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 05/07/2026 planning commission meeting. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Chair Strickland?

Here.

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

Here.

Commissioner Cater? Commissioner Brauer?

Here.

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please.

Pledge of allegiance.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America Thank you for attending tonight's planning commission meeting. This commission provides an opportunity for public participation in the development processes throughout the city of Bakersfield. The planning commission considers a wide variety of projects, including subdivision maps, zone changes, general plan amendments, and more.

When applications are received, the city planning department analyzes the request. Planning staff will present the facts about the project along with their recommendation to the planning commission who will approve the item or make a recommendation as appropriate. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Public statements.

Public statements are now received at different times depending on the item. I will call for 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.

Agenda item three b, public statements.

Does anyone wish does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda? If you are here for nonconsent public hearing item six a, now is not the time to speak. You'll be given an opportunity to speak at a later time. Seeing none, madam clerk, next item, please.

Oh.

Please step forward, state your name and let us know which one you wanna speak on, please.

David Charles from Bakersfield, California.

One second.

We're not at that juncture yet to pull an item, but we will be shortly. So I can I can let you know when?

Okay.

Cool. Oh, okay. This is for pulling. Okay. Okay. I see. Alright. I see what's going on. Thank you. Sorry about that. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item four, consent calendar items.

All matters listed in 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 request specific items to be discussed and or removed for separate action. May I get a motion approving consent items four a?

I'll make the motion.

Commissioner Core, do I have a second?

So move.

Commissioner Martin, commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with vice chair Biddle and commissioner Cater absent and commissioner Braar abstaining.

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 an item is not removed by 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 the consent calendar public hearing items. Does any member of the public wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? If so, please step forward, state your name, and let us know which item you'd like to remove. David

Charles, item five e.

David Charles, item five e. Thank you, sir. And that'll be put at the end of the nonconsent calendar items.

Good evening, commission. Justin Beatty with Beatty Homes. I'd like to pull item five c for further discussion. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

I

guess item five c has been pulled. Am I right?

It it is. But

Okay. Okay.

You could also pull it. Okay. Thank you, sir. Then seeing no more, does any commissioner or staff wish to remove an item from consent calendar or public hearing items? Seeing none, madam clerk, just to acknowledge, I was also gonna pull item five e.

So just to record that. Thank you. At this time, the consent public hearing items not removed are now closed. May I get a motion to adopt staff recommendations on the consent public hearing items not removed incorporating all staff memoranda and revised staff recommendations? And just to clarify, that will be item five alpha, five bravo, and five delta.

I move to approve those

particular items.

Thank you.

I'll second.

Commissioner Core, thank you for the second. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes to approve five a, five b, and five d with commissioner Cater and vice chair Biddle absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item six, non consent public hearing items.

Now is the time for nonconsent public hearing items. Before we begin, I would like to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will first give a report, then those in favor of the item will be allowed to speak. Those in opposition to the item will be given the ability 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. One second, please. I got prank called, so, I'm gonna just go back again. I'm sorry about that. Now it is the time for nonconsent public hearing items.

Before we begin, I would like to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will give a report, and then those in favor of the item will be allowed to speak. Then those in opposition to the item will be allowed 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 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 presenting any new items or thoughts in a concise and clear way. Mr. Burns, will you or your designee provide us with a staff report?

Thank

you. The item in front of for this item is enactment of chapter 7.74 of the title 17 of the zoning of the Biggsville Municipal Code. Today, Biggsville is proposing to enact chapter seventeen seven four of the title 17 of the zoning of the Biggsville code for the purpose of establishing short term rental ordinance and a finding that the project exempt from California Environmental Quality Act can also be considered. The record recommends approving chapter 17.74 for term rental ordinance and a notice of exemption. With that, we're gonna do a slideshow for this.

Good afternoon, commissioners. VD King with the city attorney's office. Both mister Burns and I will be presenting the short term rental presentation today. Just to give you an overview of the presentation, I'm gonna do a recap of the short term rental, also known as an STR, ordinance, in terms of the committee history, where it's been, and where it's at today, as well as an overview of the ordinance. You did have a a copy of the ordinance in your packet.

It's lengthy. And so my goal today is to just give you, like, the the main provisions. But if you have questions about anything, just let us know. And then finally, we are seeking a recommendation to take the ordinance to the council for first reading. So in terms of the committee history, this topic has been in the works for a number of years.

Back in 03/11/2020, council member Gonzalez made a referral to, one of our committees to present an overview of an STR ordinance. It was a very broad, discussion at the time, and we took it back on May 21 of that same year. We gave a presentation to the committee, the planning and development committee. And at the time, the the committee was split. There were council members that were for it, some that were against.

And so we deferred the item until we had all members present because not everyone, was present at at the committee meeting, and also because it was at the height of the COVID nineteen pandemic. So fast forward a few years later, February 2024, we gave another refresher on the STR ordinance. And at the time, we had new new council members. Vice mayor Core and council member Smith directed staff to bring back a red line ordinance, and at the time, council member Freeman voted no. So, again, year and a half later, we brought back the the topic again to now the community development committee, and we were directed to prepare the STR ordinance.

And we did, and we brought it to committee in February. And the both vice mayor Core and council member Smith recommended that we proceed with the ordinance, bring it to planning commission, and then to the full council for a a vote. And council member voted council member Coleman voted no. So currently, our our ordinance, does not allow short term rentals. The city has a permissive zoning code that specifically identifies all the uses permitted in all the zones within the city.

And so since short term rentals are not specifically identified in our uses permitted, they are prohibited. And that's been the stance that the city has had from the very beginning. And we do get complaints every now and then on STRs, and that's been our position from from the from the the beginning of Airbnb's and and VBRO's here in the city. So this is just an overview of the table of contents for the ordinance itself. And just to provide you some some background, I was able to draft the ordinance based on looking at top 10 cities because we are a top 10 city in terms of population.

And so I looked at top 10 cities. I looked at survey cities to see what common threads those ordinance had, and these were the most common, types of regulations that those ordinance have. And so I'm going to be, covering them, like I said, a high level. But if you have questions, please just let us know. So there will be a permit requirement.

The permit would require that the operator submit an application. The STR permit would be available for residential dwelling units, which would be like a single family home, and also for residential development projects, which includes apartments and condominiums. We did set a limit of 20% of the dwelling units allowed within a, an apartment or a condominium complex. So if you have 10 units, we would be able to issue two STR permits. And there's a breakdown of that of that formula on the in the ordinance.

We did exclude ADUs and junior ADUs, and that's because there's actually state law that prohibits those types of dwellings from being used as an STR. And it all goes back to the housing crisis and having housing that is more permanent. And so you can rent them as a month to month and, annual basis, but not as in a short term rental, which is less than thirty days. We also excluded deed restricted affordable housing units for the same reason that it's supposed to be for permanent housing, special group residences like group homes, and single room occupancy. The application will require that the operator identify an emergency contact person that and this will be crucial because this will be the contact person that the city has if there's any issues with the the permit.

The person will have to be available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. If the operator is not the property owner, we will require a signed and notarized property owner release from, you know, whoever owns the property. They can't have any active or pending code enforcement actions on the property itself. And the if the operator lives in a community that has an HOA, they will be responsible for providing us something in writing that the HOA is is agreeable to having the the home use as an STR. And, finally, the operator agrees to indemnify the city, and that would be part of the application.

The city will also inspect the the dwelling unit for hazardous and unsafe conditions before issuing the permit. It will involve fire, code, maybe even police. I'm not really certain about that, but definitely code and fire. Operator will have 45 after completion of the application to actually, you know, operator will have forty five days after application has been reviewed to meet all the regulations. And they will be required to obtain a business tax certificate before renting or advertising.

Currently proposed that the permits be valid for one year from a date of issuance, and not transferred to another person. And they do not run with the land, because we really want to make sure that we're working with the person who understands the regs. The permits will be allowed to be renewed annually, as long as the operators are in good standing and they meet the current regulations. Re inspections may be required. We're not mandating it, but we are want the opportunity if needed to inspect property for habitability.

If the operator accumulates more than that say the two violations within that twelve month period, then we're gonna make them wait for a year before they can reapply. Part this is we want to make ensure that these are good to our neighborhoods and for causing issues, and that's the ones we really wanted to address. When a permitted STR is advertised, we're requiring them to have the permit numbers and expiration dates, it's clear to city staff if we're reviewing this, are these actually valid? So if code enforcement gets a complaint or something like that, we can look up the ad real quick and know are they valid or not. So that's kind of the purpose.

And also we have a maximum number of occupants, and that's based on two persons per bedroom, and but not including children. We are not applying a overall maximum of occupancy, just trying to be consistent with housing codes with the number and the bedrooms. Also, any STR would be required to meet all of the other municipal codes related to noise, unruly events, their control of litter, overgrown lawns. All those other particular type regulations still apply just like any other property. Like we've already talked a little bit about the number of occupants, we didn't set a maximum.

Some of this was feedback as we met with members of the Board of Realtors. And we did have a maximum one point in time, and they felt that was a little restrictive. So we thought, okay, let's let's let's try something and see if it's if it causes issues, we could always come back at a future day and bring back changes. Some of provisions is they're supposed to address any issues raised by the city promptly. It's important to understand that we will have a third party company that will be managing the program.

They're the ones that will be doing the data scrapes. They're the ones that will be doing the initial complaints. So, hopefully, majority of these items are addressed at operator. If they're not addressed, then they would roll to code enforcement to to address. And I think the other large thing is pay the transient occupancy tax, DOT, our lodging tax.

And that also will be done through the third party. So, the stuff that the city will be doing would be the permitting, processing, the inspections, that'd be handed to the third party operation operator, and they would they would handle those regulations. They would also inform the current STR that, hey, you need to have this permit. Now this is a requirement. So they would help us in that that process.

