Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing. We are almost ready. Sorry, we were having some technical difficulties.

We're ready to go.

All right. Welcome. Good evening. Welcome to the Tuesday, January 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. We'll go ahead and get this meeting started with our Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Connolly? Here. Commissioner Roden?

Here.

Commissioner Marlowe? Present. Commissioner Kovarubias? Here. Commissioner Neal? Here. Commissioner Christensen? Here. Commissioner Kogler. Here. All present.

Thank you for that. Staff introductions, please.

Marcie Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson from Technicians.

Merge Grayson from the Development Director.

Sarah Lockett, City Trust Office.

No one online?

Sarah, can you announce yourself again? Sorry, it got cut out.

No worries. Sarah Laughlin from City to May's office, Best Best and Krieger on the line.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to item E, are there any general public comments regarding matters not on the agenda? Seeing none in the audience, Marcy, any callers?

No callers.

Thank you. Are there any agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?

There are none.

Thank you, sir. All right, moving on to the public hearing portion. First item, conditional use permit to allow a lot line adjustment at 204 18th Street. Staff presentation, please.

One moment, Mr. Chair.

Yes, sir, or ma'am.

I just want to make a comment that I met with Mr. Gregory at the property yesterday, just a to be open about it. Sometimes I'm better at visual than tactile.

Thank you.

