[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. Heat up Are [Music] Hey, hey hey. [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [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 Kerna, and the city of Bakersfield. You can watch the rebroadcast of this meeting Saturday at 700 p.m. and Sunday at 10:00 a.m. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersfieldcity. us. Preciding over this evening's meeting, Chair Adam Strickland. It is my pleasure to call to order the September 18th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Madame clerk, will you please call the role? >> Chair Strickland >> here. >> Vice Chair Bidd >> here. >> Commissioner Brandt Oliver >> here. >> Commissioner Kedar >> here. >> Commissioner Core >> here. >> Commissioner Martin. Commissioner Neil. >> Madame Clerk. Next item, please. >> Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Madame clerk, next item, please. Item number three, public statements. >> Public statements are now received at different times depending on the item. I will call on madame clerk to call for public statements at the appropriate time. So, please listen carefully for the correct time to speak. >> Non-aggenda item 3A, public statements. >> Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items not listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please come forward and state your name. Agenda item 3B, public statements. >> Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda? If you're here for non-consent public hearing item 6A, now is not the time to speak. You'll be given an opportunity to speak at a later time. And I believe we do have to go on record and say that Commissioner Martin arrived at 5:31 p.m. >> Thank you. And seeing none, uh, Madam Clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item four, consent calendar items. >> All matters listed under the consent items do not require a public hearing and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of set items unless staff or commissioner requests specific items to be discussed and or removed for separate action. May I get a motion approving consent items 4A? >> So moved. >> Commissioner Bren Oliver. >> I'll second. >> Commissioner Core. Commissioners, please cast your vote. motion passes with Commissioner Neil absent. >> Thank you, Madame Clerk. Next item, please. >> Agenda item five, consent calendar public hearing items. >> Now is the time for consent calendar public hearing items. If an item is not removed by commissioner, staff, or member of the public, the commission will vote on all items in one motion without further comment. If an item is removed, it will be placed at the end of the non-consent public hearing items. At this time, I will open all of the consent calendar public hearing items. Does any member of the public wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? Seeing none, does any commissioner or staff wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? Seeing none, uh, 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 memoranda and revised staff recommendations. >> So move, Mr. Chairman. >> Commissioner Martin, >> I'll second that. >> Vice Chair Bidd, commissioners, please cast your votes. Motion passes. >> Thank you. And just for the record, Commissioner Neil arrived at 5:35 p.m. Madame Clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item six, non-consent public hearing items. >> Now is the time for non-consent public hearing items. Before we begin, I would like to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will first give a report. Then those in favor of the project will be allowed to speak. Then those in opposition to the project will be allowed to speak after all those in favor have spoken. Each side will be given five minutes to provide rebuttal comments. Individual speakers may ask questions during their statements, but questions will not be answered until the public hearing on that item is closed. Written comments may be given to the clerk who will provide copies to the commission. Please be respectful of others participating in the hearing by not repeating the remarks of any previous speaker and presenting any new comments in a thoughtful and concise way. Mr. Nino or design >> before we begin I just like to state um I have a conflict of interest to the source of income and we'll be um leaving the hearing. >> Thank you Commissioner Kater. Good evening, Chair Strickland, plan commissioners, and members of the public. In addition to the staff report packet you received, you were also provided two memorandums transmitting additional correspondence. Memo number one transmitted one a declaration for from Alan Dafani and two a letter from the law office of Brandon Martin in response to a comment letter received from the law office of Luzu Drury and memo number two transmitted revisions to the resolutions being considered tonight. I will now introduce Miss Ashley Knight, assistant planner, who will give tonight's staff report presentation. Good evening, Chair Strickland, members of the planning commission, and members of the public. My name is Ashley Knight, assistant planner with the city of Bakersfield's development services department planning division. Item agenda item 6A is a general plan amendment and Williamson Act contract cancellation. The applicant is Next Gen Engineering Group, Inc. representing property owner or development 2 LLC. The project site is located on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road. The project consists of two continuous undeveloped parcels that were historically used for agricultural purposes but have beenow for more than a decade. Surrounding properties include