Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Bye. So,

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 7 p.m. and Sunday at 10 a.m. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersfieldcity.us. Presiding over this evening's meeting, Chair Adam

It is my pleasure to call to order the April 2nd, 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 Kaur?

Here.

Commissioner Martin?

Here. 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 and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

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 3A, 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.

Agenda item 3B, public statements.

Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda? If you are here for a non-consent public hearing, item 6A, now is not the time to speak. You will be given the opportunity to speak at a later time. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item 4, consent calendar items.

ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT ITEMS DO NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING AND WILL BE ENACTED IN ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF SET ITEMS UNLESS STAFF OR COMMISSIONER REQUESTS SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION OR REMOVED FOR SEPARATE ACTION. MAY I GET A MOTION APPROVING CONSENT ITEMS 4A?

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

VICE CHAIR BIDDLE, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND.

COMMISSIONER CORE? COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

Madam clerk, can you change the screen so it shows item 4A?

Motion passes with Commissioner Cater absent.

Madam clerk, next item, please.

Just for the record, Commissioner Biddle abstained.

Okay, thank you.

Madam, I think, Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item five, there are no consent calendar public hearing items.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item six, non-consent public hearing items.

Now is the time for non-consent public hearing items. Before we begin, I would like to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will give a report, then those in favor of the project will be allowed to speak. Those in opposition to the project will be able to speak after all those in favor have spoken. Each side will be given five minutes to provide rebuttal comments. Individual speakers may ask questions during their statements, but the questions will not be answered until the public hearing on that item is closed. WRITTEN COMMENTS MAY BE GIVEN TO THE CLERK, WHO WILL PROVIDE COPIES TO THE COMMISSION. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF OTHERS PARTICIPATING IN THE HEARING BY NOT REPEATING THE REMARKS OF PREVIOUS SPEAKERS AND BY PRESENTING ANY NEW COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS IN A CONCISE AND CLEAR MANNER. MR. BURNS, WILL YOU PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH YOUR STAFF REPORT?

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. TODAY WE'RE COMING FORWARD WITH SOME ORNIST CHANGES RELATED TO OUR HOUSING ELEMENT. Recall back about October, we were under a rush to get our housing element to cross the dais. Well, now we're actually going back, dug into the required parts of a housing element that requires the city to change our Title 17 municipal code in accordance to the housing element. So tonight, Ms. King and I will be providing a quick slideshow of those changes, and then here to answer questions.

Thank you, Mr. Burns. Again, BD King with the City Attorney's Office. So just providing a short outline of our presentation today, we're going to be going over our housing element. It's been before you many times. Also, the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or also known as HCD's requirements from the city as it relates to the housing element. More specifically, the ordinance amendments that we're looking to present to you and are seeking a recommendation to City Council for approval. So you're well aware of our city's housing element. We brought that to you multiple times over the last couple of years, including late last year when we asked for a recommended approval to take to city council. The city housing element identifies existing and projected housing needs within the community. It establishes policies, programs, and actions to accommodate city's regional housing needs allocation, also known as RHNA. On November 24th of 2025, HCD found that our housing element was in substantial compliance with state housing element law. And so therefore we are now at the juncture where we need to implement those programs, actions, and policies that we promised that we would through the housing element over the eight year planning period. And so what we're bringing to you today are specifically ordinance amendments. Like I mentioned, there are many requirements that the city has to follow as it relates to the housing element. But we are targeting the amendments first just because it's something that we can easily take care of. And we combed through the housing element, which I believe is over 300 pages. And we were able to identify 25 amendments that the city has to implement. Of those 25, 13 have already been taken care of. We took care of them over the last two years. We brought them to the Planning Commission and to City Council as well. And so we have a net of 12 amendments that we're presenting to you today for a recommendation of approval to City Council. And Mr. Burns will now identify what those amendments are.