you oh i think it is now now that's that's rough with her right behind your ear um so this is a conditional use permit and development plan modification to enable a lot line adjustment located at 204 18th street and 1728 locust street the applicant has mr gregory has pointed out that there are several in instances where there's a typo in the staff report and in the resolution where I have referred to 18th Street as 17th Street. It is, in fact, 18th Street, so when we get to the resolution, let's make sure we do an amendment to get the address correct, obviously. So as I said, a conditional use permit, development plan modification, and lot line adjustment. So lot line adjustments are typically approved by staff. It's a staff-level approval, but this project is here this evening, I think I'm, am I still, now I don't know if I'm being broadcast. Okay. This project needs Planning Commission approval because of an existing non-conforming situation on the lot, and we'll delve into that as we go through these slides. So location, as I said, this is on 18th Street, so it's at the southeast corner of 18th and Locust Streets. It legally is described as lots 5 and lot 6 of block 184 of the subdivision of Paso Robles. So these lots have been around since the 1800s. There are two legal lots. It's being assessed as one parcel, so it looks like one parcel on our GIS maps, but that area in red is actually two legal lots. and there are two existing residential units on the lot. In blue is 204 18th Street. That's the primary residence, and that was built in 1951. A secondary residence was built in 1953 at the green dot. That's 1728 Locust Street, and that was permitted in 1953, as I said, as a second unit. So here on the right, you see the lot line adjustment map. So as I said, this is the entire property. There is an existing lot line where the yellow line in the middle is. So that's an existing lot line. There's parcel five and parcel six there on the screen. In addition, there is 204 18th Street in orange. There is in the blue, that is 1728 Locust Street. There, in addition, is a small garage at the southeast corner of the lot. on the property. And those are the only structures on the lot. There's some additional retaining walls and so forth, but those are the only structures. So the applicant has requested that the lot line between be moved to where the green line is. And so it would be a jogging property line, but it would put the two residences on separate lots. It would give frontage for the 18th Street house, 204 18th. It would be the corner lot and then parcel two 1728 Locust Street would front off of Locust Street. It would have a small portion, a small strip of land that would touch 18th Street where some utilities would be placed to serve 1728 Locust. So you see there in the image on the left, that's in the background, is the 1728 Locust Street. It's a two-story structure. It was built as a garage first, a second unit put over that garage, So two stories with the residents above it. So these are the pertinent R1 district development standards. So the minimum lot size in the R1 district is 7,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Ironically, all of the original subdivision, not every single one, but all of the residential lots in the original subdivision, those are generally 50 feet wide by 140 feet deep. So almost every lot on the west side that's in the R1 district is actually too narrow. So they're all legally non-conforming. When created fully legal, the rules had changed over time. And so a lot width of 70 feet is required. And then you see the setbacks. So the project does meet all of the development standards with the exception of proposed parcel two, which would continue to be non-conforming for width. It would be a 37-foot wide lot. Proposed parcel one would end up wider than is required at 85, almost 86 feet. I will note there is, in addition, an existing non-conforming street-side setback for the primary residence, 20418, It is currently at 5.6 feet from that street side property line, where 10 feet is required. This lot lane adjustment wouldn't change that, and the building is where it is, and it's less than 10 feet from the street side parking lot, but all other development standards are met, the pertinent development standards for this project. So, as I said, the reason that the Planning Commission is hearing this project is because of the legal non-conforming structure. The blue square that we saw in the lot line adjustment map had that yellow line that bisected it. That's 1728 Locust Street, and the property line between existing lots 5 and 6 bisects the building. So the building is on both lots. So the code says that if you have a situation where there's legally non-conforming buildings, including where buildings or structures are located across property lines, lot lane adjustments can be approved to fix that situation, but they are subject to approval of a conditional use permit, which brings us here this evening. The two pertinent standards in that section of code are that the lot lane adjustment does not increase the deviation between the existing non-conforming situation In this case, we're talking about those non-conforming setbacks and the code requirement. In this case, the lot line adjustment would bring all setbacks into conformance, except accepting that existing street side setback that I mentioned in the last table. In addition, the lot line adjustment cannot create any new non-conforming situation. We have a situation where the existing lots are legally non-conforming due to width, and one of the resulting lots would still be too narrow. The proposed parcel 2 would be 37 feet wide, but it's not creating a new non-conforming situation. That's an existing non-conforming situation that is exacerbated a little bit, but overall the project improves the situation and puts those structures off of property lines. So in order for the Planning Commission to approve that narrow lot width, you do need to approve what's called a development plan modification. So modifications were adopted as a part of the 2024 zoning code amendment that this body reviewed before it went to city council. It codified a number of modifications that we frequently like to allow for development, to allow flexibility with development projects, but we wanted to make it clear who had the authority to approve those modifications and what modifications were allowed. lot width in the R1 and RA zoning districts was one of those modifications that was included in the new zoning code update. And so it does allow the planning commission to approve a development plan modification to modify lot size and width. The two standards that need to be adhered to here are that the modification would facilitate a superior site design and also that the project as a whole does not exceed the maximum allowed density. So in response to those two requirements, staff has prepared a staff report that proposes that the design puts each residence fully on its own lot with conforming setbacks, which is superior site design to the existing where we have a building located over the property line. And then the second requirement is that the project as a whole does not exceed maximum allowed density. The existing lots are 7,000 square feet and the resulting lots are also 7,000 square feet. No new lots are being created with this lot line adjustment. We're just reconfiguring where each square foot, which lot it belongs to. And so the project will not change the existing density and would not exceed the maximum allowed density for the neighborhood. So staff has prepared some conditions of approval. Largely they've come from our engineering department. And so these are just a summary and these are shortened. These aren't the entire conditions of approval. If you wanna see those, they are in the draft resolution and we can go through those as needed. But condition number six requires the applicant to record either certificates of compliance or a parcel map in order to finalize this process. That's standard. Just like any subdivision map, you have to first get preliminary approval, you might have conditions to satisfy, and then you can record your map. So that's a requirement of that resolution that the applicant record a document that would record the new lot lines and make it public. Condition number seven is that each lot would have to be served by separate utility laterals. These lots have been operated as if they're one lot for many years, and so they do share some utilities. So one of the conditions is that before the certificate of compliance is recorded, the applicant will need to provide separate utilities for each unit. The eighth condition is that the applicant will need to record an encroachment agreement for the private improvements that are in the public right-of-way. Locust Street is a 60-foot wide right-of-way, but the pavement for Locust is between 15 and 20 feet. It's pretty narrow. It's really kind of one-way traffic at this point. It's very narrow. I think previous owners and the applicant have placed some private improvements within the public right-of-way. It's an area that's right next to the house. It's not being used for a public purpose. And so the city engineer has recommended that we record an encroachment agreement that would indemnify the city and require the applicant to remove those private improvements if the city should ever need the right-of-way for some public use. And then moving down to a condition of approval number 11, when the lot line adjustment is completed with the recorded document, 1728 Locust Street will be the primary dwelling on parcel two. So that's the parcel that's closer to the alley. The existing dwelling would become the primary dwelling unit. And then finally, the building official has included a condition of approval that the applicant will need to permit. There's a retaining wall within the right-of-way that is made of wood, and it did not receive a building permit. And so the building official has requested that that building be brought into conformance with the building code. We don't want improvements in the right-of-way that could potentially be unsafe for the public, despite the indemnification agreement. So there are, I counted them up before I, as I was making this presentation, there are 30 findings for you to make in the resolution this evening because there are three different findings. planning entitlements that you need to approve for this project to move forward. So there are six or seven lot line adjustment findings. The most important ones are the ones that we've already gone over, that the lot line adjustment does not increase the deviation in the nonconforming setbacks, and also that the lot line adjustment does not create a new nonconforming situation. There are findings that need to be made for the conditional use permit. They are generally that the project is consistent with its neighborhood and compatible with all of our plans, the general plan, the zoning district, that the project is physically suitable for the use, for the streets, that we have adequate fire and police services to serve the lot, and generally that the site is suitable. for the development plan modification. Most of these findings that you see on the screen are really related to development plans, but again, they're about consistency, protecting the public health and welfare. There are additional findings here that are more related to modifications, and I would say the most important ones, again, are the last two, and they were in previous slides. The Planning Commission needs to find that the modification would facilitate a superior site design, and that the project as a whole does not exceed maximum allowed density. As always, the Planning Commission has options. The first would be to approve the project, which is conditional use permit 2519. That's required because the building is over the property line. Lot line adjustment PRAL 250040, which is the lot line adjustment itself, and development plan modification 2506, which is for the lot that's narrower than is required by the code. You would approve those by adopting draft resolution PC26-XXX, and that is based on the findings that we just went through and subject to the conditions of approval. Your second option would be to approve the project with modifications by amending and adopting the draft resolution. I would recommend that we amend at least the address where I have included a typo. We want to make sure that the resolution refers only to 18th Street and not 17th Street. And then, of course, the Planning Commission could refer the project back to the Development Review Committee or staff if you feel additional analysis is needed, or you could deny the project by adopting findings of denial. Staff is recommending approval of the project, as I said, with that minor correction of the typo in the resolution. And that concludes my report.

