[0:00] Call this Thursday, May 28th, meeting of the Planning Commission to order.
[0:03] Commissioner Lozarka, would you lead us in the pledge, please?
[0:05] Mm-hmm.
[0:06] Mm-hmm.
[0:10] The Pledge.
[0:12] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
[0:15] America and to the Republic for which it stands, one
[0:19] nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:23] justice for all.
[0:28] Okay.
[0:33] Can we have a roll call, please?
[0:36] Let the record show we have a quorum with all council member, I mean, commissioners
[0:39] present, except Commissioner Rutledge and Commissioner Lowder.
[0:45] Excuse me. Oral and written communications.
[0:48] Members of the public wishing to address the commission on any items not on the
[0:51] agenda may do so at this time, when recognized by the chairperson.
[0:55] However, no formal action or discussion will be taken unless placed on a future
[0:58] agenda. Public's advice is limited discussion to one presentation per
[1:02] individual. If not required, please state your name and place of residence for the
[1:05] record.
[1:07] Anyone?
[1:09] No online.
[1:11] Moving on to item five in the calendar, approved planning
[1:15] commission minutes from April 9th, 2024.
[1:19] Date should be 2025.
[1:21] 2026. Jeez.
[1:23] We're a little off there.
[1:25] I'll move for approval as presented.
[1:28] I second.
[1:29] We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
[1:31] Aye.
[1:31] Aye.
[1:34] Okay. At this point,
[1:38] let's push item 6A
[1:41] and see if we have another
[1:44] commissioner show up so we can have a quorum-
[1:47] Okay
[1:48] ... and move on-
[1:49] Okay
[1:49] ... to 6B, please.
[1:56] Nice.
[1:57] Good birthday equipment.
[1:58] Mm-hmm.
[2:05] Good evening, chair and members of the commission, members of the public.
[2:09] Lisa Lozier, city planner, and I will be presenting
[2:13] agenda item
[2:15] 6B, which is a lot line adjustment
[2:17] 2026-01.
[2:27] Project
[2:28] location.
[2:31] The applicant is Black Diamond Holdings, LLC, and they are
[2:35] requesting a lot line adjustment of two parcels.
[2:39] Those are listed under one AP number, legally created
[2:42] parcels, and that is located at 525 Monterey
[2:46] Street.
[2:49] The project site is located within a limited industrial zone
[2:52] district,
[2:54] and the light industrial
[2:57] general plan land use designation.
[3:03] So the proposed project would modify
[3:06] the southernmost lot line of lot
[3:10] 1 by shifting it...
[3:17] I'll go with the text.
[3:19] The language was a little wonky, so if I may.
[3:23] So what it's going to do is on lot one,
[3:27] the lots as they are now are approximately equal.
[3:32] The lot line adjustment is proposing to shift the lot
[3:35] line from lot one south,
[3:39] about 53 feet.
[3:43] And that changes the lot sizes from, on lot one from
[3:47] .47 acres to .63 acres. And lot
[3:51] two would go from .47 acres to
[3:55] .32 acres.
[3:58] So the lots for these
[4:02] projects,
[4:03] one of the criteria for a lot line adjustment is making sure that the
[4:07] approval does not create parcels that are smaller
[4:11] than the minimum parcel size for the district,
[4:15] and these parcels are larger than the minimum parcel size for the
[4:19] district.
[4:21] So that's
[4:23] perfectly fine on that.
[4:25] Lot number one
[4:27] currently has an automotive repair business and a
[4:31] principal permitted use in the ML district, and there is
[4:35] no development on lot two and no development proposed
[4:39] at this time. The
[4:42] proposed lot line adjustment does not impact the current
[4:45] business in a way that would make it not able
[4:49] to conduct business or not able to meet any kind of
[4:53] setbacks or access to the property.
[5:01] Okay, so we went through that with the shifting of the parcel sizes.
[5:05] I included this graphic to show on the red line, that is where the parcel
[5:09] line is currently. That is the existing line to
[5:13] be deleted. And the green line that shifts
[5:17] to the south, that is the proposed line where that would be
[5:22] with approval of the lot line adjustment.
[5:26] So the lot line adjustment complies with government code section that's in the
[5:30] Subdivision Map Act,
[5:33] 66412 .
[5:35] It does not result in the creation of additional
[5:39] new parcels. Basically, lot line adjustments are
[5:43] exempt from the requirements of having
[5:47] a parcel map or a subdivision map by the
[5:51] Subdivision Map Act. So it's really exempt from the
[5:55] requirements of having a required map to do
[5:59] the lot line adjustments.
[6:01] The lot line adjustment is consistent with the proposed applicability of
[6:05] the ML zone, as I discussed earlier.
[6:08] The new adjusted lots will maintain the current lot width
[6:12] of 129 feet. So the minimum lot
[6:16] width for that district is 100 feet, so it still
[6:19] exceeds the criteria,
[6:22] and it complies with the lot requirements for the Orland Municipal
[6:26] Code, Section 17.48.040,
[6:30] which is also the ML zone district.
[6:38] So environmental determination for lot line adjustments,
[6:41] basically by the CEQA guidelines, that is
[6:44] 15305. That's a Class 5, which is a minor
[6:48] alteration in land use limitations.
[6:52] For the most part, in the Subdivision Map Act, lot line adjustments
[6:56] are considered ministerial. They do not have to be
[7:00] approved by the planning commission.
[7:02] But the Orland
[7:04] Municipal Code and the subdivisions under Title 16
[7:09] provides that lot line adjustments will come
[7:12] for the planning commission for approval.
[7:16] And in the direct language of that particular section, it
[7:20] also allows that the
[7:22] planning commission can
[7:25] add conditions of approval.
