Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing. testing testing jessica can you hear me testing testing jessica thank you

Mine says 31.

Okay, welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026. Call to order. I'd like to start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, great. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Neal. Here. Commissioner Christensen.

Here.

Commissioner Roden. Here. Commissioner Lorenz. Commissioner Kovarubias. Here. And Commissioner Kogler is absent, and it looks like Commissioner Lorenz is also absent. And Chairperson Marlowe. I'm here.

Thank you. Staff introductions, please.

Marcy Renoso and Jessica Ferguson, permit technicians.

Darren Nash, city planner.

Piper Smith, assistant planner. Darcy Delgado, associate planner. Karen Jackson, IT.

Is there anyone on the line?

Michael, would you like to address this?

Michael Irvin, City Attorney's Office. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Item E, general public comments regarding matters not on the agenda. Seeing none in the audience, any callers?

No callers.

Okay. Item F, agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled.

There are none.

There are none, great. Let's move on to G, public hearings. Item one, Spring Street Village, PC 260033. Is there a staff presentation?

Perfect.

Any new commissioners?

3328 Spring Street, the Spring Street Villages. This is time extension 2602. Some of you may be familiar with this or have seen it in the past. Let's see. Sometimes if you give it a once and then... there we go all right so 3328 spring street is located in the neighborhood commercial general land use designation in the t4 and c zoning designation here you can see on the map right behind an existing mixed use which was phase one of this project along spring street 34th and park street So the time extension is requesting a two-year time extension for the associated entitlements for plan development 1804 and the vesting tentative track map 3047, the phase two of Spring Street Villages, extending the project expiration date to May 14th, 2028. Phase two and what we're focusing on tonight is the construction of 74 new multifamily units 19 of those are deed restriction low-income units with density bonuses. This image here is just the initial tentative tract map showing the two parcels behind that existing mixed use. Getting a little bit of background and looking at the timeline. So PD-1804 was actually an amendment of PD-13 that altered this phase two that's requesting the time extension. They had two time extensions in 2020 and 2023 that led to the expiration date in 2024. This was a mix of standard time extensions as well as some COVID extensions. So the numbers are a little bit off from their standard. Then in 2024, the applicant did not apply in time for another time extension, so they had to submit for a refile where the project was viewed and reviewed a little bit more as a new entitlement, therefore get the shot clock for your time extensions reset. That was approved in 2024 and was set to expire May 14th, 2026. The applicant then came back and applied for a two-year time extension submitted before the deadline. And if this time extension is approved tonight, it will expire May 14th, 2028. Something to keep in mind, PD-1804 in municipal code has four additional years. So they could be eligible for time extensions as long as they apply an appropriate deadline up to 2032. This is something, again, they still have to apply and go through the review period. And then after your four additional years, it does become a new project. Taking a look at the site plan, on the left here, you have the phase one that is constructed. That's existing, mixed use, some commercial, some residential. And then in the rear is where you get your parking and your two multifamily units split into two buildings. Here we have a rendering looking at 34th and Park Street of what that may look like. So you're kind of looking towards Spring Street in a way of these three-story apartment buildings. Taking a look at the site now. Again, this is your existing phase one, the mixed use apartment buildings, commercial on the ground floor. Both looking kind of from a northern perspective and southern perspective down Spring Street. And here we have the existing site conditions. It has been fenced off just to keep it protected. No changes relatively. Vegetation, no grading has occurred yet. So part of this time extension for the required findings, there have been no changes in circumstances that would change the review authority's findings, no changes in the provisions of the general plan zoning code or other laws, the character of the site or its surrounding, and that evidence has been provided by the applicant documenting the reason for said time extension. So there have been no changes to the proposed project nor the nature. The project is located in the uptown town center specific plan. That has not changed since the original approval of the project. The general character of the site, again, it was anticipated that this phase one was gonna be completed and has been completed since about 2017, as well as the adjacent sites are developed and have been maintained since. And then on the right here is a letter from the applicant with the evidence stating why the time extension is applicable due to construction financing and cost of inflation. That may be the applicant online as a heads up. So taking a look at CEQA, the project is exempt from CEQA, falls under Class 32 categorical exemption as infill development. And the options the Planning Commission has tonight to approve the two-year time extension, approve the time extension for a shorter period, refer the project back to staff or deny, and staff is recommending to approve the time extension by adopting draft resolution PC26, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval of the original PD18. And the applicant, I believe, should be online if he is there, if he has any comments, otherwise we can open up to Planning Commission.

Is the applicant on the line?

