the blue oak woodland habitat. There is a low potential for this species to occur in the Study Area due to the lack of understory grassland habitat from seasonal plowing. E. American Badger (Taxidea taxus) is a California Species of Special Concern with a widespread range across the state (Brehme et. al. 2015, CDFW 2014). It is a permanent but uncommon resident in all parts of California, except for forested regions of the far northwestern corner, and is more abundant in dry, open areas of most shrub and forest habitats (CNDDB 2017). The American badger requires friable soil in order to dig burrows for cover and breeding. The main food source for the species is fossorial rodents, mainly ground squirrels and pocket gophers (CDFW 2014). The breeding season for badgers is in summer and early fall, and females give birth to litters usually in March and April (CDFW 2014). The closest reported occurrence of the American badger is located approximately 4.3 miles south of the Study Area (CNDDB 23). This occurrence was a documented roadkill along Highway 101 in Templeton. No badgers or sign of badgers, such as dens or digs-out, were observed during the January 2018 survey. Due to the Study Area’s close proximity to a highly urban setting and the lack of a substantial prey base, there is a low potential for the species to occur within the Study Area.

The remaining 16 special status animal species that were evaluated were determined to have no potential to occur in the Study Area. However, five of these species are either listed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA and/or CESA. Therefore, although they are not expected to occur, these species warrant further discussion.

F. Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is a California Species of Special Concern (nesting colonies) and is also a candidate for listing as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Tricolored blackbirds occur predominately in the Central Valley of California and in smaller disjunctive nesting colonies southwest of the Cascade Sierra axis and at higher elevations only in northwestern California (Shuford et. al. 2008). Within its restricted range, the tricolored blackbird will migrate during the breeding season, moving north after the first nesting efforts, and in winter moving to lower elevations (Shuford et. al. 2008). The breeding season is generally from April to July, but in the Central Valley there has been active

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 12 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

breeding reported in October and November (CDFW 2014). Historically, tricolored blackbird nested in emergent wetlands, marshes and swamps making their nests in tall, dense cattails, tules, tall herbs, thickets of willows and blackberries. The species also requires foraging space with an abundance of insect prey that can sustain the nesting colony (CNDDB 2017; Shuford et. al. 2008; Weintraub et. al. 2016). The closest reported occurrence of a tricolored blackbird nesting colony is approximately 4.5 miles southeast of the Study Area (CNDDB 998), near the Franklin Hot Springs in Paso Robles. Due to a lack of appropriate nesting habitat, such as ponds, wetlands or marshes, at or immediately surrounding the Study Area, tri-colored blackbird is not expected to occur within the Study Area. G. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a small freshwater crustacean that is federally listed as threatened and occurs in the Central Valley of California from Shasta County to Tulare County and the central and southern Coast Ranges from northern Solano County to Ventura County, California (USFWS 2003). This shrimp is found in grasslands in cool, clear-water sandstone-depression, grassed swale, earth slump and basalt-flow depression pools with a higher occurrence in Redding, Corning and Red Bluff soils (CNDDB 2017; Helm 1998). Preferred pool depth by the shrimp ranges from 2-122 cm. Individuals hatch from cysts during cold-weather winter storms and require water temperatures of 50°F or lower to hatch (Helm 1998; Eriksen and Belk 1999). The time to maturity and reproduction is temperature dependent, varying between 18 days and 147 days, with a mean of 39.7 days. Immature and adult shrimp are known to die off when water temperatures rise to approximately 75°F (Helm 1998). The species is typically associated with smaller and shallower vernal pools (typically about 6 inches deep) that have relatively short periods of inundation (Helm 1998) and relatively low to moderate total dissolved solids (TDS) and alkalinity (Eriksen and Belk 1999). The closest reported occurrence of Vernal pool fairy shrimp is approximately 1.4 miles south of the Study Area (CNDDB 621) in Paso Robles, where the species was documented inhabiting small depressions and pools along the railroad track. No aquatic resources or pools of water were present during the site visit in January 2018. No evidence of vernal pools or other ephemeral pools, was observed. Therefore, vernal pool fairy shrimp are not expected to occur in the Study Area. H. California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii; CRLF) is a federally listed threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. It occurs in California in the Coast Range, Sierras, the Transverse Range and south below 1,200 meters elevation (CDFW 2014; Sousa 2008). The main habitat types for the CRLF are deep, still or slow-moving sources of water in lowlands and foothills with shrubby, riparian, or vegetative shorelines for cover (CDFW 2014; CNDDB 2017; Jennings and Hayes 1994). The most suitable vegetation types for cover are cattails (Typha sp.), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and bulrushes (Scirpus sp.) (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Along with its aquatic habitat, the CRLF also utilizes upland habitat for seeking food, shelter and as migration corridors between breeding and non- breeding sites. A 2003 study conducted by Bulger et al found that during dry summer months, CRLF were nearly always within 5 meters of a pond; however, during summer rain events and early winter rains, frogs moved up to 130 meters from their ponds, and some frogs even traveled up to 2800 meters to migrate to a different pond. When out of the water the CRLF will shelter under natural or manmade debris and burrow into moist leaf litter or small animal burrows (USFWS 2010). The breeding season for the CRLF is from January to July with a peak in February (CDFW 2014). The closest reported occurrence of CRLF to the Study Area is approximately 6.7 miles south, along Paso Robles Creek and Graves Creek,

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 13 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

near their confluence with the Salinas River (CNDDB 617 and 618). There is no suitable habitat for the species within or adjacent to the Study Area; therefore, CRLF are not expected to occur in the Study Area. I. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) is one of four subspecies of Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii) and is both state and federally listed as endangered. The least Bell’s vireo winters in Baja California, Mexico and migrates to California during the breeding season (generally March to September), where it is found in scattered populations from Central to Southern California. They are a small, olive colored bird whose habitat consists of low, dense riparian growth near dry and intermittent streams (USFWS 1994). Preferred nesting habitat is on low branches of willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), and mesquite bushes (Prosopis spp.) where insects can be found for feeding (Brown 1993). Range-wide decline has occurred due to habitat loss, and brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) throughout range of California (CNDDB 2017). The closest reported occurrence of Least Bell’s vireo to the Study Area is approximately 0.7 mile west, along the Salinas River, and is a historical record from 1947. (CNDDB 127). The nearest modern record is 2.3 miles north, also along the Salinas River (CNDDB 323). There is no suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo within or adjacent to the Study Area. Therefore, the species is not expected to occur. J. San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica; SJKF) is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. The SJKF is one of two subspecies of the kit fox, Vulpes macrotis, which is the smallest canid species in North America. It is endemic to the San Joaquin Valley and a few adjacent valleys in the central region of California (Cypher et al. 2013). The SJKF is primarily nocturnal and typically occurs in annual grassland or mixed shrub/grassland habitats throughout low, rolling hills and in valleys. They need loose sandy soils in order to dig their burrows and a prey population of black-tailed jackrabbits, rodents, desert cottontails, insects, some birds, reptiles and vegetation (CDFW 2014; CNDDB 2017). The most suitable habitat for SJKF has low precipitation, sparse vegetation coverage with high densities of kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.). For the SJKF to succeed in an area it needs large expanses of non-fragmented suitable habitat. This type of habitat is decreasing rapidly by conversion into agricultural land or degraded by urban development (Cypher et al. 2013). The closest reported occurrence of the SJKF is a 1990 record located approximately 4.8 miles northwest east of the Study Area, within Camp Roberts (CNDDB 1179). There are numerous records of kit fox from Camp Roberts, however the species has not been detected there for over 10 years. No sign of kit fox, such as scat or potential dens, were seen during the site visit in January 2018. Additionally, habitat within the Study Area is not suitable for the species. Therefore, San Joaquin kit fox is not expected to occur in the Study Area.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 14 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

3.8 Botanical Survey Results The survey conducted in January 2018 identified 20 20 species, subspecies, and varieties of vascular plant taxa in the Study Area (Table 4). The list includes 9 species native to California and 11 introduced (naturalized or planted) species.

TABLE 4. PLANT LIST.

Scientific Name Special Status Origin Common Name

Trees - 3 Species Ailanthus altissima None Introduced Tree of heaven Quercus agrifolia var. agrifolia None Native Coast live oak Quercus douglasii None Native Blue oak Shrubs - 3 Species Baccharis pilularis None Native Coyote brush Ceanothus cuneatus None Native Buckbrush Rhamnus ilicifolia None Native Holly-leaf redberry Forbs - 10 Species Carduus pycnocephalus None Introduced Italian thistle Centaurea melitensis None Introduced Tocolote Centaurea solstitialis None Introduced Yellow star thistle Cirsium vulgare None Introduced Bull thistle Croton [=Eremocarpus] setigerus None Native Dove weed Datura wrightii None Native Jimsonweed Erigeron [=Conzya] canadensis None Native Common horseweed Marrubium vulgare None Introduced Horehound Phoradendron serotinum ssp. None Native Oak mistletoe tomentosum [=P. villosum] Salsola tragus None Introduced Russian thistle Grasses - 4 Species Avena sp. None Introduced Wild oat Bromus diandrus None Introduced Ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceus None Introduced Soft chess brome Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens None Introduced Red top brome [= B. rubens]

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 15 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

3.9 Wildlife Survey Results Wildlife observed and additional animal species that could potentially occur in the Study Area are listed in Table 5. This includes at least 3 amphibians, 5 reptiles, 19 birds, and 9 mammals. Small mammal trapping studies were beyond the scope of this report, although several species are likely to occur. We provide this list as a guide to the wildlife observed in the Study Area and to the species that could potentially be present at least seasonally. Other species could occur as transients, particularly avian fauna.

TABLE 5. WILDLIFE LIST. Special Found Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Type Status On-site? Amphibians – 3 Species California (Western) Anaxyrus [=Bufo] boreas None Grassland, woodland Toad halophilus Black-bellied Slender Batrachoseps nigriventris None Moist habitats Salamander Sierran Treefrog Pseudacris sierra None Many habitats near water [=Pacific Chorus Frog] [formerly P. regilla]

Reptiles – 5 Species Northern California Anniella pulchra SSC Sandy soils in dunes, Legless Lizard woodlands, coastal scrub Northern Pacific Crotalus oreganus None Dry, rocky habitats Rattlesnake oreganus California Kingsnake Lampropeltis californiae None Woodland, grassland, [=getula californiae] streams Pacific Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer None Woodland, grassland, rural Coast Range [=Western] Sceloporus occidentalis None Wide range; variety of Fence Lizard bocourtii habitats Birds – 19 Species California Scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica None ✓ Chaparral Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura None ✓ Anthropogenic, blue oak woodland Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus None ✓ Blue oak woodland Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus None ✓ Blue oak woodland Common Raven Corvus corax None Many habitats Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis None ✓ Blue oak woodland Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus None Oak woodland, urban areas with oaks California Towhee Melozone crissalis None Chaparral scrub, shrubby urban areas

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 16 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Special Found Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Type Status On-site? Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos None Riparian, chaparral, woodlands, urban Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens None ✓ Chaparral, blue oak woodland Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus None ✓ Chaparral Say’s Phoebe Sayornis saya None ✓ Anthropogenic, blue oak woodland Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana None ✓ Blue oak woodland, anthropogenic White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis None ✓ Blue oak woodland Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto None Urban areas European Starling Sturnus vulgaris None ✓ Varied California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum None ✓ Chaparral Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura None ✓ Varied White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys None ✓ Blue oak woodland Mammals – 9 Species Domestic Dog Canis lupus familiaris None Varied Virginia Opossum Didelphis virginiana None Woodlands, streams Feral Cat Felis catus None Varied Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis None Mixed woods, brush, semi- open country California Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus None Varied californicua Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus None ✓ Blue oak woodland California Ground Spermophilus beecheyi None ✓ Blue oak woodland Squirrel American Badger Taxidea taxus SSC Open country Valley Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae None ✓ Blue oak woodland

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 17 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

4.1 Habitats The proposed project could impact approximately 1.01 acres of anthropogenic habitat, 0.23 acre of blue oak woodland habitat, and 0.01 acre of chaparral habitat (Table 6). A Biological Resource Map provided as Figure 6 in Section 7 includes a project overlay on existing habitats.

TABLE 6. POTENTIAL HABITAT IMPACTS. Habitat Type Impact (Acres)1 Anthropogenic 1.01 Blue Oak Woodland 0.23 Chaparral 0.01 Total 1.25

4.1.1 Anthropogenic Most project activities would occur within areas that are already developed. The existing water storage site will be renovated. All of the current anthropogenic habitat will be altered to accommodate the new structures.

4.1.2 Blue Oak Woodland Blue oak woodland occupies approximately 4.8 acres of the Study Area. The proposed project would impact approximately 0.23 acres of oak woodland habitat by development of a storm drain and vegetated swale. Grading plans were not available to review at the time this report was prepared. Oak trees are not expected to be removed for the project, but some earthwork could impact oak tree critical root zones. Mitigation recommendations are provided to ensure the project adequately addresses potential impacts to oak trees (refer to Section 5.1.2).

4.1.3 Chaparral Chaparral occupies approximately 0.5 acres of the Study Area. The proposed project may impact 0.01 acre (53 square feet) of chaparral to accommodate expansion of the site. Mitigation is not required for impacts to chaparral habitat.

4.2 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Potential wetlands or jurisdictional waters do not occur in the Study Area.

1 Acreage calculations are approximate and based on West Main Tank Preliminary Site Layout Map (WSC 11/29/2017)

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 18 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

4.3 Nesting Birds Impacts to nesting birds could potentially occur if work activities are conducted during the nesting season. Birds may nest in the oak trees, chaparral shrubs, on structures, or on the ground in or immediately adjacent to the work area. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys should be conducted prior to construction activities at the site (refer to Section 5.3).

4.4 Special Status Species

4.4.1 Plants Special status plants are not expected to occur in the Study Area; the proposed project is not expected to affect special status plants.

4.4.2 Reptiles One special status reptile, northern California legless lizard, has a low potential of occurring in oak woodland habitat of the Study Area. The southern slope where a discharge pipe would be installed, and a vegetated swale created is seasonally plowed for vegetation management. This soil disturbance makes the area unsuitable for legless lizards. The proposed project is not expected to impact legless lizards or other special status reptiles.

