Call this Thursday, May 28th, meeting of the Planning Commission to order.
Commissioner Lozarka, would you lead us in the pledge, please?
Mm-hmm.
The Pledge.
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.
Can we have a roll call, please?
Let the record show we have a quorum with all council member, I mean, commissioners
present, except Commissioner Rutledge and Commissioner Lowder.
Excuse me. Oral and written communications.
Members of the public wishing to address the commission on any items not on the
agenda may do so at this time, when recognized by the chairperson.
However, no formal action or discussion will be taken unless placed on a future
agenda. Public's advice is limited discussion to one presentation per
individual. If not required, please state your name and place of residence for the
record.
Anyone?
No online.
Moving on to item five in the calendar, approved planning
commission minutes from April 9th, 2024.
Date should be 2025.
2026. Jeez.
We're a little off there.
I'll move for approval as presented.
I second.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Okay. At this point,
let's push item 6A
and see if we have another
commissioner show up so we can have a quorum-
Okay
... and move on-
Okay
... to 6B, please.
Nice.
Good birthday equipment.
Mm-hmm.
Good evening, chair and members of the commission, members of the public.
Lisa Lozier, city planner, and I will be presenting
agenda item
6B, which is a lot line adjustment
2026-01.
Project
location.
The applicant is Black Diamond Holdings, LLC, and they are
requesting a lot line adjustment of two parcels.
Those are listed under one AP number, legally created
parcels, and that is located at 525 Monterey
Street.
The project site is located within a limited industrial zone
district,
and the light industrial
general plan land use designation.
So the proposed project would modify
the southernmost lot line of lot
1 by shifting it...
I'll go with the text.
The language was a little wonky, so if I may.
So what it's going to do is on lot one,
the lots as they are now are approximately equal.
The lot line adjustment is proposing to shift the lot
line from lot one south,
about 53 feet.
And that changes the lot sizes from, on lot one from
.47 acres to .63 acres. And lot
two would go from .47 acres to
.32 acres.
So the lots for these
projects,
one of the criteria for a lot line adjustment is making sure that the
approval does not create parcels that are smaller
than the minimum parcel size for the district,
and these parcels are larger than the minimum parcel size for the
district.
So that's
perfectly fine on that.
Lot number one
currently has an automotive repair business and a
principal permitted use in the ML district, and there is
no development on lot two and no development proposed
at this time. The
proposed lot line adjustment does not impact the current
business in a way that would make it not able
to conduct business or not able to meet any kind of
setbacks or access to the property.
Okay, so we went through that with the shifting of the parcel sizes.
I included this graphic to show on the red line, that is where the parcel
line is currently. That is the existing line to
be deleted. And the green line that shifts
to the south, that is the proposed line where that would be
with approval of the lot line adjustment.
So the lot line adjustment complies with government code section that's in the
Subdivision Map Act,
66412 .
It does not result in the creation of additional
new parcels. Basically, lot line adjustments are
exempt from the requirements of having
a parcel map or a subdivision map by the
Subdivision Map Act. So it's really exempt from the
requirements of having a required map to do
the lot line adjustments.
The lot line adjustment is consistent with the proposed applicability of
the ML zone, as I discussed earlier.
The new adjusted lots will maintain the current lot width
of 129 feet. So the minimum lot
width for that district is 100 feet, so it still
exceeds the criteria,
and it complies with the lot requirements for the Orland Municipal
Code, Section 17.48.040,
which is also the ML zone district.
So environmental determination for lot line adjustments,
basically by the CEQA guidelines, that is
15305. That's a Class 5, which is a minor
alteration in land use limitations.
For the most part, in the Subdivision Map Act, lot line adjustments
are considered ministerial. They do not have to be
approved by the planning commission.
But the Orland
Municipal Code and the subdivisions under Title 16
provides that lot line adjustments will come
for the planning commission for approval.
And in the direct language of that particular section, it
also allows that the
planning commission can
add conditions of approval.
