Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing. Testing.

Still good, still good. Thank you.

I don't know that I've ever met you. My name's Marcy. I've emailed, yeah.

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the City of Paso Robles Planning Commission meeting Tuesday, August 25th. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We're going 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,

All right. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Lorenz.

Here.

Commissioner Kogler. Here. Commissioner Neal.

Here.

Commissioner Kovarubias. Here. Commissioner Christensen. Here. Commissioner Roden. Here. Chairperson Marlowe.

Here. Staff introductions, please.

Marcy Renoso and Jessica Ferguson, permit technician.

Darren Nash, city planner.

Regina Wheeler, solid waste or recycling manager.

Katie Bannister, associate planner.

Ashley Hernandez, homeless services manager. Angelica Fortin, community services director.

Anyone on the line?

They're locked online with Best Best and Krieger, city attorney's office.

Great. Thank you. General public comments regarding matters not on the agenda. Are there any members of the public that like to speak anything about anything not on the agenda? Seeing no one in the audience, are there any callers?

There are no callers.

Okay, great. Any agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?

No, there is not.

There are none. Okay. We are going to move on to public hearing item G1, time extension moose apartments, P19-0093. We've got a staff presentation.

Thank you, Chairperson Marlowe. As you said, this is a time extension for a project that got entitled quite a few years ago. So this is a vesting tentative parcel map, PR190070. There was an amendment to the development plan, and then the TEX is for this time extension. So the project is, the city staff has given the project the moniker the Moose Apartments. This is the site where the Moose Lodge used to be located, so we used it to identify, and it seems to have caught on a little bit. So the Moose Apartments, it's a mixed-use project. It's located at 2548 Spring Street, and like I said, it does include a vesting tentative parcel map and an amended development plan. So here we can see the location, 2548 Spring Street. This is just south of 26th Street and across the street from the Lewis Flampson Junior High School. I'll jump into the description. So the project was approved with two phases. Phase one was building A. This is the building that has been under construction for quite a few years. This building includes 4,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. There are eight three bedroom residential units on the second and third floors. And then phase one also included partial parking lot improvements. Those are not complete, although they have begun. Phase two is building B. It is a three-story building. It includes 18 one-bedroom units. The project, as approved back in, I believe it was 2020, included an affordable housing density bonus. There are two affordable units currently required, a unit for a low-income household and a very low-income household. So here's a look at the site plan. Spring Street is on the left side. 26th Street is on the top of your screen. So phase one, building A is the building under construction that's in the yellow square. And then building B is at the rear. This building, we have reviewed building permits for, but we have not issued a building permit for that. And then the project does include a parcel map that would split the lot. So building A would be on one lot and building B would be on a second lot. so some background I've already gone over some of this but so some of this will be rehashing but the project was approved by the City Council back in 2020 it did at that time include two buildings it included 4,000 square feet of commercial space but only 17 residential units and we issued a building permit for building a in 2020 the applicant came back to the city in 2021 for an amendment to the development plan for building b that second building that's never been constructed um in 20 with the 2020 housing element the Planning Commission recommended and City Council adopted what's known as fractional density where if you build really small units 600 square feet or smaller they count as less than a density unit and so they were able to use the fractional density to change the rear building from having only eight It had eight three-bedroom units and it was, I apologize, nine three-bedroom units and it was converted into a floor plan and site plan that includes 18 one-bedroom units. So building B would have 18 one-bedroom units. So that is what has been approved to date. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved two time extensions. There was one in 2022 and one in 2023. The state of California adopted an automatic time extension for residential projects in 2024. This project was eligible. That was AB 2729. So the project was automatically extended for 18 months, which took the project to August 4th of this year. the project has had some fits and starts with construction I think most of the Planning Commission sitting here has reviewed this project at least once if not twice for that the time extensions most recently the last city inspection that documented any progress was just about a year ago on August 28th 2025 there the city has been working with the property owner to get construction going or to surrender the property over to somebody else who can finish that project so the so that is you know the status of building a the city building inspectors and the fire marshal do go by the property regularly to make sure that it is secured and that we aren't seeing homeless activity within the buildings So status of building A. So fast forward to 2026, just I think a month or two ago, the city council did approve the community services department to apply for a grant from the housing and community development department. It's an encampment resolution fund. The grant includes multiple pieces, but one of which is purchasing this property to then work with Haslow. I believe the property gets sold to Haslow or given to Haslow for a very low amount of money, and Haslow would create long-term housing for acutely low-income households. Haslow operates part of the Echo Shelter, and so they are looking to find long-term housing for folks who are being really successful successful down at the shelter on black oak drive so the idea is as people are successful there becomes a pipeline to move into permanent and more um uh you know unsubsidized housing you know little by little so this would be another step in that ladder and that's what the the grant is intended to do so we've sought this grant we don't know whether or not we will get funding but the applicant would like to keep their time their uh entitlements active regardless whether or not this is a completely private development or the city becomes involved the entitlements you know we would like to keep those active So construction progress, I went out and took these pictures today. The building now has 90% of its siding, maybe 80% of its siding up on the left is from Spring Street and then on the right down at the bottom, I'm standing on 26th Street looking to the southwest. So some siding is still missing and my understanding is the interior is not finished at all. There's studs but the construction is not complete inside. just for the Planning Commission's memory the last time I brought this project to you in April of 2024 you can see the progress on the right there was construction paper that was flopping in the wind you know the project on the left that's today obviously we're not all the way there but substantially you know it does look a lot better so the time extension is exempt with the project and the time extension are exempt from sequa it was approved for a class 32 exemption it's an infill exception to qualify you have to the project has to be consistent with the general plan and uptown town center specific plan has to be less than five acres no value as habitat and it can't have any really significant impacts environmental impacts and so this project did qualify for that class 32 exemption as always the planning commission does have options the first would be to approve the request for a one-year time extension that would extend the amount of time the applicant has to finish the phase two and to record their vesting tentative parcel map you could approve a time extension for more or less time we wouldn't recommend approving any more than two years but you could if you if you desire do a two-year time extension or less time if that is the preference or you could amend or modify the the noted options staff is recommending that you approve the request for a one-year time extension to the vesting tentative parcel map and the amended development plan if you were to approve another year that would give them until august 4th to either complete the project or to come back again for further time extensions and that concludes my report great thank you katie bringing it to the commission for any uh questions or comments

