Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you you Thank you.

Welcome to the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission meeting. This television broadcast is brought to you by the local cable companies, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield. You can watch the rebroadcast of this meeting Saturday at 7 p.m. and Sunday at 10 a.m. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersfieldcity.us.

It is my pleasure to call to order the May 21st, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Chair Biddle? Here. Vice Chair Martin?

Here.

Commissioner Strickland?

Here.

Commissioner Brandt-Oliver?

Here.

Commissioner Kaur? Commissioner Cater?

Here.

Commissioner Brar?

Here.

Madam Clerk, next item please. Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The United States of America.

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

Non-agenda item 3A, public statements.

Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items not listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please come forward and state your name.

My name is Gordon Nipp. I am the vice chair of the local Sierra Club chapter. I want to talk a little bit about what happened at the last meeting, about the verbal abuse that the Sierra Club took there. We'll make a more formal response about that verbal abuse. But I just want to mention a couple of things here. Commissioner Oliver thinks that the Planning Commission is not the forum, quote, for citizens to ask the city to thoroughly address issues that concern them, like air pollution. She's wrong. If there's any hope to get a fair hearing before an objective platform, we have to follow the democratic process, the laws. We must exhaust all remedies, the first of which is being heard at the Planning Commission, a doomed forum though it may be. The next legal step is a hearing before the City Council, and the third step, if it's necessary to get a fair, objective hearing, would be litigation. Another point here, Commissioner Oliver has unjustly and rudely accused us of extortion. For her and your information, the Sierra Club, as a matter of national policy, never accepts any money in settlement agreements. And the Sierra Club folks you see here are all volunteers. We get nothing. We get no money out of this. What we get out of this is perhaps, with any luck, if you listen to us, a little cleaner air, various other things. So what is it that we could be extorting from developers? Are we extorting cleaner air? Are we extorting species preservation? Rather than heaping insults, the city should really be thanking us for trying to make the project better, and that's what we're trying to do. Several commissioners, including Commissioner Oliver, have erroneously stated that the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to decline developments. Even if you do want to approve every development project that comes before you, and I think that's the way things have happened, the Planning Commission has every authority to do as we have asked, to add new requirements to the projects, new conditions that would make the projects better for the community that the Commission is obligated to serve. And we urge that you do so.

Thank you for hearing us.

Are there any other speakers?

Please state your name.

Yes. So good evening. My name is Antje Lauer. I'm also a member of the Sierra Club. I'm also a professor at CSUB in the Department of Biology. I'm with the Sierra Club for five years, a little longer maybe. And I've not been present at that meeting, but I watched it on YouTube. And I have to say, there was a lot of disrespect. And I also thought that none of you other commissioners said anything. I think we're speaking at the city council a lot, and we never had experienced such a hostile environment than here. And then also something about the Sierra Club. So Gordon Nip said, we don't have any conflict of interest here. We are not getting any money. The Sierra Club has a lot of experts. We have members from the political sciences, from other fields like math. My colleague Dr. Rush is here. Karen Orso, who is a public health nursing professor. We have experts, so we can actually contribute and make things better. So you can listen to us, what we have to bring to the table. And we feel also very sad that this is being thrown away, like it's not worth anything. So we can be invited here and speak, but it seems that you are not really embracing this opportunity to learn something.

That's what I want to say. Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners and city staff and members of the public. As Antje said, I am a registered nurse and a community health nurse, and I was deeply disturbed by a comment.

I'm sorry, can you state your name for us, please? Oh, Karen Urso. K-A-R-I-N-U-R-S-O.

