2026-10-01 - Planning Commission

00:02Welcome to the city of Bakersfield

00:04planning commission meeting. This

00:06television broadcast is brought to you

00:08by the local cable companies, the county

00:11of Kerna, and the [music] city of

00:12Bakersfield.

00:14You can watch the rebroadcast of this

00:16meeting Saturday at 700 p.m. and Sunday

00:19at 10:00 a.m. The agenda for this

00:22meeting can be downloaded at

00:24www.bakersfieldcity.

00:28us. Preciding over this evening's

00:30meeting, Chair Cassie Biddle.

00:36>> It is my pleasure to call to order the

00:38October 1st, 2026 planning commission

00:41meeting. Madame Clerk, would you please

00:43call the role?

00:45Chair Bidd here. Vice Chair Martin

00:50>> here.

00:50>> Commissioner Strickland,

00:53Commissioner Brandt Oliver

00:55>> here.

00:56>> Commissioner Cor. Commissioner Kedar and

01:00Commissioner Bar

01:01>> here.

01:08>> Madame Clerk, next item, please.

01:10>> Pledge of Allegiance.

01:12>> Please stand for the Pledge of

01:13>> Allegiance.

01:20of the United States of America and to

01:23the republic for which it stands. One

01:26nation under God, indivisible, with

01:29liberty and justice for all.

01:38>> Madame clerk, next item, please.

01:41Public statements.

01:44Public statements are now received at

01:46different times depending on the item. I

01:48will call on madame clerk to call for

01:50public statements at the appropriate

01:52time. So please listen carefully for the

01:54correct time to speak.

01:56>> Non-aggenda item 3A, public statements.

02:00>> Does anyone in the audience wish to

02:02address the commission regarding items

02:04not listed on tonight's agenda? If so,

02:07please come forward and state your name.

02:12Does anyone in the audience wish to

02:13address the commission regarding items

02:15listed on tonight's agenda? If you are

02:17here for non-consent public hearing item

02:206A, this is not the time to speak. You

02:22will be given an opportunity to speak at

02:24a later time.

02:29Seeing none, next. Madame clerk, next

02:31item, please.

02:32>> Agenda item four, consent calendar

02:34items.

02:36>> All matters listed under the consent

02:38items do not require a public hearing

02:40and will be enacted by one motion. There

02:43will be no separate discussion of said

02:44items unless staff or a commissioner

02:46request specific items to be discussed

02:49and or removed for for separate action.

02:53May I get a motion approving consent

02:55item 4A?

02:59>> So move.

03:00>> Commissioner Martin, can I get a second?

03:03>> I'll second.

03:04>> Commissioner Bar, please cast your

03:06votes.

03:25motion passes with commissioners

03:28Strickland, Core, and Kater absent and

03:31Commissioner Brandt Oliver abstaining.

03:36>> Madame Clerk, next item, please. Agenda

03:39item five, consent calendar public

03:41hearing items.

03:43Now is the time for consent calendar

03:45public hearing items. If an item is not

03:47removed by a commissioner, staff, or

03:49member of the public, the commission

03:51will vote on all items in one motion

03:54without further com comment. If an item

03:56is removed, it will be placed at the end

03:58of the non-consent public hearing items.

04:01At this time, I will open all consent

04:03calendar public hearing items.

04:08Does any member of the public wish to

04:10remove a consent calendar public hearing

04:12item?

04:15Does any commissioner or staff wish to

04:17remove a consent calendar public hearing

04:19item?

04:23At this time, the consent calendar

04:25hearing public hearing items not removed

04:27are now closed. May I get a motion to

04:29adopt staff's recommendation on the

04:31consent calendar public hearing items

04:34not removed incorporating all staff

04:36memorandum and revised staff

04:37recommendations.

04:40>> I move that we um approve the consent

04:43calendar hearings.

04:45>> Commissioner Brandt Oliver, can I get a

04:47second, please?

04:47>> I'll second it.

04:48>> Commissioner Bar, please cast your

04:50votes.

05:00Motion passes with commissioners

05:02Strickland Core and Kater absent.

05:07Madame clerk, next item, please.

05:12Agenda item six, non-consent public

05:14hearing items.

05:18Now is the time for non-consent public

05:20hearing items. Before we begin, I want

05:22to explain how the hearing will be

05:24conducted. Staff will first give a

05:26report. Then those in favor of the

05:28project will be allowed to speak. Those

05:30in opposition to the project will be

05:32able to speak after th all those in

05:34favor have spoken. Each side will be

05:37given five minutes to provide rebuttal

05:39comments. Individual speakers may ask

05:41questions during their statements, but

05:43the questions will not be answered until

05:45the public hearing on that item is

05:47closed. Written comments may be given to

05:49the clerk who will provide copies to the

05:52commission. Please be respectful of

05:54others participating in the hearing by

05:56not repeating the remarks of previous

05:58speakers and presenting any new comments

06:00or thoughts in a concise and clear way.

