Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. music music Thank you. music music

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 7 p.m. and Sunday at 10 a.m. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersfieldcity.us. presiding over this evening's meeting, Chair Cassie Biddle.

It is my pleasure to call to order the July 16th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair Biddle? Here. Vice Chair Martin? Commissioner Strickland?

Here.

Commissioner Brandt-Oliver?

Here.

Commissioner Kaur?

Here.

Commissioner Cater?

Here.

Commissioner Brar?

Here.

Madam Clerk, next item, please. Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Thank you for attending tonight's planning commission meeting. This commission provides an opportunity for public participation in the development process throughout the city of Bakersfield. The planning commission considers a wide variety of projects, including subdivision maps, zone changes, general plan amendments, and more. When the applications are received, the city planning division analyzes the request. Planning staff will present the facts about the project along with their recommendation to the Planning Commission who will approve the item or make a recommendation as appropriate. Madam Clerk, next item please. 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 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. Seeing none.

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 items 6A through 6B, 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 the consent items do not require a public hearing and will be enacted by one motion if there will be no separate discussion of said items unless staff or a commissioner requests specific items to be discussed and or removed for separate action. May I get a motion approving consent item 4A?

I'll make a motion.

Commissioner Cater, can I get a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Strickland. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with Vice Chair Martin absent. Madam Clerk, next item, please. Agenda item five, consent calendar public hearing items.

Now is the time for consent calendar public hearing items. If the item is not removed by a commissioner, staff or a 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 non-consent public hearing items. At this time, I will open all consent calendar public hearing items. Does any member of the public wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? Does any commissioner or staff wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item?

Am I able to make comment, or if I make comment, I have to pull it?

Commissioner Brar, if you want to make a comment, then it has to be pulled into a regular hearing.

Okay, can I pull 5A, please?

Yes. And it'll go at, well, actually we don't have, it'll go at the end of the hearing, so it'll be 6C.

Thank you.

At this time, the consent calendar public hearing items not removed are now closed. May I get a motion to adopt staff's recommendation on the consent public hearing items not removed, incorporating all staff memorandum and revised staff recommendations?

So moved.

Commissioner Brandt-Oliver, can I get a second?

I'll second.

All right, Commissioner Kaur, please cast your votes.

Motion passes to approve item 5B with Vice Chair Martin absent. 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 want 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. 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 participating in the hearing by not repeating the remarks of previous speakers and presenting any new comments or thoughts in a concise and clear way. Ms. Ng, would you please provide us with your staff report?

I'd like to introduce Veronica Martinez, staff planner.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Veronica Martinez, associate planner with the Development Services Department. I'm here to present agenda item 6A. Item 6A on the agenda is a request to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve vesting tentative track map 7427 for a proposed project located at the southwest corner of Chase Avenue and Daytona Drive. The applicant, LAV Pinnacle Engineering, representing the property owners Lout, Brookshire, LLC, plan to subdivide 21.54 acres into 77 single-family residential lots and one sump in the R1 zone. The residential lots will range in size from 6,600 square feet to 10,818 square feet, with a typical lot size of approximately 60 feet wide by 110 feet deep, or 6,600 square feet. Access to the subdivision will be provided from Daytona Drive on the east boundary. Staff has reviewed the development for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. An initial study found that with mitigation measures for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and traffic, there would be no significant environmental impacts. The mitigated negative declaration was made available for a 30-day public review. Notifications were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius and published in the local newspaper. Staff also received written feedback, which was addressed in the staff report. At the May 21, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission referred the project back to staff to allow the applicant an opportunity to further evaluate whether the vegetation identified by the Sierra Club as a potential riparian forest habitat could be incorporated into the project design or otherwise preserved. The applicant submitted additional biological information concluding that the vegetation is the result of artificial drainage and does not meet the criteria for a riparian forest or a jurisdictional wetland. The applicant is here today to respond to your questions. Staff concludes that the project complies with CEQA and is compatible with its surroundings, land use designations, and zoning. Therefore, staff recommends the Commission adopt the resolution approving the mitigated negative declaration and approve vesting tentative track map 7427. That concludes my presentation of the project. Thank you.

Thank you. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. For the record, my name is Scott Quintana, representing LaBerkshire LLC and LAV Pinnacle Engineering. We appreciate the opportunity to return before you this evening regarding Vesting Tentative Track number 7427. This proposal is straightforward. It creates 77 single-family homes on approximately 21.5 acres. The property that has already been designated for residential development under the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan is already zoned R1. This project was previously placed on a consent agenda item where it was then polled and sent back to staff due to a questioning of the impact to a potential riparian forest on the property. It was recommended that our team re-review this potential impact. We took those concerns seriously and it brought with us the environmental experts who completed that analysis to support their findings in person if necessary. The applicant for the project invested in additional scientific analysis, independent biological specialists completed supplemental field investigations, reviewed historical aerial photography, evaluated drainage patterns, and responded directly to comments submitted during the CEQA process. A supplemental drainage analysis that was part of the neighboring future track map development of which we will be submitting an application for to the city of Bakersfield in the coming weeks was also provided which provided additional context to the so-called riparian forest. The conclusion was consistent throughout those studies. The vegetation on the site does not constitute a jurisdictional wetland or protected riparian habitat. Instead, it resulted from artificial drainage conditions associated with the surrounding urban development. City staff thoroughly reviewed those findings and concluded that the mitigated negative declaration remains appropriate and fully compliant with CEQA. Every agency comment, including those from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, was addressed through the environmental review process, resulting in additional analysis and enforceable mitigation measures where appropriate. From an engineering perspective, the subdivision satisfies city development standards. Public infrastructure, utilities, drainage, circulation, and emergency access have all been reviewed by the city departments. The only requested design exception is a minor local street modification that the city engineering determined maintains public safety. Ultimately, the question before the commission is whether the project is supported by substantial evidence. City staff concluded that it is. The project is consistent with the general plan, existing zoning, complies with CEQA, and provides much needed single family housing in the area already planned for residential growth. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the commission adopt the mitigated negative deck and approve vesting tentative tract number 4727, consistent with the staff recommendation. Thank you for your consideration.

Do we have any other speakers in favor of the project? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself and proceed.

Hello, chair, commissioners, city staff, and members of the public. I am Karen Erso, and I am a member of the Sierra Club. So I would like to respond to the comments regarding the potential riparian forest habitat, which has been declared not feasible to preserve, and the mitigated negative declaration. First of all, I would like to say that the Sierra Club supports affordable housing development and does not and never has received money from developers. We are a volunteer organization that is supported by donations and public contributions from members of our community, the constituents who voted for the elected members who put you and advised you to be on the commission. So the riparian area contained in the development was found to result from artificial drainage, as we just heard, rather than naturally occurring water, although of course it is supported by obviously any rainfall that we have. But my concern is even though it has not existed naturally for eons, or it has just grown over the past few decades, it is still worth preserving as a woodland area. It could increase the value of the remaining lots. It was not said in the report how many lots would be lost. We were wondering why it could not be considered part of the sump area. And if we preserve this area, besides increasing the value of this neighborhood, we would preserve drainage that goes to other wooded areas that are below this. So by paving it over, we stop drainage not only to this larger area of trees, which you can see, and some of you had pictures that you showed at a previous commission meeting where these trees remain green during the summer and provide a cool habitat that will be lost if we simply pave it over with a street. And the restorative value in a natural area versus a concrete path across a manicured lawn or down along a street is significant. Through travel, we see natural areas that are preserved. Mr. Lane will talk about areas preserved in Bakersfield in California, but we know down in Southern California, in Orange County, in Lake Forest, in Laguna Niguel, Up in Mountain View in Northern California, the state has supported urban forestry and also preservation of woodland on the wildland-urban interface. And in fact, there are grants supporting the preservation of trees because they are part of California's Extreme Heat Action Plan and nature-based solutions for climate targets because they sequester carbon, they improve air quality, They reduce stress when people are exposed to those. They provide habitat and biodiversity. So I live in Laurel Glen. There are neither laurels nor glens in Laurel Glen. But I would love to live in a housing development. I would consider paying more for a home that had a woodland next to it, that I could go and walk maybe with my dogs when it's too hot to be on the concrete and enjoy a wooded area. So I would like this to be considered, that we preserve as many trees and woodlands as we can in our city, and also in light of the fact that there are cumulative impacts, maybe not 77 lots that would impact our air quality negatively, but you saw that there were developments all over the Northeast Bakersfield, which we do support housing, but they have a negative impact on our air quality, on habitat preservation, and on transportation. So we'd urge the commission to consider the environmental mitigations that would help us improve our environment. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioners, my name is Eddie Lane. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm with the Sierra Club. About three weeks ago, the city council, without a recommendation from the staff, put $500,000 into the city budget to plant trees. Because the city council understands that trees are, aside from the health issue, which is critical, they're a quality of life issue. Why are we adding more parks also? One of the reasons I moved here almost 40 years ago, or when I first got here, I saw the parks in southwest Bakersfield. Of course, those areas were all developed by, they were virgin land, and they were developed, trees were planted there. Now they're mature, they're beautiful. Here you have an area, small, but a beautiful area that could be preserved. Not just for the residents there, but for other people. Let me give you an example. In Kaiser Permanente, most of you have been there. It's a fancy name for it, but you know what I'm talking about. There is a sump there, which has been turned into, and it's fenced. And people walk around there. Now there are trees that are maybe 10 years old, something like that. Ducks are in the water there all the time. It's become a permanent, permanent riparian area. And people, especially children, enjoy it. You could fence that area that we're talking about here so you would not necessarily have a maintenance issue. It could be fenced and protected, both for the residents of that area and if you have a walking path around there, to come listen to the birds. Listening to birds, that really gets you into it. We get nature fixes. And you can hear not only hear the birds, but I must admit I've been there. I could hear the crickets. So preserving something that is of value aesthetically, not only aesthetically, but in terms of a quality of life issue is so important. Not only is there example at Kaiser Permanente, but along the river, when there was development there many, many years ago, there is a city path there by Rancheria Road, where people walk along there, right along the, and there are big, fancy, beautiful homes there. So as we're moving along, there are opportunities to protect beauty that we have. for the residents there as well as for other people in the community. This is an opportunity to save something that's very valuable. And we would ask that you do that. By the way, we did it with the county some years ago. There was property upstream from Lake Ming that was developable. I can't say that word. It could have been developed. It was 14 acres. And a whole bunch of us went to the county and we got it preserved. It's a preserve. Now it's a little bit different, but it's preserved. And now it's preserved for hopefully for a long, long time. But take a look at the beauty. It's a quality of life issue. It's a quality of a life issue. So we ask you consider that.