Thank you. So I'll touch upon some of the changes. There's 12, and there's more detail in the ordinance itself. I just want to kind of hit some of the highlights, because what we're doing is we're codifying many state statutes, but we're really taking state health and safety code law and adding those sections into our ordinance. So these are things that we're required to do already, and it's putting those and codifying them. But one of the items is conducting inspections related to lead hazards and its essential conditions for housing. Expanding the definition involving single-family dwellings and emergency shelters. A little more detail is really allowing a mobile home within a single-family zone lot and adding that codify. It's something that's by state law again, but codifying that. allowing emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers by right in certain zones. What that's doing where we had them in like an industrial zone were allowed, state law allows them anywhere that you can build residential within a commercial zone. Now you have to drill into those commercial zones allows residential, but it's codifying that. There's also other state laws like SB 9 and SB 35 that were required to codify. SB 9 is a lot split law. So basically if you have a single family lot and you want to turn that into two lots and you could have up to a total of four dwellings between those two lots, two on each. You could have one house there currently, do a lot split, add an ADU to your house, build another house and an ADU, and now we've changed our neighborhoods to four-plexes and single-family neighborhoods. But again, this is already law by the state, and we're putting it required by our housing element by ECD to codify it. SB 35 is streamlining of affordable housing units. So if you have a project that's infill, it has a appropriate affordability percentage, then there is basically a shot clock that says you shall get the project approved by so many days, assuming it's a complete approval. Again, what we're doing is we're mirroring state law and adding that into the ordinance. adding a definition of a vacant site inventory. So we have sites that are housing element that we identified that, hey, we're going to have a certain density, a certain location, and to meet our RHNA goals. So it's really adding those definitions into our zoning ordinance to allow this. The next one is allowing large community care facilities. And these are A VERY BROAD SET OF STATE LICENSED FACILITIES. AGAIN, THIS COULD BE A VERY BROAD ADULT CARE FACILITY, CHILD CARE FACILITY, AN ELDERLY CARE FACILITY. THERE'S ABOUT 15 DIFFERENT KIND OF FACILITIES THAT FIT THIS, AND THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE SEVEN OR MORE IN A PARTICULAR ZONE, AND THOSE ARE, AGAIN, state permitted so it's the state taking authority away from the cities and then here you got to go codify this so that's kind of the stuff that's coming at us and then removing the parking and this is really for affordable housing uh units so if you have up to 50 units and they're within half a mile of public transit and it's a multi-family project right now there's still a parking requirement it would take that away that's just kind of to clarify some of these requirements With that, Ms. King and I are here and other staff here to answer any questions you may have on our amendments. And we recommend that the Planning Commission approve these and push it on to City Council. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Burns and Ms. King. The public hearing on this item is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE PROJECT? IF SO, PLEASE STEP TO THE MICROPHONE, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND PROCEED. SEEING NONE, DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM? REMEMBER, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER. IT'S ONLY TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER MARTIN?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's also time to ask staff questions, right? This is correct, yes, sir. Because we don't have anybody in favor or opposed. I was wondering if staff can tell me, and I understand we get so many of these items that is out of the city's hands. What do we, we have to do this, we have to do that. I'm wondering on BMC section 8.27.02, the amendment that adds language upon a complaint from a tenant, resident or occupant or agent of said person regarding alleged lead hazard or substandard conditions. My question is, so what is the, that's kind of very vague, what is the definition of substandard conditions and is that outside of the context of potential lead poisoning since it mentions lead in the prior sentence? And if so, what are those?

Commissioner Martin, There are a number of housing-related standards. We have always enforced them through the housing code. The health and safety code mirrors those requirements. Adequate sanitation, dilapidated roof, dilapidated conditions. There are about 25 different code sections that go through the different conditions within a house, not having hot water, not having a cooking facility, not having working heat at your 70 degrees, three feet off the ground. It's those type of elements that are within the health and safety code.

Okay, so essentially it's health and safety and mirroring those. Correct. And the reason I bring this up is, and also before I get into that, who pays for this head inspection?

Mr. Martin, this enforcement falls under code enforcement, no different today. This is codifying something we already do. The lead is one that we have not received complaints, so it's not something we are probably the most proficient at, but all the housing items, we deal with those regularly. So it's something that We're codifying it. Our process is faster than using the health and safety code. So even though we're codifying it, it gives us the ability to use that process. We're going to continue using our Section 8 intermissible code, which is much faster to address these things for our constituents.

Okay. And the reason I bring this up is I have had rentals before. Question or comment? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll go to my next. Also, on the lot splitting of the land, is the reason we're adding multi-family or, excuse me, adding mobile homes as well, is that also to deal with potentially having a mobile as an AUD on a property? Is that the idea behind that?

I think the idea behind adding mobile homes and manufactured homes to the R1 is for the RHNA to count towards the RHNA number.

Yeah.

Because we're expanding the definition.

Okay. And a lot splitting is interesting. Again, I know we need housing. My last question would be on the care facilities for, you know, that's come before this commission. We had kind of a lengthy one on that the other day, but for good measure. what will that put the numbers to of what we're allowed to, what we have to allow without any other permitting?

So essentially they will be allowed by right. And so those individuals that want to apply for a community care facility, that's six or less or seven or more will make no difference. They will not need a CUP anymore.

So we won't need a CUP if somebody takes a 3,500 square foot home and totally remodels that home to make it like a commercial facility and have 20 20 different rooms in there that are 10 by 10, we will not have a right as this commission to say no.

It won't even come to the commission, but you will still be able to regulate based on building and fire codes.

But so the example that came before this commission, I hope you guys remember, essentially that would take that out of our hands and they would have been able to have, and that I'm using that specific instance because we had so many folks from the neighborhood who I clearly understand that we would not be able to do anything about someone turning essentially a residential facility without going through the CUP process. And in my opinion, treating it, it's like a, that's correct?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you. No further questions.

Mr. Martin, just to add on to that, there's already other types of state-licensed facilities, sober living, they're similar. So the state continues to take those authorities away from local...

But not over six, though, correct?

Yes, they do.

For the sober living facilities, you can have up to 10, right?

I would need to do some research on the number. My recollection, it's the same. It's what the housing or the building code would allow for occupants.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

I'm just, I'm going to skip Brent Oliver for one second. Just a quick question. Just because we're talking about codifying, right? Just for the audience, because I know we've got some students here. Can we give the definition of codify and what that implies for us just to...