Thank you. I was deeply disturbed by a comment that was made at last month's planning commission that we in the Sierra Club are taking developers hostage. Well, who takes hostages? Extremely bad people do. I'm a nurse who's licensed by the state of California. Words have consequences, and we all know that. And so being accused of criminal activity could result in an impact on my license. In addition, I'm also a nurse educator. And in meeting very collegially with one of the developers, I learned that their family is closely tied to my employer through academic awards and through donations. So now my employer is brought into this mix in a possibly negative aspect. Exactly one week ago, though, I said the Nightingale Pledge with the 2026 graduating classes of nurses and in part it states, I will endeavor to fulfill my rights and privileges as a good citizen and take my share of responsibility in promoting the health and welfare of the community. So it's not an option for me in the practice of my profession to sit back and not take part in local government. I would guess that all of us here tonight are here for the same reason, for the health and well-being and safety of our community. So help me out. Help me to convince the nursing students who want nothing more than the excitement of the emergency room to understand that urban planning is an exciting responsibility too. I just ask us all to work together. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Sharon Briel, and I watched the video. I wasn't here personally, but I watched it on TV. And what stood out to me was how articulate our presenters were in terms of giving you credible, substantiated facts, no opinions, things that you can check, you can verify, and they all spoke with a passion that made me proud of them as what they had to share with you. And then came the comments. So now I'm going to read from my prepared information. I submit this letter for the official record in the follow-up to the May 11 public hearing. CEQA did not originate with environmental activists. It originated with a disaster. On January 28, 1969, the Union Oil Well blew out on the coast of Santa Barbara. three million gallons of crude foul fouled 35 miles of california coastline i have a condo in san simeon i see evidence of that tar on the rocks in san simeon quite a ways from santa barbara the public outrage was immediate and bipartisan 16 months later governor ronald reagan not known as a person that was of interest in environmental issues, signed the California CEQA Act that's now part of law. He did so because the people of California demanded government be required to account for environmental harm before approving projects it causes. CEQA gives me the right as a citizen legal standing to ask for an accounting. It is mandatory. It's a state law. It is not a special-interest tactic. At the May 11th hearing, Commissioner Allison Brian Obliver called citizens who invoked CEQA to challenge inadvertently reviewed projects extortionists. That characteristic is factually wrong and legally reckless. It is made from the dais on a public record directed at identifiable individuals exercising rights established by a 56-year-old California statute. Any project approval she participates in at the hearing is now potentially vulnerable to challenge on grounds of demonstrated bias against a protected class of public participants. THIS COMMISSION SHOULD ALSO BE AWARE THAT COMMISSIONER BRIAN OLIVER IS AN OWNER AND OPERATOR OF BRIAN OLIVER HOMES, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ACTIVE IN CURD COUNTY. SHE HOLDS DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE INDUSTRY WHOSE PROJECTS COME BEFORE HER FOR APPROVAL. She should not be voting on housing or developments within matters in her area. Her public contempt for CEQA advocates makes it clear why the conflict of interest is not theoretical. The citizens who appeared on May 11th are doing what the law and public trust require, and they deserve an apology. Thank you.

Do we have any more speakers?

Seeing none, does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda?

Agenda item 3B, public statements. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, next item please.

Agenda item four, consent calendar items.

All matters listed under the consent items do not require a public hearing and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on said items unless staff or a commissioner requests specific items be discussed and or removed for separate action. May I get a motion approving consent item 4A? So moved. Commissioner Martin, do I have a second? Second. Commissioner Oliver, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with Commissioner Kaur absent and Commissioner Cater abstaining. Madam Clerk, next item, please. Agenda item five, consent calendar public hearing items.

Now is the time for consent calendar public hearing items. If the item is not removed by a commissioner, staff, or 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 non-consent public hearing items. At this time, I will open all of the consent calendar public hearing items.

Does any member of the public wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item?

Gordon Nip from the Sierra Club again. I would like to remove item 5C, vesting tentative track map number 7427. Okay.

I'm going to remove line item 5C. Does any commissioner or staff wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item?

Chair Biddle, I would just like to acknowledge that I have a conflict of interest on 5A due to source of income and will be abstaining from voting on that item.

Okay. So Commissioner Cater will be abstaining from 5A. At this time, the consent hearing items not removed are now closed. May I get a motion to adopt staff's recommendation on the consent public hearing items not removed incorporating all staff memorandum and revised staff recommendations?

I move to approve the consent items 5A and 5B.

Can I get a second? Sorry, Commissioner Oliver, can I get a second?