Katie, just some clarification. An applicant can apply for how many extensions?

So the Subdivision Map Act allows for a total of eight years for the life of the map, but any automatic time extensions like the one that happened in 2024 are in addition. So this project at this point in time could have a total of nine and a half years.

Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify. So that 18-month required extension did not count against their total allotted time?

That is my understanding.

So my next question is, What feedback have you gotten that they'll be able to complete the project in the next 12 months? My concern is that that's not going to happen.

so the city staff also has the same concerns we have been working with the city attorney to work pretty aggressively with the property owner to get this project completed they did start again back in 2025 you saw the progress from 2024 most of that happened in 2025 things you know were progressing slowly but surely and then they did they appeared to falter like i said the last inspection we did was just about a year ago so if the grant is unsuccessful we will move back to being more aggressive with the property owner.

So that was my last question is regarding the grant. Grant processes usually take quite some time. So how long did they apply?

My understanding is we will find out next month whether or not we receive the grant and then we would begin negotiations with the property owner.

Oh, okay. And it's for the entire project, correct? Correct. Both phase one and two?

Correct.

Okay. Perfect.

Today it is one property. They do have a tentative map, but today the whole property is one.

One project. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Katie. Following up on the grant application, if we give this extension, are we expecting if we are successful in getting the grant that that would be what we would be working on as a city more so than them completing the project?

Yes. If the city receives the grant, we would purchase the property. And then the Home Services Manager and Community Services Director are here. So if I start making mistakes, they'll come up and correct me. But I believe the grant, we would purchase the property. And then Haslow would acquire the property from the city. And Haslow would complete the project. Haslow, I apologize, is the housing authority of San Luis Obispo.

OK. Ashley, is that pretty well? Or Angelica?

While Angelica's coming up, I think it's important to note that what's on the agenda tonight is a time extension for a parcel map and a site plan review or development plan, what was on it. So tonight what we're looking at, the permits for the front building have been issued. And the timing of that not being completed is something that's being worked on separate from a time extension. The time extension tonight is to allow the entitlement for the rear building and the subdivision. So just so you understand, what's before the commission tonight really has nothing to do with whether the city is applying for a grant or who the owner becomes in the future, whether it's one parcel or two. Tonight is the time extension for the parcel map and would facilitate developing the second building. That's part of that entitlement.

Thank you for that clarification. I know that this all kind of folds in together, though, so I want to make sure we're clear on where we're going with this. So.

Ms. Bannister is correct. However, Haslow would acquire the property, not the city.

Did you have any questions? Yeah. Commissioner Christensen.

I appreciate the explanation of the extension. I think basically what Darren was saying is basically all we can consider is the time of extension, although all of us, I think, are concerned with the fact that the property has been such a blight to the city for some time. Do we know, did they ever get the electrical switch that they talked about back in, I don't know, was that 2022? Or has it even progressed that far?

I don't recall. I remember, you know, continued promises. I don't know. Marcy, is there anyone on the line? Is there an applicant on the line? sounding like not. I don't recall. You know, they made some progress on the exterior. I think the last inspection that was called was for lav, you know, under the stucco. There's some stucco on the 26th Street side. I don't recall.

Okay. I just was looking for clarification on that. Okay. Thank you, Katie.

Katie, the... Extension is just to keep the project alive for the present time, so to speak, to allow them to hold the current entitlement to some point in the future and when they seek another one, perhaps. What happens if it gets denied? They obviously will have to reapply. Have any of the requirements of the rules changed that would shape the project in a different way? Do you have any idea? Or would it just be, if I don't get it tonight, maybe I can get it next year?