And we do have a RFP that's ready to go up out if this does get approved by Planning Commission and once it starts going to Council, we'll start that RFP. Again, the enforcement any violation of any part of the ordinance Providing us, you know, misleading information regarding their their documentation, and also an attempt to run a STR without the permit. We we want to make sure that part of the way to regulate these is if they're going to violate them, then don't take that ability to have a legal one. They will be subject to our chapter 140 the Missile Code. This allows us to seek criminal and civil actions depending on the violation, and are also zoning violations.

So we could take also, basically a lawsuit against them for the zoning violation. We recently adopted tiered court enforcement administrative citations. That would be another tool to bring this into a compliance. So it's like a basically administrative fine of, you know, a $100, then $500, then a thousand dollars. So that's kind of the other mechanism that we would bring this into compliance.

We still are in a process of developing what that fee for the permit would be for the STR. That would go to the Council at a later date. Once more more work's done on the actual permit process, now it have to be adopted by resolution to the by City Council. There is a actually a appeal process that would be appealed to the City Manager. There would be, as the appellant as well as the information from the city staff to denials or revocation. The decision by the city manager would be final, the ordinance currently written. With that, staff recommends approval of this title 17 short term rental ordinance and its notice of exemption to the accounts. That concludes our presentation.

Thank you, mister Burns and miss King. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the ordinance? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the ordinance?

If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Does any commissioner have questions for the public on this item? Remember, this is not the time to express any opinions on the matter. It is only the time to ask questions. It's open.

Just

okay. I just wanna point out that mine now says that the vote has been approved, so I don't know if that's an issue to fix. Okay. No votes taken. Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, mister chairman. Yeah. I have a couple questions for staff. So currently, we have roughly I was just doing a quick search, Vrbo and otherwise. We have about three to 600 of these STRs in our community right now. So right now, we're just not getting they're technically illegal. But have we been enforcing have we been enforcing that? Or is it mostly just report driven?

Commissioner Martin, so it is report driven. We get complaints from neighbors, but it really isn't as a high priority as you would think. We maybe get about six complaints a year. And what our office does, the city attorney's office, is that we issue cease and desist letters to those property owners.

Mhmm.

And because the item has been on hold for so many years, we actually haven't taken any action on the those property owners in terms of, like, filing a a lawsuit or say issuing citations because it's been on hold for so long. So we've been issuing those letters, and for the most part, they they seem to they seem to have worked because the issue doesn't come up again, or or at least very seldomly. And so we've been handling in that that manner, but they are illegal.

Okay. And so we do not have yet a potential permit cost for this annual twelve month license permit rather.

Yeah.

Commissioner Martin, that that is correct. Staff not knowing where this this item's going to go have have not really done a deep dive, but obviously, their staff time associated to with the permit process, staff time doing an inspection. So it's probably gonna be in the neighborhood couple $100 permit. It's gonna be a real expensive permit, but it's it's it's a cost recovery. So what are we we find out what that that times of of our staff, then that would put all the cost would be.

Okay. Another question I have is that we are potentially requiring folks to indemnify the city for insurance. And, you know, those of you who have businesses understand too that, you know, insurance can be expensive. Right? So I'm just curious what the what dollar amount and why did we choose to do that? If somebody is a property owner, why did we choose to do that? To indemnify and what dollar amount?

Commissioner Martin I'm sorry.

Yeah. I was

gonna clarify. So the indemnity and the insurance are two separate issues. Right? So the indemnity is if in case the STR results in a lawsuit and the city is brought into that lawsuit because we we issued that STR permit. Basically, what that means is that the property owner wouldn't would make the city whole as a result of that lawsuit.

And what's our insurance minimums that we're asking people?

I believe it's a million. I believe it was a million for the insurance.

I didn't see it in there.

And that's our that's the standard amount that we that we ask for any any contractor or, contract that we have with the city.

Okay. So I guess I would say

There is.

Lastly is for for the two citations in a twelve month period, where did we come up with that? I think especially, you know, like, where did we come up with two citations in a twelve month period?

That was the average that I that I found in within my research. There were some cities that may have had more, and definitely probably not less than two, but it it was based upon the research that I conducted with those top 10 cities and survey cities.

And if somebody's permit was revoked, would they be able to apply within a year again and have another shot at it?

Ensuring that they've met all the regs and that they have no pending code enforcement cases, that they meet everything as it relates to the ordinance. Yes. Potentially.

And with this new ordinance, would this still be report driven or would we be actively

Yeah. Seek

This would be active because we would be actually be hiring a a consultant that would be taking that that, responsibility.

Alright. Thank you.

Yes.

Commissioner Brent Oliver? Okay.

I guess one of my biggest questions is did the staff consider drafting language in this ordinance that makes the permitting process more extensive? And and by that, I mean, if you're going in to request a conditional use permit, you're you're required to notify people within, I think, 300 foot boundary. Right? Correct. And so was that considered within the housing community development committee and or staff to apply that same type of

I think it might have been discussed briefly because because you're right. They've been it would be a CUP process. It wouldn't be it wouldn't be just, you know, submitting an application and meeting all the requirements. It was briefly discussed, but it wasn't pursued. And in my research, none of the cities that have an ordinance require a CUP. Okay. Yeah. Not to say that you can't.

Keep my comments later, but I'll ask another So cost recovery. You mentioned that the goal of the fee for the for for the permit was mainly just to get cost recovery on the facilitation of that. What about the transient or is it TOT? What is that fee and and how is that collected? And

Commissioner all Brent Oliver, that is based on a percentage. I believe it's twelve

Twelve. Percent

of the rental cost per night.

Okay.

That actually generally goes into the TOT fund, which is part of the general fund. So that this this this three to 600 SDRs based on our consultants look at this, that's somewhere between a million and 1,000,001 half dollars of potential revenue for the city.

When

we do ordinances, when the council approves a change to our ordinance, Can they make changes in the future? I mean, I'm assuming that more refinement of this because this is our first go at it.

Right? That's correct. Yes. And, yeah, the council can make amendments to the ordinance. If something is not working out, like, once we put it into play, something we noticed that that we missed some issue that if we included in the ordinance, it would diminish that problem. Definitely, we can come back and amend the ordinance. So there's a process for

that within the council. Yes. And then would that be the same thing? So if we approve this tonight in this red letter you called it or whatever

Red line.

And they and it goes to council. Is that if they approve it as is, it just gets approved and it is the very next day it's put into place. No?

No. No. They the could the council so it will go to first reading. So, when we go to first reading, the council could make suggested edits to the red line at that time. And we would make those edits. It'll come back for second reading to council. And then it takes effect thirty days after that.

Okay.

So during that fir oh. So during that first reading and and at the council, that evening would be the opportunity for the public to bring their opinions to the council's attention at that night. Correct?

Between now and then. Yes. Between now.

Okay. Alright. Thank you so much.

Thank you, commissioner Brent Oliver. Commissioner Core?

Question for the staff. What is our plan action for the existing property that are already in the business? Are they going to be is the third party company that we're hiring, they're going to be looking for those properties, or it's just my responsibility as the owner to just come to the city and get the permits?

Commissioner Kaur, it's a it's the property owner's responsibility by the ordinance. But to locate people operating SDRs, it'll be their their job to notice the SDR, current SDRs, saying, hey, you need to get a permit. But potentially, that's how we would know that they're out there. They're doing these data scrapes. They have the ability to actually get their contact information from those data scrapes, and they would do those notices for us. So same thing if someone didn't get a their permit and we took code enforcement action, that's who would provide us that same information. So it's

to clarify the the type of the properties that needs the SDR, single room occupancy. So somebody renting a room into in their residence, they do not need the STR?

A short term rental in this ordinance is for the less than thirty days. So this is someone that's basically it's an Airbnb. You're like a hotel. You're you're renting for a week. You're not renting for the month. So if you're renting for the month to month, that that is not a short term. That's not part of this permit.

What about some of the hotels that they do monthly rentals?

A hotel is a hotel use. They're already required to meet the TOT. It's this these these are not permitted hotels. They're in a other use or in a apartment complex or they're in a single family house. They're not regulated the same way. So without this ordinance, we don't have the ability to collect the TOT or to really address the impact that they have to neighborhoods and and have conditions of operation.

Okay. Thank you.

I just have a couple questions. Has the city looked at engaging with Airbnb, Vrbo, etcetera, for requiring those listing within Bakersfield to have a permit form as part of that requirement? Because I see that, like, in New York a lot, you know, to sign up to rent, you actually have to engage with those applications and prove that you've done this process with the city before you're allowed to host.

Mister Strickland, we have not done that. We had received information from a consultant who does a majority of of California that it's this is a a better mechanism to ensure that it's happening because there's not a requirement for one of these companies to actually adhere to that. And maybe attempting to do, it could be a good good business, but there's not a way that we could ensure that it actually happens.

Understood. And then I wanna just clue in on the consultant that's gonna eventually be RFP ed on this. There's a question here that's not a comment. What if the city council chooses not to pursue an RFP contract because of the cost and financial implication of hosting and paying out a contractor in a time when we're in a budget shortfall? What happens if we approve this ordinance and then have no consultant to do this work?

Commissioner Strickland, the the cost for a consultant to to run a program like this is less than 100,000 a year, and there's potential revenues of 1,000,000 to 1,000,001 half. So far as the the budget issue, this isn't more of a potential added revenue that could help with added code enforcement, added housing, other things that city is tight for general fund right now.

And to clarify, the added revenue is from transient occupancy tax, not from citations of fines? Correct. Got it. I think that's my final comment. Commissioner Core.

City have an idea of what's that added revenue or what's the approximate range of the dollar amount?

Commissioner Core, it's somewhere between a million and 1,000,001 half.