existing single family residential neighborhoods to the north and east, agricultural uses to the south, and vacant lands to the west. The existing zoning for the parcels is R1 single unit dwelling zone. However, the existing general planned use land use general planned land use designation is RAIA resource intensive agriculture which is currently inconsistent with the parcels zoning. The general plan amendment would change the land use designation of approximately 28.9 acres from RAIA to LMR lowmedium residential. The request is also to cancel the existing Williamson Act land use contract and exclude the site from the Kern County of Kern's agricultural preserve number 10. Approval of the general plan amendment would allow for the proposed development of 147 single family residential lots which is consistent with the LMR designation. In addition to the residential units, Mountain Vista Drive will be extended through the project site to connect McCutchen Road to Panama Lane, improving circulation in the area and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Specifically, the Williamson Act contract and agricultural preserve. The project site is bound by a Williamson Act land use contract recorded in 1969 and included within agricultural preserve number 10. The property owner has requested cancellation of the contract in accordance with government code section 15282C under findings that the cancellation is in the public interest. Here, other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act, such as the extension of Mountain Vista Road, a collector's street to McCutchen Road through Pan to through all the way to Panama Lane. Also, the project would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. supporting documentation including the declaration of from a former LEI demonstrates that the land has not been actively farmed for over 10 years that the groundwater constraints preclude a viable return to agricultural production. These factors together with the city's need for housing housing consistent with regional growth strategies provide substantial evidence to support cancellation and exclusion from the preserve. An initial study was prepared and a mitigated negative declaration was circulated where it was determined with a mitigation measures the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Four comments were received which have been addressed in the staff report. The project the project followed a public notice the public notice requirements and to date the city has received no public comment letters in oppositions during the public notification pro uh review period. One response was received and is included in the memorandum you received today. Staff recommends your commission approve the resolutions adopt the mitigated d negative declaration the general plan amendment number 21-0420. the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract number 25-00001 and the exclusion of the 28.91 acres from the agricultural preserve number 10 and recommend the same to city council. The applicant is present this evening and available to answer any questions. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Knight. The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. >> Good morning, Chair Strickland, Vice Chair Bidd, and the rest of the planning commission and staff. Thank you very much. My name is Brandon Martin. It's spelled B R A N D O N M A R T I N. Uh this is another project via Keith Gardner who's done many great development projects in the city of Bakersfield and I'm continue to be proud to represent him and we only have one opponent this evening um and that is the Drury Firm from Oakland. Um they're here under the acronym SAFER. Uh you'll note on their web page that they represent uh labor unions. And there's a thing about SQA. Uh it's supposed to be a law that's intended to imp protect the environment. Um if a challenge uh goes beyond that for a purpose other than protecting the environment, I'm not going to say it's unethical, but it's definitely something you can't uh collect attorneys fees for. And it reres havoc on our system because you need sincere arguments about what impacts the environment and what doesn't. Not a kind of uh mechanism for getting to a negotiating table to try to get somebody but to pay for a prevailing wage or something else. Those economic concerns are things that the developer does have to worry about. Um but we need to be transparent about why we make uh opposition to projects and why we don't. Uh this is a drastically environmentally superior project than when it was first proposed. Uh it was proposed for over a thousand acres of homes. Uh it's been reduced to only 28.991 acres. Uh the city is absolutely right. I I'm in terms of reducing vehicle miles traveled uh and uh the kind of bandwidth problems we have on our roads. this is what you want to see because we need to have that connection uh from uh Mountain Vista through and that's what one of the features of this project Keith is going to pay for that uh and that's a good condition that we fully accept. What we're trying to do here is just make the general plan uh reflect the nature of reality here. As you look on the map, we have houses surrounding our property. Uh, and then we have undeveloped land, uh, that's been bulldozed for future projects that are going to be of a similar land use. We are already zoned residential. We just need the general plan to reflect uh, where the path of development has already taken this area of our city. I'd like to reserve the remaining amount of my time for an opportunity to rebut if necessary. Oh, and also I'm not the applicant. The applicant is Macintosh and Engineering and Associates. And we have Sean here to answer any of your questions, especially more technical questions about the project. >> Thank you, Mr. Morton. And there is rebuttal on each side um that is time. So, I appreciate that. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this project? Good evening. Um, my name is Sean Reed. I'm um with Macintosh Associates or or New Gen we also go by. Um, and the only thing I wanted to uh expand on what Brandon had talked about is uh this map up here is is a little bit deceiving only in that uh where the project is located there almost looks like it's out on the fringe of the of the city. But um if you were to look at a more current aerial, there's currently grading going on on the just to the north where it looks like it's vacant and also on the west side of it. So the only thing that's really left uh immediately adjacent to the project would be to the south. So other than that, um this project would be very similar to the other uh residential developments that are going on in the area and uh as we all know that we're we're short on housing and and this project would help um uh help work towards that goal of uh getting more housing for people. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Reid. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the project? If so, please step to the mic, identify yourself, and proceed. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. >> Good evening, commissioners. My name is Trace Perciato from Luzo Jury, and I'm speaking on behalf of supporters of >> Give your name and and I'm sorry. >> Provide your name into the mic. >> Is this clear? >> Yeah, I think you just missed your name. >> I'm sorry. My name is Chase Piato. >> Sorry about that, Mr. Parciato. Go ahead. >> No problem. Uh, my name is Chase Piato from Lazo Jury and I'm speaking on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility or Safer. We submitted written comments to the commission yesterday. Safer respectfully requests that the commission deny approval of the M andD under SQA. If there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that a project may cause significant environmental impacts and EIR is acquired. Here substantial expert evidence demonstrates significant impacts in at least four areas. First, agriculture. The project would permanently convert nearly 29 acres of prime farmland to residential use. The city's own general plan EIR found such conversion significant and unavoidable. Yet the M andD fails to adequately analyze direct and cumulative agricultural impacts. Paying a Williamson Act cancellation fee does not mitigate the permanent loss of farmland. Second, traffic and vehicle miles traveled. Expert Norman Marshall found that the project will exceed state VMT thresholds by more than 37%. The proposed measures, EV readiness, bike and pedestrian improvements, and a transportation fee would reduce less than 2% of VMT far short of the 27% reduction required. Third, air quality and health risks. Experts at Sway concluded that the M&D underestimates emissions and ignores toxic diesel particullet. Without a construction health risk assessment, the city cannot claim impacts will be less than significant. Fourth, hazards and indoor air quality. DTSC and SAPE identify potential pesticide residues in soils on the project site that have not been adequately analyzed. In addition, expert Francis Offerman found that the project would expose future residents to cancer-causing levels of firmaldahhide from building materials exceeding air district thresholds. In short, the record contains overwhelming evidence of potentially significant impacts. SQL requires an EIR to fully analyze these issues, evaluate alternatives, and adopt effective mitigation. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the commission to deny approval of the M&D and require preparation of an EIR. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Porciato. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the project? If so, please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed. All right, seeing none, does any commissioner have questions for the public on this item? Remember, now is not the time to express opinions on the matter. It is only time to ask questions. Uh, I don't have a request to speak list for some reason. So, old-fashioned hand raising. Commissioner Morton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my first question is just for for Macintosh Engineering. Uh, for Sean, if if you could come up one. So, uh, Mr. Martin indicated that this this project originally started at 1,000 acres and was produced to to 30 acres. Can you tell me why that was? Um, okay. Could you help out on that? I don't have the background on that. >> Well, for clarification, the 10,00 acres was a project that was Old River Ranch >> uh back in 2005, 2006. So, that has been developed. Right. >> So this portion uh that original project created some art out parcels and this these are two of those out parcels that remained and they were not included in the scope of the original EI and so that original project was over a thousand acres and this is only the 28 acres that remains for these two parcels. >> Right. Okay. Because I was just going this doesn't look like there's that much space in between. Okay. Um and I guess that is that is my my only question to you sir. Thank you very much. Right. >> Um >> and then I do have a question I guess for for staff. Do I need to wait on that, Mr. Chairman? >> No, this is public and staff. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um so there's been no farming on this land for 10 years. Is is that correct? >> It was a ad conversion study and that's what it shows more than 10 years. >> And there's no active oil wells on this property. >> We did not receive any information that there's oil wells on this property. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Martin. Commissioner Core. >> Um, question to the staff. Why are we not requiring uh requiring the environmental impact report on the project? >> There was an EI that was previously done, but because this project was not part of that project scope, we determined that mitigate negative or initial study was the route to to u pursue. So we did request for studies to be prepared for this project and it was found based on those studies and initial study that EI was not required. So based on the evidence that staff reviewed and analyzed that was our determination that M and D was appropriate. >> Okay. And then and in the previous report this parcel was covered or it was not. >> It was not covered. >> Okay. Um sorry. So, in the uh the letter of the mitigated negative declaration, they're saying that might my computer screen stuck. Sorry. Um that it might we might require it. Trying to go to the page where I read that. I am on page 10 of the uh negative declaration uh last bullet point. I find that although the proposed uh project could have a significant um effect on the environment. So are we going to require the study? >> So are we looking under environmental determinations and that one box is checked off? >> That one indicates that a mitigated negative decoration will be prepared if that's the correct one I'm looking at. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Core. I just had one question for staff. Um, and it's not really to this project, but uh, how many offhand does the city keep track of how many Williamson um, cancellations we've done for the city? Is that a metric tracked at all? That question came up in the office and recently we have not done uh any Williams back consolations. Uh there are some other properties in the area that um were part other out parcels and we're going to keep looking at those but not until the property owner decides not to farm it anymore will we get a request from that parcel owner but uh we haven't seen a cancellation in quite a while. >> Okay. Yeah, I was going to say I don't think I've seen one in four years that I've been tracking. So, all right. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other commissioner questions, is there anyone who wishes to provide a rebuttal on this item? If so, please be prepared to step to the podium. Each side will have only five minutes and make your comments succinctly without repeating remarks to ensure that everyone wishing to provide rebuttal has had a chance to do so. And I believe, yep, in favor starts first. So, give us one second to get the clock started. All right. Go ahead. >> I don't think I'll need all five minutes. Uh, this again is Brandon Martin uh representing the applicant. Um, just to to make clear sort of the process uh for Commissioner Carr of what it seems like from the developer perspective and the choice of whether we do a mitigated negative deck or a full environmental impact report. We essentially submit an application to the city. the city takes the city planning staff take a look at uh what they would need in terms of potential impacts uh from us send us a letter saying will you do these studies at that point we can fight and say no we're cheap we don't want to do these studies we don't care about the environment some developers do that uh we did not we uh prepared all the stud studies that the city asked us to um and those studies found that we could do a full mitigation of of our environmental impacts. So, we then presented the results of those cities in a do of those studies in a in a document called the mitigated negative declaration. Um, we can't do that unless we have um uh substantial evidence supporting that the mitigation does serve the environment. Um, but we believe we have that in the record. That's probably our u fundamental distinction or difference with the safer uh team in back of me. Uh there's one point in particular I' I'd like to just focus on in terms of what safer has said or the jury law firm has said uh which is their concern with uh the impact on a land preservation. Um a land preservation is something that's important to me. It's something that's important to Keith Gardner, who the developer is also a very prominent farmer in our community and one who's um um been active in terms of a land preservation for many years. Um as a sort of a thought leader, I would suppose I could say um but this project is 0.004% of active a land in Kern County. I'm not saying that's dimminimous, but it's a very, very small portion of the a land that we have here in our county. More importantly, what the jury firm has done is they've taken one aspect of what makes for good a land and focused on it entirely. So, they've pointed out that there are good quality soils on this land. That's true. And especially before Sigma and the way we look at groundwater and so forth use in our county changed a while ago, five ten years ago. Um this might have been what you would call good Aland. Certainly probably it was in 1960 something when it the Aland contract was entered into but now you what you have is a well on the northern uh portion of the property. Um it would be very groundwater intensive to try to feed this. uh it's just uh not planned for under our uh our um um conservation planning under Sigma and it just doesn't make sense uh to do it. Uh that's why we have a declaration explaining further in the record from um the person who was the last person to farm it or or lease it. Uh explaining that you know