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's my pleasure to call to order the 09/18/2025 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? Here. Commissioner Martin? Commissioner Neal?

Madam clerk, next item, please.

Pledge of allegiance.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to

the republic for which it

stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Item number 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're here for nonconsent public hearing item six a, now is not the time to speak. You'll be given an opportunity to speak at a later time.

And I believe we do have to go on record and say that commissioner Martin arrived at 05:31PM.

Thank you. And 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 of said items unless staff or commissioner requests specific items to be discussed and or removed for separate action. May I get a motion approving consent items four a?

So moved.

Commissioner Brent Oliver?

I'll second.

Commissioner Core? Commissioners, please cast your vote.

Motion passes with commissioner Neil absent.

Thank you. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item five, consent calendar public hearing items.

Now is the time for consent calendar public hearing items. If an item is not removed by 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 nonconsent 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?

Seeing none, does any commissioner or staff wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? Seeing none, at this time, the consent calendar public hearing items not removed are now closed. May I get a motion to adopt staff recommendation on the consent public hearing items not removed incorporating all staff memoranda and revised staff recommendations?

So moved, mister chairman.

Commissioner Martin?

I'll second that.

Vice chair Biddle. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes.

Thank you. And just for the record, commissioner Neil arrived at 05:35PM. 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 first give a report, then those in favor of the project will be allowed to speak. Then those in opposition to the project will be allowed 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 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 any previous speaker and presenting any new comments in a thoughtful and concise way. Mister Nino or designee

Before we begin, I'd just like to state Yes, sir. I have a conflict of interest to the source of income, we'll be leaving the hearing.

Thank you, commissioner Cater.

Good evening, chair Strickland, plan commissioners, and members of the public. In addition to the staff report packet you received, you were also provided two memorandums transmitting additional correspondence. Memo number one transmitted, one, a declaration for from Alan DeStefani and two, a letter from the law office of Brandon Martin in response to a comment letter received from the law office of Lizzou Drury, and memo number two transmitted revisions to the resolutions being considered tonight. I will now introduce miss Ashley Knight, assistant planner, who will give tonight's staff report presentation.

Good evening, chair Strickland, members the planning commission, and members of the public. My name is Ashley Knight, assistant planner with the city of Bakersfield's development services department, planning division. Item agenda item six a is a general plan amendment and Williamson Act contract cancellation. The applicant is NextGen Engineering Group Inc, representing property owner or development two, LLC. The project site is located on the North Side Of McCutcheon Road at Mountain Vista Road.

The project consists of two continuous undeveloped parcels that were historically used for agricultural purposes but have been fallow for more than a decade. Surrounding properties include existing single family residential neighborhoods to the North and East, agricultural uses to the South, and vacant lands to the West. The existing zoning for the parcels is R1 single unit dwelling zone. However, the existing general plan use land use general plan land use designation is RIA resource intensive agriculture, which is currently inconsistent with the parcel's zoning. The general plan amendment would change the land use designation of approximately 28.9 acres from RIA to LMR, low medium residential.

The request is also to cancel the existing Williamson Act land use contract and exclude the site from the Kern County Of Kern's Agricultural Preserve Number 10. Approval of the general plan amendment would allow for the proposed development of a 147 single family residential lots, which is consistent with the LMR designation. In addition to the residential units, Mountain Vista Drive will be extended through the project site to connect McCutcheon Road to Panama Lane, improving circulation in the area and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Specifically, the re Williamson Act contract in agricultural preserve. The project site is bound by a Williamson Act land use contract recorded in 1969 and included within Agricultural Preserve Number 10.

The property owner has requested cancellation of the contract in accordance with government code section one five two eight two c under findings that the cancellation is in the public interest. Here, other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act, such as the extension of Mountain Vista Road, a Collector Street to McCutcheon Road through Pan to through all the way to Panama Lane. Also, the project would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. Supporting documentation, including the declaration from a former lessee, demonstrates that the land has not been actively farmed for over ten years, that the groundwater constraints preclude a viable return to agricultural production. These factors, together with the city's need for housing, housing consistent with regional growth strategies, provides substantial evidence to support cancellation and exclusion from the preserve.

An initial study was prepared and a mitigated negative declaration was circulated where it was determined with the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Four comments were received, which have been addressed in the staff report. The project the project followed a public notice public notice requirements, And to date, the city has received no public comment letters in opposition during the public notification, review period. One response was received and is included in the memorandum you received today. Staff recommends your commission approve the resolutions, adopt the mitigated direct negative declaration, the general plan amendment number 21Dash0420, the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract number 25Dash0001, and the exclusion of the 28.91 acres from the agricultural preserve number 10 and recommend the same to city council.