Do we have any other speakers? 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 only time to ask questions. Daniel Keeter.

My question is for staff regarding drainage sumps for tentative tract developments. I don't know who from staff would be the best. Oh, thank you, Mr. Trujillo. Does current standards allow for riparian vegetation within drainage sumps within the City of Bakersfield?

I tell you, that'd be the first time I'd see one, at least in my experience. That's not normal, not typical.

So I guess my question is, is the city policy to remove riparian vegetation when it occurs in sump? So I've definitely seen the similar species being discussed tonight growing throughout the city of Bakersfield.

At least going purely off of our standard D9, that is the specific one for the sump design, the answer would be no. There is no vegetation shown within that depiction, so this would be a deviance request. It's not a typical standard.

Thank you.

Commissioner Oliver.

My question's for the applicant or whoever's here for that. I just need clarification on, I think the overall site that the owner owns is 21 and a half acres and the part you would like to develop for the track map 7427 is the 15 acres, is that correct? So you're not developing this parcel F that's on the map, is that correct?

Would you mind bringing the map up again real quick for me?

Yeah, I need help with it. It's been a minute. Yeah, so the part closer to Kern Canyon Road with the, I think it's called parcel F, that's still owned by this, is there a reason that's not lots are not being developed on that part of the site.

Are we talking about the property to the west?

To northwest, yes, correct.

So, funny story, right? That is a different property owner.

Oh, it is a different property owner.

However, we are under contract with them to develop another application for a tentative track map of similar design. As part of that analysis, there was a, this is a long-winded story, but I'm gonna answer your question, I apologize. As part of that original analysis, the tentative track map for that particular property was already approved at one point in time, but expired. that property's map design accounted for the primary drainage that comes through there. It's recognized in the map, it's recognized by the city, and is slated to be maintained and kept as part of that track's development as undeveloped drainage design for the system. Once that happens, the track map, or the track to the northwest, as we're talking about, we're referencing here, would be developed, and then the drainage from that alleyway that you see on the map now would no longer have subsidiary drainage to either one of those areas. The drainage would be guess funneled through what would essentially be the intended drainage of the primary drainage that exists now. That was part of the approved tentative map of that development at one time when it expired the client has elected to resubmit that map as it was originally approved and designed without modification. So at least in theory, I know we can't necessarily speak about the future, but in theory that would eventually be, that drainage would remain intact as it was in that original map. So it's not that it's not being developed, it's a separate property. And it's in process.

Okay, that was my main question, is that the footprint you're showing for VTTM 7427 is this current owner's entire parcel that he owns? Yes, ma'am. That's the only thing we're looking at tonight. The reason for my question is because we're talking about could you do something else, and that's why I'm asking that question.

To answer your question, yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Commissioner Strickland.

Thank you. I have a question for the applicant as well. Sorry. I know you just sat down.

I'll just stay here.

Maybe. So just a quick question. We read your response letter dated June 23rd, I think it was. I know there's a lot of focus on the definition of riparian forests, but I think the intent of the discussion we had when we sent this back to staff was, can we look at a way to preserve the trees, not define riparian forests? We're really looking at the greenery is what we're talking about. In the response letter, it stated that it would be infeasible for the project to move forward if those trees were maintained. I didn't see anything that supported, not a calculation, but what lots would be impacted if we were trying to protect that area. Could you speak to which lots specifically? Is it 1, 2, 11, and 12 that this runs through? I have it in front of me if they want to share my screen or they can go back either way.

That sounds right. I'm looking at the general overlay here from memory, but you're probably looking to the tune of something to, depending on the boundaries of what constitutes the extents of this riparian forest, quote unquote, three to five, maybe depending on the layout, you know, possibly more. I suppose that would be the answer to your question.

Yeah, I think that's helpful. I think I'm trying to ballpark it, but it looks like lots one, two, 11 and 12. And then I guess the other question would be, could you speak to what your letter reference that the engineering team had looked at it? Could you talk to some of the strategies they may have looked at for maintaining this? Would it have turned into a Greenland of a park or would it just been fenced around? Can you talk about what? Preservation activities they may have looked at in regards to the lotting study or in regards to the biological The lotting I would say the lotting study and if we were to keep this section of trees in this map How would they have looked at preserving that I can speak to it?

I can speak to it from a from an economic perspective, I suppose. I don't know, we had a conversation about it technically, sure. For what it's worth, I would argue that what we do when it comes to lotting studies are, while technical, are not space science, right? We could redesign, I suppose. That comes at a time and a cost associated with it. This project, also has a fun story, right? It was an expired approved map at one point in time, was recreated, went through the process of approval, and then comments were provided from California Fish and Wildlife. Ultimately, we then had to embark on a pretty comprehensive biological analysis that included blunt-nosed leopard lizard surveys, amongst a litany of other items. That process took, I don't know, 12 to 18 months to do, and had a cost to it that was not insignificant. The amount of time and effort and energy that went into generating and designing this, based off of the previously approved map, was also not insignificant. the evaluation of this project from an economic basis was done so based off the lot count, the sunk capital, the timing, the cash flow design, et cetera, and it was ultimately determined that the additional cost associated with going back to square one and starting over was prohibitive from obtaining the end goal, which was economic housing for the R1 zoning development that stands now. So I guess, I don't know if that answers your question from a technical standpoint, but yeah, it was a conversation that was had as about how you navigate that process, and that essentially takes us back to the beginning of the process. So it was ultimately deemed that that would be very, it would be quite prohibitive to obtaining a successful development from a cost perspective.

Understood. And then not related to this track map, just generally speaking, since you're developing another track map in a similar fashion, I think the overall... I'm going to get into comments, so that's all I have for questions. Thank you so much.

Would you like me to sit back down?

You can for me.

Okay.

I just have a follow-up, yeah. Yes, sir. I just have a follow-up question to something that was said during Commissioner Brandt-Oliver's questions. You referred to a future parcel which is not under consideration tonight. Yes. And indicated that the development of that parcel would redirect the flow of drainage away from this site. So what is the plan right now for this current site? Should this be built without the adjacent parcel to direct water away from this apparent low spot?

Well, I would say that part of the lotting study that's done as far as the tentative map is concerned is a preliminary drainage analysis is completed and within the topography of the base map and the design of the lot layout and the retention pond or the retention pit that's shown on the map now is essentially the ideal spot for that drainage to be located.