06:03Miss Ing, would you please provide us

06:05with your staff report?

06:07>> Good evening. I'd like to indicate that

06:09staff provided you a blue memo tonight

06:12providing some additional

06:13correspondence. And I'd like to

06:15introduce Ashley Knight, assistant

06:17planner who worked on this project.

06:27>> Good evening, chair and commissioners.

06:29My name is Ashley Knight, an assistant

06:31planner with the development services

06:32planning division. I'm here to present

06:35agenda item 6A, general plan amendment

06:38number 23-00001.

06:42The project site is located at 2401

06:44Coffee Road on the southwest side of

06:46Rosedale Highway and north of Coffee

06:48Road on approximately 46.16

06:51acre site. The proposed project will

06:54facilitate the development of a large

06:56commercial center with markets, retail

06:59uses, storage uses, and a health club.

07:02Smaller retail tenants, a medical

07:04office, drive-thrus, fast casual and

07:06sitown restaurants, a car wash and gas

07:09station would occupy the outer pad

07:11buildings.

07:13The EIR presented studies on agriculture

07:16and forest resources, mineral resources,

07:19wildfire, aesthetics, energy, hazard and

07:23hazardous materials, hydrarology and

07:25water quality, land use and planning,

07:28noise, population and housing, public

07:31services and recreation, utility and

07:34service systems, air quality, biological

07:37resources, cultural resources, geology

07:40and soils, greenhouse gas, emissions and

07:43transportation.

07:45The studies indicated that air quality,

07:47biological resources, cultural

07:49resources, geology, and soils would be

07:52less than significant impacts with

07:53mitigation incorporated, but also

07:56indicated that greenhouse gas emissions

07:58and transportation would have

08:00significant and unavoidable impacts. The

08:03draft DIR circulated from July 10th,

08:052026 to August 2026 26th, 2026 and

08:10received six comments. From those

08:12comments, additional mitigation measures

08:14were incorporated into into the final

08:16EIR. The applicant and property owner is

08:19Coffee Road Ventures. The applicant is

08:22requesting a recommendation for approval

08:23of the general plan amendment,

08:25certification of the environmental

08:27impact report, and the adoption of the

08:28facts, finding and statement of

08:30overriding con considerations.

08:33Based on these findings, staff

08:35recommends that the planning commission

08:37adopt the resolution approving general

08:39plan amendment, the certification of the

08:42environmental impact report, and the

08:44adoption of the facts, findings, and

08:46statement of overriding considerations,

08:48and recommend the same to city council.

08:51The applicant and their consultants who

08:52worked on the studies for the EIR are

08:55present this evening and available to

08:56answer any questions, as well as the

08:58city's consultant who prepared the EIR.

09:01That concludes my presentation. Thank

09:03you.

09:08Thank you.

09:10The public hearing is now open. Is there

09:13anyone who wishes to speak in favor of

09:16the project? Please step to the

09:17microphone, identify yourself, and

09:20proceed.

09:24Go ahead and step up to the microphone

09:26and introduce yourself, please.

09:32Uh good evening, commissioners and

09:34chair. Um thank you for hearing this uh

09:36tonight. Um my name is Brett Thornton.

09:39I'm the senior vice president of

09:41development for DJM Capital Partners.

09:43We're the developer uh responsible for

09:46this project. Um I think staff did a

09:48great job presenting, so I don't have

09:50much additional to say, but I'm here to

09:52answer any of your questions.

09:55Thank you.

09:56>> Thank you.

10:00Is there anyone else that would like to

10:01speak in favor?

10:04Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes

10:06to speak in opposition of the project?

10:08Please step to the microphone, identify

10:11yourself, and proceed.

10:19>> Uh, good evening, uh, chair and

10:21honorable commissioners. My name is

10:23Aiden Marshall. I'm speaking on behalf

10:25of Care California. Uh Care California

10:28is an organization that represents local

10:30residents and local construction unions

10:33dedicated to safe, sustainable uh

10:36community growth. While we do support

10:39economic development in Bakersfield,

10:41such as this project, commercial

10:42projects must be built safely and with

10:45ex without exposing communities to

10:47unmitigated hazards. We're requesting

10:50that the planning commission direct city

10:53staff to revise and recirculate this EIR

10:56before recommending approval of the

10:58project. Uh the reason being this

11:01project would result in major

11:02environmental and public health impacts

11:05that simply have not been adequately

11:07analyzed in the final EI. Uh I'll just

11:10touch on a couple of these. Uh to begin

11:12with, uh this project would expose

11:14residents of a senior community just

11:17next door to emissions from the

11:19project's fuel station, char broilers,

11:22car wash, and lots of heavy duty truck

11:25traffic. Emissions of toxic air

11:28contaminants of this exact kind are

11:31known to increase cancer risks.

