Agenda, regular meeting, second session — Bakersfield City Council, March 11, 2026 (part 3 of 6)

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 under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

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

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true andcorrect.

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council.

3. The project is subject to mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th of January 2026, on amotion by and seconded by , by the following vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
Adam Strickland, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: Location Map

Page 2 of 2 ends

1 of 2
EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. PP-CGPA-24-0001
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

AQ-1 During construction, exposed surfaces will be watered at least twice daily.

AQ-2 During construction, vehicle travel speeds will be limited on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour or less.

Agriculture Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

AG-1 To ensure compatibility between the proposed recreational facility and any existing or future agricultural operations in the surrounding area, the project applicant shall incorporate appropriate buffer and transitional design features into the site plan.

1. Vegetative-Landscape Buffers: Installation of tree-lined berms, hedgerows, or landscaped strips along shared boundaries to provide physical and visual separation, reduce noise and dust, and minimize potential pesticide drift from nearby agricultural uses. Drought-tolerant species should be utilized to reduce maintenance and water demand.

2. Farming Activities Disclosures: Record a covenant disclosing nearby agricultural activities are allowed by zoning.

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

BIO-1 A biological resource pre-activity survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30-days before the start of construction activities.

BIO-2 There will be biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance.

BIO-3 Compliance reporting shall be provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted.

BIO-4 A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented.

BIO-5 If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or during Ground 2 of 2
Disturbance (2011) shall be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.

BIO-6 Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.

BIO-7 Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped shall be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.

BIO-8 Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater in diameter shall be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

BIO-9 If ground-disturbing activities are planned during the nesting season for migratory birds that may nest on or near the site (generally February 1 through August 31), nesting bird surveys are recommended prior to the commencement of ground disturbance for project activities. If nesting birds are present, no new construction or ground disturbance should occur within an appropriate avoidance area for that species until young have fledged, unless otherwise approved and monitored by a qualified onsite biologist.

Appropriate avoidance should be determined by a qualified biologist. In general, minimum avoidance zones for active nests should be implemented as follows:

1. Ground or low-shrub nesting non-raptors – 300 feet (91 meters),

2. Burrowing owl – as appropriate based on nest location, existing surrounding activity, and evaluation of owl behavior. Coordination with CDFW may be warranted,

3. Sensitive raptors (e.g., prairie falcon, golden eagle) – 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers),

4. Other raptors – 500 feet (152 meters).

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work shall immediately cease, and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. Project is subject to any recommendations of the qualified specialist.

CUL-2 During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99.

Exhibit B

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM R-IA
(RESOURCE – INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE) TO OS-P (PARKS,
LOCATED AT 5525 AND 5543 BUENA VISTA ROAD (GPA/ZC NO.

PP-CGPA-24-0001).

WHEREAS, KSI Engineering, Inc. (applicant), on behalf of APVJ, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to OSP (Parks); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from A-20A (Agricultural – 20-acre minimum) to RE (Recreation) on 3.67 acres located at 5525 and 5543 Buena Vista Road in southwest Bakersfield (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project has been recommended; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 5:30 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 Planning Commission to consider the proposed Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; 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 proposed 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, 20 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 under CEQA and an initial study was completed.

3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project.

4. The Project is compatible with the land use designations and development of surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Page 2 of 2 ends

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 hereby recommended for approval by the City Council located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
Adam Strickland, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit A

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION FROM A-20A
(AGRICULTURAL – 20-ACRE MINIMUM) TO RE (RECREATION),
LOCATED AT 5525 AND 5543 BUENA VISTA ROAD (GPA/ZC NO.

PP-CGPA-24-0001).

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, 20 days prior to the hearing.

3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project.

Page 2 of 2 ends

4. The Project is compatible with the zone districts and development of surrounding properties and is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

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 hereby recommended for approval by the City Council, incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 located on the map as shown in Exhibit A and as specifically described in Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated herein.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
Adam Strickland, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Zone Change Map
Exhibit B: Legal Description
EXHIBIT “A”

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
APNs: 535-020-05 AND -10
LOT 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 12-0174 PER CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 PER DOCUMENT NO. 000212125583 IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER.

