Minutes, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, October 22, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

e. The City of Bakersfield will be the waste water treatment provider upon completion of the annexation and has indicated there is sufficient capacity in the existing plant to serve this project.

No significant impact is noted.
f. The Bena Landfill serves the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The landfill will not need significant new or substantially altered facilities to accommodate this project. No significant impact is noted.
g. The project will not breach published national, state or local standards relating to waste reduction, litter control or solid waste disposal. See answer to XVI. f. No significant impact is noted.

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. The project is subject to the terms of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and associated Section 10 (a)(1)(b) and Section 2801permits issued to the City of Bakersfield by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Terms of the permit require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to pay habitat mitigation fees, excavate known kit fox dens, and notify agencies prior to grading. Compliance with the plan mitigates biological impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the environment. b. As described in the response above, the proposal has no significant impacts that would be defined as individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The project is only proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow for the development of residential uses. c. As described in the responses above, the proposal would not adversely impact human beings, either directly or indirectly.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\03_Complete\2007\07-1874\ND\ND-1874.doc Page 20 of 20

BIBLIOGRAPHY/REFERENCE LIST

1. The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, City of Bakersfield, adopted by Resolution No. 222-02 on December 11, 2002, became effective of February 26, 2003.

2. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, June 26, 2002.

3. The City of Bakersfield Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), State Clearinghouse (SCH) # 1989070302, by Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates (RBF Consulting) for the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern, December 11, 2002.

4. FEIR Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (MBHCP), Thomas Reid Associates for the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern, March 1991

5. MBHCP, Advisory Notice to Developers, 10 (a)(1)(b) and 2081 permits, 1994.

6. Implementation/Management Agreement by and among the United States Fish and Game Service, California Department of Fish and Game, City of Bakersfield and County of Kern.

7. Title 17, Zoning Ordinance, Bakersfield Municipal Code.

8. Title 16, Subdivision Map Act, Bakersfield Municipal Code.

9. Water Balance Report, City of Bakersfield, 2000.

10. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, January 10, 2002, as updated.

11. Student Generation Rates. February 6, 2003. Kern County Office of Education. Prepared by: David Taussig & Associates.

12. City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures.

13. City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan.

14. Kern County/Metro Bakersfield Congestion Management Plan.

15. Kern County, California - Soil Survey.

16. Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 1996.

17. Kern County Flood Evacuation Plan for Kern County and Greater Bakersfield Area below Lake Isabella.

18. Bakersfield Heart Hospital FEIR.

19. Department of Conservation - Kern County Interim Farmland (1986).

20. U.S. Department of Interior, Geologic Survey - Seismic Hazard Atlas.

21. Federal Emergency Management Agency - Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

22. Air Quality Impact Analysis, For Township 30 South, Range 27 East, M.D.M. Portion of the Southwest ¼ of Section 29, City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California, Prepared by McIntosh & Associates, October 2007.

23. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, for Steve Antongiovanni, City of Bakersfield, California, Prepared by Hudlow Cultural Resource Associates, April 2006.

24. Traffic Impact Study, for Antongionvanni Property, Prepared by McIntosh & Associates, November 2006.

25. Farmland Conversion Study for Property Located North of McCutchen Road, between Old River Road and Progress Road, prepared by McIntosh & Associates, August 2006.

R-1 R-1
30 29
31 32
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
COUNTY
BERKSHIRE RD PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline
P
LR LR
R-IA
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
LR
R-IA
LR
LI
MC
LR
HMR
LI
R-IA
GC
LR
LR
R-IA
LR

R-IAR-IA
HMR
R-IA
LMR
LR
SI
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
LR
GC
R-IA
R-IA
R-IA
OC
R-IA
LR

MC CUTCHEN RD

GOSFORD RD

BUENA VISTA RD

OLD RIVER RD

PROGRESS RD

GREEN RD
M

OUNTAIN VISTA DR

OLD RIVER RD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-1874
0 800 1,600
Feet
T30S, R27E 100703

R-IA TO LR
R-1 R-1
30 29
31 32
COUNTY
CITY
COUNTY
CITY
CITY
COUNTY
BERKSHIRE RD PG&E Gas Transmission Pipeline
R1
A A
R-1
A
R-1
R-1
R-1
R-1
A
R-1
A
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

A
R-2
R-1 R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1R-1
R-1
R-2/P.U.D.

M-1
C-2/P.C.D.

R-1/P.U.D.

C-2/P.C.D.

M-3
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-1
C-2
R-1
R-1
R-1/P.U.D.

R-1
R-1
C-2/P.C.D.

C-1
R-1

MC CUTCHEN RD

GOSFORD RD

BUENA VISTA RD

OLD RIVER RD

PROGRESS RD

GREEN RD
M

OUNTAIN VISTA DR

OLD RIVER RD
ZONE CHANGE 07-1874
0 800 1,600
Feet
T30S, R27E 100703
A TO R-1

August 22, 2025

Via Email
Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC, City Clerk
City of Bakersfield
1600 Truxtun Avenue, 1st Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]
Jennie Eng, Planning Director
Development Services Department
City of Bakersfield
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]

Re: Appeal of August 21, 2025, Planning Commission Decision Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 Based on MND for GPA/ZC 07-1874

Dear Ms. Drimakis and Ms. Eng:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500, which proposes the subdivision of 39.92 acres into 208 single-family residential lots (“Project”). Through this letter, SAFER appeals the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission’s (“City”) August 21, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 based on a 2007 mitigated negative declaration for GPA/ZC 07- 1874 (the “2007 MND”).

The City’s decision to rely on the 2007 MND violates the California Environmental Quality Act. The Project may have significant impacts that were not considered in the 2007 MND, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Alternatively, there is new information, changed circumstances, and new mitigation measures requiring preparation of a new MND.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Davis
Lozeau Drury LLP

S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0001_VTTM 7500_NEC Old RIver Rd & McCutchen Rd\08_Appeal\7500_CC memo_.docx Page | 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 22, 2025

TO: Mayor Goh and Members of the City Council

FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director

SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 9.a, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500 (Phased)

This memorandum is to transmit additional correspondence submitted since the preparation of the Administrative Report. Staff received correspondence from Gary and Tammy Wenino, and David P. Soto. The appellant submitted additional correspondence with a large attachment. The entire letter with attachment is available with the City Clerk at the Council Chambers.

Attachments:

Letter from Gary and Tammy Wenino (10/21/2025)
Letter from David P. Soto (10/21/2025)
Letter from Lozeau-Drury (10/21/2025)(Hard copy of entire letter with City Clerk)

cc: Christian Clegg, City Manager
Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney
Julie Dramkis, City Clerk

October 21, 2025

Via Email
Manpreet Kaur, Vice Mayor
Eric Areas, Councilmember
Andrae Gonzales, Councilmember
Ken Weir, Councilmember
Bob Smith, Councilmember
Larry Koman, Councilmember
Zack Bashirtash, Councilmember
Bakersfield City Council
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]

Julie Drimakis, CMC, CPMC
Bakersfield City Clerk
First Floor
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[email protected]

Re: Comments on Appeal of August 21, 2025 Planning Commission Decision Approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 Based on MND for GPA/ZC 07-1874; October 22, 2025 City Council Agenda Item 9.a

Dear Vice Mayor Kaur and Honorable City Council Members:

This letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Planning Commission’s approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500, which proposes the subdivision of 39.92 acres into 208 single-family residential lots (“Project”). SAFER appealed the City of Bakersfield (“City”) Planning Commission’s August 21, 2025 decision to adopt a resolution approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7500 based on a 2007 mitigated negative declaration for GPA/ZC 07-1874 (the “2007 MND”). The appeal is scheduled to be heard at the October 22, 2025 City Council meeting as Agenda Item 9.a.

SAFER’s review of the MND was assisted by expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. of environmental consulting firm, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”), whose written comments and CVs are attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively.

As discussed below, the City’s decision to rely on the 2007 MND violates the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Project may have significant impacts that were not considered in the 2007 MND, requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

Alternatively, there is new information, changed circumstances, and new mitigation measures requiring preparation of a new MND.

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 2 of 9 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The new Project proposes a vesting tentative tract map for 208 single-family residential lots on 39.92 acres in the City of Bakersfield. The Project is located at the Northeast corner of Old River Road and Mc Cutchen Road in southwest Bakersfield. The Project relies on a previous MND that was adopted on December 20, 2007, for a General Plan Amendment from R-IA to LR (Low Density Residential) and zone change from A to R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 38.09 acres and a Zone Change (“2007 project”).

In addition to the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the 2007 project included the following elements:

● The 2007 Project allowed for the development of single family residential dwelling units on the site. It also included the annexation of the site to the City of Bakersfield.
● At the time of 2007 Project’s proposal, the area west of the site was being developed with the new Independence High School.
● The 2007 MND’s air quality analysis considered only 172 units, rather than the currently proposed 208 units.
● The 2007 MND also anticipated that the 2007 Project would be completed in phases occurring over approximately 3 years. It was anticipated that a typical build-out rate of 60 dwelling units per year will occur based upon previous projects of this nature.

The City is relying on the 2007 MND for the Project, claiming that no new significant impacts, nor substantial increase in severity of impacts will result with proposed VTTM 7500 from those previously identified in the MND for the 2007 project. Therefore, the City determined pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no further environmental documentation is necessary because no substantial changes to the original project are proposed, there are no substantial changes in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, and no new environmental impacts have been identified.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162, a supplemental EIR or MND is required when:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 3 of 9 ends

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

(14 CCR § 15162(a).)

The California Supreme Court explained when CEQA’s subsequent review provisions are applicable:
[U]nder CEQA, when there is a change in plans, circumstances, or available information after a project has received initial approval, the agency's environmental review obligations “turn[ ] on the value of the new information to the still pending decisionmaking process.” (Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (1989) 490 U.S. 360, 374, 109 S.Ct. 1851, 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (Marsh).) If the original environmental document retains some informational value despite the proposed changes, then the agency proceeds to decide under CEQA’s subsequent review provisions whether project changes will require major revisions to the original environmental document because of the involvement of new, previously unconsidered significant environmental effects. (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 937, 951–52 (“San Mateo Gardens”).

The Court further explained the standard for preparation of a subsequent MND or EIR when the initially approved document is a negative declaration:

[W]hen a project is initially approved by negative declaration, a ‘major revision’ to the initial negative declaration will necessarily be required if the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) Indeed, if the project modification introduces previously unstudied and potentially significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided or mitigated through further revisions to the project plans, the appropriate environmental document would no longer be a negative declaration at all, but an EIR.

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 4 of 9 ends

(San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.)

Said another way, if, because of new information or changed circumstances a new or more substantial impact was not previously studied, then a further EIR is required if the change “may produce a significant environmental effect.” (Id.) This is determined under the “fair argument” standard, meaning that an EIR is required if there is any substantial evidence that changes in circumstances or new information not previously available demonstrates that the project may have a significant environmental impact.

“‘If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration,’ and if no subsequent EIR is required, the agency ‘shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.’(Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 946, quoting CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(b).) “While minor changes may be addressed through an addendum, where potentially significant impacts are introduced, a new or subsequent EIR is required.” (San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

DISCUSSION

I. The Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan and the Identification of New Special-Status Species are Significant Changes in Circumstances, Precluding Reliance on the 2007 MND for the Project.

A. Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan is a Changed Circumstance Requiring Major Revisions to the MND Because the Project May Significantly Impact Species Covered by the Former HCP.

There is substantial evidence of changed circumstances since the certification of the 2007 MND indicating that the Project may have significant unmitigated biological resources impacts.

The 2007 MND concluded that the Project’s biological resources impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (“MBHCP”). (MND, p. 12.) However, the MBHCP and its accompanying state and federal incidental take permits expired on January 1, 2023, and currently no replacement conservation plan or permitting mechanism exist. (See City of Bakersfield Memorandum, “Pending Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan” (Nov. 15, 2022); City of Bakersfield Memorandum, “Report on the status of efforts toward adoption of a new Habitat Conservation Plan, Implications of Expiration of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan, and Request for City Council direction” (Feb. 8, 2023); City of Bakersfield Webpage, “Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan,” (accessed Oct. 18, 2023) (attached as Exhibit C).) As a result, the City can no longer rely on the MBHCP’s mitigation framework to offset impacts to special-status species covered under the plan, such as the San Joaquin kit fox, Blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, Giant kangaroo, and San Joaquin (Nelson’s) antelope squirrel. (MBHCP, pp. ii-iii.) Even though the Project site remains within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan Area—previously covered by the MBHCP—the October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 5 of 9 ends

expiration of the MBHCP represents a substantial change in circumstance under CEQA, precluding reliance on the 2007 MND. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

He concludes that because “there exists no MBHCP into which a mitigation fee can be paid,” the sole measure to reduce biological resources impacts to less-than-significant in the 2007 MND “would no longer apply to the proposed project.” (Ex. A, p. 2.) Without mitigation to replace the MBHCP, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will likely result in significant impacts to wildlife previously covered by the MBHCP, including habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, predation by house cats, road mortality, and contributions to cumulative impacts. (Id., pp. 7, 9.)