Hi, this is Brian Jeffrey. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Oh, thank you so much. I had to dial in. The online link was not functioning. Thank you guys for taking a look at the project and considering the time extension. As I mentioned in my letter to staff, leave Been unable to proceed with finalizing the conditions of approval and obtaining construction financing due to the inflated cost of construction at the current moment as well as interest rate environment. But we are committed to trying to finish off, build, and occupy this project. So I appreciate you guys taking a look at this and considering the grant for the time extension we're requesting.

Great, thank you. Bringing it back to the commissioners for any comments or questions of staff or the applicant.

I just had a clarification question, Piper, on the timeframe. Can you go back to that really quick? And you mentioned the four-year term, but does that start from the initial, or does it start from May 14th, 2024?

It is six total, and since the refile... Sorry, I'm getting lost in dates myself. Refile's been 2024, and so they had two years. This will then be year three and four. So you are correct, it actually will be 2030, because it's six total.

Okay, thank you for that. It was kind of a refresher for me, too, to look at that. Okay, thank you for the clarification. They would have until 2030 if it's approved now, if we extend it out. Thank you.

To clarify, this will just be approving it for a two-year time extension. They will have to apply for another time extension.

Yes, but the total of the four years would be to 2030, not 2032. Yes. Okay. All right. Thanks.

Great. Any of my other commissioners have any questions or comments? Any public comments? Seeing none, are there any callers?

No callers.

Great. I'd like to bring it back to the Commission for any more comments or a motion.

Motion on your right. Commissioner Neal. So I, being the old guy on the Planning Commission, I've been here for every time this thing has been, this project has been here. Liked it from the beginning. So I'd like to Move approval of the two year time extension by adopting draft resolution PC26XXX based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Second.

Okay, I got a first by Neil and a second by Roden. Do we have any other comments? If not, roll call please.

Commissioner O'Neill?

Aye.

Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Covarrubias? Aye. And Chairperson Marlowe?

Aye.

Passes 5-0.

Great, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. You are welcome. Moving on to item G2, modification to Hillside Development Standards, staff report. Darcy?