TOGETHER WITH
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 16 IN SECTION 24, T30S, R26E, MDBM, ACCORDING

TO THE SALES MAP OF LANDS OF KERN COUNTY LAND COMPANY RECORDED AUGUST 27, 1892 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16, SAID POINT BEING 552.50 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 16; THENCE WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, 230 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 16, 71.50 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 16, 230 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 16; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE 71.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 3.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
10-03-2024
0'

GRAPHIC SCALE
80' 40' 40' 80'
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 80 ft.

VICINTY MAP
NTS

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: March 6, 2026
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider Planning Commission’s approval of General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 25-0003
and its proposed mitigated negative declaration. (Ward 5) Bolthouse Properties (applicant and property owner) is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change on approximately 49 acres generally located at the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and South Wegis Avenue. The request includes:

1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential).

3. First Reading of an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code by changing the official zoning classification from C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the resolutions and first reading of the ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

The project is a request for an amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and the City of Bakersfield Zoning Ordinance on approximately 49 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and South Wegis Avenue. The applicant proposes to change the land use designation from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low-Medium Density Residential); and to change the zone classification from C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small-Lot Single Dwelling).

PROJECT SUMMARY:

The proposed project seeks the above approvals to establish consistent land use and zoning designations within the project site and with surrounding residential areas. The proposed request is to address the ongoing demand for residential development and will accelerate completion of the Stockdale River Ranch buildout. No formal plans have been submitted, with the exception of preliminary conceptual plans. All future developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance which will require a sewerstudy and a drainage study to retain drainage on site.

SITE HISTORY:
 March 25, 2011 – The project site was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of a larger annexation; Annexation 548, Stockdale No. 15 (Resolution 104-10).  November 21, 2017 - The project site was rezoned as C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) as part of a 564+ acre General Plan Amendment and zone change, and certified Environmental Impact Report, Stockdale Ranch EIR SCH No. 2009071068 (GPA/ZC 09-0263 – Stockdale Ranch).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

As previously stated, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was previously certified for the project site as part of the overall analysis for the Stockdale River Ranch Project. The Final EIR (“FEIR”) was certified by the City in March 2010 (SCH No. 2009071068). The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, Section 15164 (b) states that an Addendum to a previously adopted FEIR shall be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 call for the preparation of subsequent EIR or supplemental Negative Declaration have occurred.

The City of Bakersfield as the Lead Agency has determined not to prepare an addendum to the EIR since the request will not involve major substantial increases in the severity of previously significant effects to the certified EIR.

Therefore, Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less-than- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period from October 31, 2025 to December 3, 2025 (SCH No. 2025101495).

The State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed in the evaluation of the environmental effects of this project. Significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the EIR were not identified within staff analysis. The MND also concluded that the proposed development will not result in an exceedance of the allowable residential unit count for the entire Stockdale River Ranch project.

Comments Received. As of this writing, two comment letters were received from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and California Department of Conservation in response to the Initial Study. The Department of Toxic Substances Control letter notes only good practices while the California Department of Conservation letter mentions a nearby well that may may have future access impeded.

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 Hall North, 1600 Truxtun 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.

Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on October 1, 2025, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.

Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:
 Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.

The project is new residential development that captures the current residential marketplace within the southern San Joaquin Valley by providing residential development.  Goal 2: Accommodate new development which provides a full mix of uses to support its population.

The project is consistent with this goal because the property owner determined the market is driving a need for residential within the project area. Additionally, the State encourages the densification of residential uses within cities throughout California.  Goal 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.

The project is consistent with this goal by providing residential housing densification to support the local population.
 Goal 4: Accommodate new development which channels land uses in a phased, orderly manner and is coordinated with the provision of infrastructure and public improvements.

The necessary infrastructure and public improvements are available to accommodate residential developments or, if the project is approved, will be developed through the fair-share payment of impacts fees by the property owner. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal.  Policy 2: Allow for the development of a variety of residential types and densities.

The project provides land use within an area that consists of both single-family and multi-family residential use. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

The project was considered by the Planning Commission on January 15, 2026. No individuals or agencies were present at the hearing that opposed the request. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the project to the City Council. Two Commissioners were absent. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 06-26, 07-26, and 08-26.