An example of special-status species previously covered by the MBHCP that would be impacted by the Project is the federally and state protected San Joaquin kit fox. Many studies show that the federally and state protected San Joaquin kit fox continues to be impacted by the increase in urban development in Bakersfield. (See Exhibit D [studies on the impacts to San Joaquin kit fox in Bakersfield].) The ability of the kit fox to disperse and otherwise move is critical to its survival as a species. In its most recent status report for the kit fox, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) reported the kit fox as a “Declining” species. (See Exhibit D, CDFW, Species Accounts Mammals (2005), pp. 27-29.) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) has assigned the kit fox a recovery priority of 3C, based on a 1-18 ranking system where 1 is the highest-ranked recovery priority and 18 is the lowest. (See Exhibit D, USFWS, 5-Year Review: San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Sept. 11, 2020), pp. 3-4.) The “C” indicates conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity. (Id.) The expiration of the MBHCP means there is no longer any protection for the San Joaquin kit fox, which may be significantly impacted by the Project’s construction.

The USFWS recent assessments of the kit fox in Bakersfield provides substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project could result in significant unmitigated impacts to San Joaquin kit fox. (See Exhibit D, USFWS, Species Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Aug. 2020).) The USFWS’s 2020 Special Status Assessment Report for the San Joaquin kit fox identifies the Bakersfield population as the most genetically diverse and therefore critical to the species’ survival. (Id., pp. 13, 15, 28, 44.) However, this population has undergone a severe decline, primarily due to vehicle strikes, habitat fragmentation, and interference with the species’ movement. (Id., pp. 32-37, 42-44, 47-53.) The USFWS Assessment Report emphasizes that new roads, increased traffic, and residential developments—such as those proposed by this Project—pose serious threats to the species by increasing mortality and reducing habitat connectivity. (Id., pp. 54-56.) The loss of an additional 40 acres of kit fox habitat is a significant impact and further harms the species.

The USFWS recommends mitigation measures in its 2011 Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance, such as treating potential dens as known dens, covering trenches, or setting construction speed limits. (See Exhibit D, USFWS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 6 of 9 ends

Ground Disturbance (Jan. 2011), pp. 1-9.) The City has not adopted any of these recommendation measures in 2007 MND or in the Staff Report for the Project.

Moreover, without a valid Section(10) take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act and a state 2081 take permit under the California Endangered Species Act, approval of the Project could result in unauthorized take of state and federally listed species in violation of state and federal law, such as the San Joaquin kit fox.

The MBHCP’s expiration is a substantial change in circumstances that will result in significant biological resources impacts. As a result, the City may not rely on the 2007 MND for the Project, and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

B. The Presence of Special Status Species and the Decline in Abundance of Dozens of Species Resulting in Newly Listed Status is a Changed Circumstance Requiring Major Revisions to the MND Because the Project May Significantly Impact Special Status Species.

In addition, there is substantial evidence of changed circumstances regarding the presence of special-status species that will be impacted by the Project. Expert ecologist Dr. Smallwood found that “many additional changes in circumstance have taken place since the adoption of the 2007 MND,” including the identification of “108 special-status species of wildlife . . . near enough to the site to warrant analysis,” 41 of which “have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2007 MND.” (Ex. A, pp. 2-6.) Each newly listed special-status species represents a significant change in circumstances requiring an updated analysis of biological resources impacts for the Project. (14 CCR § 15162(a)(2), (b).) Dr. Smallwood concludes these species may be impacted through habitat loss, interference with wildlife movement, predation by house cats, and road mortality. These new significant unmitigated impacts on special-status species were not analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id., pp. 2-6.)

Because of the changed circumstances since the certification of 2007 MND and substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have new significant impacts on special-status species, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND and must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR for the Project. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

II. The City’s Conclusions Regarding Biological Resources Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The City never prepared an expert analysis of the 2007 Project’s impacts on biological resources, and it did not prepare one for the now-proposed Project. Accordingly, the City has no substantial evidence to support its conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts on biological resources.

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 7 of 9 ends

Dr. Smallwood explains that “[t]he City has not appropriately investigated the site for its use by wildlife, and it therefore lacks a defensible basis for determining whether special-status species are present or absent, and how potential project impacts to wildlife should be mitigated.” (Ex. A, p. 6.) As Dr. Smallwood notes, the City has not conducted recent biological surveys of the Project site, meaning its less-than-significant conclusions for biological resources impacts are unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id., pp. 6-7.)

Dr. Smallwood has surveyed hundreds of proposed project sites for wildlife, and many of these sites had already been disked. (Ex. A, pp. 6-7.) While the City might regard the Project site as unlikely to support special-status species of wildlife because it is disked, based on his experience, Dr. Smallwood notes that even heavily disturbed or disked sites continue to provide habitat and foraging opportunities for numerous special-status species, including the San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl, monarch butterfly, and loggerhead shrike. (Id., pp. 3-9) Dr. Smallwood therefore concludes that “[t]here is at least a fair argument . . . for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately characterize the wildlife community, to analyze potential project impacts, and to formulate appropriate mitigation.” (Id., p. 9.)

Given the number of new special-status species, the lack of updated biological surveys, and the expiration of the MBHCP, the City’s conclusions about the Project’s impacts to biological resources are not supported by substantial evidence. As such, a subsequent MND or EIR, or at the very minimum, an addendum is needed to adequately address the impacts to wildlife of the proposed Project, and to mitigate those impacts accordingly.

III. Based on the Substantial Amount of Urbanization that has Taken Place in Bakersfield since Certification of the 2007 MND, the Project Could Have Significant Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts.

Since 2007, Bakersfield has experienced extensive urbanization and conversion of open space and agricultural lands, resulting in significant cumulative habitat loss. The 2007 MND could only consider development projects pending at that time and did not account for the dozens of new projects subsequently approved. The City has not presented any evidence that these cumulative impacts—combined with the proposed Project—will not have significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. Because the Project could result in significant cumulative biological resources impacts as a result of changed circumstances since the 2007 MND was prepared, the City cannot rely on the 2007 MND under CEQA Guidelines section 15162, and instead, must prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative biological resources impacts.

IV. There are Changes in Circumstances Since the Certification of the 2007 MND that Indicate the Project Could Have Significant Unmitigated Air Quality Impacts, Precluding Reliance on the 2007 MND for the Project.

Substantial changes to the Project and the surrounding environmental conditions since 2007 demonstrate that a subsequent MND or EIR is required to analyze air quality impacts of the Project. SWAPE explains that the Staff Report incorrectly concludes there are “no substantial October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 8 of 9 ends

changes in circumstances” and “no new environmental impacts.” (Ex. B, p. 2.) However, the current Project proposes 208 single-family residential lots, a substantial increase from the 172 dwelling units analyzed in the 2007 MND. This increase in development constitutes a change in circumstances that could result in new or more severe air quality impacts not previously analyzed in the 2007 MND. (Id.) Moreover, the dozens of new developments in Bakersfield near the Project is a changed circumstance. The 2007 MND does not provide substantial evidence of cumulative air quality or GHG impacts because the 2007 MND could only consider development projects pending at that time and did not account for any of the dozens of new projects subsequently approved. Because the Project has increased in size and is a change in circumstance that could result in significant air quality impacts, CEQA requires preparation of an addendum, at minimum, or a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze and mitigate these potentially significant impacts. (14 CCR §§ 15162(a)(2); 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

V. The City’s Conclusions Regarding Individual and Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence.

SWAPE further found that the Staff Report fails to provide any quantification or analysis of the Project’s air pollutant emissions. (Ex. B, p. 3.) The City did not estimate or compare construction and operational emissions against the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) significance thresholds. (Id.) SWAPE explains that without such analysis, the conclusion that the Project will not exceed applicable thresholds is unsupported by substantial evidence. (Id.) SWAPE concludes that, absent a complete air quality analysis, it cannot be determined that the Project will not have significant air quality impacts, and therefore the City must prepare a full CEQA analysis—such as a subsequent MND or EIR—to adequately analyze and mitigate the Project’s potential air quality impacts. (Id.) At minimum, the City must prepare an addendum and analyze these impacts. (14 CCR § 15162(b); San Mateo Gardens, 1 Cal.5th at 958.)

In addition, the Project could result in significant cumulative air quality impacts. The San Juaquin Valley Air Basin, and specifically the City of Bakersfield, experience complex and significant air quality issues caused by an extremely high concentration of various industrial activities, farming, wood burning, and on-road vehicle traffic, including diesel emissions from heavy-duty truck traffic.

As a result, the Air District exceeds federal and state public health standards for particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or smaller (“PM 10”), particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller (“PM2.5”), and ozone (MND, p. 23) resulting in its residents suffering from some of the worst air pollution in the nation. For example, exposure to PM 2.5—which comes primarily from combustion activities (71 Fed. Reg. 61,144, 61,146 (Oct. 17, 2006))—can cause aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, lung disease, asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature death. (See 70 Fed. Reg. 65,984, 65,988 and 65,991 (Nov. 1, 2005).) Individuals with heart and lung disease, the elderly, and children are most sensitive to PM2.5 exposure. (Id. at 65988.)

October 21, 2025
Appeal Re: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7500

Page 9 of 9 ends

According to the American Lung Association, the City of Bakersfield is currently ranked as having the highest year-round particle pollution and short-term particle pollution out of over 200 metropolitan areas evaluated in the US for 2025.1 In addition, CalEnviroScreen, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s health screening tool, identifies the Project site’s census tract as having some of the State’s worst concentrations of ozone and PM 2.5. Residents in the Project area are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations higher than 99 percent of census tracts in California and more ozone than 95 percent of census tracts.2 (Exhibit E– CalEnviroScreen Maps.)

Given the region’s continued noncompliance with federal and state ambient air quality standards, there is a fair argument that Project emissions could exacerbate existing violations and contribute to cumulative air quality impacts. The City should prepare a subsequent MND or EIR to adequately analyze these potentially cumulative air quality impacts, supported by updated emissions modeling and cumulative air quality impact analysis.

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, the changes in circumstances since the certification of the 2007 MND precludes the City from relying on the MND. Additionally, the 2007 MND fails to provide substantial evidence to support several of the City’s conclusions related to the Project’s impacts to biological resources and air quality. Furthermore, SAFER’s experts have established a fair argument that the Project may have new significant impacts on biological resources and air quality. SAFER respectfully requests that the City not rely on the 2007 MND but instead prepare and circulate a subsequent MND or EIR, or at minimum, an addendum prior to further consideration of the Project.

Sincerely,

Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP

1 American Lung Association, 2025. State of the Air 2025. https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city - rankings/mostpolluted-cities.
2https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators?views=PM2.5#dat a_s=id%3AdataSource_25-17c3d89e7e2-layer-1~dataSource_38-17c3c371181-layer- 1%3A1522%2Cid%3Awidget_306_output_0%3A0 [PM 2.5];
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators?views=Ozone#data _s=id%3AdataSource_25-17c3d89e7e2-layer-1~dataSource_38-17c3c371181-layer-1~dataSource_37- 17c3c3b4658-layer-1%3A1522%2Cid%3Awidget_306_output_0%3A0 [ozone].

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: October 22, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: October 6, 2025
SUBJECT: Public Appeal Hearing to consider Planning Commission’s Approval of Conditional Use Permit 24 -0010 and it proposed notice of exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PDA, Inc, representing Upscale Union LLC, requested a conditional use permit to allow a banquet venue (B.M.C. 17.24.040.A.6) in the C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone located at 2930 Union Avenue. (Ward 3)

Consideration of a Resolution adopting Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 24-0010 and its proposed notice of exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The owner of 2930 Union Avenue submitted an appeal to Planning Commission's condition that limits the operating hours from 8am-12am to 8am-10pm.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0100 and adoption of the notice of exemption from CEQA.

Project Summary
PDA, Inc submitted an application requesting a conditional use permit to convert a former Auto repair shop into a banquet hall. The project site encompasses approximately 0.26 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Union Avenue and Quincy Street. The property contains a one -story, 9,578 -square-foot commercial building which has been vacant and non -operational for more than 12 months. Surrounding uses include commercial buildings to the north, west, and south, with single -family residences located to the east. The nearest comparable event facility is “The Hideaway,” situated approximately 250 feet north at the corner of Union Avenue and Flower Street.