Okay, yeah, I guess, just because in the comment you had mentioned, you know, looking at the, Madam Clerk, if you could go to the slide previously. I think, yeah, that brown swoop, if you will, is redirecting water away from the site. And if that's not there currently, has any sort of drainage that's going onto the site from adjacent parcels been studied in the drainage study?

For what it's worth, that brown swath, if you will, right, is natural as it stands right now. There's obviously different directions and avenues that you could take that, but the future track development, which I understand is not in discussion tonight, however, that drainage analysis from that project was included in the staff report. So I think we can probably speak on it, at least to some specific. That would be designed, essentially, Yes, veer that drainage that comes through what would be essentially is a covert under the road. And that is the primary drainage path flow for that system. Erosion and time, you know, as a result of water flow during, say, 10 year storms or whatever the manmade drainage system was for the general plan of the development has caused what would be that secondary or tertiary offset drainage. So the drainage design itself for the singular tract that we're talking about tonight, the retention design was optimized for that drainage analysis. The neighboring development would then incorporate what would essentially turn into Natural based canal system right for that covert which again at one point time or another was the original intention Okay, so then if we do we still have an aerial photo of the the project Just so I understand it's always hard in winter.

It's a lot easier to tell that the site in summer But I think IT could just share my screen. I've got one below. Thank you.

That's all you wouldn't mind I Sharing Commissioner Strickland's screen. IT.

We need help of tech services to show Commissioner Strickland's screen.

Thank you, Missing, yeah. So I guess the observant storage of water in the site that has produced an environment that has rendered these trees viable in the heat of summer, is that, that's largely coming from the west or is that largely coming from development in the east?

I'm sorry, say that again one more time, please.

So this area has been referred to as kind of spillover from existing development. And I'm just clarifying if the development that's existing that is causing the spillover is more northwesterly or more easterly?

Good, fair question. if you zoom out to a more expansive view, the drainage that was originally coming from there, you can see is really kind of from directly north. It comes from a culvert under the road, and as you can see, that specific area up there has been developed time and time again, and there's still some remnants, if you will, what was once existed as a natural drainage pathway, but that has since been shut off from the 178 south. So what drainage comes from the existing development that sits to the north would theoretically pass through the covert and head towards what we would call that brown swath. Once that was in place, the water really wouldn't be traveling anywhere else.

But prior to that being in place, because we're not looking at that project, we're looking at this parcel, are there mitigating grading efforts done to stop water from making its way onto the lots that

that is a question that i probably cannot answer for you specifically i couldn't answer to whether or not grading has been done um on this property specifically to divert flow that's i don't know the answer to that question sir okay thank you okay sure yeah please proceed

Blaine Neptune with McIntosh & Associates. Everything that you're looking at here is part of the Breckenridge planned drainage area. There's been a master drainage study in place for 25 years. that all this, there's about a 30 acre, 40 acre project a little south of here that'll be the Breckenridge sump. So this is all part of a Breckenridge planned drainage area. It's been studied, it's been adopted, it's in place. Every developer in this area pays into it when they record a map and it goes towards those facilities. So staff can look at the Breckenridge PDA and inform you guys a little bit more on it. But all that's been planned.

Sorry. No, excellent.

I will, excellent comments. I will just add to it as well, right? When we originally submitted the tentative map, several boxes, right, need to be checked on that preliminary analysis. And this was one of those boxes, right? Utilities, water, traffic, drainage, et cetera. All that stuff had been done on that master plan and they were very quick, you know, conformational checks that, hey, this has been evaluated. This has already been assessed. And so it kind of became something of a, a pass-through item, really.

Commissioner Burrard.

I have a question for the applicant. When was the original map approved?

Oh, gosh, 20 years ago. 20 years ago, okay. I think they had a 20-year shelf life at one point.

Those were good times.

Right?

2008. And I don't recall if it was yourself who mentioned this. As far as the riparian... I believe the term was used, it was the existing vegetation there is artificial, quote unquote.

If you wouldn't mind, I would prefer that the biologists respond to that question. He's here tonight, if you don't mind.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

Hey, good evening. Steve Pruitt, Pruitt Biological. With respect to the vegetation that presents as a riparian area that was introduced just basically from the flow that comes on the cottonwood trees, some of the other vegetation that's there wasn't introduced by planting. It just naturally occurs as stuff rolls through there and gets seeded over the past, going back to about 2008 probably is when the first growth started coming up. Does that answer your question, Commissioner?

Yes, I think there was a comment in the beginning of this that mentioned that that was, I don't know if the term was artificial, but it was.

Artificial to me, that depends on who you're looking at for definitions on that kind of thing. It wasn't artificially introduced that it was domestic say what you plant in front of your house. It was naturally occurring as that it just rolled in. It wasn't planted by anybody. Is it artificial? Those are naturally occurring plants. But they only exist as a result. It doesn't fit, like I said, the jurisdictional wetlands definitions. It doesn't fit the riparian definition. There are plants here that present, but it doesn't fit the definition of a protected habitat.

OK. And obviously, you studied this area and studied this lot. and reached out to the corrective agencies to see if anybody had comments. Nobody had comments that this would become an issue from a biological standpoint.

And my understanding is that California Department of Fish and Wildlife, United States Fish and Wildlife, everybody already commented on this before I was ever shown a letter that called that out. We did address it in our original biological resource evaluation last year and said that it does present this way, but there are other factors that just because it has vegetation that may be associated with that doesn't mean it qualifies.

OK, understood. And from your standpoint, this property owner, whether he moves forward with this or not, has every right to do whatever they want to do with that existing vegetation, whether they brush that lot off?

There are no legal restrictions, agency-wise. It is a beautiful stand, but there are no legal restrictions that prevent the applicant from moving forward.

Understood. Yeah, I acknowledge that. Just from a standpoint of the property owner, whatever is the outcome of this, they have every right to do whatever they want to do with that vegetation.

My understanding based on the law is that they have the legal standing to move forward with the project the way it's designed.

OK, thank you. I appreciate that. I have one more question for Public Works. Just want to clarify one more time, the standard detail for City of Bakersfield sumps, from my experience, I know the city doesn't deviate too much from those detailed sumps. Would not allow this type of vegetation inside of a sump?

We would definitely need to discuss this further. One of my concerns off the bat would be maintenance, because as you're aware, the city would be responsible for maintaining a public sump. So we would really need to take this into a deeper dive with our staff and see if it's something we can entertain. Like I said before, it is not per standard.

Okay, from your experience and what you've seen with the city's maintenance of sumps, based off of what you see, if this was a sump, do you, from your past experience, would you recognize that this may or may not be an issue for the city's maintenance of it?

We're gonna have to discuss that with our water resources staff. I really don't know what equipment they have on hand, if maintaining this is possible with what they currently have. It's not really a question that I can answer. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Kaur.

Actually, I think that answered my question. The maintenance, if we were to preserve this area, the maintenance financially will fall onto City of Bakersfield.

If I could, Commissioner Kaur, that's not necessarily true. That is a question that's unanswered at this point. I can tell you that for the Recreation and Parks District, who would probably maintain this in some way, they would not, they don't have the funds to. It would probably be incorporated into some sort of maintenance district process, and that is another tax burden on the payers into that area.

I just kind of have a simple question for the biologist. I'm sorry, one more time. Can you give us the definition of a riparian forest?

That would be a long statement, but yeah, it requires water movement, slow water movement that allows for growth of vegetation similar to this. But under jurisdictional wetlands, then you're looking at hydric soils. You're looking at whether or not the flow is consistent, whether or not you have regular water. It depends. The break off for all of those things though is whether or not it is as a result of introduced artificial source, and this is. So regardless of the soil types, the vegetation community, All of that really comes down to starting with, is this directly as a result of introduced human activity? And the answer to that question, the core of engineers' wetlands definition is, yes, it is.

That's all I had. Thank you.

OK.

I have one more question for biologists. Sorry. Catch you before you get too far.

That's OK.

From your experience in this area, I'm sure you're probably familiar with this area, the developments to the north and east as accessed on the existing map, at one point in time, would it have had similar vegetation as proposed on this project?

I can give you a personal answer to that question, because going back to the 1970s, I grew up about a mile just northeast of there, off of 178. The existing vegetation out there was all non-native grassland. Outside of a couple of years when they started building and developing, you do introduce water that then has these types of vegetation types. No, these did not exist up until after the 2000s when the development came in. It was non-native grassland, bromes, avena, all that from basically almost Rio Bravo. What was the golf course? Developed in 77 and View Street and the old Mesa Marin. It was grasslands all the way up and over the top onto Fairfax and then Warning Drive.