4.4.3 Bats One special status bat species, pallid bat, has a low potential to occur in the Study Area. Bats could potentially roost in cavities of the oak trees along the proposed discharge line. Oak trees are not expected to be removed for the project. The proposed project is not expected to impact roosting bats.

4.4.4 Mammals Three special status mammal species, Monterey dusky-footed woodrat, American badger, and Salinas pocket mouse, have a low potential to occur in the Study Area. Monterey dusky-footed woodrat constructs large distinctive nests out of sticks. A biological survey in January 2018 did not detect woodrat nests in the Study Area, which strongly suggests they are not present. American badger and Salinas pocket mouse could potentially be present, however land use practices such as seasonal plowing make the site generally unsuitable for these species. No impacts to special status mammals are expected from the proposed project.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 19 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

5 MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Habitats

5.1.1 Anthropogenic Mitigation is not required for impacts to anthropogenic habitat.

5.1.2 Blue Oak Woodland The City of Paso Robles does not currently require specific mitigation for the loss of oak woodland habitat. Impacts to individual oak trees do require mitigation in the City. The following mitigation recommendations are modeled after guidelines set forth in the Paso Robles Tree Ordinance (City of El Paso de Robles - Ordinance No. 835 N.S). BR-1. Tree canopies and trunks within 50 feet of proposed disturbance zones should be mapped and numbered by a certified arborist or qualified biologist and a licensed land surveyor. Data for each tree should include date, species, number of stems, and diameter at breast height (dbh) of each stem, critical root zone (CRZ) diameter, canopy diameter, tree height, health, habitat notes, and nests observed. BR-2. An oak tree protection plan shall be prepared and approved by the City of Paso Robles if impacts to oak trees are anticipated. BR-3. Impacts to the oak canopy or critical root zone (CRZ) should be avoided where practicable. Impacts include pruning, any ground disturbance within the dripline or CRZ of the tree (whichever distance is greater), and trunk damage. BR-4. Impacts to oak trees shall be assessed by a licensed arborist or qualified biologist. Mitigations for impacted trees shall comply with the City of Paso Robles tree ordinance. BR-5. Replacement oaks for removed trees must be equivalent to 25% of the diameter of the removed tree(s). For example, the replacement requirement for removal of two trees of 15 inches dbh (30 total diameter inches), would be 7.5 inches (30" removed x 0.25 replacement factor). This requirement could be satisfied by planting five 1.5-inch trees, or three 2.5-inch trees, or any other combination totaling 7.5 inches. A minimum of two 24-inch box, 1.5-inch trees shall be required for each oak tree removed. BR-6. Replacement trees should be seasonally maintained (browse protection, weed reduction and irrigation, as needed) and monitored annually for a time period to be determined by the City. Replacement trees shall be of local origin, and of the same species as was impacted or removed.

5.1.3 Chaparral Chaparral habitat in the Study Area is very limited in size and is composed of common shrub species. Impacts to chaparral habitat do not require mitigation.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 20 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

5.2 Potential Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters No impacts to potential wetlands or jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of construction of the proposed project. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

5.3 Nesting Birds Migratory non-game native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take (as defined therein) of all native birds and their active nests, including raptors and other migratory non-game birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA).

BR-7. Within one week of ground disturbance activities, if work occurs between February 1 and September 1, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. If surveys do not locate nesting birds, construction activities may be conducted. If nesting birds are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of nests until chicks are fledged. A preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the report. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer depending upon site conditions.

5.4 Special Status Species

5.4.1 Plants No special status plant species are expected to occur in the Study Area. Habitat condition in areas to be impacted by the project is degraded from seasonal plowing for vegetation management. Further surveys for surveys for special status plants are not recommended.

5.4.2 Reptiles Special status reptiles are not expected to be impacted from project construction activities; therefore, no mitigation recommendations are provided.

5.4.3 Bats Roosting bats and/or maternal bat colonies have a low potential to occur in the Study Area, in trees with appropriate cavities. If oak trees are proposed for removal or significant trimming, the following mitigation measure should be implemented. BR-8. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 inches DBH, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, with prior approval from CDFW, will install one-way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 21 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

box shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.

5.4.4 Mammals Special status mammals are not expected to be present in project impact areas; therefore, no mitigation recommendations are provided.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 22 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

6 PHOTOGRAPHS

st Existing 21 Street water reservoir, view east. January 22, 2018.

19th Street at Locust Street, view northwest. January 22, 2018.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 23 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Blue oak woodland habitat on south slope of Study Area, view northeast. January 22, 2018.

View south from reservoir of the south slope where a storm drain and vegetated swale will be created. January 22, 2018.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 24 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

7 FIGURES

• Figure 1. USGS Topographic Map • Figure 2. Aerial Photograph • Figure 3. CNDDB Map – Plants • Figure 4. CNDDB Map – Animals • Figure 5. USFWS Critical Habitat Map • Figure 6. Biological Resource Map

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 25 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 1108.01

Figure 1. United States Geological Survey Topographic Map

35°39'0"N

35°38'0"N

35°37'0"N

35°37'0"N ±

120°43'0"W 120°42'0"W 120°41'0"W

0 0.25 0.5 1 Project Location Mile Updated March 01, 2018 10:34 AM by JBB ´ Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 1108.01

Figure 2. Aerial Photograph

West 21st S

treet

19th Street ±

Property Boundary (18.8 acres) 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet Study Area (6.94 acres) Updated March 01, 2018 10:35 AM by JBB Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 1118.01

Figure 3. California Natural Diversity Database Plant Records

6 1 5

5 5 5 5 1 5 5

5 5 Paso Robles 5 5 5

± Templeton

Label Common Name Federal/State Status Rare Plant Rank Project Location 1 Lemmon's Jewelflower None 1B.2 2 Mesa Horkelia None 1B.1 5-Mile Radius 3 San Luis Obispo Owl's-clover None 1B.2 4 Santa Lucia Dwarf Rush None 1B.2 5 Shining Navarretia None 1B.2 6 Woodland Woollythreads None 1B.2

0 1 2 3 Miles Updated March 01, 2018 10:40 AM by: JBB Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 1118.01

Figure 4. California Natural Diversity Database Animal Records

6 9

2 4 8

8 3

Paso Robles 9 6

8 4

± Templeton

Label Common Name Federal/State Status CDFW Status Project Location

1 American Badger None/none SSC 5-Mile Radius 2 Golden Eagle None/none FP 3 Least Bell's Vireo FE/SE None 4 Northern California Legless Lizard None/none SSC 5 Salinas Pocket Mouse None/none SSC 6 San Joaquin Kit Fox FE/ST None 7 Tricolored Blackbird None/none SSC 8 Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp FT/none None 9 Western Pond Turtle None/none SSC 10 Western Spadefoot None/none SSC

0 1 2 3 Miles Updated March 01, 2018 10:41 AM by: JBB Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 1118.01

Figure 5. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat

Paso Robles

± Templeton

Project Location

5-Mile Radius

Critical Habitat

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 0 1 2 3 Miles Steelhead Updated March 01, 2018 10:41 AM by: JBB Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. - 1108.01

Figure 6. Biological Resources

Property Boundary (18.8 acres) Anthropogenic (2.1 acres)

Blue Oak Woodland (16.2 acres) Study Area (6.94 acres) 0 100 200 300 Chaparral (0.5 acre) Feet Proposed Impacts (1.3 acres) Updated March 01, 2018 10:42 AM by JBB Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

8 REFERENCES

Baldwin, Bruce G., Douglas H. Goldman, David J. Keil, Robert Patterson, Thomas J. Rosatti, and Dieter H. Wilken, eds. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. Brehme, C. S., Hathaway, S. A., Booth, R., Smith, B. H. and Fisher R. N. 2015. Research results of American Badgers in western San Diego County, 2014. Data Summary prepared for California. Brown, B. T. 1993. Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii). In The Birds of North America, No. 35 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. 2nd ed. 2000. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2014. CWHR version 9.0 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database (CDNNB). Special Animals List. Periodic publication. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html. 2017. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 127 pp. Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html. January 2018. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. California Native Plant Society. December 9, 1983. Revised June 2, 2001. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). http://rareplants.cnps.org. 2017. Accessed on Date. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base, version 5.2.7. January 15, 2018 data. Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). Consortium of California Herbaria. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. 2011. Updated October 28, 2016. Cypher, B. L., Phillips, and S. E., Kelly, P. A. 2013. Quantity and distribution of suitable habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes: conservation implications. Canid Biology and Conservation. 16(7): 25-31 Eriksen, C. H. and Belk, D. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc. Eureka, California.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 32 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Helm, B. P. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pp. 124– 139 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferrin, Jr., and R. Ornduff, eds. Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems—Proceedings from a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Jennings, M., M. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication: 1-20. Jepson, Willis Linn, and James C. Hickman. The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Holland, V. L., and David J. Keil. California Vegetation. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1995. Hoover, Robert F. The Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press, 1970. Kuhnz, L.A., Burton, R.K., Slattery, P.N. and Oakden, J.M. 2005. Microhabitats and populationdensities of California legless lizards, with comments on effectiveness of various techniques for estimating numbers of fossorial reptiles. Journal of Herpetology, 39, 395- 402. Pearse, D.E. and Pogson, G.H., 2000. Parallel evolution of the melanic form of the California legless lizard, Anniella pulchra, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. Evolution, 54(3), pp.1041-1046. Pierson E. D. Rainey W. E. Miller R. M. 1996. Night roost sampling: a window on the forest bat community in northern California. Pp. 151–163 in Bats and forests symposium, October 19–21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia (Barclay R. M. R. Brigham R. M., eds.). Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Sawyer, John, Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2nd ed. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society, 2009. Shuford, W. David, and Thomas Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern 2006: A Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate Conservation Concern in California. Camarillo and Sacramento, CA: Western Field Ornithologists and California Department of Fish and Game, 2008. Slobodchikoff, C. N. and J. T. Doyen . 1977. Effects of Ammophila arenaria on sand dune arthropod communities. Ecology 58:1171–1175. Sousa, C. 2008. Monitoring of the California Red-legged Frog, Rana aurora draytonii, within Properties of the Los Banos Wildlife Area Complex. Resource Assessment Program California Department of Fish and Game. Los Banos, CA. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Aerial photomosaic of San Luis Obispo County. National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), 2017. USFWS. 1994. Designation of critical habitat for least Bell’s vireo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, September 19, 2017 (59 FR 4845). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally, Proposed, and Candidate Species. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, January 2000.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 33 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for Four Vernal Pool Crustaceans and Eleven Vernal Pool Plants in California and Southern Oregon; Final Rule. Federal Register. 68(151): 46684-46731. August. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised designation of critical habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog. Sacramento, CA. Weintraub, K. George, T. L. and Dinsmore, S. J. 2016. Nest survival of tricolored blackbirds in California’s Central Valley. The Condor. 118(4): 850-861. November.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works 34 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

APPENDIX A – REGIONAL SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS LIST. 45 special status plant species are reported from the region.

Detected Fed/State Common and Blooming Within Status Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Scientific Names Period Study CRPR Area? 1. Bristlecone Fir None/None N/A Lower montane coniferous forest. No potential. Appropriate No Abies bracteata 1B.3 Rocky sites in Monterey and soil conditions are not SLO Counties. 210-1600 m. present in the Study Area. 2. Hoover's Bent Grass None/None April - July Sandy soil in oak woodland No potential. Appropriate No Agrostis hooveri 1B.2 habitat; <600 m. Endemic to soil conditions are not SLO & SB Counties. present in the Study Area. 3. Oval-Leaved None/None May - November Heavy, adobe-clay soils on gentle, No potential. Appropriate No Snapdragon 4.2 open slopes, also disturbed soil conditions are not Antirrhinum ovatum areas; 200-1000 m. present in the Study Area. s SnJV, s SCoRI 4. Hoover’s manzanita None/None May - November Heavy, adobe-clay soils on gentle, No potential. Appropriate No Arctostaphylos 4.2 open slopes, also disturbed soil conditions are not hooveri areas; 200-1000 m. present in the Study Area. s SnJV, s SCoRI 5. Bishop Manzanita None/None May - November Heavy, adobe-clay soils on gentle, No potential. Appropriate No Arctostaphylos 4.2 open slopes, also disturbed soil conditions are not obispoensis areas; 200-1000 m. present in the Study Area. s SnJV, s SCoRI 6. Indian Valley None/None May - September Foothill woodland; 300-500 m. No potential. Appropriate No Spineflower 1B.2 SCoRI (Monterey, SLO soil conditions are not Aristocapsa insignis counties) present in the Study Area. 7. Round-Leaved Filaree None/None March - May Clay soils in cismontane No potential. Appropriate No California 1B.2 woodland, valley and foothill soil conditions are not macrophylla grassland; 15-1200 m. ScV, n present in the Study Area. SnJV, CW, SCo, n ChI 8. Salinas Milk-Vetch None/None April - June Eroded pale shales or sandstone, No potential. Appropriate No Astragalus 4.3 or serpentine alluvium; soil conditions are not macrodon 300-950 m. SCoR present in the Study Area.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 1 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Detected Fed/State Common and Blooming Within Status Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Scientific Names Period Study CRPR Area? 9. La Panza Mariposa None/None April - June Grassland, oak woodland & pine No potential. Appropriate No Lily 1B.3 forest, on sand, granite, or habitat conditions are not Calochortus serpentine; <1100 m. present in the Study Area. simulans Endemic to SLO County 10. Dwarf Calycadenia None/None May - October Dry, rocky hills, ridges, in No potential. Appropriate No Calycadenia villosa 1B.1 chaparral, woodland, meadows soil conditions are not and seeps; <1100 m. c&s present in the Study Area. SCoRO 11. Santa Cruz Mountains None/None May - August Heavy, adobe-clay soils on gentle, No potential. Appropriate No Pussypaws 1B.1 open slopes, also disturbed soil conditions are not Calyptridium parryi areas; 200-1000 m. s SnJV, s present in the Study Area. var. hesseae SCoRI 12. Hardham's Evening- None/None March - May Decomposed carbonate soils, in No potential. Appropriate No Primrose 1B.2 chaparral, cismontane soil conditions are not Camissoniopsis woodland. present in the Study Area. hardhamiae Monterey, SLO Counties 13. San Luis Obispo None/None March - May Coastal grassland, <100 m. No potential. Appropriate No Owl's-Clover 1B.2 Endemic to SLO County. habitat conditions are not Castilleja densiflora present in the Study Area. var. obispoensis 14. Lemmon's Jewelflower None/None February - May Dry, exposed slopes, grassland, No potential. Appropriate No Caulanthus 1B.2 chaparral, scrub; 80-1100 m. habitat conditions are not lemmonii sw SnJv, se SnFrb, e SCoRO, present in the Study Area. SCoRI 15. Lompoc Ceanothus None/None February - April Chaparral on coastal sandy mesas; No potential. Appropriate No Ceanothus cuneatus 4.2 <400 m. s Cco soil conditions are not var. fascicularis present in the Study Area. 16. Santa Lucia Purple None/none February - March Shale outcrops, slopes, chaparral; No potential. Appropriate No Amole 1B.2 500-700 m. Cuesta Pass, SLO soil conditions are not Arctostaphylos County. present in the Study Area. luciana