Those would be exceptionally limited in scope
to meeting the general plan, meeting the
zoning ordinance, allowing for access and
utilities. So any other
conditions,
specifically like if you wanted to limit the types of uses on
the property,
that would not be appropriate or any kind of conditioning for a lot line
adjustment. So the scope is very small.
So basically, that's the
environmental.
The recommendation for this project is find that the proposed lot line
adjustment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act guidelines, Section 15305
, and Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution
2026.
That's Attachment A, which would improve the lot line
adjustment 2026-01, as proposed.
And just to be clear, I've run into a
couple of issues with the lot line adjustments.
This is basically a first review and first step
for the planning portion of the lot line adjustment.
These projects go to the city engineer, and the city engineer
checks all of the
survey type of requirements
that would need to meet state code as well.
And then the city engineer will prepare a certificate of
compliance, which is recorded.
And that's a little bit different on typically with parcel maps.
That approval would go to Planning Commission.
And then after the approval,
it's an approved map, and then it goes through a process also
with the city engineer. They do all the
checks on the map to make sure it's okay.
The difference is that lot line adjustments aren't necessarily
required to come to Planning Commission, but they do have
criteria that needs to be met by the city engineer
that comes later after this part. It's
typically that planning checks it, verifies that it
meets legal
parcel requirements, that it meets the general plan
planning and
access and those types of things. The engineers check all of
the specific criteria that
all of the, I guess the layman's term is that the parcels
all close. They check the new
descriptions, and then they do a certificate of
compliance, which is recorded.
Okay.
Do we have any questions for staff?
One little one. I think I already know the answer. Okay.
Technically, Shasta Street was all the way to rail tracks, correct?
I believe yes.
Okay. And the cell tower's to the south of it, so that's not on.
It has nothing to do with that.
That's correct. That is on a parcel-
A separate
... a separate parcel.
Okay.
South. Yeah.
So all this is just the body shop and the land up on it.
That's correct. Yes.
Okay. Just to be clear on that.
Okay.
Just a couple. So what you were just explaining,
so the applicant, the owner, goes through
us, then it goes to the engineers, and the rest of it is
done ministerially, and then it's done?
Yes. So typically,
these projects, there are a lot of jurisdictions that do not require
lot line adjustments to come before the Planning Commission.
It is approved basically in-house
by planning and by engineering.
It's a little bit different situation.
Just because of us and our code?
Because of your code. It's written into Title 16
subdivisions that lot line adjustments come before the Planning
Commission for approval.
So did the owner
give a reason why he wanted to enlarge the lot? Was there a particular reason?
Just curious.
Yes.
We
should
Just questions.
Okay.
So short reason, the existing parcels are to be modified in size to
match the existing improvements.
I didn't understand that.
So what I take from that is that because they're making parcel one
larger, they intend on using the whole of
the larger parcel to support the auto business.
That's what I was wondering, if they needed more space-
Yeah
... to either enlarge or to improve
other business.
Yeah, the existing business.
The existing one.
The existing business.
Yeah.
Yeah, there's no proposed business on parcel two.
Yeah.
Another quick question, if you know it, um, how much does it
cost to go through this lot line adjustment process through you
versus having it done ministerially?
So the fee for the lot line adjustment for planning
is $376.
So we could potentially save the
person the effort if we were like
most everyone else.
I wouldn't say that necessarily, um, because the
376 does, um,
provide for the planning review of the document.
So I don't... To be perfectly honest,
the fee that is on this probably doesn't take into
consideration the cost for the planning commission.
I don't know how that's evaluated, within how the city
does their budget.
But it
does cover staff time to
actually do the review that is
necessary for the approval, which would need to be done even if
it was a ministerial process.
Okay.
What it would cut back on is
doing the presentation and putting all of that information together.
Hmm.
There's also a cost for the recording.
Yes, and there's a cost for the recording.
Um, a lot of that is captured through the
engineers.
They require fees as well-
So-
... that are captured upfront.
Okay, so the planning,
376, then there would be an additional for the engineer?
Yes.
So the total cost to the applicant, the
owner is, or would be?
I wouldn't be able to tell you what the engineering fees are.
Okay.
So it could be close to $1,000.
I would say it's probably pretty close.