Yeah, so phase one, building A, is vested. So we wouldn't be, you know, those. Just B, or phase two. Phase two, exactly. So yes, it would be back to the drawing board. I do have a slide of the findings you would have to make in order to deny a time extension, and they are relatively limited, the circumstances under which you, you know, would not extend the project. But yes, it would definitely make it more complicated for whether it's the current owner Future private owner or the city if we if we did not extend the time the the entitlements they would have to apply again, okay?

Yeah, and the specific plan has not changed in the meantime so the intent here is simply to hold the entitlement in their hands so to speak Realistically there's no way they're going to do construction in a year They haven't done construction in five years on the first building so it just preserves their right to continue into the future correct Thank you Commissioner Neill

Yeah, I guess my only concern is this entitlement adds value to the property and could be used in a negotiation for the sale. I don't know, has the property owner been in contact about this grant and the sale of the property?

Yes, the property owner is aware and has signed. I want to say it's a memorandum of understanding. He is interested, or they are interested.

I'd just be concerned that they could use it for a bit of leverage.

My understanding is our Community Services Department and the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo would prefer that you keep the entitlements alive.

Any other commissioners? Only question I had is I'd just be curious about, not that we're gonna go one way or another, what the findings are required by us to deny the project. I know they get eight years. I don't, okay.

Yeah, so I've just put up the slide. You would have to find that denying, failure to deny would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community in a condition dangerous to their health or safety or both. And I would argue that not allowing the project to proceed is what would leave the neighborhood in danger. And denial is required in order to comply with state or federal law. The state, you know, has made housing a priority, and I don't think that they would agree if you found that the, you know, Denying housing if you wanted to not extend the map. I think they would They would not say it's against the their their rules.

Yeah, it's very specific. Okay, great If none of my other commissioners have any questions or comment, I will open up to public comment Please come up and state your name Hi Linda George 3 1 2 6 Spring Street just for the record I wrote an opposition to the grant

It's a 47-page grant. It's round five, and the grant money is founded off Housing First Law, a 2016 law that the state put upon us, where this housing, if Haslow takes it over, first it was presented as an eight-sober-unit apartment. Okay, and then tonight I find out there's 18 additional units. I have walked up all in down Spring Street, spoke with the business owners, some of the projects you've approved that's supposed to go on next to Rite Aid. Everybody and the parents are in an uproar. Unfortunately, school was out when this initially came into my purview. What we're actually doing, a $14 million, I think, approximate, 70% of that grant would go to Haslow. We're going to give Haslow $3.5 million for that project. Then they will develop it into sober, homeless apartments. However, this grant money doesn't allow that. So I appreciate the spirit in which trying to get affordable housing, but I have worked with the homeless my entire life. I have found and seen many people who have come off the streets into high rises, and they make it. T. Wolf in San Francisco was a fentanyl dealer four years ago. Now he's at the Capitol. So I am not against meeting our random numbers with these types of housing, but what I'm concerned about is, let's say Michelle Pedigo leaves, and somebody comes in and says, oh, you can't do that. You can't just make sober people live there. We're going to have 26 rooms of potential homeless addicts because the 216 law indicates that you cannot discriminate. you cannot kick out for drug use that you can't do any of that so there's going to be a real book big community push back on that so my question is is if Echo received some more complaints on that grant from a community advocate about not feeding the homeless. I was there. I watched it. So I don't know if that grant is going to happen. So then my question would be, if that grant doesn't come through, can Haslow still purchase that property? Will the city still make a deal? Because that's going to be a deal for Haslow. They try to buy some property on the skate park, and I found out through negotiations that didn't happen. I feel like one Haslow project in this small city is enough. But if they come in, they cannot use this particular grant money, but they can get other monies to fulfill their 26 rooms for sober Homekey. Now, I've been to Homekey. They are actively doing drugs there. So I don't see it, but I just wanted to make sure you guys have that information. I'm okay with the year extension. I'd like to see it be a low-income clinic is what I wanted. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? Seeing none in the audience. Marcy, are there any callers?

There are no callers.

Yeah, we're going to do some more questions. No callers? There are no callers. Okay, we're going to bring it back to the Planning Commission for any follow-up questions or comments. Did you have something you'd like to speak to regarding...

I just wanted to provide a clarification. The grant is not before you today, but the grant does not include any construction of the entitled units. It only includes construction or completion of the project phase one. It could potentially include making those from three bedrooms to two bedroom units to provide additional units. It would be housing that prioritizes families that are in the permanent supportive housing campus at Haslow, not in the shelter. But it would be family units.

Great, thank you. Just for clarification, Darren, would if if for some reason haslo got the grant would any of this come before the commission for the approval of that seller would that all go to directly to city council like my question is based on uh public comment and their request really the the planning commission has no authority of over those type of things unless they're for some reason we were involved in that um transference of some sort

Right, I think the number of units, I'll defer to Katie on if that's been analyzed in terms of a zoning or a unit number. Have we looked into that? Is that something that would come back to the Planning Commission?

We've had conversations. The only change that the Community Services Department and Haslow at this point intends to make are internal to the building. They would increase the number of units to the exterior of the building, which is what the Planning Commission is typically interested in, would not be changing. That being said, when the rear building went from having nine units to 18 units, it did have to come back to the Planning Commission. They, at that time, made changes to the exterior of the building. So we've been having conversations about whether or not just changing the unit count would come back to Planning Commission. So it's possible, but we haven't made a determination of whether or not that meets the thresholds for needing Planning Commission approval.