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 2 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Detected Fed/State Common and Blooming Within Status Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Scientific Names Period Study CRPR Area? 17. Douglas' Spineflower None/None April - July Foothill woodland, pine forest, No potential. Appropriate No Chorizanthe 4.3 chaparral, sandy or gravelly soil conditions are not douglasii soils; 200-1600 m. present in the Study Area. e SCoRO, SCoRI 18. Palmer's Spineflower None/None April - August Serpentine; 60-700m. SCoRO No potential. Appropriate No Chorizanthe palmeri 4.2 (w Monterey, w San Luis soil conditions are not Obispo cos.) present in the Study Area. 19. Straight-Awned None/None April - July Chaparral, dry woodland in sandy No potential. Appropriate No Spineflower 1B.3 soil; 200-600 m. SCoRO soil conditions are not Chorizanthe present in the Study Area. rectispina 20. Monkey-Flower None/None June - October Moist places, streambanks, No potential. Appropriate No Savory 4.2 chaparral, woodland; habitat conditions are not Clinopodium 400-1800 m. CCo, SCoRO, present in the Study Area. mimuloides WTR, SnGb 21. Small-Flowered None/None March - July Clay substrates, occ serpentine, No potential. Appropriate No Morning Glory 4.2 ann grassland, coastal-sage soil conditions are not Convolvulus scrub, chaparral; 30-875 m.; s present in the Study Area. simulans SNF SnFrB, s SCoRO, Sco, Chl, WTR, PR; AZ, Baja CA. 22. Small-Flowered None/None (March) Clay soil in cismontane woodland; No potential. Appropriate No Gypsum-Loving 3.2 April - June 200-350 m. habitat conditions are not Larkspur present in the Study Area. Delphinium gypsophilum ssp. parviflorum 23. Umbrella Larkspur None/None April - June Moist oak forest; 400-1600 m. No potential. Appropriate No Delphinium 1B.3 SCoRO, WTR. habitat conditions are not umbraculorum present in the Study Area. 24. Koch’s Cord Moss None/None n/a Cismontane woodland. Moss No potential. Appropriate No Entosthodon kochii 1B.3 growing on soil. soil conditions are not present in the Study Area.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 3 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Detected Fed/State Common and Blooming Within Status Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Scientific Names Period Study CRPR Area? 25. Yellow-Flowered None/None May - June Bare sandy decomposed granite No potential. Appropriate No Eriastrum 1B.2 slopes in cismontane soil conditions are not Eriastrum luteum woodland, chaparral, forest; present in the Study Area. 360-1000 m. SCoR, Monterey, SLO Counties 26. Elegant Wild None/None May - November Sand or gravel; 200-200 m. No potential. Appropriate No Buckwheat 4.3 SnFrB, SCoR, WTR soil conditions are not Eriogonum elegans present in the Study Area. 27. Jepson’s Woolly None/None April - June Dry oak woodland; 200-1000 m. No potential. Appropriate No Sunflower 4.3 SnFrB, SCoRI habitat conditions are not Eriophyllum jepsonii present in the Study Area. 28. San Benito Poppy None/None March - June Grassy area in woodland, No potential. Appropriate No Eschscholzia 4.3 chaparral; 200-1600 m. SCoRI habitat conditions are not hypecoides present in the Study Area. 29. Hogwallow Starfish None/None March - June Clay soils, mesic sites in valley No potential. Appropriate No Hesperevax 4.2 and foothill grassland; habitat conditions are not caulescens 0-505 m. present in the Study Area. 30. Mesa Horkelia None/None February - Dry, sandy coastal chaparral; No potential. Appropriate No Horkelia cuneata 1B.1 July(September) gen 70-700 m. SCoRO, SCo. habitat conditions are not var. puberula present in the Study Area. 31. Kellogg's Horkelia None/None April - September Old dunes, coastal sand hills; No potential. Appropriate No Horkelia cuneata 1B.1 <200 m. CCo soil conditions are not var. sericea present in the Study Area. 32. Santa Lucia Dwarf None/None April - July Vernal pools, ephemeral No potential. Appropriate No Rush 1B.2 drainages, wet meadow soil conditions are not Juncus luciensis habitats, and streams; 300- present in the Study Area. 1900 m. CaRH, n SNH, SCoRO, TR, PR, MP. 33. Jared's Pepper-Grass None/None March - May Alkali bottoms, slopes, washes, No potential. Appropriate No Lepidium jaredii ssp. 1B.2 <500 m. SCoRI, SnJV soil conditions are not jaredii present in the Study Area.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 4 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Detected Fed/State Common and Blooming Within Status Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Scientific Names Period Study CRPR Area? 34. Davidson’s Bush- None/None June - January Sandy washes in coastal scrub, No potential. Appropriate No Mallow 1B.2 riparian woodland, chaparral; habitat conditions are not Malacothamnus 180-855 m. c SCoRO, SCo present in the Study Area. davidsonii 35. Jones' Bush-Mallow None/None (March)April - Open chaparral in foothill No potential. Appropriate No Malacothamnus 4.3 October woodland; 250-830 m. SCoRO habitat conditions are not jonesii (Monterey, SLO Counties). present in the Study Area. 36. Carmel Valley Bush- None/None April - October Chaparral, cismontane woodland, No potential. Appropriate No Mallow 1B.2 coastal scrub; habitat conditions are not Malacothamnus 30-1100 m. s CCo, SCoRO present in the Study Area. palmeri var. involucratus 37. Oregon Meconella None/None March - July Coastal prairie, coastal scrub; No potential. Appropriate No Meconella oregana 1B.1 250- 620 m. CCo, SnFrB habitat conditions are not present in the Study Area. 38. Woodland None/None (February)March - Chaparral, serpentine grassland, No potential. Appropriate No Woolythreads 1B.2 July cismontane woodland, sandy habitat conditions are not Monolopia gracilens to rocky soils; SnFrB, SCoR present in the Study Area.

39. Spreading Navarretia FT/None/ April - June Chenopod scrub, marshes and No potential. Appropriate No Navarretia fossalis 1B.1 swamps, playas, and vernal soil conditions are not pools; 30-1300m. SCoRO, present in the Study Area. SCo, to Baja Cal. 40. Shining Navarretia None/None (March) April - July Vernal pools, clay depressions, No potential. Appropriate No Navarretia 1B.2 dry grasslands; 150-1000 m. soil conditions are not nigelliformis ssp. SCoR present in the Study Area. radians 41. Prostrate Vernal Pool None/None April - July Vernal pools or alkaline soils in No potential. Appropriate No Navarretia 1B.1 grasslands; 15-700 m. w SnJV, soil conditions are not Navarretia SCoRI, c SCo, PR present in the Study Area. nigelliformis ssp. radians

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 5 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Detected Fed/State Common and Blooming Within Status Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Scientific Names Period Study CRPR Area? 42. Large-Flowered None/None April - June Dry, gravelly slopes; 200-2000 m. No potential. Appropriate No Nemacladus 4.3 s SNH, SCoR habitat conditions are not Nemacladus present in the Study Area. secundiflorus var. secundiflorus 43. Hooked None/None April - May Canyon sides, chaparral; on No potential. Appropriate No Popcornflower 1B.2 sandstone 300-600 m. habitat conditions are not Plagiobothrys n SCoR (Gabilan Range, Santa present in the Study Area. uncinatus Lucia Mountains) 44. San Gabriel Ragwort None/None May - July Drying alkaline flats, chaparral, No potential. Appropriate No Senecio astephanus 4.3 cismontane woodland, coastal habitat conditions are not scrub; <400 m. CW, SCo, ChI present in the Study Area. 45. Santa Crus Microseris None/None April - May Open areas in loose soil derived No potential. Appropriate No Stebbinsoseris 1B.2 from sandstone, shale, or habitat conditions are not decipiens serpentine; 10-500 m. present in the Study Area. n & c CCo

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 6 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

California Geographic Subregion Abbreviations: CCo: Central Coast SnFrB: San Francisco Bay SLO: San Luis Obispo CW: Central West SCo: South Coast TR: Transverse Ranges SN: Sierra Nevada SW: South West SCoR: South Coast Ranges WTR: Western Transverse Ranges SnJt: San Jacinto Mtns DMoj: Mojave Desert SCoRO: Outer South Coast Ranges SnJV: San Joaquin Valley SnBr: San Bernardino PR: Peninsular Range SCoRI: Inner South Coast Ranges ScV: Sacramento Valley Teh: Tehachapi Mtn Area State/Rank Abbreviations: FE: Federally Endangered PT: Proposed Federally Threatened CT: California Threatened FT: Federally Threatened CE: California Endangered Cand. CE: Candidate for California Endangered PE: Proposed Federally Endangered CR: California Rare Cand. CT: Candidate for California Threatened California Rare Plant Ranks: CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution - a watch list

CRPR Threat Ranks: 0.1 - Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2 - Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) 0.3 - Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works A - 7 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

APPENDIX B – REGIONAL SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS LIST. 22 special status animal species are reported from the region.

Nesting/ Detected Common and Fed/State Status Breeding Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Within Scientific Names CDFW Rank Period Study Area? 1. Tricolored Blackbird None/Cand. CE March 15 - Requires open water, No potential. Appropriate No Agelaius tricolor SSC (Nesting) August 15 protected nesting substrate, habitat is not present in & foraging area with the Study Area. insect prey near nesting colony. 2. Northern California None/none Early spring - Occurs in moist, warm, loose Low. Low quality habitat in No Legless Lizard SSC July soil with plant cover in understory of oak Anniella pulchra sparsely vegetated areas of woodland. beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces. Moisture is essential. 3. Pallid Bat None/none Early spring- Rock crevices, caves, tree Low. Potential to occur in No Antrozous pallidus SSC July hollows, mines, old oak tree cavities in buildings, and bridges. Study Area. 4. Golden Eagle None/none March 15 - Nests in large, prominent No potential. Appropriate No Aquila chrysaetos FP August 15 trees in valley and foothill habitat is not present in woodland. Requires the Study Area. adjacent food source. 5. Burrowing Owl None/none March 15 - Burrows in squirrel holes in No potential. Appropriate No Athene cunicularia SSC August 15 open habitats low habitat is not present in (Burrow sites and some vegetation. the Study Area. wintering sites) 6. Lesser Slender None/none Unknown Inhabits moist locations in No potential. Appropriate No Salamander SSC forests, tanbark oak, habitat is not present in Batrachoseps minor sycamore and laurel above the Study Area. 1,300 ft. (400 m.)

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works B - 1 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Nesting/ Detected Common and Fed/State Status Breeding Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Within Scientific Names CDFW Rank Period Study Area? 7. Vernal Pool Fairy FT/none Rainy Season Clear water sandstone No potential. Appropriate No Shrimp None depression pools, grassed habitat is not present in Branchinecta lynchi swale, earth slump, or the Study Area. basalt flow depression pools. 8. Townsend’s Big-eared None/none Spring - Summer Caves, buildings, and mine No potential. Appropriate No Bat SSC tunnels. Cave like attics as habitat is not present in Corynorhinus day roosts. On coast roosts the Study Area. townsendii are normally within 100 m. of creeks. 9. Western Pond Turtle None/none April - August Permanent or semi- No potential. Appropriate No Emmys marmorata SSC permanent streams, ponds, habitat is not present in lakes. the Study Area. 10. Hoary Bat None/none Spring - Fall Forages in open habitats or No potential. Appropriate No Lasiurus cinereus SSC habitat mosaics with trees. habitat is not present in Roosts in dense foliage of the Study Area. medium to large trees. Feeds on moths. Requires water. 11. San Joaquin None/none May - July Dry, desert-like habitats as No potential. Appropriate No Coachwhip SSC well as grasslands, habitat is not present in Masticophis chaparral and pastures. the Study Area. flagellum ruddocki 12. Monterey Dusky- None/none n/a Variety of habitats with Low. Adequate habitat No footed Woodrat SSC moderate to dense conditions in dense Neotoma macrotis understory vegetation. vegetation; however no luciana sign of species was observed. 13. Salinas Pocket Mouse None/none n/a Annual grassland and desert Low. Insufficient trapping No Perognathus SSC shrub in Salinas Valley, records to determine inornatus with friable soils range of species. psammophilus

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works B - 2 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Nesting/ Detected Common and Fed/State Status Breeding Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Within Scientific Names CDFW Rank Period Study Area? 14. Coast Horned Lizard None/none May - Frequents a wide variety of No potential. Appropriate No Phrynosoma SSC September habitats, most common habitat is not present in blainvillii being lowlands along the Study Area. sandy washes with scattered low bushes. 15. California Red-legged FT/none January - Lowlands and foothills in or No potential. Appropriate No Frog SSC September near sources of deep water habitat is not present in Rana draytonii with dense, shrubby or the Study Area. emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11- 20 weeks for larval development. 16. Yellow Warbler None/none March 15 - Nests in riparian plant No potential. Appropriate No Setophaga petechial SSC August 15 associations, including habitat is not present in brewsteri willows, cottonwoods, etc. the Study Area. 17. Western Spadefoot None/none January - August Vernal pools in grassland No potential. Appropriate No Spea hammondii SSC and woodland habitats. habitat is not present in the Study Area. 18. Coast Range Newt None/none December - May Slow moving streams, ponds, No potential. Appropriate No Taricha torosa SSC and lakes with surrounding habitat is not present in evergreen/oak forests the Study Area. along coast. 19. American Badger None/none February - May Needs friable soils in open Low. Not a substantial prey No Taxidea taxus SSC ground with abundant food base in Study Area. source such as California ground squirrels. 20. Least Bell’s Vireo FE/CE March 15 - Riparian habitat, near water No potential. Appropriate No Vireo bellii pusillus None August 15 or dry streambed, <2000 habitat is not present in ft. Nests in willows, the Study Area. mesquite, Baccharis.