Of the total building area, 3,565 square feet will be designated for use as a banquet venue, while the remaining 6,013 square feet will serve as storage for tables, chairs, and decorative furnishings dedicated exclusively to this site and intended solely for scheduled events. The storage area will not be accessible to the public or patrons, will not house employees, and will not gener ate any additional parking demand beyond what is required for the banquet space. The application has completed its process through the site plan review. Currently, the site does not contain landscaping; however, new landscaping will be installed in compliance with Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.61.

Environmental Review and Determination
This project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementat ion Procedures in accordance with Section 15332 (Class 32: Infill). This exemption includes projects that are listed below. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared.

 Consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan po licies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations;  Within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;

 Have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;  Would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality;  Adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Public Notification
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by Unit ed States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Additionally, a public hearing notice was issued via email to all interested parties that submitted written comments.

Planning Commission Action
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2025. Three residents attended the hearing in opposition to the proposal, while Jeremy Manning, representative of PDA Architects, appeared on behalf of the applicant. The property owner was not present. Although originally scheduled as a consent agenda item, the project was pulled for public comment.

Following testimony from both supporters and opponents, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the project, subject to a condition modifying the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m.–12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m. The Commission’s findings are documented in Resolution No. 44-25.

On August 29, 2025, the owner of Upscale Union LLC filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, specifically challenging the new condition regarding hours of operation. The appeal argues that most events are scheduled to begin between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., and that the revised condition would therefore limit events to one or two hours (Condition No. II.3.b).

City Council Options
City Council has the following options regarding this appeal request:
 Deny the Appeal. If the City Council were to deny the appeal, the hours of operation would be set for 8am -10pm. The applicant would have exhausted all appeals, and further processing of this application would be closed.
 Uphold the Appeal. If the City Council were to uphold the appeal, the hours of operation would be set for 8am-12am.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to deny the appeal and uphold Planning Commission Action, will not have an adverse impact on the General Fund. If this site develops to its full land use economic potential it will have a positive impact on generating revenue for the City General Fund.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Community Character & Quality of Life

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution to deny the appeal

2. Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
• Development Plans

3. Planning Commission Resolution

4. Planning Commission Staff Report

5. Appeal Letter from Upscale Union LLC, August 28, 2025

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING

THE APPEAL AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A BANQUET VENUE (B.M.C. 17.24.040.A.6 ) IN
THE C -2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE LOCATED AT
2930 UNION AVENUE (CUP 24-0010)

WHEREAS, PDA, Inc., representing Upscale Union LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department for a conditional use permit to allow a banquet venue (B.M.C. 17.24.040.A.6) in the C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone district, located at 2930 Union Avenue (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 2025, and approved Resolution No. 44-25; and

WHEREAS, Upscale Union LLC (property owner) filed an appeal with the City Clerk on August 28, 2025 on the planning Commission recommendation to approve the project with revised hours of operations; and

WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, October 22, 2025 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the approval of the amendment as required by Government Code Section 65355 , and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield City Council as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The Planning Commission's findings as contained in its R esolution No. 44-25 are hereby approved.

3. The City Council hereby denies Upscale Union LLC’s appeal.

4. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0010.

---------o0o--------

Page 2 of 2 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 22nd day of October 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur_____________________ NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: _______________________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________ ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

JULIE DRIMAKIS, MMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield

By __________________________

KAREN GOH
Mayor

VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNEY

By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney

Exhibits: A. Conditions of Approval
B. Location Map
C. Site Plan

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0010

I. The applicant's rights granted by this approval are subject to the following provisions:

• The project shall be in accordance with all approved plans, conditions of approval, and other required permits and approvals. All construction shall comply with applicable building codes.

• All conditions imposed shall be diligently complied with at all times and all construction authorized or required shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the premises shall be used for the purposes applied for under this approval.

• This approval will not be effective until ten (10) days after the date upon which it is granted by the Planning Commission to allow for appeal to the City Council. Any permit or license for any approval granted shall not be issued until that effective date.

• This approval shall automatically be null and void two (2) years after the effective date unless the applicant or successor has actually commenced the rights granted, or if the rights granted are discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more. This time can be extended for up to one (1) additional year by the approving body.

• The Planning Commission may initiate revocation of the rights granted if there is good cause, including but not limited to, failure to comply with conditions of approval, complete construction or exercise the rights granted, or violation by the owner or tenant of any provision o f the Bakersfield Municipal Code pertaining to the premises for which the approval was granted. The Planning Commission may also consider adding or modifying conditions to ensure the use complies with the intent of City ordinances.

• Unless otherwise conditioned, this approval runs with the land and may continue under successive owners provided all the above-mentioned provisions are satisfied.

II. The following conditions shall be satisfied as part of the approval of this project:

1. In consideration by the City of Bakersfield for land use entitlements, including but not limited to related environmental approvals related to or arising from this project, the applicant, and/or property owner and/or subdivider ("Applicant" herein) agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Bakersfield, its officers, agents, employees, departments, commissioners and boards ("City" herein) against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this application, including without limitation any CEQA approval or any related development approvals or conditions whether imposed by the City, or not, except for CITY’s sole active negligence or willful misconduct.

This indemnification condition does not prevent the Applicant from challenging any decision by the City related to this project and the obligations of this condition apply regardless of whether any other permits or entitlements are issued.

The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be CUP 24-0010 Page | 2 of 4
allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense o
f the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

2. Prior to commencement of operations as allowed by this conditional use permit, the permit holder shall:
a. Obtain change in occupancy approval from the City of Bakersfield Building Division. b. Obtain fire clearance from the City of Bakersfield Fire Department/Prevention Services.

3. The banquet venue shall continually comply with the following conditions while in operation:
a. The maximum number of guests shall be limited to the maximum capacity as allowed by fire code or building code, whichever is more restrictive. b. Hours of operation for the banquet venue events shall be limited to 8: 00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. These restrictions do not apply to business office hours or event setup and teardown. c. The permit holder shall provide at least one security at each event. d. Prior to hosting a banquet event, the permit holder shall coordinate with a licensed security service to determine if additional security is required based on crowd size. The permit holder shall enter into a contract to provide additional security when warranted. e. All noise associated with the operation of any sound equipment must comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 9.22 and not exceed the applicable noise standards of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
f. Prior to commencement of alcohol sales/service, the permit holder shall obtain all required permits and approvals for alcohol sales and on-s ite consumption; including but not limited to necessary permits from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).
g. The permit holder shall comply with all operating conditions i mposed by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Should a conflict occur between the ABC requirements and the conditions of approval, the more restrictive shall prevail. h. Loitering is prohibited on the premises or areas under the control of the permit holder.

The permit holder shall install and maintain visible signage on the premises prohibiting such loitering.
i. The permit holder shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter and trash at all times. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be reported to the city and/or removed or painted over within 72 hours after discovery. j. Prior to commencing operations as all owed by this conditional use permit, the permit holder shall install and maintain visible signage on the premises to discourage littering by patrons. Signage must be placed in prominent locations reminding patrons to dispose of trash properly.

CUP 24-0010 Page | 3 of 4

III. The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City’s development standards.

The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a building permit is issued.

A. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue) (Staff contact – Yazid Alawgarey; 661-326-3191 or [email protected])

1. Prior to receiving final building or site occupancy, you must contact the Planning Division for final inspection and approval of the landscaping, parking lot, lighting and other related site improvements. Inspections will not be conducted until all required items have been installed.

Any deviations from the approved plans without prior approval from the Planning Division may result in reconstruction and delays in obtaining a building or site occupancy. Please call the Planning Division at 661-326-3733 to schedule.

B. FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff contact – Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or [email protected])

1. Prior to issuing building permit, All projects must comply with the current California Fire Codes and current City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and noted on the plan.

2. Prior to issuing building permit, Fire sprinkler and fire alarm install/modification is a deferred submittal through the Bakersfield Fire Dept. and noted on the plan.

3. Prior to issuing building permit, must show the key Knox box locations for the gates/buildings on the plan for approval.

C. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road)
(Staff contact – Tylor Hester; 661-326-3715 or [email protected])

1. Prior to the issuance of Building or Utility permits, the Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans designed by either an Architect or Civil Engineer licensed by the State of California, or by a State of California C -16 licensee showing all offs ite and onsite improvements, including connections to the existing water main and any underground fire waterlines and related apparatuses. Include any nearby existing or future fire hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be submitted along with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current fee schedule. Plans shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire Code, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current Fee Schedule are available for download from the City’s website at bakersfieldcity.us/379/water- resources

CUP 24-0010 Page | 4 of 4

2. Developer shall pay the required Water Department’s Fire Service Inspection Fees and submit an Inspection Request Form for any underground fire waterlines and their apparatuses at least two (2) full business days before permanent construction. The form is available for download from the City’s website at bakersfieldcity.us/379/water-resources

D. PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff contact – Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or [email protected])

1. Any proposed or future perimeter fence and/or wall shall be placed outside of existing public road right of way or future ultimate public right of way.

2. For Building Permit, Plan will need to show all existing connection(s) to the public sewer system.

3. At the time of building permit issuance, a sewer connection fee shall be paid for new fixtures. This fee is based on the rate that is in effect at the time a building permit is issued.

4. Prior to building permit approval, the developer shall form a new Maintenance District, or update existing Maintenance District Documents. Updated documents, including Proposition 218 Ballot and Covenant, shall be signed and notarized. Contact Subdivisions at 661-326-3571.

5. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the developer/owner shall pay a Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) for regional facilities. This fee will be based on the rate in effect at the time the applicable approval is issued. The Public Works Department will calculate an estimate of the total fee upon submittal of construction plans for the project.

6. A street permit from the Public Works Department shall be obtained before any work can be done within the public right-of-way (streets, alleys, easements). Please include a copy of this site plan review decision to the department at the time you apply for this permit.

E. PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff Contact – Richard Gutierrez; 661-326-3114 or [email protected])

1. At this time, no applicable conditions for the proposed project. Conditions may be added if the project changes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY PROJECT APPLICANT:

I agree to the project’s conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with any and all conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.

Signature Date

Print Name

EXHIBIT B
7 14
11 2
4 12
10 8
3 5
6 13
9 16
6 17
15 18
19 1
5 14
2 Q U I N C Y S T

U N I O N A V E
(E) MEDIAN

A L L E Y
C-2 - ADJACENT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
R-2

RESIDENTIAL
C-2 - ADJACENT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
PROPERTLY LINE 141.11'
PROPERTLY LINE 141.14'
PROPERTLY LINE 80.85'
PROPERTLY LINE 80.85'
20 C-2 - (E) BUILDING
5' - 0" 18' - 0" 22' - 0"
2' - 4"
HOSE PULL DISTANCE : 150'-1"

HOSE PULL
DISTANCE : 48'-8"
21 2' - 9" 4' - 0" 5' - 0"

EXISTING
SLOPE
22 22
22 PROJECT ANALYSIS

SCOPE OF WORK
BUILDING: 9,578SF
USE

BANQUET HALL

PERSON/AREA PARKING REQ'DRATIO
ZONE:

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

SITE AREA:

C-2
BUILDING AREA:
11,408.74 SF

OCCUPANCY
PROPOSED:

PARKING REQUIRED
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

PROPOSED: V-B
FIRE SPRINKLER: YES
A-2 (BANQUEST HALL ; S-1(STORAGE)

PARKING PROVIDED

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

STANDARD PARKING
TOTAL PROVIDED:
2 SPACES
12 SPACES
10 SPACES
2930 UNION AVE
012-071-01

THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO A BANQUET VENUE FROM AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS A PREFAB METAL BUILDING WITH A WOOD FRAMED FRONT FACADE.

BUILDING AREA ANALYSIS
ALLOWABLE AREA 'A-2' (S-1)
24,000 SF
ALLOWABLE AREA 'S-1' (S-1): 36,000 SF
PROPOSED AREA: 9,578 SF < 24,000 SF = OK
1 PER 448 12 SPACES

ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED
EV CHARGING STATIONS PER TABEL 5.106.5.3.1 OF CGBS

ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED
4 FUTURE SPACES
STANDARD FUTURE EV PARKING 4 SPACES

OCCUPANT LOAD
48 OCCUPANTS
SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED (5%): 1 SPACES
TOTAL SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDE: 1 LOOP

EXITS REQUIRED

EXITS PROVIDED
2 EXITS
3 EXITS

EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED

EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED

11.2" EXITS
114" EXITS
BANQUET HALL (A-2 720 SF/15)
30 OCCUPANTSSTORAGE (S-2 8,858 SF/300)
(6 SPACES ON STREET)

STORAGE AREA (PARKING NOT USED

DURING EVENTS)
1 PER 1,000 SF
8,858 SF 9 SPACES
178

PROPOSED PROJECT

LOCATION
CANAL

UNION AVE

FLOWER ST

QUINCY ST

PACIFIC ST

OREGON ST

NILES ST

VICINITY MAP

1. 2.

