The Landing heads to Paso Robles City Council with road funding questions unresolved

By Hayley Mattson · Sun Nov 15 2026

Former boys school redevelopment returns Nov. 17 as major transportation crossings carry an estimated $140 million cost without dedicated funding

PASO ROBLES — The proposed transformation of the former boys school into a sprawling commercial and industrial development heads to the Paso Robles City Council on Tuesday, Nov. 17, with a central question still unresolved: How will the major road improvements needed to accommodate development in the area be funded? The Landing, Majestic Realty’s approximately 140-acre proposal near Airport and Dry Creek roads, would bring about 1.6 million square feet of warehouses, offices, retail, restaurants, and other businesses, along with a hotel and conference center. The council hearing is scheduled for 6 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 1000 Spring St.

The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval Oct. 27, voting 7-0 on each of eight resolutions. Commissioners supported redevelopment of the property while questioning how transportation improvements, utility infrastructure, and construction would keep pace over a development period that could span decades.

The transportation plans include a crossing of Huer Huero Creek and a grade-separated crossing at Highway 46 East. Those two improvements carry a combined estimated cost of roughly $140 million, with no dedicated funding source identified, according to reporting on the council staff report.

That leaves financing and timing as significant issues for the council to examine alongside the proposed land-use approvals. The funding gap does not, by itself, establish that the city or taxpayers would pay the entire amount. But it raises questions about how costs would be divided, what funding could become available, and how far construction could proceed before the larger improvements must be completed.

At the Planning Commission hearing, staff described a system tying transportation requirements to traffic generated by The Landing. Those requirements would increase as buildings open and the development produces more vehicle trips.

Commissioner Ty Christensen said traffic remained his greatest concern.

“I just want to be sure that we really take that into account, not just today, not tomorrow, but over the next, apparently, maybe 25 years,” Christensen said.

The proposed development agreement would establish a 20-year approval term, with the possibility of an additional five years. Majestic representative Philip Brown told commissioners the company hopes to build substantially sooner but needs flexibility to respond to market demand.

Staff said transportation improvements would be triggered by passenger car equivalent peak-hour trips, a measurement accounting for the greater effect trucks have on road operations.

Initial requirements would begin at 75 project-generated peak-hour trips, including changes at Union Road and Highway 46. Additional improvements would follow at 495 trips, including a creek bridge and a roundabout at Airport and Dry Creek roads. A grade-separated Highway 46 crossing, or an approved alternative providing equivalent function, would be required at a later threshold.

Staff also said the city is studying alternatives that could provide the necessary transportation capacity at a lower cost.

Majestic is pursuing Caltrans approval for a temporary traffic signal at Airport Road and Highway 46. During the commission hearing, staff emphasized that the applicant-proposed signal would serve as an interim improvement and would not replace the required long-term transportation work.

Commissioner Ashley Lorenz questioned how traffic from other developments would factor into the requirements. Staff said The Landing’s thresholds apply to its own traffic, while subsequent projects would undergo separate analysis and be responsible for addressing their additional impacts.

The proposed development agreement also includes an additional $3 million contribution toward Airport Road improvements and $1.25 million in community benefits, according to the Planning Commission presentation. Those commitments are separate from resolving the broader financing needs for the major crossings.

The project’s master plan divides construction into approximately 50 acres in the first phase and 90 acres in subsequent development. Hotel, office, retail, dining, and gathering spaces would be concentrated along Airport Road, with smaller industrial and maker spaces toward the middle and larger warehouses farther back.

A 310,800-square-foot cold storage warehouse is expected to be among the first buildings constructed. The hotel and other buildings would return for additional Planning Commission review. The master plan contemplates up to 350 hotel rooms, although Brown told commissioners the eventual number could be lower.

Commissioner Robert Covarrubias questioned what assurances residents would have that later portions of the development, including the hotel, would materialize. Brown said Majestic was working with several hotel groups and would return with detailed plans after selecting a partner.

Infrastructure questions also extend to wastewater service. City representatives told commissioners the wastewater treatment plant has sufficient treatment capacity, but conveying wastewater from the property would require replacing a sewer lift station.

Under the arrangement described at the hearing, Majestic would construct the replacement station, pay approximately 20% of its cost, and receive reimbursement for the remaining share from the city’s wastewater fund. Staff said the larger facility would also serve future development in the airport area.

The council will also consider the project’s environmental review. Staff identified 11 impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation, involving agriculture, air quality, land use, noise, and transportation. Approval would require findings explaining why the project’s benefits outweigh those remaining impacts.

Supporters at the commission hearing included construction trade representatives and apprentices who emphasized employment and training opportunities. Other speakers raised concerns about highway safety, demolition, asbestos removal, and construction effects on nearby residents.

Tuesday’s hearing gives residents another opportunity to address the proposal before the council acts. Written comments may be emailed to cityclerk@prcity.com before noon Nov. 17 for posting with the agenda materials. Residents can also participate during the meeting by calling (805) 865-7276, and the hearing will be livestreamed on the city’s YouTube channel.