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 10/16/2025 planning commission meeting. Madam clerk, will you please call the roll?

Chair Strickland?

Here.

Vice chair Biddle? Here. Commissioner Brandt Oliver? Here. Commissioner Cater?

Here.

Commissioner Core? Commissioner Martin? Commissioner Neil?

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Pledge of allegiance.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Item three, public statements.

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

Non agenda item three a, public statements.

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

Agenda item three b, public statements.

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 will be given an opportunity to speak at a later time. Seeing none, madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item four, consent calendar items.

All matters listed under consent items do not require a public hearing and will be enacted by one motion. There'll be no separate discussion of said items unless staff or commissioner requests specific items to be discussed and or removed for specific, for separate action. And I would like to note, I think the, city has a statement on item four a.

Good evening, chair Strickland and planning commissioners. Staff was made aware of that a copy of the draft planning commission minutes for 10/02/2025 meeting were not included in tonight's agenda packet. Therefore, a memo has been prepared and a copy of the PC minutes has been attached to the memo for your re review and action. Staff has copies if anyone from the audience also requests a copy.

Thank you. I would just like to add that the item was agendized in the in the packet. We we just forgot to attach the the document itself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I get a motion approving consent items four a?

I'll make a motion.

Vice chair Biddle, do I have a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Cater. Commissioner, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with commissioners Core, Martin, and Neil absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please.

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

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please.

Agenda item six, nonconsent 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 give a present 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 when participating in the hearing by not repeating the remarks of previous statements and presenting any new items and thoughts in a concise and clear way. Staff, would you please provide us with your report?

Chair Strickland, plan commissioners, and members of the public, I would like to introduce mister Yazid Alagiri, assistant planner, who will give tonight's staff report presentation.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Azid Alogari, and I am an assistant planner with the city's bigger development services department planning division. Agenda item six a is zone change twenty five dash zero zero zero one. The applicant is McIntosh and Associates on behalf of the property owner, Camino Media Properties LLC. The project site is located at 9700 Camino Media on approximately 11.22 acres.

The applicant is requesting a change in zone classification from r two PUD, small lot single unit dwelling, planned unit development, to r four, high density multiunit dwelling. The land use designation will remain HMR, high medium residential. The applicant's request is intended to facilitate future development of a multifamily residential complex where the proposed zone change would allow for up to 191 multifamily units. However, staff notes that no site development plans have been submitted for a formal review. A conceptual site plan has been provided.

A mitigated negative declaration was circulated with no comments opposing the project. Staff recommend approval of the project, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Yazid. The public hearing on this item is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Honorable commission, Tom Dee with Camino Media Properties here. We're here to answer any questions that may come up tonight. Again, this was before you back in April '22. It was an office commercial zone change to R 2 HMR. That allowed 17 some odd dwelling to the acre.

And then in 2004, when they did the update to the new codes, the r two now is at six six point one dwelling units to the acre. So we'd like to kinda get back up, so we're building up to back where we were. And, our request, we could have probably done r three, but we said, let's go with r four and let's try and comply more with the housing element. We wanted to come in here and we believe that at 20 dwellings to the acres, the way we can cut it up, it will fit our product with no problem. We can still, build our 191 units.

It'll be a very nice higher end unit, complex, which is what we usually build. But the key is to get the zoning, and then for everyone's here tonight, they I I they need to understand it's not a project. We we're not proposing a project tonight. We wanna get the zoning in place. We wanna get back to where we were, and then we'll be before you guys with another project and address all of the issues that are in the current mitigated negative decks. So so if you have any questions, I'll be here. And I appreciate the time. You,

mister D.

Oh, and I appreciate the staff's help. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, does any commissioner have any questions for the public on this item? Remember, this is not the time to express any opinions on the matter. It is simply a time to ask questions. Going by hand vote, anyone? Commissioner Cater?

Yeah. This question is for staff. The applicant mentioned that a prod I remember when this project or the last version of this site came before the commission. This question for staff was the applicant stated that, what was previously allowed in R 2 is no longer allowed at the density that we saw before. And I would just love for the staff to provide a brief overview of why that's the case.

So if you recall in 2024, was some pre zoning. The zoning zoning ordinance was amended. So the R 2 prior to the the amendment was at a density one per 2,500 square feet. So that was a higher density that the current r two zone provides. So what we're do they're we're doing here is basically going back to that level. So the zoning ordinance at that time permitted a higher density than what the current r two zone permits.

So in the housing element, the goal was to increase housing stock, the R 2 density actually went down in the final outcome?

For the R 2 zone, yes. But that's why we're having more other zones like the R 4, r five to to get more density as well.

Okay. But we're requiring landowners to elect and go through a zone change to allow that to happen?

We will look at that, but that appears to be what happened. But we would look at that when we do more comprehensive rezones in the zoning ordinance.

Okay. Yep. This is questions. That was my question. Okay. Thank you.

Cool. Any other commissioner have any questions? I just I had a question for the applicant on if you don't mind stepping back to the mic for a quick second. This came through in 2022 and was approved, and now we're going back to basically give the same thing we had before by going to an R four. But there's no plans as to what this is gonna look like, what you're planning on developing. What's kind of the next step for this project? If this zone change is approved, where does the project go from here?