I second.

Commissioner Berrar. Madam Clerk, next item please. Oh, sorry, vote. Commissioners, cast your votes. It's my first meeting as chair, so bear with me.

Motion passes with 5C being moved. Motion passes to approve 5A and 5B with Cater abstaining from 5A and Commissioner Kaur absent. Madam Clerk, next item please. Agenda item six, non-consent public hearing items.

Now is the time for non-consent public hearing items. Before we begin, I want to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will first give a report, then those in favor of the project will be allowed to speak. Those in opposition to the project will be able to speak after all those in favor have spoken. Each side will be given five minutes to provide rebuttal comments. Individual speakers may ask questions during their statements, but the questions will not be answered until the public hearing on that item is closed. Written comments may be given to the clerk who will provide copies to the commission. Please be respectful of others participating in the hearing by not repeating the remarks of previous speakers and presenting any new comments or thoughts in a concise, clear way. Ms. Ng, would you please provide us with your staff report?

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

Good evening commissioners. My name is Veronica Martinez associate planner with the development services department. I'm here to present agenda item 5C. Item 5C on the agenda is a request to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve vesting tentative track map 7427 for proposed project located at the southwest corner of Chase Avenue and Daytona Drive. The applicant, LAV Pinnacle Engineering, representing the property owners Lout, Berkshire, LLC, planned to subdivide 21.54 acres into 77 single-family residential lots and one sump in the R1 zone. The residential lots will range in size from 6,600 square feet to 10,818 square feet, the typical lot size of approximately 60 feet wide by 110 feet deep, or 6,600 square feet. Access to the subdivision will be provided from Daytona Drive on the east 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 30-day public review. Notifications were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius and published in the local newspaper. Staff also received written feedback, which was addressed in the staff report. The applicant is here today to respond to your questions. Staff concludes the project complies with CEQA and is compatible with surroundings, land use designations, and zoning. Therefore, staff recommends the commission adopt the resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and approving vesting tentative track map 7427. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself and proceed. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition of the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself and proceed.

I'm Gordon Nipp, vice chair of the local Sierra Club chapter. There are a number of issues with this project that we brought up in our written comments. I think I turned in 11 pages of comments on this project. These issues include the usual lack of mitigation for the cumulative impacts to air pollution, the cumulative impacts to habitat loss, cumulative impacts to climate change. But let me just leave it at this. Given the Planning Commission's rude responses to our testimony on similar issues, really, at the last meeting, and given the hopelessness of a really civil consideration at this level, we're gonna leave these issues to the written record. But I do want to point one thing out here. This project site contains a small forest of trees. Can you see it on there? You can probably see it on there. It contains a small forest of trees, which, quote here, I'm going to quote from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Quote, facultative species associated with cottonwood riparian forest plant community. It's from the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The included maps clearly indicate that the proposed project will destroy this riparian forest. That it will callously bury it under the concrete of a proposed street. You just need to look at the maps and see that. An adverse effect that the city inappropriately considers not to be significant. In this regard, couple of points. Fish and Game Code Section 1602, 1602, requires an entity to notify the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to destroying a riparian forest. As best we can tell, this has not occurred, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has not issued a permit. At the very least, This project should preserve this little riparian forest as a green enclave mini park. A mini park that would help preserve habitat as well as enhance the lifestyle of the new property owners and increase the value of this property.

Thank you for your consideration.