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works B - 3 February 2018 Althouse and Meade, Inc. – 1108.01

Nesting/ Detected Common and Fed/State Status Breeding Habitat Preference Potential to Occur Within Scientific Names CDFW Rank Period Study Area? 21. San Joaquin Kit Fox FE/CT December - July Annual grasslands or grassy No potential. Appropriate No Vulpes macrotis open stages with scattered habitat is not present in mutica shrubby vegetation. Needs the Study Area. loose textured sandy soil and prey base. Habitat characteristics are from the Jepson Manual and the CDNNB.

Abbreviations: FE: Federally Endangered CE: California Endangered SSC: CDFW Species of Special Concern FT: Federally Threatened CT: California Threatened FP: CDFW Fully-Protected PE: Proposed Federally Endangered Cand. CE: Candidate for California Endangered PT: Proposed Federally Threatened Cand. CT: Candidate for California Threatened

Biological Report for Main West Tank Project, City of El Paso de Robles, Department of Public Works B - 4 February 2018 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY SURVEY OF THE WEST MAIN WATER TANK PROPERTY, WEST 21ST STREET, PASO ROBLES, CALIFORNIA [APN: 008-202-001, 008-202-002, 008-204-001, 008-205-001, 008-205-002, 008-206-001, 008-206-002]

]

Prepared for:

David Foote firma Consultants 187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, California 93401

Prepared by:

Nancy Farrell Cultural Resource Management Services 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Robles, California 93446

February, 2018

CRMS Project No. 51-933 INTRODUCTION The City of Paso Robles (City) proposes the construction of a new water storage tank intended to replace the existing 21st Street Reservoir. The existing 4 million-gallon (MG) reservoir has reached the end of its useful life and is to be replaced with a new single 4 MG partially buried pre-stressed concrete tank on the site of the existing reservoir. The project also includes a temporary reservoir access road from 19th Street, site drainage, piping, controls, and other appurtenances. The project is located near the West 19th Street and 21st Street on the site of the existing city water tank. The overall site is comprised of seven parcels: APN 008-206-001, 008-206-002, 008-206-001, 008-206-002, 008-204-001 and 008-204-002. Firma Consultants is assisting the City with its environmental compliance for this project. At the request of David Foote of firma, Cultural Resource Management Services (CRMS) has conducted a cultural resources inventory of the project property.

The purpose of this investigation is to identify any cultural resources present on the parcel that may be affected by the demolition of the current tank and construction of the new tank, road, pipelines and appurtenances. This work was completed in order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Paso Robles. A literature and records search, an intensive archaeological survey, and historic research was conducted to identify and evaluate any significant prehistoric or historic cultural resources that might be impacted by the proposed construction.

Per the requirements of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance, CEQA, and AB-52 (see Regulatory Setting), letters were sent to Native American tribes, organizations and individuals. The list of recipients was provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and is comprised of those groups and individuals thought to have a cultural interest in this area, notifying them of the proposed project, inviting them to consult, and requesting information or concerns regarding the proposed project. . ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT The project area consists of a ±10 acre property in the western portion of the City of El Paso de Robles, California, west of Highway 101 (Figure 1). Paso Robles lies on a terrace above the western bank of the Salinas River. This grades into the hilly flanks of the Santa Lucia range, where the project area is located on Norn Hill (Figure 2 and 3).

-1- Figure 1: Vicinity Map (No Scale)

-2- Figure 2: Portion Of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Paso Robles, CA

-3- Figure 3: Assessor’s Parcel Map-Parcels Shown in Red & Blue Outline

Climate Little evidence exists to claim that the local climate has undergone much change over the most recent few thousand years. The weather pattern is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Every several years, extreme frosts occur during winter months, but generally the area experiences 300 to 325 frost-free days per year. Such a setting is eminently suitable for human habitation.

Geology and Pedology The Paso Robles area presents a complex geologic picture, underlain by the 4.3 million year old Paso Robles Formation. Sandstones, siltstone, diatomite and

-4- conglomerates are characteristic rocks. Beds of fossil pecten and oyster shells from the 5-7 million year old Santa Margarita Formation are also present in some locations (Chipping 1987:VIII-7). The pale grey-brown soils of the project area are clay loams, part of the Linne-Calado complex (Lindsey 1983: 42). These are shallow well-drained soils that formed in material weathered from calcareous sandstone and shale. Rock outcrops, comprising 15-30 percent of soil surface, are hard shale and sandstone.

Water Sources Annual rainfall ranges from 245 mm to 515 mm (6 to 20 inches). Today, the Salinas River, a mile to the east, flows at the surface only during seasons of heavy rainfall, but the river flow was more abundant and regular during the time of prehistoric human occupation of the area. The surface flow has been reduced to a minimum in recent years by the many municipal and private wells which draw water from the river for residential and agricultural use, as well as the construction of the Santa Margarita Dam in the early 1940s. There are natural springs in the area, both warm sulphur springs and fresh water (Chapman et.al 1980: 15).

Vegetation The regional vegetation is melange of oak savanna, oak woodland and chaparral plant communities with a riparian component. Commonly occurring species are: Valley oak (Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Quercus wizlizenii), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), California lilac (Ceanothus spp.) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Along the creeks is a riparian community where western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), willow (Salix sp.), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), White alder (Alnus Rhombifolia), Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), Blackberry (Rubus ursinus), Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) are common. On the project property, vegetation primarily consists primarily of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and a variety of perennial and annual grasses.

Fauna Fauna commonly occurring in the surrounding area include black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), coyote (Canis latrans), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus spp.), black bear (Ursus americanus) and historically, grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis) and tule elk (Cervus elaphus nannoides). A number of ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), the western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), gophers (Thomomys spp.), mice (Microtus spp. and Peromyscus spp.), and a

-5- variety of reptiles and amphibians are also present. Common birds in the area include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicuvorus), and valley quail (Lophortyx californicus).

CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Archaeological Background The cultural history of this region has until quite recently been placed within the sequence that has been defined for the Santa Barbara region, where far more archaeological investigations had taken place. The first chronology was proposed by Malcolm Rogers (1929) and was based on his excavation of coastal sites. This three-part sequence of Early Oak Grove or Millingstone Culture and Intermediate or Hunting People, and a late Canaliño Culture is still considered generally valid in terms of broad cultural patterns (Fitzgerald and Jones 1998). Researchers on the Central Coast have, however, continued to refine the chronological framework and several alternative schemes have been proposed, primarily based on sites in the Santa Barbara area (cf. Moratto 1984: 125; King 1990). Using data from Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Luis Obispo Counties, Jones et al. 2007 proposed six periods. The following chronology for the San Luis Obispo area was used in the extensive investigations carried out for the Los Osos Wastewater project (Jones et al. 2015):

Paleoindian ? - 10,000 BP Millingstone 10,000 - 5500 BP Early 5500 - 2600 BP Middle 2600 - 950 BP Middle/Late Transition 950 - 700 BP Late 700 - Historic Period

These periods are based upon shifts in technology that relate to the type and variety of foods consumed, methods of procurement, and social structure. The earliest periods were a time of hunting and gathering, with an emphasis on seed collecting and processing. The tool kit for these periods shows an emphasis on milling equipment,

-6- crude cores yielding flaked stone tools. An increased reliance on fishing (evidenced by fishhooks), and on acorns as a dietary staple (mortars and pestles), was indicated later by the addition of new tools.

Millingstone Period (10,000–5500 cal BP) There is very limited information for the Paleoindian period in the San Luis Obispo region. More substantive archaeological evidence exists for the Millingstone Period, as evidenced by radiocarbon dates from excavations conducted at Diablo Canyon (Greenwood 1972), Cambria (Gibson 1979) and Edna Valley (Fitzgerald et al. 1998). It was during this period that permanent settlements with associated cemeteries were established. Shellfish and vertebrate fish remains indicate that the Morro Bay estuary was in place in some form by at least 8000 cal BP. It appears that people visited the area on a short-term basis, focusing on estuary resources and nearby terrestrial foods. This basic adaptation persisted until about 5500 cal BP and was characterized by milling slabs, manos (handstones), rather crude cobble tools and a high density of marine shellfish remains. Collection of seeds and shellfish appears to have been more important compared to the use of marine and terrestrial mammals.

Early Period (5500–2600 cal BP) Investigations at coastal sites reveal that people fished with nets and bone gorges; used tule reed boats or rafts; ate deer, small land mammals and sea mammals. Large projectile points and stone knives are indicative of hunting activity. Milling implements consisting of manos and metates were evidence of the processing of seeds, and possibly vegetable foods, dried meats, and fish. The end of this period is marked by changes in technology with the decrease of manos and metates, a shift in the settlement pattern, and alterations in ornamental style. Along the coast and in interior areas, the Early period is marked by the appearance of mortars and pestles and contracting-stemmed projectile points (Olsen and Payen 1969; Jones 1993). Other artifacts found with Early period occupations are also found in Millingstone period sites including Olivella class L beads, large side-notched projectile points, and milling slabs and handstones. Greater numbers of sites are known from the Early period, possibly signaling a population increase.

-7- Middle Period (2600–950 cal BP) Mortars and pestles become larger and more common during this period. Exotic products are adopted and small seeds become less important as a staple. This period heralds the advent of social and political alliances and economic networks to regulate food supplies and their distribution in order to alleviate conditions resulting from regional fluctuations in the harvest. Some villages grew larger and less defensive in nature as populations were integrated into larger political units. The end of this period is marked by dramatic changes in economic, social, and political conditions; evidenced by the creation of new habitation sites and larger coastal fishing communities.

The Middle period is well represented at sites along the central coast and increasingly in interior regions as well. The types of artifacts found in Middle period occupations are similar to those from the Early period although a larger number of bone implements and bead types are known (Olsen and Payen 1969; Jones and Waugh 1995). Projectile points tend to be contracting-stemmed types with large side-notched and square-stemmed points apparently no longer used. Excavations at Fort Hunter- Liggett have shown that Middle period occupations in that area resemble those found along the coast (Jones and Haney 1997).

Middle/Late Transition Period (950–700 cal BP) This period is one of climatic instability and adaptive responses involving technology and social complexity. The bow and arrow was introduced. Characteristic artifacts include curved shell fishhooks, mortars with attached basket hopper, Contracting-stemmed and Double Side-notched projectile points.

Late Period (700 cal BP to Historic-Period) This period is marked by a more mobile, dispersed settlement pattern than earlier periods (Jones et al. 2015: 15), an increasing dependence on acorns and other storable commodities, and a general diversification of the marine and terrestrial foods consumed. The tool assemblage for this period is distinguished by Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood projectile points, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, steatite disk beads and bifacial bead drills. This period is also marked by the development of an economic system involving the introduction of new forms of beads and ornaments as forms of money. Late period assemblages from the interior south coast ranges are distinguished by a suite of new bead types, small side-notched and triangular arrow points, and hopper mortars as well as many artifact types found in earlier periods (Olsen and

-8- Payen 1969). At Fort Hunter Liggett, Late period occupations also included small arrow points, new bead types, as well as bedrock mortars and unshaped pestles (Jones 2000; Haney et al. 2002). On the whole, the Late period assemblages from a wide area of the central coast and interior regions appear superficially similar, but this was probably a time of continued cultural differentiation due to higher population densities.

Ethnographic Overview At the time of European contact, the Paso Robles region was primarily occupied by a branch of the northern-most Chumash, the Obispeño, of the Hokan linguistic group (Gibson 1982). This group inhabited coastal and inland areas between Malibu and the vicinity of San Simeon (Kroeber 1925; Gibson 1982). Also present in the region historically were the Migueleño Salinan (Greenwood 1978). The Salinan were bordered by the Esselen and Costanoan to the north, Yokuts to the east and the Chumash to the south. Examination of mission records reveals that members of the Salinan Nation inter-married into the northern portion of San Luis Obispo County, including the Paso Robles area. The exact boundary of these two groups has not been well established and is the subject of continuing research on the part of ethno-historians, archaeologists, and some Salinan and Chumash descendants.

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

Hunting of animals and birds was accomplished with snares, traps, spears, and the bow and arrow. The tool assemblage used, and certain projectile points made of chert or obsidian are testimony to these practices. Stone, bone, wood and shell all

-9- provided materials for the production of tools. Stone tools and the debris from their manufacture and maintenance are the most likely to be seen in an archaeological context.

Stone work included projectile points, scrapers and choppers. Pecked and ground stone objects include bowl mortars, pestles, metates, basket mortars, stone bowls, notched pebble net sinkers, and steatite arrow shaft straighteners. Ornaments were made of steatite and serpentine. Bone and shell tools were also manufactured; especially bone awls and C-shaped fishhooks. Shell beads of mussel and abalone were the basis of the Salinan "currency", with value being assigned based on the color or the shell (Hester 1978: 502).

Historic Overview European contact in the San Luis Obispo County region may have begun as early as 1587 with the visit of Pedro de Unamuno to Morro Bay, although some scholars have questioned this based on the ambiguity of Unamuno's descriptions (Mathes 1968). A visit in 1595 by Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño is better documented (Jones et al. 1994:11). The earliest well-documented descriptions come from accounts by members of Gaspar de Portola's land expedition, which passed through the region in 1769 (Squibb 1984). No large villages, such as those seen along the Santa Barbara channel, were reported by early travelers in the San Luis Obispo region.