Okay. But for clarity, it would only be the change of the construction. Anything to do with the grant or the ownership or the city's deal with Haslow, that has nothing to do with the Planning Commission, and we have no authority over that.

Absolutely correct.

Okay, great. I just wanted to clarify that. Commissioner Kogler.

Katie, with the shuffling of units, has anybody analyzed the parking? Does the parking still meet the unit count as it might end up being if threes go to two and nine went to 18 and whatever other numbers have shifted over time?

we have not I will say with the rear building when it went so the way the parking requirements work in the uptown town center specific plan is that if you have a studio or a one-bedroom unit you need one parking space if it's two or more bedrooms you need two parking spaces so when they went from three bedroom units to one bedroom units and they doubled it it was the same parking requirement In this case, if we're going from three to two bedroom units, the parking requirement would not come down. But I will say that we are looking at deed restricted units. The entirety of the project would be deed restricted for acutely low households. And, you know, I think it would be in the city's interest to reduce or, you know, they might use concessions or other mechanisms through the affordable housing density bonus program to reduce the amount of parking required. That is possible.

Thank you. Commissioner Neal. So, Katie, this would still fit under a 32 exemption, a categorical exemption, right, for infill? Correct. So even with the additional units?

I mean, the only potential impact, and we haven't analyzed it, would be traffic trips. I mean, the impacts of the site are the same. It's development of the whole site. And so, like, you know, impacts to biology or air quality are going to be comparable.

And I suspect the additional traffic is minuscule.

I agree. I don't think that it will rise to the level of an impact.

Thank you. Commissioner Christensen.

Thank you, Katie. I think I just have some comments on it in general. What's before us, obvious, is the time extension and I don't necessarily agree that it's better for us to give them the extension because the way they've drugged this out and it's just continued to be a blight. I don't know that we have a lot of leeway in that, though. So, you know, for me, I'm just following what, you know, we have very little leeway in what the state allows. And to me, that's a problem that I think we all recognize. I don't think we're going to change that tonight. As for you know the city buying it with a grant money Boy, I have a lot of comments on that. But again, that's not for tonight. We're just in front for this for the extension They have the right to the extension for what how many more years would they what do we have?

Like they'd have another 18 months after this They do so they the project was approved in 2020 I believe it would get them to somewhere in the middle of 2029 possibly 2030 I didn't do the full math

Okay. And I do believe that given this extension doesn't mean we're going to see it change from that picture from 2025 because we haven't seen it change until today from 2025. So the owner has no interest in pushing this project forward. I think he's just waiting for a nice paycheck.

for a grant from the city but um you know in my opinion i don't think we have much choice but to just move forward and approve this extension i will say that city staff and since you last heard this has moved a lot more aggressively with legal action to to address the the lack of progress so whether or not the grant goes through or we just you're extending this for some future owner staff is working much more aggressively and i appreciate that i think that's really important because

A year goes by, another year goes by, it is becoming an issue there, and I just think it's going to get worse and worse. So I'm glad to hear that, Katie. I appreciate that, too. So thank you.

Again, just a clarification, the city would not be buying that.

So I'll have Angelica come up again if I misspeak, but my understanding is the city would purchase the property and then Haslow would acquire it from the city. The city would not be expending any local dollars. We would be using the grant dollars to purchase the property and then Haslow would purchase the property from the city for less than what we purchased it for with the grant dollars.

The way the grant was written, Haslow would actually be acquiring the property, not the city.

Okay. Yeah. Great. Any other commissioners got any comments, questions, concerns? If not, I would entertain a motion. I'll move. Commissioner Christensen?

I move we approve the resolution for the extension.

I'll second it. A first by Christensen, a second by Koberubias. Can I get a roll call?

Mr. Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Covarrubias? Aye. Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Neill? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz? Aye. And Chairperson Marlowe?

Aye.

Passes 7-0.

Great. Thank you, Katie. Okay. Moving on to item G2, general plan amendment to the city's fear of influence and fire hazard severity zone map. Staff presentation, two for two.