For a two-parcel lot line adjustment,
um,
that probably isn't going to be significant to check for the
engineer.
Mm-hmm. Yeah.
It's based on, um, known lot sizes
that were preexisting, so a lot of the information is
available.
Sometimes for, um, parcels that are maybe very
rural or were not developed with a specific
map, it might be more expensive for the engineer to take
time to go through all of the documentation to
verify that the lot lines
that are within the deed actually match the property.
Mm-hmm.
In this case, those parcels were created with a subdivision
map prior, so a lot of the information's already
available.
Thank you.
We'll open it up to public comment. If there is anyone on this matter?
None seen, none heard.
I'd entertain a motion.
I'll move that we
approve the proposed ordinance,
the Resolution 2006, an extraordinary line approving the lot line
adjustments as proposed. And, um, with one
motion, Ken.
Equally to allocate. And also find that the, um,
project exempt from the CEQA,
um, regulations, California Environmental Quality Act
guidelines, uh,
15305 .
Hear the motion.
I second.
Hear a motion of second. All in favor say, "Aye."
Aye.
Aye. Motion approved.
Just a quick explanation, gentlemen.
The reason that we skipped yours, which was the first one on the agenda,
is I'm not able to sit in on that. I'm going to have to recuse myself,
um, because of, um, I own close property, and
under the advice of the attorney will not be part of that conversation.
So we were hoping that someone else
would show up so we'd have a quorum to be able to discuss and take
action. Um, if you don't mind, we can move on
and complete the next step and hope that someone still
does show up.
Um, I apologize for the delay.
So would you move that to a different date?
Yeah.
We can move that to the following meeting too, if we need to.
We can.
Okay. So it's up to you if you'd like to wait and hope that someone else shows up,
or we can move that to the next agenda.
Continue it.
Continue it?
Yes.
Okay.
So we'll continue that to the next meeting. We apologize, son.
Thank you for coming.
Thank you.
Moving on to item 6C.
That
shouldn't have happened.
I know.
Okay.
We ready?
Yes, please.
Okay. So,
agenda item 6C, this is a discussion item.
And I
left it open, when we're done discussing, if
you want to ask for additional information,
we can do that. I wasn't quite sure
where we would actually go with this.
So,
at the April 9 special meeting, planning commission directed
staff to present a discussion item regarding Assembly Bill
507 and the potential implications this bill may
have on residential development in the city of Orland.
So, I put together--
What I wanted to do is
put together just kind of some talking points.
Basically, I included the text of this bill,
in case you were interested in going through the details.
There is a lot of information in there.
This bill was...
Assembly Bill 507 was approved by the governor on October
10th, 2025, and it was with
just a significant number of other land use
bills, mostly related to the production
or
easing regulations for building newer houses,
particularly to accommodate low income or
specific communities,
homelessness or elderly veterans that are having a
very difficult time
with housing. So this bill is interesting
in its intent to streamline the adaptive
reuse of existing buildings by allowing projects
to be considered a use by right.
Typically, in zoning areas, if you have commercial
zoning, it doesn't necessarily allow for residential
uses. It's kind of more of an older type of
Euclid zoning, where the intent was to separate uses that
could be detrimental to each other.
Businesses tend to have different types of hours.
They tend to make noise or parking.
There's a lot more activity.
Residences,
of course, are
residential uses, so much lower impact.
So
a lot of the intent was just to separate the intensity of
uses.
Over probably the last
20 years, that's kind of pretty close to my lifetime
as a planner,
housing has always been a problem.
The provision of affordable housing has always been a
problem,
and there's a lot of reasons for that.
I won't specifically go into that because I can beat that
muck all night.
But what is important to note with this, in the last
five years, particularly, the state of California
has
worked very hard at addressing the housing
crisis and affordability. And what they've done
is change a lot of regulations, some of which
ease the requirements for the California Environmental Quality
Act,
for
environmental documents to be prepared for subdivisions
and for other types of developments.
So they've eased that requirement.
They've made changes in the requirements for parking,
for lot sizes, for housing sizes, for where
housing can be located, even allowing
for abandoned commercial buildings to be
modified into housing. They've encouraged for mixed-use
development.