3. SHRUBS SHALL BE A MINIMUM FIVE-GALLON CONTAINER SIZE OR LARG ER AN
DSHALL BE VIGOROUS AND HEALTHY WHEN PLANTED. MASS SHRUB PLANTING

FOR AREA COVERAGE SHALL BE A MIX OF FIVE-GALLON (FORTY PERCENT) AND

ONE-GALLON (SIXTY PERCENT) CONTAINER SIZE WITH AN AVERAGE SPACING OF EIGHTEEN INCHES ON CENTER. FLATS SHALL BE USED FOR GROUND COVE RS
W
ITH AN AVERAGE SPACING OF EIGHT INCHES ON CENTER.

4. ANY TREES, SHRUBS, OR TURF DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION OUTSID E O

F THE BUILDING EXPANSION TO BE REPLACED WITH SAME MATERIAL THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING.

5. TREES AT PARKING AREAS TO COVER 40% OF PAVED SURFACES WITH IN 15 YEARS

IRRIGATION MEET ALL STANDARD REQUIREMENT PER THE CITY AND CALIFORNIA

WATER CONSERVATION

6. 7.

NEW LANDSCAPE TO MATCH EXISTING PLANTING IN THE AREA OF THE PROJECT RATIO OF EVERGREEN TO DECIDOUS TREES TO BE 30% EVERGREEN AND 70% DECIDIOUS.

LANDSCAPE NOTES

TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM TWENTY-FOUR-INCH BOX CONTAINER SIZE OR LARGER AND SHALL BE VIGOROUS AND HEALTHY WHEN PLANTED. THE MINIMUM

DIAMETER OF THE TREE TRUNK, AS MEASURED AT A POINT FOUR FEET UP THE

TRUNK FROM GROUND LEVEL, SHALL BE ONE INCH FOR A FIFTEEN-GALLON

CONTAINER TREE, TWO INCHES FOR A TWENTY-FOUR-INCH BOX CONTAINER TREE, AND THREE INCHES FOR A THIRTY-SIX-INCH BOX CONTAINER TREE. THESE

TRUNK DIAMETERS SHALL APPLY THROUGHOUT THIS CHAPTER WHERE TREE CONTAINER SIZES ARE SPECIFIED.

8. GROUNDCOVER TO COVER 75% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN 4 YEARS 24" BOX
24" BOX

EVERGREEN TREE PARKING SHADING

DECIDUOUS TREE PARKING SHADING

DECOMPOSED GRANITE GROUND COVER

USE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED PARKING LOT SHADE TREE LIST

COPY RIGHT
PDA, INC expressly reserves its copyright
and other property rights in these documents
which are not to be reproduced, changed or
copied in any written, graphic or electronic
form, nor assigned to any third party without
the expressed written consent of PDA, INC.

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Written dimensions on these drawings shall
take precedence over scaled dimsensions.

Contractors shall verify and be responsible
for confirming all dimensions and shall notify
the achitect immediatly of any discrepancies
or field variations discovered.

DATE ISSUED FOR

NO REVISIONS
SHEET
FILE NAME:
1 3 3 0 2 2 N D S T, S U I T E 1 0 0
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 6 1 ) 3 2 6 - 8 9 3 6

AR C H ITEC TSI NCORP ORATE D
#
CUP-1.0

SITE PLANUNION AVE BANQUET
ROOM
2930 UNION AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305
5-28-25 CUP SUBMITTAL
CUP SUBMITTAL11-18-24

SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
1 9'-0" WIDE x 18'-0" DEEP PARKING STALL PER CITY STANDARDS 2 9'-0"x 18'-0" PARKING STALL WITH 3'-0"x3'-0"
PAINTED STALL SIGN AND 70 SQ IN POLE MOUNTED PARKING SIGN

DISPLAYING THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY
WITH AN ADDITIONAL SIGN OR LANGUAGE STATING "MINIMUM
FINE $250.00" - 80" MINIMUM HEIGHT TO THE BOTTOM OF

ALL POLE SIGNS
3 MINIMUM 8'-0" WIDE ACCESS AISLE
WITH THE WORDS "NO PARKING" IN 12" HIGH CONTRASTING
LETTERS- SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 1/4 :12
4 CONCRETE PATIO - 4" THICK
5 CONCRETE WALK WITH SLOPE NOT TO
EXCEED 1:20 - CROSS SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 1/4 :12
6 LANDSCAPE AREA
7 TRASH ENCLOSURE
8 (E) CONCRETE CURB ALONG STREET
9 EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
10 UNAUTHORIZED PARKING SIGNAGE
11 (E) CONCRETE PAVING
12 ALLEY ENTRANCE
13 (E) 6'-6" SIDEWALK PER CITY STANDARDS
14 (E) POWER POLE WITH STREET LIGHT
15 FUTURE EV PARKING - PROVIDE CONDUIT TO EACH LOCATION 16 FLUSH CURB AT PARKING
17 (E) LOCATION OF FIRE HYDRANT
18 PATH OF TRAVEL NOT TO EXCEED 5% IN THE DIRECTION OF
TRAVEL. NOT TO EXCEED 2% CROSS SLOPE
19 SHORT TERM LOOP STYLE BICYCLE RACK. 5% OF PARKING
REQUIRES 14 BICYCLES(2 BIKES PER LOOP) FOR A TOTAL OF
SEVEN LOOPS.
20 9'x24' CURB SIDE PARKING, 9'X22' AT THE ENDS
21 EXISTING DRIVE APPROACH TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH

CONCRETE AND GUTTER 'TYPE M' PER CBC STANDARDS
22 ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP - SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1:20 WITH 4'-0" MINIMUM LANDING AT TOP - PROVIDE RAISED TRUNCATED

DOME TILES FOR THE FULL WIDTH OF BOTTOM LANDING PER CITY

STANDARDS
SITE PLAN 1"=10'-0"

EXHIBIT C
1 BANQUET
HALL
WOMENS
MENS
6,013 SF
720 SF

CHANGING
ROOM

EXIT HALL

RECEPTION

STORAGE

SERVICE
AREA

SINK ROOM

STORAGE
523 SF
JAN
120' - 5 1/2"
20' - 4 1/2" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 8" 18' - 8" 20' - 9" 5' - 7" 13' - 1"
81' - 1"
39' - 6" 2' - 2 1/2"
12' - 9" 9' - 11" 12' - 6" 14' - 0" 29' - 8 "
7' - 0"
9' - 8"
3 2
4 5
67 8
9 10
11 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 18
7777
3 2
5' - 7 1/2" 73' - 3"
80' - 1 1/2"

PATH OF TRAVEL

PATH OF TRAVEL
21' - 10"
+/- 48 SEATS
(E) PARAPET
20' - 0"
(E) STONE VENEER
TO B

E PAINTED

STOREFRONT DOOR(E) WOOD BATTENS
T

O BE PAINTED
(E) CEMENT PLASTER
T

O BE PAINTED
(E) ADJACENT BUILDING
NO
WORK
CANOPY
T.O. EAVE
14' - 7"
(E) PARAPET
20' - 0"
(E) WOOD BATTENS
T

O BE PAINTED
(E) CEMENT PLASTER
T

O BE PAINTED
DOOR
(E) METAL SIDING
T

O BE PAINTED
(E) EAVE TO BE
PA
INTED
AWNING
T.O. EAVE
14' - 7"
(E) PARAPET
20' - 0"
(E) METAL DOOR
T

O BE INFILLED
(E) METAL SIDING
T

O BE PAINTED

NEW DOUBLE

DOOR ENTRY
(E) METAL ROLL UP
D

OOR TO BE

PAINTED
(E) METAL ROLL-
UP DO

OR TO BE

INFILLED
(E) EAVE TO BE
PA
INTED
AWNING

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Written dimensions on these drawings shall
take precedence over scaled dimsensions.

Contractors shall verify and be responsible
for confirming all dimensions and shall notify
the achitect immediatly of any discrepancies
or field variations discovered.

DATE ISSUED FOR

NO REVISIONS
SHEET
FILE NAME:
1 3 3 0 2 2 N D S T, S U I T E 1 0 0
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 6 1 ) 3 2 6 - 8 9 3 6

AR C H ITEC TSI NCORP ORATE D
#
CUP-2.0

FLOOR PLAN /

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

UNION AVE BANQUET
ROOM
2930 UNION AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305
5-28-25 CUP SUBMITTAL
CUP SUBMITTAL11-18-24
1 5X5 SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY MOUNTED 60" AFF
2 WALL MOUNTED TACTILE SIGN STATING "EXIT"
3 WALL MOUNTED TACTILE SIGN STATING "EXIT ROUTE"
4 MIN 5'-0" X 5'-0" CLEAR LANDING AT DOOR NOT TO EXCEED 2% SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION
5 (E) ELECTRICAL METER
6( E ) G A S M E T E R
7 (E) STEEL COLUMNS
8 (E) ROLLUP DOOR TO REMAIN
9 (E) ROLLUP DOOR TO BE REMOVED AND EXTERIOR WALL

INFILLED
10 (E) DOOR TO BE REMOVED AND EXTERIOR WALL INFILLED
11 (E) DOOR TO REMAIN
12 DOUBLE DOORS TO BE ADDED
13 HI-LO DRINKING FOUNTAIN
14 JANITORS SINK
15 3 COMPARTMENT SINK
16 HAND WASH SINK
17 SERVICE COUNTER 34" AFFF
18 COUNTER WITH SINKS
FLOOR PLAN 1/8"=1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

GENERAL NOTES

1. A SPECIAL INSPECTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHAT CO

RRECTIONS ARE NEEDED TO SATISFY MINIMUM BUILDING,
P

LUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND/OR MECHANICAL CODE STANDARDS
2 . THE DEVELOPER SHALL INCLUDE FIRE RESISTIVE WALL

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS WITH THE FINAL BUILDING PLANS FOR ALL EX

TERIOR WALL OF ANY BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN THE DISTANCE AS SET FORTH IN TABLE 705.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

3. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT, THE BUILDING DIVISION WILL

CALCULA

TE AND COLLECT THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT

IMPACT FEES

4. ALL PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS, DRIVE AISLES, LOADING AREAS,

AND OTHER VEHICULAR ACCESS WAY, SHALL BE PAVED WITH

CONCRETE, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE, OR OTHER PAVED STREET

SURFACING MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BAKERSFIEL
D
M
UNICIPAL CODE (SECTION 15.76.020 AND 17.58.060.A.)

5. LIGHTING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PARKING LOTS, EXCEPT

RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH FOUR UNITS OR LESS (BMC SECTIO
N

17.58.060.A
.) ILLUMINATION SHALL BE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS

THE PARKING AREA WITH LIGHT FIXTURES DESIGNED AND

ARRANGED SO THAT LIGHT IS DIRECTED DOWNWARDS AND
IS

REFLECT
ED AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND STREETS. USE

OF GLARE SHIELDS OR BAFFLES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR GLARE
REDUCTION OR CONTROL OF BACK LIGHT. NO LIGHT POLES,

STANDARDS, AND FIXTURES, INCLUDING BASES OR PEDESTALS,
SHALL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET ABOVE GRADE. HOWEVER,
LIGHT STANDARDS PLACED LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM

RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTY, OR FROM

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SHALL NOT EXCEED
A
H
EIGHT OF 15 FEET. THE FINAL BUILDING PLANS SHALL INCLUDE A P

ICTURE OR DIAGRAM OF THE LIGHT FIXTURES BEING USED AND
SH
OW HOW LIGHT WILL BE DIRECTED ONTO THE PARKING AREAS.

6. PRIOR TO RECIEVING FINAL BUILDING OR SITE OCCUPANCY, YOU

MUST CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR FINAL INSPECTION AND

APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPING, PARKING LOT, LIGHTING, AND OTHER RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED UNTIL ALL REQUIRED ITEMS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.

ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WITHOUT PRIOR

APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY RESULT IN

RECONSTRUCTION AND DELAYS IN OBTAINING A BUILDING OR SITE

OCCUPANCY
.

7. BUSINESS IDENTIFICATIONS SIGNS ARE NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR A
PPROVED UNDER THIS REVIEW (E.G., WALL, MONUMENT, PYLON, ET
C). A SEPERATE SIGN PERMIT REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND

BUILDING DIVISIONS AND ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION, IS

REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW SIGNS, INCLUDING FUTURE USE A
ND
CO
NSTRUCTION SIGNS.

8. FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS PROTECT CERTAIN SPECIES OF PLANTS , F

ISH, AND WILDLIFE THAT ARE LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED, AS WELL.

FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES

EXHIBIT C

MAP SET

7 14
11 2
4 12
10 8
3 5
6 13
9 16
6 17
15 18
19 1
5 14
2 Q U I N C Y S T

U N I O N A V E
(E) MEDIAN

A L L E Y
C-2 - ADJACENT COMMERCIAL BUILDING
R-2

HOSE PULL
DISTANCE : 48'-8"
21 2' - 9" 4' - 0" 5' - 0"

EXISTING
SLOPE
22 22
22 PROJECT ANALYSIS

SCOPE OF WORK
BUILDING: 9,578SF
USE

BANQUET HALL

PERSON/AREA PARKING REQ'DRATIO
ZONE:

ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:

PROPERTY ADDRESS:

SITE AREA:

C-2
BUILDING AREA:
11,408.74 SF

OCCUPANCY
PROPOSED:

PARKING REQUIRED
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

PROPOSED: V-B
FIRE SPRINKLER: YES
A-2 (BANQUEST HALL ; S-1(STORAGE)

PARKING PROVIDED

ACCESSIBLE PARKING

STANDARD PARKING
TOTAL PROVIDED:
2 SPACES
12 SPACES
10 SPACES
2930 UNION AVE
012-071-01

THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO A BANQUET VENUE FROM AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS A PREFAB METAL BUILDING WITH A WOOD FRAMED FRONT FACADE.

BUILDING AREA ANALYSIS
ALLOWABLE AREA 'A-2' (S-1)
24,000 SF
ALLOWABLE AREA 'S-1' (S-1): 36,000 SF
PROPOSED AREA: 9,578 SF < 24,000 SF = OK
1 PER 448 12 SPACES

ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED
EV CHARGING STATIONS PER TABEL 5.106.5.3.1 OF CGBS

ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED
4 FUTURE SPACES
STANDARD FUTURE EV PARKING 4 SPACES

OCCUPANT LOAD
48 OCCUPANTS
SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED (5%): 1 SPACES
TOTAL SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDE: 1 LOOP

EXITS REQUIRED

EXITS PROVIDED
2 EXITS
3 EXITS

EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED

EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED

11.2" EXITS
114" EXITS
BANQUET HALL (A-2 720 SF/15)
30 OCCUPANTSSTORAGE (S-2 8,858 SF/300)
(6 SPACES ON STREET)

STORAGE AREA (PARKING NOT USED

DURING EVENTS)
1 PER 1,000 SF8,858 SF 9 SPACES
178

PROPOSED PROJECT

LOCATION
CANAL

UNION AVE

FLOWER ST

QUINCY ST

PACIFIC ST

OREGON ST

NILES ST

VICINITY MAP

1. 2.

3. SHRUBS SHALL BE A MINIMUM FIVE-GALLON CONTAINER SIZE OR LARGER ANDSHALL BE VIGOROUS AND HEALTHY WHEN PLANTED. MASS SHRUB PLANTING

FOR AREA COVERAGE SHALL BE A MIX OF FIVE-GALLON (FORTY PERCENT) AND

ONE-GALLON (SIXTY PERCENT) CONTAINER SIZE WITH AN AVERAGE SPACING OF EIGHTEEN INCHES ON CENTER. FLATS SHALL BE USED FOR GROUND COVERS WITH AN AVERAGE SPACING OF EIGHT INCHES ON CENTER.

4. ANY TREES, SHRUBS, OR TURF DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE

OF THE BUILDING EXPANSION TO BE REPLACED WITH SAME MATERIAL THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTING.

5. TREES AT PARKING AREAS TO COVER 40% OF PAVED SURFACES WITH IN 15 YEARS

IRRIGATION MEET ALL STANDARD REQUIREMENT PER THE CITY AND CALIFORNIA

WATER CONSERVATION

6. 7.

NEW LANDSCAPE TO MATCH EXISTING PLANTING IN THE AREA OF THE PROJECT RATIO OF EVERGREEN TO DECIDOUS TREES TO BE 30% EVERGREEN AND 70% DECIDIOUS.

LANDSCAPE NOTES

TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM TWENTY-FOUR-INCH BOX CONTAINER SIZE OR LARGER AND SHALL BE VIGOROUS AND HEALTHY WHEN PLANTED. THE MINIMUM

DIAMETER OF THE TREE TRUNK, AS MEASURED AT A POINT FOUR FEET UP THE

TRUNK FROM GROUND LEVEL, SHALL BE ONE INCH FOR A FIFTEEN-GALLON

CONTAINER TREE, TWO INCHES FOR A TWENTY-FOUR-INCH BOX CONTAINER TREE, AND THREE INCHES FOR A THIRTY-SIX-INCH BOX CONTAINER TREE. THESE

TRUNK DIAMETERS SHALL APPLY THROUGHOUT THIS CHAPTER WHERE TREE CONTAINER SIZES ARE SPECIFIED.

8. GROUNDCOVER TO COVER 75% OF LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN 4 YEARS 24" BOX
24" BOX

EVERGREEN TREE PARKING SHADING

DECIDUOUS TREE PARKING SHADING

DECOMPOSED GRANITE GROUND COVER

USE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED PARKING LOT SHADE TREE LIST

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Written dimensions on these drawings shall
take precedence over scaled dimsensions.

Contractors shall verify and be responsible
for confirming all dimensions and shall notify
the achitect immediatly of any discrepancies
or field variations discovered.

DATE ISSUED FOR

NO REVISIONS
SHEET
FILE NAME:
1 3 3 0 2 2 N D S T, S U I T E 1 0 0
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 6 1 ) 3 2 6 - 8 9 3 6

AR C H ITEC TSI NCORP ORATE D
#
CUP-1.0

SITE PLANUNION AVE BANQUET
ROOM
2930 UNION AVE
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93305
5-28-25 CUP SUBMITTAL
CUP SUBMITTAL11-18-24

SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
1 9'-0" WIDE x 18'-0" DEEP PARKING STALL PER CITY STANDARDS 2 9'-0"x 18'-0" PARKING STALL WITH 3'-0"x3'-0"
PAINTED STALL SIGN AND 70 SQ IN POLE MOUNTED PARKING SIGN

DISPLAYING THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY
WITH AN ADDITIONAL SIGN OR LANGUAGE STATING "MINIMUM
FINE $250.00" - 80" MINIMUM HEIGHT TO THE BOTTOM OF

CONCRETE AND GUTTER 'TYPE M' PER CBC STANDARDS
22 ACCESSIBLE CURB RAMP - SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 1:20 WITH 4'-0" MINIMUM LANDING AT TOP - PROVIDE RAISED TRUNCATED

DOME TILES FOR THE FULL WIDTH OF BOTTOM LANDING PER CITY

STANDARDS
SITE PLAN 1"=10'-0"
1 BANQUET
HALL
WOMENS
MENS
6,013 SF
720 SF

CHANGING
ROOM

EXIT HALL

RECEPTION

STORAGE

SERVICE
AREA

SINK ROOM

STORAGE
523 SF
JAN
120' - 5 1/2"
20' - 4 1/2" 20' - 0" 20' - 0" 20' - 8" 18' - 8" 20' - 9" 5' - 7" 13' - 1"
81' - 1"
39' - 6" 2' - 2 1/2"
12' - 9" 9' - 11" 12' - 6" 14' - 0" 29' - 8"
7' - 0"
9' - 8"
3 2
4 5
67 8
9 10
11 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 18
7777
3 2
5' - 7 1/2" 73' - 3"
80' - 1 1/2"

PATH OF TRAVEL

PATH OF TRAVEL
21' - 10"
+/- 48 SEATS
(E) PARAPET
20' - 0"
(E) STONE VENEER

TO BE PAINTED

STOREFRONT DOOR(E) WOOD BATTENS

TO BE PAINTED
(E) CEMENT PLASTER

TO BE PAINTED
(E) ADJACENT BUILDING

NO WORK
CANOPY
T.O. EAVE
14' - 7"
(E) PARAPET
20' - 0"
(E) WOOD BATTENS

TO BE PAINTED
(E) CEMENT PLASTER

TO BE PAINTED
DOOR
(E) METAL SIDING

TO BE PAINTED
(E) EAVE TO BE

PAINTED
AWNING
T.O. EAVE
14' - 7"
(E) PARAPET
20' - 0"
(E) METAL DOOR

TO BE INFILLED
(E) METAL SIDING

TO BE PAINTED

NEW DOUBLE

DOOR ENTRY
(E) METAL ROLL UP

DOOR TO BE

PAINTED
(E) METAL ROLL-

UP DOOR TO BE

INFILLED
(E) EAVE TO BE

PAINTED
AWNING

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS
Written dimensions on these drawings shall
take precedence over scaled dimsensions.

Contractors shall verify and be responsible
for confirming all dimensions and shall notify
the achitect immediatly of any discrepancies
or field variations discovered.

DATE ISSUED FOR

NO REVISIONS
SHEET
FILE NAME:
1 3 3 0 2 2 N D S T, S U I T E 1 0 0
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
T E L E P H O N E : ( 6 6 1 ) 3 2 6 - 8 9 3 6

AR C H ITEC TSI NCORP ORATE D
#
CUP-2.0

FLOOR PLAN /

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION

GENERAL NOTES

1. A SPECIAL INSPECTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHAT

CORRECTIONS ARE NEEDED TO SATISFY MINIMUM BUILDING,

PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND/OR MECHANICAL CODE STANDARDS

2. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INCLUDE FIRE RESISTIVE WALL

CONSTRUCTION DETAILS WITH THE FINAL BUILDING PLANS FOR ALL

EXTERIOR WALL OF ANY BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN THE DISTANCE AS SET FORTH IN TABLE 705.5 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

3. PRIOR TO ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT, THE BUILDING DIVISION WILL

CALCULATE AND COLLECT THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT

IMPACT FEES

4. ALL PARKING LOTS, DRIVEWAYS, DRIVE AISLES, LOADING AREAS,

AND OTHER VEHICULAR ACCESS WAY, SHALL BE PAVED WITH

CONCRETE, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE, OR OTHER PAVED STREET

SURFACING MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BAKERSFIELD
MUNICIPAL CODE (SECTION 15.76.020 AND 17.58.060.A.)

5. LIGHTING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PARKING LOTS, EXCEPT

RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH FOUR UNITS OR LESS (BMC SECTION

17.58.060.A.) ILLUMINATION SHALL BE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS

THE PARKING AREA WITH LIGHT FIXTURES DESIGNED AND

ARRANGED SO THAT LIGHT IS DIRECTED DOWNWARDS AND IS
REFLECTED AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND STREETS. USE

OF GLARE SHIELDS OR BAFFLES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR GLARE
REDUCTION OR CONTROL OF BACK LIGHT. NO LIGHT POLES,

STANDARDS, AND FIXTURES, INCLUDING BASES OR PEDESTALS,
SHALL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET ABOVE GRADE. HOWEVER,
LIGHT STANDARDS PLACED LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM

RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTY, OR FROM

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SHALL NOT EXCEED A
HEIGHT OF 15 FEET. THE FINAL BUILDING PLANS SHALL INCLUDE A

PICTURE OR DIAGRAM OF THE LIGHT FIXTURES BEING USED AND SHOW HOW LIGHT WILL BE DIRECTED ONTO THE PARKING AREAS.

6. PRIOR TO RECIEVING FINAL BUILDING OR SITE OCCUPANCY, YOU

MUST CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR FINAL INSPECTION AND

APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPING, PARKING LOT, LIGHTING, AND OTHER RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE CONDUCTED UNTIL ALL REQUIRED ITEMS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.

ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WITHOUT PRIOR

APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING DIVISION MAY RESULT IN

RECONSTRUCTION AND DELAYS IN OBTAINING A BUILDING OR SITE OCCUPANCY.

7. BUSINESS IDENTIFICATIONS SIGNS ARE NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR APPROVED UNDER THIS REVIEW (E.G., WALL, MONUMENT, PYLON, ETC). A SEPERATE SIGN PERMIT REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING AND

BUILDING DIVISIONS AND ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION, IS

REQUIRED FOR ALL NEW SIGNS, INCLUDING FUTURE USE AND
CONSTRUCTION SIGNS.

8. FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS PROTECT CERTAIN SPECIES OF PLANTS,

FISH, AND WILDLIFE THAT ARE LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED, AS WELL.

FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES
RESOLUTION NO. 44-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING

COMMISSION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW A BANQUET VENUE (B.M.C. 17.24.040.A.6) IN
THE C-2 (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONE LOCATED AT
2930 UNION AVENUE (CUP 24-0010)
WHEREAS, PDA, Inc., representing Upscale Union LLC, filed an application with the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department for a conditional use permit to allow a banquet venue (B.M.C. 17.24.040.A.6) in the C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone district, located at 2930 Union Avenue (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, City Hall South, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the time and place for a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed conditional use permit, and notice of the·public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing testimony was received in both support and opposition of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA implementation procedures have been duly followed by the City staff and the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the above described project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA in accordance with section 15301; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Development Services Department ( 1715 Chester A venue, Bakersfield, California) is the custodian of all documents and other materials upon which the environmental determination is based; and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the staff report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

1. All required public notices have been given. Hearing notices regarding the Project were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the Project area and published in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, 10 days prior to the hearing.

