Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission meeting. This television broadcast is brought to you by the local cable companies, the County Of Kern, and the City of Bakersfield. You can watch the rebroadcast of this meeting Saturday at 7PM and Sunday at 10AM. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersfieldcity.us. Presiding over this evening meeting, chair, Adam Strickland.

It is my pleasure to call to order the 02/05/2026 planning commission meeting. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Chair Strickland?

Here.

Vice chair Biddle? Here. Commissioner Brandt Oliver? Here. Commissioner Cater? Commissioner Core? Here. Commissioner Martin? Commissioner Neal?

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United States Of America,

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Public statements.

Public statements are now received at different times depending on the item. I will call on Madam Clerk to call for public statements at the appropriate time, so please listen carefully for the correct time to speak.

Non agenda item three a, public statements.

Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items not listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please come forward and state your name. Seeing none, Madam Clerk.

Agenda item three b, public statements.

Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda? Please note that staff distributed staff submitted a blue memo asking for non consent public hearing item six a to be referred back to staff. Seeing none, madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item four, consent calendar items.

All matters listed under the consent items do not require a public hearing and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of said items unless staff or commissioner requests specific items to be discussed and or removed for separate action. May I get a motion approving consent items four a and four b?

So moved.

Commissioner Brand Oliver, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Core. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Cater, Commissioner Martin, and Commissioner Neal absent.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item five, consent calendar public hearing items.

Now is the time for consent calendar public hearing items. If the item is not removed by a commissioner, staff, or a member of the public, the commission will vote on all items in one motion without further comment. If an item is removed, it will be placed at the end of the nonconsent public hearing items. At this time, I will now open all consent calendar public hearing items. Does any member of the public wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? If so, please step to the microphone, state your name, and the item you'd like to remove.

My name is Gordon Nipp. I'd like to remove 5D, vesting tentative track number, MAP7386.

Thank you, Mr. Nipp. We'll move 5D to the end of the nonconsent public hearing items.

Chair Strickland, can I interrupt a minute? Always. I just want to reiterate that our computers aren't working where I can achieve or look at the attachments. So when we're going to have to review item five d, I won't be able to see the maps and the things like that.

It is work.

I apologize, everyone.

Sorry about that.

Mister Strickland, I'd like to indicate that there are two memos provided to you tonight. One memo is on item five d and one memo regarding item five e.

Thank you, Ms. Ng. Does any member of public have any other items they'd wish to remove? Seeing none. Does any commissioner or staff wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item?

And just let the record reflect that Commissioner Martin showed up at 05:36

Thank you. At this time, the consent calendar public hearing items not removed are now closed. May I get a motion to accept staff recommendations on the consent calendar public hearing items not removed, incorporating all staff memoranda and revised staff recommendations?

I'll make a motion.

Vice Chair Biddle. May I get a second?

Second.

Commissioner Brent Oliver. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes for item five a, five b, five c and five e with five d moved to non consent public hearings.

Thank you, madam Clerk.

Oh, wait. With with, Commissioners Cater and Commissioner Neal absent.

Thank you, madam Clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item six, non consent public hearing items.

As noted at the beginning of this meeting, staff submitted a blue memo recommending item six a be referred back to staff for further review. While the public can still make comments today, we encourage you wait to wait until the item is re noticed at a later date. Is there anyone that still wishes to provide comments on six a? Alright. I'm gonna continue on with that. Okay. Seeing none, I will now open and close the public hearing and return to the commission for action.

Are we bringing it to vote to let it go back to staff? Is that what our vote

signifies? Commissioner Beidle, yes. The motion is to refer it back to staff and we will agenda set that at a later time. So we're only voting on six a. Correct. Six. I mean, not five d. Correct.

May I get a commissioner's motion to refer six a back to staff?

So moved, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

I'll second that.

All right. First and second. Commissioners, cast your votes, please.

I apologize. Who for who moved first?

Commissioner Martin.

Martin. And then Biddle was second?

Vice chair Biddle was second. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Motion passes with commissioner Cater and commissioner Neil absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. Madam clerk,

can you show the screen with a vote?

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. So I think next item would be item 5D. Miss Ng, would you or your staff provide us with a report on item five d?