One second. A lot of pages to flip. Alright. So there's no rebuttal because we didn't have in favor or opposition. So I will now close the public hearing on this item and return it to the commission for comment and action. Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, mister chairman. Yeah. I mean, just looking at this for me, I was just looking this up. So the average insurance is gonna cost for $2,000,000 policy is gonna be $2,500 a year in the city of Bakersfield for an STR. So I'm looking at that, and if our permit, let's say, is 250, let's call it $27.50 or $3,000 a year. The average STR in this community goes for about a $100 a night. So I'm just thinking about that. If we have 52 weekends a year, a lot of folks rent out their home, maybe they're on travel or otherwise, You know, we're taking 25% of the revenue if we just look at $100. I'm renting my place. Okay.

I gotta have this insurance, gotta pay the permit. $2,500, that eats up 25% if you just rent it on the weekends, the average cost of an s t r in this town. So then I go, alright. Well, and if we've only had six complaints out of roughly 600, I've just seen Vrbo and Airbnb, we're only having complaints with only 1% of these even though they're technically illegal. So I I I think we do need to to make it legal, but I'm just eating into this much revenue if somebody is trying to make a little extra money to put food on the table or stay afloat for a lot of these folks.

That that worries me with the $2,000,000 liability. I'd like to see some clarification if that is $2,000,000 because insurance just keeps going up and up and up and I don't want to harm anybody here who's trying to to rent out a room, etcetera. So I'm I'm cautious about that. And also, I'm cautious, you know, when we're report driven on code, and I see this with county too, it's it's report driven, but when we're we're actively using it, I'm I wanna be cautious that our government is not using this as just a revenue grab or a revenue generator to to do too much if we're have a consultant that's just gonna increase revenues all the while and without giving folks an opportunity to try and make things right and be compliant. So, a couple thoughts, on some concerns, but I also understand that we have to address it as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Martin. Commissioner Brent Oliver.

Thank you. I just have a couple comments about thinking through how I would I would vote on this. And first one was I find it hard to vote on something that doesn't have that kind of gives the city council an open ended checkbook on setting a permit fee. So there's no permit fee stated in the ordinance, and I just you know? Maybe that's how it's always done with ordinances, and I'm getting a yes. Okay. Fine. The next thing, I appreciate the city actually trying to define an ordinance on this. I think it's long overdue. So whichever way I end up voting, I I just think it's long overdue.

I'm definitely listening to Matthew's comments, but I think that if you're gonna get into the short term rental business, you are running a business. And if it if it doesn't pencil out, it doesn't pencil out. So I'm not so I think it's important for the city to indemnify themselves, and I and I wholeheartedly support the requirement of the insurance regardless of what it's gonna cost the person because when you're in business, you have cost. I think the last thing is I really do always try to lean with the property owners, and my main concern is that the HOAs are protected. So when you're in an HOA, yes, you're required to have the HOA approve you having that within their development or whatever the language is of that of the ordinance.

But everybody else is just left up for, oh, any anybody can get a permit. There's no the permit requirements are basically nil. Okay. You gotta type a permit number on on the Airbnb site, and you gotta meet code, which everybody has to meet code on having a single family resident. So there isn't a community notice that is saying, hey, we're gonna bring a lot of action into your neighborhood. And that really does concern me. I really honestly have a concern about that. However, nobody else is here to confirm my concerns. So, therefore, I think it's kinda telling me how I might vote.

Thank you, commissioner Brent Oliver. Seeing none, I I just have a couple comments. I also would like to echo Brent Oliver's comments that if you're renting short term rentals, you are a business owner. It may be a side hustler in income, but you're a business owner. So cost of insurance is the cost of doing business within a city.

In private practice as a consultant for fifteen years, I would kill for $2,000,000 insurance requirements from cities because it gets worse. So the other comment I would make is there's the negative aspect to short term rentals that we are in a housing crisis in California. And as commissioner Martin mentioned, people may rent their house out for the weekend, which means for fifty two weeks of the year, that house is only used for one hundred days while someone else can't afford a home, or there is no harm in the market to buy. So I support any restriction on an STR that would put this into something that the city's able to track, this city can actually gain revenue on because we don't go to the hotels and say, hey. It sucks that you guys have to pay 12% tax because you're a business.

So, I would look for a motion on this item, but I definitely would support it. I think it's the right direction from staff, so I would appreciate that.

Yeah. I'll I'll I just I wanna clarify too. I I I get it. I just insurance and I don't want us to use this as a revenue driver. We have to have something on the books because it's happening right now and the city is not getting any revenue. We have to do that. We're long overdue. Top 10 cities, we're the only one left that doesn't. Just wanna be cautious that we don't start going, hey, now we have 1,000,000. Oh, we can bump it to 2. We can bump it to 3,000,000. So we have to be cautious with that, and my fellow commissioners know where I stand on those items. But with that, and we'll see how it goes, I'll motion, in support of staff's recommendation.

Thank you, commissioner Martin. Do I have a second?

I second.

No. Is it is it best Yeah.

B b r a r. Barar. Barar. Mhmm.

Seconded by commissioner Barar. I'll get there. I promise. You get there. Commissioners, please cast your vote.

Motion passes with vice chair Biddle and commissioner Cater absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please. Which I believe is five Charlie. Madam clerk, is there do you is there any preamble for this? No. Alright. Mister mister Burns, will you or your designee please give a report on item five c?

Commissioner, Strickland, I have Andrea Marillo who will provide that staff report.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Andrea Marillo, planner with the Development Services Department. I am here to present item five c, a request to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve vested tentative track map 7495 for a project generally located Northeast of McKee Road and Green Road. The applicant, McIntosh and Associates, representing the property owners, Mountain Vista Partners, plans to subdivide 39.98 acres into two fifteen single family residential lots, five landscape lots, one drainage basin, and one water well lot in an R1 single unit dwelling zone. The residential lots will range in size from 4,500 square feet to 12,264 square feet, with a typical lot size of approximately 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep or 5,000 square feet.

Access to the subdivision will be provided from Green Road on the west boundary and McKee Road on the south boundary. 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 impacts. The mitigated negative declaration was made available for a thirty day public review. Notifications for this hearing was sent to property owners within 300 foot radius and published in the local newspaper.

Staff has received written feedback, which was addressed in the staff report. The applicant is here today to respond to your questions. Staff concludes that the project complies with California Environmental Quality Act and is compatible with its surroundings, land use designations, and zoning. Therefore, recommends the Commission adopt the resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and approving vested tentative track map 7495. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. The public hearing on this item is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the ordinance? Sorry. Ordinance is the word in here, but that's not Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the item? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Justin Beatty with Beatty Homes. I'm here with my father, Brian. Just a little background that Beatty Homes was started by my grandfather in 1968, and we've been proud members of this community since then, building homes and trying to make a positive impact on the community. We're here in support of this project, before the commission, and I thought it might be helpful to share a little background.

We acquired this property a couple years ago, and our thought process over the years with our housing projects has evolved. You know, lot of it's had to do with meeting with Gordon Nippon and the Sierra Club and listening to their concerns and ways to improve the community. So historically, we built on larger estate lots, you know, further out in town, which, you know, some would classify as sprawl. And so when we've looked for new projects, we've tried to find stuff that's closer to the center of town to build, you know, nice, detached, single family homes. And so this property came on the open market a couple years ago.

In our due diligence, we looked at, hey, it's surrounded. Like, it looks like it's farmland and it is being farmed currently, but surrounding the property 360 degrees is land that's either zoned commercial or residential. Like, 270 degrees of the property surrounded by, land that has approved track maps and already. We're half a mile to independent Independence High School. We're adjacent to a future elementary school and junior high. We're close to parks. We're less than a mile from shopping centers. So from and it was zoned, r one when we bought it. So just looking at all those things, to us seemed like, hey, this is the perfect opportunity to build a new housing track. And so we went through the process with the city to do, you know, a track map, the studies that are required.

And obviously, throughout that process, the environmental document was noticed. And the Sierra Club submitted, you know, a lengthy list of comments. And so initially, when you're the the applicant, the homebuilder, you get these comments and it's kind of you're just your head's spinning a little bit. But, you know, my dad and I, you know, spent a long time, you know, going through these conditions and trying to think about, them thoughtfully. And, my dad's had a number of meetings, with mister Nipp and other members of the Sierra Club to try to, understand their position, how we might be able to make a more positive impact on our community.

And so to that extent, we had submitted a letter to the city planning department requesting some additional mitigation measures be placed on the property that, you know, we thought would make an impact, you know, both on our project, our future homeowners, and the community. And city staff declined to include those additional mitigation measures. From their point of view, they said, hey, these measures are more of a private agreement. In our mind, the environmental studies that were done, the responses that were provided, are adequate. And my dad and I contemplated coming before the commission or requesting, do you add these additional mitigation measures into our conditions of approval?

But speaking with city staff, you know, they're gonna recommend against it. You know, we've noticed historically, typically, when staff recommends against something, it's very unusual that a commission or a council would approve it. So, we have been having these ongoing meetings with Sierra Club. And, you know, on the record, we're committed, you know, in the next week to having a, you know, a private agreement with the Sierra Club to to add additional mitigation measures that we think are feasible in our project. And it's hard because I know from the city staff standpoint to lump conditions on every single project, you know, everyone's unique.

And so we really tried hard to add things that we felt like we could add to our project and still make it feasible because we have projects all around us, you know, that have been recently approved with no additional mitigation measures or, you know, legacy projects that are vested and, you know, we're having to compete with that. So we're trying to have this balancing act where it's like, we understand and we appreciate the comments from Sierra Club and we'd like to do more, but we also have to be able to make money to build same business. So it's been a real balancing, act for us, but, we would hope that you would support our project. We think it's gonna be a great project for the community, You know, we're gonna like we said before, we're gonna work separately on a private agreement with the Sierra Club to address their concerns. So if you have any additional questions for me, again, myself, Justin, my father, Brian, I are here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the item? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the item? There's a word. If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

My name is is Gordon Nipp. I am the vice chair of the of the local Sierra Club chapter. Let me just say the Sierra Club is not opposed to to to new housing per se. We would be supportive of any new housing project that thoroughly addresses its cumulative impacts and its affordability issues. And we're hoping that that in in working with with the babies that that that we can come up with with with conditions that that that would actually that that would actually address the cumulative impacts and and the affordability issues.