So hello, again. I'm also the conservation chair of the Sierra Club. So I want to support Gordon, but I also want to say a few other things. I've actually been in conversation with Phil Burns from the Planning and Resources Department because he's working on the Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. And I have developed a method where we can investigate the presence of all mammals based on scat analysis. And he's interested in this by investigating areas throughout and around Bakersfield in support of finding the best areas to conserve endangered species within our overall urbanization. So we have to find a middle way. So I'm in conversation with him. And those kind of developments, they happen too fast. The conservation plan will probably be out and ready when everything has already been built, including this little riparian area will be destroyed. Kid fox habitat is lost. And then there are no big parks between all these housing developments which could act as refuge for some species. So when we think of that we want to conserve and and help out some kind of species, we need to make sure that the populations are not being isolated. And then there's no genetic exchange, and there will be inbreeding, and then they're doomed for extinction. So do we care about our heritage of famous animals that occur nowhere else in the United States, like the San Joaquin kid fox and some other species? Do we care? Do we want to give them some space? Do we want to have the next generation of kids being happy to see kid foxes with their pups on the meadow. I'm at CSUB, and we have four litters right now with little pups. And I see the students sitting on benches in the evening and see the family with pups out, and the parents are trying to teach them how to hunt. We also have little skunks there. And this is so good for mental health, people just sitting there enjoying nature. And when you look at these developments, there is not much room for nature. You know, the developers are also choosing the plants that they put around development. They are not looking at, let's say, the tree plan that we developed together with Parks and Recreation, with Darren Budak. We have made suggestions for trees to be planted. The developers, they plant something else. It's not enforced by the city to implement the tree plan. So it's a lot of things that could be done better. So I'm trying to help to make things better. And I volunteer my time, my students can help, and the Sierra Club can help. So I would love to see that Bakersfield in the future would still stay as a big city with a small city flair, what we all treasure, right? And not like a sleeper town where all the new housing developments, the single family home, are going to people from LA, San Francisco, and Los Angeles County, and not necessarily from Kern County. supporting the people that need houses here. So we have a lot of influx from out of state. So we are not really supporting what is always being said, our people who are needing houses. We are supporting all these other people who are looking for cheap housing. And we are wasting our land. We're wasting our resources. And I'm sad to see that. And I hope that there's some conscience, like, yeah, we all want to make money. We want to have success, right? But we have to find a middle way to maybe preserve both.

Thank you.

Sharon Briel, I'm also on the executive board for the Kern Cahuilla chapter of Sierra Club. But that's only been fairly recently, maybe within the last five years or so. I've been here about 24 years now, and I can tell you that this sound has really changed a lot. Old River Road used to have hardly any cars on it, and now it's as busy as the Westside Parkway almost. They drive at least 60 miles an hour down that corridor. They have a lot of accidents, unfortunately, because of the high rate of speed. So the reality is, yes, this is a dilemma. This is America, where profit seems to be the biggest goal that everyone's after, is to get a really big profit. But at the expense of increased air pollution from all the cars, because nobody walks anywhere, it's frankly pretty unpleasant right now while it's hot. So they have to rely on cars and they love people Americans love their cars and the bigger the better and The faster the better and the quieter the better so they're all driving around with one guy in a car a bazillion cars And the air is polluted and you can hear my cracking voice. That's not because I'm old but I am old That's because air pollution That affects my lungs and my throat and makes me sound like a gravelly old woman. And so I really would like you to take more consideration and not just go for the immediate profit and the civil rights people have to buy and sell land and do whatever they want with their land, to remember the big picture that there'll be a whole lot of little kids that are gonna be affected by air quality. I already know in my Southwest neighborhood, the Oaks Ward 4, I have kit foxes in my neighborhood all the time. trying to figure out what the heck happened to my habitat? And they came over from the college and they have nowhere to go because that's all development now. So the reality is these are very hard decisions to make and how do you weigh what's more important? But I do think you really need to listen to the folks that are trying really hard to get you to understand why it's important.

Thank you.

Does any commissioner have any questions for the public on this item? Remember, this is not the time to express any opinions on the matter. It is only time to ask questions.

Chair Biddle?

Since there was no one in favor, there's no, we can bypass the rebuttal. You can go straight to closing the public hearing.

Ms. King, can I ask a question?

Yes.

Because we typically ask questions of both the audience and city staff, which allows dialogue that isn't allowed once we move into, so I would request that we ask our questions before we close the meeting.

Yeah, my screen isn't showing any requests. I see, I was given the impression that nobody had questions, that's why.

I'm trying to.

Trying to figure out where my thing is.

Yeah, the request to speak is a very dubious button.

Well, since you were the first to speak up, Commissioner Cater.