I'd like to introduce Veronica Martinez, the project planner on this, project.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Veronica Martinez, associate planner with the development services department. I'm here to present agenda item five d. Item five d on the agenda is a request to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve vesting tentative track map seven three eight six for a proposed project at the Southeast corner of Morning Drive and Paladino Drive. The applicant, San Joaquin Engineering, represents the property owners, Emlen LLC.

Plan to divide subdivide 58.29 acres into 245 single family residential lots, five landscape lots, one drainage basin, and one designated remainder in the r one single unit dwelling zone. The residential lots will range in size from 5,000 square feet to 12,670 square feet with a typical lot size of approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep or 5,000 square feet. Access to the subdivision will be provided from Morning Drive to the West and Paladino Drive to the North. Staff has reviewed the development for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. An initial study found that with mitigation measures for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and traffic, there would be no significant environmental environmental impacts.

The mitigated negative declaration was made available for our thirty day review public review. Notifications were sent to the property owners within a 300 foot radius and published in the low local newspaper. Staff also received written feedback, which was has been addressed in a memo that you received today. The applicant is here today to respond to your questions. Staff concludes that the project complies with CEQA and is compatible with its surroundings, land use designations, and zoning. Therefore, staff recommends the commission adopt the resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and approve vesting tentative track map seven three eight six. That concludes my presentation to the project. Thank you.

Thank you so much, miss Martinez. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step forward to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Good morning. My name is Brandon Martin. For the record, b r a n d o n m a r t I n. Thank you, Chair Strickland and Vice Chair Bill and distinguished members of the commission. This project is one more project in my continuing effort to help bring affordable housing and as a term of art, there's also something that we can rely on here for people who grew up with me in Bakersfield to to have for the future in our community.

It's very similar to or at least in proximity to other projects that you have recently approved. So it's not a kind of leapfrog development where we're out in the middle of nowhere. We are next door to other houses as part of your general plan vision for housing. We think of the our project helps with the housing element. And I was just hired on today.

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to listen to mister Nipp a little bit and see if I can rebut some of his comments, most of which seem like a generic form letter we see on every project from the Sierra Club. But I do want to give him a chance before I predict what he's going to say about this project. In the meantime, I'd love it if you'd have a chance to have the project formally introduced by Brett Dawson, our civil engineer.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the project?

Good evening, Chair and fellow commissioners. My name is Brett Dawson with San Joaquin Engineering. We are the civil engineer for the project and representing the landowner and subdivider Emlen LLC. I'd first like to thank staff for all their time and effort worth working with us now for over three years. I didn't realize it was that long, but we've worked through an increased density revision from our initial submittal and comprehensive special environmental studies, all in an effort to meet affordable housing mandates and CEQA requirements.

As you know, and for the benefit of the audience, the City's housing element update provides for the planning of some 37,000 homes. This represents the Bakersfield share of the regional housing needs allocation determined by the state. The state mandate is driven to assure local governments are providing for the adequate housing needs for all income levels. To that end, this project is consistent with residential zoning and the general plan. The site previously held full development entitlements with an approved tentative map.

However, this new map, with the vast majority of lot sizes under 6,000 square feet, and predominantly made up of lots from 5,000 to 5,500 square feet, dramatically better serves these state mandates and the need for more affordable housing. With regard to the positive surrounding development attributes, this project essentially serves as infill development, with existing development to the West and to the East. Additionally, there's an elementary school in in close proximity, and the project site adjoins existing major roads, and sits directly south of a major bike path. In conclusion, we respectfully request your support of the staff recommendation and seek your approval of this tenor to map. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Dawson.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the project? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? If so, please step forward to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

My name is Gordon Nipp. I'm the vice chair of the local Sierra Club chapter. I should mention that the Sierra Club is not opposed to new housing per se. The Sierra Club would be supportive of any new housing project that thoroughly addresses its impacts and its affordability issues. Unfortunately, this project addresses neither its impacts nor its affordability issues.

I've submitted 14 pages of comments for the Sierra Club on this project, its mitigated negative declaration. For tonight, because of time constraints, of course, we will have to leave most of the issues to the written record, while I focus comments on one basic issue, and that is that the city has not addressed the cumulative impacts of this project. Cumulative impacts to air pollution, to habitat loss, to the climate crisis, and others. In not addressing these cumulative impacts, the city risks violating state law, CEQA, and and most importantly, it risks it risks harming its citizens. This project, Tract 7003 And 86, is not the only project in the works by any means.