Katie, thank you. All right, let's go ahead and start with some questions from the Commission. Looking to my left. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Chair. I understand that the first residence was built for 204 18th Street was 1951, and the second on 1728 Locust was 1953. When was the second story added? Do you have that date?

So the permit for the second unit in 1953 is described as building a second unit over an existing garage. So the garage was there first, and a unit was placed above it in 1953.

Okay, so the second story was added at the same time the garage was?

Yes, the second story was added in order to have a second residence.

Okay. Okay. And back then they didn't, as far as the building plans under review, maybe under permit, they didn't look at the lot line back in the early 50s?

You know, working with properties on the west side, that does appear to be the truth. We've come upon this not super often, but it does happen a couple times a year.

So this would correct that situation where the lot line goes through? Correct. Okay. That's it for me. Thank you.

Commissioner Conley, thank you. Commissioner Roden, you look like you're ready to say something.

Yes, thank you. Katie, during DRC, one of the things we discussed, well, I actually am taking in order here. The number seven about, I think it was water and sewer hookups, are there both water and sewer hookups right now for both residences, or is that going to have to be put in later? prior to the lot line?

It will have to be done prior to the recordation of the lot line, correct.

So they're not in there now?

There is currently one water meter, and I believe there are two sewer connections. The way the condition of approval is written, it's unclear whether or not the applicant will certainly have to pay for a second water meter because they only have one. There is conversation of whether or not a fee for a second sewer connection will be required. The condition is written that it's up to the director of the utilities department to make that determination of whether or not they need a separate sewer connection.

Well, our sewer is paid for through our water. It's based upon water use. So the fact that the water use, regardless of whether it metered both houses, it's been paid for, and there's already a connection, correct? I'm just trying to get clear on that.