I think used to, probably in the early parts of the
19th century and on,
it was very common to have buildings that were
commercial or industrial even on the couple of ground
floors, and then above that would be residential.
It was not unusual for business owners to
live in the same building that they conducted business.
But over time, I think particularly after World War II,
people got away from that. There's more suburbs, and there was a very much
larger divide with
residential and commercial industrial types of uses.
So we're kind of going back to that now.
And basically, Assembly Bill 507
provides some additional criteria that
makes it easier to identify different types of
uses that can be converted or adapted for
residential uses.
They use
bypassing traditional conditional use permit processes
The way the City of Orland municipal code is set up, it has permitted by
right, administratively permitted, and conditionally permitted
uses. So you could
typically, with the way the ordinance is set up, it has several districts
that allow residential uses as a conditional use.
Those are the types of uses that would come back to the planning commission for
review and approval to verify that there aren't going to
be any negative impacts for public health and safety.
So,
this bill does bypass that type
of
oversight by the planning commission.
This bill establishes affordability standards, and it exempts
certain projects from parking requirements,
and it facilitates the conversion of underutilized structures to
multifamily residential. So that's kind of the
gist of the bill.
Basically,
I kind of went through looking at
the different aspects of this bill.
Loss of discretionary authority
is kind of one that rises to the top, because if
you're streamlining a process, if it's permitted by right, if it made
certain criteria, then that bypasses
the
Planning Commission's ability, and it kind of bypasses
the requirements for the Orland Municipal Code as well.
So it takes a little bit of power away, or not necessarily power,
but discretion away from local jurisdictions to be able
to decide how they want their residential uses
to be conducted within their city. So, that's an issue.
It also has a streamlining process, so
strict application to deadlines.
Local agencies are required to process and approve or deny applications
within specified times that are often very
difficult for smaller jurisdictions to meet,
just based on-
Yeah. There's just something-
The, um.
Okay.
Sorry.
It's okay. I'm so sorry.
Oh, that's okay.
Affordability
requirements. So these types of projects are
required to qualify. They have to devote at least
50% of their space to housing to include designated affordable
units.
For example, rental housing requires a minimum of 8%
very low income and 5% extremely low
income.
We talked about this a little bit.
So we talked a little bit about this before, that
the housing element, the next housing element cycle is
including additional
acutely low income and extremely low income
categories for housing. So I think a lot of these,
the newer housing bills are intended to help support
that.
So and also for CEQA exemptions is
they are eliminating conditionally, approvals
by conditional,
the conditional use permits, then it would be a
CEQA exempt and ministerial approved by right.
So, that cuts out another layer of
potential impacts that may be important
in circulation or by provision of services.
So it makes it a little bit more difficult that way as well.
And there are quite a bit of other items.
One thing that I did want to mention is this bill, even though it was approved and
signed in October 2025, it does not go into
effect until July 1 of this year. So,
it's not something that we have to worry about right now, but that is kind of
right around the corner.
And I had, unfortunately, other notes on my
computer, but
anyways, yeah. So
I would be open to answer questions.
If you have questions,
I can bring back additional information.
If you have something specific,
if there is something in town that you think might be an
issue that you would like some additional information on,
I would be glad to gather that. But that's kind of
a short version of 20 pages of state
law. Yeah.
Thank you very much for the presentations.
Looks like Commissioner Montague has something to start.
Yeah, the reason why I asked you a couple months ago to bring this
up, because when I read through it, it's like, as I said, it takes a couple of
days because you fall asleep after page five.
But,
I just wanted to
bring it up and discuss it because the biggest problem that I saw with that
is it makes it, it
takes that control away locally. And what's good for Orland and what's good
for LA are two different things. And
I don't like the idea
that state-- Again, they've done this to us a few times in the last number of
years, where they kind of-
mandate something that's really none of their business.
And I don't like the idea that the state comes up with something like
this that it basically tells us how to run our own city.
And that they make--
When I read through it, it seemed to me they're
gutting the zoning laws. They're making it to where you could
make anything in the
residential except for heavy industrial. Is that right?