Well, let me just say this. I've submitted 12 pages of comments on this project for the Sierra Club and its mitigated negative declaration. For tonight, because of course of time constraints, we have to leave most of the issues to the written record. While I focus oral 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 laws, CEQA, and most importantly, it risks harming its citizens.

This project, track seventy four ninety five, is not the only project in the works by any means. I've listed numerous other current housing tracks in in the in the letter that I submitted. A recent local environmental impact report lists 51 area projects in its lists in its list of cumulative projects. Collectively, cumulatively, these projects impacts are significant and and and the city needs us needs to recognize this significance even if their individual impacts are small. So let me let me talk a little bit about cumulative impacts of the project on on on the climate crisis.

The climate crisis is inherently a cumulative impact. No one project is is is large enough to heat the atmosphere. But cumulatively, our stupid species continues what UN secretary general Antonio Guterres calls, quote, 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 and regulations and legal requirements through adoption of feasible mitigation. We've listed numerous such measures in in in in our submission.

The city should require such specifically defined and enforceable mitigation for the climate crisis. I'm gonna let a couple of other folks talk about the cumulative impact of this project on air pollution and on habitat loss specifically. But let me just say, we're pleased that that the developer of this project, Brian Beatty, is willing to to work with us on some of these issues. We would hope that the city would be equally willing. So so anyway, I'm I'm gonna I'm I'm going to I'll let a couple of other folks talk about some of these issues, and I thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, mister Nipp. Appreciate you. Is there anyone else who was to speak in opposition? Sorry. Go ahead.

Good evening. I'm Eddie Lane. I'm with the Sierra Club, and I wanna address cumulative impacts of habitat loss. Loss of habitat is a major reason for species decline. The city has not described and assessed the significance of the cumulative effects of ongoing urbanization and habitat loss on protected species.

The current Metropolitan Bakersfield general plan depends upon the now expired Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, HCP, for its biological resource cumulative, insignificance conclusion insignificant conclusion. Now that the HCP 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 included in in including a requirement to purchase replacement habitat as in the past under HCP. Replacement habitat.

The city used to do that for decades. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you, mister Lane. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the item? Please step forward to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Thank you, counsel and city staff. I'm Karen Urso, and I am a community health nurse and a nurse educator. And I would like to just address the air quality issue. There is a real There are so many articles that have been published that are peer reviewed, that are good research, and that have come about since I started looking at this area of air quality in the Central Valley. Since 2008, there's just an impact on our entire body when our air quality is bad, whether it's the PM 2.5 or PM 10 or the ozone.

It is inflammatory and so it affects our brain. It crosses the blood brain barrier. It's been linked to dementia and Alzheimer's and to autism, to behavior problems. It crosses the placental barrier, so it impacts our unborn children negatively with congenital heart defects, with also impacts on their developing nervous system. It impacts, of course, our lungs and our hearts.

That's what we usually think about. Right now the air quality is yellow and most people think, well, you don't have to worry about it if you don't have asthma. But actually, it's bad for all of our lungs to be breathing air once it gets up into that yellow area. That particulate matter in that ozone is impacting us. So when you think about the entire body, you you want to keep yourself healthy and you have choices. You have choices about what you eat or drink or how active or healthy you are. And we know that in Kern County we have high rates of chronic disease. And we often blame that on individual behavior. But I want to say maybe we can look at policy change too, to make our community healthier. And so, you know, I don't have a choice about breathing.

We all have to breathe the air. I can choose what I eat or drink, but not what I breathe. And when it's unhealthy for all of us, when it fails to meet clear air standards, then I think we should be looking at policy level decisions. So what can we do? Well, Planning Commission can set policies that go beyond minimum standards and mitigations that strongly support air quality improvements, such as this project has EV charging stations and the electric support within the system within the houses so that they can increase solar and you know, electric vehicle charging should they want to.

And that's a really positive step, but that's not been placed on every housing development. And it's cumulative. So if it was one housing development or two or three, but when you have 50, that means our air quality continues to worsen. And I'm just concerned about the health impacts on all of us, the health costs, the cost to people who are out of work because their children have an asthma attack or because they can't go to work because of their chronic disease. And, would just encourage the, commission to look at the cumulative impact of housing developments and other projects, as far as how they impact our air quality. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Ursula. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this item?

First of all, my name is Maria Polite, and I'm a member of the Sierra Club and I have came to Bakersfield in 1964, a quite different place then than it is now. And it's my first commission meeting and I'm really ashamed that I haven't come before because you do such important work. And today, when I heard that we were gonna make a statement about this, it's not this project that I'm worried about. It's what's coming. And there was an article in The Californian on Saturday, May 2.

And I had read the article and I thought, this really addresses something that is so important for us in Bakersfield. So I had copies made for you and only have nine. I didn't know how many people would be here. But I I just want to read a couple of paragraphs from this, and I will start it now. So California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act was supposed to end exactly this kind of disconnect with our water future.

Passed in 2014, SGMA requires overdrafted basins like Kerns to reach sustainability by 2040. That means no more pumping water faster than it can be replenished. Consider development. Housing business and agricultural expansion rely on assumptions about future water availability that are at best unresolved. SGMA compliance will almost certainly require considerable reductions in groundwater pumping.

Yet projects approved today will depend on access to water that will not be legally or even physically available tomorrow. That is not just a planning inconsistency, it is a setup for future conflict, stranded investments in developments, and costly mitigation and litigation. So finally, in fourteen years, if current trends of permitting and development continue, when the two thousand and forty SGMA D Day hits, Bakersfield will be perhaps 30% more populous, and our water problems will be orders of magnitude worse. Is it even remotely ethical for current leadership to leave future leadership holding that bag? Let's roll up our sleeves, understand our predicament, and pull together now.

And so as a teacher at Bakersfield High School for forty years, I am so happy that you are here doing this work, and I taught government and history, and I'm very concerned about Kern County and the whole state of California and the state of the the planet. But thank you for your work, and thank you for listening to our concerns. And again, it is a cumulative effect.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us. Was that your last name, was it Polite?

Yes.

Polite. Okay. Thank you. I just wanna make sure I got it. Thank you.

My name is Margie Bell, and I also taught at BHS with Maria Polite. And I am aware of the long and distinguished background the Beatty's have in Bakersfield and and totally respectful of them and their efforts to somewhat become involved in the housing issues and their willingness to talk to people in the Sierra Club. I'm also a member of Sierra Club, and I work at the Nature Center in Hart Park as a docent every Wednesday, and I'm aware of habitat problems. I'd like to just echo what Maria said about water. It's no secret to any of us that we live in a semi arid climate, a desert.

We're dependent upon water as our county grows in population, as all counties are dependent. Places like Phoenix have horrible problems because they've overextended the Colorado River water. We face huge problems with water when we have fish die offs. I remember the picture in the unforgettable picture in the LA Times about the last fish die off. It was at last summer when we had a drought.

A group called Bring Back the Kern is fighting in Sacramento for access, which is promised apparently in our state constitution, that the city has access to 3% of the water that comes to its borders. And Bring Back the Kern wants more city access to water so we can have fish in our river, so we can water the fields and the paths along the current the Trucks And Extension and so forth. We we need water for more trees to fight air pollution and so forth. It's no secret. We have water problems.

And I'm not so concerned about the Baty's tract, but as Gordon has said, and I agree a 100% and everybody else like Karen, that this just can't go on indefinitely, can it? I mean, we're competing for water in the Kern for our city's population as it is now, but what is going to happen down the line with all these plans, planned housing tracks. So quickly, I just want you to know that there are a lot of us involved in environmental issues in Kern County. I support the Sierra Club position. The city should address the cumulative impacts of this project as well as the other projects planned in the future.

Maybe we need to come to the conclusion down the line that enough is enough, and we don't have enough water in part to sustain the kind of development that's in the pipeline. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Bell. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this project? Seeing none, does any commissioner have any questions for the public on this item? If so, remember this is the time for questions, not comments. Commissioner Brandt Oliver.

I had a question for the applicant. Are you allowed to speak about the conditions you were asking the the city to add? Or Oh. Is that quiet because you're in negotiation?

It's just the additional mitigation measures Mhmm. Were items that were all addressed in mister Nipp's letter. But it was things of improving, you know, air quality, addressing, you know, habitat loss, and, you know, how basically a private individual, you know, could help offset that given that there's no HCP right now, Farmland loss, like all these different deals, you know, I think that I guess going above it, like, far as cumulative air quality impacts and things like that, things that we're proposing to do is really just going above and beyond what's currently required. And so items like that would be more solar than it's currently required, more more batteries than it's currently required, providing actual EV charging stations, which is not required. You only have to prewire for one in the house.

So items like that are things that we're trying to do in our project that, you know, we feel like, again, have, a tangible impact on the community and things that actually, you know, benefit the homeowners as well as well. So that's, items like those are things that we're trying to work with Sierra Club on that, you know, make a better quality project, you know, for our future homeowners and a better quality project for our community.

And so you're saying that you're still trying to negotiate with the opposition, even though you might receive approval today with

I guess we're yeah. We're we still we still support the project. We'd like to get approved. And, you know, as as the Sierra Club's aware, they can challenge this project for the next ten days following your approval. And so I guess our goal is that my dad just had a long meeting with the Sierra Club and some of the representatives this afternoon to continue to dig in on these topics and find ways that we can find common ground. And so our goal is in these, you know, next ten days, hopefully, we receive approval from the commission, and we continue to work with Sierra Club toward an amicable resolution that works for both sides. And if that's not possible, then, obviously, they can challenge our project to the city council, you know, when we go through that. So there's a number of steps still ahead if we can't come to an agreement. But we're we're optimistic that we can.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Brent Oliver. Any other commissioner comment or question, not comment? Okay. Oh. Commissioner Core.

So it's 215 single family residential lots and five landscape lots. What is landscape lots? And I don't see them on the track map.