Would it be fair to interpret that based off of your comments that this had become grown, for lack of a better term, due to the adjacent developments and how maybe the adjacent developments changed how water flowed and this existing property?

That's absolutely correct. Okay. So due to the adjacent... The areas now that exist that have turned up this way with cottonwoods, you know, you get washed down, you get things coming out of the Kern Canyon area, you get birds that carry in seeds from places, drift for all the... the Fremontia that grow in that area, and all of that is as a result of the development that's occurred going back to about 1975.

Okay, so due to the development in the surrounding areas, which were obviously allowed to move forward because they're houses, this had become, again, the word's not coming to me, I'm just saying grown.

Correct.

Okay.

I understand artificial. I hope you understand my hesitance in saying it's not artificial and that it's planted by somebody. But it is an occurrence that would not occur but for the development that's grown up around that area. Understood.

Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone who wishes to provide a rebuttal on this item? If so, please be prepared to step up to the podium. Each side will only have five minutes, so make your comments succinctly without repeating the remarks of previous speakers to ensure that everyone wishing to provide rebuttal comments has a chance to do so. Do I start with in favor? Yes.

Do we have any speakers in favor of the project for rebuttal?

Seeing none, do we have any speakers in opposition?

Hello again, I'm Karen Urso with the Sierra Club. And I just wanted to mention that one thing that other neighborhoods in California have done is to provide a protected conservation easement with an HOA managed easement so that it wouldn't be a burden on taxpayers or city funds.

I will now close the public hearing on the item and return to the commission for comment and action.

Can I comment asking tech services to unshare my screen now? I've been kidnapped.

sure before we begin um i i t gods that are among us um commissioner brant oliver's screen has gone dark thank you commissioner strickland thank you i didn't realize i'd be first in the queue uh i just have a couple comments one comment i'd like to make is i think

The intent of the discussion when we sent this back to staff or referred this back to staff for assessment, I understand we've talked a lot about the definition of riparian forest versus artificial versus naturally occurring and native. I think the overall intent from the commission at the time was there are active large trees growing on this property at this point. Could we preserve those trees for... call it whatever you want, call it for the birds, call it for the public, call it for just the fact that we're slowly starting to turn around and plant trees in the city again. So I just wanna make the caveat there that I personally don't care if it's riparian versus other source. To me, it was the existence of large trees. And outside of this map set, northwest of that is a larger section of trees that I think is something I just wanna make cognizant of. that whatever we decide on this is gonna be either forced in line or it makes the next one weird because it's the same topic that's gonna come up again very shortly. I still would like to say I appreciate the applicant for coming back on this. I do have a couple comments that I think maybe there could have been a little bit more engagement between the applicant and the town or the city on some of the items we're talking about. Some design, potential saving. I think the intent of sending it back was how can we preserve the trees in a good effort? we're having discussions now on well who would manage the sump could we have done that I I just think there could have been better collaboration on that part um and then I would point out as as discussed a couple of times our city council is actively trying to plant more trees um so I just want to keep that in mind as we vote that you know removing trees or potentially eliminating sections of now naturally occurring trees is counter to that but uh with that I yield

Commissioner Berrar.

Thank you. I want to acknowledge the applicant and the opposition. I do appreciate everyone's time and commitment to their thoughts. I do just want to make note and also acknowledge the time it takes to get to this very stage of a project, the money and sheer willpower it takes to check every box the city requires. And the amount of, you know, these studies just from experience aren't cheap and not necessarily the money matters in this situation, but I feel like when you outsource studies to licensed individuals who it is their job to survey these type of things, I think it is very important we acknowledge the recommendations and and understand you know when we're sick we go to doctors when we're in trouble we go to lawyers so same thing with biologists or cultural resource studies when we seek Those studies and they make recommendations and they make points. It's very important that we also acknowledge it in that same way and not taken away from Understanding that there is a need to obviously take care of this beautiful world We live in and and do the absolute best we can whether it be here on this stage or as developers or As an activist group to to try and just do a best in a collaborative effort with that being said with the comments that this is, we keep emphasizing on this vegetation, and I just really want to hound into the fact that based off of the biologist's history and knowledge of the site, this wouldn't exist if it wasn't for sites that developed nearby. And I find it would be disadvantageous on a commission stage to, hammer down on this property owner when nearby we're allowed to move forward. So with the data showing the way it is and it won't have an impact, I just wanna make sure that's put into the record. Thank you.

Commissioner Brandt-Oliver.

Thank you. I do also agree. I'd love the both sides' comments. I'm definitely... was I think my initial thoughts on why I kicked it back was I was initially convinced that riparian meant it had been there forever. I didn't realize until now that it's something that's occurred through the drainage process got changed from the other subdivisions. So I've learned that this week. And however, I do understand that we want trees and that's the goal. So it's not, I believe you're in agreement that whether it existed 50 years ago or 20 years ago, you still want trees. My opinion though, is that I'm counting roughly through satellite map 12 to 16 trees. And if we removed, I'm thinking you're being light on how many lots would have to be removed in order to preserve that particular line. I'm thinking in the neighborhood of at least five or six lots. Even if it was only four lots, would believe that those four lots would incorporate more than two trees per lot. So I don't see us losing this many trees by keeping the tract map the way it is. So for those reasons, I would like to just give my opinion that we, and then the reasons you brought up, Commissioner Breyer as well, that I'm in favor of proceeding with the tract map the way it is.

Commissioner Cater.

So starting macro working micro, I think this track map, this strand of trees is that the, I think that's the appropriate term and how our city deals with and acknowledges how trees and riparian or strands of trees develop in our city needs to be understood at a better level. I think one of the challenges of this project is if you read through the biological studies, Fish and Wildlife recommended the contraction of a biological surveyor who provided their recommendation. They offered to be part of the ongoing conversation, they just were not taken up on that, and that is not something we as a city require. think part of the challenge of not um so basically they gave their initial comments did not provide complete comments because they were not asked and it's not in their purview one of the challenges of that is that we as a city of bakersfield do not have a currently active habitat conservation plan so it has to go to the state level so as a city as we talk about local control local appreciation local way the document that would allow us more local control when looking at habitat conservation is not active and not current. My understanding, I believe, yeah, that one is on its way and there's been work at a staff level to mitigate or to change that, and I applaud that effort and I look forward to seeing it. But I just want to acknowledge that Part of why we are where we are is because we don't have a good history of keeping these documents active, having strong local policies. And in that point, we have to go directly to a state agency or a federal agency because we have no local document at this point. I bring up the idea of the sump because essentially this site becomes a study in how trees naturally occur in Bakersfield. They collect in areas where water pools, where water collects, low points, drainage points, because the sum of flowing water needs to collect to congregate enough natural rainfall to sustain a tree or a plant of that size. So to me, I think this riparian zone, or sorry, not riparian, this strand of trees that has emerged based on an observed low point in the site, to me, there's two approaches. One is the physical object of the trees that have been allowed to grow for 20 years. The second is that our city's approach to stormwater management, collecting water, directing it towards a sump, is implementing that same system throughout our city of bakersfield and um and one is proposed for this project has been integrated to this project and uh so my question would be if those areas are wrought for riparian zones if there's observed riparian zones trying to make it in those and then we we clear cut them throughout the city um my question would be to the city how we we're introducing artificial water flow, but we are introducing a natural concept of water collection and tree growth, which is observed along water corridors throughout our city.

And so to me,

I think one of the challenges of this project is, I will say the response, to echo what Commissioner Strickland said, I think the response, one, unfortunately economics is not something that we, we don't have a right as a commission to say what you should or shouldn't make on a project. We are looking at balancing your rights with the good of the city. And so that's sort of out of our purview. I think secondly, when it comes down to cost, the main presentation was that it would be too hard to redesign this project, which to me indicates that how we see existing trees, existing strands of trees, doesn't even make it into the radar of these projects. I'll note our municipal plan currently states that existing developments that have trees, you can't remove trees, but it doesn't really say anything about existing trees that exist on sites before they're developed. I mean, to me, one part is just as we work through habitat conservation, as we work through open space, as we work through our general plan, that we adopt better policies at the get-go when someone comes to develop. My question about grading is more technical in that If trees have collected in this point and the observed drainage is from the north, that means to me that this is a low point in the site. So I was just curious if, knowing that a lot of that flow is happening from a property that's not part of this track map, if that flow has been re-diverted so that we don't have a low point in those five lots that we couldn't lose. Because I couldn't find the drainage analysis within the document. So I guess to me, what I would be looking for is This site has sustained a strand of trees that has provided a benefit to the community that has been kind of a model. It was noted in the biological study that these strands of trees that pop up amongst provide potential critical habitat for endangered species. I will note it didn't say that there were endangered species on site. the nearest observed sites were a mile this way, a mile that way, but it was noted that these shade covers do provide critical habitat, and so I would be open to looking at having the city work with the developer to, if the new drainage collection area, which is why these trees exist in the first place, now exists 500 feet to the west, that if the city could work on a more natural approach to water collection in the city that would help sustain this habitat while working with the developer to move forward and provide housing in this area.