[7:28] Those would be exceptionally limited in scope
[7:32] to meeting the general plan, meeting the
[7:36] zoning ordinance, allowing for access and
[7:40] utilities. So any other
[7:43] conditions,
[7:45] specifically like if you wanted to limit the types of uses on
[7:49] the property,
[7:50] that would not be appropriate or any kind of conditioning for a lot line
[7:54] adjustment. So the scope is very small.
[7:59] So basically, that's the
[8:02] environmental.
[8:04] The recommendation for this project is find that the proposed lot line
[8:08] adjustment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality
[8:12] Act guidelines, Section 15305
[8:16] , and Planning Commission adopt PC Resolution
[8:20] 2026.
[8:23] That's Attachment A, which would improve the lot line
[8:27] adjustment 2026-01, as proposed.
[8:31] And just to be clear, I've run into a
[8:35] couple of issues with the lot line adjustments.
[8:39] This is basically a first review and first step
[8:43] for the planning portion of the lot line adjustment.
[8:46] These projects go to the city engineer, and the city engineer
[8:50] checks all of the
[8:53] survey type of requirements
[8:57] that would need to meet state code as well.
[9:01] And then the city engineer will prepare a certificate of
[9:05] compliance, which is recorded.
[9:08] And that's a little bit different on typically with parcel maps.
[9:12] That approval would go to Planning Commission.
[9:16] And then after the approval,
[9:19] it's an approved map, and then it goes through a process also
[9:23] with the city engineer. They do all the
[9:27] checks on the map to make sure it's okay.
[9:30] The difference is that lot line adjustments aren't necessarily
[9:34] required to come to Planning Commission, but they do have
[9:39] criteria that needs to be met by the city engineer
[9:43] that comes later after this part. It's
[9:46] typically that planning checks it, verifies that it
[9:50] meets legal
[9:52] parcel requirements, that it meets the general plan
[9:56] planning and
[9:58] access and those types of things. The engineers check all of
[10:02] the specific criteria that
[10:06] all of the, I guess the layman's term is that the parcels
[10:10] all close. They check the new
[10:13] descriptions, and then they do a certificate of
[10:17] compliance, which is recorded.
[10:21] Okay.
[10:26] Do we have any questions for staff?
[10:30] One little one. I think I already know the answer. Okay.
[10:34] Technically, Shasta Street was all the way to rail tracks, correct?
[10:38] I believe yes.
[10:40] Okay. And the cell tower's to the south of it, so that's not on.
[10:43] It has nothing to do with that.
[10:44] That's correct. That is on a parcel-
[10:46] A separate
[10:46] ... a separate parcel.
[10:47] Okay.
[10:47] South. Yeah.
[10:48] So all this is just the body shop and the land up on it.
[10:51] That's correct. Yes.
[10:53] Okay. Just to be clear on that.
[10:55] Okay.
[10:56] Just a couple. So what you were just explaining,
[11:00] so the applicant, the owner, goes through
[11:04] us, then it goes to the engineers, and the rest of it is
[11:08] done ministerially, and then it's done?
[11:13] Yes. So typically,
[11:16] these projects, there are a lot of jurisdictions that do not require
[11:20] lot line adjustments to come before the Planning Commission.
[11:23] It is approved basically in-house
[11:27] by planning and by engineering.
[11:32] It's a little bit different situation.
[11:34] Just because of us and our code?
[11:36] Because of your code. It's written into Title 16
[11:40] subdivisions that lot line adjustments come before the Planning
[11:43] Commission for approval.
[11:48] So did the owner
[11:51] give a reason why he wanted to enlarge the lot? Was there a particular reason?
[11:55] Just curious.
[11:59] Yes.
[12:10] We
[12:10] should
[12:41] Just questions.
[12:45] Okay.
[12:59] So short reason, the existing parcels are to be modified in size to
[13:03] match the existing improvements.
[13:08] I didn't understand that.
[13:14] So what I take from that is that because they're making parcel one
[13:17] larger, they intend on using the whole of
[13:21] the larger parcel to support the auto business.
[13:26] That's what I was wondering, if they needed more space-
[13:28] Yeah
[13:28] ... to either enlarge or to improve
[13:31] other business.
[13:32] Yeah, the existing business.
[13:34] The existing one.
[13:34] The existing business.
[13:36] Yeah.
[13:36] Yeah, there's no proposed business on parcel two.
[13:39] Yeah.
[13:41] Another quick question, if you know it, um, how much does it
[13:44] cost to go through this lot line adjustment process through you
[13:48] versus having it done ministerially?
[13:56] So the fee for the lot line adjustment for planning
[13:59] is $376.
[14:03] So we could potentially save the
[14:07] person the effort if we were like
[14:10] most everyone else.
[14:15] I wouldn't say that necessarily, um, because the
[14:19] 376 does, um,
[14:23] provide for the planning review of the document.
[14:27] So I don't... To be perfectly honest,
[14:31] the fee that is on this probably doesn't take into
[14:35] consideration the cost for the planning commission.
[14:38] I don't know how that's evaluated, within how the city
[14:42] does their budget.
[14:46] But it
[14:48] does cover staff time to
[14:52] actually do the review that is
[14:55] necessary for the approval, which would need to be done even if
[14:59] it was a ministerial process.
[15:01] Okay.
[15:01] What it would cut back on is
[15:05] doing the presentation and putting all of that information together.
[15:09] Hmm.
[15:10] There's also a cost for the recording.
[15:13] Yes, and there's a cost for the recording.
[15:16] Um, a lot of that is captured through the
[15:19] engineers.
[15:21] They require fees as well-
[15:24] So-
[15:24] ... that are captured upfront.
[15:26] Okay, so the planning,
[15:28] 376, then there would be an additional for the engineer?
[15:32] Yes.
[15:33] So the total cost to the applicant, the
[15:36] owner is, or would be?
[15:39] I wouldn't be able to tell you what the engineering fees are.
[15:42] Okay.