11:34However, the EIR fails to actually

11:36analyze these risks in detail, simply

11:39relying on general screening level

11:41huristics.

11:44Instead, the EIR quite unreasonably in

11:47my opinion assumes that because the

11:49project is not a an industrial warehouse

11:51project and because it would generate

11:54fewer truck trips than a freeway, health

11:57risks would be less than significant. uh

12:00our own uh toxicologist has shown that

12:02this is simply not the case. As a

12:04result, the conclusions of the EI that

12:07uh it would not result in significant

12:08health risks to the old folks right next

12:11door, it's it lacks substantial

12:13evidence.

12:15Uh additionally, the residents at the

12:17Old Folks community right next door,

12:19they've exposed to potentially

12:21significant health risks from exposure

12:23to Valley Fever. If you're not familiar,

12:26uh these are fungal spores that are

12:28endemic to Kern County. When you

12:30disturb, uh land such as this, this is

12:3246 acres of soil being disturbed. Uh and

12:36it would release the valley fever spores

12:38into the air. Uh the ER does not analyze

12:41the severity of this impact and doesn't

12:44adopt any mitigation specifically

12:46tailored to address this impact. they're

12:48just relying on general dust control

12:51measures which have been proven not to

12:53apply to valley fever spores.

12:56Uh and essentially the EI must be

12:58revised to include an operational health

13:00risk analysis that there's a

13:02construction analysis but not a

13:04operational analysis. And then

13:06additionally uh additional valley fever

13:08mitigation must be included before you

13:10can recommend approval of this project.

13:13Uh, one final reason is that this EIR

13:16has to be recirculated for public review

13:18because new information has come to

13:20light about the site's uh, value as

13:23wildlife habitat. Whereas the draft

13:26originally claimed that this site had

13:29zero uh, value as habitat. uh during the

13:32public comment period uh or after the

13:35the comment period the the uh FIR is now

13:38admitting that the site provides

13:41suitable habitat for special status

13:44species. These include the Sanwaqin kit

13:46fox and the crotch bumblebee. The FBI is

13:50also introducing brand new mitigation

13:53not before analyzed to address these

13:55potential impacts.

13:57This is exactly the type of situation

14:00that would require recirculation under

14:02the secret guidelines. So in some we're

14:05asking the planning commission to direct

14:07staff to revise and recirculate the CIR

14:10before any action is taken. Thank you so

14:12much for your time and please let me

14:13know if you have any questions.

14:20>> Are there any other speakers in

14:22opposition?

14:30Sorry, my suspender came up behind.

14:36Hi,

14:39good evening. My name is Brandon Armor.

14:42I'm a JW union iron worker out of Local

14:45155.

14:46And I'm here tonight representing the

14:48thousands of hardworking men and women

14:51of Iron Worker Local 155.

14:54We are here to respectfully ask you to

14:57oppose this project until the applicants

15:00make a meaningful commitment to working

15:02with the local community and utilizing

15:05local workforce to build.

15:11It is disappointing [sighs] that to this

15:14point there have been no meaningful

15:15comments to hiring local or creating

15:18opportunities for men and women who live

15:20and work in this community. A project of

15:23this size should bring more than

15:25construction to the area. It should

15:27bring opportunities, economic growth,

15:29and lasting benefits to the people who

15:32call this community home.

15:35Local workers should not overlook while

15:38outside contractors and outside labor

15:40are brought in to build a project in our

15:43own backyard.

15:45Iron Workers Local 155 takes pride in

15:48developing skilled workers and creating

15:50pathways to good paying lifelong

15:53careers.

15:54Through our apprenticeship and workforce

15:56development programs, we provide

15:58opportunities

15:59for people from all walks of life,

16:02including entering the trades for the

16:04first time, individuals

16:07uh transitioning out of foster care, and

16:10formerly incarcerated individuals

16:11looking for a second chance.

16:14These are real opportunities that can

16:15change lives, strengthen families, and

16:18build stronger communities. We believe

16:20the local community should have a seat

16:22at the table and not simply be expected

16:27to accept the project without receiving

16:30meaningful opportunities from it. We are

16:33asking for promise that cannot be kept.