So codifying basically means that we are going to include state law into our local municipal code. We are going to, even though we're already required to follow state law, we're going to physically include it within our local ordinances, stating that we're going to follow state law.

And even if we didn't codify it, we still have to follow it. That still gives the developers the same rights the state allows. It just puts us in a weird position that we don't match state law.

Yes, that's correct.

And many of these sections that they're requiring us to codify have been bills that have passed over the past five years. And so every year the legislature brings in new bills, new laws. And so they are essentially requiring us to CAUTIFY ALL THOSE NEW LAWS THAT HAVE GONE INTO PLACE IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRENT OLIVER.

Thank you. So my question is related to the community care facilities as well. My specific question is, when you have a single dwelling that you count towards RENA, is that just like one unit per se? And then does, when it becomes a community care facility with multiple, like it's almost a multifamily situation if you have 12 or more, YOU KNOW, ROOMS IN IT, DO YOU GET MORE RENA NUMBERS FOR IT? AM I MAKING SENSE? I'M SORRY, I'M NOT SPEAKING THE RIGHT LANGUAGE.

MR. BRYANT OLIVER, THAT IS ONE UNIT. IT STILL IS ONE UNIT. NO DIFFERENT THAN A SINGLE FAMILY, NO DIFFERENT THAN HAVING A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE VERSUS, YOU KNOW, 800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. FOR RENA, IT'S ONE UNIT.

NOT THE ANSWER I WANTED TO HEAR. BUT I'LL HOLD MY COMMENTS FOR LATER.

I'LL COME BACK OFF MUTE, I PROMISE. I'LL STOP YOU. AND THEN I HATE TO DO DEFINITIONS AGAIN, BUT CAN WE JUST HIGH LEVEL WHAT RENA IS AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A UNIT WITHIN RENA? MR. BURNS?

RENA is our regional housing needs assessor allocation. So Kern Cog looks at the countywide, the number of units, and they basically break down the RENA based on income categories or affordable units based on income. So there's our RENA was 30, 35? 7,000. 37,000 of that, we have like 17,000 low income and moderate income. So in our units, that's actual housing units. If you think about an apartment that's 200 units, then we get the full 200 units for that. Based on that density, so you look at how many units per acre and the different categories are based on density. So single family, it falls in that above moderate income. So we get one unit in that group. We have something that's at a higher density, like 20 units per acre or more, then that would fall in that very low income category.

And just to clarify, the intention of Reno, whether the application is the same, the intention of Reno is to make sure that counties and municipalities are building an appropriate amount of housing to cover different economic ranges. That's correct.

Cool. Thank you, Mr. Burns. COMMISSIONER CORE?

QUESTION TO THE STAFF. FOR REDUCING THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT, IS THAT ONLY FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ONLY OR IS IT FOR COMMERCIAL OR OTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES?

THAT SPECIFIC AMENDMENT, COMMISSIONER CORE, WAS ABOUT AFFORDABLE UNITS SPECIFIC. SO IT'S AFFORDABLE UNITS WITHIN THAT HALF MILE TO A TRANSIT.

OKAY. IT WON'T APPLY TO ALL THE APARTMENT UNITS. CORRECT. OKAY. JUST AFFORDABLE. OKAY.

And then I had just, I think, two questions. Well, three. Feeding on to the inspections, I understand now that that's still code enforcement. You gave the example on, like, the lead testing. The city hasn't had to do that, but that's something we'd probably contract out if we had to come across this. We wouldn't anticipate code enforcement can do lead testing internally or...

Mr. Strickland, yeah, that's probably how we would handle it because there's not the expertise to do that. We do similar when we have cases that won't go away with mold. So we would have to have someone that's certified in that type of testing.

Okay, great, got it. And then I had a question. On one of the summaries for an update, it just said that we were making more objective language. Could you give some examples of that just to capture that? What is objective language in results of, I think that was 1710.040, maybe?

CHAIR STRICKLAND, THAT INVOLVED THE CUP FINDINGS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE. AND SO HCD HAD A COMMENT ABOUT ONE OF OUR FINDINGS REQUIRING THAT THE PROPOSED USE BE IN HARMONY OF, LIKE, VARIOUS ELEMENTS. AND SO THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT TERM. THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE WORD HARMONY. NO.

OKAY. GOT IT. YEAH.

TOO SUBJECTIVE.

I'll withhold the opinion there then. And then I guess the final, can I get maybe a two-minute summary as to where we are on the housing element? Because I know it was originally due for approval or the state could start taking over some of our approval processes. We submitted in October. It sounded like it was partially approved in November. Does that mean we're now compliant or not?

Mr. Strickland, we are 100% in compliance. So we are actually, staff has been working on the APR, which was due the 1st. I don't know, did that get submitted? Yeah, it has been submitted. So that's another report that will be coming your way too on our last year's APR. We're hoping to get this done, these ordinances prior to the APR, but it didn't quite happen.

got it so these ordinances basically approved as noted if we do the stuff that we said they approve us if we don't do it then conditionally they could remove that approval

That's correct. They have an enforcement wing now as part of HCD. And here recently in the news, they're going after several jurisdictions that have not got their housing element certified. It's kind of beyond that. They could sue us, and they also could hold back funding for the very same affordable units that they want us to build. So it's kind of counterintuitive in many ways.