[15:44] So it could be close to $1,000.
[15:46] I would say it's probably pretty close.
[15:49] For a two-parcel lot line adjustment,
[15:53] um,
[15:55] that probably isn't going to be significant to check for the
[15:58] engineer.
[15:59] Mm-hmm. Yeah.
[16:01] It's based on, um, known lot sizes
[16:06] that were preexisting, so a lot of the information is
[16:10] available.
[16:11] Sometimes for, um, parcels that are maybe very
[16:15] rural or were not developed with a specific
[16:19] map, it might be more expensive for the engineer to take
[16:23] time to go through all of the documentation to
[16:27] verify that the lot lines
[16:30] that are within the deed actually match the property.
[16:34] Mm-hmm.
[16:34] In this case, those parcels were created with a subdivision
[16:38] map prior, so a lot of the information's already
[16:42] available.
[16:44] Thank you.
[16:44] Thank you.
[16:46] We'll open it up to public comment. If there is anyone on this matter?
[16:51] None seen, none heard.
[16:53] I'd entertain a motion.
[16:59] I'll move that we
[17:02] approve the proposed ordinance,
[17:05] the Resolution 2006, an extraordinary line approving the lot line
[17:08] adjustments as proposed. And, um, with one
[17:12] motion, Ken.
[17:13] Equally to allocate. And also find that the, um,
[17:17] project exempt from the CEQA,
[17:20] um, regulations, California Environmental Quality Act
[17:24] guidelines, uh,
[17:25] 15305 .
[17:29] Hear the motion.
[17:31] I second.
[17:31] Hear a motion of second. All in favor say, "Aye."
[17:34] Aye.
[17:35] Aye. Motion approved.
[17:39] Just a quick explanation, gentlemen.
[17:41] The reason that we skipped yours, which was the first one on the agenda,
[17:44] is I'm not able to sit in on that. I'm going to have to recuse myself,
[17:49] um, because of, um, I own close property, and
[17:53] under the advice of the attorney will not be part of that conversation.
[17:57] So we were hoping that someone else
[17:59] would show up so we'd have a quorum to be able to discuss and take
[18:03] action. Um, if you don't mind, we can move on
[18:06] and complete the next step and hope that someone still
[18:10] does show up.
[18:12] Um, I apologize for the delay.
[18:18] So would you move that to a different date?
[18:21] Yeah.
[18:22] We can move that to the following meeting too, if we need to.
[18:25] We can.
[18:25] Okay. So it's up to you if you'd like to wait and hope that someone else shows up,
[18:29] or we can move that to the next agenda.
[18:31] Continue it.
[18:33] Continue it?
[18:34] Yes.
[18:35] Okay.
[18:36] So we'll continue that to the next meeting. We apologize, son.
[18:39] Thank you for coming.
[18:40] Thank you.
[18:51] Moving on to item 6C.
[18:53] That
[18:55] shouldn't have happened.
[18:56] I know.
[19:01] Okay.
[19:04] We ready?
[19:05] Yes, please.
[19:06] Okay. So,
[19:08] agenda item 6C, this is a discussion item.
[19:14] And I
[19:15] left it open, when we're done discussing, if
[19:19] you want to ask for additional information,
[19:23] we can do that. I wasn't quite sure
[19:27] where we would actually go with this.
[19:29] So,
[19:31] at the April 9 special meeting, planning commission directed
[19:35] staff to present a discussion item regarding Assembly Bill
[19:40] 507 and the potential implications this bill may
[19:44] have on residential development in the city of Orland.
[19:49] So, I put together--
[19:52] What I wanted to do is
[19:55] put together just kind of some talking points.
[19:58] Basically, I included the text of this bill,
[20:02] in case you were interested in going through the details.
[20:06] There is a lot of information in there.
[20:09] This bill was...
[20:14] Assembly Bill 507 was approved by the governor on October
[20:18] 10th, 2025, and it was with
[20:21] just a significant number of other land use
[20:25] bills, mostly related to the production
[20:29] or
[20:32] easing regulations for building newer houses,
[20:36] particularly to accommodate low income or
[20:40] specific communities,
[20:43] homelessness or elderly veterans that are having a
[20:47] very difficult time
[20:49] with housing. So this bill is interesting
[20:53] in its intent to streamline the adaptive
[20:57] reuse of existing buildings by allowing projects
[21:01] to be considered a use by right.
[21:05] Typically, in zoning areas, if you have commercial
[21:08] zoning, it doesn't necessarily allow for residential
[21:12] uses. It's kind of more of an older type of
[21:16] Euclid zoning, where the intent was to separate uses that
[21:20] could be detrimental to each other.
[21:25] Businesses tend to have different types of hours.
[21:28] They tend to make noise or parking.
[21:32] There's a lot more activity.
[21:34] Residences,
[21:36] of course, are
[21:38] residential uses, so much lower impact.
[21:41] So
[21:42] a lot of the intent was just to separate the intensity of
[21:46] uses.
[21:48] Over probably the last
[21:52] 20 years, that's kind of pretty close to my lifetime
[21:56] as a planner,
[21:57] housing has always been a problem.
[21:59] The provision of affordable housing has always been a
[22:03] problem,
[22:04] and there's a lot of reasons for that.
[22:07] I won't specifically go into that because I can beat that
[22:11] muck all night.
[22:14] But what is important to note with this, in the last
[22:18] five years, particularly, the state of California
[22:22] has
[22:24] worked very hard at addressing the housing
[22:27] crisis and affordability. And what they've done
[22:31] is change a lot of regulations, some of which
[22:35] ease the requirements for the California Environmental Quality
[22:39] Act,
[22:40] for
[22:41] environmental documents to be prepared for subdivisions
[22:45] and for other types of developments.
[22:48] So they've eased that requirement.