2. The provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed. Staff determined that the proposal is a project that is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 because the project is characterized as existing facilities.

3. The proposed use is essential and desirable to the public convenience and welfare.

4. The proposed use is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

5. The project would result in a development that is consistent with the intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Bakersfield Planning Commission as follows:

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true and correct.

2. The project is exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

3. Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0010 as described in this resolution, is hereby approved subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and as shown in Exhibits B and C.

HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of August 2025, on a motion by Commissioner Martin, seconded by Vice-Chair Bittle, the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Kaur, Martin
None
ABSTAINED: Strickland
ABSENT:

Exhibits:

Cater, Neal
A.

APPROVED
(11#1~
ADAM STRICKLAND~AIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Conditions of Approval
Location Map
Site Plan
YA\ S S:\04_Current Planning\02_CUP\0l_Active\2024\PP-CUP-24-0010_2930 Union Ave_Auto Shop to Banquet Hall\0l_PC

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0010
I. The applicant's rights granted by this approval are subject to the following provisions:
• The project shall be in accordance with all approved plans, conditions of approval, and other required permits and approvals. All construction shall comply with applicable building codes. • All conditions imposed shall be diligently complied with at all times and all construction authorized or required shall be diligently prosecuted to completion before the premises shall be used for the purposes applied for under this approval.
• This approval will not be effective until ten (10) days after the date upon which it is granted by the Planning Commission to allow for appeal to the City Council. Any permit or license for any approval granted shall not be issued until that effective date.
• This approval shall automatically be null and void two (2) years after the effective date unless the applicant or successor has actually commenced the rights granted, or if the rights granted are discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year or more. This time can be extended for up to one (1) additional year by the approving body.
• The Planning Commission may initiate revocation of the rights granted if there is good cause, including but not limited to, failure to comply with conditions of approval, complete construction or exercise the rights granted, or violation by the owner or tenant of any provision of the Bakersfield Municipal Code pertaining to the premises for which the approval was granted. The Planning Commission may also consider adding or modifying conditions to ensure the use complies with the intent of City ordinances. • Unless otherwise conditioned, this approval runs with the land and may continue under successive owners provided all the above-mentioned provisions are satisfied.

II. The following conditions shall be satisfied as part of the approval of this project:

The City will promptly notify Applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding, falling under this condition within thirty (30) days of receiving such claim. The City, in its sole discretion, shall be CUP 24-0010 Page I 2 of 4
allowed to choose the attorney or outside law firm to defend the City at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant and the City is not obligated to use any law firm or attorney chosen by another entity or party.

3. The banquet venue shall continually comply with the following conditions while in operation:
a. The maximum number of guests shall be limited to the maximum capacity as allowed by fire code or building code, whichever is more restrictive. b. Hours of operation for the banquet venue events shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. These restrictions do not apply to business office hours or event setup and teardown. c. The permit holder shall provide at least one security at each event. d. Prior to hosting a banquet event, the permit holder shall coordinate with a licensed security service to determine if additional security is required based on crowd size. The permit holder shall enter into a contract to provide additional security when warranted. e. All noise associated with the operation of any sound equipment must comply with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 9.22 and not exceed the applicable noise standards of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.
f. Prior to commencement of alcohol sales/service, the permit holder shall obtain all required permits and approvals for alcohol sales and on-site consumption; including but not limited to necessary permits from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC}.
g. The permit holder shall comply with all operating conditions imposed by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Should a conflict occur between the ABC requirements and the conditions of approval, the more restrictive shall prevail. h. Loitering is prohibited on the premises or areas under the control of the permit holder.

The permit holder shall install and maintain visible signage on the premises prohibiting such loitering.
i. The permit holder shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter and trash at all times. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises shall be reported to the city and/or removed or painted over within 72 hours after discovery. j. Prior to commencing operations as allowed by this conditional use permit, the permit holder shall install and maintain visible signage on the premises to discourage littering by patrons. Signage must be placed in prominent locations reminding patrons to dispose of trash properly.

CUP 24-0010 Page I 3 of 4
Ill. The following are specific items that you need to resolve before you can obtain a building permit or be allowed occupancy. These items include conditions and/or mitigation required by previous site entitlement approvals (these will be specifically noted), changes or additions that need to be shown on the final building plans, alert you to specific fees, and other conditions for your project to satisfy the City's development standards.

The items listed below will usually need to be shown on the final building plans or completed before a building permit is issued.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING (1715 Chester Avenue}
(Staff contact - Vazid Alawgarey; 661-326-3191 or [email protected])

FIRE DEPARTMENT (2101 H Street)
(Staff contact - Ernie Medina; 661-326-3682 or [email protected])

1. Prior to issuing building permit, All projects must comply with the current California Fire Codes and current City of Bakersfield Municipal Code and noted on the plan.

2. Prior to issuing building permit, Fire sprinkler and fire alarm install/modification is a deferred submittal through the Bakersfield Fire Dept. and noted on the plan.

3. Prior to issuing building permit, must show the key Knox box locations for the gates/buildings on the plan for approval.

C. WATER RESOURCES (1000 Buena Vista Road}
(Staff contact -Tylor Hester; 661-326-3715 or [email protected])

1. Prior to the issuance of Building or Utility permits, the Developer shall submit two (2) sets of utility plans designed by either an Architect or Civil Engineer licensed by the State of California, or by a State of California C-16 licensee showing all offsite and onsite improvements, including connections to the existing water main and any underground fire waterlines and related apparatuses. Include any nearby existing or future fire hydrants on the plans. Plans shall be submitted along with applicable plan check fees and any other associated fees per the current fee schedule. Plans shall comply with current City Standards and Specifications, California Fire Code, and City of Bakersfield Municipal Code. City Standards and Specifications and the current Fee Schedule are available for download from the City's website at bakersfieldcity.us/379/water resources
CUP 24-0010 Page I 4 of 4
D.

2. Developer shall pay the required Water Department's Fire Service Inspection Fees and submit an Inspection Request Form for any underground fire waterlines and their apparatuses at least two (2) full business days before permanent construction. The form is available for download from the City's website at bakersfieldcity.us/379/water-resources PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC (1501 Truxtun Avenue) (Staff contact - Susanna Kormendi; 661-326-3997 or [email protected])

1. Any proposed or future perimeterfence and/or wall shall be placed outside of existing public road right of way or future ultimate public right of way.

2. For Building Permit, Plan will need to show all existing connection(s) to the public sewer system.

3. At the time of building permit issuance, a sewer connection fee shall be paid for new fixtures. This fee is based on the rate that is in effect at the time a building permit is issued.

PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE (4101 Truxtun Avenue)
(Staff Contact - Richard Gutierrez; 661-326-3114 or [email protected])

1. At this time, no applicable conditions for the proposed project. Conditions may be added if the project changes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY PROJECT APPLICANT:

I agree to the project's conditions of approval and acknowledge that failure to comply with any and all conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval.

Signature Date
Print Name
Conditional Use Permit
24-0010

EXHIBITB

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
GC
30TH ST
GC
UJ
> < z
0 z :::>
LR
GC
LR

QU INCY ST
LR
GC
LR

PACIFIC ST
GC LR
Land Use
RR Ru1al Retidential

2.5 g,ou anH/dwelling unit
(R (\fate Residential
I dwelling unit/net aue
SR Suburban Residential
s ~ dwelling unih /nel acre
SI/LR
County: S 4 dwelling units /net
aue
City: :,; 7.26 dwelling units /net
aue
LR low Density RHidential
S 7 .26 dwelling unih /net acre
lMR low Medium Density
Re,idenlial
> 4 but :,; 10 dwelling units /
net acre
HMR High Medium Den,ity
Residential
> 7.76 unih but
:,; 17_4 2 dwelling units / net
oue
HR High 0en, ity Residential
> 17.0 units but
s 72.6 dwelling unih/net aue
HC Hi9hway Commenial
6( General Con1menial
MC Major Con1me1dal
OC Office Conm1e1,ial
MUC Mixed Uu Commercial
II light lndu,trial
SI Sn•i<e lndusttial
HI Heawy lndusllial
P Publh Facilities
PS Publi,/ Pri¥Dfe Schools
PT Publil T1anspo1 tation
Corridors
P-SW Solid Waste facilities
OS Open Spate
OS-P Pa,b and Recreation
OS-S Slopes exceeding 30%
R-IA Resouu e ·
Intensive Agricuttu,e
20 acre minimum panel size
R-(A IHOUl<t .
btensive Agr·iculture
20 aoe minimum pauel size
80 acre min !Williamson A,t)
R-MP Riesoune -
Mine,als & Petroleun,
S aue minimum parce l sin
UfR U1han Estate Residential
WHte1 n Rosedale Plan

0.S one net minimum pot eel
size
WM West Ming Spe<ilic Plan
~

BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Feet
500 1,000

MAP PACKAGE

EXHIBIT C
~ . · C-2 - AD'ACEN TCOMMERC IAL BUILDING J
w
>
<( OISTJ:«:[41"..-~ ], ' ••·••
z
0 z
:J

EB SITE PLAN

LANDSCAP E NOTES
· .. -•
,11· ®'.:.l
~11 ,_,- •• ~-~
" ' . -:· i . .. ·- ~
1111.'ITR[U SHOIIIU OIINR•-OOUR,.,,CDNSTRUCT)CNWUIDIE
OfTH E IUl.09<G UP .. ~SOITOUU'1.AC[0"1lH$AMf ... TLO"tlHAI -SPR"'10JSLH.(IS11'tG.

IP.H SAT•"-'t <...,UU..S T0 CO.'B•.,_0#, A>'f.OSURFACESM!H f' li"'L''U

11.O :;•TIOH lt({T ALLn .... 11a..o~U"'-"" EUEHlOE R TMfCIN .. ~0UL»"~\A ~•TIO or lVE•<>l!HN TO D[CIOOU5 T•Hs 10, i -f'.'U<>R[£N --~D 1~ CIECIOIWS.

GA<:lJl<l>CO-,"l .• TOCO."l•1S ... Olt >J;:>1c •,E•U.&w m,t1 • 1"EMS 0 ®
[:=J

QUINCY S T
C-2. {E) BUILDING
C-2 - ADJACE NT COMME RCIAL BUILDING
_':.: ¼~:c r- f 1-,· ;:.,r:·--._ . ~:;-:.:: · ,, --_:_ r.- ,, .,..........._'.!L
. _._-.:~.> . . .. -
' -
.·-. .. -·,. ·.1 0
: ·;·_, ~:
.•·•rr
@
>w
.J
.J
<(
R-2
RES IDENT l"-L
1"=1 0'-0"
SCO PE OFV.'O RK
TH[ •ROJECT IS A ,ROl'OSE:I Q1......0[ Of U2 TOA .... ~OUET V!MIE fAOW 'Ill U ISa<GOIJT~T l','lc A[ , .... ~-. T>l[ Oll.l'YOO$TO\.>C'?U~(!:; APAH A!. l<ETll alJll DJj01 ',ffl1 AWOOOfA.I..W:D fACJ, T f ACA:>E

PROJECT ANALYS IS
-Dt'<( U llf &
M-
IIIJl.m<i:. IJIEA .. ~.l,l,.VSIS
a~m:5*tnt::
occu,AliTlc;,..:,
..._'iQUET...._L! .,_IJJO"IIS 1
sTOll-(f..Ht'..llf/>00 1
UllSRE<lUIIE D
EX1Tv,wmt,A 0.1CEO
>OOCr;uPA.•ITS
HllTS

11.ru,a
' " "hlTS
U.'ilJUf!HAll STau.Gt: IJIU.(1'4.~ ~JjQr,;OTUSED I Ill Sf :~.:~oc,w ·n~:gg 1;1UH1<> ~ 1
...altT u .~ .. &ICf<:l ( . .... ._ uw .. EOIS .. ,
TOll L~TT ElWt lC.C,,fPil <Jl(IPAc..'11>1:

El(CUO: \'fHICL( ••.l,,UNG R(W IU0
(VOl.,UIOJ'1'1$T A1P< SPUTAt!l~ .1 •u., .10fc<;A =
HECTAICVDiO:L E PIJIUNl'ftto,'1)(0
$ U .. '<tl,IJ0.0fllNA £[VPd .... a
0 •~-• .. ••m••AA="••-on.,•s-o,
0 ~iifkg;~•!~7Gi~~-
0 :::;..-:::,=..:s::::...""!..,-=,~•-
0 ~.;;~.:::;":'.::;:;'"'•"
0 CDNCaU f-.nll!T>ISUll"ENOlTO .. ~ .... ,,
@ ~>-AA U
0•-•~~w" © l(JCONCIIU£CUU...O,,CS1R HI
@ =•-•-•n<rnH~ooonu
@ =-m•AA-= •
@ ((,GOOOC.UH..,.,._..,
@~n•-.~•
@ in•-rSDEW""" >'f.O CIIYSl",>;,,.,, l>S
@ ro......:•- £ Wl1MSfflUILIGH T
Q ruru,. m m•o "-•~~"~' ~"~
Q,w wrnu"m
@ 1E1LOCAfCIN0<,-.1tE>ff OAA.'it
Q •~- _.,,~,m ~•~.,,,;;-m~~
0 RE<J,MUHkYCUS(?l><U•OL000')•0ll•lot ... 0<
0 ·~:· •AA-.~ ···e· ··-,
0 =•-~~~~-,, ... --.. ~ .. -
@ = =':.\\:::':;::.'":=~';';1:~.1<",
~ PROPOSED PROJECT
____ 1 __ 1~ LOCATION
--EB VICINITY MAP
J:
u
<(
1Jll 1J I P U , U ITE IU

1.uu snEtO , U.UfOUlltlJII
T l l ! PMO l1 : 111 1! 111- 111 1
-""' •-N- •Oh<--::.::,".::.·::.:.. .. _ .. •;:.:.:-- .. =~~ ;:~::=
1-UJ
::::>
a z
~
UJ
> <(
"' g
"' a,
Ill~
~ ci z ..