I do have another question. This might be for the biologist one more time. No more further questions? OK.

Ms. King, are we allowed to, the comment, it's just comments right now. I'm sorry, I was chatting with staff. Yeah, the comment period already ended, and, well, actually, you can give opinion at this point, but no more questions. Opinion, no questions.

No, sorry. Okay, understood. I would like to just make one comment that, and Commissioner Cater, I do understand your approach and acknowledge it, and I think it's a good point. From my knowledge, from an engineering standpoint, limited knowledge, obviously I'm not an engineer, they're gonna design a site relatively to put drainage at the lowest point of the site. From what we see here, I do see the drainage is about on the southwest access of this existing proposed development, and with that box culverts coming down the south, that tells me naturally, or how development has happened over the years, water is gonna continue to fall more south I imagine over time with the adjacent development and the development in the past that maybe a cavity or a furrow of area water drained in that allowed room for this vegetation strand of trees to grow. That's it for my comment.

When we referred this back to staff, the comments that we received that day, we didn't quite have enough information on it. So in my opinion, that's why we sent it back. But when looking at what the definition of a riparian forest is, it means that it needs a natural course of water. And when you look at this site, that is not what we see. What we see is manmade drainage that does need to be addressed, but that does not mean that this tree needs to stay just simply because it grows. We also have a dead tree problem in Bakersfield, and that's what's really brought a lot of this to our attention. Right off of 24th Street, we have a queen palm tree that grows up from the sidewalk. Just because it was able to land there and get to eight feet doesn't mean that's where it naturally needs to stay. So I agree with the Sierra Club. We do need to look at our tree canopy. I am so glad to see that city council has invested in that and is looking at places that we can put trees that are going to survive and continue to be part of our community for multiple generations. not belittling our tree line. We definitely need more trees, but we need to be smart about where we put our trees to make sure that they can stay maintained, maintenance, and part of our beautiful community. So with those comments, I would like to come back to our commission for a motion.

I'd like to call a motion to approve.

I have a motion from Commissioner Berrar for an approval. Do I have a second?

I'll second the support of this vesting trap map.

All right, I have a second. Commissioners, please cast your votes.

Motion passes with Vice Chair Martin absent.

Madam Clerk, next item, please. Madam Secretary, there were no votes. Can you also read those? Can we do a roll call vote if you can, get the screen back?

Chair Biddle? Yes. Commissioner Strickland?

No.

Commissioner Brandt-Oliver?

Yes.

Commissioner Kaur?

Yes.

Commissioner Kader?

No.

Commissioner Brar?

Yes.

Motion passes with Vice Chair Martin absent and Commissioner Strickland and Cater voting no.

I believe Commissioner Strickland has a prior obligation. Does he need to leave now?

Do we close this item fully first, or?

We already did, because we already voted, so thank you.

Due to a prior engagement, I have to leave before we start this one, because I will not be able to stick through the entirety as required, so thank you, good night.

Do we need to have the record show anything, Ms. King? No, he already announced it, you're good. Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Item 6B.

Ms. Ng, can we have your presentation, please? Ms.

I'd like to introduce Yazeed Alagheri for this project.

Mr. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Yazeed Alagheri. I am an assistant planner with the City of Bakersfield's Development Services Department Planning Division. Agenda Item 6B is General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Number 24-0003. The applicant is McIntosh & Associates on behalf of the property owner, Blue Mine LLC. The project site is located north of Snow Road, south of Seventh Standard Road, east and west of Shane Street on a total of approximately 77.3 acres. The project site is zoned E, estate one family dwelling. The project site general plan designation is SR, suburban residential. The applicant is requesting an amendment of the land use designation from SR, suburban residential, to LR, low density residential. Any change in the zone classification from E, state one family dwelling, to R1, single unit dwelling. Planning has received comments in both support and in opposition of the project. Staff recommends approval of the project and that concludes my presentation, thank you.

Okay, the public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself and proceed.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Blaine Neptune and I'm with McIntosh and Associates. I do have a response letter from the biologist that I'd like to hand out. First, I'd like to compliment the city staff for their hard work on this project and on the Bakersfield Rise general plan update. There was a great presentation last night given to city council. The vision established by the city staff, planning commission, and city council provides a clear path for responsible future growth in Bakersfield while helping meet the community housing needs as identified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD. This evening's request is pretty straightforward. We are asking to amend the general plan land use designation from suburban residential to low-medium residential and to rezone approximately 80 acres from a state residential to single family. More importantly, this project helps implement the vision the city has already established through the Bakersfield RISE general plan and adopted housing element. The housing element recognizes that Bakersfield must continue planning for the future housing opportunities by maintaining an adequate inventory of residential land, reducing barriers to housing development and providing opportunities for housing at all income levels. This project does exactly that. The site is currently vacant and it is not an isolated piece of property. The land to the immediate north is already zoned R1 with some R4 also. Shane Street has been long planned as a future north-south connection through the project. The project will allow up to 469 additional traditional single-family homes representing a gross density of approximately six homes per acre, which is fully consistent with the proposed low-medium residential designation. This reflects the types of neighborhood that Bakersfield has long been known for. These homes are for families, first-time home buyers, and Bakersfield residents who want the opportunity to own a home and remain in our community. Overall, this request is consistent with the city's adopted general plan, supported by the housing element, and is compatible with some of the surrounding neighborhoods to the north, and represents the kind of thoughtful, orderly residential and growth presented by the Bakersfield Rise general plan. We also today met with residents who are here tonight to the south and have agreed to come up with a buffer and some retention basins to help buffer the larger houses, the larger lots to the south. Ironically enough, when we were talking about sumps earlier, sumps in this town are specifically designed without vegetation and they are designed to dissipate water within seven days. So there's specific mitigation measures that you have to do to a sump to keep it to allowing to be free draining. I have some exhibits too here that I would like to share that talk about what we're proposing to do where we can implement some sumps and we can put a restrictive covenant that will restrict any structures or habitable structures within 50 feet of the south property line. So I can share these exhibits with you too. In addition to myself here tonight, the owner and their council is here to answer any questions that you might have regarding this project. Thank you very much. Can I hand these to you?

Yeah, thank you.

