[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.

[1:34] 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.

[16:46] 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.

[51:11] 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.

Orland Planning Commission Meeting | May 28, 2026

Transcript