Thank you, Chairperson Marlowe. So this project has a title that makes it sound like there's a lot happening. What you should understand is there is nothing happening. If you read through the recitals in the staff report, all of the actions, all of the major actions that caused the need to update these maps has occurred. The City Council or LAFCO have approved all of the changes. The maps that depicted those changes were not updated in the general plan. So don't be afraid of the large title. So I can give you a little more background. As we prepared for the third item on your agenda this evening, which is a proposal to annex land around the landfill, as I was reviewing the maps and reviewing the documents I realized this fire hazard severity zone map is incorrect our sphere of influence has changed all of these maps are incorrect and we're just about to make amendments for the to make to annex the landfill and it didn't make any sense to adopt maps for the landfill that showed incorrect information and so like I said this is a house cleaning item and you know don't let the title scare you also you don't have the right to change any of these you know you don't have the right to change no I mean the the fire severity map the sphere of influence these are all council you know what what it what appears in our general plan maps you do get to advise but changing those overarching policy documents is not in the preview like the grant from the last item that that part is not up to the Planning Commission so As I said, no substantive changes are being proposed, but there are three actions that were taken in the last two years that are not reflected in our current general plan exhibit. So first, in June of last year, council adopted a fire hazard severity zones map that was based on a map that was adopted by the state This community of Paso Robles wrote letters. Originally, the state fire marshal had shown some very high fire severity zones. All of that work was done, and all we are doing is taking the map that council adopted and putting it into our general plan. Similarly, in January, the local agency formation commission did a review of the city's sphere of influence. We'll get into what a sphere of influence is. they made an amendment there that that sphere of influence those land masses are shown on multiple maps in our general plan finally in april of this year council adopted a new local hazard mitigation plan that was part of a larger regional hazard mitigation plan and again exhibits in the uh in the general plan and some text in the general plan make references to an older local hazard mitigation plan that was adopted in 2013. Okay, so as I said, I've already kind of given you this. So this is the fire hazard severity zone map that was adopted by council. It was first adopted by the state fire marshal. Council adopted it back in June. Similarly, this is one you probably don't have as much background on. So in January, LAFCO, the Local Agency Formation Commission, reviewed the city's sphere of influence. So a sphere of influence is a planning boundary that is outside a city or special district's legal limits that designates its probable future physical boundaries and service area so this is the city declaring in this case to the county because that's who you know the all these areas are currently in the jurisdiction of the county these are areas that we have a special interest in and we want to know what is being developed there and we think someday we might annex those and make them part of our city so there were i think 13 areas analyzed i've only listed i think 10 of them in the table because some of them were proposed by LAFCO or by the city and were rejected. So I've only listed those that either were in or have been added. So I have an animation. So there were seven areas that were removed. There were a number of sphere of influence areas on the west side along the residential areas of the west side of the city. Those were all removed. The city has no intent of serving or annexing those areas. Similarly, on the east side, the Vina Robles did a subdivision, the area two where the X is, that land has largely been developed and the city no longer intends to annex or have any control over that land. And then at the south end of River Road, Oak Lane was in our sphere of influence. So those areas were all removed. the action is done you are not considering whether or not to remove those from the sphere of influence this evening we're just deciding whether or not to change the maps finally one area was added wisteria lane west of golden hill so this is golden hill just north of of lowes the low center there is an area that actually got added to the city's sphere of influence the reason largely is because we will need that for circulation you've probably seen plans for the um parallel route that will go north of 46 so we really this was one missing piece for where we expect that parallel route to be placed so that area 9 was added and then no change to three areas we do still see that Mill Road and the South Ramada and the landfill and of course we're going to see immediately after this that the landfill is up for consideration very soon for annexation So again, this action has already taken place. We just are looking to amend maps in the General Plan. Finally, in April, the City adopted the Hazard Mitigation Plan. This did not actually require any changes to maps in the General Plan, but it did require text changes. see what those look like so there are text changes to both the land use element and to the safety element in the land use element the change the text changes really only have to do with the sphere of influence and it reduces the number of areas that are in the sphere of influence and actually increase the size of those areas so you'll see we went from having nine areas in our sphere of influence down to four in the safety element uh the the text changes uh largely are references to the local hazard mitigation plan there are many places where it references the 2013 plan i changed those to 2025 references to the section and table numbers you know that data might have been in table one and now it's in table six so those are the changes you're seeing in um in the safety element We did also combine all of the floodplain awareness maps into one map. They were previously in four separate maps, and my understanding is that was because back 10, 20 years ago, the preciseness of the maps, the, like, the... just how crisply they could be reproduced, like the dots per inch. It was too rough, and so in order to show the area, we had broken it into four areas. The maps and the printers are now so much clearer that it is now possible to put all of that map into one map. So you will see that as a change as well. And then information from the hazard mitigation plan did change the number of properties and people. that are in moderate and high fire hazard severity zones. So those are the text changes that are proposed. Jumping into the maps, there are four maps where only the sphere of influence was removed. That includes land use map three, land use map six, open space map one, and safety map seven. So I didn't include all of these because nothing on those maps changed except I just removed the sphere of influence entirely These maps, the sphere of influence is not really pertinent to the point of the map. So the map you see on the right there is the existing specific plan areas. There's really no reason for the sphere of influence to be shown here, and as in the future in 10 years we might change our sphere of influence again so that we don't find ourself with this backlog of maps that need to be amended, I've just removed them from the maps that it's not pertinent information. So the sphere of influence will no longer be shown on these four maps. Land use map, excuse me, figure LU1, that's in the land use element. It's the figure one in the land use element. This is the sphere of influence boundaries. So you can see we saw previously all the areas that were considered. This is now the clean. This is the four areas that are currently in our sphere of influence. So you're just updating this map to show what LAFCO already approved. And you can see, I don't know if this guy works. Oops. The new little area at Wisteria is right there, that little square. Okay. The FEMA map, I removed the sphere of influence, and over time, FEMA does make changes, and our GIS maps have kept pace. They are minor refinements, but I think there are a few small changes. Again, these were changes adopted by FEMA and not by the city, but they're now reflected correctly in our safety element of the general plan, or they would be. Figure S6 is the one I mentioned. This used to be four maps, and we have combined them into one map as well as removed the sphere of influence from that map. This is the map that none of us like to see. It's the fire hazard severity zone map. Again, this is the map that council already adopted. We're just putting the correct map into the safety element. So that is the entirety of the proposed changes. The project, I didn't change the title of this slide, so I apologize. This is not a class 32 exemption, but it is exempt from CEQA. It is not considered a project because it doesn't have the potential for causing significant effect on the environment. All of the projects that came before to result in this project went through a CEQA process. They were either considered exempt or there was environmental work done. So those projects had the potential for impacts. Changing maps does not. So as always, the Planning Commission has options. The first would be to adopt the draft resolution that is before you. It would approve a general plan amendment to correct the outdated maps and the text and the land use, open space, and safety elements. You could make modifications to those recommended changes, and those would be forwarded to the City Council. If you'd like more information or for staff to make additional analysis, you could make that option, or you could deny the project and leave the maps out of step with what has already been approved. Staff is recommending option one, which would be to adopt the draft resolution to recommend the City Council approve the general plan amendment to correct the outdated maps and the related text in our general plan. And that concludes my report.