I mean, for anything commercial area, you can
convert any commercial property into a residence by
right. Is that the way you read it?
That's the way I understand it as well.
Yeah. And I think that's a bad idea.
I know there's nothing we can really do about it.
I guess we can write a letter to them.
They're not-
Gonna get it done or something, but
I haven't gotten really super into the weeds with this, but one thing that I have
noticed that is fairly consistent with a lot of these
housing bills is that it does allow for health and safety
concerns. So if somebody was looking at
revamping a commercial property for residential
use,
but that property did not allow for appropriate
fire protection,
that the local jurisdiction could make findings saying that, "No, we're not
going to approve this because it is a health and safety issue."
So those types of things are still on the table, but it
is something that you have to do the fact-finding and make the
findings and say, "No, this is not going to be
approvable because it doesn't meet this criteria."
And probably defend it in court.
Potentially.
Yeah.
I guess it depends on how aggressive the developer would
be.
Well, I mean, it's like that one thing we talked about was a
year ago or so, where the
contractor developers were remedying stuff to where it makes it--
It seems like it's right on that same
level.
Again, Sacramento's telling us what to do.
And I think that these kinds of issues are better
handled locally.
Well, and I think you're also
going to see, from the other jurisdictions that I've worked for,
there are very few of these projects that actually come forward
because the properties that would be big enough to make a
conversion like that profitable
just aren't here.
The smaller jurisdictions just don't have the available property,
the
vacant commercial properties that would be large enough that you could
make a conversion pay off.
Right. We don't have an empty Walmart or an empty Kmart-
Right
... over here like-
So-
But that's just the idea. Just the idea kind of bugged me when
I read that a few months back, and I said that-
I think the part that bothers me the most is the request for
the expedited review.
Yeah. The review.
Because for smaller jurisdictions, I know
for City Hall,
when you're really super limited on staff, that is a very hard
push. And if you're having to bypass
other projects for people that live in the community to be able to make that
happen,
it's very disappointing.
Yeah. I think it was like some 60 days or
something.
Yeah, 60 to 90 days, depending on the size of the project.
Anyway, that's why I brought it up here months ago for
clarification. I don't know that it's going to affect us too much, but you
literally could take a building in a commercial area
and convert it to a house.
With it?
Well, almost
by right. Virtually by right. Not can.
Virtually by right.
Right.
You can take a commercial building-
I would imagine that
when they're talking about 50% of the space has to
be included for affordable units and 8%
for very low income and extremely low income.
So I think that is probably going to control a
lot of the potential for revamping
properties,
because there just isn't a significant amount of money based on
how much it would actually cost to do the improvements.
Because it would have to meet the building code to be an actual
residential unit.
But I mean, like a small project, if you took that commercial
building out here somewhere-
Sure
... and made it into a duplex, that 5%, 8% thing doesn't really matter,
but it doesn't.
It does.
How do you make 5% of it low income
or 8% low income?
So how it would matter if--
Let's just say acutely low income.
Mm-hmm.
So
to figure
out what the annual salary of somebody that would
be acutely low, basically, either their rent
or their mortgage would have to be less than $250
a month.
So I think it is unlikely that somebody's going to spend
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to convert a commercial
building to residential units that are
going to-- They would have to have some kind
of benefit to be able to make it so they're only
charging $250 a month for those lower income
units.
Does that 5% kick in? Does that mean there has to be at least 19 units in that
building or 20 units in order for 5% of them to meet that requirement?
I mean, if it was the two-
That's a really good question.
If it's a two-unit building, how do you say 5% of-
Well, if it's a two-unit building and they're converting that to just
regular apartments-
Then the ques-
Well, you may even round it up. It's not round. Way up.
That's what I'm saying.
Well, if you take into consideration how many of the older buildings
downtown were actually designed, and we have residential downtown and
commercial
downstairs and residential upstairs.
I understand, yeah.
So I don't know that there's that big of a call for it.
I understand the question you're asking, and I don't have a
specifically good answer for if it was a small enough
building, would they have to be low income to meet this?