Z~o!!!
Oo~~ z og~ ::::> 0::: g: ~

SITE PLAN
CUP-1.0

EXHIBIT C
'@ -,
I
•
~ ~

STORAGE
I ~ i~ ,---;o
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!Q O
l"\f
.

I
(f
:: ..

L _____ - - - ------- .. ,~m~, ---1--- --______ J
EB FLOOR PLAN 1/8"=1'-0"
Ell.•~
,3.,,0 ~

EAST ELEVATION
~...,,rn ~•~
-1-- LP-,~

NORTH ELEVATION

FLOOR PLAN KEYNOTES
0 •••~~~m~ ~•• Q .,_no•~-~,..,-~,
o -,-no•~-- .... -~-·
o n•~--~~"'~ .. -~"°~"°
(!) ro u i cnlCAl.MUU
(!) {l) CA.'!MetE~
0 (l) STUlC-S
© ro110<wPD0011rou,.,...
(!) l':) IIOI.Wl'DOOO;TOHRBICM:3N;DUTUOII WAU.
® (() OOOR m n•IIIK>'JlD A~DVITVlDIWAU. ... U (D
® (() 000-tO•IEll,U<
@=••- uo•=• @- o~•=•=•-
® -~""' @)>=m,•~•~•
@-•-~·
0 '~ " ~··· "
@ =• .. --

GENERAL NOTES
,._ S,HIAl. t,IP K- fE RWTI:. Ua.JIIIEDTOOHUII .. E Wi.ll COIIU Ctta, SlltfN (UIEDIOUIU,fYWi,W ll --a.,,a
"'1.UMll!fflH(CTll~ .Al,.. •.'<O,<llll ll (CHANto.l (C<IOESI.4,'ic,A•D S nt£ O(\'flllll'£~ SHAU NCUID{ fll(~f!.1•111/lWA H
CO<URUCTJCOI llllllU,Vl,ffit T><l fl'IOI. ..,._D9<3 ,C ... S fOII ""-l lJ<J[RJ:lllWAl. l ~ .. ,Y ... i)f,;GfllAT ISN!>!J<TIIE DIST""-'C( '-S sn,OJITKJ<T ... U JQ,U~TKEC ... ll'OJl,...,.,._COOE.
•uc••to l, $1.11'<!.,..,,,_,DMll"E.•wrTHE ...,., IIN!.OfJISIQN"'.._l CALCULOTE .. "° CCIU( CT THE .., , .on11tE ~ l;Ulll,:T
...,. ACt •EU
All , .o.U t<OlOTS (IAP,l(WAYS 0~1.1: o.l~I..ES l....,..._All [AS ,u.;0 Ont( • \'fHICUUJI ACC(SCWU tlill.l I( ' "-'11'0""11< c1»1c•ETE.O.Sfot1,'-U1'=CCINCltf"TEOJ1DT><E• •Avt.os nEu su~ ••cNG ""' f[lll,O,l~ACCOJICW<C[W!TKTllEa.tll [ ~HlUO -l'=IPAlCODe: CUCTION IUU~A.~~\ J-.l>J
UlHTJ<G~IIECU .. (O fOJl ... l,.._ •• ~Gl0T$ UCEJ'T
UAle.lT\O. LlCITSl'ofttl , oollUMTSOJllEU !IIOCIECTION
•J.!I.Mll-",jll,l U-.,,TION ..... lll(EY(hlYt!IST Rau tfO ,'-CIIOU T'HEOAll.utalJIUWTtll01T,in'U US DU-!0""0
....... a,,_,. '"°"'"'l ,v..""NGDM:ION ,.. ¥.£5Ulfti •tcOOstR •.><;flCOi ... 00El AY$J<OlllJ<J<O • W..O..OOIIWf IW~ l Ul>£/iTTIC,t,T IONSS0Ullll NElrri( .• C0.510 t • !P tlOIO ~f1i~~~Wi:tiElik~;1rJ
flD0 Al "-'<!>:;U ll: 1,.,,...-s PROTICT CUT- Sl' lCIES<>f Pu.,-iS PlS>I ... ~OM.DlH THATAUllSlt"DOII PR00'0$.[0 fOII U.STJiG .oSDIDA.'i CiUlOOI.THR 0.1&;£0..S...-El \ .
:,:
u
<
llU IU0 n, U ITE I U
U.UUflElO . CAUFOll\lll H1
IHUIO U :f ll lf lll •ll ll
--·-.. --····---........... "- · ____ .... ,...--... _ .. ';:-.";: .. ~-;-.. ::::%..~
~--.. ·--,_ .. .,_,_,, __ _ -·-·------:..:.:=.. .... - .---· 1-w ::::>
0 z
~
w
~
Ill
0 M M
'"
w :i
~Q z ..

Z ~o!!!
Oo§ii
zoi::~ ::::> c::: ~ :!

FLOOR PLAN/

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
CUP-2.0

YA: _ S:\04_Current Planning\02_CUP\01_Active\2024\PP-CUP-24-0010_2930 Union Ave_Auto Shop to Banquet Hall\01_PC

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: August 21, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.b
TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
DATE: August 15, 2025
FILE: Conditional Use Permit 24-0010 [Document Description] WARD: 3
STAFF PLANNER: Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner

REQUEST: PDA, Inc. is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a banquet venue (B.M.C.

17.24.040.A.6) in the C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone located at 2930 Union Avenue.

APPLICANT: PDA, Inc. OWNER: Upscale Union LLC
Jeremy Manning Antonio Chavez
1330 22nd Street, Suite 100 6630 Lowry Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93307

LOCATION: 2930 Union Avenue APN: 012-071-01

PROJECT SIZE: 0.26 acres CEQA: Section 15332 (Class 32)

Infill Development

EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GC (General Commercial)

EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: C-2 (Regional Commercial)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution and suggested findings approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0010 as depicted in the project description and subject to the listed conditions of approval.

SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is developed with an existing commercial building. Surrounding properties are developed as commercial buildings to the north, west, and south with residential to the east.

CUP 24-0010

BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:

• March 27, 1923 – The parcel was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of a 147 -acre annexation in the Alta Vista area. (Annexation #3 – Alta Vista Tract).

• November 1, 2024 – The City of Bakersfield Planning Department received the application requesting a conditional use permit to convert a former Auto repair shop into a banquet hall. The application has completed its process through the site plan review.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

Project Area. The project site encompasses approximately 0.26 acres and is located on the northeast corner of Union Avenue and Quincy Street. It consists of a one -story, 9,578- square-foot commercial building that has recently been an auto repair shop that has not been operational in over 12 months. The property is bordered by commercial buildings to the north, west, and south. To the east there are single- family residential homes. The nearest similar event center is “The Hideaway” approximately 250 feet to the north at the corner of Union Avenue and Flower Street. Only 3,565 square feet of the area shall be used as a banquet venue while the other 6,013 square feet shall be used as storage to store tables, chairs, and decorative furnishing dedicated to this location and only be used for the events scheduled on site.

The storage will not be used by any public and will not have any employees located at this site. The storage area will not be accessible to the public nor to patrons during events and will not requ ire additional parking above what is designated for the banquet area. The site currently has no landscaping but shall be landscaped in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.61.

Proposed Operations. As outlined in the applicant’s operations statement, Upscale Union LLC shall provide event hosting services for small gatherings of up to 48 guests using 3,565 square feet of the building. Events will be held between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. Events will not be allowed to proceed past 12a.m. All décor and meals will be catered by the groups renting the facility and there is no on-site kitchen for cooking. 6,013 square-feet of the building shall be used as storage only.

Parking. The project site provides 10 parking spaces sufficient for the 48 guests per Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.58.110.E.29.

Zoning and Permitting. The property is zoned C-2, allowing banquet venues with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). During the CUP application, the Site Plan Review (SPR) Committee reviewed the site and floor plans for the proposed project to ensure compliance with City d evelopment standards. SPR Committee feedback has been incorporated as conditions of approval if the project is approved.

Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit allows the Planning Commission to evaluate special land uses that may benefit the community but are not permitted by right. If approved, the applicant's rights are subject to the operating conditions set by the Commission, which retains the authority to revoke the permit for valid reasons, including non -compliance. The Commission may also modify or add conditions to ensure the project aligns with City ordinances. Recommended conditions are outlined in Exhibit A of the resolution.

CUP 24-0010
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

This project has been found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures in accordance with Section 15332 (Class 32: Infill). This exemption includes projects that are:

• Consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; • Within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses;
• Have no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; • Would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; • Adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

A Notice of Exemption has been prepared.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:

Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding this public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. The applicant was also encouraged to do their own outreach to the neighbors in which they provided us with an outreach letter sent to residents within a 300 foot radius. The mailing list was provided by staff.

Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.

Comments Received. As of this writing, no written public comments have been received.

CONCLUSIONS:

Findings. Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.64.060.D contains specific findings that must be made for your Commission to approve the requested conditional use permit. Specifically, the section states that a CUP shall be granted only when it is found that:

1. The proposed use is deemed essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare; and

2. The proposed use is in harmony with the key elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans.

BMC Section 17.64.060.E goes on to state that a conditional use permit may be subject to conditions as deemed appropriate or necessary to assure compliance with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and the various elements and objectives of the general plan and applicable specific plans and policies of the city or to protect the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare.

CUP 24-0010

In accordance with these required findings, and as conditioned, Staff finds: (1) the proposed project would provide a public convenience by offering another option for a banquet venue in central Bakersfield ; (2) the project will positively enhance the site and allow for a positive contribution by utilizing and improving an existing building within the central portion of the city; and (3) the project would result in a development that is consistent with the intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and the Bakersfield Municipal Code.

Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal sufficiently demonstrates compliance with the necessary findings. Therefore, staff recommends your Commission adopt Resolution and suggested findings approving Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0010 with the recommended conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS:

Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
Site Plan
Operational Statement
Public Outreach
Resolution with Exhibits

CUP No. 24
-
0010

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 24-0010
October 22, 2025
Location
2930 Union Avenue
CUP No. 24
-
0010

Zone Classification
C
-
2 (Regional Commercial)
CUP No. 24
-
0010

Land Use Designation
GC (General Commercial)
CUP No. 24
-
0010

Site Plan
CUP No. 24
-
0010

Floor Plan
and Elevations
CUP No. 24
-
0010

CUP No. 24
-
0010

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 24-0010
October 22, 2025

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

MEETING DATE: October 22, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: Reports TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kristina Budak, Water Director
DATE: October 8, 2025
SUBJECT: Cost of Service Analysis and Options for Sewer User Rates

[Document Description]

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council receive and file report and presentation.

BACKGROUND:

The Water Department – Wastewater Division provides services for the collection and treatment of the City’s wastewater. The Sewer Enterprise is self -sustaining, supported by user fees that provide for the daily operations of the sewer and stormwater collec tion systems and the two wastewater treatment plants. In order to ensure that the cost to provide service is fairly distributed among all sewer users and that the rates provide sufficient revenue for projected costs, the City partnered with HF&H Consultants to provide a full cost of service analysis.

This report will be presented jointly by the Water Department and HF&H Consultants.