Okay. Well, I think it would be a comment for congratulations on completing that. So I'll hold that for now. Vice Chair Biddle?

Kind of random, but I don't know if it's appropriate. As the state's taking away tools out of our toolbox to be able to keep our communities cohesive and happy, are we looking at ways that we could use objective standards or some kind of tools back in our toolbox to give us anything, or has that been outlawed too?

Commissioner Biddle, I'm struggling to come up with some objective standards that would help us. I can say we did, incorporate the objective standards for our multifamily here recently, because that's basically the only thing you can use these days. I think if we're wanting certain standards on our single-family residential neighborhoods, we're going to have to look at objective standards for them. And that's, I think, in some ways, some of our single-family developers may not like that. but if we want to keep some of the cohesive in our neighborhoods, we may have to go that direction to counteract some of these things that we're talking about tonight. I can tell you from a staff's perspective, adding the objective standards and the multifamily, what we've found is we didn't do as good of a job in our ordinances, so we need to fix some things. There are try to make a one-size-shoe-fits-all scenario, and we're finding that that's not working well for us. So I think as we come around with our general plan and our next zoning ordinance updates, you're going to see some of those objective standards change. But if this is something that this commission is wanting us to look at, please feel free to reach out to staff. And I'm sure Commissioner Brent Oliver may have an opinion on this, too, because that's... AND IT GETS IN HER WHEELHOUSE A BIT.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BREND OLIVER.

GOING BACK TO ME. ABOUT THE LOT SPLIT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW OR THE MINISTERIAL BY RIGHT OF IT, IS THERE A MINIMUM So when we zone certain land and we say, you know, this 20 acres can be 20 units per acre, which typically means 20 lots per acre or whatever, what's to prevent somebody from just taking the minimum lot size in that neighborhood that's required by one zoning ordinance and dividing it in half? They have the right to do that. And then... Next time they could turn around divide it in half again. I mean how many halves can you get is there any language in this and then I'm I'm really not seeing it that you can stop the process from having and having and having and Is is there a minimum lot size requirement, I guess that's a very good question and

WELL, THEY'RE THINKING.

I WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO SPEND SOME TIME TO REALLY DIVE INTO THAT A LITTLE DEEPER. I THINK OFF THE CUFF, WE WERE THINKING THIS WOULD BE A ONE-TIME SPLIT, BUT COULD SOMEONE DO A LOT SPLIT AND SOMEONE ELSE COME BACK LATER AND DO ANOTHER LOT SPLIT?

I'M AGAIN THINKING BACK. Well, but the language is so specific that it's like, how do you argue against that? How do you review? I mean, it's literally plain black and white. So I'm thinking back to that. Do you remember that development that was over that one cul-de-sac, four lots in the middle of a developed neighborhood, and people were like, uh-uh, uh-uh. And I'm thinking, four? Well, try ten or eight or double down on that.

I think we're going to have to do a little research on that one. I'm looking through the fact sheet and I'm not finding a minimum standard. MS. KING WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY GOOGLE THAT SHOWED A 2400 SQUARE FOOT LOT SPLIT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUALLY... YOU MEAN BY STATE LAW?

SO YOU'RE TRYING TO GOOGLE WHAT THE STATE LAW MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS. OKAY. SO THAT'S KIND OF ANOTHER QUESTION OF MINE, AND IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY RELATES TO THE COMMUNITY FACILITY ESPECIALLY. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE STATE LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE A HOSPITAL IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN, I JUST, BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THESE WORDS ARE, WHICH I ACTUALLY APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE TRIED TO WRITE, AND I'M GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LANGUAGE IN OUR RED LINE THAT SAYS I FEEL LIKE WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP IT GENERALIZED BY HAVING THAT RIGHT NEXT TO EVERYTHING THAT SAID PERMITTED, PERMITTED, PERMITTED, AND YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE. BECAUSE THIS WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. IS YOUR INTENT BY THIS LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT SIMILAR TO, LET ME FIND IT, SORRY. Residents per unit will be analyzed based on residential uses similar to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone pursuant to, you know, what does that really mean?

Commissioner Barnett-Oliver, what we were trying to do there the question came up in the past about how many people can be in a facility. And really it comes down to the building codes and fire codes. And that's based on the bedrooms. The bedroom sizes. Exactly. The two people in the first 70 square feet and another one for every. So it's really pointed out that you can't just shove 10 people in a room.

So it wasn't, because I could also read this as Residents per unit will be analyzed based on residents who use similar uses in the same zone as, well, then my neighborhood has four bedrooms similarly, then maybe I can only have, you know, maybe there shouldn't be facilities over four bedrooms. I mean, I was just kind of reading it a little different, but I'm glad that you clarified the intent is to follow the actual fire and building codes for the minimum safety occupancy type.

Okay, thank you. Sorry. And I think following on that, just for clarification, if the ordinance is passed and I will just say we get a, it's just a four unit house, just four beds, four bedrooms. Someone converts that into a sober living community. Is there any notification of the property owner to the city that that is now a sober living community?