[22:50] They've made changes in the requirements for parking,
[22:53] for lot sizes, for housing sizes, for where
[22:57] housing can be located, even allowing
[23:01] for abandoned commercial buildings to be
[23:04] modified into housing. They've encouraged for mixed-use
[23:08] development.
[23:10] I think used to, probably in the early parts of the
[23:15] 19th century and on,
[23:18] it was very common to have buildings that were
[23:22] commercial or industrial even on the couple of ground
[23:26] floors, and then above that would be residential.
[23:29] It was not unusual for business owners to
[23:34] live in the same building that they conducted business.
[23:37] But over time, I think particularly after World War II,
[23:41] people got away from that. There's more suburbs, and there was a very much
[23:45] larger divide with
[23:47] residential and commercial industrial types of uses.
[23:52] So we're kind of going back to that now.
[23:55] And basically, Assembly Bill 507
[23:58] provides some additional criteria that
[24:02] makes it easier to identify different types of
[24:06] uses that can be converted or adapted for
[24:10] residential uses.
[24:14] They use
[24:17] bypassing traditional conditional use permit processes
[24:21] The way the City of Orland municipal code is set up, it has permitted by
[24:25] right, administratively permitted, and conditionally permitted
[24:29] uses. So you could
[24:33] typically, with the way the ordinance is set up, it has several districts
[24:37] that allow residential uses as a conditional use.
[24:41] Those are the types of uses that would come back to the planning commission for
[24:45] review and approval to verify that there aren't going to
[24:49] be any negative impacts for public health and safety.
[24:53] So,
[24:55] this bill does bypass that type
[24:58] of
[25:00] oversight by the planning commission.
[25:03] This bill establishes affordability standards, and it exempts
[25:07] certain projects from parking requirements,
[25:11] and it facilitates the conversion of underutilized structures to
[25:14] multifamily residential. So that's kind of the
[25:19] gist of the bill.
[25:21] Basically,
[25:22] I kind of went through looking at
[25:27] the different aspects of this bill.
[25:32] Loss of discretionary authority
[25:35] is kind of one that rises to the top, because if
[25:39] you're streamlining a process, if it's permitted by right, if it made
[25:43] certain criteria, then that bypasses
[25:47] the
[25:49] Planning Commission's ability, and it kind of bypasses
[25:54] the requirements for the Orland Municipal Code as well.
[25:58] So it takes a little bit of power away, or not necessarily power,
[26:02] but discretion away from local jurisdictions to be able
[26:06] to decide how they want their residential uses
[26:11] to be conducted within their city. So, that's an issue.
[26:17] It also has a streamlining process, so
[26:21] strict application to deadlines.
[26:24] Local agencies are required to process and approve or deny applications
[26:28] within specified times that are often very
[26:32] difficult for smaller jurisdictions to meet,
[26:36] just based on-
[26:38] Yeah. There's just something-
[26:41] The, um.
[26:45] Okay.
[26:46] Sorry.
[26:46] It's okay. I'm so sorry.
[26:47] Oh, that's okay.
[26:49] Affordability
[26:54] requirements. So these types of projects are
[26:58] required to qualify. They have to devote at least
[27:01] 50% of their space to housing to include designated affordable
[27:05] units.
[27:07] For example, rental housing requires a minimum of 8%
[27:11] very low income and 5% extremely low
[27:15] income.
[27:18] We talked about this a little bit.
[27:27] So we talked a little bit about this before, that
[27:32] the housing element, the next housing element cycle is
[27:35] including additional
[27:37] acutely low income and extremely low income
[27:41] categories for housing. So I think a lot of these,
[27:45] the newer housing bills are intended to help support
[27:49] that.
[27:54] So and also for CEQA exemptions is
[27:58] they are eliminating conditionally, approvals
[28:02] by conditional,
[28:06] the conditional use permits, then it would be a
[28:10] CEQA exempt and ministerial approved by right.
[28:13] So, that cuts out another layer of
[28:16] potential impacts that may be important
[28:21] in circulation or by provision of services.
[28:25] So it makes it a little bit more difficult that way as well.
[28:37] And there are quite a bit of other items.
[28:41] One thing that I did want to mention is this bill, even though it was approved and
[28:45] signed in October 2025, it does not go into
[28:49] effect until July 1 of this year. So,
[28:54] it's not something that we have to worry about right now, but that is kind of
[28:58] right around the corner.
[29:01] And I had, unfortunately, other notes on my
[29:05] computer, but
[29:08] anyways, yeah. So
[29:10] I would be open to answer questions.
[29:14] If you have questions,
[29:16] I can bring back additional information.
[29:18] If you have something specific,
[29:21] if there is something in town that you think might be an
[29:25] issue that you would like some additional information on,
[29:28] I would be glad to gather that. But that's kind of
[29:32] a short version of 20 pages of state
[29:36] law. Yeah.
[29:40] Thank you very much for the presentations.
[29:42] Looks like Commissioner Montague has something to start.
[29:46] Yeah, the reason why I asked you a couple months ago to bring this
[29:50] up, because when I read through it, it's like, as I said, it takes a couple of
[29:54] days because you fall asleep after page five.
[29:57] But,
[29:58] I just wanted to
[30:01] bring it up and discuss it because the biggest problem that I saw with that
[30:05] is it makes it, it
[30:09] takes that control away locally. And what's good for Orland and what's good
[30:12] for LA are two different things. And
[30:14] I don't like the idea
[30:19] that state-- Again, they've done this to us a few times in the last number of
[30:23] years, where they kind of-
[30:24] mandate something that's really none of their business.
[30:28] And I don't like the idea that the state comes up with something like
[30:32] this that it basically tells us how to run our own city.
[30:36] And that they make--
[30:39] When I read through it, it seemed to me they're
[30:43] gutting the zoning laws. They're making it to where you could
[30:47] make anything in the
[30:50] residential except for heavy industrial. Is that right?