I've listed 12 other current housing projects in the letter that I turned in, many of which are in the vicinity of this project. A recent local environmental impact report lists 51 new projects in the works, in its list of cumulative projects. Collectively, cumulatively, these projects impacts are significant, even if their individual impacts are small. So, cumulative impacts to air pollution. We have the dirtiest, unhealthiest air in the country, and the city, in in not addressing cumulative air pollution, doesn't seem to be concerned about the health of its citizens.

I checked the air district's downtown monitors the other day for PM 2.5 pollution, the very small particulate matter that gets into people's blood streams and can harm the heart and the lungs. The current health standard for PM 2.5 is nine micrograms per cubic meter. PM 2.5 at that time was at 58 micrograms per cubic meter, more than six times the current health standard. Terrible, unhealthy air. I checked it this afternoon just before I came down here.

It was at 43, as I recall, micrograms per cubic meter. Almost five times the current standard. Terrible, unhealthy air. While this project's emissions themselves are relatively small, these are new emissions that together with small emissions from dozens of other projects, add to the burden, making our air even worse. At the very least, every new project, including this one, should work with the air district to fund air pollution reduction projects that would offset their new pollution so that at least our air doesn't get even unhealthier.

Cumulative impacts to habitat loss. Now that the Metropolitan Bakersfield habitat conservation plan is no longer in effect, the city must find another way to effectively address the project's contribution to cumulative habitat loss. Where are the kit foxes and the burrowing owls supposed to go if we urbanize more and more of their habitat? Without the Metropolitan Bakersfield habitat conservation plan, the city must admit the significance of cumulative impacts to biological resources, and should require viable mitigation measures for these impacts, including a requirement to purchase replacement habitat, as in the past under the under the old habitat conservation plan. Cumulative impacts on the climate crisis.

The climate crisis is inherently a cumulative impact. No one project is large enough to to heat the atmosphere. But cumulatively, our stupid species continues what United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres calls, and I quote here, the madness of incinerating our only home. The madness of incinerating our only home. Since the city has shelved adopting a climate action plan, it must be extra diligent in assuring that individual projects like this one satisfy state goals and regulations and legal requirements through adoption of feasible mitigation.

We've listed numerous such measures in our submission. The city should require specifically defined and enforceable mitigation for the climate crisis. So, the city must effectively address these cumulative impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you Mr. Knipp. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? If so, please step forward to the microphone, identify yourself and proceed.

Hi. I'm Steve Snitchler. I'm a homeowner just to the right and down from that project. And so it lived out there about eighteen years. If you don't live in the area, you probably don't realize, but it it's a very nice area. Most of the houses around us are sort of 2,200 square feet in average, But lots of them are 3,000 square feet. A few are less than 2,000, not a lot. But I wanna show you what just popped up just to the east of this proposed project. If it's a little hard to see, We have a a concrete jungle has popped up. What was supposed to be r one, I believe.

I I got I downloaded it. It used to be r one, and now it's a little concrete jungle. And these are duplexes.

Sir, the projector there is gonna be a little weird, but there is a projector pointing down that you can yeah. The monitor will switch over to it. It should make it easier. And then if you wanna

So this this is right in the middle of 2,000 square foot houses. This is a little concrete jungle with the front house is about 1,400 square feet. The back house is about 700 square feet with a garage in the middle, but I want you to notice something here. You notice how this duplex has a common driveway with the duplex next door, so it's actually a fourplex because they're all using the same driveway. And this is this is the closest settlement to this.

So here's here's the thing. I I'm not against this necessarily, but 5,000 square foot lots, it's totally out of character for our area. Second thing is is that I don't even know what the square footage is going to be but I bet it's going to be 1,500 square feet. It also out of character with our area. And now these duplexes that are popping up, they've popped up on the South Side Of 178 now. And, you know, it's just it's almost like a deliberate attempt to change our area. So hope you'll keep that in mind. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And before you walk off, could I ask you to spell your last name? I, didn't catch it fully.

S n I t c h l e r, Steve.

Thank you, sir. Mhmm. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, does any Commissioner have any questions for the public on this item? Remember, now is not the time to express any opinions on the matter. It is only time to ask questions. Seeing none, but I don't know if that's a thing. I did have a question for staff. Mr.

Nip had mentioned a letter he sent in in response to both. It sounded like mitigated neg deck. Is staff aware of a letter? It wasn't in the report. The report said no comments had been received. So I want to clarify that.