16:38We are asking for a genuine part

16:40partnership, a commitment to local

16:42hiring,

16:44an opportunity for our skilled workforce

16:46to help build this project.

16:49Until the applicant is willing to work

16:51alongside the community and establish

16:52those commit commitments, we ask that

16:55you vote no on this project tonight.

16:59If a project is going to benefit from

17:01being built in this community, the

17:03people of this community deserve the

17:05opportunity to to benefit from building

17:08it. Thank you for your consideration.

17:11Thank you.

17:15>> Any other speakers in opposition?

17:22Does any commissioner have any questions

17:24for the public on this item? Remember,

17:27this is not the time to express any

17:29opinions on the matter. It's only time

17:31to ask questions.

17:59Commissioner Martin.

18:02Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, I do have a

18:04question for the applicant. If you could

18:06come up.

18:14So, I'm just curious, um, do you know

18:16how many jobs this will bring to our

18:18community and roughly how many of those

18:21will be will be local? And if you guys

18:24have looked at that yet?

18:25>> Yeah, we have. And we're we're

18:27estimating about 2,000 total jobs.

18:30>> Okay.

18:31>> Uh, over a thousand of those will be

18:33during the construction process.

18:35>> Okay.

18:36>> Um, [clears throat] you know, we we are

18:38absolutely open to, you know, having

18:42local workers there. Um, but we haven't

18:44made any agreements with anybody to do

18:46so. Our our contractor does a lot of

18:50work in Bakersfield. Um, and most of the

18:52subcontractors that they use are local

18:54to Bakersfield.

18:56>> Okay. Thank you. That's great. So,

18:57you're very open and and willing to work

18:59with iron workers or different folks to

19:02keep the jobs local.

19:03>> Sure.

19:04>> Okay. Super. Thank you for that. That's

19:06all I have.

19:12Commissioner Bar,

19:14>> I have a question for the applicant as

19:16well. I'm sorry.

19:25I uh I think you mentioned a thousand

19:28jobs for construction for for the phase

19:31of during the construction of the

19:32project. Um and you said 2,000 total

19:34jobs.

19:36Would that reference that there would be

19:38a thousand

19:39medium median level jobs that that would

19:42be consistent throughout the community

19:43of during for the operations of the

19:44existing businesses that you're

19:45proposing?

19:46>> Yeah. [clears throat] Per permanent um

19:48positions held with our our tenants, the

19:51businesses that are occupying the

19:52buildings that we're developing.

19:54>> Okay.

19:54>> Um as well as maintenance of the

19:57shopping center that works for So we're

19:59we're vertically integrated developer.

20:01We manage all of our own properties. So

20:03we'll have local people working here

20:05managing the property and maintaining

20:07the property as well.

20:08>> Okay. And then um is that thousand in

20:12terms of fully like a fully completed

20:15out development or the first phase or um

20:20remaining I don't know if there's going

20:21to be a remaining area of this uh

20:23development that may not be developed

20:24until further time. Is that thousand

20:26based off of the statistic of it being

20:28fully completed or what's being

20:30presented? It

20:31>> it's based on the total project. Okay,

20:34perfect. Okay, I do have a question for

20:37the environmental analysts if they're

20:38available.

20:39>> Sure.

20:47>> Good evening, commissioners. Jesse

20:50Barkley with Kimley Horn, the project

20:51manager of the ER.

20:52>> Awesome. You're with Kimberly Horn?

20:54>> Yes.

20:54>> Perfect. Um I uh to ask a question in

20:58regards to some of the statements that

20:59were brought up to our uh fruition. Um

21:04can you walk us through a little bit

21:05about the information in regards to what

21:09may have not have been in the draft EIR

21:12which ended up being circulated in the

21:13final EIR?

21:16>> Yeah, I'll I'll talk a little bit about

21:18it. Um I'll talk about bio first if you

21:21don't mind. So bio um we had a and I

21:24have Juan Hernandez if you want to come

21:26up here as well. Uh we had a biological

21:28assessment done for the project site. Um

21:31impacts were less than significant with

21:33mitigation. The original the draft had

21:36mitigation for burring owls

21:39um and nesting birds.

21:41um no and if you want to talk a little

21:44bit about the um survey but based on a

21:48CDFW letter um during the draft

21:51circulation there were some suggestions

21:53for additional mitigation measures. So

21:55for the final EI we added uh the salmon

21:57kit fox reconstruction surveys

22:00uh avoidance buffers take authorization

22:04and crotch bumblebee avoidance and take

22:06authorization mitigation measures

22:07>> and that that was from I'm sorry there

22:09was the agency that instructed you to

22:11offer more mitigation.