Thank you, Katie. Okay, I'm going to open it up to the commissioners for any comments, questions, or concerns. Commissioner Roden.

Thank you, Katie. I just have a question. Can we go to the sphere of influence removed map? I'm trying to click because that's East Chandler. Where does airport road, the old airport road go on that map?

I'm going to walk over because the pointer is way too large.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

So the existing airport road comes down here and then we do need a connector through North Chandler Ranch and then airport road north of the 46 is here.

So this area is outside of city limits. The North Chandler Ranch is already inside city limits.

Okay, so that's where Airport Road is, or you would think it would align as on that west boundary?

Correct. The final alignment of Airport Road is not decided, but it is thought that it will run somewhere near this eastern boundary of the city.

Gotcha. Thank you.

other commissioners comments questions Commissioner Christensen Katie just for clarification on the lu3 or exhibit C for example it mentions the North Chandler Ranch area specific plan is that in process is that actually existing

It is not existing, and the city does not have an application. There are 879 residential units have been allocated to that specific plan, but in order to develop that area, they will have to come to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council to have a specific plan approved, similar to how Olson South Chandler and Beachwood were approved.

So I'm just, for clarification, I'm confused. They're calling a specific plan, but we don't have an application for it. I know the housing units have been allotted, but...

The land use element has policies that require for the areas that are shown, used to also apply to Beachwood and to Olson and to South Chandler Ranch, that in order for those properties to develop, they had to have a specific plan approved. The city would not consider development in those sites without a specific plan. So we know that that area needs a specific plan. The name North Chandler Ranch is a placeholder until an actual specific plan is adopted.

I just was saying for clarification, I think, you know, I guess maybe that's being thinking ahead, but it's not currently a specific plan, so having it labeled as such seems a little confusing. But, okay.

The proposed changes that's existing, all that changed on that map in particular is we've just removed the sphere of influence from the map. So that's how it shows today, other than the sphere of influence is also shown on Land Use Map 3, yeah, LU3. I understand it is confusion. The council would need to make a much larger policy decision to remove that.

I get it. I do. But to me, it's incorrect. But I get it. I understand. I'm just trying to make it simple. Thank you for explaining that.

If there's no other commissioners, I'll open it up to public comment. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak? Seeing none, any callers?

There are no callers.

Okay, bringing it back to the Commission for any more comments, or I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Kobler.

I would move that we adopt Resolution 26, PC26-Number to be inserted to recommend the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 26-03 to correct outdated maps and related text in the land use, open space, and safety elements.

Commissioner Neal. I will second. First by Kobler, second by Neal. Any other comments? Okay. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Kovler. Aye. Commissioner Neal. Aye. Commissioner Lorenz.

Aye.

Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Roden. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Chairperson Marlowe.

Aye.

Item passes 7-0.

All right, moving on to item G3, Paso Robles Landfill Annexation.

So thank you, Chairperson Marlowe. You are lucky I am not going to present this last item, but I did want to introduce Brandy Cummings. She is a consultant for the city, and she's been working with the city's solid waste manager, who is also here this evening, Regina Wheeler. But Brandy Cummings is going to give this next presentation.

Great. Thanks, Katie. Welcome.