Permanent Spanish settlement of the region began with the founding of Mission San Antonia de Padua (near King City) in 1771 and San Luis Obispo de Tolosa (in San Luis Obispo) in 1772. Twenty-five years later, Mission San Miguel Archangel was founded in the heart of southern Salinan territory. The mission properties of San Miguel mission were extensive and included an outlying rancho station, Las Gallinas, near present day Paso Robles (Ohles 1997).

As elsewhere, induction into the mission system had a devastating effect on the local inhabitants, requiring them to live and work at the mission and to a great extent abandon their former lifeways. The inadvertent introduction of European diseases, the consequent high mortality rate, and the pressure of overwhelming social change decimated the population. By 1805, most native villages had been abandoned, and the populace had either fled or moved into the mission system (Gibson 1982). The natives

-10- who had survived the Spanish colonization period, went on to build and staff the rancheros of the Mexican and American periods which followed. By the beginning of the 20th Century, the Chumash and Salinan had been integrated into American society (Gibson 1982 and 1990; King 1984).

In 1822, Mexico attained independence of Spain and California became a Mexican territory. The Secularization Act, passed by the Mexican congress in 1833, provided for the immediate break-up of the missions and the transfer of mission lands to settlers and Indians. Work toward this end began in 1834 under Governor Figueroa. Grants were made to individuals by the governor on the recommendation of the local alcalde of the Mission. During the years from 1840 to 1846, a series of land grants were made from the lands of Mission San Miguel by the governors of Mexican California. Most of these were used a cattle ranchos. Even after the acquisition of California by the United States the ranchos continued to thrive until the drought of 1863 - 1864. This drought was ruinous to many of the ranchos. Tens of thousands of acres changes hands as lands sold for less than their assessed value (Angel 1883, Dart 1978; Morrison 1917). The new owners were most often North Americans who arrived on the heels of the drought as land prices plummeted.

The project area was a portion of the 26,000 acre rancho El Paso de los Robles, granted May 12, 1844 to Pedro Navarez by Mexican Governor Manuel Micheltorena. In 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo marked an end to the Mexican American war and California became a territory of the United States. Statehood was attained in 1850 and in 1851 the Land Act, passed by Congress, meant that the rancheros now had to prove ownership of their land. A patent on the El Paso de los Robles was obtained July 20, 1866 by Petronillo Rios. Prior to the patent, however, the parcel had been sold in two separate transactions: one to Daniel and James Blackburn on September 21, 1858 second portion was sold July 9, 1861 to Lazarus Godchaux.

The location had long been a rest stop for travelers on the El Camino Real. In 1864 the El Paso de Robles Hotel was built. In the attendant bath house improvements were made to the hot sulphur springs which had been used by local inhabitants for generations. By the 1870s, the Paso Robles Hot Springs was a well known destination for people seeking the famous curative powers of the springs (Sawyer 1915).

-11- With the coming of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886, a town plan for Paso Robles, on the western side of the Salinas River, was commissioned. On November 17, 1886, two weeks after the first train arrived in “town” a Grand Auction was held, resulting in the sale of 228 lots. The town plan was completed by 1887. The trickle of settlers became a flood and Paso Robles became a major wheat producing and export center. Throughout the later part of the nineteenth and the twentieth century, the economy of the Paso Robles region was largely agricultural, supplemented by tourism. Cattle ranches, dairies, almond and other fruit orchards, and large tracts devoted to dry land grain production comprised the rural landscape. Agriculture has continued to be the mainstay of the region up to the present, with increasing emphasis on viticulture and wine-making. The proliferation of wineries in the last 20 years has also lead to tourism once again becoming a major component of the local economy.

West Main Tank Site The project property (designated Villa Lot 2) was owned by H.M. Allen and his wife (no first name available) by 1891. This large hillside parcel was then subdivided as the Allen Subdivision sometime before 1898 (City of Paso Robles 1899) into very small lots. There is no evidence that any improvements, in the form of residences, were ever made to any of the lots before 1921. It is unclear how the property was transferred to the City.

To serve the domestic water needs of the City of El Paso de Robles and its growing population the existing water tank was constructed in 1921/22. It is made of un-reinforced concrete, and has a capacity of four million gallons. A roof support structure and composition roof was added ca. 1961. (Figure 3 above and Figure 4).

The project requires the replacement of the existing water tank with a four million gallon reinforced concrete structure in, more or less, the same foot print as the existing tank. Also, there will be construction of appropriate pipelines and other infrastructure.

-12- Figure 4: Preliminary Project Site Layout Graphic Courtesy of Water Systems Consulting, Inc.

-13- MAP AND RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS

Prior to the field survey, a records and literature search was conducted at the Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, which is the regional clearinghouse for archaeological site information for San Luis Obispo County under agreement with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The search also included inventories for the State Historic Property Data Files, National Register of Historic Places, National Register of Determined Eligible Properties, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historic Interest, California OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, and the CalTrans State and Local Bridge Surveys.

No cultural resource studies have been conducted within a 500 foot radius of the project area; no prehistoric archaeological sites have been identified. A search of the State Historic Property Files indicated that six historic [structural] properties are recorded within the study area, primarily at the south of the hill where the tank is located. These properties are all single family residences dating from 1912 to 1938. The core of one of the homes, at 213 18th Street, was formerly a livery stable moved from Spring Street.

SUMMARY OF NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH

A letter was sent on November 29, 2017, to the Project Analyst at the Native American Heritage Commission. The letter explained the proposed project and asked him to conduct a Sacred Lands Search and forward to CRMS any names and addresses of those who may have knowledge of cultural resources within the study area, or who would like to comment on the project.

On December 4, 2017, a letter dated the same day, was received from Frank Leinert, Project Analyst, indicating that the Sacred Lands Search conducted at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) yielded no evidence of Sacred Lands with the project. A list of interested Native American individuals and groups was included. Letters, explaining the project and soliciting comments were sent to each of the Native Americans and groups listed (Exhibit B). On December 7 and December 18, letters were written to the Native Americans and groups listed by the NAHC explaining the project, and asking for their comments.

-14- RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATION

A field reconnaissance of the project area was made in January, 2018 by Nancy Farrell and Ron Rose of CRMS. The top of the hill where the present tank is situated was graded in the 1920s, taking off the entire top of the hill. The entire surface was inspected, with negative results. The tank area, and tank infrastructure locations were examined by walking parallel transects at two meter intervals (Figure 2). The hillside pipeline and access road was walked in a zig-zag pattern from top to bottom at 19th Street, then along 19th Street to Oak Street. This hillside supports an open woodland of oak trees and a dense ground cover of annual grasses. In these portions, rodent holes were inspected and the dried grasses scraped away at intervals, in order to examine mineral soil. Aside from the historic water tank itself, no evidence of prehistoric or historic artifacts, features, or other indications of significant cultural resources were found during the survey (Figure 5. 6 and 7).

Figure 5: Overview Of Existing Tank Site-View Northeast

-15- Figure 6: Overview Of Existing Tank Site-View South Southeast

Figure 7: 1974 Aerial Photo Showing Tank and Surrounding Area

-16- CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Water Tank The Paso Robles Historic Preservation Ordinance (2008), Article V. Historic Preservation, Chapter 21.50, HISTORIC PRESERVATION addresses the procedures to be followed when dealing with a potential historic property that is not on the City’s list:

21.50.150 Undesignated Structures CEQA Review. Prior to the issuance of a permit pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 17.16 for the demolition or relocation of any structure that is not a Historic Landmark, Contributor to a Historic District, or included on the Paso Robles Historic Resources Inventory, the Community Development Director, within thirty (30) days of receipt of a permit request to demolish or relocate a structure, shall determine whether the structure has potential historic significance based on the criteria for the designation of Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts in this ordinance. If the Community Development Director determines that such potential exists, the structure shall not be demolished or relocated unless and until an environmental assessment is completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This will entail the preparation of an Initial Study to determine the level of environmental review to be prepared by the City in conjunction with any such demolition. The cost of conducting this environmental assessment shall be borne entirely by the applicant for the demolition permit. If an environmental impact report is completed and findings indicate that demolition of the structure would have a significant effect on the environment, the structure shall not be demolished or relocated unless the City Council subsequent to a consultation with the Planning Commission makes one or more of the following findings: 1) That the Demolition or Relocation of the structure is necessary to proceed with a Project consistent with and supportive of identified goals and objectives of the General Plan, and the demolition of the structure will not have a significant effect on the achievement of the purposes of this division or the potential effect is outweighed by the benefits of the new Project; 2) In the case of an application for a permit to relocate, that the structure may be moved without destroying its historic or architectural integrity and importance; or, 3) That the demolition or relocation of the structure is necessary to protect or to promote the health, safety or welfare of the citizens of the City, including the need to eliminate or avoid blight or nuisance.

The West Main Water Tank is a potential historic property and needs to be documented and evaluated by a qualified architectural historian, who will complete a

-17- state Historic Resources Inventory form. Photographic documentation should include photos of the structure after the roof is removed, in order to show the tank as it existed from inception to construction of the roof ca. 1961.

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

-18- REFERENCES CITED Angel, M. 1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Thompson & West, Oakland. Facsimile reproduction, Valley Publishers, Fresno. 1979.

Brown, A. K. 1967 The Aboriginal Population of the Santa Barbara Channel. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 69: 1-99. Berkeley.

Chapman, Rodger, Gordon W. Chase, and Les G. Youngs 1980 Geophysical Survey, Paso Robles Geothermal Area, California Part of the Resource Assessment of Low-and Moderate-Temperature Geothermal Resource Areas in California. Submitted to U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Geothermal Energy. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Conservation.

City of Paso Robles 1899 Assessment Book of the Property of City of El Paso de Robles.

Dart, Louisiana Clayton 1978 Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo County. Mission Federal Savings. San Luis Obispo, California.

Englehardt, Zephyrin 1931 Mission San Miguel Archangel The Mission by the Highway. Mission Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California.

Fitzgerald, Richard T. 1997 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Salinas River Crossing Site, CA-SLO-1756, San Luis Obispo County, California, for the Coastal Branch, Phase II Project. Submitted to the California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California. Garcia and Associates, Santa Cruz, California. 2000 Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper No. 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society.

Fitzgerald, Richard T. and Terry L. Jones 1998 Interpretive Synthesis of Subsurface Archaeological Investigations for the Coastal Branch Phase II Project. Appendix G in Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SLO- 1797, the Cross Creek Site, San Luis Obispo County, California, Coastal Branch, Phase II Project. Submitted to California Department of Water Resources. Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo.

Geiger, M. and Clement Meighan 1976 As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813 -1815. Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library. Santa Barbara.

-19- Gibson, Robert O. 1979 Preliminary Inventory and Assessment of Indian Cultural Resources at Lodge Hill, Cambria, San Luis Obispo County, California. On file at the Central Coastal Information Center. 1983 Ethnogeography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Master's Thesis, California State University, Hayward.

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

Hall-Patton, Mark 1994 Memories of the Land: Place-names of San Luis Obispo County. EZ Nature Books, San Luis Obispo.

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

Hester, Thomas Roy 1978 Salinan. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

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

Jones, Terry L., Kathleen Davis, Glenn Farris, Steven D. Grantham, Teresa W. Fung, and Betty Rivers 1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report prepared for Caltrans District 5, San Luis Obispo, California.

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

Jones, Deborah, Terry Jones, Kacey Hadick, William Hildebrandt & Patricia Mikkelsen 2015 Archaeological Investigations for the Los Osos Wastewater Project, San Luis Obispo County, California.

-20- Jones, Terry, Nathan Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald and Mark Hylkema 2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu , in California Prehistory, Colonization, Culture and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp 125-146. Altamira Press, Lanhma, MD.

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

King, Chester 1984 Appendix I: Ethnohistoric Background. In Archaeological Investigations on the San Antonio Terrace, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Report on file at Central Coastal Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara. 1990 The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D. 1804. Garland Publishing, New York.

Krieger, Daniel E. 1988 San Luis Obispo County. Windsor Publications Inc., Northridge, California.

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

Mason, J. A. 1912 The Ethnology of the Salinan Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 10, No.4, pp.97-240, plates 21-37. Berkeley, The University Press.

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

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

Morehouse, Carl 1984 Historic Resources Inventory form for PO-40-040682.

Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Inc. New York.

-21- Morrison, Annie L and John H. Haydon 1917 History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, California. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles.

Ohles, Wallace V. 1997 The Lands of Mission San Miguel. Lord Dancer Press, Clovis California.

Olsen, W. H., and L. A. Payen 1969 Archaeology of the Grayson Site. California Department of Parks and Recreation Archaeological Report No. 12. Sacramento.

Real Estate Data, Inc. 1974 Redi Nationwide Real Estate Map and Ownership Information Services. San Luis Obispo County. Miami.

Rivers, Betty 2000 A Line Through the Past: Historical and Ethnographic Background for the Branch Canal. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper No. 1. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society.

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

Sawyer, Frank W. 1915 Paso Robles Hot Springs California. Sunset Publishing House, San Francisco.

Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007 California Ranchos, Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County. 2nd Edition, edited by Michael Burgess and Mary Wickizer Burgess. The Borgo Press.

Stevens, Nathan, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Nancy Farrell, Mark A. Giambastiani, Jennifer M. Farquar, and Dayna Tinsley 2004 Archaeological Test Excavations at Santa Ysabel Ranch, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report submitted to Weyrich Development Company, LLC. Cultural Resource Management Services, Paso Robles.

Squibb, Paul 1984 Captain Portola in San Luis Obispo County in 1769. Tabula Rasa Press. Morro Bay, California.