22:13>> Yes. And

22:15>> uh good evening commission. My name is

22:17Juan Hernandez with Hernandez

22:19Environmental Services. Um yes. Um for

22:22this project, we're making sure we

22:24implement avoidance measures to make

22:26sure that it does not trigger any kind

22:27of California Endangered Species Act uh

22:31legislation like an incidental take

22:32permit. Uh so we're going to the re the

22:35letter that was sent by the California

22:37Department of Fish and Wildlife uh did

22:39recommend certain u measures to make

22:43sure that take is avoided. uh if tay

22:45can't be avoided then they recommend

22:47that we in consultation with them find

22:50ways to make sure that any impacts to

22:53endangered species are definitely

22:54avoided and that's the main strategy for

22:56the project is to avoid impacts to

22:59endangered species.

23:00>> Okay. So the lead agency who

23:04digested this information they made

23:06recommendations and would it be true to

23:08ascertain that all of those

23:10recommendations are being accepted?

23:12>> Yes. So you have two levels of people

23:15who commented or agencies that commented

23:17on the uh SQL document. So you have

23:19responsible agencies and trustee

23:20agencies. The responsible agency is

23:23actually the one that has discretionary

23:24authority over an action. Um in this

23:28case a California Department of Fish and

23:29Wildlife Service who's uh fish and

23:31wildlife uh who is in charge of issuing

23:34a California incidental take permit for

23:37the take of their endangered species. So

23:39we incorporated their recommendations to

23:41make sure that avoidance is strictly

23:44adhered to for this project.

23:46>> Okay. And just to clarify the

23:51measures that were recommended by the

23:52lead agency, they are being offered in

23:54the mitigation measures by the developer

23:57accepted.

23:59>> Okay.

23:59>> Yes, they are. They've been incorporated

24:01into the the EIR.

24:02>> Okay. And then I have a question for the

24:04city. I I believe I heard that the city

24:06has consulted on the EIR. The city

24:08obviously digested this information that

24:11was presented by the developer and their

24:12third parties. The city was in a

24:15acknowledgement of the mitigation

24:17measures.

24:18>> Yes, that's correct.

24:19>> Okay. I I think I really appreciate your

24:21time. Thank you for coming up here.

24:22>> Yeah,

24:23>> that'll be it for me.

24:25>> Are there any further comments or things

24:27I should address?

24:28>> Yeah, I was say

24:31go ahead.

24:32>> Can you stay? Sorry. I have I have

24:34questions about the same thing. Um the

24:36biologic. So, um, we just received the

24:40letter that was submitted yesterday and

24:42then started to read a letter that was

24:45submitted today. Um, and the first thing

24:48in the letter that came out today was

24:51um,

24:53an expert named Brian Cipher determined

24:56the project does indeed

24:58um,

25:00contain a habitat for kit foxes. Did you

25:03experience that, Mr. Hernandez when you

25:05were doing your survey.

25:07>> Well, I mean, Kid Fox have been adapting

25:09to just about almost any environment

25:12other than their native environment.

25:13They've been found now in urban settings

25:15as well. I mean, there was sightings at

25:17the lows, I believe, right across the

25:19street. So I mean to there is a

25:22potential for them to be but again we

25:24are using the the recommended mitigation

25:26measures by the responsible agency who's

25:29in charge in California to protect the

25:31species in our EIR to avoid any take.

25:36>> Okay. So just to clarify did you you

25:39surveyed the property correct? Did you

25:43observe them their dens on the property?

25:47We didn't observe a den per se. I mean,

25:50but there are areas that could have been

25:52used by any mammal.

25:53>> Okay.

25:53>> But that doesn't necessarily mean it's

25:55an endangered species. So

25:57>> So okay. Um and I'm reading the

26:03the changes that the staff is

26:06recommending being put in the EIR. So um

26:10I do believe that those exactly what you

26:13said have have been adopted in there. So

26:15mainly that was my question. Is this the

26:17time for staff questions though? Is it

26:19also Okay.

26:24I'll pass.

26:30I have another question. I'm sorry. Um

26:36so

26:39I drew a blank. I'm apologize. As far as

26:41the emissions, I know there was some uh

26:43um concern about uh the areas

26:47surrounding. Um did you all survey

26:52um the surrounding areas in terms of

26:55maybe um a senior living facility? I

26:57think that's what was

26:58>> Yeah, we evaluate several sensitive

27:01receptors is what they call for air

27:02quality and noise including residential.

27:05I'll let John talk a little bit more

27:06about that.

27:08>> Good evening, commissioners. My name is

27:09John Vang from Blaze Works

27:12and uh Commissioner Bar. So our analysis

27:15we did consider the uh senior the senior

27:19communities to the west of the site and

27:20then also the single family homes to the

27:24southwest of the site and in addition to

27:27some homes north of the site. So we did

27:29account for them in our analysis.