[30:54] I mean, for anything commercial area, you can
[30:57] convert any commercial property into a residence by
[30:59] right. Is that the way you read it?
[31:02] That's the way I understand it as well.
[31:04] Yeah. And I think that's a bad idea.
[31:06] I know there's nothing we can really do about it.
[31:09] I guess we can write a letter to them.
[31:11] They're not-
[31:11] Gonna get it done or something, but
[31:14] I haven't gotten really super into the weeds with this, but one thing that I have
[31:18] noticed that is fairly consistent with a lot of these
[31:22] housing bills is that it does allow for health and safety
[31:26] concerns. So if somebody was looking at
[31:31] revamping a commercial property for residential
[31:35] use,
[31:36] but that property did not allow for appropriate
[31:40] fire protection,
[31:42] that the local jurisdiction could make findings saying that, "No, we're not
[31:46] going to approve this because it is a health and safety issue."
[31:51] So those types of things are still on the table, but it
[31:54] is something that you have to do the fact-finding and make the
[31:58] findings and say, "No, this is not going to be
[32:02] approvable because it doesn't meet this criteria."
[32:05] And probably defend it in court.
[32:07] Potentially.
[32:08] Yeah.
[32:08] I guess it depends on how aggressive the developer would
[32:12] be.
[32:13] Well, I mean, it's like that one thing we talked about was a
[32:17] year ago or so, where the
[32:22] contractor developers were remedying stuff to where it makes it--
[32:26] It seems like it's right on that same
[32:29] level.
[32:33] Again, Sacramento's telling us what to do.
[32:36] And I think that these kinds of issues are better
[32:40] handled locally.
[32:41] Well, and I think you're also
[32:45] going to see, from the other jurisdictions that I've worked for,
[32:49] there are very few of these projects that actually come forward
[32:53] because the properties that would be big enough to make a
[32:57] conversion like that profitable
[33:00] just aren't here.
[33:02] The smaller jurisdictions just don't have the available property,
[33:07] the
[33:10] vacant commercial properties that would be large enough that you could
[33:14] make a conversion pay off.
[33:17] Right. We don't have an empty Walmart or an empty Kmart-
[33:20] Right
[33:20] ... over here like-
[33:21] So-
[33:22] But that's just the idea. Just the idea kind of bugged me when
[33:26] I read that a few months back, and I said that-
[33:29] I think the part that bothers me the most is the request for
[33:33] the expedited review.
[33:35] Yeah. The review.
[33:35] Because for smaller jurisdictions, I know
[33:39] for City Hall,
[33:43] when you're really super limited on staff, that is a very hard
[33:47] push. And if you're having to bypass
[33:51] other projects for people that live in the community to be able to make that
[33:55] happen,
[33:56] it's very disappointing.
[33:57] Yeah. I think it was like some 60 days or
[34:01] something.
[34:02] Yeah, 60 to 90 days, depending on the size of the project.
[34:05] Anyway, that's why I brought it up here months ago for
[34:09] clarification. I don't know that it's going to affect us too much, but you
[34:12] literally could take a building in a commercial area
[34:16] and convert it to a house.
[34:19] With it?
[34:20] Well, almost
[34:22] by right. Virtually by right. Not can.
[34:25] Virtually by right.
[34:27] Right.
[34:27] You can take a commercial building-
[34:30] I would imagine that
[34:32] when they're talking about 50% of the space has to
[34:36] be included for affordable units and 8%
[34:40] for very low income and extremely low income.
[34:44] So I think that is probably going to control a
[34:48] lot of the potential for revamping
[34:51] properties,
[34:53] because there just isn't a significant amount of money based on
[34:57] how much it would actually cost to do the improvements.
[35:03] Because it would have to meet the building code to be an actual
[35:07] residential unit.
[35:09] But I mean, like a small project, if you took that commercial
[35:13] building out here somewhere-
[35:14] Sure
[35:14] ... and made it into a duplex, that 5%, 8% thing doesn't really matter,
[35:18] but it doesn't.
[35:19] It does.
[35:20] How do you make 5% of it low income
[35:24] or 8% low income?
[35:25] So how it would matter if--
[35:31] Let's just say acutely low income.
[35:33] Mm-hmm.
[35:33] So
[35:34] to figure
[35:38] out what the annual salary of somebody that would
[35:42] be acutely low, basically, either their rent
[35:46] or their mortgage would have to be less than $250
[35:50] a month.
[35:52] So I think it is unlikely that somebody's going to spend
[35:56] potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to convert a commercial
[35:59] building to residential units that are
[36:03] going to-- They would have to have some kind
[36:06] of benefit to be able to make it so they're only
[36:10] charging $250 a month for those lower income
[36:14] units.
[36:15] Does that 5% kick in? Does that mean there has to be at least 19 units in that
[36:19] building or 20 units in order for 5% of them to meet that requirement?
[36:23] I mean, if it was the two-
[36:24] That's a really good question.
[36:25] If it's a two-unit building, how do you say 5% of-
[36:28] Well, if it's a two-unit building and they're converting that to just
[36:32] regular apartments-
[36:35] Then the ques-
[36:38] Well, you may even round it up. It's not round. Way up.
[36:42] That's what I'm saying.
[36:42] Well, if you take into consideration how many of the older buildings
[36:46] downtown were actually designed, and we have residential downtown and
[36:49] commercial
[36:51] downstairs and residential upstairs.
[36:52] I understand, yeah.
[36:56] So I don't know that there's that big of a call for it.
[36:59] I understand the question you're asking, and I don't have a
[37:03] specifically good answer for if it was a small enough
[37:07] building, would they have to be low income to meet this?
[37:10] Well, low income-
[37:11] So that would be something that I would look at
[37:13] ... low income's not a huge bar. The big bar is that ultra low income.