The applicant is present this evening and available to answer any questions. This concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Knight. The public hearing 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.

Good morning, chair Strickland, vice chair Biddle and the rest of the planning commission and staff. Thank you very much. My name is Brandon Martin. It's spelled b r a n d o n m a r t I n. This is another project via Keith Gardner who's done many great development projects in the city of Bakersfield and I'm continuing to be proud to represent him.

And we only have one opponent this evening, and that is the jury firm from Oakland. They're here under the acronym SAFR. You'll note on their web page that they represent labor unions and there's a thing about CEQA. It's supposed to be a law that's intended to protect the environment. If a challenge goes beyond that for a purpose other than protecting the environment I'm not going to say it's unethical, but it's definitely something you can't collect attorney's fees for.

And it wreaks havoc on our system because you need sincere arguments about what impacts the environment and what doesn't, not a kind of mechanism for getting to a negotiating table to try to get somebody to pay for a prevailing wage or something else. Those economic concerns are things that the developer does have to worry about, but we need to be transparent about why we make opposition to projects and why we don't. This is a drastically environmentally superior project than when it was first proposed. It was proposed for over a thousand acres of homes. It's been reduced to only 28.991 acres.

The city is absolutely right. I I'm In terms of reducing vehicle miles traveled and the kind of bandwidth problems we have on our roads, this is what you want to see because we need to have that connection from Mountain Vista through, and that's what one of the features of this project. Keith is going to pay for that. And that's a good condition that we fully accept. What we're trying to do here is just make the general plan reflect the nature of reality here.

As you look on the map, we have houses surrounding our property, and then we have undeveloped land that's been bulldozed for future projects that are going to be of a similar land use. We are already zoned residential. We just need the general plan to reflect where the path of development has already taken this area of our city. I'd like to reserve the remaining amount of my time for an opportunity to rebut, if necessary. Oh, and also, I'm not the applicant. The applicant is Macintosh and Engineering and Associates, and we have Sean here to answer any of your questions, especially more technical questions about the project.

Thank you, mister Martin. And there is rebuttal on each side that is timed, so I appreciate that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project?

Good evening. My name is Sean Reed. I'm with Macintosh Associates or or NewGen. We also go by. And the only thing I wanted to expand on what Brandon had talked about is this map up here is is a little bit deceiving only in that where the project is located there.

Almost looks like it's out on the fringe of the of the city, but if you were to look at a more current aerial, there's currently grading going on on the just to the north where it looks like it's vacant and also on the west side of it. So the only thing that's really left immediately adjacent to the project would be to the south. So other than that, this project would be very similar to the other residential developments that are going on in the area. And as we all know that we're we're short on housing and and this project would help help work towards that goal of getting more housing for people. Thank you.

Thank you, mister Reid. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step to the mic, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Trace Persiado from Lazojuri, and I'm speaking on behalf of supporters of Yance.

Give your name and and

I'm sorry?

Provide your name into the mic.

Is this clear? Yeah.

I think you just missed your name.

I'm sorry. My name is Chase Persiado.

Sorry about that, mister Preciado. Go ahead.

No problem. My name is Chase Preciado from Lizzo jury, and I'm speaking on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility or SAFR. We submitted written comments to the Commission yesterday. SAFR respectfully requests that the Commission deny approval of the MND. Under CEQA, if there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that a project may cause significant environmental impact, and EIR is acquired.

Here, substantial expert evidence demonstrates significant impacts in at least four areas. First, agriculture. The project would permanently convert nearly 29 acres of prime farmland to residential use. The city's own general plan EIR found such conversion significant and unavoidable, yet the MND fails to adequately analyze direct and cumulative agricultural impacts. Paying a Williamson Act cancellation fee does not mitigate the permanent loss of farmland.

Second, traffic and vehicle miles traveled. Expert Norman Marshall found that the project will exceed state VMT thresholds by more than 37%. The proposed measures, EV readiness, bike and pedestrian improvements, and a transportation fee would reduce less than 2% of VMT, far short of the 27% reduction required. Third, air quality and health risks. Experts at SWAPE concluded that the MND underestimates emissions and ignores toxic diesel particulates.

Without a construction health risk assessment, the city cannot claim impacts will be less than significant. Fourth, hazards and indoor air quality. DTSC and SWAPE identify potential pesticide residues in soils on the project site that have not been adequately analyzed. In addition, expert Francis Offerman found that the project would expose future residents to cancer causing levels of formaldehyde from building materials exceeding air district thresholds. In short, the record contains overwhelming evidence of potentially significant impacts.

