Bakersfield planning commission forwards ordinance changes to implement certified housing element amid debate

Planning staff recommended and the Bakersfield Planning Commission voted 4-2 on April 2 to forward a package of ordinance amendments designed to implement the city's certified housing element.

The amendments, presented by Mr. Burns of planning staff and VD King of the city attorney's office, codify numerous state statutory requirements into the city's municipal code (Title 17). Burns summarized the work as identifying "25 amendments," of which "13 have already been taken care of" and a "net of 12 amendments" remain for the commission's recommendation. VD King told the commission the city's housing element had been found in substantial compliance by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and that staff considers the city "100% in compliance."

Why it matters: The ordinance amendments translate state laws into local zoning rules. They include implementing SB9 lot-split provisions (allowing certain splits and additional dwellings on single-family lots), SB35 streamlining for qualifying affordable infill projects, definitions and rules for vacant-site inventory, codification of lead-hazard inspection authority and other health-and-safety code standards, allowance for mobile/manufactured homes to count in single-family unit totals, by-right allowances for certain emergency shelters and navigation centers in residentially permitted commercial zones, and allowing some large community care facilities by right in specified zones. Staff also proposed removing parking requirements for qualifying affordable multifamily projects within a half-mile of transit.

What speakers said: Burns told the commission the package mostly "codif[ies] many state statutes" and that the changes are intended to bring the municipal code into alignment with state law and the city's housing element commitments. VD King said that HCD had found the housing element substantially compliant in November 2025 and that moving forward with the ordinance is part of implementing the element; she added that HCD has enforcement tools, including litigation or withholding funding, if required actions are not implemented.

Commissioners pressed staff for specifics. Commissioner Martin asked for the definition and scope of the proposed language in BMC Section 8.27.02 about inspections following tenant complaints of lead hazard or "substandard conditions." Staff replied that those terms map to health-and-safety and housing-code sections (e.g., sanitation, dilapidated roofs, lack of hot water or cooking facilities), that the city's code-enforcement process will continue to handle most complaints, and that specialized testing (such as lead sampling) would likely be contracted to certified inspectors.

Several commissioners focused on community care facilities and by-right changes. Commissioners asked whether allowing a community care facility with seven or more beds by right removes the commission's ability to review projects through conditional use permits; staff responded that such proposals would no longer require a CUP before the commission but would still be subject to applicable building and fire codes and state licensing requirements. Commissioners expressed concern that neighborhoods could see larger, higher-occupancy facilities without local land-use review, and noted potential impacts on emergency services and neighborhood character.

Commissioners also raised questions about SB9-style lot splits, including whether multiple sequential splits could effectively densify lots over time and whether state law establishes minimum lot sizes to prevent serial subdividing; staff said they would need to research those questions in greater detail rather than answer off the cuff.

The vote: Vice Chair Bidd moved to approve staff's recommendation and forward the ordinance amendments to city council; the motion passed with Vice Chair Bidd and two other commissioners voting in favor, and Commissioners Brandt Oliver and Martin voting no. The record shows one prior consent vote at the start of the meeting (consent calendar item 4A) passed with one abstention and one commissioner absent from that vote.

What happens next: Because the changes are intended to implement the certified housing element, staff said forwarding the ordinances to city council is the step toward satisfying HCD requirements and avoiding enforcement actions. Commissioners who opposed the package urged continued pursuit of local tools and increased public engagement with state legislators about housing mandates.

The planning commission closed the public hearing with no members of the public speaking and adjourned at 6:28 p.m.