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

-22- EXHIBIT A

Records and Literature Search Central Coast Information Center University of California Santa Barbara, CA

-23- Califomia .:\.rchi1cologicnl Tnventorv Central Coast Information Center Ocpartincnt of ·\nthropolo� l '.nive1'Sity of Califomia S,\" I.I "IS OAISP() .-\:-Jll Santa Barb am, C:\ 93 l06

12/11/2017

Nancy Farrell Cultural Resource Management Services 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Robles, CA 93446

Re: West Main Water Tank

The Central Coast Information Center received your record search request for the project area referenced above, located on the Paso Robles USGS 7.5' quad(s). The following reflects the results of the recor ds search for the projectarea and a 500-foot radius:

As indicated on the data request form, the locations of resources and reports are provided in the following format: II custom GIS maps □ shapefiles □ hand-drawn maps

Resourceswithin projectarea: None Resources within 500-foot radius: 6 (See enclosed Bibliography) Reports within project area: None Reports within 500-foot radius: None

Resource Database Printout {11st}: II enclosed □ not requested □ nothing listed Resource Data!;!a�e Prl!J!OUt(details): I!!! enclosed □ not requested □ nothing listed Resource Digital Database Records: □ enclosed I!!! not requested □ nothing listed Rel!Qrt Database Printout (11st): □ enclosed □ not requested I!!! nothing listed Re�rt Database Printout (details): □ enclosed I!!! not requested □ nothing listed ReeortDlgltal Database Records: □ enclosed I!!! not requested □ nothing listed Resource Record Coeles: I!!! enclosed □ not requested □ nothing listed

Report Coples: D enclosed I!!! not requested D nothing listed

OHP Historic ProeertiesDirecto!'.l,'.: I!!! enclosed D not requested □ nothing listed Archaeological Determinations of Ellgibillrit: D enclosed □ not requested I!!! nothing listed

-24- CA lnventorll'. of Historic Resources (19761: □ enclosed D not requested □ nothing listed Caltrans Bridge Surve!,I; □ enclosed D not requested □ nothing listed Ethnograehtc Information: □ enclosed ■ not requested □ nothine listed Historical Literature: □ enclosed D not requested □ nothing listed Historical Maes: □ enclosed l!!I not requested □ nothing listed Local Inventories: □ enclosed ■ not requested □ nothing listed GLO andlor Rancho Plat Maes: □ enclosed □ not requested □ nothing listed Shiewreck Inventory: □ enclosed ■ not requested □ nothing listed Soil Surve1 Maes: D enclosed l!!I not requested □ nothing listed

Please forward a copy of any resulting reports from this project to the office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological site location data, we ask that you do not include resource location maps and resource location descriptions in your report if the report is for public distribution. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein, please contact the office at the phone number listed above.

The provision of California Historical Resources Information System {CHRIS) data via this records search response does not in any way constitute public disclosure of records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act or any other law, including, but not limited to, records related to archeological site information maintained by or on behalf of, or in the possession of, the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, State Historic Preservation Officer, Office of Historic Preservation, or the State Historical Resources Commission.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the CHRIS Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

Should you require any additional information for the above referenced project, reference the record search number listed above when making inquiries. Requests made after initial invoicing will result in the preparation of a separate invoice.

Thank you for using the CHRIS.

Sincerely,

Erin Bornemann, M.A. Assistant Coordinator

-25- EXHIBIT B

Letter to NAHC Response From NAHC Letter To Native Americans and Groups Response From Native Americans and Groups

-26- Cultural Resource Management Services 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Phone 805-237-3838 Fax 805-237-3849

November 29, 2017

Mr. Frank Lienert Associate Governmental Program Analyst California Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691

RE: West Main Water Tank Replacement West 21st Street, Paso Robles, CA

Dear Mr. Lienert::

The City of Paso Robles has a priority project to replace and eighty year old four million gallon water tank with a new tank in the same location.

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

Please review the sacred lands files for any Native American Sacred resources or sites that may be within or adjacent to the area of potential effect (APE). Please verify that any sacred sites in the vicinity are not in the APE. The project area is within the incorporated limits of the City of Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, and is identified on the attached portion of the USGS Paso Robles 7.5' Quadrangle. The study area falls within Range 12 East, Township 26 South MDM. As this area was part of a Rancho, there are no section lines. The project location is depicted as a red colored polygon.

-27- Page Two November 29, 2017 Frank Lienert

Also provide a list, including names and addresses, of Native American individuals and organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area; or who may have a concern or wish to comment on the project.

If you have any questions contact me at the phone number or address shown, or by email [email protected]. We look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Ron Rose Vice President

Encl: Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle Paso Robles, CA

-28- Portion of USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Paso Robles, CA

-29- -30- Cultural Resource Management Service 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Robles, CA 93446 Phone 805-237-3838 Fax 805-237-3849

December 8, 2017

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RE: City of Paso Robles, West Main Water Tank Replacement West 21st Street. Paso Robles, CA

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX:

The West Main Water Tank is a major component of the City water system. It is over 75 years old, and in need of replacement. The City has plans to replace it with a new 4 million gallon tank near where the old one sits.

The project area is within the incorporated limits of City of Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, and is identified on the attached portion of the USGS Paso Robles 7.5' Quadrangle. The study area falls within Range 12 East, Township 26 South MDM. As this area was part of a Rancho, there are no section lines. The project location is depicted as a red colored polygon.

Please contact me as soon as possible if you or your organization have any information about the study area, including any knowledge of any possible Sacred Sites, or concerns about the anticipated project. You may phone me or write me at the numbers and address listed or email me at: [email protected]. Once again, if you wish to comment, respond as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Ron Rose Vice President

Encl: Portion of USGS 7.5' Paso Robles, CA

-31- The letter on the previous page was sent to the following individuals and groups. XXXX substituted for address and salutation.

-32- Response to Letters Written

Only one response was received from either mailing.

Patti Dunton, Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties via Email:

Greetings Ron, I have reviewed the proposed project and have already responded to the county with our concerns that included a phase I survey. Hopefully you will be doing that, I would request a copy of the Phase I report.

Thanks so much, Patti

-33- HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT OF THE WEST MAIN WATER TANK, WEST 21ST STREET PASO ROBLES CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

David Foote Firma Consultants 187 Tank Farm Road, Suite 230 San Luis Obispo, California 93401

Prepared by:

Betsy Bertrando & Todd Hannahs on behalf of Cultural Resource Management Services 829 Paso Robles Street Paso Robles, California 93446

July 20, 2018

CRMS Project No. 52-946 TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 2

CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 5

HISTORICAL PERIOD ...... 5

Mission San Miguel Arcangel ...... 5

Rancho El Paso de Robles ...... 5

Blackburn, Blackburn and Godchaux ...... 7

City of Paso Robles ...... 8

PROPERTY OWNERS ...... 10

James Blackburn ...... 10

Daniel and Cecilia Blackburn ...... 10

H. M. and Mary Allen ...... 12

Resubdivision of Villa Lot No. 2 ...... 12

West Main Water Tank and 21st Street Reservoir ...... 13

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS OF THE FIELD SURVEY ...... 15

CHAPTER: 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 23

REFERENCES ...... 26

CRMS Project No. 52-946 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Paso Robles is seeking to replace the existing 21st street reservoir with a new water tank constructed at the same location. The environmental issues potentially associated with the proposed project are being addressed in consultation with Firma Consultants. As part of that process Firma Consultants contracted with Cultural Resources Management Services (CRMS) to conduct a cultural resource inventory of the project property. As a result of that survey the existing reservoir was identified as a potentially significant historic resource. A more thorough investigation and documentation of the reservoir was recommended in order to comply with section 21.50.150 of the Paso Robles Historic Preservation Ordinance (Farrell: 2018). This report addresses those concerns. A second recommendation of the CRMS report was that the reservoir be photographed after the reservoir has been drained and the existing roof has been removed. The roof has yet to be dismantled and the reservoir is currently full, consequently that recommendation is not addressed in this document.

The 21st Street reservoir is close to 100 years in age. It has been subjected to repeated improvements and repairs over the years. It has undergone conoiderable alteration in order to address both minor and major issues with the reservoir’s structural integrity. The 21st Street reservoir in Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, California does not meet criteria A, B,C or D of the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for significance. This building also fails to meet criteria A, B, C or D for significance as defined by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It also fails to meet the criteria for designation as a historic landmark under section 21.50.080 or as a point of interest under section 21.50.100 of the City of Paso Robles Historic Preservation Ordinance. (Historic Resources Group: 2011). Documentation of the resource including photographing the reservoir when the roof has been removed and the interior has been drained and exposed will constitute sufficient mitigation of the potential impacts resulting from the proposed project.

1 CRMS Project No. 52-946 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The 21st Street reservoir is located just east of the crest of a low hill north of 19th Street, south of 21st Street and west of Olive Street on the west side of the city of Paso Robles (see Figures 1 & 2). It is a covered reservoir with a capacity of 4,000,000 gallons in two adjacent basins under a single roof. The reservoir can be accessed via two locked

Figure 1: Location Map

2 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 2: USGS 7.5 Paso Robles Quadrangle, CA gates and it is enclosed by a cyclone fence topped with barbwire. A small gate house is situated just to the south of the reservoir. The water ﬂows from there towards 19th Street where it connects to the municipal water supply. The reservoir is approximately 190 feet above the intersection of 13th Street and Vine Street. The land surrounding the reservoir is

3 CRMS Project No. 52-946 undeveloped but residential properties are near by it to the north, south and east (see Figure 2). This investigation consisted of two primary activities: a visual inspection and recordation of the reservoir and archival research regarding the history of the reservoir through articles, technical reports and plans which document the changes made to it over the years. The site visit involved the visual inspection and recordation of the existing structure which included the taking measurements, photographs and making measured drawings where appropriate.

The archival research involved oral interviews as well as analysis of written and graphic resources. Background for the proposed West Main Water Tank and the existing 21st Street Reservoir property was gathered by a search of the historical literature, maps, directories, newspapers and public documents. Among the sources consulted were:

• Private archive of Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants for a search of historical literature, maps and unpublished manuscripts.

• San Luis Obispo County Assessors Office.

• San Luis Obispo County Clerk/Recorder’s Office. • Various online sites including ancestry.com and the newspapers at Genealogy Bank.

4 CRMS Project No. 52-946 CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

By Betsy Bertrando

HISTORICAL PERIOD Mission San Miguel Arcangel

The written history of the City of Paso Robles land begins with the founding of Mission San Miguel in 1797. Sixteenth in the chain of twenty-one missions, Mission San Miguel filled in the gap between Missions San Luis Obispo and San Antonio de Padua. Ranchos were established in the surrounding area that were administered by the Mission San Miguel to support and supply the mission inhabitants with the necessary food and water. Water was always a problem with Mission San Miguel and its surrounding ranchos. The mission ranchos to the south were Rancho El Paso de Robles, Rancho de Santa Ysabel (Isabel) and Rancho de la Asunción where wheat was grown, along with a vineyard and a little garden which helped supply the mission.

“However, all is dependent upon rain, because there is no means to irrigate the land, save at Asuncion, where there is a little spring with sufficient water for a garden; and at Santa Isabel, which has a little more in summer.” (Engelhardt 1971:28)

Two early earthen dams were discovered below the Rancho Santa Ysabel Springs on the east side of the Salinas River. By 1889, one dam, 250 feet long, allowed a two and a half acre lake to be formed. The driest of the three southern ranchos was always Rancho El Paso de Robles. It was the Mission San Miguel ranch that was used to keep the mission sheep.

Rancho El Paso de Robles

An early description of the place called “Paso Robles” was written c. 1830 by Alfred Robinson as he headed south along the El Camino Real after stopping at Mission San Miguel.

“I again set out, following close at the heels of my guide. Shortly after our departure we reached a place where a sulphurous hot spring boiled up from the ground, and formed a little rivulet which crossed the road. Father Juan had erected a small house over the spot for the purpose of shelter, and convenience

5 CRMS Project No. 52-946 for bathing, and it was resorted to by many persons with rheumatic disorders, who generally obtained immediate relief.” (Engelhardt 1971:33)

After Mexico won the war with Spain in 1822, the mission lands were petitioned for by early settlers of California. The Mexican Governor Micheltorena granted the 25,993.18 acre El Paso de Robles Rancho to Pedro Narvaez in 1844 (Robinson 1957). Pedro Narvaez was rewarded for his services as Captain of the Port of Monterey. Navaez had difficulties in managing his ranch from afar and it needed an onsite owner (Blomquist 2003). It also seems that he preferred living in Monterey rather than on his El Paso de Robles Rancho, for by the following year, he granted the rancho to Petronilo Rios. Rios was already living in the area. Rios filed his claim for the Rancho before the U. S. Board of Land Commissioners in San Francisco in 1852. Three years later his claim for six square leagues of land was confirmed (Ohles 1997).

Figure 3 : Ranch and Residence of J. H. Blackburn (1883)

During the early 1850s, Rios was living in the Caledonia Adobe running a store which still stands at the south entrance to the Town of San Miguel. Rios owned lots in the Town of San Luis Obispo and had also filed for a claim for Mission San Miguel which was later denied. By 1857, he owned 52,280 acres of land in the county. Under

6 CRMS Project No. 52-946 his ownership, the rancho was primarily used for sheep and cattle grazing land. A small amount of grain was grown when the rains came. He later sold most of the land he owned in San Luis Obispo County, but still dealt with real estate in Monterey County. Petronilo Rios died in 1870.

Figure 4: El Paso de Robles Ranch House

Blackburn, Blackburn and Godchaux

James H. Blackburn, Daniel D. Blackburn and Lazare Godchaux purchased the Rancho El Paso de Robles from Petronilo Rios in 1857 for $8000 (Deed Book A:170). Daniel Drew Blackburn moved into the rancho adobe while James Hanson Blackburn and Lazare Godchaux remained with their business in Watsonville for two more years. This was before the rancho land had been issued a patent. President Andrew Johnson finally issued the patent in 1866. As it was clearly stated in the research conducted by Wallace Ohles;

“In 1860, the rancho was divided; Daniel took one league, the one which included the springs. On August 8, 1866, he sold to Mr. Thomas McGreel, for $10,000 ‘one undivided half part of Rancho Paso de Robles.’ This person, in turn,

7 CRMS Project No. 52-946 sold a portion to Drury Woodson James, for $11,000. In 1873, McGreel sold a fourth-interest to James H. Blackburn. The rest of the rancho land remained in the hands of James H. Blackburn and Lazare Godchaux. In 1865, Lazare Godchaux had moved to San Francisco.” (Ohles 1997:68)

There have been several different spellings in the references for Thomas McGreel, for the purposes of accuracy, McGreal will be used in this report.