27:33They are on the southwest of the site of

27:35this 50ish or 40-ish acre development.

27:41I've been born and raised in Baker. So,

27:43I'm trying to see where this place is.

27:46Southwest of the site. Does is that

27:48taking you near?

27:49>> It's

27:53uh west of

27:56>> Okay.

27:57>> There there's a figure up there. So

28:00there are homes about there the

28:02residences about 1,000 ft southwest of

28:05the general project site area.

28:08>> Okay.

28:08>> And then the senior community they are

28:10about 1,000 ft west of the uh project

28:14site area.

28:15>> Okay.

28:15>> And we did account for them in our uh

28:17localized air quality impact analyses.

28:20>> Okay. In your professional opinion,

28:24this is obviously a heavily developed

28:26area. Rosedale is significantly

28:29developed that Walmart's been there for

28:30ages and it's it's a big pride stone of

28:33Bakersfield and when Bakersfield started

28:35out to be at least in my uh young

28:37career. Um

28:40this development looks like it's

28:42offering the same amount of resources

28:44and the same amount of impacts or or

28:46whatever it may be in terms of nearby

28:49developments and adjacent developments

28:51and parallel developments. Is there

28:52anything that this development is doing

28:56different from an environmental

28:57perspective whether it be air or any of

28:59the chapters of the EI that any nearby

29:02development is not doing that's already

29:04existing.

29:07So we did find you know for the impacts

29:10that we did identify you know we did you

29:13know we do identify or implement uh

29:15mitigation measures to to address any

29:18impacts that may be exceeding for air

29:21quality. Uh for construction, we did

29:24both a regional impact analysis and more

29:26importantly, we also did a a localized

29:28impact analysis. And we did find that um

29:32the project would result in not

29:36exceeding the relevant air district uh

29:39significance thresholds for

29:40construction.

29:41>> Okay.

29:41>> For Oh, go ahead.

29:43>> Go ahead. For operation, we did find and

29:48we again for operation we also uh

29:51conducted a a regional air quality

29:53impact for operations and also a

29:55localized impact analysis. And for the

29:58localized impact analysis, we did uh

30:02account for and look at the the nearest

30:05sensitive receptors which does include

30:08the the senior community u and also the

30:12residential community southwest of the

30:13project site. And while we did find some

30:16exceedences, we did include mitigation

30:19measures that would mitigate the

30:22exceedences to below the thresholds.

30:24>> Below the thresholds.

30:25>> Yes.

30:26>> Okay. Um, last question and this might

30:29be a joint question. In your

30:31professional opinion, this development

30:34is offering based off of the mitigation

30:36measures and the specifics listed in the

30:39EIR

30:40more mitigation measures that a

30:42development for example when the

30:44northern side when the whole Walmart

30:45area was developed is offering more of

30:47an environmental acknowledgement and

30:50awareness of how it's developing based

30:53off of the surrounding areas when they

30:54were developed.

30:57Okay, I can't speak to that

30:59environmental um whether it was an ER

31:02and M andd, but what I can assure you is

31:05this ER was very thoroughly done.

31:08Numerous tech reports including a health

31:10risk assessment for construction,

31:12numerous mitigations for uh air quality,

31:16cultural bio and uh GHG. So I think this

31:22is very thoroughly done and I think

31:24we're we've mitigated as much as we can

31:27and it's very thoroughly done.

31:30That's it for my questions. Thank you so

31:32much.

31:42Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who

31:45wishes to provide a rebuttal on this

31:47item? If so, please be prepared to step

31:49to the podium. Each side will only have

31:51five minutes, so make your comment

31:53succinctly without repeating the remarks

31:55of previous speakers to ensure that

31:57everyone wishing to provide a rebuttal

31:59comment has the chance to do so.

32:03Anybody in opposition or favor first,

32:06Vinnie?

32:08>> Since opposition went last, it would be

32:11those in favor first.

32:12>> Okay, so those in favor first. Do we

32:14have any speakers?

32:18those in opposition. Sorry.

32:26>> Uh thank you for the opportunity to uh

32:28provide a rebuttal. I just provide some

32:30context for uh some some of the things

32:32we've heard from the technical experts.