That's probably a staff question. But the landscape lots are just the when you do a subdivision, all the streets around it, so, like, around the block wall, they make those, like, a separate legal lot for maintenance purposes for the city down the road because they form, I believe, a consolidated maintenance district where on your property taxes, you pay a couple $100 a year, everyone does, to make sure the streets, you know, and the sidewalks and the landscape is maintained.

Okay. I thought you were gonna put five different parks in here.

No. Thank

you, Commissioner Core. Seeing no others, 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 secretly without repeating the remarks of the previous speakers to ensure that everyone wishing to provide rebuttal comments has a chance to do. And opposition spoke last, so, support would have the opportunity to speak first. So if there's somebody who wants to provide up to five minutes of rebuttal comments and support, you don't have to use the whole thing. The timer will stop early, and we'll accept that to you.

So Yeah. Justin Beatty with Beatty Helms again. Nope. Just, I guess, reiterate the comments we previously made that, you know, we would hope that the commission would vote in favor of our project, and we're committed to working with Sierra Club to making it a better project. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak in support of rebuttal of the project? Seeing none, we'll give madam clerk a second to reset the timer. And then for rebuttal for those in opposition to the project, if you would like to provide rebuttal comments.

Gordon Nipp again with the the Sierra Club. I just wanna say that that that the Sierra Club has a has a history of of of having to having to sign separate agreements with developers. We have, in the past, had had had agreements with maybe forty, four zero, different developers in the past to to to try to address air pollution, to try to address climate change, to try to address farmland loss, to try to address loss of habitat, to try to address water issues. That's not the way things ought to be. These these to to to try to address air pollution, for example.

Air pollution is a huge issue in in in in for our for our community. For me, I'm 85 years old and I have asthma. I I have to breathe this terrible air. The the the the cleaning the air shouldn't be something that that that a private non profit organization like this air club is has to has to do. It's something that the city ought to be doing.

This the city ought to take some stances to try to clean the air for its citizens so that people can breathe clean air. The city is refusing to do that. If if if if we we we what what likely will happen here is that is that is that the Sierra Club will have to sign some sort of a separate private agreement with with with with the developer, with with Brian and and that's that's something that we've done many times. Like I say, we've done this many times in the past, but that's not the way things ought to happen. The way things ought to happen is that the city takes takes this takes this under takes takes it under their paw.

This this is the city ought to be requiring many of these many of these measures that likely we will that that likely the Sierra Club and and and the developer will agree to. The city ought to be requiring these things for the health of their citizens, if nothing else. And and for the health of not only its its its its human citizens, but for the health of its of of the of its wildlife citizens. Bakersfield is full of endangered species of one sort or another. This is not something that a private organization should should be should should be should have to should have to push.

This is something that the city ought to be doing. Not only the city, but the county for that matter. The county too should should be should be addressing these issues. Cumulative impacts to to to to air pollution, cumulative impacts of all these projects to to to to habitat loss, cumulative impacts of all these projects, to to to the climate crisis. This is all stuff that the city ought to be requiring. And and and it shouldn't be left up to a private organization to try to to try to clean the air. So anyway, just just just just let me leave it at that.

Thank you, mister Nipp. There's still a minute and a half on the opposition time. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition rebuttal in opposition? Hold on.

There's a

pin theft going on. Alright. Seeing none. I lost my page again. I will now close the public hearing on this item and return it to commission for comment and action. Commissioner Brent Oliver.

I'm gonna go on stating some opinions, and this is one reason why I took this job is so I could have this microphone. And I would like to really talk to our commission about how I fully disagree that the opposition, the Sierra Club, is making they are making an erroneous statement that they are opposed that they are not opposed to these track maps and these housing elements because they continuously come to the wrong forum to present their arguments. These developers are merely trying to develop land and provide housing for our community. They are doing it within the letter of the law. They are operating as a business.

We have no authority to decline these subdivision developments when they meet the letter of the law. I'm extremely frustrated by the comment that they have had to take this position with over 40 other agreements they've had in the past. I look at it as shame on you for holding these developers hostage. If you would like to, create new law, this is not the forum for that. These people are merely trying to provide housing. They are trying to run

a

business. And I believe that these I I want to hear your comments, and I and I I I completely disagree that this cumulative impact thing is a reason to say no to these developments as they come along. I I believe that the state of California and there are many mitigation measures they already have to do, that is the forum to deal with it. It is not at this local level of approving these tracked maps, and that's my comment.

Thank you, commissioner Brent Oliver. Commissioner Martin.

Well, I have to ditto, commissioner Brent Oliver on this. I wanna say first, mister Nipp and and mister Lane and others that came out, and I understand and appreciate your passion. But the here's the reality. The average cost of a home in this town is over $400,000. In California, it's $900,000. We are behind on Reyna. People don't have a place to live or to buy a home. And so, I know the Beatty's well. They're great people. I think I mean, for them to actually agree to go above and beyond with a private with a nonprofit organization to go the extra the extra mile.

And I have to echo my my fellow commissioner here because to me, that's inappropriate. You guys are that's fantastic. And it's showing that you're going that extra mile, you know, for for trying to to be a good neighbor in these extra environmental elements. But you don't have to do that. We need housing. California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQUA, passed in 1970 by by then governor Ronald Reagan. It was not intended to what's happened today, to add 15 to 20%, my developer friends tell me all the time, to the cost of a project. And yet, here we are. And so we wonder why a house in Bakersfield has gone from 250,000 average seven, eight years ago. We're looking at around four fifty, 400, four fifty.

It's preposterous. And it's because of over regulation and things like this that are stopping it. We need housing so that people can start their career here and stay here and have a home with a family. And that's my comments on that. Thank you. I I'm supportive of the project. And I'll motion if anyone doesn't have any other comments.

I would just like to add comments. Mister Beatty, I'm I apologize. This is supposed to be on the track map approval and discussion of this, not the side conversation that's kind of spawned from previous meetings. I I would just like to say I I do appreciate the Sierra Club coming out. I do appreciate I think you make it clear you don't not support this project.

You support the overall issuance of the m MND. And, I like to think it's an advocacy thing, and I do appreciate you coming out. In saying that, I don't think there's anything in the report that would say that this track map itself would be against something that this commission would approve. I think this commission would support this track map because of the staff report indicating that in the city's opinion and the city's review with contractors and third party that it does meet the MND, and it does meet a desirable implementation for the land for the citizens. It does build housing, but I I still would like to appreciate coming out with that comment.

You know, I think I've been doing this for two and a quarter years. We've probably listened to Sierra Club, 50 times in two years, and I I appreciate it every time. So I do thank you for coming out and providing the comments. I understand the effort. So I'll save the motion for others. Commissioner Brent Oliver?

Sorry. I just have one more thing to say. In my opinion, there's a difference between advocacy

and

extortion. And I think that if you follow the law and you get approved at a certain level, you wait your ten days, you appeal, you go to the next level. It's like going to appellate court, and then the city council approves something. It should be approved. Someone should not be sued at that point.

And I want the public to know that that's what's going on. I want the public to know that people in our community are getting the approval to build these tracks and subdivisions. And they're being held up in court because of that. Because of an opinion. Because an opinion of a minority of people. And I do not believe that is a fair thing to have happen. I believe that advocacy all day long, come here. I please, I wanna learn from you. I want to listen. But when it comes down to somebody not breaking the law and then being sued for it, and then they have to go to court for many years.

We've got developers that I have heard from that have that are willing to build thousands and thousands of homes in this town immediately if they're allowed to, but no. They are being currently held up. And I'm just gonna call it what it is. It's extortion. And I'm very sad about that, and I realize we're trying to vote on this one thing. But I want the public to know what's going on. It's it's very, very frustrating.

Motion, mister chairman.

Yes. I

second the motion. Approve.

Can I get you to clarify your motion, commissioner Martin, just to be safe for the record?

Yeah. I motion we approve, staff's recommendation on item five c.

And then commissioner Brent Oliver was second.

I second the motion.

Commissioners, please cast your vote.

Motion passes with vice chair Biddle and commissioner Cater absent.

Miss King, could I request a short five minute

Yes. Of course. Five Five minute break.

Yes. That'd be great. Thank you.

It's 06:54. So we'll come back at seven.

Thank you for sticking with us on a short delay. I am gonna resume planning commission at 07:01PM. Madam clerk, next item, please, which I believe is nonconsent agenda item, which was moved to consent agenda item. Sorry. Consent moved to non consent for item five e CUP two five zero four four. Correct. Staff, will you please give us your report? Okay.

Good evening, commissioners, again. My name is Andrea Marillo, assistant planner with the development services department. Today, I'm presenting agenda item five e, conditional use permit 25Dash0044. The applicant, Rowling Consulting, representing Regal Entertainment Group, is seeking a conditional use permit in the M X 2 Zone District to allow for alcohol sales in an existing movie theater, Edwards Cinema at the marketplace. Edwards was originally constructed in 1997 and has an occupancy rating of 1,321 seats throughout 14 auditoriums.

If land use approval is obtained tonight, the applicant will then qualify and apply for an ABC type 41 alcohol permit, which will allow for beer and wine to be served with food. As part of the ABC's application process, the applicant is required to provide an alcohol control plan, which was provided to the city as part of our CUP application. ABC will ensure compliance with not only the applicant's alcohol control plan, but also all laws and rules governing beer and wine sales. All employees and managers 18 years and older will be required to pass the ABC Alcohol Server Certification exam within thirty days of employment. It's important to note that under the 2025 ABC Act, the State of California allows certified 18 to 21 year olds to serve beer and wine with food provided they were supervised by someone 21 and older.