City of Paso Robles

Paso Robles was founded by the brothers, Daniel Drew and James Hanson Blackburn and the buyer of McGreal’s portion of the rancho, Drury W. James. The brothers divided the rancho with James raising sheep on the southern portion and Daniel kept the land known as the Hot Springs Tract to the north. For a short time Drury James settled in the 1860s in La Panza and with his partner, John G. Thompson, raised cattle until he moved into town. Unfortunately, a severe draught brought a halt to development of the area. It began in 1862 when three inches of rain fell and nothing more until the fall of 1864. It was the Hot Springs, as Paso Robles was once called, that put the area on the map. In 1868, Drury James purchased part of the town and moved into a large home adjacent to the El Paso de Robles Hotel which was first to take advantage of the sulphur spring. James was responsible for the construction of the first grammar school in Paso Robles in 1877. The dry years came again from 1882 to 1885. After the periods of draught were over, people began to settle in the area in greater numbers. Speculators came with the Southern Pacific Railroad that arrived in 1886 and Paso Robles became a destination with access to markets. A newspaper and a streetcar soon followed. As the Daily Alta California newspaper reported in 1886 under the title “The Boom at Paso Robles;”

“Paso Robles, Cal., November 24th - The boom has struck this place and building is being pushed rapidly since the sale of the 17th. Ten houses are now under contract to be built as soon as carpenters can construct them, most of them being business houses. Town lots are selling from 25 to 50 per cent higher than on the day of the sale. Mrs. Pullman, wife of George M. Pullman, of sleeping-car fame, is stopping here this week for the benefit of her health. A thousand dollars worth of town lots were sold today.” (Ohles in The Pioneer Pages 2001:12)

A Map depicting the Villa Lots on the west side of Paso Robles was produced in 1887 and was titled “City of El Paso de Robles and Adjoining Subdivisions” as the

8 CRMS Project No. 52-946 property of Blackburn Brothers and James was subdivided by F. P. McCray C, E, in 1887 (see Figure 5). The City incorporated in 1889 (Anderson et al 2003). Brick construction lined the main streets replacing old wooden structures. An opera house, churches, schools and

Figure 5: Map of Paso Robles 1887

9 CRMS Project No. 52-946 all the necessary businesses to support a community were established. As a hub for the grain and produce markets now available by rail, small farms surrounded the town. Many came to take advantage of the baths and some stayed. The growing town became famous with the construction of a new, very elegant brick El Paso de Robles Hotel built in 1892 under the direction of Drury James that brought national attention to the spa. With mud baths located just north of town, street car service ran the visitors from the depot to the hotel and mud baths. The grand hotel remained the mainstay of Paso Robles until falling into hard times during the Great Depression. For a short while, the hotel housed the military working at Camp Roberts until it burned to the ground on December 12, 1940.

PROPERTY OWNERS The Blackburn brothers came to the county in 1857 from Harper’s Ferry, Virginia (Morrison and Haydon 1917). During the early days in the town of Paso Robles, Drury and the Blackburn brothers were the driving force in business. They made Paso Robles a destination by developing the Hot Springs as a resort (The Library Associates 1993 reprint). Drury James was from Kentucky. Drury James and Daniel Blackburn married the Dunn sisters from San Luis Obispo.

James Blackburn

In 1857, James Blackburn lived on the ranch in the picturesque adobe that was built by the inhabitants of Mission San Miguel in 1813. The adobe was located just south of Templeton (see Figure 3 & 4). But by 1872, the adobe ranch house was falling into disrepair and after twenty-five years, James Hanson Blackburn built a fine new residence in Paso Robles with lumber brought up from Port Harford. James Blackburn was President of the Bank of Paso Robles and worked on bringing the railroad to Paso Robles. After James died in 1888, being a single man, he left most of the property to Daniel and Cecilia Blackburn.

Daniel and Cecilia Blackburn

Daniel and Cecilia Blackburn had ten children. The three story house that was constructed in 1889 on Spring Street was needed to house the family. Dozens of transactions in the deed indices list Daniel and Cecilia Daniel as grantors of land in and around Paso Robles. In 1891, Daniel and Cecilia sold the land that contains the West Main Water Tank project to Howard Moore Allen and his wife, Mary (Deed Book 13:124). The parcel on the west side of Paso Robles was named Villa Lot 2 and consisted of 24 46/100 acres. Howard Allen lost no time in having the land subdivided

10 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 6: James Blackburn Figure 7: Daniel Blackburn

Figure 8: Resubdivision of Vila Lot No. 2

11 CRMS Project No. 52-946 and titled “Allen’s Resubdivision of Villa Lot No. 2 (see Figure 8).” The current project area is formed from blocks E, F, G and H that were carved from Villa Lot No. 2 Resubdivision.

H. M. and Mary Allen

Howard Moore Allen was born in 1852. He was one of ten siblings born to Ira and Jane Allen in Michigan. In 1875, Howard married Mary Hart. They were still living in Michigan with Mary’s parents in 1880, but by 1890, had relocated to Oakland, California. The San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune, in the news from Paso Robles section, stated in August 1891;

“H. M. Allen, from Alameda, a professional architect, has bought a villa lot of 22 acres west of town on which he will build a residence. He is also a contractor and is engaged to build some houses.” (Tognazzini 1991:112)

This was followed in November with the announcement that;

“H. M. Allen, the builder from Alameda formerly mentioned, has a neat cottage nearly done. He has dug two wells and cleaned off part of his villa lot and is rushing things before the rain sets in.” (Tognazzini 1991:142)

Howard Allen listed his occupation as an architect based in Paso Robles in 1892. However, the 1894 map entitled Resubdivision of Villa Lot No. 2 was filed in Alameda County by H. M. and Mary Allen (Map Book A:29). The following year they purchased approximately one acre of Lot 40 that ran along the western line of the reservoir parcel from D. D. and C. Blackburn (Deed Book 25:138). Between 1892 and 1896, the Allens sold over three dozen properties in the area. They took time off in 1896 obtaining passports to travel before coming back to Paso Robles to their house on Vine Street.

Sometime during the 1890s, Howard’s father Ira Allen came to Paso Robles and began farming. Ira Allen died in 1899 and is buried in Estrella. Not long after, Howard and Mary relocated to Los Angeles. In 1900, the Allens deeded to Grace E. Heaton, at $115, for six months at 1 1/2 percent, grain crops on twenty acres, Lot 2. The arrangement also included 3/4 interest in Villa Lot No. 39, a buggy, harness and one mare. Howard continued working as a builder in Los Angeles until he died there in 1927.

RESUBDIVISION OF VILLA LOT NO. 2

The 201 tiny lots were 25 ft wide and most were 125 ft deep and situated on seven blocks. Throughout the years 1895 to 1899, the small lots were rarely purchased

12 CRMS Project No. 52-946 singly, but in groups. Most were sold in at least a group of four with frontage running from street to street forming a parcel that was 50 ft by 250 ft. Although not every deed was researched for this report (20 out of over four dozen), the twenty purchases were all made in Alameda County. There was also no evidence that they ever moved to the lots on Villa Lot No. 2, but apparently the Allens kept a residence in Paso Roble throughout this period. The Allens were also selling many properties adjacent to Villa Lot No. 2 at the same time. The Sanborn Maps for Paso Robles from 1892 to 1943 stopped short of coverage for Villa Lot No. 2.

WEST MAIN WATER TANK AND 21ST STREET RESERVOIR

The proposed new West Main Water Tank is located on a portion of Allen’s Villa Lot No. 2 adjacent to the 21st Street Reservoir. In 1922, the City of Paso Robles Trustees met and as was reported in the newspaper under the following headline;

“Paso Robles to Have Reservoir Under Special Tax”

“The ballot also carried two special propositions: One called for fifty cent tax on each one hundred dollars of evaluation for a reservoir to be located in the western part of the city. This was carried by a large majority and will enable the water department to keep pace with the rapid growth of the city.” (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram - Apr. 12, 1922)

The existing 21st Street Reservoir was constructed with a capacity of four million gallons in 1928 according to Doug Monn, Public Works Director in 2011. Monn also stated that the reservoir roof was added in the 1950s. By 2003, the reservoir was already deteriorating. The City of Paso Robles had had the Reservoir Parcel consisting of 17.9 acres resurveyed in 2003 reducing their holdings to about 10 acres(see Figure 9) The city was already planning to replace the reservoir but funding challenges put the project on hold. Concerns were raised again in 2011 as to the stability of the reservoir, which was nearing the “end of its life span.” The replacement costs first addressed in 2003 were $5.5 million, but by 2011 the price had risen to $7 million.

13 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure : Survey of Reservoir Parcel (2003)

In 2011, the City of Paso Robles awarded a contract to replace the reservoir. Budget constraints once again put the project on hold. A water rate increase was needed in 2015 to allow the project to move forward. With a sense on urgency, former Supervisor Phil Dirkx reported in 2016 that, “…the 90 year old 21st Street Reservoir that needs to be replaced before it collapses.” (The Tribune Sept. 8, 2016). The current proposal includes constructing a new concrete tank and using the 21st Street Reservoir to serve as an overflow detention basin.

14 CRMS Project No. 52-946 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS OF THE FIELD SURVEY

The property was visited on May 23, 2018. Where the interior & exterior of the reservoir and the gate house were inspected, photographed and measured. Evidence of alteration, modification and deterioration was assessed and documented. This investigation was non-invasive and non-destructive. The reservoir was full and in use at the time of the field survey. Consequently the portion of the reservoir below the waterline could not be investigated and its layout and condition are inferred from the limited visible evidence and archival materials only.

The reservoir is shaped like bent oblong. It is oriented with its long axis running east-to-west with curved east and west ends. The reservoir is composed of two basins that can be filled and emptied independently. The western basin is 158 feet long and 102 feet wide and the eastern basin is 259 feet long and 102 feet wide. These basins are separated by a thick sloped berm running north-to-south which is located where the reservoir bends (see Figures 10, 17, 18 & 19).

Figure 10: 21st St. Reservoir Looking East May 2018

When first constructed in the 1920s the reservoir was surrounded by a low, 10 foot wide at the top, earthen berm and was sealed with a one and a half inch thick layer of gunite (see Figure 11). By 1925 it was covered with flat roof supported on wooden posts set on the surrounding berm as well as within the reservoir itself (see figures 19 & 20). The outer edge of the roof was supported by two foot high, eight by eight inch posts set on a cement base. The roof was framed with vertical and horizontal 1 by six inch beams braced diagonally with 1 by 4 inch beams. Within the reservoir the roof was supported by eight by eight inch posts coated with asphalt. The roof structure was four feet high resting on two foot tall posts around the perimeter. Consequently the roof top was six feet above the top of the berm (see Figures 11 & 20).

15 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 11: Reservoir Cross section 1925

By the early 1960s this roof had begun to fail. By 1968 it had failed completely and it needed to be completely replaced. Some portions of the gunite basin had developed significant cracks which were to be repaired at the same time as the roof replacement (Maaser: pers. comm.). The 1968 roof is still in place today. The original eight by eight inch wooden post within the reservoir have been replaced with five inch diameter steel pipe (see Figures 13, 15 & 16). The eight by eight inch wooden posts on the perimeter have been replaced by a poured cement wall that rises four feet above ground level. The roof is slanted at the sides, flat on top with a narrow monitor cupola for ventilation running down the long axis. The roof is much higher than the original. It is currently sheathed in composite shingles (see Figures 10 ,14 & 15). The framing for the roof is supported, down the center of the long axis, on two, side by side, two by eight inch beams sandwiched between two one by eight inch beams. this beam and the rest of the interior framing is supported nineteen feet four inches above the floor of the reservoir on five inch diameter steel pipes.. At the east and west ends of the reservoir the longitudinal beam projects out of the wall on to cement buttresses. (see Figures 10, 12, 14 & 15)

The poured cement wall on the perimeter has openings for vents that are now mostly boarded up. The north-south oriented trusses are set upon two by six beams sandwiched between two one by six beams. These beams Figure 12: Buttress project beyond the wall (see figures 14 & 15). Support for Central Beam, North End May 2018

16 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 13: Steel Pipe Roof Support and Truss (May 2018)

Figure 14: South facing Side of Reservoir Detail (May 2018)

17 CRMS Project No. 52-946 The 21st Street reservoir has seen multiple repairs over the years. As noted above, the entire roof and its supports were replaced in 1968 and some cracks in the gunite lining were repaired. In 1989 the reservoir was drained and inspected. The cracking problem had become severe enough that the entire basin was covered with a 60 millimeter plastic liner in 1990 (Serrot: 1990). In 2003 the reservoir was the subject of an underwater inspection which found numerous small cracks and significant corrosion of the steel pipes that supported the roof trusses (Gross: 2003). In 2010 the state of the roof was such that it was again inspected and assessed. It was found to have multiple failures of both the roof sheathing and the support trusses (Advantage Technical: 2010). Today the reservoir roof is still in place and patching efforts are visible in more than one location. The exterior cement wall exhibits several cracks and some modest repairs.

Figure 15: Reservoir North-South Cross section 1968

Figure 16: Reservoir Long Axis Cross section 1968

18 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 17: Reservoir Layout Per Demolition Plan 2017

19 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 18: Reservoir Layout 1968

20 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 19: Reservoir Layout 1925

21 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Figure 20: Roof Framing 1925

22 CRMS Project No. 52-946 CHAPTER: 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

When assessing the historical significance of a structure, the Secretary of the Interior’s standards provide the most commonly accepted framework. The Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for the evaluation of historic resources list four criteria to be considered when assessing cultural resources: Criteria for Evaluation The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Cultural resources that meet one or more of these criteria are defined as historical resources under CEQA.