[37:17] Well, it is. It is.
[37:18] Yeah.
[37:18] And, I don't know that there are buildings...
[37:23] I don't know the size of the building that you would have to want to
[37:27] convert
[37:29] for this to kick in. That would be something that I would have to look
[37:33] at and run some numbers.
[37:34] Yeah. Because those numbers, those 5%, 8% numbers,
[37:38] how it seems to me it wouldn't kick in unless you're putting in 20 units before you
[37:42] take 5% of the project and make it-
[37:44] Potentially, yeah
[37:45] ... ultra-low income. So the other 19 is what a profit will be.
[37:48] I'm not
[37:50] saying it's going to happen
[37:52] on that, as far as there... Again, there's not a big, old empty
[37:55] Kmart down here taking up-
[37:57] Right
[37:57] ... 80 acres. So we don't have that kind of issue.
[38:00] There's lots of buildings around town you can convert to a house or an apartment.
[38:04] Probably wouldn't be very hard.
[38:06] Well, and if it is not low
[38:10] income, and it is not subsidized, and doesn't meet
[38:13] specific criteria,
[38:16] you would just go through your use permit process if it was a
[38:20] regular housing unit.
[38:21] Yeah. But if it that, then we're talking residential as opposed to
[38:25] commercial. We can take commercial properties and convert them into houses-
[38:29] Mm
[38:30] ... or convert them into duplexes or something like that.
[38:34] And, again, biggest problem, and sometimes it's not a bad thing,
[38:38] it just, the thing that bugged me was the use by right, that comment.
[38:42] Yes.
[38:42] That-
[38:43] Municipal
[38:44] ... by right you could take a big, old, ugly building over
[38:48] here by the railroad tracks or something, and or whatever, and convert it into
[38:53] three or four apartments and
[38:55] then we'd have-
[38:57] Technicalities
[38:58] ... where the state tells us what we have to do.
[39:00] I don't like being told what to do.
[39:02] Fair enough.
[39:03] You know?
[39:04] Yeah. Fair enough. I understand.
[39:05] The state mandate.
[39:07] But that was what I
[39:09] brought it up. I read that and it's like
[39:12] we lose control. We lose local
[39:17] control. This one size fits all state, and
[39:21] California's not a one size fits all state by any means.
[39:24] It's a state that's very diverse. So
[39:28] that was-
[39:29] Fair enough
[39:29] ... even Sacramento gets into our business.
[39:31] What's good for Sacramento or Raleigh is not necessarily good
[39:36] for... And that use by right, that-
[39:42] I understand your perspective. Yes.
[39:44] Yeah. And so,
[39:46] anyway. And that was my question that I was raising
[39:50] two or three months ago when I brought this up.
[39:52] We had that, and it's like, "That doesn't sound
[39:56] right." And I read through those pages, but
[39:59] again, we got 20 pages, and it still bores you to death.
[40:03] I don't know how you do it, but
[40:05] and so-
[40:05] Sometimes it's pretty hard to swallow.
[40:07] Yeah
[40:07] Yeah. It's
[40:08] good nighttime reading if there is insomnia. It puts you to sleep.
[40:12] So that's why I brought this up.
[40:15] It's probably not a huge thing in Orland, it's probably not a
[40:19] huge thing, but it does make it commercial zone, commercial buildings, like
[40:23] commercial zones are now-
[40:24] There is a potential-
[40:25] ... by right
[40:26] ... for it to-
[40:26] By right it can be made into residential.
[40:29] And you might have some conflicts if you have
[40:32] residential immediately close to a commercial
[40:36] situation.
[40:36] Well, if it, ultimately, on a conversion like that, if you have a health
[40:40] and safety issue,
[40:42] like I was mentioning before, if fire can't
[40:46] provide adequate services to the building for whatever reason, or
[40:50] if it doesn't meet building code in a way that it can
[40:53] actually be considered a residence.
[40:57] Those are all things that could be findings that you could say, "No, this
[41:01] is not going to work."
[41:02] Yeah, that's hard to say, "Well, it wouldn't meet the fire code or
[41:05] something." Well, it's pretty-
[41:08] I have seen a couple of projects that that was actually true
[41:12] on secondary access for provision of emergency
[41:15] services.
[41:16] Yeah.
[41:17] So, it
[41:19] depends.
[41:20] It feels like a lot of the stuff, though, was already slipped in
[41:24] when we had to add so much that we didn't want to add
[41:28] to our house development. So-
[41:29] Yes
[41:30] ... a lot of this stuff is already on the books.
[41:33] It's already-
[41:34] They're just putting an exclamation point on a portion of it.
[41:39] But are there municipalities that maybe have slipped
[41:44] Trojan horses into their health and safety codes that could
[41:47] help give them out? It's not that I'm saying that we should do that here, but...
[41:54] It depends on how creative you want to be.
[41:56] It's always possible.
[42:00] I think if you
[42:04] had a way of rewriting your code
[42:08] that would make it easier to
[42:11] prioritize
[42:14] moderate, and the above moderate types of housing,
[42:18] you would probably want your city attorney to
[42:22] verify that that would not be causing a problem.
[42:26] I just say that as just-
[42:30] One take.
[42:31] And I'm also going to reiterate that
[42:35] I have seen very
[42:37] few of these types of projects coming into smaller
[42:41] communities Because they typically don't pencil.
[42:45] Hmm.
[42:46] Hmm.
[42:47] But it's just a continuation of-
[42:49] Yes
[42:49] ... of everything else that we've seen, another thing that we've discussed in the
[42:53] recent few weeks, where the state can come in and-
[42:57] Yes
[42:57] ... they can ministerially tell you what you can and cannot do, regardless
[43:01] of what decisions your city's already made.
[43:03] Yes.