Your commission has previously approved similar requests for existing movie theaters in Bakersfield, including AMC Bakersfield six on California Avenue, Studio Movie Grill on Callaway Drive, and reading cinemas at the Valley Plaza. At this time, no public comments have been received. Staff recommends that your commission adopt the resolution and suggested findings approving conditional use permit 25Dash0044 with the listed conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

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

Hi. Good evening. My name is Steve Rawlings. I am here on behalf of Regal Entertainment Group. I'm a consultant that's been working with them for ten plus years, assisting them with licensing and permitting for their theaters throughout the state of California to sell alcoholic beverages.

I'm here this evening to kinda maybe give you a little bit more of an insight into our operations and and and just the industry in general here. We we obviously concur with the staff's recommendation for approval, and we also do agree to all of the conditions of approval as as presented to you this evening. The alcohols in in theaters actually started in about 2012. ABC had piloted this program in some very selected areas for a couple years and then made the determination that they could craft conditions and operational operational conditions that would make it acceptable for ABC. So they implemented those in about 2012, and here we are fourteen years later.

And I would say the vast majority of all movie theaters operated by the folks like AMC, Regal, Edwards, Cinemark, Century, which are the three biggest chains here in California. The vast majority of those have been selling alcohol at their locations for, you know, many many years. And there just simply hasn't been any widespread issues with the alcohol service. It's intended and it truly is a luxury amenity. As as we all remember in the COVID days, a lot the theaters were closed and it took forever for them to get people to come back out.

They have all invested millions into luxury recliner seats. Now we have the technology that you can pick your own seat, and and they're also offering alcoholic beverages there. Again, as as just a luxury amenity. You you know, you're competing with somebody's own living room nowadays. Everybody has a subscription.

All of us have very, large flat screen TVs nowadays, and we have our recliner there, and we can pause it and use the restroom and so on and so forth. So getting people to come out, we have to offer an elevated experience, and that's really what has driven the alcohol service throughout the industry. I A couple of statistics for you. About ten percent of adults will actually make a purchase of an alcoholic beverage. In general, I mean, may maybe seasonality, it might be a little bit higher.

And then only ten percent of that ten percent are gonna actually purchase the second alcohol. Consumer behavior is is that we we all come to the movie theater and we typically buy our concessions before we enter the theater. And now that we all have assigned seats, it's much easier. You can kind of take your time and order it. You're not scrambling to get in there and make sure you have a seat.

So folks are making these purchases, you know, before they enter into the auditorium there. The reason nobody buys any, you know, a second typically is because the only reason any of us ever actually get out of our seats during a movie is we have to use the restroom. And usually, use the restroom and wanna get back into the movie because we're missing the movie. So there's not a a lot of folks that are making a second purchase of of the of an alcoholic beverage. There's active monitoring that goes on in all movie theaters that sell alcohol, ABCs, one of their primary conditions.

By the way, ABCs issues a set of standard conditions if you're a movie theater, which mandates that there is monitoring on on at least every half hour. Somebody has to go in physically and monitor the activity. And that's not just opening up the door. It's you have to, you know, walk down to the bottom of the auditorium, look back up, walk to this side, look back up, walk up to the top, and observe. And it's not, hey, just run run around here and get in and out of here in in a minute.

Maybe and that's the things that ABC monitors closely is, hey, we were we sent somebody into your theater and, boy, that person was in and out in thirty seconds. That wasn't a real, you know, good viewing opportunity. So that is that's a very paramount in the in the industry to do that, and Regal operates I I almost every one of our theaters has it, and and we have close to 80 theaters, and we haven't had any particular we haven't had any issues with us, you know, actively monitoring what's going on in the theater. Alcohol is served at the concession counter only. It's the only place you can purchase it.

And that's strategic from a safety standpoint because number one, we have a lot of people there, including managers, so we can observe what's going on. It's well lit, so we can ensure that we're doing a proper identification check. And the and the, you know, third thing is we can get an opportunity to observe the person that's ordering alcoholic beverage. Everybody has to attend a a class that's either put on by ABC or it's been approved by ABC. It emphasizes, you know, two things.

One is obviously how to conduct a proper identification check. Meaning, looking at the picture and then looking at the the person that was there. And there are some techniques for making sure that the person you're looking at is the person in the in the picture. The second and and then we also scan the ID also to as an extra layer there. The and everybody who orders a beverage has to present an ID.

The other part of the course of training is observing people to make sure that they're they're not showing signs of intoxication. A lot of people don't know this, but it is illegal to serve serve somebody who is already looking like they're drunk. And we go through a lot of training on that because we simply don't need to make that make that service. I, you know, I I don't know what goes on in bars, but they get away with it, I don't know, but they're always over serving. But in in the movie theater business, that's not something that we're, you know, at all, you know, doing in any way shape or form.

And again, that's why I say it's it's well lit up there. Get an opportunity to see it. We've got managers and so on and so forth. And there have been times that somebody has refused service and will on the side of caution any any day of the week. So those are some of the things about operationally in terms of the industry.

As I mentioned earlier, I I the list is far shorter of of theaters that are not having alcohol service at this point in time. So or this this particular theater here, you know, we we've enjoyed the business here, and we would just like the opportunity like some of the other theaters in your community to be able to offer that elevated service of offering some beer and wine. And with that, I'm available for any questions that anybody might have.

Thank you, mister Rollings. Is there anyone else who would wish to speak in support of the CUP? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? I believe mister Charles.

Hi. My name is David Charles, resident of Bakersfield. And I put together some a few concerns and things. I pulled pulled some things from the public documents online from the rough exhibit a conditions of approval and also from the alcohol control, the Regal Theatre alcohol Alcohol Control Plan, and also from the Regional Planning Commission resolution, one of the whereas. So when I pulled together a few things, made one make a few comments, and I've never been in a public meeting like this ever, never stood up and done this before, so bear with me.

I having having put these things together in the last day or two, looking at a few things online, I was kinda saddened to find out that this is not the you know, I knew I knew studio movie grill served alcohol, but I didn't realize there's only about three or four others in town. That makes me feel kind of bad because the whole purpose of my coming here is to say that I have a few comments, and one of them, the first one is family, children safe places, and essential services. We all grew up seeing people smoke cigarettes for years, and it was allowed almost everywhere, and then all of sudden, it's not allowed anywhere. So that's done with cigarettes for the most part. But alcohol was not allowed in certain places.

It was never in certain places like Disneyland, sixty years. It was a dry place. No cell or consumption until about 2019, I believe. I know And Walt Disney said he did not want to sell no. Contribute to the having that rowdy crowd that you get at amusement parks by selling alcohol and having the consumption on-site.

He forbid it. Apparently, the new leadership feels differently. Anyway, so I just want to say my wife and I live here. We have parents of four adult children, grown children. We have three grandkids, and not opposed to people drinking, adults drinking, do whatever they do, going to bars or like, you know, in their homes or restaurants and bars, all that.

That's fine. But I just believe for safe places for children. And for years, movie theaters were places where kids would go to matinees, and they'd be there by you know, we were kids like there was hundreds of kids on matinees. It's like and and I don't think that many kids go anymore, but I just believe some things I want to go through here. So the Planning Commission, whereas number seven, it's bullet point bullet point number three reads, the proposed use is essential and desirable to the public convenience of welfare.

That's a really broad statement. Thought, well, I don't know if it's essential to begin with. It hasn't been for decades to have alcohol sold in theaters, and I'm not sure it's completely desirable. And it sure isn't it's I don't think it's good for the general welfare of children and families to be in a having alcohol sold in a mixed age environment. It certainly seems neither essential and certainly not desirable.

I believe we need to maintain, have family free family safe zones and buffers. I I grew up in a ranching family. It's not here up in Northern California. Had hundreds of acres, lots of sheep, and we had these gates you drive through and my uncle would say, go out there and do this. Whatever's open, leave open. Whatever's closed, close it when you go through, and you come back to do the same. So the gates were either closed or open, you didn't change it. They were that way for a purpose. You've all heard probably heard the saying about, if you find a fence or a guardrail, find out why it was put there. Why do we just remove fences or gates or guardrails?

We we shouldn't. We need to look at why why why do we need to start changing rules about movie theaters where children go and families go? So so I just feel like we need to take that into consideration. And the next point we'll look at is from reference exhibit a, conditions of approval. There's a note two, roman numeral two, bullet point five b.

So anyway, it says employees who are aged 18 to 21 years old shall only serve alcohol with food, be supervised by someone 21 or older, maintain a Cal State, alcohol beverage control responsible beverage certification. So I thought, only serve. So, you know, we all know the idea is like, if you drink alcohol while you're consuming food, you're less likely to have issues with getting buzzed, fast, getting drunk, whatever. And I thought, well, what is the movie theater's definition of food? A bag of chips, a candy bar, or is it a full so they see where they've remodeled their kitchen, are they gonna provide a full meal, a sandwich and a sandwich and fries to go with that alcohol?

Are there any requirements? Or can someone just say, hey, just give me a beer and bag of chips. I don't know. So And you have a couple other points regarding this here. It says, why why are 18 I know I understand the a what mister Rowling said about the ABC is to find this thing where 18 to 20 year olds 21 year olds can have training and serve alcohol.

But I say, why are 18 year olds entrusted with serving when they're still years away from legal drinking age themselves? So what if they what if, you know, I'm 18 or 19 or my my son or my grandkids? I'm not 18, but what if I was 18 still? What if my kids or grandkids wanted to go work at a theater and they're 18 to 21, would they be required to take the ABC training? Couldn't they just are they denied employment if they say, know, I don't like alcohol.

I just want to work. I like to be on movie theaters and people serving concessions. Is there will the theater management offer equal employment to 18 to 20 year one year olds who wish to opt out of the ABC training or handling of drinks? I think that's a would be an acceptable condition. I don't know what their plans are. I I understand they wanna put people through training, but I think they it's like you know, for years, people have worked in theaters who didn't have to go through ABC train. There was no alcohol served. It should still be a place of employment for kids, you know, kids, you know, teenagers, young people to go without having to think about, I don't wanna serve alcohol to people. I don't wanna sell it. I don't wanna handle it.