23 CRMS Project No. 52-946 In addition to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and the The California Environmental Quality Act The City of Paso Robles Preservation Ordinance of 2011 provided specific guidance for assessing the historic significance of resources within Paso Robles. Section 21.50.080-B states the criteria for designating a Historic Landmark thusly:

A building structure. object or site may be designated a historic landmark if it possesses sufficient Character Defining Features, integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, and meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) It reflects special elements of the City’s historical, cultural social, economic, aesthetic, engineering, or architectural development; 2) It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history;

3) It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or whether the building or structures represent an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or community of the city; or 4) 4) It has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the history or prehistory of Paso Robles, California, or the nation. In addition to designating a resource as a historic landmark the ordinance provides for the less stringent designation of a resource as a point of interest. Section 21.50.100-A &B lays out the criteria for finding a local resource as worthy of such designation thusly:

A) Description of a Point of Interest. A building, structure, object, or site can be designated a Point of Intrest in the City of Paso Robles if it lacks integrity or otherwise does not meet the criteria for designation as a Historic Landmark, but is significant locally for its association with historic events, important persons, or has other cultural or historic importance to the community. The designation of a Point of Interest is honorary. A Point of Interest is not considered a Historic Resource, and is therefore not afforded the same protections or incentives as Historic Resources. Points of Interest are not regulated under this ordinance. B) Criteria for Designating a Point of Interest.

A building, structure, object, or site may be designated as a Point of Interest if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

24 CRMS Project No. 52-946 1) It is the site of building structure, or object that no longer exists but was associated with historic events, important persons, or embodied a distinctive character or architectural style;

2) I has historic significance, but has been altered to the extent that the integrity of the original workmanship, materials or style is substantially compromised;

3) It is the site of a historic event which has no distinguishable characteristics other than that a historic event occurred there and the historic significance is sufficient to justify the establishment of a historic landmark.

The existing 21st street reservoir in Paso Robles California, while almost one hundred years of age does not meet criteria A, B,C or D of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards nor CEQA’s criteria for significance. It is not associated with any significant events or persons of national, regional or local significance. It’s construction and design do not represent significant or unique elements of the built environment. Further more it does not meet the criteria 1, 2, 3 or 4 of section Section 21.50.080-B of the City of Paso Robles Preservation Ordinance of 2011 for designation as a Historic Landmark nor does it meet criteria 1, 2 & 3 of section 21.50.100-B of the same ordinance for designation as a Point of Interest

Upon completion of photographic documentation of the drained reservoir with the roof removed no further mitigation of potential impacts of this project to the the 21st Street reservoir, as a cultural resource will be required.

25 CRMS Project No. 52-946 REFERENCES

Advantage Technical Services 2010 Letter report Reservoir Roof Structure Inspection. Report.on file with the Paso Robles City Water Division. Paso Robles CA.

Anderson, Carilyn with Ruby Brando, Sandy Hatch, Bonnie Nelson, Milene Radford, Barbara Rowland, Anne Sefton, Gary Smith, Vicki Dauth

2002 El Paso de Robles - The Pass of Oaks. A joint project of the El Paso de Robles Area Historical Society and the El Paso de Robles Area Pioneer Museum, Paso Robles, CA.

Blomquist, Leonard Rudolph

2003 California in Transition, The San Luis Obispo District 1830-1850. San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, San Luis Obispo, CA.

Engelhardt O. F. M., Fr. Zephyrin

1931 San Miguel, Arcangel - the Mission on the Highway. Mission Santa Barbara, CA.

Farrel, Nancy 2018 Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of the West Main Water Tank Property, West 21st Street, Paso Robles California. Report submitted to Firma Consultants. Cultural Resource Management Services Paso Robles, CA. Gross, Dan 2003 Letter report of the underwater Inspection of the 21st Street Reservoir by Dive Corp. Inc. Long Beach, CA.. Report.on file with the Paso Robles City Water Division. Paso Robles CA. Historic Resources Group. 2011 City of Paso Robes Historic Preservation Ordinance February 2011. Ordinance on file with the City of Paso Robles, CA. Historic Resources Group Los Angeles, CA. Masser, Mike 2018 Personal communication May 23, 2018. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers 1968 Plans for the Replacement of the 21st Reservoir Roof and repair of cracks in the Gunite Liner dated October 19, 1968. James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers Pasdena, CA. Report.on file with the Paso Robles City Water Division. Paso Robles CA.

Morrison, Mrs. Annie L. and John H. Haydon

1917 San Luis Obispo and Environs. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, CA.

Serrot Corporation 1990 Technical Specifications and Plan Views. Advantage Technical Services, San Luis Obispo, CA. Report.on file with the Paso Robles City Water Division. Paso Robles CA. The Library Associates 1993 A Vast Pastoral Domain, San Luis Obispo County in the 1870s. Reprints produced by the Robert E. Kennedy Library, California Polytechnic State University.

26 CRMS Project No. 52-946 Tognazzini, Wilmar N.

1991 100 Years Ago - Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune. Compiled by Wilmar N. Tognazzini (pages 112 and 142)

Documents

March 15, 2011 Doug Monn, Public Works Director to James L. App, City Manager 21st Street Reservoir Maintenance, Agenda Item - Paso Robles City Council Plans 1925 Plan of Cement Lined Earthen Reservoir City of El Paso De Robles Calif. W.W. Huges City Engineer. Approved and adopted by the board of trustees September 28, 1925 1968 Plans for the Replacement of the 21st Reservoir Roof and repair of cracks in the Gunite Liner

Newspaper 1922 - 4/12 San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 2016 - 9/8 San Luis Obispo Tribune

Maps 1887 City of El Paso de Robles and Adjoining Subdivisions - Property of Blackburn Bros and James. 1894 Resubdivision of Villa Lot No. 2 - Property of Mary S. and H. M. Allen 2003 L.S. City of Paso Robles Reservoir Parcel

Report Letter 2011 City of Paso Robles Agenda Item - From Doug Monn, Public Works Director to James L. App, City Manager.

Deeds 1857 Book A:170 - Rios to Blackburns - Rancho El Paso de Robles 1891 Book 13:124 - Blackburns to Allen - Villa Lot No. 2 1895 Book 25:138 - Blackburns to Allen - Villa Lot No. 40

Brief sampling of grantees for lots within Blocks E, F, G, H, and J (project area only) purchased from H. M. and Mary S. Allen’s Resubdivision of Villa Lot No. 2 taken from the deed books and newspapers of the day.

Block E Eliza M. Meekan lots 46 and 47, Jan 24, 1895 - Bk 23:490 J. C. Willman (Oakland) lots 14, 15, 36, and 37, Aug 24, 1895 - Bk 28:178 Louisana J. Rudolph (Alameda County) lots 18, 19, 32 and 33, Aug 26, 1895 - Bk 28:282 T. C. Boyd (San Francisco) lots 11, 12, 13, 38, 39, and 40, Oct 25, 1895 - Bk 28:179 Eliza M. Meekan lots 1,48 to 54, Mar 11, 1899 Block F V. P. Mitchels (Oakland) lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, Oct 18,, 1895 - Bk 28:153 F. H. Martin lots 9 and 10, May 31, 1898 Block G Eliza M. Meeken lots 4 and 5, Jan 24, 1895 - Bk 23:490 Carrie E. King (Oakland) lots 1 and 2, Aug 3, 1895 - Bk 28:207 J. C. Willman (Oakland) lots 20, 21 and 22, Aug 24, 1895 - Bk 28:178 V. P. Mitchels (Oakland) lots 3 and 4, Oct 18, 1895 - Bk 28:153 Clara Winship (Oakland) lots 34 and 24, Nov 30, 1895 - Bk 28:216 Eliza M. Meekan lots 12 and 13, Mar 11, 1899

27 CRMS Project No. 52-946 VIEW 1: VILLA LANE

MAIN WEST TANK

VIEW 3: 44 HILLCREST VIEW 4: 1519 CHESTNUT ST.

VIEW 2: 42 TERRACE HILL

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Visual Simulation Paso Robles, CA Key Viewing Areas 0 21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 EXISTING TANK TO BE REMOVED

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Paso Robles, CA Existing View 1 View looking South from Villa Lane 1

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 NEW TANK TOP ELEVATION 944’ NEW PAD ELEVATION 922’

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Visual Simulation View 1 Paso Robles, CA With Screen Trees at 10 Year MaturityView Looking South From Villa Lane Top of Tank 22’ Above Existing Grade 2

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 EXISTING TANK TO BE REMOVED

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Paso Robles, CA Existing View 2 View looking North From 42 Terrace Hill Drive 3

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 VERTICAL REFERANCE PYLON

NEW TANK TOP ELEVATION 944’

ELEVATION 922’

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Existing View 2 Paso Robles, CA View Looking North From Terrace Hill Drive, Enlarged to Vertical Reference Pylon 4

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 NEW TANK TOP ELEVATION 944’

Main West Tank Replacement Visual Simulation View 2 Figure Paso Robles, CA With Screen Trees at 10 Year Maturity View Looking South From 42 Terrace Hill Drive Top of Tank 22’ Above Existing Grade 5

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 REFER TO FIG: 4 FOR MITIGATION TREE SCREEN

NEW TANK TOP ELEVATION 944’ EXISTING TANK WILL BE REMOVED

ELEVATION 922’

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Existing View 3 Paso Robles, CA View Looking From 44 Hillcrest Drive 6

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 NEW TANK GENERALLY NOT VISABLE ON CHESTNUT EXISTING TANK WILL BE REMOVED

Figure Main West Tank Replacement Existing View 4 Paso Robles, CA View Looking North From 1519 Chestnut St. 7

21st St Tank Vis Sim Last Date Modified: 7_09_18 Main West Tank Replacement Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Project File No./Name:■ Main West Tank Replacement Project Approved by: Community Development Director Date: 8/22/18

The following environmental mitigation measures were either incorporated into the approved plans or were incorporated into the conditions of approval. Each and every mitigation measure listed below has been found by the approving body indicated above to lessen the level of environmental impact of the project to a level of non-significance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that it has been completed.

Monitoring Department or Shown on Verified Mitigation Measure Type Remarks Agency Plans Implementation AQ-1: The following standard Project SLOAPCD dust control measures shall Community Development be implemented: a. The amount of the disturbed area shall be minimized; b. Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water or an APCD-approved dust suppressant should be used whenever possible; c. All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed; d. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established; e. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD; f. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shal, be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; g. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site; h. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with eve Section 23114; i. Wheel washers and/or rumble strips shall be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets; and j. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD's limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period The name and tele�hone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division prior to the start of any QradinQ, earthwork or demolition.

AQ-2: The applicant shall implement the Project Community Development following idling control techniques: California Diesel Idling Regulations On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: • Shall not idle the vehicle's primary diesel enQine for qreater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d} of the regulation. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d}(2) of the California Air Resources Board's In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state's 5-minute idling limit.

BR-1. Prior to removal of any trees over 20 Project Community Development inches DBH, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is found, the qualified biologist, with prior approval from CDFW, will install one-way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied roost removed, one bat box shall be installed in similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.

BR-2. To mitigate potential impacts to Project Community Development nesting birds, within one week of ground disturbance activities, if work occurs between February 1 and September 1, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted. If surveys do not locate nesting birds, construction activities may be conducted. If nesting birds are located, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of nests until chicks are fledged. A preconstruction survey report shall be submitted to the lead agency immediately upon completion of the survey. The report shall detail appropriate fencing or flagging of the buffer zone and make recommendations on additional monitoring requirements. A map of the Project site and nest locations shall be included with the report. The Project biologist conducting the nesting survey shall have the authority to reduce or increase the recommended buffer depending upon site conditions.

BR-3. Tree canopies and trunks within 50 Project Community Development feet of proposed disturbance zones should be mapped and numbered by a certified arborist or qualified biologist and a licensed land surveyor. Data for each tree should include date, species, number of stems, and diameter at breast height (dbh) of each stem, critical root zone (CRZ) diameter, canopy diameter, tree height, health, habitat notes, and nests observed. BR-4. An oak tree protection plan shall be prepared and approved by the City of Paso Robles if impacts to oak trees are anticipated. BR-5. Impacts to the oak canopy or critical root zone (CRZ) should be avoided where practica::>le. Impacts include pruning, any ground disturbance within the dripline or CRZ of the tree (whichever distance is greater), and trunk damage. BR-6. Impacts to oak trees shall be assessed by a licensed arborist or qualified biologist. Mitigations for impacted trees shall comply with the City of Paso Robles tree ordinance.

BR-7. In the event final plans or construction conditions require the removal of any native oak tree(s) the following measures shall be implemented: Replacement oaks for removed trees must be equivalent to 25% of the diameter of the removed tree(s). For example, the replacement requirement for removal of two trees of 15 inches dbh (30 total diameter inches), would be 7.5 inches (30" removed x 0.25 replacement factor). This requirement could be satisfied by planting five 1.5-inch trees, or three 2.5-inch trees, or any other combination totaling 7.5 inches. A minimum of two 24-inch box, 1.5- inch trees shall be required for each oak tree removed. Replacement trees should be seasonally maintained (browse protection, weed reduction and irrigation, as needed) and monitored annually for a time period to be determined by the City. Replacement trees shall be of local origin, and of the same species as was imoacted or removed. Project CR-1: To mitigate significant impacts upon a potentially significant historic property /structure, prior to demolition of the existing tank structure, the project Archaeologist complete a state Historic Resources Inventory by completing photographic inventory once the roof is off the tank.

CR-2: If prehistoric or historic cultural Project Community Development materials, including human remains, are encountered during any phase of pipeline or property excavation or development, the work should be halted until a qualified archaeologist can make an assessment of the resources and proper mitigation measures be formulated, if necessary. If human remains are encountered Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed.

HAZ-1: Prior to approval of final project plans Project Community Development and specification the City shall conduct all legally stipulated asbestos and lead presence surveys and develop a specification for removal, handling and disposal of asbestos and lead containing materials comoliant with state and federal law

Project Community Development N-1: Construction Hours. Unless otherwise provided for in a validly issued permit or approval, noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm. Noise-generating construction activities shall not occur on Sundavs or Citv holidavs.

N-2: Construction Equipment Noise. Project Community Development Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and equipped with noise reduction intake and exhausted mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds should be closed durina eauioment ooeration.

Explanation of Headings:

Type: ...... Project, ongoing, cumulative Monitoring Department or Agency: ...... Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure Shown on Plans: ...... When a mitigation measure is shown on the plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation: ...... When a mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks: ...... Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.