Well, low income-
So that would be something that I would look at
... low income's not a huge bar. The big bar is that ultra low income.
Well, it is. It is.
Yeah.
And, I don't know that there are buildings...
I don't know the size of the building that you would have to want to
convert
for this to kick in. That would be something that I would have to look
at and run some numbers.
Yeah. Because those numbers, those 5%, 8% numbers,
how it seems to me it wouldn't kick in unless you're putting in 20 units before you
take 5% of the project and make it-
Potentially, yeah
... ultra-low income. So the other 19 is what a profit will be.
I'm not
saying it's going to happen
on that, as far as there... Again, there's not a big, old empty
Kmart down here taking up-
Right
... 80 acres. So we don't have that kind of issue.
There's lots of buildings around town you can convert to a house or an apartment.
Probably wouldn't be very hard.
Well, and if it is not low
income, and it is not subsidized, and doesn't meet
specific criteria,
you would just go through your use permit process if it was a
regular housing unit.
Yeah. But if it that, then we're talking residential as opposed to
commercial. We can take commercial properties and convert them into houses-
Mm
... or convert them into duplexes or something like that.
And, again, biggest problem, and sometimes it's not a bad thing,
it just, the thing that bugged me was the use by right, that comment.
Yes.
That-
Municipal
... by right you could take a big, old, ugly building over
here by the railroad tracks or something, and or whatever, and convert it into
three or four apartments and
then we'd have-
Technicalities
... where the state tells us what we have to do.
I don't like being told what to do.
Fair enough.
You know?
Yeah. Fair enough. I understand.
The state mandate.
But that was what I
brought it up. I read that and it's like
we lose control. We lose local
control. This one size fits all state, and
California's not a one size fits all state by any means.
It's a state that's very diverse. So
that was-
Fair enough
... even Sacramento gets into our business.
What's good for Sacramento or Raleigh is not necessarily good
for... And that use by right, that-
I understand your perspective. Yes.
Yeah. And so,
anyway. And that was my question that I was raising
two or three months ago when I brought this up.
We had that, and it's like, "That doesn't sound
right." And I read through those pages, but
again, we got 20 pages, and it still bores you to death.
I don't know how you do it, but
and so-
Sometimes it's pretty hard to swallow.
Yeah
Yeah. It's
good nighttime reading if there is insomnia. It puts you to sleep.
So that's why I brought this up.
It's probably not a huge thing in Orland, it's probably not a
huge thing, but it does make it commercial zone, commercial buildings, like
commercial zones are now-
There is a potential-
... by right
... for it to-
By right it can be made into residential.
And you might have some conflicts if you have
residential immediately close to a commercial
situation.
Well, if it, ultimately, on a conversion like that, if you have a health
and safety issue,
like I was mentioning before, if fire can't
provide adequate services to the building for whatever reason, or
if it doesn't meet building code in a way that it can
actually be considered a residence.
Those are all things that could be findings that you could say, "No, this
is not going to work."
Yeah, that's hard to say, "Well, it wouldn't meet the fire code or
something." Well, it's pretty-
I have seen a couple of projects that that was actually true
on secondary access for provision of emergency
services.
Yeah.
So, it
depends.
It feels like a lot of the stuff, though, was already slipped in
when we had to add so much that we didn't want to add
to our house development. So-
Yes
... a lot of this stuff is already on the books.
It's already-
They're just putting an exclamation point on a portion of it.
But are there municipalities that maybe have slipped
Trojan horses into their health and safety codes that could
help give them out? It's not that I'm saying that we should do that here, but...
It depends on how creative you want to be.
It's always possible.
I think if you
had a way of rewriting your code
that would make it easier to
prioritize
moderate, and the above moderate types of housing,
you would probably want your city attorney to
verify that that would not be causing a problem.
I just say that as just-
One take.
And I'm also going to reiterate that
I have seen very
few of these types of projects coming into smaller
communities Because they typically don't pencil.
Hmm.
But it's just a continuation of-
Yes
... of everything else that we've seen, another thing that we've discussed in the
recent few weeks, where the state can come in and-
Yes
... they can ministerially tell you what you can and cannot do, regardless
of what decisions your city's already made.