Any other speakers in favor of the project? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Good evening. My name's Dennis McClain with my wife Laura over here. We sent a letter to the planning department in May, and I'd like to paraphrase some of that letter for you. We own two properties on Snow Road. We formally object to the proposal, general plan amendment, and corresponding zone change from estate to zoning to R1. For the property located on the north side of Snow Road, approximately 8.9 acres. We've lived on the north side of Snow Road, west of DeGioia for 50 years, A1 zoning. We enjoy the rural farm life including raising livestock and growing our own crops. We oppose the zone change of the property to the north of us to a state to R1. The proposal size is not only compatible with our larger acreage lots, denser city-like housing will put more stress on the area infrastructure and cause problems with complaints of our animals and our rural way of life. When development does happen, if so happens, we request a road behind all existing properties on Snow Road as a buffer extending from Old Farm Road to Jueta Avenue so residents can continue to access their properties, including a gate at the Callaway Canal for the six properties on the east end. We encourage you to consider a common sense plan for a smooth transition of larger lots and large acreage to medium to smaller heading north to Severance Standard Road. We urge the planning department to deny the proposed zone change from a state to R1. Respect the long-term residents of our county island of the Ranchettes on Snow Road. One question at the end, has there been a traffic study on that area? I've lived there for 50 years and now during the rush hour and the school hours, it's bumper to bumper on Snow Road for one and a half hours. So I'd like to have that answered please, thank you.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Maureen Bright. I am an attorney with the law firm of Bright and Brown. And I'm here representing three different entities that are significantly impacted by this proposed project. The first entity is Crimson Resource Management Corp. I will refer to them as Crimson. Crimson is the bonded oil and gas operator of record over this property, as well as a lot of surrounding properties. The second two entities are CalRoyalty, LLC and CalResources1, LLC. Together, those two entities own 100% of the mineral interest in the property which is the subject of this meeting tonight and also in the property surrounding the property that's the subject of the meeting and operated by Crimson. We're here to object for several reasons. The first reason is the mitigated negative declarations finding that there is less than significant impact on the mineral resources. That finding was predicated on two assumptions. One, the applicant came to the city and said, we will provide you with a recorded document waiving surface access rights. My client has the surface access rights with the mineral interest. to access the minerals through the surface. The applicant cannot waive rights it does not own. My client does not waive its access rights. The second basis for the mitigated negative declaration was that even if you deprive the mineral owner of access through the surface it's okay because they can get to their minerals by horizontal drilling in fact there was no study done in connection with the mitigated negative declaration to come to that conclusion instead we will offer to you tonight and in a document that i will provide to the commissioners evidence that Horizontal drilling is not possible in this site. It's in the documents, but just to give you the brief overview, the productive zones underneath this property are multiple. It's not a big continuous zone. They're stacked, and they're divided by different deposits that are impermeable that don't produce oil and gas. So it's like a stack of pancakes with a bunch of cardboard in between it. In order to get the syrup out of the pancakes, you have to drill through all the stacks. And then they're open to the straw that penetrates the pancakes, and the syrup can flow from all the different zones. Horizontal drilling is a form of drilling where a vertical well starts out vertical, takes a radial path, and turns into a horizontal well. So it starts out perpendicular to the ground. It ends up parallel to the ground. In order to use that methodology, you need to have a producing zone that is contiguous, thick enough and long enough to put a horizontal well into the formation, and then to be able to open that well to the formation. It is virtually impossible to use that kind of drilling in this area. We have a declaration from an engineer under penalty of perjury that would be admissible evidence at trial to demonstrate that to you. Together, those two assumptions led to a mitigated negative declaration. without the waiver of surface access rights, and given the faulty assumption, a mitigated negative declaration should not have been used. There should have been a full environmental impact report considering the effects of the proposed project on the oil and gas operations. Moreover, despite the fact that it's required under the Bakersfield Municipal Code, there is no plan that we could find in any of the documents to show exactly where the oil company's pipeline easements would be. where abandoned wells are and how the oil company is supposed to get access to the facilities that affect this land directly. If you look at tentative tract map 7448, you'll see there's 125 lots on there for single family residences on 4,500 square foot lots, 125. There's three lots that have been designated by the word well. I don't know what that's supposed to mean, because under the Bakersfield Municipal Code, if you are developing property that is subject to oil and gas operations, you need to be providing drill sites. And those drill sites have to have a minimum acreage of 2.01 acres. Two acres. The lots that say well on that tentative tract map, the biggest lot is 19,000 and some odd square feet. That does not satisfy the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Moreover, the access to the facilities for the oil and gas facilities would be through the subdivision. Through the subdivision, there is no study saying, gee, you know, kids play in the street. They go out and play in the street. So what are those oil field trucks supposed to do? Drill rigs? Workers' trucks? Utility repairs? You have access. Just dodge the kids. There's no study for that. I will also say, that there was no title report prepared for the city for this. There was nothing submitted to you to tell you who the owners are in the property. There's no indication in the record we have of any prepaid postage, prepaid envelopes to the mineral owners, which is required under chapter 16.16 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. The vested tentative track map that we saw, 7448, doesn't list the mineral owners. And as I said, there is no recorded document waiving surface access rights. Now, why are we here now and where were we when the city was considering the mitigated negative deck? Well, no one gave the mineral owners notice of the hearing on the mitigated negative deck. That was required to be given to the mineral owners because they are property owners. The mineral estate has been recognized in California as an interest in real property for decades. But they didn't receive it. Now, the city gave mail notice to all the surface property owners. but not the mineral owners. The sign that was posted out on the property gives notice of the meeting tonight, but it doesn't say we're using a mitigated negative deck. There was no sign posted that said there's hearings on a mitigated negative deck. And the only way my client found out about this is because one of their employees happened to be driving out in the area, taking care of oil field operations, and came across this sign. And my client called and said, why weren't we notified? And my client was told, we don't do that anymore. Now, that's not empty words from a lawyer because people always accuse lawyers of just saying whatever they want to say out of their mouth. There's a declaration in the package I'm going to leave with you today from our land manager who was the person who called and who was the person who was told the city doesn't give that notice anymore. Well, that notice is a violation of Bakersfield Municipal Code. So the use of the mitigation, the mitigated negative deck is unlawful. Not only that, there's a provision that says that if any developments violate the city municipal code in terms of its requirements to safely integrate oil operations in any development, that those that those developments are unlawful. And there's a further statement in the municipal code that says any permit that is issued for a project that is unlawful under that code is void. I would submit to you that the basis of this project as it's presented to you tonight is illegal. And that if you did issue building permits for those houses, it would be void. And lastly, I want to say this on behalf of the clients. The zoning that exists right now permits oil field operations. And oil field operations require access through the surface to get to the minerals. The zoning change eliminates oil field operations from the zone. It eliminates it. And that means it eliminates the access rights. And the only value to mineral interests is the ability to get the minerals, or in this case, oil, out of the ground. California follows the rule of capture. It is not yours until you bring it to the surface. The entire value of the mineral estate is in the access to bring the minerals to the surface. So the zone change that would now make oil and gas operations an unconforming use is a complete taking of that right of access. And that is an unconstitutional taking under the law. So, my client is here to ask you to reject this general plan amendment and zoning change and mitigated negative declaration, since we were not afforded the opportunity to make that objection before. we would ask that you just deny it outright. Because we're talking about putting 459 homes in the middle of an operating oil field. But if you folks are still inclined to think that might be a good idea, to drop kids in the middle of an oil field, then as a minimum, we would ask that you table this and direct staff to prepare a proper EIR on the project. I have one party favor for everybody. Can I give this to someone? Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak.

Thank you for hearing me. My name is Brandy Williams. I live on Snow Road. On your map would be up Homestead Way, our property. We've lived there since 1989. I was going to say quite a bit about the oil field, but I think she did an excellent job, so I'll skip that. I'm going to take a moment here and get my other thoughts. In this development that's proposed, there's no buffer set for larger lots, then middle-sized lots, then smaller lots. It's just slamming all of these really small lots along the northern ridge of our homes. our properties. There's the issue of our rural way of life. We have large animals, birds, goats, sheep, chickens, including our beloved roosters and peacocks, and an assortment of other farm animals who live on our properties. Who is going to tell the new homeowners that you proposed to put in these homes that we were there first and so were our animals. They will be complaining about the smells. They will be complaining about the noise. They will be complaining that they moved into a dense neighborhood and to their immediate south is all these noisy, smelly animals. To them, it's a horrible smell. To us, it's the fragrance of our lives. We don't want our lives disrupted and we don't want our little strip of the county where all of our rural life has been. We've been there since 1989, but these homes were built in the 70s. So we have a long standing ranchos, a long snow road, and we would like it to stay that way without conflict with potential neighbors. Will our city attempt to squeeze us out like happened to the people who lived on Norris Road who had ranchos there. They built city homes above them and city homes below them. And then the homeowners started getting sued by their neighbors because of the sounds of their roosters and the smells of their 4-H animals and so forth. We feel this is invasive to our lifestyle and we would like the city to respect us. We've been there a long, long time. And if there were some other way of making this happen without giving them this low density housing with the potential of putting in ADUs in their backyard. So we're not even talking about 400 and something. We're talking about potentially 800 homes. in that area. And it's just too dense. It's just not commensurate to the neighborhood that we live in and have enjoyed since 1989 for my family and the 70s for a lot of the others. So thank you for hearing my opinion. I appreciate your time.