The Sierra Club letter is attached to the blue memo, I believe.

I knew that. I received that. We talked about that, and, thank you. And then I believe Commissioner Core had questions.

Yeah. I have a question for the staff. In the memo sent by Mr. Gordon, he mentioned some oil wells that are leaking gases. Is there a mention of those in any of the MND study? No,

there is no mention because we are not aware of that. We have not been given notice of that leakage, but it would be a fire department process. And we didn't we didn't not hear from the fire department. And also the state has some jurisdiction.

So is that something that comes up when the once the construction starts or or isn't it

all the wells should be properly plotted already anyways? Prior to recordation of a final map is when the wells would need to be properly abandoned and tested. And and that's usually a year or two more years out of when that happens. Not at this stage is when it usually is not happening.

And was there an increase in the size of the project from what was previously

approved? The density, meaning the number of homes or lots has increased.

And how does that impact the MND?

The MND was evaluated on the current project, which is the increased density. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

So seeing no further commissioner comments or questions, is there anyone who wishes to provide a rebuttal on this item? If so, please be prepared to step to the podium. Each side will have only five minutes to make your comments succinctly without repeating the remarks of previous speakers ensure that everyone wishing to provide a rebuttal comment has a chance to do so.

Thank you. Brandon Martin again for the applicant. I think the first issue I'd like to address is the cumulative impacts, specifically cumulative area impacts and cumulative environmental or biological impacts. We do have an obligation under CEQA to address and analyze cumulative impacts, And we believe we've done a sufficient job. But if we need to do more, we will in a final EIR and FEIR before the city council votes.

For tonight's purpose, I would just say that listing 50 projects that are ongoing in Gordon Ips estimation is a way to challenge us to speculate as to what the built environment might look like in the future. This project itself had a map that was recorded. And if past projects had had to analyze that old map, or rumors about what the old map might look like, they probably would have over mitigated or under mitigated, but they certainly wouldn't have been accurate in their idea of determining cumulative impact. So we just can't unfortunately, lot of what was approved in 2007, 2008, for instance, just didn't become part of our environment. And if we were to go ahead and take on that burden of fantasy build out that never happens, we would have inaccurate analysis of cumulative impacts.

Having said that, I have seen projects where they do not analyze correctly cumulative impacts to the extent that we can bolster our analysis, we will do so before the city council meeting. The idea that there's no longer an HCP, it's kind of a red herring. That's not a reason to to avoid approving our project. We would love to see a habitat conservation program and because it streamlines development. It's a it's a good thing at the at the right finance, at the right price point for everybody where it makes sense.

It's a good thing and we'd encourage it. So I agree with Mr. Nipp in that sense. That doesn't mean that we're not mitigating for loss of biological resources. In fact, we and because there isn't an HCP, we may have to go through and again, this is speculation, an incidental take permit or some other kind of state process.

We also have the city's other conditions to protect biological resources as well. Mr. Schnitzer commented and he made some really good comments, but they were about somebody else's project. Obviously, I'm new for this project. I have no idea, what the challenges are involving the four plex, or whether that's a code violation or not. But I would recommend that he he contact the planning department. If there is a code violation, he can report it. It just doesn't have anything to do with your item tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Martin. Is there anyone else who wishes to provide rebuttal in favor of the item? Seeing none, give us a second to reset and we will set for rebuttal in opposition. All right. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Knepp.

Are you ready for rebuttal in opposition? We're ready. Yeah. I'm confused. I'm sorry.

You're good. Yeah. We're ready for rebuttal in opposition, yes sir.

Okay. I just wanted to react to what Mr. Martin said, a couple of points that he was making. He was saying that we were sort of speculating cumulative projects. Really not speculating, I listed 12, I have a list, I put a list of projects in this 14 page letter that I sent in.

12 of which were tentative track maps that you have recently, many of which you have recently approved in one way or another. These are not old tracks. These are new ones that mostly haven't been built yet. And the IPG industrial complex, EIR, listed 51 new projects for the Bakersfield area. That's not speculation.

These may not all be built, that's probably true, but still, many of these projects are in the works and we need to be addressing the cumulative impact of all these, rather than just looking at the individual impacts of each one. Our our air is terribly dirty as it is. If if if all we do is is look at the individual impact of of every project and say, well, it's tiny, so we don't have to worry about it. Look at what that's led to at this point. The the air now is is terrible.