COMMISSIONER TRICKLIN, THERE IS NOT A REQUIRED NOTICE TO THE CITY AT ALL ON THESE FACILITIES. THE ONLY THING WE WOULD BE AWARE OF WOULD BE IF THEY CAME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO CHANGE THE GARAGE INTO ANOTHER BEDROOM, THOSE TYPE THINGS, LIKE WE'VE SEEN FOR OTHER SIMILAR TYPE FACILITIES. WE'VE HAD SOBER LIVING FACILITIES DO SIMILAR THINGS, TAKE A THREE-CAR GARAGE AND TAKE THAT THIRD-CAR GARAGE AND MAKE IT INTO TWO MORE BEDROOMS. OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S not what people want to hear, but that's just the reality of what we see.

And I guess trying to toe the line now, state law, is it by right they could do, and I'm just, the sober living, just to tie into this example, I'm really talking about any by right that's approved now, but sober living facilities, by right, they can do that. And we hope that they pull a permit to make those changes. But if they don't, what would the, let's say a neighbor reports them to the city. What does that look like? Are they in violation of just the no permit? Are they in an expanded violation of zoning as well? What does that look like?

So, Mr. Strickland, anytime someone does construction without a permit, that's a violation of both city codes regarding permits and also Contractors Licensing Board. The other issue here is if you're talking about one of these type facilities, they are supposed to, some of their conditions, if you read through the licensing requirements for like a community care facility, they're required to get permits. But potentially you have also that violation back against the state licensing agency and a process there.

Okay. And I guess I'll final question to get off the soapbox. The purview of this commission is not to try and tweak the ordinances here because we're really just matching state law. We could put whatever we want into this, but still superseded by state law, right?

Mr. Strickland, that's correct. And I want to kind of take that one step further to state law. Plus they purposely put in our housing element as an action item. What they've done is they've leveraged your housing element. If you don't actually do these things, then our enforcement agent can come back later and say, you're no longer in compliance, and now we're going to take your funding away for other affordable projects. So it's like you're stuck between this rock and a hard place, that there are things that maybe we don't agree with in our community, yet we need the housing. So what do you do? Do you find other ways to address? You still do need to address your community.

Understood. I think I've got a question here. I'll work it into you. I think the line of questioning I was going with is when we, I think in this example, we found an area that maybe the state law somehow they didn't think of everything and there may be a gap here. The correct avenue for this commission is maybe making action on this regardless, but that would be more of a recommendation or a question to city council to look at a separate alternative strategy of like an asset index for all areas housing developments um or that that's really a city council committee for dealing with maybe fringe cases like this rather than trying to fix the ordinance to match it would that be a an accurate statement

Are you suggesting that we make recommendations to the council in terms of the language on the ordinance?

No, I think I'm suggesting that if we say, hey, you know, as a, maybe not even as a commissioner, as a constituent, I see that this could be problematic. Really, the avenue is to go to planning or go to city council and say, hey, with this new ordinance, perhaps we should have a committee or a task force that looks at SOBER LIVING FACILITIES OR NEW INSTANCES OF DEVELOPMENT AFTER THESE ARE BUILT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRACKING HOW WE'RE USING THIS AND KEEPING THIS COMPLIANT.

I BELIEVE THERE ARE COUNCIL MEMBERS INTERESTED IN TRACKING EVEN AFTER WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT FOR THE AMENDMENTS, MR. BURNS MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE ACTION ITEMS ON THE HOUSING ELEMENT. BECAUSE IT TOOK US SO LONG TO GET THE HOUSING ELEMENT APPROVED, MANY OF THOSE ACTION ITEMS FOR THE AMENDMENTS HAVE ALREADY EXPIRED. SO THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE WE WERE ALREADY PAST THE DEADLINE FOR 90% OF THEM.

AS A PROJECT MANAGER, I UNDERSTAND EXPIRED ACTION ITEMS. YOU'RE TALKING MY LANGUAGE. SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? Okay, seeing none, and because there were no comments in favor or opposition, we won't have a rebuttal. I will now close the public hearing on this item and return it to the commission for comment and action.

Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Look, I mean, this one's a doozy for me, but, you know, I guess I'd have to say, and I appreciate all staff's work on this, and I know we're trying to deal with the confines of the law, and I think, Mr. Burns, you said it well, that, you know, if we don't do this, then we can't get that. If we don't do this, then we don't get that. But there also has to be a line in the sand somewhere, right, for us. It's like, well, they said we won't get this grant or that. Well, we'll find another one. I have a problem with, you know, as a landlord myself, I go back to the first item that I brought up regarding the lead. Obviously, you know, if that lines up with health code, you know, most good landlords, they want to do all those good things to be good stewards, of course, because they want to keep tenants and stuff, you know. So they want to make sure there's hot water and things like this. But there's also, I can speak, for example, I had a tenant one time who, didn't want to pay their rent. And so they said all these things. There was beautiful new hardwood flooring I'd put in them. I'd bent over backwards for lead, and there was no lead. So that one kind of strikes home personally because I've seen it a couple times as an abuse to somebody who has a mortgage to pay, who's not some big landlord or a little guy with a little unit. And so I've had problems with the language. I think that can be vague and can be abused. Of course, if there is a real situation, a real issue there, then we absolutely should take it seriously. But then that's health and safety. And then now we're adding code into this, which is a higher expense to the taxpayer there when code is already, I know with the city and the county, they're already stretched very thin. So I have a problem with that. And then we get into this situation of, right? I mean, the split lots, how many times can we do that? I thought that was a great question because a lot of this gets very vague. And with the elderly care facilities, I mean, look, we've seen it. We've seen these things come before this commission just in my short time while being here. And we are essentially saying, well, we don't even need a CUP to have a hospital. And that's a great reference to way to put it. And this is so folks don't have to build a facility, don't have to go through the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the parking and all the different things that has to happen. And that is the abuse that can happen. And it nearly just happened in this city where we had 50 residents come out to say, please, we already have three in our neighborhood. We cannot take another one. We're on the actual threshold. LANGUAGE AND THE DOCUMENTS THEY WERE SUBMITTING FOR A CUP IN THAT FACILITY, THERE WAS 12 PLUS, IF I RECALL. THAT'S 12 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE COMING IN. THAT'S 12 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF EMS AND ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED. THAT'S WHY THOSE FOLKS BOUGHT AN R1, BOUGHT A RESIDENTIAL HOME. And so I'm really puzzled here because I respectfully disagree, Mr. Chairman, today that, well, you know, state law says it or else, and it's not the purview of this commission to have an opinion on these things, or we should go have a separate subcommittee, et cetera, because we should. Because if we don't, then why are we here? Let's pack our bags. We could have left. It's Easter week. I think when we have something like this, I think it is our job to look at it. And at a certain point, we do have to push back. This is wrong. And it is changing our communities the way folks, if folks wanted to buy a house there, fine. If you would have told those people they're buying a house that has three facilities next to it with 10, 15 people in it, they probably wouldn't have bought there. So I'm conflicted with, well, if we don't do that, Matt, then we'll lose some funding for something else. When do we take a stand in the state? Because regardless of R versus D, it is what we're dealing with currently. And this is not right for our community. And to your point earlier, it's if... the state's going to do what they're going to do anyway, and all we're doing is codifying it for our own situation and our own city, then there's no way. I do not support this, and I apologize for the long, passionate spiel, but this is not correct, and it's not right for our community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner Morton. Commissioner Brent Oliver?

Two bad news in a row. I could just ditto almost everything Matt said. I feel the same way. I'm extremely, I feel like we have to take a stand as well. I feel like, first of all, I'm again frustrated with being put up against the wall of there's a deadline and we need to approve it. I'm extremely frustrated that, and I realize you guys are VERY HARD WORKERS. I AM NOT TRYING TO SAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LAZY AND GOT THIS LATE. I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT. I'M JUST FRUSTRATED THAT WE CAN'T WORK ON THE LANGUAGE AND DO SOME PUSHBACK. AND I'M HOPING THAT YOU DID PUSHBACK ON THINGS LIKE THE LAW SPLIT OR THINGS LIKE THE COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY. I THINK IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE AND VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY AGAINST THE AMERICAN WAY TO HAVE PURCHASED SOMETHING KNOWING THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE ZONE AROUND YOU, YOU KNOW, AND THEN IT COMPLETELY CHANGED. NOW THERE'S A SEWER FARM BEHIND YOU. I JUST THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY, YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER ANYMORE. And I am completely against that and I agree with Matthew that we have to take a stand and I am not in support of approving this I Hope my commissioners agree as well. I think that if you do NOT LIKE I WISH HERE IS ANOTHER THING I WISH THAT EACH ONE OF THESE RESOLUTIONS WOULD BE INDIVIDUALS LIKE I HAD APPROVED 10 OUT OF THE 12. SO I WISH THEY WEREN'T BROUGHT AS 12 ALL TOGETHER. I WISH THAT SO THAT WE COULD MOVE ON WITH CERTAIN ONES AND THEN WE WERE ONLY DEALING WITH THE COUPLE THAT ARE UNREASONABLE. AND I THINK THAT AS A CITY, WE DO STILL HAVE TO TRY AND TAKE A STAND. AND WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT. WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT IF THEY FINALLY GET AROUND TO US AND SAY, OKAY, YOU LOSE YOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BECAUSE I THINK MY QUESTION TO DOES THE COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY WITH 12 PEOPLE IN IT COUNT MORE THAN A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THAT RIGHT THERE DOES NOT EVEN MEET THE STATE'S GOAL OF MORE HOUSING. LIKE WHY WOULD THE COMMUNITY CARE FACILITY BE DUMPED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT PERIOD? HOW? ANYWAY, I'M COMPLETELY AGAINST IT. SORRY.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRENDOLVER. VICE CHAIR BIDDLE, ARE YOU REQUESTING TO SPEAK OR HAS IT JUST POPPED UP? You want some comments, though? No. Okay. Vice Chair Biddle.