[43:05] Which is kind of shameful because that was the whole point of
[43:09] making cities have a general plan-
[43:11] Mm-hmm
[43:11] ... specific plans, and zoning ordinances for their own communities.
[43:16] Which is great, plus they got other ideas.
[43:19] Yeah.
[43:20] Mm-hmm.
[43:22] Tyler, anything?
[43:25] Thank you for that enlightening presentation.
[43:28] You're welcome.
[43:30] And gentlemen, I want to thank you for returning.
[43:33] Appreciate it, and appreciate you sitting through that. And Tyler, thank you.
[43:35] Yeah. I apologize, guys.
[43:37] So at this point I will, like I said, I will disclose that I have
[43:41] a partial ownership of a neighboring property, and will recuse myself at
[43:45] this point under the direction of the city attorney.
[43:48] So I will turn the meeting over to Vice Chair Montag, and
[43:53] I will step outside for a few minutes.
[44:00] All right. Thank you, Steve.
[44:05] Chairman Nobbe will be back after this matter is concluded.
[44:08] All right.
[44:13] City planner, you want to give us a rundown on the-
[44:17] Jennifer
[44:17] ... report on this?
[44:18] Yeah. Bring up that presentation.
[44:35] Maybe.
[44:44] There.
[44:48] Okay.
[44:50] Lisa Lozier, senior planner. I'll be presenting agenda item
[44:54] 6A,
[44:55] for tentative parcel map
[44:58] 2026-02. So the location
[45:02] for this project is 217 East Walker Street,
[45:06] and APN
[45:08] 041121017.
[45:12] The site is currently developed with two existing buildings,
[45:17] a 3,664 square foot building and
[45:21] a 5,474 square foot building. It is
[45:25] my understanding that these are
[45:28] not currently being used for commercial
[45:32] purposes, but they are commercial buildings.
[45:35] They are located in a C2
[45:39] community commercial location.
[45:42] You can hit the next slide for me, please.
[45:47] So,
[45:49] the controlling interest for
[45:52] subdivisions is Title 16,
[45:55] 1612030 for tentative maps. The planning commission is
[45:59] authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove
[46:02] such subdivisions that do not require final map as provided
[46:06] for in Section 161204
[46:10] of this code.
[46:15] For conformance, we're looking at land which is subject to
[46:19] the provisions of this title and shall conform to the
[46:22] regulations.
[46:24] It also points to
[46:27] the City of Orland Municipal Code that lays out what the
[46:31] lot sizes are typically, what
[46:34] setbacks for particular properties are, and
[46:38] development standards. So next slide, please.
[46:42] So for this particular project,
[46:45] this is the map that was presented, the plat,
[46:49] and it shows the layout of the project,
[46:53] where the two parcels are,
[46:55] the current lot lines for parcel, and
[46:59] then the layout for parcel one and parcel two.
[47:03] Go ahead.
[47:05] So the proposed tentative parcel map will subdivide
[47:09] its approximately 1.2 acre property into two separate
[47:13] lots. Each of the proposed parcels exceeds the
[47:17] minimum 6,000 square foot minimum parcel size.
[47:23] Those are
[47:26] in the C2, the 6,000 square foot is the minimum.
[47:29] For parcel one, the proposed size is
[47:32] 22,267 square feet,
[47:36] and for lot two, it is
[47:38] 27,186 square feet.
[47:42] And as I mentioned, those are above the minimum, so they're
[47:45] appropriate.
[47:47] There is no current
[47:49] proposal for any new type of development.
[47:53] The way the lot lines are proposed, it puts one
[47:57] building on each parcel. They meet the
[48:00] standards for setbacks,
[48:04] so that is appropriate.
[48:07] If you can, next. So this shows that
[48:11] both parcels would continue to be in the
[48:15] community commercial zone.
[48:18] And
[48:20] both parcels
[48:23] would have access, and they currently have
[48:26] utilities service, so basically, we're just drawing
[48:30] lines at this point with no proposed development
[48:34] activity.
[48:37] So the environmental determination is for minor lot
[48:41] land divisions.
[48:43] Usually anything that is less than five acres or less than
[48:47] four parcels Meets that minor land divisions
[48:51] classification for 15.315.
[48:55] So that is the recommendation for environmental determination.
[49:00] And next slide.
[49:02] The recommendation is move to approve Planning Commission Resolution
[49:06] 2026-02 and Exhibit A, conditions of
[49:09] approval, finding that the project is categorically exempt from the
[49:13] environmental review pursuant to guidelines
[49:15] 15.315 for minor land divisions.
[49:19] And that concludes my presentation.
[49:22] Mm-hmm. Ready to question this item? No.
[49:26] Karen?
[49:27] No, just a note that the
[49:31] lower one, the southern building, access is from Colusa
[49:35] Street.
[49:36] Yes.
[49:37] And so but then Walker Street would be the access to the-
[49:40] Parcel road
[49:41] ... southern parcel. But that, that piece.
[49:47] Any questions? No.
[49:49] Okay, we'll open up for public hearing.
[49:52] Yeah.
[49:54] Steve?
[49:55] Steve Butler, Precision Surveying, representing the applicant.
[49:58] We accept the conditions of approval.
[50:00] Thank the staff for a report, and I'm here to answer any questions
[50:03] you may have.
[50:06] Any questions for-
[50:08] Well, since you invited us.
[50:10] Have you got big plans, or is there a-
[50:12] Not this time. It's basically an estate planning
[50:16] tool. This was two parcels, and the
[50:19] building on this, on parcel two was
[50:23] constructed over the property line, which required a merger
[50:27] of those parcels some time ago. And we
[50:30] probably-- it probably should've been a lot line adjustment at that time, but
[50:34] it didn't happen, so it was-
[50:36] Mm-hmm
[50:37] ... it's a parcel now.
[50:39] It used to be an actual line. That's the-
[50:41] Yes.