It's it's it's incredibly dirty. Almost more than six times the ambient air quality level for PM 2.5 in some days. People get sick from this and I get sick from this. I'm old enough that I'd That that that I really need to deal with. I really can't go outside and work when the air is that bad and I'm not alone in that.

So these are all This is not speculation. There are many many projects coming up and and and and we need to address the cumulative impacts of all these projects. Not only to air pollution, but to but to habitat loss. There isn't any HCP. You used to be addressing habitat loss through the HCP.

The HCP used to require projects to pay a per acre fee that would go to purchase off-site habitat that would be preserved for these species. Kit foxes and badgers and blunt nose leopard lizards and many many other species. Bakersfield cactus. That's no longer the case. You don't have an HCP and so these developers at this point without an HCP are getting by without preserving habitat.

Habitat just goes and the kit foxes, where are they gonna go? If they don't have a place to forage, the kit foxes aren't gonna survive. Maybe we don't care. Maybe we only care about developers' profits. Anyway, let me just leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Knepp. Is there anyone else who wishes to provide rebuttal in opposition to this project? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing on this item and return it to the Commission for comment and action. I'm sorry. New technology. Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first, I want to thank the applicant for coming out today and and those who spoke on either side. And when we look at this, you know, Bakersfield, we talk about this a lot up here that we are dealing with a housing crisis. You know, the average cost I was just looking it up. The average cost of a two bedroom apartment in Bakersfield today is $1,500. $1,500. Ten years ago, it was $900. So when we look at that, the average income for a family of four in this city today is $58,000. And so when we look at that, the average cost of an apartment, we're talking from Northwest, Southwest to the East Side, takes up 33% of our folks income in this town.

And so we have an obligation as much as I look at the 5,000 square foot lots that's roughly point one one of an acre. So that's much smaller ten years ago even we were we were twice that. We've had these discussions up here. But at the same time, we have a housing crisis and people can't afford to live here. The income is not keeping up for what they can afford.

And part of that is because and hopefully we have sequel reform potentially on the ballot in November and and because these projects get slowed down. And so for me, when I look at this, we have to bring these costs down and that is our job to the limited capacity we have when we look at these projects. And to the gentleman who spoke as a neighbor, I believe Steve, and I I can also I also feel for you too that these are popping up around, you know, larger homes and larger lots. But we have an obligation to bring down cost. The cost of building has gone through the roof.

All of these regulations and people can't afford it and they won't be able to live. And so with that, I understand what the opposition said too, but we have to put people over kit boxes. And and that's just a reality. We have to do it responsibly. We have to do it smartly. I like Commissioner Cowher's comments about the oil wells. That's a great question. We have to do it responsibly, but we have to grow and make sure that our people can afford to live. And so with that, I am in favor of this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, because of it. Thank you, Commissioner Martin. Commissioner Brand Oliver.

I appreciate your passion, Ms. Commissioner Martin. I will, though, clarify a little bit my position on the habitat conservation plan that I just want to say in opposition to Mr. Nipps view of not having a habitat conservation plan in place in the city of Bakersfield does not mean that we're ignoring the habitat. It does not mean that at all.

We all these developers are still faced with addressing any habitat that they find during that process. There is still a process in place. There's still a take permit process in place. Just because there's not a blanket plan for all the land in this city does not mean that we are ignoring it. And it is will still be addressed as they come up just as the clients have said. Same thing with the oil that will still be addressed. I don't think that approving this this request will mean that we're ignoring that. So I just wanted to state my opinion and and fact on that.

Thank you, Commissioner Brent Oliver. Vice Chair Biddle.

Gordon, we really appreciate mister Nipp. We really doctor Nipp, actually. We appreciate you coming out here. I say it over and over again. I hope that more community members have the tenacity and the time that you take on each of these projects. I hope we see that in future generations because it does scare me when people kind of throw their arms up and think that their voices aren't heard. It's so important that people like you show up to these meetings and continue to voice your opinion and your concern with how our projects are built. And I think that keeps us continuously on our toes, making sure that we can do everything that we can to make sure these projects are good for our community and fit into the location that they're at. I did look at it. I know there's a lot of questions that are still going to come up in the future.