Well, once we get our zoning approved, we have already conceptual drawings for what we'd like to build. It's kind of a balance right now between, you know, interest rates and multifamily costs, you know. So as we do that, we'll when that starts to equal back out, we can go in there. A two and three story building right now isn't real feasible, but that's what it would be. And part of our our process is gonna be dealing with the California Department of Fish and Game.

We're gonna have to work on protocol studies, and we've got a lot of work to do. So we'd like to make sure that we have the density, and then we're gonna move forward. So we've moved forward under the site plan review element numerous times. We've got several, probably a thousand units out there that are what I consider a higher end development. So we're looking forward to doing that again and working with staff directly. We just think it just makes the process that much easier and quicker, and allows us to get in line for financing and all the other things we need, along with dealing with our biologists and all the other things that have to happen out there. But, yeah, that's where we're at.

Awesome. Thank you. I appreciate that. That was it. Thanks.

So seeing no more, madame to the attorney, there's no, rebuttal, right, since it was just in favor?

That's correct.

Okay. Then since there's no other questions, I will now close the public hearing on this item and return it to commission for comment and action. Commissioner Cater.

Cool. Thank you. Yeah. I just so I was asking questions and they lead to comments. I mean, first of all, I'll just say that so the to me, it's really concerning that we went engaged in the housing element which goal was to create more housing units in the city of Bakersfield.

And now we have an applicant before us who could do more density than they can now after the end of that process. I'm just curious how that happened because that feels like a huge oversight on the city's part to reduce the number of units that could be in the R 2 zone. So I just would wonder what, you know, how that gets resolved because I think, so for clarity, can you just, mister Nino, could you describe how many units per acre were allowed in R 2 before we went through this housing element? Update.

So previously in the R 2 density, the zoning ordinance said that there was a minimum units per lot area, not less required a 6,000 square foot lot. The density, the minimum per lot area was one per 2,500. So if we were to multiply that, in this case, 11.2 acres at the acreage divided, that would give us a 195 units. That was at the old density. And and we did staff did see that there was a difference in residential densities from the previous zoning to the current zoning.

But that was what we worked with with our consultants, but that's something that we could go back and talk to the consultants just because we had did that. This would mean it could stay that way. We we're we're gonna still continue to look at that and hope and see what that how do we resolve that lower density now.

Okay. Because, yeah, I think I mean, our many conversations about that, you know, all spoke to making more housing units, not less housing units. And so I think while we're looking at one project tonight, I think it's concerning that r two proliferates throughout the entire city, and that is a huge loss of density of potential units. Mean, I that being said, looking at the application tonight, I'll just say that I think there's few sites in the city of Bakersfield that, you know, have the access to services, to jobs, to amenities, proximity to employers, to higher education that I mean, I think advocating for this site to be as dense as it can be, to me, it feels like an easy thing to advocate for. And so, my only concern tonight is just that, I I remember the applicant that was brought in 2022, and the most concerning is that they can no longer do that on the site.

But if they're pushing towards more density, I think I would I would gladly support that and make a motion.

I I just had a comment. Was that a motion?

I shouldn't have made a motion, but you can anticipate that I would be happy to make one should.

Got it. And I just had a question for, I guess, staff. And commissioner Cater's talking about the kind of the long reach implications of losing density in in zones. But for this specific applicant, before they could build or potentially pursue building the development at the density they wanted, this application is to get them back to the density they had before. But aren't we just implicitly putting costs onto a developer to get back to where they were three years ago?

I think you might be correct, but I think we're gonna be looking at policy. And if this is an issue with policy, then we have to reevaluate that. So I will go back to management and the consultants, and we will reevaluate the policy.

Okay. Just strictly speaking on this applicant, it just seems a little unfair to have them go through this process and the fees associated with going through a zone change to be where they were two years ago because of an oversight. So I would hope that's something we could look into that, you know, if this continues to expand, are we gonna make all developers pay to go back to what they had in 2024 when it comes to higher density? But I think the statement's well made. I I that was it. So we have a motion, and if we have a second

I'll make a second.

Vice chair Biddle. Commissioners, we have Could I Commissioner Kader, can I just give this a full motion again? That way I I have it for the record.

I'd like to adopt make a motion to adopt staff's recommendation to approve the zone change request. Miss King, does that

suffice? Yes. Yes. It does.

Okay. Thank you. The,

yes. Just for

And I'll second that.

Thank you, vice chair Biddle. Commissioners, cast your vote, please.

Motion passes with commissioners Core, Martin, and Neil absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please.

Commissioner, sir, go ahead to read the appeal language.

Madam clerk, next item in a second, please. Go ahead.

You may appeal a planning commission decision to the city council by submitting your request in writing with the city clerk within ten days of the date of the commission's decision. Your appeal must state the reason for the appeal and your relation to the project. There may be a filing fee required.

Thank you, sir. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item seven, communications.

Does staff have any communication items?

Chair circling, have one communication. There will be no plan commission meeting on November 6, and there will be one the regular scheduled plan commission on November 20. So no commission meeting on November 6. That's all I have.

Thank you, sir. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item eight, commissioner comments.

Does any commissioner have any comments? I I just wanna make a comment to the public. Appreciate you sticking with us a little bit this morning or this evening for getting quorum. I know we started a little late, and I really appreciate that. With that said, madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item nine, adjournment.

The 10/16/2025 planning commission meeting is adjourned at 05:58PM.