ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 10, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: September 5, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Appeal Hearing of Planning Commission’s Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased) and its proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Mcintosh & Associates, representing Opal Land Company Co-Ownership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC, is proposing Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7450 (Phased)to subdivide approximately 32.66 acres into 176 single-family residential lots and 5 public landscape lots in the R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone located at the southwest corner of Olive Drive and Rosedale Ranch Parkway. (Ward 4)
Consideration of a Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 (Phased).
Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, submitted an appeal to the Planning Commission’s approval of the request.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 and its proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 7450 consists of 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres. Residential lots range in size from 4,500 square feet (s.f.) to 12, 657 s.f., and the typical lot size is approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep (5,000 square feet). The net density is 5.86 units per net acre which is consistent with the LR designation of the project site of less than or equal to 7.26 dwelling units per net acre. Access to this subdivision would be from Rosedale Ranch Parkway (future collector) on the subdivision's east boundary and from Reina Road (collector) on the south.
Planning Commission Decision. VTTM No. 7450 (Phased) was scheduled for Planning Commission consideration for the January 16, 2025, and February 20, 2025 meetings but VTTM No. 7450 (Phased) was referred back to staff for further review and to respond to comments submitted by Gordan Nipp on behalf of the Sierra Club and Carol Bender. On July 17, 2025, the Planning Commission considered VTTM No. 7450 (Phased). Comments and concerns were addressed in the sta ff report and a memorandum was prepared summarizing the comments with staff’s response.
At the July 17, 2025 meeting, Blaine Neptune representing McIntosh and Associates, Inc. and Tom Dee representing Opal Land Company Co-Ownership Interests, LLC & BGM, LLC & 7-G’s Investment Group, LLC were present in support. Eddy Laine representing the Sierra Club were present in opposition to the
project. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the request with Commissioners Neal and Martin absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution No. 35-25 (attached).
Appeal to Planning Commission’s Decision. On July 25, 2025, Sierra Club filed an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve VTTM No. 7450. The basis for the appeal was set f orth in the letter which states:
The Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, with approximately 1,150 local members, would be affected by project construction impacts related to air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and habitat loss.
Prior written and oral comments regarding cumulative climate change, cumulative air pollution, and habitat loss impacts have not been adequately addressed.
Mitigation measures for cumulative environmental impacts are insufficient.
Additional detail supporting the appeal is provided in the Sierra Club’s July 15, 2025 letter on record for the project.
The property owner provided a detailed response to each of the concerns raised. A copy of the appeal and response are attached.
Environmental Review. Based upon an initial st udy, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from June 10, 2025 to July 10, 2025. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, and air quality analysis.
Public Notification. All required public notices have been given for both the Planning Commission public hearings held January 16, 2025, February 20, 2025 and July 17, 2025, and the City Council public hearing of September 10, 2025. Correspondence received for the Planning Com mission is attached with the Planning Commission staff report. No correspondence has been received in response to the City Council noticing.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:
The City Council may sustain, modify, reject, or overrule any ruling of the Planning Commiss ion for this subdivision of land. Two Resolutions have been provided for your Council’s consideration regarding the appeal:
1. Deny the Appeal and Approve VTTM No. 7450 (Phased). If the City Council were to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission's approval, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would be approved and facilitate construction of 176 residential lots and 5 public landscape lots on 32.66 acres.
2. Approve the Appeal and Deny VTTM No. 7450 (Phased). If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be developed as proposed and would retain its current state.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes the proposed subdivision of land is consistent with applicable general and specific plans; the site is physically suitable for the type of development; the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; the design of the subdivision will not likely cause serious public health problems; and the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
Overall Recommendation. Staff makes the determination that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends to the City Council consider the whole of the record, to include the appellant’s concerns and consultant’s responses, and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact with the proposed subdivision of land. Development as a result of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7450 will be subject to the appropriate application processing fees that have been determined to be sufficient to cover all operational expenses related to processing projects.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Community Character & Quality of Life
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
A. City Council Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve VTTM 7450 B. City Council Resolution to Approve Appeal and Deny VTTM 7450 C. Map Set
D. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
E. Planning Commission Staff Report
F. Planning Commission Memorandum
G. Planning Commission Resolution
H. Appeal Letter of Planning Commission Decision
I. Memorandum Summarizing Responses to Appeal Letter