Yeah, so your monthly bill certainly is based on, your sewer monthly bill is based on how much water you use, and there's a calculation. If these were vacant parcels and a new house was being built on each lot, each lot would pay for a water meter and a sewer connection. The water meter has one fee, and then the sewer connection, the amount of that fee is based on the size of the water meter but you do pay an additional fee for a sewer connection.

Okay, but that will be taken care of when they actually put in the extra water meter, right? Correct. Okay. And the number eight, we were talking about the side of the house that faces locusts, and I took some pictures that for me was a little bit clearer of what I'm discussing here. I don't think I gave one to you, Katie. Okay. My question is, when we discussed locusts and are we ever going to widen that road? And I think the answer was no. I think there are two driveways on locusts. There may be three, and it's about a block long. It doesn't mean people don't travel through regardless. But it's about 16 foot wide. And if you look at my car is parked down at the end, you can see there's a oak tree. It's about four foot in diameter. And the road extends out about five feet from there. I wouldn't expect we're going to encroach on that oak tree. I want to take it out or remove it so we're not going to go anywhere my point is we're not going to go any wider than the 16 feet that exists right now on that road I believe that oak tree has already been removed no this picture was taken yesterday okay so the I'm not talking about the one that used to be up further I'm talking about the one that is past their property

I understand. That's on the other side of the alley. Right.

Yeah, there used to be another one up there that actually was out further.

Understood.

So keeping that in mind, is there, and we did discuss this in DRC, is there a possibility that basically the city would abandon that part with a five-foot setback or whatever is necessary from the existing road and then abandoning that portion back to that other property. It's where the driveway is. Part of the driveway would have to be removed, I guess, but for the most part, a lot of this is not necessary, and then you don't need waivers with the city.

So the waiver that is being requested does not have anything to do with the side setback, 20418, that has to do with the lot width for 1728 Locust Street. It's just the lot width. It's not the setback. I see.

Okay. But is this something that you would discuss amongst staff of doing, or would this be a planning commission, or would this be a council move? Who would make a decision on something like this if you wanted to do it?

So... Abandonments of streets, streets are public property, so that's a legislative decision that happens at the council level. Okay. And typically it's in response to an application from property owners, and then at that point it starts a review and analysis process that eventually will be a recommendation to council. Now, they do go through commission as part of the legislative process, but it's a separate application and review process.

Okay. I just didn't want there to be any liability involved. the city if we could if we could shift that over to that property since we're never going to widen that road if we were going to widen the road then that'd be one thing but i don't think we're going to be taking that tree out yeah i think that would be part of a separate application review process okay um thank you um as far as the um lot uh the total Square footage doesn't really change to any great degree. I don't have a problem with this moving forward, but I think that's all the questions I had. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Roden. Mr. Merlo?

Yeah, just going back to root here, the main purpose, just so I understand, and I think it's fine, is to adjust the lot line because obviously when they approved the building, they didn't realize they were building it on a lot line. I was just curious why it got drawn, because looking at Google Earth and looking at it, you know, if for some reason the properties were sold the way the fencing is, the backyard of one parcel would then technically be the yard of another parcel. What I guess what inspired the specific jogging of the lines?

Yeah, so ultimately it was the applicant's decision to apply for the lot line as it's shown. We did, as staff, have conversations with the applicant about how to split the lot originally. The idea was just to move the lot over so that it, you know, put each building on a separate lot. The idea was that this gave each lot kind of a buildable area so that they could eventually have their ADUs and it made more usable space. Ultimately, it was the applicant's decision. Staff certainly weighed in, but the exact location of the lines was the applicant's choice.

Sure, and then I understand that as long as you don't create another issue, it's allowable, but based on what you said is there was an issue with lot width, and this change increases that issue because the lot gets narrower, right? there's no language, I just want to be clear, there's no language that says, it's like, yeah, it's an issue, we're making the issue technically worse, I don't want to say the worst, but more stringent, but it's the same issue that was already there, it's just changed a little bit. I just want to understand that, I mean, that's the language, there's no other language that exists about changing the issue, I guess, because I'm just curious if there is, so.