Thank you. I was hoping we could see the aerial view of the current site. I think it was one of the presentation slides. So I have a couple questions mostly for staff. In the Google Maps aerial version, it's a summertime shot, so it's a little less distinctively green. these sort of three areas of Riparian habitat really stand out and I was just curious the city's approach to riparian habitat Yes, if technical services could share my screen.

I have the Google Maps version Which I think shows it a little bit better than this as well.

Oh, yeah, let's let's test out technical services They told me it could happen. Is that the voice? They're always listening, right? Is that how it works?

I hope so.

Okay Do you have to call? I was just curious outside of the Kern River Parkway corridor where there is sort of habitat acknowledgement and conservation where Areas of riparian vegetation occur how that's dealt with within the development process For this particular prot Commissioner cater for this particular project a biological resources study was prepared by a qualified consultant and in your background material we included that study and

On page 10 of that study, it does ask the question related to riparian habitat, and the conclusion was it does not meet the criteria for Endangered Species Act to provide for mitigation on these riparian locations.

So they don't meet the minimum threshold identified by, can you, what was the agency that was referenced in the mitigated?

The agency or the preparer?

Was it Fish and Wildlife or the determining factor?

It is.

Yeah, California Department of Fish and Wildlife is in the, yeah, I'm looking at the document.

Then I guess the second question I have is, this has come up in a few projects that we've seen. Our municipal code identifies tree preservation and protection within our landscape ordinance, and it identifies voluntary removal of trees as being required to place replant in kind trees of similar species, and I was just curious, because I didn't see that present anywhere in the application.

That was not addressed.

Okay, so that's an item that wasn't, okay, I won't give opinions, but it was not addressed, thank you. I believe that's the answer to the question, thank you.

Do any other commissioners have any questions? Commissioner Burak?

Thank you, Chair Biddle. I pronounced that correctly, right, okay. So as part of their development processing, I know a VTM, the Vesting Tentative Track Map, at this moment won't require a landscape plan. Obviously, as they move forward and this fruition's into a full-on development, there will be a landscaping plan that would be held to city standards and city-required plans?

Where landscaping is required, yes.

Okay, understood, thank you.

Okay, so now do I provide a rebuttal? Okay.

At this point, it's just questions that the Commission may have, and if there are no questions, then you can skip the rebuttal, because there was nobody that spoke in favor.

But.

I do have another comment here I would like to make.

Hold on one second, Gordon. Sorry, there was nobody that spoke in favor, so I don't know what you would rebut.

Well, if I'm given an opportunity, I can speak to that.

The comment period, though, for speaking in opposition already passed.

It wasn't closed.

It's not closed yet?

As far as I know, it hasn't been closed.

I think we'll go ahead and allow him to speak. Go ahead.

Go ahead, Dr. Knipp.

As far as the...

Sorry, Secretary, can you start the clock so it's the five minutes?

As far as these trees, this riparian forest there is concerned, what the Mitigated Negative Declaration dealt with was the Clean Air Act. What I'm talking about is that that's a federal issue. And perhaps there's not too much of a federal issue there, but there is a state issue. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife section, the code section 1608 should apply here. And so that has not been addressed. But one other thing that I want to anticipate here, and that is the notion of the affordability of housing. And something that the Sierra Club feels strongly about, that housing should be affordable. In the last planning commission meeting, Commissioner Martin seemed to blame overregulation for housing affordability issues. I want to point out, this was just after the commission had unanimously approved a regulation that would make it more difficult for local bed and breakfasts to operate and cut back on their profits. We point out as well that the city imposes regulations on new housing as well, requiring, for example, traffic fees. So one can't help but wonder about the consistency of Commissioner Martin's concerns about over-regulation. We would suggest that existing regulations have little to do with housing affordability issues. The market drives the housing process, and a developer will charge whatever the market will bear for housing. Regulations are normally in place to ensure that the community remains sustainable and livable. Most developers realize and support this. And while regulations may reduce their profits a little bit, perhaps from massive profits to only incredible profits, very few of them are themselves homeless. If the Planning Commission is really going to be concerned that new housing be affordable, they should place affordability requirements on new projects, requirements that you can place. affordability requirements on new projects, including recorded affordability restrictions as defined in AB 130. Well, that's all that I wanted to point out. Thank you for the opportunity.