32:35Uh please note uh I don't think anyone

32:38has has claimed that there was an

32:40operational health risk analysis done

32:43for the uh senior citizens right next

32:46door to this project. This is a critical

32:49emission here. Uh the city still lacks

32:52any sort of substantial evidence to

32:53conclude that health risks from

32:56operations of this project. You know,

32:58setting aside the construction impact

33:00operations, whether those would result

33:02in excess cancer risks over the

33:05significance thresholds. The

33:07significance threshold is if the

33:09incremental cancer risk from exposure uh

33:12to pollutants from this project would be

33:14uh over 20 in a million. There's no

33:17evidence in the EIR that demonstrates

33:20that this would be the case. The

33:22entirety of the city's analysis here is

33:24that they looked at the number of trucks

33:26and or and overall vehicles generated by

33:29this project which is uh I think it's

33:31like 5600 a day and they said that is

33:34less than a freeway which is 100,000 or

33:38a rural road with 50,000 and it's not a

33:41warehouse therefore there are no

33:42significant impacts. This is a very uh

33:45back of the you know envelope kind of uh

33:49heruristic that just simply doesn't

33:51reflect the fact that this is a an

33:52extraordinarily sensitive group of

33:54people located right next to the

33:57project. Uh so that's my first point on

34:01um uh biological resources. uh the

34:06question of whether an EIR has to be

34:08recirculated is actually completely

34:09independent of whether the applicant is

34:12saying that they fully mitigated and

34:14fully analyzed the impact. The SE the

34:17requirement under SQA is that has the

34:20public had a chance to review the new

34:22mitigation has had the public had a

34:25chance to see what are the new claims

34:27being made about the wildlife that could

34:30now inhabit and forage on this site. uh

34:33that simply hasn't happened here. So,

34:35it's uh it's basically black letter law

34:38that when there's a significant new

34:40information about a potentially

34:42significant impact and new mitigation

34:44that's uh designed to address that, this

34:47is a this requires recirculation. So,

34:51I'm not going to uh go into too much

34:53detail on the rest, but I I would love

34:56to entertain any questions you have on

34:58on some of our some of my comments. Sir,

35:01can you please state your name for the

35:02record?

35:03>> Oh, yeah. [laughter] Uh, my name is

35:04Aydah Marshall and I'm speaking on

35:06behalf of Care California.

35:12>> Right now is not the time for questions,

35:14just rebuttal comments.

35:16>> Okay. Well, that's all for me. Thanks

35:18for your time.

35:18>> Thank you.

35:22>> Any other speakers in opposition?

35:28I will now close the public hearing on

35:30the item and return it to the commission

35:32for comment and action.

35:52>> Yeah, just just comment. Okay.

35:56Yeah, thank you everyone for coming out

35:58for this today. I think you know uh I

36:01appreciate Mr. Thornton, you know, your

36:03willingness to work with local folks and

36:05hire and I hopefully that I appreciate

36:08the iron workers coming out here too.

36:09That's important. Um, you know, this is

36:12a great project. We need the jobs and uh

36:15so I'm in support of it. It's fantastic.

36:18So I'd like to hear what my colleagues

36:19say, but with that I would motion once

36:21we hear from my colleagues to support

36:31All right, Commissioner Bar.

36:32>> Thank you, Chair. Um, I likewise would

36:35like to thank everybody here who's um in

36:40either opposition or support of this

36:42project. I think uh the the comments and

36:45the dialogue is very important. Um, and

36:47I would like to acknowledge, you know,

36:49uh, the iron workers and and and, you

36:52know, just, uh, the understanding of

36:54that and and and Mr. Ada's side, excuse

36:56me if I mispronounce that. Uh, I

36:58completely acknowledge that. I I

37:00understand it. And and likewise on on

37:02the support side, I think, um, uh, I

37:05think there's been a really good

37:06dialogue here. Uh, I would just like to

37:08mention, you know, I see that this is a

37:10um, 2023 permit. If uh

37:14anybody's had uh work with a per with

37:16with the city of Bakersfield, you'll

37:18notice that the 23 referenced to 2023.

37:21Uh that's when it was submitted. And

37:23just based off my understanding of uh

37:25how this process works. Um uh the

37:28developers went through their process.

37:29They got their uh comments back and

37:32we're here in 2026 and they did their uh

37:36measures, they did their investigations.