Yeah, I mean, the effort is always to try to get properties and situations into conformance as much as possible. This code section that allows the Planning Commission to approve a conditional use permit to allow this lot line adjustment is in a section about legal non-conforming structures, and it's really about setbacks. And so in this slide, this section of code, the non-conforming situation that's being discussed is the fact that the building is over the property line. So it is a requirement that we don't make the setbacks any worse than they are existing. And then you're also not allowed to create a new non-conforming situation, but the eventual non-conforming situation that will exist will be lot width. We've already got a lot that's too narrow. This will be narrower than that, but it's not a new non-conforming situation. It is making that non-conforming situation worse, but that's not the situation, that's not the non-conforming standard that is what this code section is related to. This is related to legal non-conforming structures, not the lot. There's sections in the code that are about non-conforming lots, and there's section about non-conforming structures. So this section is about non-conforming structures.

Sure. I just wanted to make sure when we're going through this approval that there's not another one that's like, hey, we have an issue with width, The width's actually even less now. We need to address it, but it sounds like there's not. So those are the only questions. It's a creative solution. I'll give you that.

Right. And you are approving a development plan modification to approve that narrower lot width. So if we were creating these lots out of whole cloth, you could create lots that are 37 feet wide if you felt that it created a more superior site.

Sure. Right. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you, Commissioner Marlowe. Looking over to my right here. Any questions to my right? Commissioner Kogler.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one quick one. It's more semantics than anything else. In the conditions, item number 12 talks about the recordation of compliance and parcel map. The applicant shall permit the as-built retaining wall, and it's just semantics. It sounds like the applicant can allow that to occur, the way that it's written. I assume that means they have to secure a building permit for the retaining wall, and did I hear you, Katie, say that there would be some assessment of the materials of that existing wall and whether or not it could be meeting standards?

I think you're right. It is semantics, so the intent is that the applicant would seek a building permit If the existing wall does not meet the standards of the building code, it would need to be rebuilt to the standard.

Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Kogler. I'm sorry, Katie.

Just that we could change the language if you'd like that language, too. Yep.

Thank you for that. Commissioner Christensen? Thank you.

I had a couple questions in regards. Is there, and this is just a real simple question, is there anything in the code that, because we're basically kind of creating something similar. It almost looks like a flag lot. So basically, and I'm just reiterating what you already said, we're taking one non-conforming, we're taking an existing non-conforming, and we're eliminating one non-conforming, being the structure on the other property, and we may be shortening the entrance to the lot or the front width of the lot, so that will stay non-conforming, just maybe a little bit more non-conforming. Did I understand all that correctly?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, just wanted to summarize it for my own point of view and in regards to the portion outside the scope of the property line I would like to ask the applicant was there a reason maybe why you wouldn't file an application for a vacate of that portion of the street to solve that entire issue of putting a oh gotcha okay all right so I guess I'll just wait until that that happens um No problem. So let's see. I think my other question was answered there. I'll just wait until the applicant comes up. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Neal?

Yeah, I was on DRC and saw this, so I had most of my questions answered. Awesome.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Seeing no other questions from the commission side, let's go ahead and the applicant would like to make some comments.

Well, thank you. I've never been an applicant here before, so thank you for hearing me and for allowing us to go over this project. I'd like to start by saying thank you to Katie and Darcy and... Can you go ahead and state your name as well? Yeah, I'm sorry. Steve Gregory. And my residential address is 50 Hilltop. For the record, this is not my property. I have nothing to do with it other than it's family. So I'll explain some things that are going on. Anyway, so I want to thank everybody in the planning department for their help on this and engineering. And it's not an easy project, but there's some reasons why we did it. And the primary reason was to get the lot line out of that two-story building. The other thing that's not evident on the map, but on the green line south of the yellow line of the house, there's a setback requirement of 20 feet normally. So that's what made the narrower lot so that we would allow a 20-foot setback from the back of the house. So that part was done for that reason. And then what we tried to do, and Katie said it perfectly, is we tried to create space on both lots so that if people wanted to add an ADU, swimming pool, whatever they wanted to do, it worked on both lots. Anyway, so that's that part of it. On the improvements, I can explain that in great detail. My sister-in-law purchased the property, and she was quadriplegic. we could not get her in and out of her vehicle without improving the driveway access. So what we chose to do is put in pavers that are easily removable, so if it ever became an issue with the city, that's how we were gonna deal with that. She wanted to file for an abandonment, but she passed away before it happened. So the property went into a trust, These are my wife's sons that own it now. And we haven't had time to really address that. But we're not opposed to addressing that. We're just trying to keep it in a timely fashion. We've been working on this for seven months right now because of the complication of the lots. But I met with David Athey prior to this. ever coming to the commission, and the idea, then you said that Locust Street would probably never change. There's no traffic, it's never used, blah, blah, blah. But I do agree that we should try to get some kind of validation, either from the city. We're okay signing the document the way it is now, but what we want to do is get the lot line adjusted, and then I think the proper way to do it is then come for an abandonment request. So I hope that answers your question.