I will now close the public hearing on the item and return it to the Commission for comment and action.

Sorry to interrupt, could I ask tech services to stop sharing my screen?

Oh.

Thank you.

Okay.

At this time, the consent public hearing item, oh wait, no, we're going back to this page. Okay, do any of my commissioners have any comments on the item?

Commissioner Strickland.

Yes. The only comment I had was I would like to, as this goes from a potential VTTM to an actual development, I would like to see something done about landscaping plans. I understand the caveat of where required and I understand the standard, but I would like to see more requirement on if we're cutting down trees or not going to say habitat, we're just cutting down trees. I'd like to see trees go back would be my just comment.

Commissioner Cater.

Yeah, I would just say in looking at the project, looking at this portion of Bakersfield, I know we're coming on 20 years from when kind of a mass overlay of development was put in this area. And I will note, if you look at the map set within the presentation, I'm going to keep going to that aerial shot. There is an open space corridor that is planned for protection. But to me, in a community that has very quantifiable locations of riparian habitat that exists for different reasons it's a little bit it would have been nicer to see that integrated into this plan and to me the city's lack of INCORPORATING REPLACEMENT. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT WHEN HABITAT NEAR THE CURRENT RIVER IS NEEDED TO BE TAKEN FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, WELLNESS USES, THERE ARE RESTORATION EFFORTS IN THE ADJACENT PARCELS, AND I JUST, TO ME, I DO THINK THAT'S ONE PART OF THE PROJECT THAT, TO ME, FALLS A LITTLE SHORT. But I know that and so to me I think the When I look at our municipal code and it mentions existing trees for landscape plans. I think It's easy to defer that until it's already a built project in an urban environment and we're talking about potentially non-native trees that have been planted at the discretion of the applicant and I think that to me the need to see the value of our natural habitat a little bit more in how we do things and integrate that into the process is something that I think does come to light in this project. And so I would just be curious, because Ms. King reminded me, we can still interact with staff at this point. They can answer questions in our comments. or should I not and just say what I think?

I think you can give your opinions at this point and staff can take those into consideration for when it returns.

Yeah, and so to me, I mean the only, Just given our purview as an advisory body to the city council, using the opinion that I have to state that I do think habitat conservation is not adequately addressed in this sensitive site and would recommend that the track considers the riparian zone within its tentative track map overlay. But again, that's not a motion, that's just my opinion.

I just wanted to ask Commissioner Cater, is that a recommendation for a condition to be added upon the VTTM, or is that just an open comment?

Yeah, if I were to be making a motion to move this project forward, that would be a condition I would be looking to add to the project.

Thank you. Can I ask, maybe someone here knows, is the riparian species in the City of Bakersfield planning, tree planning species requirements? Is that a spec plant in our standards? I don't know if I can ask that question to staff.

Specifically, riparian habitat is not included in any ordinance that the city enforces. So, no. The short answer is no. I also would like to add, if you wish, if this commission wishes to somehow preserve the existing location of the riparian area, it is a design issue and it would be, probably a better fit to refer this back to staff to discuss with the applicant to see how they would address that instead of proving this particular lot and street layout with the requirement to redesign in the future to accommodate that riparian area for your consideration.

Commissioner Cater, if I can ask you a question, your comments in regards to the preservation of the, was your direction in terms of preservation or in terms of replacement in future landscape areas?