[50:41] Yeah. It's completely different.
[50:44] Any other comments from the
[50:49] team?
[50:52] Uh, he just answered my question, or that, that-- did you ask, because I live two
[50:56] blocks, or a block and a half away. I was just wondering if it was any plans for
[51:00] the buildings, just basically a lot line adjustment.
[51:03] But just my question's answered. Thank you.
[51:07] It's going to be split, not a...
[51:09] It's, no, it's a split.
[51:10] It's a split.
[51:10] It's a split.
[51:11] Not a land line.
[51:12] That's correct.
[51:13] No, it's a split.
[51:14] It's a-
[51:15] It'll be a parcel into two parcels.
[51:17] Exactly.
[51:17] Yeah.
[51:18] Not like the other one, which is actually a lot adjustment.
[51:20] Different than the other one.
[51:22] Might be a little bit.
[51:23] Any other public comments?
[51:27] Okay. Close the public hearing. And then
[51:31] it is your wishes.
[51:34] Move.
[51:35] Entertain a motion, please.
[51:37] I move that we approve the Planning Commission Resolution
[51:40] 2026-02 and Exhibit A, conditions
[51:44] of approval,
[51:46] and find that the lead project is categorically exempt
[51:50] from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
[51:54] 15315, minor land divisions.
[51:58] Mm-hmm.
[52:00] Second.
[52:00] Okay, we have a motion and a second.
[52:03] Those in favor, say aye.
[52:06] Aye.
[52:06] Aye. Hearing no opposed, motion passes
[52:11] three zero one.
[52:14] Oh, okay.
[52:15] We have one abstaining.
[52:16] I get that.
[52:17] Thank you.
[52:19] Thank you, Steve.
[52:19] Thank you.
[52:19] Mike?
[52:24] We will now welcome back
[52:26] chair of the meeting.
[52:31] Thank you.
[52:35] Oh, it's on?
[52:38] Please
[52:47] remind me. Welcome
[52:51] back, Chairman Santiago, sir. It's getting chilly up here.
[53:03] It's cold. Okay. So we will move on to item seven, staff reports.
[53:07] Any reports?
[53:14] I have no reports.
[53:17] Okay.
[53:18] Commissioner reports. Commissioner Webbeck, anything?
[53:21] No, no report. Sorry again for being off track with time.
[53:25] Commissioner Montek?
[53:27] No. I don't have anything. But thank you, Lisa.
[53:30] I know you put some time into that, and I appreciate it.
[53:36] Lisa, is this your last? You're going through to the end of June, correct?
[53:40] End of June, yeah.
[53:41] End of June.
[53:42] Yeah.
[53:42] Okay. So we will see you again.
[53:46] Okay. I don't have anything except maybe a future agenda
[53:50] item.
[53:52] I have nothing to report.
[53:54] It's a future agenda item.
[53:56] So I don't know if this is sort of off-base, but
[54:01] your presentation report on that lot line adjustment,
[54:05] maybe think a little bit and wonder if it's
[54:09] necessary in our code or if we could maybe adjust it out,
[54:14] if there-- unless there's some good pros and cons.
[54:16] If there's,
[54:17] like for the city,
[54:19] you know, we want to streamline everything.
[54:20] We-- that's what we've been working on for many years.
[54:22] Yes.
[54:23] And so if this would streamline without,
[54:27] I mean,
[54:28] your time tonight, your time,
[54:31] even though you might still have to make a report.
[54:34] It, it's, um, it is my professional
[54:38] opinion that if lot line adjustments, because
[54:42] there are four parcels or fewer,
[54:45] if they could be managed by staff in-house,
[54:49] the approvals would be substantially faster, and it
[54:53] would be, um, less time for the applicant
[54:56] and, um-
[54:59] Probably less money in that
[55:03] occasionally staff time is more expensive than what
[55:07] is actually being charged
[55:11] with the city fees. So, the
[55:14] city engineer still has to review all the documents.
[55:17] That doesn't necessarily change.
[55:20] But the trip to planning commission definitely adds to the time of
[55:24] approval.
[55:26] So I think I hear you say that it would be better.
[55:30] That would be my personal opinion.
[55:33] But I think there are other people that would probably want to weigh in on
[55:37] that as well.
[55:39] There's probably other things that you could take into
[55:42] consideration that if it was specifically a lot line
[55:45] adjustment that was very complicated, or it
[55:49] had a number of issues that,
[55:53] particularly if access to a parcel
[55:57] was in question, or if maybe there was a question if there
[56:01] was sufficient utilities to support the lot line
[56:05] adjustment, or if the way it was configured might
[56:10] actually change the way utilities would be provided.
[56:14] Those things might be appropriate for planning
[56:18] commission to discuss and resolve.
[56:20] But there are ways that you could
[56:24] manage the description in your application that
[56:28] could provide enough discretionary to choose what
[56:32] could be
[56:35] managed ministerially by staff, and what
[56:39] would be proposed to be sent to planning commission.
[56:43] So that's another opportunity.
[56:46] Do you feel that that's something that would be wise for us to have on the next
[56:50] meeting, or would that be wise for you to leave in your notes-
[56:52] Yeah
[56:53] ... for the next planner?
[56:54] Um-
[56:54] That's something that we could tackle at a later date.
[56:57] I think that would probably be a next planner item, because
[57:01] it would be really appropriate to get feedback
[57:05] from fire and police and from the city engineer,
[57:09] and probably from city staff just from a
[57:12] perspective of cost and
[57:16] what the intent is.
[57:20] Is that something you can leave in your notes then?
[57:22] Absolutely, yes.
[57:22] Thank you.
[57:23] I can give some examples from what various different jurisdictions
[57:27] do as
[57:29] proposals.
[57:30] Thank you.
[57:32] Anything else? Any other? Meeting
[57:35] adjourned.
[57:40] Okay.