Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. I'd rather try and accomplish trying to accomplish something. I'd rather try something. copy of the Let's try to Welcome to the city of Bakersfield planning commission meeting. This television broadcast is brought to you by the local cable companies, the county of Kerna, and the city of Bakersfield. You can watch the rebroadcast of this meeting Saturday at 700 p.m. and Sunday at 10 a.m. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersakersfield city. us. Preciding over this evening's meeting, Chair Adam Strickland. >> It is my pleasure to call to order the October 16, 2025 planning commission meeting. Madame Clerk, will you please call the role? Chair Strickland >> here. >> Vice Chair Bidd here. >> Commissioner Brandt Oliver >> here. >> Commissioner Kedar >> here. >> Commissioner Core. Commissioner Martin. Commissioner Neil. >> Madame Clerk. Next item, please. >> Pledge of Allegiance. >> Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. >> Madame clerk, next item, please. >> Item three, public statements. Public statements are now received at different times depending on the item. I will call on madame clerk to call for public statements at the appropriate time. So, please listen carefully for the correct time to speak. >> Non-aggenda item 3A, public statements. >> Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items not listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please come forward and state your name. Agenda item 3B, public statements. >> Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda? If you are here for non-consent public hearing item 6A, 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 will 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 uh city has a statement on item 4 A. >> Good evening, Chair Strickland and plan commissioners. Staff was made aware of that a copy of the draft planning commission minutes for October 2nd, 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 agendaized in the in the packet. We just forgot to attach the the document itself. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> May I get a motion approving consent items 4A? >> I'll make a motion. >> Vice Chair Bidd, do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Commissioner Kedar, 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, non-consent public hearing items. >> Now is the time for non-consent public hearing items. Before we begin, I would like to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will give a 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 in the 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 Mr. Yazid Allegaryi, assistant planner, who will give tonight's staff report presentation. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Isid Algaryi and I am an assistant planner with the city's big development services department planning division. Agenda item 6A is zone change 25-00001. The applicant is Macintosh and Associates on behalf of the property owner, Commamino Media Properties LLC. The project site is located at 9700 Commamino Media on approximately 11.22 acres. The applicant is requesting a change in zone classification from R2PUD small lot single unit dwelling planned unit development to R4 high density multi-unit dwelling. The land use designation will remain HMR highdium residential. The applicant's request is intended to facilitate future development of a multif family residential complex where the proposed zone change would allow for up to 191 multif family 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, Mr. 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 uh commission um Tom D with Commamino Media Properties here. Um we're here to answer any questions that may come up uh tonight. Uh again, uh this was before you back in uh April of 22. It was an office commercial zone change to R2 HMR that allowed 17 some odd dwelling units to the acre. And then in 2004 when they did the update to the new codes, um the R2 now is at six 6.1 dwelling units to the acre. So we'd like to kind of get back up. So, we're building up to back where we were and uh our request we could have probably done R3, but we said let's go with R4 and let's try and comply more with the housing element. We wanted to come in here and um we believe that at 20 dwellings the acres the way we can cut it up, it will fit our product with no problem. We can still uh build our 191 units, it'll be a very nice higherend unit uh complex, which is what we usually build. But the key is to get the zoning and then for everyone's here tonight that I I they need to understand it's not a project. We we're not proposing a project tonight. We want to get the zoning in place. We want to get back to where we were and then we'll be before you guys uh with another project and address all of the issues that are in the current mitigated negative deck. So um so if you have any questions, I'll be here and I appreciate the time. >> Thank you, Mr. 