Darcy Delgado will be providing the staff report for this item. So as noted, this is a retaining wall height modification for 128 and 132 Almond Street. This is just near the intersection of South River and Creston Road by the 13th Street Bridge. The zoning here is R2. And historically, this site was developed with a single-family residence. There are actually two underlying lots here, hence why we have the two address points. But that home was destroyed by the Riverbed Fire back in 2020, and so... With the reconstruction and redevelopment of the site, we are here tonight to discuss a retaining wall height modification. So typically, the Planning Commission does not get involved with single-family residences, ADUs, but in this case, we have a retaining wall that is supporting the infrastructure the parking and the access and whatnot for this new construction for there's two single family residences and two ADUs, one each on the underlying lots. So when permits were issued back in July for these four units, things have been realized more recently with the retaining wall, which if any of the planning commissioners have been on site, you've seen that we're here tonight to discuss up to 12 foot tall retaining wall. I just wanted to point out some of the pictures on the screen. So photo one is the former single family residence, and this was taken around 2015 via Google Street View. And then the photo number two is a view of the subject site looking southeast. This was around January 2025. So the main house had already been destroyed, but I'm not seeing, at least with the fence blocking, I'm not really seeing construction starting, but just two perspectives of looking at this site and the historical topography and really the constraints of developing the site. So as I said, during construction and more recently, one of the retaining walls was determined that it was built taller than what was originally approved. to a height of up to 12 feet tall. So I want to kind of describe what you're seeing in the image. On the screen, so this is the north and west facing sections of the retaining wall, up to 12 feet tall exposed. When we had a routine inspection occurring by the engineering department, they essentially did a stop work for the retaining wall. So it was not yet complete, but we really needed to come to this, you know, get an application and a request to exceed what was allowed. It was determined that they were exceeding what staff could approve. And so what you are seeing in the raw form is not what it would have looked like if they would have finished it before we were made aware of it. So I'm gonna go through, I have some slides to kind of walk through what the different heights are throughout the retaining wall, what the applicant is proposing to really soften the massing of this retaining wall. And I'll explain what it should have, what would have been allowed just for any single-family residence, any routine building permit, over-the-counter permit, and then what the different review authorities, what the power is to allow for increases in height. So in our municipal code, the exposed space of a retaining wall for residential construction cannot exceed four feet in height for a front yard. So any single family residence, when staff reviews that permit, that is the hard limit. There are exceptions to this requirement that are allowed also in the zoning code, where if the applicant is requesting for up to two feet additional height beyond the four, then the Development Review Committee could approve that request. um and then if it is a request of more than two feet then that gets kicked up to the planning commission so in this case the exposed space of the as-built wall will be up to 12 feet tall in total at various sections of the overall wall plan which is why we're here tonight to request the planning commission approve the retaining wall height modification one of the things i wanted to point out in the staff report is there there's reference to you know development plan modification This project did not need a development plan. Development plan modification was really just the vernacular that we're using to distinguish that this is a modification that the DRC was unable to approve, and it elevated it to the Planning Commission. So I don't want you to be confused that there was ever a development plan required. There was not. It was really just a modification that we're here tonight. So on this slide, you can see the as-built retaining wall with some different heights noted, and you see a blue line that was painted on the wall. The blue line is delineating the top of the proposed two-to-one slope that will support landscaping. which will be on the Almond Street frontage. And so I've taken this site section and kind of annotated it to show where the property line is, and you can see with the pink line, that's the property line, and that's approximately where the retaining wall is proposed. Where the green, and it's not very bright on the screen, but where the green has been superimposed, this is in the right-of-way. Engineering has reviewed this, and they're okay with the landscaping and the two-to-one slope being in the right of way, it will not be in the street area. So there is an improvement, sorry, an encroachment plan for the landscaping to then soften the massing on the, that would be the north-facing section of the wall. So then going back to the photo, you can see, you know, about where six feet of exposed face of wall would be, and then as it goes further west, it will obviously slope down, it will be more exposed wall. So with that, actually, one more thing. So then on these two pictures, on the left you see more of the west-facing wall, and then you see the interior, I would call it the parapet side of this retaining wall. So another reason that this wall was built taller was this is where there's two parking spaces for the for the single-family residences and the ADUs. And so while under construction, the construction crew built this parapet wall to essentially prevent the cars when they're parked from rolling off the edge as you're approaching your curb stop. Here we go. So because the massing of the wall is so stark with 12 feet, especially on the west-facing side where we're not going to actually get any landscaping, there's not enough room with the footings. I think they're about 12 inches from the property line. The applicant has been asked by DRC and by staff to propose some... some change in materials, some landscaping, what is the plan for this to soften it, make it more palatable for this tiny area of Almond Street. And so, as you can see, the applicant is proposing a combination of stuccoing the wall for the base material, providing that rock wainscoting with some faux column elements as well as the trim. In this rendering, you can see that they are also showing the landscaping along the north face of the wall, which will help soften. What I'm not seeing in the rendering is that the soil, you know, sloping at a two to one ratio. So just keep that in mind. They're also including, because of the slope of the site, the topography, the constraints, they're including a curb to retain the soil. So you can see that at the bottom right hand corner where they're gonna connect that curb to the wall, again, to retain that landscaping. So here's another rendering showing this would be the west-facing portion of the wall. So this would be the full 12 feet where you're seeing no landscaping. So again, not feasible to install landscaping, and this is the applicant's proposal to soften the massing to break up the elevation. Here's just a little bit closer curb detail as discussed. And then again, just keeping in mind that there will actually be a two-to-one slope to... you know, throughout the north face of the wall that will help soften the massing as well. So as mentioned, this is not a development plan, but of course we call them development plan modifications, and so there are findings for the Planning Commission to make should you approve this project. These are all listed in the resolution. I don't need to go through them, but in short, staff thinks that this is a really good alternative way of, when a wall is built, the wall meets all the findings um one of the ones that stuck out at the first drc meetings this went to drc twice was this is creating a site distance issue if you if we scroll back to the previous um slide that's showing the historical um the the topography of the site it was well over six feet to begin with with you know a car backing out of the drive the adjacent driveway and the the slope on the west face the west facing slope um it's not increasing um objectively increasing the um historical um configuration of the site. Almond Street is not a through road. There's about nine lots there, although there are some multifamily units on Almond Street. It's not like a heavy traffic area. So I think that was probably the biggest one. Of course, we noticed the meeting and have made the put site notices for the different DRC meetings and Planning Commission meetings, and we haven't had any opposition from the neighborhood. We do have the applicant, Mr. Robert Potter, available to answer questions tonight, but in short, this is really a formality. Should the Planning Commission approve it, it would allow the construction of the four units to proceed. So with, oh, I have one more slide on the conditions of approval. Really short list of conditions of approval, and I wanted to highlight number four. Because there were still some details to be ironed out with the materials of the, the rock element and the trim cap, we do have a condition that says prior to issuance of a construction permit that the planning division staff would review those final materials. that are proposed for the retaining wall, that would allow us with the construction permits to verify, you know, what they're proposing is matching what the planning commission approve if you approve the request tonight so i did throw that in there for additional review your options are the pretty much the routine options um one would be to approve the resolution um as as proposed um number two would be to approve the project with modifications and amending the resolution um three would be if the planning commission feels that you don't have enough information you could send this back to drc or to staff for additional analysis Option four would be to deny the project and adopt findings of denial. Our recommendation is to approve the project based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval that I had just shown you on the screen. And I believe, yep, that's it. So if you have any questions for staff or the applicant, we're able to answer.