I will say in my limited experience, Commissioner Strickland may be able to help me out as the avid gardener of the commission, me as the novice. Habitat that does well natively is famously hard to transplant and grow. They only grow under certain conditions, and so the fact that they exist is somewhat remarkable in a climate like ours. this species of tree is not one you could go down to Lowe's and purchase 24 of them and plant them at the entrance to a tentative track map. And so I think that is part of my frustration in when I read the biological survey versus the kind of acknowledgement of what the staff saw in the biological survey and that, oh, it's not an issue, let's move on. in my opinion, species that are native to our climate, like the Bakersfield cactus, like cotton, are not things that you can just pick up and move because their ability, it's not as extreme, but if you think of a Joshua tree in the Mojave, the moment those are moved, touched, altered, they die because their growth is so stipulated on a series of factors that makes them thrive. So to me, I think when you talk about native species within, Kern County, outside of a river corridor where there is a presence of water that can sustain new growth quickly, it is more of a challenge to just relocate them to a median or a street corner because this species doesn't grow that way. I don't know. Yeah, but I'm not a biological... I don't work in biological surveys, but that's just my observation. And so, to me... If native trees are seen as a resource in our community, they should be considered when encountered on a site. And if staff's recommended path is to move forward, is to refer it back to staff to work with the applicant before it comes forward. And I am in a position to only say my comments and not ask questions. That would be where my mind is tonight, only because I will remind this commission, we have a policy in our city that once a tentative track map is approved, it is basically It can be built for the next 15, 20 years, and so we've all been on this dais where there are tentative track maps that, because of our city's stance on granting extensions, we've had questions, we've wanted to amend things. Tentative track maps, once they're in place, that is the plan going forward for this land for a very long period of time. So something where it's discernible by a Google Map aerial, both in the winter and the summer. It's before our commission for consideration. We've acknowledged an open space being valuable to the west of the site. This portion of the site shares a similar characteristic. That is where my thoughts are, and that's kind of where my thinking goes. So I would make a motion to refer back to staff to study the incorporation of the riparian habitat into the proposed tentative track.

I'm gonna hold your motion. We have one more commissioner.

Oh, of course, yeah, of course. Yeah, I think during the question phase, right, with Commissioner Burr's comment, when this gets to the next phase and they would, during the landscaping, then it would come into effect with the municipal code, right, where they would then be potentially replacing these trees, these 22 trees at that time. I believe that's what staff said.

So what I would clarify is the current proposal changes the topography of the riparian zone, therefore eliminates the riparian zone. And moving into landscape, the question becomes can species be planted that mimic what is there. And the way our ordinance reads, they need to be replanted at the same size. And I just don't see how trees of this size could be replanted in a feasible manner when the only landscape requirements are 10 foot landscape strips along arterial streets.

So yeah, that's my context.

But thank you.

Yeah, I think the clarification was about one conversation about the native species and one conversation about the potential to replace or provide some form of substitution in landscape areas, but Mr. Gator clarified such. Because we don't have the trees overlaid onto the track map, is it, I think I heard at one point that the trees currently are in the middle of the street, which I'm gonna assume is NASCAR Drive.

I don't know the particular street, but Commissioner Cater is correct. The topography will change. Drainage patterns will change. The riparian area, as seen today, will no longer exist. And replacement trees would be along mostly the perimeter of the track map. Because Commissioner Keders has an interest in preserving the existing riparian area, it does require a major redesign of the lot and street layout, which would require the applicant to consider their options and how to do that if they choose to propose to incorporate that.

All right, seeing no other comments. Oh, Strickland, sorry. Commissioner Strickland.

I was just gonna further the opinion that if we were to make the decision to send it back to staff, there's a larger section of trees even north of this, so not anything to do with this track map, just I would point out that this is the smaller of the areas, so this is maybe a future impact as well. I also point out the irony in naming a street NASCAR Road and paving over a native forest to do so, so I will.

Okay, seeing no other comments from commissioners, I do believe we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Cater for a motion to refer this back to staff, is that correct? Do I have a second or another motion?

Seconded.

Second from Commissioner Strickland. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes to refer back to staff with Commissioner Kaur absent. Madam Clerk, next item please. Agenda item seven, communications. Director Ink, do we have any communications?

Yes, we will have a meeting in two weeks. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next item please. Agenda item eight, commission comments. Do we have any comments from the commissioners? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, next item, please. Agenda item nine, adjournment. This meeting is adjourned at 6.23 p.m.