CEQA requires an EIR to fully analyze these issues, evaluate alternatives, and adopt effective mitigation. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the commission to deny approval of the MND and require preparation of an EIR. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Parciato. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. Alright. Seeing none, does any commissioner have questions for the public on this item? Remember, now is not the time to express opinions on the matter. It is only time to ask questions. I don't have a request to speak list for some reason, so old fashioned hand raising. Commissioner Martin.

Thank you, mister chairman. My first question is just for for Macintosh engineering. For Sean, if if you could come up. He said one. So mister Martin indicated that this this project originally started at a thousand acres and was produced to to 30 acres. Can you tell me why that was?

Rookie, would you help out on that? I don't have the background on that.

Well, for clarification, the 1,000 acres was a project that was Old River Ranch Yeah. Back in 2005, 2006. So that has been developed. Right. So this portion, that original project created some art outparcels, and these these are two of those outparcels that remained, and they were not included in the scope of the original EIR. And so that original project was over a thousand acres, and this is only the 20 acres that remains for these two outparcels.

Right. Okay. Because I was just going, this doesn't look like there's that much space in between.

Okay.

And I guess that is that is my my only question to you, sir. Thank you very much. Right. And then I do have a question, I guess, for for staff. Do I need to wait on that, mister chairman?

No. This is public interest. Go ahead.

Yeah. So there's been no farming on this land for ten years. Is is that correct?

There was a ad conversion study, and that's what it shows more than ten years.

And there's no active oil wells on this property?

We did not receive any information that there's oil wells on this property.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you, commissioner Martin. Commissioner Core.

Question to the staff. Why are we not requiring, requiring the environmental impact report on the project?

There was an EIR that was previously done, but because this project was not part of that project scope, we determined that a mitigate negative or initial study was the route to to pursue. So we did request for studies to be prepared for this project, and it was found based on those studies and initial study that EIR was not required. So based on the evidence that staff reviewed and analyzed, that was our determination that M and D was appropriate.

Okay. And then and then in the previous report, this parcel was covered or it was not?

It was not covered.

Okay.

Oh, sorry. So in the the letter of the mitigated negative declaration, they're saying there might my computer stuck. Sorry. That it might we might require it. Trying to go to the page where I read that. I am on page 10 of the negative declaration. Last bullet point, I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. So are we going to require the study?

So are we looking under environmental determinations and that one box is checked off? That one indicates that a mitigated negative declaration will be prepared, if that's the correct one I'm looking at.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner Core. I just had one question for staff, and it's not really to this project, but, how many, offhand does the city keep track of how many Williamson, cancellations we've done for the city? Is that a metric tracked at all?

That question came up in the office, and recently, we have not done, any Winsman cancellations. There are some other properties in the area that were part there are other outparcels, and we're gonna keep looking at those. But not until the property owner decides not to farm it anymore will we get a request from that parcel owner. But, though, we haven't seen cancellation in quite a while.

Okay. Yeah. I was gonna say, I don't think I've seen one in four years that I've been tracking. So alright. Thank you. Alright. Seeing no other commissioner questions, is there anyone who wishes to provide a rebuttal on this item? If so, please be prepared to step to the podium. Each side will have only five minutes and make your comments succinctly without repeating remarks to ensure that everyone wishing to provide a rebuttal has had a chance to do so. And I believe, yep, in favor starts first. So give us one second to get the clock started. Alright. Go ahead.

I don't think I'll need all five minutes. This again is Brandon Martin representing the applicant. Just to to make clear sort of the process for commissioner Carr of what it seems like from the developer's perspective and the choice of whether we do a mitigated negative deck or a full environmental impact report. We essentially submit an application to the city. The city takes the city planning staff take a look at what they would need in terms of potential impacts from us, send us a letter saying, will you do these studies?

At that point, we can fight and say, no. We're cheap. We don't wanna do these studies. We don't care about the environment. Some developers do that. We did not. We prepared all the study studies that the city asked us to. And those studies found that we could do a full mitigation of our environmental impacts. So we then presented the results of those cities in a doc of those studies in a in a document called the mitigated negative declaration. We can't do that unless we have, substantial evidence supporting that the mitigation does serve the environment, but we believe we have that in the record.

And that's probably our fundamental distinction or difference with the SAFR team in back of me. There's one point in particular I'd I'd like to just focus on in terms of what SAFR has said or the jury law firm has said, which is their concern with the impact on ag land preservation. Ag land preservation is something that's important to me. It's something that's important to Keith Gardner, who the developer is also a very prominent farmer in our community and one who's been active in terms of agland preservation for many years as a sort of a thought leader, I would suppose, I could say. But this project is point o o 4% of active ag land in Kern County.

I'm not saying that's de minimis, but it's a very, very small portion of the ag land that we have here in our county.