It does, and I understand the timing portion. I've been through that with clients before, so I understand that timing can be a constraint on that. I would agree. I was just thinking that maybe as a part of this process that it would be a time frame that that application would have to take place. Because although it's indemnifying, I could see there could be also other issues with I don't know, what if a neighbor wanted to consistently park there? You'd be upset because you can't access the driveway. It just would be so much easier in the long run for that portion of the street to be vacated and, in my opinion, become a part of that parcel.

I would agree to doing that, but what I'm trying to do right now is keep the sons happy and just kind of move forward. but that's something we could consider. Our biggest concern is the timeframe. So we'd like to enter into that possibly, but we want to try to also keep it moving along. They both live out of state. Happy to answer any other questions.

Any questions?

No? Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, let's go ahead and see if there are any other general comments from anybody in the audience. Seeing none, Marcy, any callers?

We do have one caller online.

Okay, go ahead and state your name, please.

Just a moment, let me get it.

Caller, can you hear us? Yeah, I can. Can you hear me?

No, give me just a second.

Sure.

Can you state your name?

Hi, this is Linda George. Can you guys hear me?

Sorry, try again. It's not coming through.

Linda George?

Is it working?

Give me just a second. I need to adjust the volume. You're not coming through as loud.

What does that mean?

Linda, can you try again?

Hi, this is Linda George.

Yes, thank you. Go ahead.

Hi, this is Linda George. I rarely watch your guys' meetings, but here, I have a flurry of questions. First of all, Ms. Roden, thank you for being up front about meeting with Gregory at this property. Mr. Gregory, you stated that it had nothing to do with you, and now you're telling us it's your kids. You guys know how I feel about ethics. So my question is, did the commission review whether this is a conflict of interest that Roden met with Gregory? I'm not opposed to whatever their request seems. However, if somebody else who doesn't know everybody in this room or who you are, if you heard this conversation at face value, it sounds like a lot of friendly deal-making. So I would like to know if the Commission, after Ms. Rodin admitted that she met with Mr. Gregory, who they ran together, by the way, they were running mates, to ensure that she does not need to recuse herself. That's my concern on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Marcy, any other callers?

No other callers.

Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Gregory, you want to make another comment?

Sure. Our sons are my wife's sons, but they're not my kids. So it's a family thing that was her sister. And then their last name is Holly. My last name is Gregory. And that's what I meant by that. And I didn't mean to cause any conflict of interest, but it's in their interest. I'm helping manage their trust. That's what I'm doing. Just for clarification.

Thank you, sir. Okay, Marcy, if there are no other callers, seeing no other comments in the audience, we'll go ahead and close the public portion. Warren, there was a question. brought up whether or not we felt that Commissioner Roden needed to recuse herself from any voting or anything. Any comments from staff regarding that matter?

No. Commissioners are allowed to meet with applicants, gather whatever information it is appropriate to make what's called an ex parte disclosure prior, just so that that information is on the record. There would only be a conflict of interest if there was some sort of financial or family interest in the property, which there is not. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that.

Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission then. Any other comments, questions for staff, or I'll take a motion. Commissioner Connolly? There you go. Mic's on.

I only want to make a comment that basically it's an existing situation that's improved by the slot line adjustment, and I would vote. I mean, I'm personally in favor of it, so I'm ready to vote on it.

Is that a motion?

I would propose that we approve conditional use permit 25-19, lot line adjustment, PRAL 25-0040, and development plan modification 25-06 by adopting the draft resolution PC26XXX based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. With the typo corrected from 17th Street to 18th Street.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor from Commissioner Conley. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Seconded by Commissioner Marlowe. Roll call, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, is there any further comment?