The presentation will:
 summarize the analysis process,
 provide the calculated cost to provide service,
 discuss options for rate implementation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no funding impact associated with this report.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Reliable Infrastructure

ATTACHMENTS:

None

SEWER ENTERPRISE

COST OF SERVICE AND RATE SCENARIOS

Presentation Outline
• Update on Water Department and HF&H Consultants coordination. • 2026 Cost of Service Analysis [COSA]
• 5-year Rate Scenarios [FY2026-27 to FY2030-31]
• 7-year Rate Scenarios [FY2026-27 to FY2032-33]
• Outreach Plan
• Next Steps
WATER DEPARTMENT 2

Water and HF&H Coordination
• HF&H reviewed the Water Department
2025 Report and provided some
revisions
• Water utilized HF&H recommendations
to update FY2026-27 to FY2035-36
Financial Plan [10-years]
• HF&H prepared 2026 COSA using the
Rate Model with Financial Plan
expenses
• HF&H staff to present 2026 COSA
findings
3 WATER DEPARTMENT
Wastewater Rates Background
Wastewater customer classes:

HF&H CONSULTANTS 4
Residential Commercial Industrial
Wastewater Rates Background
Current Rate Structure:
• Annual Fixed Charge via the Kern County tax roll
• Fixed service charge rate x Single-Family Dwelling Equivalent (SFDE) Ratio • Commercial Surcharge via monthly bills for excessive discharge • Flow in excess x flow surcharge rate
• Industrial Surcharge via monthly bills for excessive discharge • Flow in excess x flow surcharge rate
• Loading in excess x loading surcharge rates (BOD and TSS) • BOD – Biochemical Oxygen Demand – waste, pollution use up more oxygen, leaving less for aquatic life when discharged
• TSS – total suspended solids – debris floating in the water requiring filtration/removal HF&H CONSULTANTS 5

Wastewater Rates Background
HF&H CONSULTANTS 6
Rate Structure Residential Commercial Industrial
Fixed Service Charge Single Family = 1 SFDE
Multi-Family, mobile
Home Park units = 0.75
SFDE each
Each account = 1 SFDE
(Schools, shops,
restaurants, hotels,
businesses, hospitals)
Each account = 1 SFDE
Monthly Surcharge Not charged 1 surcharge rate for each of 4 customer classes for
WW strength ($/HCF):
• Low
• Medium
• Medium-high
• High
1 customer class, 3
surcharge rates:
• Flow ($/MG)
• BOD ($/1,000 lbs)
• TSS ($/1,000 lbs)
Wastewater Rates Background
HF&H CONSULTANTS 7
Commercial user groups:

Strength
User Group Classification
Schools low
Churches low
Small Store low
Combination Store & Residence low
Large Store low
Office Bldg. low
Car Wash low
Sal es low
Nurseri es low
Laundromat low
Hospital low
Nursi ng Home low
Medi cal Lab low
Servi ce Shop low
Light & Heavy Industry low
Timber & Produce Plant low
Food Processing low
OS - Commercial/Industrial low
Recreati onal medium
Storage-Warehouse medium
Petrol eum medium
Hotel-Motels, RV Parks without restaurant medium
Big Box Store medium high
Shopping Center w/ Dining medium high
Hotel-Motels, RV Parks (w/ restaurant) medium high
Mortuary high
Food or Beverage high
Markets (Grocery Store) high
Rate Study Process
Comprehensive rate study comprises three steps:

HF&H CONSULTANTS 8
Revenue
Requirement
Projections
• How much
revenue is
needed from
sewer rates?
Cost-of-Service
Analysis
• How much
revenue is each
customer class
responsible for?
Rate Design
• How are rates
structured
among the
customer
classes?
Revenue Requirement Projections
HF&H CONSULTANTS 9

3.54%, Sewer Conveyance
O&M Costs

0.25%, Stormwater
Conveyance O&M Costs

6.75%, Treatment Plant O&M Costs

8.21%, City Op Expenses¹

81.25%, Net Capital
Expenditures²
$165 Million Revenue Requirement
• 1City Operating Expenses are net of non-operating revenues • 2City Capital Expenditures are net of connection fee revenues and use of reserves What is Cost-of-Service Analysis?
• Fees and charges must be proportional to the cost of providing service • COSA apportions costs to fees and charges in proportion to the service provided
• COSA should be performed periodically
• Any time rate structures are modified
• Fixed service charges or variable surcharges
• When proportions among rate structure components shift • Changes in make-up of the revenue requirement – treatment vs collection vs general/administrative functions
• When proportions among customer categories shift
• Changes in accounts, flows, wastewater loading
HF&H CONSULTANTS 10

Current Revenue Compared with Cost of Service
11 • The Revenue Requirement
is allocated among
functions of the wastewater
system. These figures are
divided by the units of
service to generate unit
costs
• Cost of service is calculated
by multiplying the unit costs
by the units of service for
each customer class

HF&H CONSULTANTS

Rate Design: Fixed Service Charge Rate
12 • Rate design utilizes unit costs from
cost-of-service analysis.
• SFDE = Single Family Dwelling
Equivalent
• SFDE fixed charge accounts for
units of service specific to a Single-
Family Dwelling
• Multiple Dwelling Unit Charge is
based on 75% of that of a Single-
Family Dwelling to reflect reduced
wastewater discharge patterns for
multi-family units.

SFDE Flow BOD TSS
Single Family 1 220 240 280
Characteristics
Annualize 1 107 161 188
hcf/yr lbs/yr lbs/yr
Unit Costs $98.49 $6.86 $0.91 $0.57
Annual Cost per SFDE $98.49 $736.05 $146.06 $106.32
Fixed Service Charge per SFDE $1,086.92
Fixed Service Charge per Multiple Dwelling Unit $815.19

HF&H CONSULTANTS
Rate Design: Commercial Surcharge Rates
HF&H CONSULANTS 13
• There are no proposed changes to the
existing commercial surcharge
structure which has four strength
classifications.
• Customers with higher wastewater
strength concentrations place greater
demands on the wastewater system.

Current Proposed Change Strength
User Group Surcharge Surcharge in Rate % Difference Classification Schools $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Churches $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Small Store $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Combination Store & Residence $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low Large Store $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Office Bldg. $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Car Wash $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Sal es $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Nurseri es $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Laundromat $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Hospital $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Nursi ng Home $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Medi cal Lab $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Servi ce Shop $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Light & Heavy Industry $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Timber & Produce Plant $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
Food Processing $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low
OS - Commercial/Industrial $3.72 $7.83 $4.11 110.5% low Recreati onal $4.09 $9.23 $5.14 125.7% medium
Storage-Warehouse $4.09 $9.23 $5.14 125.7% medium
Petrol eum $4.09 $9.23 $5.14 125.7% medium
Hotel-Motels, RV Parks without restaurant $4.09 $9.23 $5.14 125.7% medium Big Box Store $5.27 $12.46 $7.19 136.4% medium high
Shopping Center w/ Dining $5.27 $12.46 $7.19 136.4% medium high Hotel-Motels, RV Parks (w/ restaurant) $5.27 $12.46 $7.19 136.4% medium high Mortuary $6.82 $15.39 $8.57 125.7% high
Food or Beverage $6.82 $15.39 $8.57 125.7% high
Markets (Grocery Store) $6.82 $15.39 $8.57 125.7% high
Rate Design: Industrial User Sewer Rates
14 • Industrial Users rates are calculated
using the unit rates determined in
the cost-of-service analysis.

HF&H CONSULTANTS
Flow BOD TSS
Unit Cost of Service $6.86 $0.91 $0.57
per hcf per lb per lb
Proposed Rates $9,166.28 $908.16 $566.65
$/MG $/1,000 lbs $/1,000 lbs
Current $4,232.02 $334.00 $99.92
$ Difference $4,934.26 $574.16 $466.73

QUESTIONS
Rate Scenario Analysis
• Water Department prepared a 15-year operations, maintenance, and infrastructure plan • The proposed [2027-2031] rate model only considers costs associated with a 10-year plan • Revenue generated from the 5-year Sewer User rate increase, sewer connection, and non- operating are included in the rate model
• Rate Scenarios include:
• All enterprise revenue for a 10-year period
• All O&M + CIP expenses for a 10-year period
• Bond funding and debt service payments
• Rate Scenarios assume:
• Plant 3 Expansion from 32 MGD to 40 MGD by 2031
• Plant 2 Upgrade/Replacement complete by 2033
• Plant 4 Site, Design, and Permitting costs included in 2034-36 WATER DEPARTMENT 15

Rate Scenario 1
Rate at $950 YR1 + 3% Inflation
• Year 1 – 2026-27 $950 284%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $979 3%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $1008 3%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $1038 3%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $1069 3%
• Bonding Amount Needed:
• $180,000,000
• Monthly “Equivalent”
• $79 in year 1 to $89 in year 5
16 WATER DEPARTMENT

Rate Scenario 2
17 Rate at $700 to $1087 over 5 years
• Year 1 – 2026-27 $700 183%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $800 14%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $900 12%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $1000 11%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $1087 9%
• Bonding Amount Needed:
• $250,000,000
• Monthly “Equivalent”
• $58 in year 1 to $91 in year 5

WATER DEPARTMENT
Rate Scenario 3
18 Rate at $600 YR1 then increase $100/yr
• Year 1 – 2026-27 $600 143%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $700 17%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $800 14%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $900 13%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $1000 11%
• Bonding Amount Needed:
• $360,000,000
• Monthly “Equivalent”
• $50 in year 1 to $83 in year 5

WATER DEPARTMENT
Rate Scenario 4
Rate at $475 YR1 then increase $125/yr
• Year 1 – 2026-27 $475 92%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $600 26%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $725 21%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $850 17%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $975 15%
• Bonding Amount Needed:
• $410,000,000
• Monthly “Equivalent”
• $40 in year 1 to $81 in year 5
19 WATER DEPARTMENT
7-yr Rate Model + Infrastructure Delay
20 • Rate Model assumes 5-years + additional 2-years [2027-2031 + 2032 + 2033] • Infrastructure must be delayed or significant Plant 2 Bond still required. • Plant 2 – Delay Construction - Upgrade/Replacement
• Maintain Planning schedule - Prepare Design – Obtain Permits – Shovel Ready • Initial Schedule 2031-2033 Construction Estimate $653 million [escalated] • Delayed Schedule 2033-2035 Construction Estimate $700 million [escalated] • Plant 4 – Delay Project
• Budget for Site/Design/Permits = $190 million [escalated dollars] • Move Planning costs in years 11 – 15
• Construction will beyond limit of the 15-year plan
• Plant 3 Expansion capacity will increase to account for 4 additional years of growth

Rate Scenario 5
Rate at $475 YR1 then increase $110/yr
• Year 1 – 2026-27 $475 92%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $585 23%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $695 19%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $805 16%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $915 14%
• Year 6 – 2031-32 $1025 12%
• Year 7 – 2032-33 $1135 11%
• No Bonding in 10-year Plan
• Monthly “Equivalent”
• $40 in year 1 to $95 in year 7
21 WATER DEPARTMENT

Rate Scenario 6
Rate at $475 to $1087 over 7 yrs
• Year 1 – 2026-27 $475 92%
• Year 2 – 2027-28 $575 21%
• Year 3 – 2028-29 $675 17%
• Year 4 – 2029-30 $775 15%
• Year 5 – 2030-31 $875 13%
• Year 6 – 2031-32 $975 11%
• Year 7 – 2032-33 $1087 11%
• Bonding Amount Needed:
• $90,000,000
• Monthly “Equivalent” $40 in year 1 to $91 in year 7
22 WATER DEPARTMENT

Outreach Plan
Community Meetings – Wards 1 - 7
• October 6th – Ward 5 - Koman
• October 13th – Ward 1 - Arias
• October 15th – Ward 7 - Kaur
• October 16th – Ward 2 - Gonzales
• October 20th – Ward 3 - Weir
• October 21st – Ward 6 - Bashirtash
• October 27th – Ward 4 - Smith
• November 13th - Virtual
23WATER DEPARTMENT
Informational Meetings
• August 20th – American Society of Civil
Engineers
• October 8th – Water Association of Kern
County
• October 14th – CA Land Surveyors Association
• November 4th – Greater Bakersfield Chamber
• November 4th - Do the Math
• To Be Determined – Rotary Club
Wastewater Website – Online by October 31
Proposition [Prop] 218 Process
24 Present proposed
rate to Council.

Obtain approval to
begin Prop 218
January
Mail Prop 218
Notice to users
February
45-day Public
Review Period
February-March
Public Hearing
during Regular
Council Meeting
Upon Council
approval, adopt rate
March-April
2026 Rate
incorporated
within Kern County
Property Tax
July 1

WATER DEPARTMENT
• Sewer user fees are subject to
Prop 218
• Council is to approve rate and
direct staff to start Prop 218
• Notices are mailed to notify a
user of a proposed fee increase
• Prop 218 allows for a 45-day
review and comment period
• A public hearing is held after the
protest period
• Council will decide on whether
to approve or deny the fee

QUESTIONS
25

Bakersfield City CouncilOctober 22, 2025

Bakersfield City Council
October 22, 2025