Oh, man. Okay. I say ditto, too. I don't like state law. I think last year there were 794 laws passed in the state of California that the governor signed into action. He only vetoed 123. So there's a lot of laws that we don't like and we don't agree with. And we really have to take action as community members when it comes to voting and looking at who our legislators are and which policies are brought forward. Because a lot of these are also policies brought forward by the people that I don't always agree with. So I don't like the wording, but unfortunately, sometimes we have to do things that we don't like to do thanks to the state. I could say that in my own industry and multiple different industries. Anybody that's in trucking or in grocery stores, I mean, across the board, politics are very divisive and it is very scary to know that tools are being taken out of our toolbox. But I still remain optimistic by working with city staff to make sure that we do have certain standards where we can make that. And every time we do that, the state's probably going to pass another law that doesn't allow us to use that tool either. There's a lot that really needs a lot of work when it comes to policy changing. But unfortunately, these are things. SB 9 is something that I was excited about. I am a single girl that lives in a duplex. My grandmother is in the front one. We live on a lot that would be the size of a single family dwelling. So I don't find fear in knowing that lot sizes aren't required to be a certain size for those of us that maybe don't want to maintain a front and a backyard. Because I can't remember the last time I went to my front yard, to be honest with you. I'm in the back. So certain things are very scary. But we have to remember that we as a community make these decisions. And we have the ability to make sure that our staff is looking at making sure building codes are met and making sure that lot sizes and everything is met. So as far as not liking state law, neither do I, you guys. I don't. But unfortunately, I do move to approve this project.

Thank you, Vice Chair Biddle. And not seeing others, I'm just gonna make a couple of comments. I wanna start with thanking staff for the work they've provided on, regardless of any comments I have coming after this. I understand the effort that going through our Just the last several years, as I understand it, it's a lot of work. And I understand that it may sound like we're checking boxes to others because we kind of are, but we have to. So I do appreciate the effort. And I also want to appreciate the students for coming out tonight and picking an impassioned planning commission meeting to show up to you rather than a quick one. So with that being said, I just want to reiterate that I don't like any of the ordinance forces. I don't like that the state tells us what we have to do. I don't like that we have to do it. But the reality is we have to do it. By denying these ordinance changes and shooting it down is the definition of screaming into the void. It will make no change. It will do nothing but make staff's life harder when one of these housing developments or these daycare facilities want to open up and the state law lets them, and we can't stop them anyway, but now city staff has to respond to that. City staff has to deal with it. They have to deal with the lack of funding. If we want to make significant change, as Vice Chair Biddle said, look at who you're voting in. Look at the representation we are and aren't getting. look at what the state is not doing for i think correct from wrong biggest will now be the eighth largest city in california and we hate every bit of it and what's it done for us so reach out to your city councilman reach out to them there are plenty of organizations there are plenty of other cities that have banded out putting together letters putting together statements the planning commission's purview is not to make that STANCE TONIGHT, BECAUSE IF WE SHOOT THIS DOWN, IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN TRASH THE WORK THE STAFF HAS ALREADY DONE. AND I PROMISE YOU, OUR GOVERNOR OR OUR ASSEMBLY IS NOT GOING TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WELL, DAD, GOVERNMENT, THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION SHOT IT DOWN. WE SHOULD MAKE CHANGE. THERE ARE MORE APPLICABLE AVENUES. SO I HATE TO SHOOT THIS ORDINANCE DOWN OR REJECT THIS. in protest because I don't think it's gonna make a change. I'd rather acknowledge the effort staff has done, acknowledge that we have to do this and then put our energy towards reaching out to our council person, reach out to our council persons, reach out to our mayor and vice mayor and make our press there because I feel like they're on the same page we are. Nobody likes this, we're having to do it. Let's do it and then put our energy properly. So I would like to second Vice Chair Bittles motion.

Can I say, Mr. Chairman, it's not that we're not saying, in my opinions, or saying the staff didn't do a good job or the governor doesn't care up there. We actually, we have pretty good representatives here. But to me, it is about making, it's what's right or what's wrong to a point where it's like, it's not any dig at city staff. And you guys are trying to do everything you can do you know, with those confines. But if they're going to do it regardless, you know, it's a matter of what's right and what's wrong from my angle. I appreciate all the work city staff doing to try to jump through these hoops because of the governor and the legislature that we have. But thank you.

APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION AND I DO NOT MEAN TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE YOU DON'T APPRECIATE THE STAFF I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T WANT TO I AGREE WITH YOU I WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE I JUST THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THE REAL RESULT I THINK SAYING NO TO THIS OPENING UP THAT CAN OF WORMS OF NOW THE STATE'S ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IS GOING TO COME IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO BULLY US ANYWAY IF WE DENY IT WE GET BULLIED OR WE APPROVE IT WE DON'T LIKE IT BOTH ARE TERRIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR US BUT ONE AT LEAST SAVES CITY STAFF A LITTLE BIT. A LITTLE BIT. SO OF COURSE BEFORE I SECOND THAT I WILL LET COMMISSIONER BRENT OLIVER CONTINUE.