I feel like Katie's on a roll. I should probably just let her keep going. All right, let me make sure I understand this. This project, as Katie alluded to, is annexation of the landfill. And so let me get going here. So the city owns quite a bit of land just south of the landfill out off of Highway 46. It's about 133 acres. And the city bought this land back in 2005 to sort of act as a buffer for the current landfill operation, which is, I realize there's no legend, shown in the gray. Let's see. You've got like a... There we go. The gray square at the top there. So meant to act, you know, in the future if the city needed anything for the landfill expansion improvements, that that land wouldn't already be developed or encumbered otherwise. Um, at this point, the city is looking to actually annex that. So it's currently unincorporated, which means any projects that the city would want to undertake on that land, you would have to go through the county to obtain land use permits, building permits, pay them fees, um, be beholden to their entitlement conditions. Um, so this project's really to give the city control of the land that they own surrounding the landfill. If you've never been to the landfill and done a dump run, you probably wouldn't recognize it driving down the highway. It's pretty well hidden. It's about four miles east of the town proper. But the actual landfill parcel, that gray parcel, is incorporated. So that is technically a little orphan of city land hanging out over there. Okay, so as I mentioned, this project is just to get that land under city control, so incorporated into city limits. That would involve changes to both the general plan and the zoning ordinance to give it city general plan and zoning designations. The land is currently designated agriculture by the county. This project would keep most of the land agriculture, but it does set aside about 30 acres that would continue that public facilities designation that the landfill currently has, and that would allow for future improvements. When I get to my CEQA site, I'll talk about a project that was proposed, but that would already pre-set up the city after annexation for development under the public facilities zoning regulations. So we did prepare a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to CEQA for this project. And in that declaration, you'll notice that we not only considered the annexation, but at the time we were also considering an organics processing facility. anaerobic digester similar, you know, to the one that slow has, um, that is no longer part of the project. So today we are just looking at the annexation. Um, that does not change the outcome of the M and D. Um, should the city down the road after this is annexed, want to pursue that project again, um, the city would then make a determination if that M and D is adequate. to cover whatever project is proposed at that time. So it's always better to have more in your environmental analysis instead of having to come back and redo it later. Um, so that did circulate earlier this spring in March. Um, the MND determined that there were no significant impacts. We do have some mitigation measures in there for air quality and biological resources, kind of your typical development parameters. Those only apply if development is happening. So there are no measures that are needed just for changing the lines on the map, which is essentially what the annexation is doing. You're changing the lines from County jurisdiction to city jurisdiction. but should future development come down in the future the city could rely on those mitigation measures and that MND to proceed with a future project I won't read all these to you I know it's a lot of words and they're in your staff report but there are several findings that the city will be making as part of your resolution to proceed essentially what you will be doing as Planning Commission is making a recommendation to City Council to proceed with annexation of of this project should that proceed to city council and city council also agrees to move forward with the annexation. The next step is to submit an application to LAFCO, Local Agency Formation Commission, and then that starts the process to formally begin incorporating the city. So it involves an application. There's a fee. LAFCO will rely on that M&T that I mentioned that we've already prepared for this project. There's some map changes at the end that's done at the state level. And then after that, the city will have control over what goes on on that land in the future without having to go through the county for entitlements. You do have several options. We are recommending that your commission do recommend to council to approve the annexation and proceed with that LAFCO application. Um, you may, um, approve, make a recommendation for approval with some modifications. You could recommend that city council deny moving forward with the annexation. And what that would mean is if a city ever wanted to do anything with that property, you would need to go through the county. Um, their standards for agriculture, uh, would apply to the project for any permits. And then your last option is staff could continue analyzing the project if you had some specifics we could look into certain details and come back with a recommendation. You're going to cover this but we are recommending your Planning Commission take these Act actions basically approving the resolutions that includes adopting the mitigated negative declaration proceed initiating proceedings to annex the property and then the related general plan amendments and pre-zoning so pre-zoning is a little different than a rezoning um basically the city is saying this is what we want the property to be zoned out if the annexation is successful and then once that annexation process is complete with lafco that pre-zoning becomes zoning so just a little nuance there i believe that's my last slide if you have any questions i'm here for it yep uh

Open it up to the commission for any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none over here, none to my left. I just have a couple like housekeeping ones just because I haven't been part of an annexation. One, could it be possible, not that they would, that the county pushes back and you know, like no you can't have our land. Like has that happened or does that happen? Just curious, out of curiosity. Or is it LAFCO's ultimate authority?

So part of the annexation and the LAFCO process is a property tax sharing agreement between the city and the county. And usually when there are issues between two agencies involving an annexation, that's where it gets held up. There's not an agreement on how the property tax sharing is going to shift from county to city. In my experience, that's usually only an issue on properties that are not to disparage landfill property, but more lucrative. So those with like retail or commercial zoning that are going to generate sales tax that the county would potentially be losing out on by giving that control to the city.

And then as far as like, because to me, the city limits would be one square. And then obviously we have something part of the city limits that's not attached to the city. Like, How does that work compared to something that's right next door? Or how could we go annex some property that's right next to San Luis Obispo for some reason? This is, again, just curiosity.

No, good questions. LAFCO does prefer contiguous boundaries of districts or cities. The fact that the landfill proper is already part of the city is positive because now you're not creating an island. There's already an island that you're just adding to. In the future, like If you wanted to, as Katie was talking about sphere of influence amendments, if the city is super built out and you're like, oh my gosh, we need more room, a logical next sphere of influence area would probably be connecting your two little islands, big island, little island.

But would there be anything to stop us from getting, unless it was LAFCO, like, hey, we want some property way off the reservation for some reason.