Yes.
Which is kind of shameful because that was the whole point of
making cities have a general plan-
Mm-hmm
... specific plans, and zoning ordinances for their own communities.
Which is great, plus they got other ideas.
Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Tyler, anything?
Thank you for that enlightening presentation.
You're welcome.
And gentlemen, I want to thank you for returning.
Appreciate it, and appreciate you sitting through that. And Tyler, thank you.
Yeah. I apologize, guys.
So at this point I will, like I said, I will disclose that I have
a partial ownership of a neighboring property, and will recuse myself at
this point under the direction of the city attorney.
So I will turn the meeting over to Vice Chair Montag, and
I will step outside for a few minutes.
All right. Thank you, Steve.
Chairman Nobbe will be back after this matter is concluded.
All right.
City planner, you want to give us a rundown on the-
Jennifer
... report on this?
Yeah. Bring up that presentation.
Maybe.
There.
Okay.
Lisa Lozier, senior planner. I'll be presenting agenda item
6A,
for tentative parcel map
2026-02. So the location
for this project is 217 East Walker Street,
and APN
041121017.
The site is currently developed with two existing buildings,
a 3,664 square foot building and
a 5,474 square foot building. It is
my understanding that these are
not currently being used for commercial
purposes, but they are commercial buildings.
They are located in a C2
community commercial location.
You can hit the next slide for me, please.
So,
the controlling interest for
subdivisions is Title 16,
1612030 for tentative maps. The planning commission is
authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove
such subdivisions that do not require final map as provided
for in Section 161204
of this code.
For conformance, we're looking at land which is subject to
the provisions of this title and shall conform to the
regulations.
It also points to
the City of Orland Municipal Code that lays out what the
lot sizes are typically, what
setbacks for particular properties are, and
development standards. So next slide, please.
So for this particular project,
this is the map that was presented, the plat,
and it shows the layout of the project,
where the two parcels are,
the current lot lines for parcel, and
then the layout for parcel one and parcel two.
Go ahead.
So the proposed tentative parcel map will subdivide
its approximately 1.2 acre property into two separate
lots. Each of the proposed parcels exceeds the
minimum 6,000 square foot minimum parcel size.
Those are
in the C2, the 6,000 square foot is the minimum.
For parcel one, the proposed size is
22,267 square feet,
and for lot two, it is
27,186 square feet.
And as I mentioned, those are above the minimum, so they're
appropriate.
There is no current
proposal for any new type of development.
The way the lot lines are proposed, it puts one
building on each parcel. They meet the
standards for setbacks,
so that is appropriate.
If you can, next. So this shows that
both parcels would continue to be in the
community commercial zone.
And
both parcels
would have access, and they currently have
utilities service, so basically, we're just drawing
lines at this point with no proposed development
activity.
So the environmental determination is for minor lot
land divisions.
Usually anything that is less than five acres or less than
four parcels Meets that minor land divisions
classification for 15.315.
So that is the recommendation for environmental determination.
And next slide.
The recommendation is move to approve Planning Commission Resolution
2026-02 and Exhibit A, conditions of
approval, finding that the project is categorically exempt from the
environmental review pursuant to guidelines
15.315 for minor land divisions.
And that concludes my presentation.
Mm-hmm. Ready to question this item? No.
Karen?
No, just a note that the
lower one, the southern building, access is from Colusa
Street.
Yes.
And so but then Walker Street would be the access to the-
Parcel road
... southern parcel. But that, that piece.
Any questions? No.
Okay, we'll open up for public hearing.
Yeah.
Steve?
Steve Butler, Precision Surveying, representing the applicant.
We accept the conditions of approval.
Thank the staff for a report, and I'm here to answer any questions
you may have.
Any questions for-
Well, since you invited us.
Have you got big plans, or is there a-
Not this time. It's basically an estate planning
tool. This was two parcels, and the
building on this, on parcel two was
constructed over the property line, which required a merger
of those parcels some time ago. And we
probably-- it probably should've been a lot line adjustment at that time, but
it didn't happen, so it was-
Mm-hmm
... it's a parcel now.