good evening commissioners my name is dominic patino my wife and i jamie have lived there since 2005 and we're off of snow road off a short hair way um 20 years ago many of us here there was a lot more some of them have are no longer with us we're fighting the same battle and we thought we had won it and I believe it was Crimson Renewables that came in and pretty much gave the same speech and the same outcome, right? And it was what it was, it was set, and now we have this new plan that staff has proposed. So my question is, is staff doing the homework going back looking at that? And if so, did they read it and say, no, we can approve this? I don't know how this works exactly. First time I really have... looked at everything that goes on up here. So if staff has approved this, then they haven't done their homework. So I am not an attorney, and we all know that growth is inevitable, and we're not asking for no growth. We're asking to keep the original plan, the plan that we saw 20 years ago. What I see is an inconsistency with the general plan, land use, compatibility, and transition. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with multiple policies in Bakersfield general plan land use element, including failure to maintain and establish a buffering and transition pattern. The existing development pattern shaped through prior public process functions as a de facto buffer system this proposal element eliminates that buffer and replaces it with sharp density increases at our property lines even with the buffer zone of 50 feet that i just saw a map earlier today of a proposed 50 foot buffer wasn't quite sure first time i'd heard about it if that was accepted Who's to say somebody doesn't change it if we have a new group of people up here, a new group of commissioners? Who's to say it doesn't change again? This is inconsistent with standard planning practice and violates the city's obligation to ensure orderly and comparable or compatible growth patterns, not abrupt changes in land intensity. Underestimation of true density, the ADUs and the state law impacts. Again, Brandy brought that up on the ADUs. This is really gonna impact driving, safety, number of people. And if any of you have been on Snow Road in the morning or late afternoons, it is very congested. And I'm questioning the fact that any traffic studies have been done lately. Last time we were in here 20 years ago. They said they did and it was not going to impact snow road The houses never got built and snow road is severely impacted even with the second lane on the city side of the road The traffic generation parking demand noise levels overall neighborhood intensity water supply We just, our group of houses just recently drilled a new well and spent a little over $80,000. We drilled a very deep well. Recently, the canal behind our homes, right adjacent to the east of this property, proposed property, has been concrete lined. So now we no longer have access to re-percolation water in that canal. Our natural percolation would come from the surrounding open ground areas. Anybody with an older well that has not redrilled would need to redrill. And we saw that during the last lack of water rain recharge we've had for the last seven years. Nextly, we have with the, not so close to where our location is, but where Shane Road meets, there's a brand new well there. And I noticed that's where both of these sumps are. And that would be a direct line of introduction of contaminants into groundwater. So again, that is a regional groundwater quality control board issue that I don't know if that's been addressed yet or not. And the contamination would come off the runoff from the streets and the houses and vehicles leaking oil. The proposal is also inconsistent with public facilities and service elements. Concurrency. Requires that infrastructure and services be available concurrent with development. Is there a plan for that? Where is it and what will it look like? We haven't seen that. So how can we vote to approve the new plan if we don't have that plan as well? Is that going to come later? Service adequate.

I want an opportunity to bring in front of your commission to make you aware it's there and to encourage you guys to start looking at it. It's about 508 pages, so this will not be a one-night read. Please put some time aside and spend some time with it. Just a quick overview of the process. We're about in year five. There's been many discussions about that this is coming down the pipe. I think staff's just to point now that we're just excited that it's out. We really want to talk to the commission if there's suggestions on different associations or groups that you'd like to see us go talk to about the general plan, please provide us that information. Again, get a little timeline where we are. Again, started in 2021, here we are in 2026. Taking a lot of staff time. I want to kind of go over the process a bit, how the general plan has evolved and the things that were important to the community. We heard desire to preserve existing neighborhoods while enhancing infrastructure. I heard about better connection to connectivity, and about the importance of quality of life. And those were addressed through various items within your own plan, like parks, or complete streets, strategies, and frameworks for mixed use, infill, those changes in land use. Other items that we heard about is the need for economic opportunity for our environmental stewardship. And really the importance of Bakersfield's identity. And again, those were addressed through various items in the general plan, downtown revitalization, workforce development, enhancements in the Kern River, and there is a Kern River element. And really it's about maintaining community character. So I really wanna go over a little bit about the draft general plans organization, but more kind of big picture. I'm really not gonna dive into the elements unless there's specific things you guys wanna talk about tonight. What you'll see is a introduction that's really identifying the overview of the plan, describing how it's organized. Again, that big picture, the chapter two is about the visioning process and the engagement process. Kind of gives you an overview of the number of workshops, the different outreach that was done. And there is an engagement process for the upcoming month or so as we go through this also. The land use section, again, it's the new land use regulations and policies, new mapping, focusing on our various efforts, outreaches regarding the land use alternatives, efforts related to the downtown plans, those type items. There is a downtown specific element, and it's really incorporating all of the other plans that have been done There's been about four or so plans we've done over the last 15 years. It's really kind of taken those best items and how do we create into a true element so that when projects happen downtown, here's your policies and goals that those projects will fall under. The general plan land use map itself, there's some changes in land use. This incorporates all of the individual at the parcel level, the land use alternatives, which creates changes within land use. Like for instance, downtown, there's a lot more mixed use type use. The, Old Town Kern area, there's many changes when land use in that area. MLK Quarter, a lot of it has to do with how do we re-envision Bakersfield and those areas to provide additional opportunities? And that's, I think that's what a lot of the changes in how the plans are organized is how do we, instead of just requiring a commercial use, how do we allow a development to happen and provide those opportunities? The mobility, economic development and safety are three other elements that are incorporated. Our transportation, our mobility element incorporates many of the ATP, the active transportation plans. tries to incorporate the future intended land uses as part of that alignment layout. The economic development element expands on city's strategic plan for long-term economic prosperity and resilience. And obviously our safety and hazard, it's about minimizing risk Our general plans, this is the roadway classification system. This is kind of what most people see as what's our circulation element map. And this is the arterials and collectors, freeways and such, the map. So there's a new, New layout, there are some changes in the northwest regarding the west beltway. A piece that's going north of the west side freeway has been downgraded to an expressway. The piece that's going south from there are still staying as a freeway. There's some small changes also in the northeast, some alignments. We had some areas off of 178 in Masterson area that we had some alignments that didn't line up. Natural historic resources really is about protecting what makes Bakersfield special, protecting enhancing parks and open space. We now have a current river element. We used to have a current river plan element. So this is more of a typical policies and goals for the river more than a plan. And then again, a quality of life section regarding parks and inclusive public participation. And what you will see as you get reading through the chapters, our environmental justice was incorporated into the various chapters. There's not a specific element for environmental justice, but you will see those throughout the general plan. So what are we looking for the public and the commission to do? Really want to talk about what's still coming. What you will get in the final draft will be a policy index. Right now you don't have that. There's a lot of policies. And once the final is done, there will be a policy index you're able to quickly find for specific items, where those items are. There will be technical studies and outreach summary also that's included, along with a term of, a glossary of terms. So these are some questions that really we want you to think about as you review the general plan. Does it meet your vision of what you're seeing, where you want Bakersfield to go? Are there areas that need more emphasis? Does the draft balance the growth as you're seeing our town needs along with our environmental stewardship? And are there any major issues that you're seeing that haven't been addressed? There's been a lot of outreach. The reality is many times we didn't get a lot of participation there. So those comments have been incorporated along with meetings with the commission, the council. But again, we still need that feedback. And during this comment period is that opportunity for you and your constituents to comment with us. What's the next steps? Public draft closes on September 27. So it was extended last night. We did a similar presentation to city council. They extended it by 30 days. So there's some additional time. The environmental review will be completed in early 2027. The adoption, this is saying spring, but the reality with the push of the 30 days last night, we really haven't worked the calendars out to see is that gonna slip into early summer or is that gonna stay spring? So some of these answers I don't have at this point in time. I did add the link, where do we go to find the general plan? It's at bakersfield2045.com. Please scroll down on that page. You'll have both the link to the general plan draft and where you can submit comments. You can also submit comments. There's a email, bakersfield2045 at bakersfieldcity.com. You can also submit via email. So with that, again, what I do is really encourage the commission to take some time to read through the general plan, provide comments, and reach out to staff. If you have some organizations you feel would be beneficial to have a workshop, please let us know, and we're here to answer. If there's specific questions now, we can answer some of those too.

Can we have a copy of that emailed to us, your presentation?

Yes, we sent a presentation. We'll email you a link to where the plan is and make sure you have those emails also.

And I think you have a presentation tomorrow for the public, too. I saw it on the news. Are they going to be doing outreach tomorrow?

I had one today. I actually had a meeting with the DBA today. That went really well. We had about 30 people or so that were there. So, again, same offer there. We really want to get the outreach and want the public to be involved.

Perfect.

Are those dates posted somewhere? So, for example, if you had an outreach today, how do we find out that you have a meeting coming up?

I'm sorry, the dates of the actual hearings. So most of those are placed on that Bakersfield 2045 website. Actually, is there another resource besides? There's about three different dates we could provide the commission of when those engagements are. There is a whole engagement strategy that Rincon is putting together. It's not completely solidified at this point. So once it gets a little more solidified, we can make sure that we send out to you guys an email or something of what those locations are.

I was curious what, I've been inspired by the TCC grant, Martin Luther King Revitalization Neighborhood, kind of at a neighborhood scale. What efforts are being done sort of at a neighborhood scale to engage the city as a whole?