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 Gator? >> Yeah, this question is for staff. The um applicant um mentioned that um a pro I remember when this project or the last version of this site came before the commission. Um I just question for staff was um the applicant stated that um what was previously allowed in R2 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 there was some prezoning the zoning zoning ordinance was amended. So the R2 prior to the the amendment was at a density um one per 2,500 square ft. So that was at a higher density that the current R2 zone provides. So what we're do we're doing here is basically going back to that level. So the zoning ordinance at that time pro permitted a higher density than what the current R2 zone permits. So in the housing element that the goal was to increase housing stock, the R2 density actually went down in the final outcome >> for the R2 zone. Yes. But >> that's why we're having more other zones like the R4, R5 to to get more density as well. >> Okay. But we're requiring um land owners 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. Um but we will look at that when we do more comprehensive reszones in the zoning ordinance. >> Okay. Yeah, this is questions. That was my question. Okay. Thank you. >> Well, any other commissioner have any questions? >> I just I had a question for the applicant. Um 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 R4. But there's no plans as to what this is going to 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. Um, 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 threetory building right now isn't real feasible, but that's what it would be. Um, and part of our our process is going to be dealing with the California Department of Fish and Game. We're going to 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 going to move forward. So, um, we've moved forward under the site plan review element, uh, numerous times. Um, we've got several probably a thousand units out there that are what I consider a higherend uh development. So, we're looking forward to doing that again and working with staff directly. Um, 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 biologist 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 and uh madam city attorney, there's no uh rebuttal, right? Since it was just in favor. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Then, uh since there's no other questions, uh I will now close the public hearing on this item and return it to commission for comment and action. Commissioner Kater. >> Cool. Um, thank you. Yeah, I just, um, so I was asking questions and, um, they lead to comments. Um, I mean, first of all, I'll just say that um, so the, um, to me it's really concerning that we went engaged in a 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 R2 zone. Um so I just would wonder what you know how that gets resolved because I think um so for clarity can you just uh Mr. Nino could you describe how many units per acre were allowed in R2 before we went through this housing element? update. >> So, previously in the R2 density, the zoning ordinance said that there was a minimum units per lot area, not less, it required a 6,000 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 2 acres at the acreage divided. That would give us 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. Um 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 doesn't mean it could stay that way. We we're we're going to still continue to look at that and hopefully and see what that how do we resolve that lower density now. >> Okay. Because yeah, I think um I mean our many conversations about that, you know, all spoke to um 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 R2 proliferates throughout the entire city and that is a huge loss of dens of potential units. Um, I mean, that being said, looking at the application tonight, I'll just say that um I think there's few sites in the city of Bakersfield that, um, you know, have the access to services, to jobs, to amenities, um, proximity to employers, to higher education. um that I mean I think um 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 um my only concern tonight is just that um I mean I remember the applicant that was brought in 2022 and the most concerning is that they can no longer do that on the site. Um, but if they're pushing towards more density, I think I would probably 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 um you can anticipate that I would be happy to make one. Should >> Got it. And I just had a question for I guess staff in Commissioner Kar's talking about the kind of the longreach implications of losing density and 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 may be correct, but I think we're going to be looking at policy and if this is an issue with policy, then we have to re-evaluate that. So, I would go back to management and the consultants and we will re-evaluate 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 going to make all developers pay to go back to what they had in 2024 when it comes to higher density? Um, but I think the statement's well made. I I that was it. So, we have a motion. And, uh, if we have a second, >> I'll make a second. >> Uh, Vice Chair Bidd. Uh, commissioners, we have, uh, could I, Commissioner Kater, can I just give this a full motion again? and that way I I have it for the record. >> Um I'd like to uh 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. >> Uh yes, just for >> and I'll second that. >> Thank you, Vice Chair Bidd. Uh commissioners, cast your vote, please. Motion passes with commissioners core, Martin, and Neil absent. >> Thank you, madam clerk. Next item, please. >> Commissioner Strickland to read the appeal language. >> Uh 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 10 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. Madame clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item seven, communications. >> Does staff have any communication items? >> Try circling have one communication. Um, there will be no plan commission meeting on November 6 and there will be one the regular scheduled plan commission on November 20th. So, no commission meeting on November 6th. That's all I have. >> Thank you, sir. Madame Clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item eight, commissioner comments. >> Does any commissioner have any comments? I I just want to make a comment to the public. Uh, 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. Um, with that said, madam clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item nine, adjournment. >> The October 16th, 2025 planning commission meeting is adjourned at 5:58 p.m. There it is.