Great. Thanks for the presentation. Before we proceed, Commissioner Cobarubias had something to say.

Yeah, I just want to make it known that the applicant and Mr. Potter had reached out to me looking for some guidance. on how to kind of attack this process, and I think I emailed you, Darcy, letting them know that they were gonna reach out to you, so it sounds like you guys came up with a great solution, so I just wanted to make that known that they had reached out to me a couple months ago, and I directed them to Darcy to work this out, and it sounds like they did, so just wanted to make that clear.

Great, thank you. Would the applicant like to say anything? Come up to the podium, please.

State your name. My name? Name's Robert Potter. I'm a general contractor here in Paso Robles. General contractor for that project. And I think the, I don't really have any specific questions other than just commenting. Getting through the process of this, we've been working with Darren and Darcy closely with the DRC committee and trying to come up with an attractive solution to what the problem is. I felt like the wall, the stone is sort of an Adelaide, sort of a Korean colored local, you know, base type cladding on the wall. So I thought it would kind of accent the neighborhood. And that's really it. I appreciate your time and looking at our project, and I hope that we can come to a conclusion and get this project finished up. We're real close. The houses and the ADUs, we're 99% there. We just need to get our sewer and water connection, and we can wrap this up and get some housing for some folks.

great thank you thank you so much um you might want to hang by just any questions for me yeah we're getting there okay yeah okay great i'll bring it back to the commission for any questions commissioner roden hi again hi sharon drc uh one of the things we talked about at drc was giving the same sort of treatment on the uh west facing interior wall as you do on the outside so there's There's that same visual. It doesn't have to be on this, but I think you agreed with that. Is that correct?

I did.

Okay. Does this have to come back to the Planning Commission as far as the materials, or can they just work with staff?

That's up to the Planning Commission. The way it's been written would be for Mr. Potter to submit his addendum construction permits. Planning staff typically reviews them. Right now, that's how the condition was written. If you would like for the Development Review Committee to see those final details, we would change that condition to say prior to issuance of permits, DRC to review final details.

I think I suggested at the DRC meeting, and I may be wrong, that this not come back to DRC and that staff review and make that approval.

I concur with that.

Great. Commissioner Christensen.

Thank you, Chairperson Marlowe. Just a couple of clarifications. I was on the original DRC, and Mr. Potter, I like the design. It looks really good. I think it was a good a solution to the difficulties of that 12 foot wall, which I was wondering how you guys were gonna solve this. So I think you guys worked on a good project to make it look good. My only thing is for staff, I know in our package, I just wanna bring this up so it's on the record. There is no curbing in this rendering, but the rendering you have has the curbing. I like that. Also in our package, The coloring of the stone in our package seems a little bit different. I like the coloring better on what you presented for display. So if it were coming back to staff, I'll let you get back to that first. That stone coloring looks much more appealing. Now the stucco looks a little purplish there, but looks more gray in our site. So I'm just kind of pointing that out, putting it on the record some of the things that I think you guys would be able to choose. I think you guys have good taste in that. But I appreciate that the curbing is on that rendering. And so if we prove this, then basically I'm approving what's on this proposed in your presentation, right?

That is correct. There was a change at the last minute with the rendering. So in the staff report, there were the old versions of the wall, which showed a darker rock color. And then the, I believe it's exhibit... DRC, the project plans, we updated those to be this lighter color with the curbing detail, but you are correct. Some of the information in the staff report packet showed the older version, so what Mr. Potter is wanting to proceed with is what you're seeing on the screen.

Okay.

And I'm sure there might be some variation with what you actually end up getting, but just wanted to note that. One other question I had, when we were in the DRC meeting, one of the issues that came up was The fact that that part of the street was going to have no parking allowed on that side of the street, is that still going to be the case?

I believe that's still the case. We do have somebody with engineering on the line to answer that. Dante, can you fill in the gap on that one?

Yeah, can you hear me?

Yes.

Here, Darcy. yeah so yeah that that portion of almonds too narrow to support parking on the side of the road so um it it would not we wouldn't have parking there there's parking down the street on almond street if it becomes an issue we would potentially look at signage or red curb but as of right now we don't see the need for that as it currently stands so dante if that's the case

So how does that get enforced, or is that something that would have to be monitored later?