So part of the engagement strategy is we still have the CBOs, so we need to reach back out to those various CBOs to actually engage them, have them provide us some locations. At a neighborhood level, it's a little more difficult on a general plan, it would be, Probably more trying to get more of a smaller community meeting, like we have done meetings out at the Friendship House. Some of the budget meetings we recently were talking about were done at various churches, trying to incorporate those at that level to see if we can get more engagement. Again, many of the past opportunities it was only like 20 people would show up when you're providing some sort of a blast or even with the CBOs, the amount of the public coming out at the time is not what we really would like to see. So we're open, if you have other suggestions, Commissioner Cater, please.

I'm thinking about it, yeah. I know it's hard to find the right venue in the right, in a community that can sometimes be a little disparate.

I can't add that last night when City Council, they have a desire to push more online and do more social media, more outreach related to various surveys. And it's really hard when you have this big document that how do you glean out, unless you really narrow it down to very specific items. So if there's specific items that you think as some sort of a survey would help guide, those would also be other helpful items for staff.

That was my only other question on the practice of the getting to the final document was if there was an opportunity for the policy, like the list of policies to be issued prior to the final document, just because I feel like an understanding of what's the scope of work of the general plan versus what's not the scope of work would just be helpful in review.

I guess maybe I'm not quite understanding the question. So is there a way of being prior to final, so after this review period, after the draft, is there a ability to bring it back earlier?

I'm just curious, because the policies are where the road meets the road, things become law, how we work as a city. And so just in the presentation, it appeared that we wouldn't see those until we were at a final draft. And so to me, that feels like not the appropriate time to say, hey, you missed these four items because you're looking for a final approval. So I was wondering if kind of the working policies in place were. So that's our time now.

I mean, all reality is this comment period is the time to read the document if there's something missing for us to incorporate it in. If something's too stringent, to loosen it up. If something's too loose, tighten it up. Because when those documents come back, it'll be coming back also with an environmental impact report. So all the studies are done at that point in time and it's really too late to change things of any kind of magnitude at that point in time.

So what I hear is everyone listening on YouTube that everything's on the table right now. Say everything you've ever wanted to say about the city of Bakersfield.

It's out there. Again, the draft document's out there. All those policies, the current policies as proposed, that's in the general plan. That's what the draft is. Okay.

I look for it.

I HAVE A QUESTION, CASSIE. CAN YOU GIVE ME THE SPECIFIC REASONING BEHIND THE CITY COUNCIL'S 30-DAY EXTENSION YESTERDAY? WAS THERE AN OPPONENT, WAS THERE A SPEAKER WHO BROUGHT CONCERN UP?

THERE WAS OUR ROLLOUT STARTED ON THE 8th, YET OUR PUBLIC NOTICE DIDN'T GO OUT TO THE 10th. SO STAFF HAD ALREADY MOVED IT OUT TO SEVEN DAYS. And there were some speakers related that brought up the issue of languages. And again, that's something that we surveyed the top 10 cities, the biggest cities in California, and they're all English general plans. So that kind of came up also last night. But the extension was actually Councilor Coleman, who was the one that made the motion to extend it 30 days. He didn't really give a reason besides he felt it's such a big document that we should be providing more time.

one more question on so one of the sections is like management of the minerals and obviously that was kind of a big subject tonight um is that a specific industry group that you've reached out to and to provide them hey your industry is subject to our new policies within this draft no i i have not reached out to the oil industry um i did talk to some uh

engineers that work with the oil industry earlier today about that issue, but I have not set up anything specific yet.

That will be on my list. Commissioner Brouwer.

I have a question. Excuse me, my brain is fried, so this might not be the best question. From when the general plan is adopted and mismatches between zone changes, would that how would that process work out for an owner of a property to match them to be able to develop?

Sure. So right now, as you're aware, our housing element, we did pretty significant changes in our residential zoning. So right now we're operating on a resolution that basically says, hey, when you have discrepancies between your zoning and general plan, you use your zoning for those things. So as part of adopting the general plan, we'll be doing the same type of thing. Hey, when you have discrepancies between the land use and zoning, you'll have to go by the general plan until the zoning ordinance and zoning maps catch back up.

OK. So if X owns a property that is residential now, it's a freeway corridor area, in the general plan, once it's adopted, turns into a general commercial area, and they want to put a freeway sign, for example, would they be now permitted to do that without having to do a zone change?

If it was residential now and the general plan changed it to commercial?

Correct.

If they came in after the general plan was adopted, again, once that resolution was adopted also, they would be able to do whatever was allowed within that land use.

Okay.

So I don't think we have specific, anything that's that drastic that I'm aware of. But potentially we have a lot of commercial going to mixed use. So could they come in and ask for a residential unit, even though it's currently not allowed, potentially? okay and my last question is is there a fully rasterized map that we can i'm trying to zoom in on this it might just be this computer where it kind of blurs as you get closer and closer into it uh no there's not today we that that is coming that that's been one of our issues with our consultant um so we need something at a parcel level both for the roadways and for the land use map okay thank you so much

I think Daniel and I are the ones that have been on here since this first started and so it's been a really neat process to be part of. I know you did Zoom meetings at the very beginning and I was part of those as well and there was probably turnout about 10, 15 people and it was mostly people like us. I preach to everybody that I know to pay attention to the general plan, say it to the newspapers, say it to anybody that you can, but I think it's vital that we get this information out there to get people to really pay attention to what the plan is. And I know we did outreach, right? And some of us are a little bit new, but we did outreach to the property owners, giving them the opportunity to change their zoning. Is that how it worked or can you explain that a little bit better?

We did in the housing element. We reached out to those and those that basically sent us a notice saying they didn't want to, then we didn't change them. But far as the general plan is really publicizing people changing, that was a pretty small group based on some road changes that we needed to make. So there were some accommodations for them and those specific land use alternative areas. The thing that was really more outreach based was pre-zoning the areas that were within the county. So as we know that we're gonna grow, and working with those property owners to kind of get a logical development course in those areas.

I had one more question about, if it's okay.

In the general plan, has there been any further collaboration with the county about working on kind of the unique county-city interface that we find ourselves in, in Metropolitan Bakersfield? Like whether it's annexations.

Can you expand on that?

Yeah, whether it's like an annexation of pocket island, like completely encased county pockets or whether it's consistent standards regardless of whose jurisdiction it falls into.

That's not exactly a general, so we do have an annexation strategy that is part of the land use element, so you'll see that. A lot of that coordination is separate from what's going on. If you're welcome to add some policy language in there about recommending that. Their standards are different, so how do you, there hasn't been those communications on how do we collaborate on those standards.

All right, I'm just curious.

And honestly, there's a bit of competition. Some of those developments tracks next door. So how do you, it sounds easy, but sometimes it's not quite that easy.

I have one more question. That's a great segue into that question. How recent is this map that was distributed?

The general, the land use map? The one that I showed on the screen, that's in the general plan. That is a current map.

Even the one on the Bakersfield 2045 website, it's the most recent one?

If it's within the PDF of the document. Yes.

Okay. I'm familiar with a property on Snow and Callaway that was annexed into the city of Bakersfield on the northwest corner from the county. And on this map, it's still showing it in a county island. Yep. and i'm curious to see how that element because that got it was a c2pd in the county got annexed into the city as a c1 we had approved pds we as in the people i represent on that project had approved pd i'm very familiar with that project yeah okay um so i'm just curious about how properties like that would have an impact on this

So those annexations, those are some of the cleanup items. That's where staff also, we've had a high-res PDF. And even that, when you bring a map that's not meant to be zoomed in at that scale, we have a lot of these things that have been missed. That's why the maps are identified right now. They're subject to change because some of those items like this, are not clear enough at a parcel level that we can identify that they have all been modified. Same thing, we have some of our housing element items, housing element sites, we know that show still as not the right land use, even though that they're part of our housing element. So we know there's some errors in that map, and we know we have to get to the public a correct parcel at that parcel detail level that they can zoom in and see their properties.

Thank you.

Do I need a motion to receive and file? Can I get a motion to receive and file, please?

I'll submit that motion.

I'll second. Senator Brian Oliver and a second by Commissioner Keter.

Motion passes with Vice Chair Martin and Commissioner Strickland absent. Madam Clerk, next item, please. Agenda item eight, communications. Does staff have any communication items?

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to remind you that the Riverview Marketplace Draft EIR is out available for public review, and the link is on the City of Bakersfield Planning website. The August 6th meeting will be canceled, but we will have an August 20th meeting. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item nine, commissioner comments. Does any commissioner have any comments?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, next item, please. Agenda item 10, adjournment. This meeting is adjourned at 7.57 p.m. Thank you.