37:38And I've said this before and I'll say

37:39it again is when here at this um stage

37:43where we're at is we look at the

37:45evidence in front of us and we listen to

37:47the professionals and and when it comes

37:49to ER and mitigation efforts we ask the

37:52questions that they hey did a

37:54professional look at this uh when you go

37:56to a doctor I mean when you're sick you

37:58go to a doctor when you're in trouble

37:59you go to a lawyer and and if the

38:01doctors and lawyer sign off I think uh I

38:03think it goes to a test of what a great

38:05project this is um and I I think um

38:08especially with the city support um and

38:11and and the developer coming forth and

38:13offering uh this great project and and

38:15saying they're going to come in here and

38:16spend this amount of money. I think that

38:18needs to be acknowledged to a

38:19significant extent. Um um at the same

38:22time, I I will acknowledge uh uh the

38:24opposition and and understand um that

38:27perspective. I just think in this uh

38:28specific uh uh example um with the with

38:32the willingness to work with the local

38:34area in the in city of Bakersfield and

38:38just um the beauty that what this is

38:42going to be and the renderings that we

38:44saw I think for anybody who's lived in

38:45Bakersfield I think no matter which side

38:48you are I think you would be happy to

38:49see our city grow. Um and I just would

38:53like to attest to that. So I appreciate

38:55everyone who's here. Thank you.

38:58Commissioner Brandt Oliver.

39:01>> Yes. Um those are great comments. Um I I

39:05echo a lot of that. Um, I just have a

39:08couple of thoughts as I sit down to to

39:11do my job today and and we, you know,

39:14the document we were tasked to review is

39:17a huge document and I'm sure you know it

39:19it obviously took years um to create and

39:24many many many consultants um doing the

39:27work on that. And I just wanted to make

39:30one comment to the opposition that, you

39:32know, we would love to get letters like

39:35you presented us a little earlier for us

39:37to review with a little bit more um

39:40time. So, I just encourage you to

39:42possibly work on those farther ahead of

39:46time. But I do appreciate that our city

39:48reacted so quickly to it and has

39:51[clears throat]

39:52identified very clearly um in the

39:57resolution the changes um that they will

40:00be uh requiring the developer to um and

40:03I'm sure that the developer is more than

40:05happy to um work with CDFW if something

40:09god forbid you know go wrong during the

40:11construction of the project. But um so

40:15anyway, I just wanted to say that um

40:17those are my comments and I definitely

40:19support the project. I am excited. I

40:21live very close to the project and um

40:24looking at the PG& plant eyesore for

40:27many many years and I was even there the

40:30day they blew it up and um so I'm just

40:33really excited to see that corner um

40:36grow and and I just appreciate this

40:39developer coming to Bakersfield um from

40:42uh down south and their projects down

40:44south are very very beautiful and and I

40:47think this will be a wonderful addition

40:49to Bakersfield and I definitely

40:51definitely want to encourage the

40:52developer to use the subcontractors here

40:54because we have a great um pool of

40:57craftsmen here. So, um thank you.

41:02>> All right, last but not least, ditto to

41:05my commissioners. You know, this is an

41:07exciting project. It's a vacant land

41:08that has sat there empty for many, many

41:10years. There's been lots of talks, but

41:12we haven't seen a lot of motion on it. I

41:15agree that we need to use local

41:17workforce as much as possible. Being a

41:19local business owner, I encourage it to

41:21everybody. It's better to to go local.

41:23You get better quality and

41:24craftsmanship. So, anywhere you can,

41:26please go local. But at the same time,

41:28when we're using private dollars, it's

41:30their decision how to spend their money.

41:32There are laws when it comes to public

41:34funds and the way that we build

41:35publicly, which is great for our local

41:38um unions, but when it's private

41:39dollars, I do believe it falls on the

41:41the property owner to do that. So, I'm

41:43excited to see this infill site and I

41:45hope to get some um votes from my

41:47commissioners.

41:49Can I get a motion on this project?

41:51>> I'll motion.

41:55>> I'll second.

42:05>> And just to clarify, it's a motion to

42:07>> That's what I was just going to say.

42:08Okay. I'm just going to clarify this a

42:09little bit better here. Um, may I get a

42:12motion to adopt staff's recommendation

42:14on the non-consent public hearing items

42:16not removed, incorporating all Oh, wait.

42:21Yeah, no, I'm right. Sorry. Uh,

42:22incorporating uh revised staff

42:25recommendations to

42:28>> so moved, Madam Chair.

42:29>> All right. Commissioner Martin,

42:31>> I second.

42:32>> Commissioner Bar, please cast your

42:34votes.

42:47Motion passes with Commissioner

42:49Strickland Core Cater absent.

42:53Madame clerk, next item, please.

42:55>> Agenda item seven, communications.

42:58>> Does any staff have any communication

43:00items?

43:02>> We will be having an October 15th

43:05meeting. So, we'll see you then. Thank

43:07you,

43:08>> madame clerk. Next item, please.

43:10>> Agenda item eight, commissioner

43:11comments.

43:12>> Does any commissioner have any comments?

43:17>> Madame clerk, next item, please.

43:20>> Agenda item nine, adjournment.

43:23>> This meeting is adjourned at 6:14 p.m.

43:47>> [music]