Thank you. Thank you for pausing the second. So Ms. Biddle, Commissioner Biddle, I apologize. I totally do not have, I just wanna clarify my one position on small lots. Absolutely don't have a problem with small lot in a certain location, but I think it's my intention on the comment was if a person's purchased a lot in more of an estate-sized area, that's their intention is to live more with space around them. And so that is what I thought our whole entire zone general plan was for. And to have it thrown out the window is just... very, very unsettling for me. And then just the last comment is I really appreciate your point that we are not elected officials and I would have to agree that it is not our position probably to push back as hard as I want to push back. It is not, my opinion is not going to make a difference because I'm not an elected official, so.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRENT OLIVER AND I WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THAT SECOND BUT I THINK JUST SO WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE COULD YOU YOUR MOTION IS IN FAVOR OF APPROVING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WAS YOUR MOTION I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR MOTION I APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION And then I would like to second Vice Chair Biddle's motion to approve staff's recommendation.

Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with Brant Oliver and Commissioner Martin voting no.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item seven, communications.

Does staff have any communication items?

Just like to thank you guys for your passion tonight. I think from a staff perspective, I think we feel the same way. Some of these things are not where our values are either, but it's things that unfortunately, we're in a situation where we have to move these things forward. So I appreciate all your points tonight and I CAN TELL YOU FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T TAKE IT WRONG OR DIFFERENT OR AGAINST US EITHER. WE UNDERSTAND WE'RE HERE THE SAME WAY AS TRYING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY A BETTER COMMUNITY AND TAKE CARE OF OUR RESIDENTS. SO AGAIN, APPRECIATE YOU GUYS' PASSION.

THANK YOU, MR. BURNS. MADAM CLERK, NEXT ITEM, PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM 8, COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

I'm supposed to say, does any commissioner have any comments? But I think Vice Chair Biddle has already said she does. So I'm just going to let her go.

I want to thank my colleagues for tonight. I thought tonight was going to be very boring, to be honest with you. And this was great conversation. And these are the same conversations we need to have with our community members, our stakeholders, the people that we sit with organizations, because these laws get passed so quickly. And I feel so bad for city staff and for the city attorney's office to have to keep up on it. I use AI and I can't even get through half of it. they they make the the everything so confusing so the more that we know and we get the education and get it out to the community the more our voting habits will change the more we'll pay attention to those propositions that are named in very funky ways that you think you're voting for one thing and you're voting for a complete other thing so i encourage anybody that's watching or anything here anybody here tonight please get involved in the voting process and understand how these things affect our communities because I'm just there with every other commissioner. We are not happy with what the state puts down, but unless we put our comment into it, they don't know what we really need. So try to write to your senators, your assemblymen, anybody that you can and voice our concerns for our community. So thank you for the conversation tonight. I really appreciated it.

Thank you, Vice Chair Biddle. All right, I will close out with my comments. I have a couple comments. First, I want to thank my fellow commissioners. Again, we're not on different pages here. Different perspectives, same page. So I really would like to take this energy to, like, this is awful. Again, anyone here, go back to class and talk about, like, some of these ordinances and how they even make sense for Bakersfield. Right. What is this? So we think of Bakersfield, we have the largest undeveloped land in California. And we get policies like this where they want us to cram everyone into the same neighborhood in the same block, which is great. I am all for higher density. I'm all for multifamily. I'm all for having these services. But you cannot, in my opinion, I don't want to get too more into my opinion, but. We're passing state law to design these cities to be like San Francisco and Los Angeles and areas where it just does not make sense. So the real question is, will developers build what we're seeing? Will some people split their lots? For sure, yeah, I can see. That's a monetary gain right there, right? I don't see why you wouldn't. Are people going to want to open up multifamily dwelling in the neighborhood? If it makes sense, they will. If it doesn't, if it's not profitable, they won't. Will we see these health care facilities? We will. We've already seen them. We've previously rejected things because it's community concern. It's not that we don't want them, right? I would love nothing more than to have enough sober living facilities in Bakersfield to support those who need it. But is it something that makes sense to throw this into an established community because someone just happens to already own the property there and they find it as a profit model? So I appreciate the comments. I really hate the ordinances. I hate that we can't have an open discussion with state legislature. We have to pass 800 laws a year, and then city staff have to spend their time writing ordinances, and by the time they get done with last year's, there's 800 more that they have to include. And that's how it is. It's taking the power away from your local elected officials to help you guide your city. If we wanted, well, all right, now I'm getting on the side. So I'll leave it at that. Again, thank you for everyone coming out. And then I just had a couple of comments for staff. First comment, I won't be here next week. I'll be on vacation. I know we're gonna be a little, or sorry, two weeks next session. I know we're gonna have a, maybe we're a little light on quorums. I wanted to give a heads up on that. The other comment I had is I'd like city staff maybe at least, I don't know if this is a work with city council thing, but we are continuing to see examples like tonight where we are losing the power to have any say in our city. And I don't know if there are tools we can develop. I don't know. I don't know if this was an action item that the city can come back and look at are there ways we can put tools in to help us at least have some kind of say or knowledge in this right if these are now by right and just approved and that is what it is how do we help protect the existing residents where they live or where they go um so that was all of my comments and then i i yeah i guess that was it so uh with that madam clerk next item please agenda item nine adjournment The April 2nd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting is adjourned at 628 p.m. Thank you. Good night.

you