More

importantly, what the jury firm has done is they've taken one aspect of what makes for good ag land and focused on it entirely. So they pointed out that there are good quality soils on this land. That's true. And especially before Sigma and the way we look at groundwater and so forth use in our county changed a while ago, five, ten years ago, this might have been what you would call good Agland. It certainly probably was in nineteen sixty something when the Agland contract was entered into.

But now, you'll be you have as a well on the northern portion of the property. It would be very groundwater intensive to try to feed this. It's just, not planned for under our our conservation planning under Sigma, and it just doesn't make sense to do it. That's why we have a declaration explaining further in the record from the person who was the last person to farm it or or lease it, explaining that, you know, on paper, it may have great soil, but it's not ag land. And that's why the conservation cancellation the contract cancellation is appropriate.

There were some other issues that were brought up by the jury firm involving building materials, some of which we just factually differ. We believe we're in compliance with the the air quality control standards from the San Joaquin Air Quality Control District and so forth. Those are some of those concerns are concerns that we don't have local thresholds to prepare environmental documents off of. If that's something that you and the city council wish to implement as part of the process in your general planning for the future, certainly do so. But it's very unfair to ask our client or shoot down our development prospects for not picking a threshold of significance and a standard of of environmental protection and so forth against ourselves in order to kind of do speculative environmental planning that projects in the city of Bakersfield simply don't, as a routine practice, do.

If we did such a thing, and again, we don't agree that there were that these impacts are real, but if we did such a thing, I can guarantee you what would happen is that is that the jury firm would be here papering us saying that we chose the wrong method and we'd be in the same place. So I'm not making light of the fact that there are air quality concerns. I believe we've complied with our air quality control district. And if you wish to deal with them, not by penalizing our individual project, but through overall legislative planning and a general planning could

you wrap up your comments in a synced manner?

I'll just say thank you very much for the commission.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. I will now I think we'll restart the clock for rebuttal in opposition. Is there anyone who would like to provide rebuttal comments in opposition to the project? Seeing none, I'm gonna ask the city attorney. Can we take a quick recess? Just or do we wanna close the public comment then recess?

Yeah. I would recommend you close the public hearing, and then we can take a short recess.

Okay. Seeing no more rebuttals, I will now close the public hearing on the item and return it to commission for comment and action, and we will take a brief recess. I don't know if there's official verbiage to say we're back from recess, but we are back from recess. We left this off on returned to commissioner for comment and action. So, do I have comment or action from the commission?

Good. Commissioner vice vice chair Biddle.

Alright. Appreciate everybody coming out for these projects. It's really important that we have these discussions. Our housing element really tells us that we need this housing. And when you look at what the track looks like right now, it fits into this area, into this neighborhood quite well. So I don't know if anybody else has anything to say, but I'd like to make a motion to approve the project.

I believe we'll hold the motion for a second. Commissioner Martin?

Yeah. I was just gonna essentially second that. You have nearly a thousand acres surrounding this. We just went through the housing plan. Right? We need we need housing. This this is this is great. And so that's my comments. I'd second that unless anyone else has something to say.

Seeing none, I'll take that, motion from vice chair Biddle to

Approve.

Approve and then seconded 6¢. Got it.

6¢.

Thank you. Can we vote abstain for Cater?

No. Actually, when he's recused, he's, absent from the from this portion of the meeting. No. It shouldn't. I can't speak for the technology, but yeah.

Motion passes with commissioner Cato Racusi.

Thank you, madam clerk. Mister Nino, will you please read the appeal instructions? Or or city attorney, either one.

No. I was just going to say, now that you've taken the vote, I do you usually read the appeal? We just have to remember to bring mister Cater back before we keep going.

Yeah. I think appeal, and then we bring him

back. Okay.

I'll read the appeal instructions. 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 this commission's decision. Your appeal must be must state the reason for the appeal and your relation to the project. There may be a filing fee required.

Thank you, sir. And I think he can hear us right, but I'll go get him. Oh, yeah. Never. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Alright. Thank you for that. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item seven, communications.

Does staff have any communication items?

Trustee Clinton, I have one item to report on. The next regular scheduled plan commission meeting is on October 2. This is all I have to report.

Thank you. Madam clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item eight, commissioner comments.

Does any commissioner have any comments? Commissioner Neal?

Yes. I just wanna note that I I will be here October 2, but not the week following. I'll be out of town for work. I'm at the next one after that. So just a heads up in case something in like, that needs a quorum. Everything needs a quorum, but something big is on that one to collect the quorum beforehand.

Thank you. And in the same vein, train of thought, I will be out next week or next meeting. So October 2, I will not be in attendance. Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item nine, adjournment.

This meeting is adjourned at 06:07PM.