But when we do look at our housing market and how the growth of this city is going, we're seeing big pushes into the Southwest, which is more of our agriculture land. You know, we're seeing these big pushes outward. We do need to see more densification inward. We do need to look at more of these infill sites that are available for our developers to go ahead and build different types of housing. But at the meantime, we are very low and short on our housing.

So this is project that fits into Ward 3. It it is scary to know that vacant land is being developed, but at this point in this state with the laws changing on a monthly basis or a yearly basis, we're very unclear of what's gonna be legal or allowed to be put there in the future without our consent up here. So as we see these sites start to infill, let's look and make sure that there's smart growth and things that fit in. And I do feel like this is a project that fits in Ward 3.

Thank you, Vice Chair Biddle. I'll round out comments. Again, thank you, Doctor. Nipp, for coming in and understanding the frustrations of the Sierra Club and others. You know, I look at I used to do a lot of work at oilfield service. And there was no one out there regulating on-site every day that we were looking out for Kit Fox, that we were looking out for blunt nosed lizard. It was taken on by other employees there on the field. We took a lot of in it. If we saw anything burrowing, we stopped the process. And it's my hope that that's what our developers are doing, of an HCP, regardless of someone standing on-site forcing them to do it.

I really hope that that's the pride they're taking. For the individual project, we can't hold against the developer that there's no HCP, or that we want strengthened. Not saying that I don't agree with a lot of what you've said, we can't then hold the developer against that. We don't have a right to reject their proposal when they're meeting the requirements of SQN, they're meeting the mitigated neg deck. But the comments are received. I wanna make sure that we don't just sit here and, like, let you talk and then we're done. We are receiving it. It's just there's not a lot we can do on a lot of these items. And then I think Mr. Schnitzer left, but I wanted to thank him for coming out.

We're hearing this a lot. We're going to hear it a lot on some of the smaller density houses. I think Commissioner Martin spoke well on the need to reduce building costs, and that's where the density is coming from. But realistically, it's also people generally don't want large houses anymore. That's not where we're seeing the market. I can promise you the developers aren't building something that the market doesn't want. So unfortunately, that's where we're going to start seeing this. And we do appreciate people coming out with these comments. And some of this is forced by development standards that are out of our control. We can't tell them they can't build 5,000 square foot if it fits the state mandates for housing.

So those comments are really appreciated from the public. They're not just ignored, even if the outcome of the result may make it seem like they're not taken in. They really are. They're heard every time. And with that, I'm going to turn it over for Commission for action.

So moved, Mr. Chairman. What's To support staff's recommendations.

Thank you. Commissioner

I'll second that motion.

Thank you. Vice Chair Biddle, commissioners, please cast your votes.

If it doesn't pop up, I'll have to do, just a speaking vote.

You know what? Let's round out the speaking vote. That sounds great.

Chair Strickland?

Yes.

Vice Chair Biddle? Yes. Commissioner Brandt Oliver? Yes. Commissioner Kaur? Yes. Commissioner Martin? Yes. Motion passes with Commissioner Cater and Commissioner Neal absent.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item seven, communications.

Before we move on, sorry. We never showed the vote. Should we show the vote? Should the

White answer.

Oh, there's no She a Okay. Okay. I didn't know what did a rule. Okay. That's fine. The vote is as read. Okay. Does staff have any communication items?

I'd like to read the appeal statement.

Oh, yes. Appeal statement. So let's back up again anyway.

Any item on tonight's planning commission meeting may be appealed to the city council in care of the city clerk at City Hall North. There may be a feel a fee involved, and they can contact planning staff if they have any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ng. Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item eight, commissioner comments.

Does any commissioner have any comments?

I just wanna thank Cassie for just saying what I probably should have said a little softer. You're very encouraging, and I appreciate that. And I felt all those things too, but I didn't say any of that. So you're awesome.

And perhaps, mister chairman, yeah. And you guys do know I do get passionate up here. And I do hear both sides on an issue. It's just, you you know, we're put in a tough spot sometimes and we know that because we know what our community is feeling. And at the same time, we need to make sure that we that we do it environmentally sound, but while we allow our city to grow and make sure it's affordable for people to stay here and continue to move here. So thank you, guys.

Thank you, Commissioner Martin. And I would like to make a comment to make sure Ms. Ng doesn't have any more comments.

I just like to announce we will have a meeting on February 19. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item nine adjournment.

The 02/05/2026 Planning Commissions Meeting is adjourned at 06:17PM.