It gets monitored by PD. Stephanie in our law enforcement division, she looks into those kinds of cases if it's called in. then we work together on getting something implemented such as signage or striping. But with the width of the road as it stands currently, I think, Rob, you could kind of chime in. I think it's around 20 feet. People typically, you know, recognize that, see that, and do not park because it really constricts you down to a one-vehicle lane, and people typically see that and know that. So... Right now we don't want to encumber the city with additional striping and signage that we'd have to maintain in perpetuity unless it's out unless it's needed at the time which we will install it.

I'm not trying to force that but if there's nothing there it's not painted or what have you but I get what you're saying it's a narrow street so. I don't know if I agree with you.

If it becomes an issue, we can implement it. We can put the curb in and paint it red or add a sign, no parking sign on that side of the street at that time.

Okay. Thanks, Dante. I appreciate that. Thank you. Because you know how tenants can be. They're going to park where they want to park. So thank you. That's all I have for right now.

Great. Commissioner Roden?

I have to say sometimes that's a little harder done than said, Dante. We've had that issue up on Panorama for quite a while. If this is a concern, we might want to address it now and make sure that that is red striped.

Okay. Yeah, that's something the planning commission wants to move forward on. Yeah, we can definitely add red striped curb, red painted curb, or a sign typically is a cheaper option that says no parking on that side of the road. So we can definitely implement that on the encouragement permit and plans for the applicant to do.

So this is Commissioner Christensen again. Would that be a major difficulty to paint the curb red?

Once it's it would not.

I think if they were to do that not team that might solve the problem right there to notate because God forbid if they ever needed to get another fire truck in there would really suck to have a car parked right there. But yeah, that would be something I would recommend if the applicant didn't find it to be too difficult at all.

OK, great.

Yeah, we'll definitely coordinate that with him.

Thank you. That makes sense. Any other comments, questions from the commissioners? I just have one. I was curious, it's a little tough to tell what's happening on the south side where the fence and the retaining wall meet. And I know it's not necessarily part of this approval. I just, I can't see it. What is exactly, like how is that transition from wall to whatever that is to fence?

When this is complete, that wall and and the intersection from of the wall and the fence that you see in in the display they'll be connected there will not be that lower uh wooden

retaining wall that you're seeing there now okay so the wall and then the wood fence will intersect and then there'll be some sort of grading or whatever behind it that's correct great that was my only question um i will open it up now for any public comment seeing none in the audience any callers no callers

okay great bringing it back to the commission here for any more additional comments or emotion commissioner christiansen again i just wanted to say good job i think you guys had a tough job with that and staff did a great job making this move forward so if there's no other comments i'd like to make a motion that we approve this draft resolution

Did you want to include the painted red curb in that motion?

Yes, that's exactly what I was going to say, so thank you. Awesome. Having the applicant paint that curb red for no parking.

First by Christensen. Commissioner Neal? I'll second. Second by Neal. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. And Chairperson Marlowe?

Aye.

Passes 5-0.

Great, thank you, thank you Darcy, good job. Okay, we are moving on to H, discussion items. or I guess I consent calendar. Anyone have any comments or questions regarding Planning Commission minutes or DRC minutes? Commissioner Neal. I move approval of the consent calendar. I got a motion by Neal. I'll second. Second by Christensen for the approval of the consent calendar. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Neal. Aye. Was it Commissioner Christensen? Yes. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Chairperson Marlowe?

Aye. Great. Item J, other reports. Darren, any housing constraints and opportunity HEOC zoning code update report?

There are none at this time.

None. And DRC rotation committee schedule, any comments, concerns, questions, hopes, dreams, wishes?

We just have a chance.

I will not be here for the first Monday of July. Yeah, so I have Kogler down for the, is that the 6th? Thank you. Perfect.

And I will be filling in for Roden on 6-29. Great. Go back up top here. Moving on, Item K, Planning Commissioner Comments.

I'd just like to say something real quick. I just wanted to say thank you to staff. That project on Almond, I was wondering how they were going to solve that, to be honest with you, because it was such a tall, ugly-looking wall. But I wanted to give you guys kudos. That was a great job. Keep that project moving forward. So thank you.

All right. L, staff comments.

See, we've got the planning commissioner for the commission schedule for July. So there's a meeting on the 14th, which would be the next planning commission meeting. Then there's not a second meeting in July for planning commission. So no meeting on the 28th. It's been slow. gonna pick up here we've got some projects again on the horizon but they they are they will be coming you will have your homework to do once they hit but it's looking like later August September it's gonna be an easy chair year okay if there's no other comments item M adjournment is

Can I get a motion to adjourn? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Great. Thanks.