No.

more comments just my comment follow-up uh appreciate the explanation on the vacate i would encourage you to file for that i think it would benefit you guys immensely and i also or the the owners i apologize and i think it would also uh benefit the city as well so thank you okay all right thank you commissioner christian's in commissioner neil thank you for that any other comments

Seeing none, so we have a motion on the floor, first by Commissioner Connolly, second by Commissioner Marlowe. Roll call.

Commissioner Connolly. Aye. Commissioner Marlowe. Aye. Commissioner Roden. Aye. Commissioner Kogler. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Neal.

Aye.

Chairperson Kovarubias. Aye. Motion passes 7-0. Katie, thank you for that presentation.

OK, moving on to discussion items, consent calendar for the October 6, October 20, December 9 DRC committee meeting committee minutes and planning commission minutes. Can I get a motion or any amendments, comments, changes? Commissioner Neal?

I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Thank you, sir. Can I get a second? Second. Commissioner Christensen? We got a second, so we got a first on the floor by Commissioner Neal, seconded by Commissioner Christensen for consent calendar.

Roll call. Commissioner Neal?

Aye.

Commissioner Christensen?

Aye.

Commissioner Kogler?

Aye.

Commissioner Connolly? Aye. Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Marlowe? Aye. Chairperson Kovarubias? Aye. Motion passes 7-0.

Thank you for that. Other reports? House Robles, a streetscape ad hoc committee. No report. Thank you, sir. Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee.

Yes. We have a meeting coming up. Let me find the date on that really quick. So we have a meeting tentatively scheduled for February 12th at 2 p.m., I believe. So we're working on agendas for that meeting. We will... be looking at development fees that the city charges for new projects. We've had a consultant working for the last year or so on updating our fee schedules. So the HCOC will take a look at that and then make a recommendation to council before the council acts on the fee changes.

Okay. Thank you for that update, sir. Any issues with the DRC committee rotation schedule? Any changes, requests, any fill-ins? No, seeing none. That's awesome. Okay, then moving on to item K, planning commissioner's comments. Any comments in general or for staff? Seeing none. Staff comments?

Any work?

Yeah, so we're right now in the process of recruiting four commissioners. We have three seats that are up for reappointment. So Marcy's gonna give us a quick update on kind of that process.

So applications are currently being accepted. They are all through the online portal that we used last year. Application due date is 1-29 at 5 p.m., and then interviews are scheduled for February 11th at 5 p.m.

Okay, and then, as we mentioned, twenty twenty five was a little light in terms of planning commission projects we do expect that we're gonna make up for that unfairly quickly here uh... so your next agenda uh... there will be an amendment uh... that you'll be looking at to the development agreement for the beachwood specific plan uh... there's adjustments called operating memos are not full amendments um those have to go or this one needs to go through the commission before it goes to council has to do with the allocation or timing of affordable housing units so you look for that on your next agenda and then we have a housing authority affordable uh senior apartment project just went to drc so we're working on getting that ready for the next planning commission as well Moving into February, there's a multifamily condo project scheduled, expansion to the Paso Robles Youth Arts Center facility, amendment, there's a minor amendment to our cannabis delivery ordinance, minor amendment to the sign code. And then the Ravine Water Park, they're proposing a small pool expansion, also just went to DRC. So those will be in February, along with potentially an expansion to the Allegretto Hotel over on Buena Vista and Dallins. So that's scheduled up. and then the landing project the boys school project tentatively we're working with the applicant on it but it's looking like april for planning commission may for city council so find that eir start thumbing through it it's coming question question yes um

With the landing project, you know, we have the EIR. Are there going to be significant changes to that that we need to be aware of before we get to that point?

No.

So everything is just as is within that?

Yeah. So the EIR is the description and analysis of the project. That is the project that will be before the Commission for Recommendation to Council.

Okay. Thank you.

So that will conclude staff's report. There we go.

Thank you, Warren. Okay. If there are no other questions, comments, then I will take a motion to adjourn. We got a first. We got a second. All in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned. Thank you.