It used to be an actual line. That's the-
Yes.
Yeah. It's completely different.
Any other comments from the
team?
Uh, he just answered my question, or that, that-- did you ask, because I live two
blocks, or a block and a half away. I was just wondering if it was any plans for
the buildings, just basically a lot line adjustment.
But just my question's answered. Thank you.
It's going to be split, not a...
It's, no, it's a split.
It's a split.
Not a land line.
That's correct.
No, it's a split.
It's a-
It'll be a parcel into two parcels.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Not like the other one, which is actually a lot adjustment.
Different than the other one.
Might be a little bit.
Any other public comments?
Okay. Close the public hearing. And then
it is your wishes.
Move.
Entertain a motion, please.
I move that we approve the Planning Commission Resolution
2026-02 and Exhibit A, conditions
of approval,
and find that the lead project is categorically exempt
from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15315, minor land divisions.
Mm-hmm.
Second.
Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Those in favor, say aye.
Aye.
Aye. Hearing no opposed, motion passes
three zero one.
Oh, okay.
We have one abstaining.
I get that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Steve.
Thank you.
Mike?
We will now welcome back
chair of the meeting.
Thank you.
Oh, it's on?
Please
remind me. Welcome
back, Chairman Santiago, sir. It's getting chilly up here.
It's cold. Okay. So we will move on to item seven, staff reports.
Any reports?
I have no reports.
Okay.
Commissioner reports. Commissioner Webbeck, anything?
No, no report. Sorry again for being off track with time.
Commissioner Montek?
No. I don't have anything. But thank you, Lisa.
I know you put some time into that, and I appreciate it.
Lisa, is this your last? You're going through to the end of June, correct?
End of June, yeah.
End of June.
Yeah.
Okay. So we will see you again.
Okay. I don't have anything except maybe a future agenda
item.
I have nothing to report.
It's a future agenda item.
So I don't know if this is sort of off-base, but
your presentation report on that lot line adjustment,
maybe think a little bit and wonder if it's
necessary in our code or if we could maybe adjust it out,
if there-- unless there's some good pros and cons.
If there's,
like for the city,
you know, we want to streamline everything.
We-- that's what we've been working on for many years.
Yes.
And so if this would streamline without,
I mean,
your time tonight, your time,
even though you might still have to make a report.
It, it's, um, it is my professional
opinion that if lot line adjustments, because
there are four parcels or fewer,
if they could be managed by staff in-house,
the approvals would be substantially faster, and it
would be, um, less time for the applicant
and, um-
Probably less money in that
occasionally staff time is more expensive than what
is actually being charged
with the city fees. So, the
city engineer still has to review all the documents.
That doesn't necessarily change.
But the trip to planning commission definitely adds to the time of
approval.
So I think I hear you say that it would be better.
That would be my personal opinion.
But I think there are other people that would probably want to weigh in on
that as well.
There's probably other things that you could take into
consideration that if it was specifically a lot line
adjustment that was very complicated, or it
had a number of issues that,
particularly if access to a parcel
was in question, or if maybe there was a question if there
was sufficient utilities to support the lot line
adjustment, or if the way it was configured might
actually change the way utilities would be provided.
Those things might be appropriate for planning
commission to discuss and resolve.
But there are ways that you could
manage the description in your application that
could provide enough discretionary to choose what
could be
managed ministerially by staff, and what
would be proposed to be sent to planning commission.
So that's another opportunity.
Do you feel that that's something that would be wise for us to have on the next
meeting, or would that be wise for you to leave in your notes-
Yeah
... for the next planner?
Um-
That's something that we could tackle at a later date.
I think that would probably be a next planner item, because
it would be really appropriate to get feedback
from fire and police and from the city engineer,
and probably from city staff just from a
perspective of cost and
what the intent is.
Is that something you can leave in your notes then?
Absolutely, yes.
Thank you.
I can give some examples from what various different jurisdictions
do as
proposals.
Thank you.
Anything else? Any other? Meeting
adjourned.
Okay.