I don't wanna go through this train. They should still have a job. Okay. And the last issue I'm bringing up is about security. This comes from the Regal Theater's Alcohol Control Plan, and there's some of my own thoughts.

Item number 10, are a couple of things. Item number 10 says training. Staff will receive training on patron removal procedures for patrons who are showing visible signs of intoxication, who are found or suspected of violating this plan. Staff will also receive training on which types of ID will be accepted on determining the validity of identification. So I know we mister Rowling said, and it sounds like we don't have a big issue, but the whole thing about alcohol around kids and teens and a mixed age, the whole idea is like you're putting a potential problem there.

And I'm I'm kind of surprised. I haven't done that much research on this. I'm surprised we haven't read about crazy things happening yet. Because I've been around a lot of crazy things over the years where people drink, and it's like it may be a a little different environment in a movie theater. I don't know, but I think it's something we should just avoid. So it seems to me this is kind of an unnecessary burden to impose on staff members, basically, to be young bouncers. You're gonna give them training. You're gonna tell them, you're gonna find these people that are actually a little rowdy. They've had some alcohol. Your job is to go in there.

Now, I'm probably simplifying this, but to tell them they have to leave. Shut up or they're gonna have to leave. Next thing know, some drunk guy's gonna get up and punch somebody. And there's gonna be a fight. Staff members are might just be a verbal, you know, profanity fight, but it could turn into a fistfighter.

Who knows what will happen? I think these are all things that can be completely eliminated, completely put aside if you didn't have alcohol in the theater to begin with. And, you know, people who go there, children and young teens in a movie theater having to be exposed to maybe some kind of profanity laced argument, I think they didn't go there for that. They went there for a good time. I look at the the very real problems with underage teens getting, you know, legal limit friends who are 21 to buy now, Suppose this person can buy one alcohol drink, but you know how teens are.

If you if you remember your teen years, maybe you were a good teen. A lot of teens got people to buy booze for them when they were still 16, 17. They figure out how to work the system when there's alcohol around. It it might even come down to, like, someone left with their their glass still sitting there full, and they're gone. The guy goes, I'm gonna go drink his his beer. Right? It's like, it's how teenagers think. They're nuts. So I think we can eliminate a lot of these kind of things by not having this take place in theaters. It could even be worse than that could be.

Something starts in the theater like that, somebody getting alcohol, someone just went buying for someone else. Next thing know, there's a trouble in the parking lot, an accident in a car, an investigation goes back and finds out it started at the movie theater where there was alcohol consumed. Maybe wrongly, maybe they weren't supposed to have it, but it started there. So I I just don't believe this is a good policy to permit this not just at this theater, of course, but I'm a little late to make comment on the other theaters that have been approved on, but I I just think it's bad to have this in theaters. And and it's not good for families or for children or for teens.

You just wanna go to place where they're free from tobacco, free from alcohol and drugs, just enjoying movies and munching on snacks with your friends. I just like to see it kept that way. And one last comment. Know this you're probably all familiar with the incident. A studio movie girl a few years ago with a with a passed out, inebriated person with a gun in their lap. They had to evacuate the theater for safety. I know that's maybe kind of a one off thing, but still it had to do with someone who was there, someone who had who was passed out. They were drunk. Could have been a disaster, though. So just thank you for your time, and appreciate it.

Thank you, mister Charles. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak in opposition to the CUP? Process of elimination, there's only one other person that could have. So does any commissioner have any questions for the public on this item? Commissioner Core.

Probably question to the applicant. Yes. What is considered the food I think it was mentioned so as per my understanding, you guys don't serve food items there. Right? It's mostly just snacks at the movie theater.

I was gonna touch on that anyway. What we are issued is we're issued a type a b c type 41 license. And that is a restaurant that's that is a license that's given to every restaurant if you're just selling beer and wine. ABC has very strict standards as to what needs to be on your menu. And to answer your question, popcorn and chips and Slurpees don't count.

So you have to enhance your menu. The traditional fare would be, you know, hot dogs and pizzas and sandwich wraps much like you would see at a pizza parlor. That is typically the way most movie theaters operate. Some offer some other, you know, some other products. But, yeah, the ABC monitors that because they're treating you as a restaurant, so you need to have restaurant food of of actual substance. You can't be a snack bar. And that's and every theater that has alcohol has has meets that requirement.

But do you have to buy it with the beer, think was the other part of that question. Right? You can serve it. I can serve a hotdog, but if you don't wanna buy it and you just wanna buy the beer, can you just buy the beer?

Well, you can buy anything that's on the menu, technically. We don't have to, you know, it's not like ABCs, you know, says, hey, you you have to have a hotdog with this meal. We have to have the those products available and then people can make their decision on what they're gonna what they're going to buy. Just just like at a restaurant. You

get you can certainly press that button and ask yourself.

I was just reading the condition that if someone is serving who's 18 years old, they have to sell with a food item. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. And and mister Rollings, thank you for your time. Can you just confirm I'm pretty familiar with ABC law, just in my experience and and stuff I do in my life. It is ABC law that if you are 18 under the age of 21 to serve alcohol, you must be accompanied by someone who's over 21 years old.

You have to be closely super supervised is the exact language. And anytime we have a concession, if you walk with a concession, there's always one or two managers that are standing there. Sometimes they're helping out, but they're they're in charge of the servers there. And I I I know that mister Charles brought up a a question about, you know, kids that don't wanna be in that position, you know, of serving alcohol. You certainly don't have to. You don't need to be trained. There plenty of other jobs within the the theater. So there's opportunities for anybody. And and if being a server or working at the concession is something that you don't wanna do, and and you're you're welcome. There there there's a lot of other jobs at the theater.

Sir, at this point, you're just answering the questions. Oh, I'm sorry. You'll have a chance to have a rebuttal later. Okay. Yep.

And I would I would just like to say for the record, mister Charles, thank you for you mentioned it was your first time. Thank you for providing your input. We appreciate it. I remember my first time coming up here, so, I appreciate it. We hope to see you around in the next future ones.

In fairness to commissioner Morton, I should chastise you that that was a comment, not a question. So, any other questions? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to provide a rebuttal on this item? If so, please be prepared to step to the podium. It'll be each side's five minutes starting within favor as opposition went last. And then just give madam clerk oh, she finished it before I had a chance to talk. Well your name first, please.

My name is Steve Rawlings.

Thank you.

I am a representative of Real Theaters. I I just said something a few minutes ago that should have been in in rebuttal. However, I I don't wanna necessarily repeat that that, you know, people that wanna work there are are more than welcome. And and obviously, not everybody is a is a server of alcoholic beverages. Obviously, most restaurants employ a lot of people that are under the age of 21 and again they have to be closely supervised and we put everybody through a lot of training and I know that mister Charles had mentioned something about, you know, altercations and and in our alcohol control plan.

We take very seriously the behavior of people within our within our theater. You wanna scare somebody away from coming the good honest people from coming to a movie theater, make them feel uncomfortable. I mean, you know, you've got your kids in tow and or or it's just you and your, you know, your spouse and and nobody wants to be sitting next to somebody and, you know, we we've had to talk to people about the use of their their, you know, texting. It's it's interrupting the act, you know, the the everybody else's, you know, pleasure of watching a movie. And so people have had we've had to ask people to leave for that.

There's people that, you know, constantly talk. There's boyfriends and girlfriends getting into fights, know, arguments and we've had to ask people to leave. So we take it very seriously. It's it's not some 18 year old that is doing this. It is a a management person.

And yes, our managers are very much trained in de escalation and potentially asking somebody to leave. You'd be surprised. It's relatively easy to get people to leave. If if worse comes to worse, obviously, you would call law enforcement. But if it's in the in the auditorium, you just stop the movie and you turn on the lights and now everybody is seeing this person and everybody's like, hey, get out, you know, because you just ruined our our evening.

Obviously, we we do everything we can not to interrupt everybody else's viewing pleasure, but it it's not a it's it's not the issue that you, you know, that everybody thinks it is. We we haven't had any we don't want altercations. We try to deescalate and ask people to leave and sometimes you you might have to call law enforcement. Other than that, any other questions, let me know.

Thank you again, mister Rawlings. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the project but in rebuttal? Seeing none, madam clerk's ahead of me. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition in rebuttal? Seeing none, I will now close the public hearing and then return it to return it to the commission for comment and action.

Commissioner Brand Oliver showed up first and then commissioner Martin.

Mister Charles, I just wanna personally apologize to you for causing you to have such a long evening. You didn't know what what's gonna happen here. I didn't either. And I just do really, really, really appreciate you.

Going to a half an hour.

I don't. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. But it I really listened to everything you say I said. I too am shocked that there are so that all the other not all, maybe, but several other theaters.

I truly thought it was Studio Movie Grill also. I've only been a member of the planning commission for a little over a year, and so I wasn't able to vote on those conditional use permits. And unlike the previous application that we were talking about where, you know, there's certain parameters that we vote on. The conditional use permit is one that definitely this commission gets a lot of flexibility with in in our listening to the community on their concerns and things because it is conditional. So, we get to set those conditions.

So I I appreciate what everything you said. I listened to it. My main only concern I wanna bring up to the other commissioners is the location is a tough location. There are a few years ago, I had a BPD officer tell me that 9000 Ming Avenue was the most called upon address in the entire city for issues, for loitering, for you know, and most all of it was kid related and and, you know, you're gonna put alcohol in a in a children's environment. It it's a tough one. Definitely making me have second thoughts about this.

Thank you, commissioner Brent Oliver. Commissioner Martin?

Thank you, mister chairman. Yeah. I wanna thank you as well, Charles. You know, it's not easy to to come up to the dais and and, come passionately and and speak when when you're passionate about something. And, you know, this is an interesting one because COVID really did hurt our theaters, hurt our business. And, you know, we've we have it at Studio Movie Grill. You know, they have it, you know, at at at the mall there. And it seems like they've imagined that we probably had alcohol at movie theaters in eighteen hundreds, maybe early nineteen hundreds. I don't know when it changed, and now we're kind of back. But I think ABC does a pretty good job of and they're pretty restrictive on folks.