No, and I think even, I think LA County or maybe LA City owns some property that they have annexed out in Kern County, which is super weird, but it's for their waste water management. It's possible. I would think in this county that would be less favorable.

I would agree. Nope, just those were my only questions. Thanks for the presentation. If there's no other questions for the commissioners, I'll open up to public comment. if there's any people in the public. Nope, seeing none. Callers?

There are no callers.

Okay, we're going to bring it back to the Commission. Just because there are four items, are these all separate motions? Okay. So would someone like to start getting to work on some motions? Commissioner Neal.

I'm trying. I'd like to move approval of Resolution A, recommending the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act.

First by Neal.

I'll second.

Second by Lorenz. Any other comments? If not, roll call, please.

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

Aye.

Passes 7-0.

Commissioner Neal? I'd like to make a motion to approve Resolution B, recommending initiation of proceedings to annex property.

All second.

First by Neal, second by Lorenz. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Neal.

Aye.

Commissioner Lorenz. Aye. Commissioner Roden. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Kogler. Aye. And Chairperson Marlowe.

Aye. Commissioner Neal. I'd like to move approval of Resolution C, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 26-01. All second. First by Neal, second by Lorenz.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Neal.

Aye.

Commissioner Lorenz. Aye. Commissioner Roden. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Kovler. Aye. And Chairperson Marlowe.

Aye. Commissioner Neal.

I'd like to move approval of resolution D recommending approval of pre-zoning zoning code text amendment 26-01. I'll second.

First by Neal, second by Lorenz. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz? Aye. Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Chairperson Marlowe?

Aye.

Passes 7-0.

Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Discussion items? I'm seeing none. Move on to I, consent calendar. Anyone have any questions or comments regarding the consent calendars? If not, I'd entertain a motion of approval. Commissioner Neal?

I'll move approval of the consent calendar.

First by Neal.

I'll second.

Second by Lorenz. Roll call, please.

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

Aye. Okay, item J1, Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee, Zoning Code Update Report. Any update there, Darren?

No report tonight.

No report. And DRC Rotation Schedule. Any challenges, comments? Marcy, did we get everything filled so far off your email there?

Actually, can you confirm the dates that you are covering?

I'm definitely covering on the 28th. I believe I should be able to cover on the 21st. I don't see a problem with either of those.

Okay, thank you.

And then Roden, were you covering the 14th or the 21st? I don't remember. I saw emails flying around.

Yeah, I think I said I was going to cover the 14th.

and say what we need two people on 21st yeah um and i can also cover the 21st okay great so it looks like we got all the absences in september handled commissioner neil the job yeah just again if there's a hiccup i can do it remotely okay thank you thank you for letting us know um So actually speaking to that, I was informed during DRC, I don't know if this was going to come up in staff comments, but our six-month trial period of the 4 p.m. DRC meetings has come to an end, and it's going to be just by default going back to 3.30 is what I was told during the DRC on Monday.

That was per the action that the commission took to place at 4 o'clock.

So that's now kaput, and we are officially going back to 3.30 starting Monday the 31st.

Correct.

Okay, great. That sounds good. I may end up throwing my hat in the ring to do those remote, but I'll work that out with the city.

Yeah, I think Warren is the planning commissioner secretary, so I think he needs to, if that's something that you're looking into, I know the city clerk as well, so. There's some challenges with doing that, and I think they should take that into consideration so that they can properly provide you back with what would need to happen or if it's even feasible.

Absolutely. So I'll discuss that with them. Commissioner Christensen.

I know it's going back to 3.30, but was there – and just this is out of curiosity because I don't know if there was a report on it. Was it a negative outcome at 4 o'clock, or was that something that most – I know I didn't have a problem with it, but I was just curious if that was an issue for staff.

I think that 3.30 worked better for staff and applicants involved with presenting, or applicants and their representatives, the 3.30. We got in a bind sometimes at 4 o'clock when we had items, very much understanding that some agendas are very light. But just in general, the 3.30 start time, I think, worked better for staff and applicants. I think if it's something that we want to discuss again, it's something we can discuss. We just had a sunset on that first go-around.

Yeah, and Commissioner Roden.

I was just going to say, I think we discussed part of the problem for the other commissioners that weren't there. The city clerk was concerned that if we continued to change the times, because we said if there's a lot, we can change it to 3.30, that there need to be a consistency in time, whatever that is. So that was why we want a consistency.

Yeah, I'm not going to make a fuss at this time because I know most of it was moved to support me. But the one comment that I would say is as we get new commissioners and people are, you know, working, it's definitely a lot more convenient because I got to, you know, leave fairly early. But it's a commitment I have and I understand and I will work, hopefully we can work with the city to continue to make it work. So, yeah. Moving on, if there's nothing else on DRC rotation schedule, moving on to K, planning commissioners' comments. Any comments for planning commissioners? Seeing none, staff comments?

No, we talked about the DRC, but other than that, no further comments tonight.

Okay. Can I get a motion for adjournment?

I move too.

Okay. Second. By Kogler and second by Christensen. Or vice versa. Roll call. Aye.