on paper it may have great soil but it's not a land. Uh and that's why the conservation uh cancellation the contract cancellation is appropriate. Uh there were some other issues that were brought up by the jury firm involving building materials, some of which we just factually differ. We believe we're in compliance with the the air quality control standards from the Sanwaqin Air Quality Control District and so forth. Those are some of those concerns are concerns that we don't have local thresholds to prepare environmental documents off of. If that's something that you and the city council wish to implement as part of the process and your general planning for the future, certainly do so. But it's very unfair to ask our client or shoot down our development prospects uh for not picking a threshold of significance and a standard of of environmental protection and so forth against ourselves in order to kind of do speculative environmental planning. um that projects in the city of Bakersfield simply don't as a routine practice do. If we did such a thing um and again we don't agree that there were that these impacts are real, but if we did such a thing, I can guarantee you what would happen is that is that the jury firm would be here papering us saying that we chose the wrong method um and we'd be in the same place. Uh so I'm not making light of the fact that there are air quality concerns. I believe we've complied with our air quality control district and if you wish to deal with them not by penalizing our individual project but through overall legislative planning in a general planning that's could you wrap up your comments in a succinct manner? >> I'll just say thank you very much for the commission. >> Thank you sir. Appreciate that. >> I will now I think we'll restart the clock for rebuttal and opposition. Is there anyone who would like to provide rebuttal comments in opposition to the project? Seeing none, I'm going to ask uh the city attorney, can we take a quick recess just or do we want to close the public comment then recess? >> Yeah, I would recommend you close the public hearing and then we can take a short recess. Okay, seeing no more rebuttals, I will now close the public hearing on the item and return it to commission for comment and action. And we will take a brief recess. [Music] Hello. Nat. Heat. Heat. [Music] Hey, [Music] hey, hey. [Music] [Music] [Music] I don't know if there's official verbiage to say we're back from recess, but we are back from recess. Uh, we left this off on returned to commissioner for comment and action. So, uh, do I have comment or action from the commission? >> Commissioner, vice vice chair Bidd. >> All right. Appreciate everybody coming out for these projects. It's really important that we have these discussions. Um, our housing element really tells us that we need this housing. And when you look at what the track looks like right now, it fits into this area into this neighborhood quite well. So, I don't know if anybody else has anything to say, but I'd like to make a motion to approve the project. >> I believe we'll hold the motion for a second. Commissioner Martin. >> Yeah, I was just going to essentially second that you have nearly a thousand acres surrounding this. We just went through the housing plan, right? We need we need housing. This this is uh this is great. And um so that's my comments. I'd second that unless anyone else has something to say. >> Seeing none, I'll take that uh motion from Vice Chair Bidd to >> approve and then second. Got it. Thank you. Can we vote abstain for cater? >> No, actually when he's recused, he's um absent from the from this portion of the meeting. >> No, it shouldn't. I can't speak for the technology, but Motion passes with Commissioner Kel Rekusi. >> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh, Mr. Nino, will you please read the appeal instructions or or city attorney? Either one. No, I was just going to say um now that you've taken the vote, I do you usually read the appeal? We just have to remember to bring Mr. Kater back before we keep going. >> Uh yeah, I think appeal and then we bring him back. >> Okay, >> I'll read the appeal instructions. You may appeal a planning commission decision to the city council by submitting your request in writing with the city clerk within 10 days of the date of this commission's decision. Your appeal must be must state the reason for the appeal and your relation to the project. There may be a filing fee required. >> Thank you, sir. And I think he can hear us, right? But I'll go get him. Oh, yeah. Never. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you for that. Uh, Madame Clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item seven, communications. >> Does staff have any communication items? >> Trust. I have one item to report on. Uh the next regular scheduled plan commission meeting is on October 2nd. This is all I have to report. >> Thank you, Madame Clerk. Next item, please. >> Agenda item eight, commissioner comments. >> Does any commissioner have any comments? >> Commissioner Neil? >> Yes. I just want to note that I I will be here October 2nd, but not the week following. I'll be out of town for work. I'm at the next one after that. So, just a heads up in case something like that needs a quorum. Everything needs a quorum, but something big is on that one to collect a quorum beforehand. >> Thank you. And in the same vein of train of thought, I will be out next week or next meeting. So, October 2nd, I will not be in attendance. Uh, Madame Clerk, next item, please. >> Agenda item nine, adjournment. This meeting is adjourned at 6:07 p.m. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]