And they do monitor and watch that pretty closely. I've dealt with them as well in in previous work. So if it could help the movie theater stay afloat to to get more people out, and I really liked I wanna thank the consultant as well, mister Rawlings, for the 10% of 10% gets the second drink. I don't know if that's Bakersfield stats, but, but if that is, no, that's that's good stat because it's not that many people going back. So they're not going to to the movie theater and, you know, getting getting drunk by and large. So anyway, I'm in favor of that and I will motion when everyone's done with comments in support of stat's recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner Barton. I also, mister Charles, I would like to, first of say thank you for sticking around. It normally doesn't go this long. I I would like to say that, you know, by right of kind of this commission, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't approve this project. We do it for others.

I would like to say kinda morally, I I'm I'm a little bit with you on I I grew up a Southern Baptist, so my opinion on alcohol depends on if there are other Southern Baptists around. But generally speaking, it does suck to kinda or I lament the loss of family safe areas that don't incorporate alcohol. And it's not just theaters, and there's no offense to this application. It is not something Bakersfield specific. This is I was drinking at the Alamo Drafthouse in 2014, so it's been a a normal thing for a long time.

But it it does it's a bummer that there are less and less family friendly places to go. You can't really go to a t ball game anymore without seeing coolers of alcohol. So I I do agree with you there that that that is kind of awful, but I I just don't know if there's anything on this that would be against it. There's nothing that would not support an approval. I just would say for the applicant that this area, I I don't see the same as Studio Movie Grill as, the theaters at Valley Plaza.

I think this location specifically is unique because it has the potential to become a criminal spot or a crime higher spot because of alcohol use. Now that's not to say there's already alcohol rest there's already restaurants here that serve alcohol. You can get it at Just Wing It. You can get it at Chef's Choice Noodle Bar. So it's not that the theater may introduce it.

I would just caution that those restaurants, you're definitely ordering food to go to. Right? If I go to Just Wing It, I'm going to get wings. If I go to Chef's Choice, I'm going to get they have a really good salmon there. But if I'm going to a movie theater and I'm not obligated to buy a food item, but I am allowed to buy alcohol items, there is a propensity that someone could sit around for a couple of hours or, you know, longer, have multiple beers, and and contribute to the area.

So it's nothing against this application. I think we all support this application itself. But I I hope that the city is tracking crime stats before and after, not to punish the applicant, but that is part of the CUP is if there is an increase in crime. If it does lead to more service calls, if it does, god help, lead to issues with our citizens, I hope that this does come back before the CUP or before the commission to discuss. And if it doesn't, more power to us because it seems like it went successful. So I think I will hear commissioner Martin's motion now.

I already made my motion. I was just waiting for time. Yeah. Motion motion on staff's recommendation to support.

Do I have a second?

A second.

I'm gonna go again. Commissioner Brewer. Brewer.

Brewer.

Brewer. Brewer. Brewer. I will get it. I'm sorry. Madam clerk, call up the vote. Commissioners, cast your vote. There we go. Madam clerk, do we need a roll call? Nope.

Motion passes with vice chair Biddle and commissioner Cater absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item seven, new business.

New business items was the selection of the chair and vice chair for the term of May 26 to April 20, April 27, determined by the commissioners.

Thank you, mister Burns. So at this time, nominations are open for chair. I would like to note there is no need for a commissioner to be present to be nominated. Normally, the chair would like to do the let everyone else speak and then jump in kind of deal. But historically, there's a tradition that the vice chair ends up becoming the chair.

And I just would like to make an early motion for, vice chair Biddle for chair, and not because of that tradition, but because vice chair Biddle, I think, represents a lot of what we look for in a planning commissioner. Very active in the community, a business owner, a defiant business owner who I think has the last remaining front to their business still facing the highway. So I think it would be great under chair Bittle. I am certain she would accept if she were here, so I just wanted to make that nomination. Commish are there any other nominations, though?

I would second I'll second commissioner Bittle for chair, unless there's

So it sounds like I had the motion to elect vice chair Biddle to chair and a second from commissioner Martin.

Yes.

Madam clerk, can you please conduct a roll call vote?

Chair Strickland?

Yes.

Commissioner Brandt Oliver? Yes. Commissioner Core? Commissioner Martin?

Yes.

Commissioner Braar?

Yes.

Motion passes with vice chair now chair Biddle and commissioner Cater absent.

And then we can chastise her next week for not being here. Okay. With that being done, nominations are now open for a vice chair. Again, there is no need for a commissioner to be physically present to be nominated. I will open this up if there are any nominations.

I would like to nominate commissioner Martin.

Thank you, miss Core. Are there any other nominations?

I have a question. It's just because I'm

Sure. Sure.

It do we is it past practice that it changes every year, or are there commissioners that just stay on and

No. It can be any can be anyone.

It could be either or. It could stay. I mean, the but Yes. Typically, it's been changing every year for the past years.

You nominate a chair and vice chair every year. So every Yeah.

You nominate a new one every year.

But Nobody just says status quo.

No. It could be it could be, hey. We wanted commissioner Strickland again and or chair Strickland, and and that would be the nomination. But as of tonight, I'm off unless we re nominate or reelected.

You

I would actually would like to make a secondary nomination for this.

Okay.

So my nomination was gonna be for commissioner Core. Commissioner Core, you've been on the commission as long as I have. I think that we it's not a length of service based effort by no means. I think I became vice chair after three months. But I do think it is a contribution. Right? You're here every commission meeting. You ask poignant questions that are directly to, in my opinion, usually on the side of the opposition or the applicants, to make sure that we're doing the right process. So that would actually be my nomination, you know, if you would accept that nomination.

I'll accept.

Thank you, commissioner Core.

So we have two potential nominations.

Right. We would need a second or additional motions, and we can

But, typically, when you have more than one motion on the table, the last motion goes first.

Ah. Well, there's just no limit to this. It says, are there other nominations? You didn't put a table in here saying up till two.

No. No. No. What I'm saying is that I mean, if there there could be more than five. See. I see. Motion goes first.

I see. It's late. So does that mean if there are no other nominations, we then just go into voting for?

Correct. We vote for, for commissioner Core first. And if she has the vote, she has the votes. And if she doesn't, we move on to commissioner Martin.

Understood. Can

can you vote for yourself?

Yes.

Mhmm. Okay.

Yeah. I was wondering And

you don't need a second for the motion to go to a vote?

Yes. We do.

We don't have a second for either.

So So we haven't voted yet. We just did the nominations.

So Okay. But why would we go to vote if we don't have a second?

So the we still have to vote on the last motion, though, because that's the order that we that the the Robert Rules of Order requires that the last the last vote goes first or the last nomination in this case. So if the last person was commissioner Kour, we need a motion and a second.

I was gonna second mister Martin, but I can't do that is what I'm saying. Correct? Because we're just voting on whether We're voting on core first. Okay. Please don't take offense with me. Right. Yes.

So do we have so do we have a motion for core?

I don't know what we have. I it sounded like we had a nomination for Martin and no second. We had a nomination from Corrin at the time, no second, and that's where we sit.

Well, nominations don't require the second. It's the it's the vote for the the motion itself. The nomination only requires that the person accepts the nomination. Sorry.

So is there is what's the readout then? Is the So motion to

elect commissioner? Nomination was core. Right? Got it. So now do we have a motion for core as vice chair?

That would be my motion.

Okay. And then do we have a second?

So we are seconding?

That would be second for CORE. Yeah.

And if we don't have one, then we move on to commissioner Martin.

Then no second is made.

So no second for? Okay. So then we move on now to commissioner Martin. Do we have a motion?

I will enter my second about mister Martin and ask that we call a vote.

So the so the motion for commissioner Martin was from from Four. From four. Okay. Okay. And then the second was for, commissioner Oliver. Okay. Then now you can vote.

Madam clerk, will you please conduct a roll call vote?

Chair Strickland? No. Vice chair oh, sorry. Commissioner Oliver?

Yes.

Grant Oliver, sorry. Commissioner Core? Yes. Commissioner Martin?

Yes.

Commissioner Brauer?

Yes.

Motion passes with chair Biddle and commissioner Cater absent.

Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item eight, communications.

Does staff have any communication items?

We have, a couple communication items. First of all, welcome to commissioner Breyer to the Planning Commission. Second, congrats to commissioner Strickland and commissioner Peter for their reelection. I'm talking about to to fine commission. Sorry. Fine commission. Yeah. We have new yes. Yes. Further elections. And there will be a May 21 meeting. So get ready for the next stack of papers.

Looking forward to it. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item nine, commissioner comments.

Does any commissioner have any comments? Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, mister chairman. And and thank you to my fellow commissioners for the for the trust in me to do that. And for the record, I was like, I know. I go, come on, commissioner Kourt. You gotta do it. So, I I'm honored and thank you very much. And welcome to commissioner Brauer. I know him to be an incredible guy in business and development in our community. I think he's gonna bring a a wide variety of expertise, that deals with planning. So looking forward to to serving with you, and welcome aboard. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. And I I would just like to say I appreciated the last year as commissioner and year before that as or sorry, chair and year before that as vice chair. Larry Coleman nominated me, and his nomination was coming up to me and saying, hey. We're gonna make you vice chair. So I appreciate that that process was as smooth as it was.

It's been great. I look forward to another year of going back to just being a commissioner. I just if I had a transition comment off, I just really hope that we can maintain temperament in the going year. I think we've seen some hot button issues the last, I don't know, six months of the commission, and and I really hope we can kinda keep in mind that the emotions that come out of being involved in the decision making process are strong, but we really need to just be careful that we're making our decisions based on what the rules guided to us are from the state and what our capabilities are and not through a motion. So that's all I had. And, madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item 10, adjournment.

The, 05/07/2026 planning commission meeting is adjourned at 07:48PM.