FISCAL IMPACT:

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
Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution (Mitigated Negative Declaration)

2. Resolution (General Plan Amendment)

3. Ordinance (Zone Change)

4. Map Set

5. Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments

6. Planning Commission Resolutions
a. Adopt MND with Attachments
b. Approve GPA with Attachments
c. Approve ZC with Attachments

7. Planning Commission Staff Report

8. Traffic Memo

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE

LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON

THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY AND SOUTH
WEGIS AVENUE (GPA/ZC NO. 25-0003).

WHEREAS, Bolthouse Properties (applicant and property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) on approximately 49 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and South Wegis Avenue. (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from October 31, 2025, to December 3, 2025, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026 and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 06- 26, which recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026 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 proposed Negative Declaration 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, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; 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.

Page 2 of 3 ends

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:

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 under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

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

1. The above recitals, incorporated herein, are true andcorrect.

2. The Planning Commission’s findings as contained in its Resolution No. 06-26 are hereby adopted.

Page 3 of 3 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 11th day of March 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Andre, Weir, Smith, Koman,Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit: A Mitigation Measures
B Location Map
EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/ZONE CHANGE NO. 25-0003
Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

1. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

2. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit proof to the Planning Division that they have complied with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

3. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project related activity.
a) If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization.
b) If Bakersfield cacti are identified during the survey, the CDFW shall be contacted for guidance concerning the feasibility of translocation.
c) The survey or separate survey shall include a focus on the burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993). The applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures:

4. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

5. During construction, if paleontological or cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural and/or paleontological resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

6. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant/developer shall participate in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.

EXHIBIT B

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM OC (OFFICE

COMMERCIAL) TO LMR (LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL),

GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STOCKDALE
HIGHWAY AND SOUTH WEGIS AVENUE (GPA/ZC NO. 25-0003).

WHEREAS, Bolthouse Properties (applicant and property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from CO/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single- Unit Dwelling) on approximately 49 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and South Wegis Avenue. (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 07-26, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026 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, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; 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 Resolution No. 07-26 are hereby adopted.

3. The Project is hereby approved located on the map as shown in Exhibit A, of which is incorporated herein.

4. The Project approved herein is hereby made part of the 4th amendment to the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan for calendar year 2024 in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (b). 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 11th of March y 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _ Arias, Andre, 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
APPROVED:

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Map

EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE BAKERSFIELD

MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION

FROM C-O/PCD (COMMERCIAL OFFICE/ PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) TO R-2 (SMALL LOT SINGLE-UNIT

DWELLING), GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER

OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY AND SOUTH WEGIS AVENUE (GPA/ZC
NO. 25-0003).

WHEREAS, Bolthouse Properties (applicant and property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential); and (2) an amendment to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to change the Zone District from C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) on approximately 49 acres generally located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and South Wegis Avenue. (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026, and with no one wishing to speak in support or opposition, approved Resolution No. 08- 26 which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 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, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the Project, including the staff report, and the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

SECTION 1.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED 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 Resolution No. 08-26 are hereby adopted.

Page 1 of 3 ends

3. The Project is hereby approved incorporating the change into the official zoning map as described in Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 17.06.020 as specifically described in Exhibit A and located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, all of which are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2.

This ordinance must beposted in accordance with the Bakersfield Municipal Code and will become effective not less than 30 days from and after the date of its passage. o0o

Page 2 of 3 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of March 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: Arias, Andre, 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
APPROVED:

KAREN GOH
Mayor of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits: A Legal Description
B Zone Change Map

Page 3 of 3 ends

EXHIBIT "A"
PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE 25-XXXX

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
R-2 (FROM C-O/PCD)
BEING LOT 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT No. 22-0457 AS EVIDENCED BY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED ON AUGUST 5, 2024 AS DOCUMENT No. 224089869 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE KERN COUNTY RECORDER; ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 30 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, MOUNT DIABLO

BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4, AND THE CENTERLINE

INTERSECTION OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY AND SOUTH WEGIS AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT No. 22-0457; THENCE ALONG THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
SOUTH 00°16'02" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH-SOUTH MID-SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 4, A DISTANCE OF 852.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE DEPARTING THE NORTH-SOUTH MID-SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION 4, SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°48'16", AN ARC LENGTH OF 361.40 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 76°27'47" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 150.73 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIL)S OF 1500.00 FEET; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE" OF 41 °46'42", AN ARC LENGTH OF 1093.75 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 61 °45'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 438.40 FEET TO TtiE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS ·OF 1500.00 FEET;

THENCE I I
WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF J 4 °39'03", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 383.55 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 13°35'26" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00°10'42" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 739.78 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4 AND THE CENTERLINE OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY; THENCE
��I.L 'l(
SOUTH 89°26'56" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 4 AND I 14-f V)'t?

THE CENTERLINE OF STOCKDALE HIGHWAY, A
DISTANCE OF 1900.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 49.312 GROSS ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

KM>lJ: /Stockdale Ranch/ GPA-ZC-25-XXXX(R2) /ZC-25-XXXX-Exhibit-A. docx Page 1 of 1

MAP SET

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 1 of 42

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield’s Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title):

COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS:

COMMENT PERIOD ENDS:

General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 25-0003
October 31, 2025
December 3, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

3. Prior to ground disturbance and/or construction activities, the applicant/developer shall consult with and follow all California Department of Fish and Wildlife and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Applicant/developer shall have a qualified professional conduct and prepare a biological resource clearance survey no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities for the detection of listed, or otherwise special-status species, likely to be impacted by any project related activity. a. If known or natal dens are detected during the survey, protective measures enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) shall be initiated. If the identified dens are unavoidable, pursuant to the guidelines, the CDFW and USFWS shall be contacted for additional guidance and take authorization. b. If Bakersfield cacti are identified during the survey, the CDFW shall be contacted for guidance concerning the feasibility of translocation.
c. The survey or separate survey shall include a focus on the burrowing owl. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993). The applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

BAKERSFIELD
THE SOUND OF SDJt1dhw;-~
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 2 of 42

Geology and Soils, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Resources Impacts Mitigation Measures:

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 3 of 42

INITIAL STUDY

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

1. Project (Title & No.): General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 25-0003

2. Lead Agency (name and address): City of Bakersfield
Development Services Department
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301

3. Contact Person (name, title, phone): Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner (661) 326-3191

4. Project Location: The project is located on the south side of Stockdale Highway between South Nord Avenue and South Wegis Avenue on
approximately 44 acres, [Assessor Parcel Number 534-011-50] Bakersfield, CA 93314

5. Applicant (name and address): Bolthouse Properties
Attn: Bradford J. DeBranch
11601 Bolthouse Drive Suite 200
Bakersfield, CA 93311

6. General Plan Designation: OC (Office Commercial)

7. Zoning: C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development)

8. Description of Project (describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the Project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation.):

Bolthouse Properties (applicant and property owner) has requested a General Plan Amendment to change existing land use from (OC) Office Commercial to (LMR) Low Medium Density Residential and a Zone Change to change the existing zoning from C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) on approximately 44 acres [Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 534-011-50].

The project intends to develop residential housing and advance the buildout time for the Stockdale River Ranch Master Plan.

9. Environmental Setting (briefly describe the existing onsite conditions and surrounding land uses):

The proposed project site is currently utilized as agriculture farmland, as are the properties to the south, east, and west. The properties to the north are developed with single-family residential .

10. Other public agencies whose approval is anticipated to be required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement):

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 4 of 42

Agency Approvals and Decisions
Subsequent City of Bakersfield Approvals
Development Services Department
Public Works Department
• Issue grading permits.
• Issue building permits.
• Accept public right-of-way dedications.
• Approve road improvement plans.
• Issue encroachment permits.
• Approve proposed sewer connections and
improvements.

Other Agencies – Subsequent Approvals and Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board • Issue a Construction Activity General Construction Permit.
• Confirm Compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and
Waste Discharge Requirements.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District
• Approve Indirect Source Rule compliance.

California Water Service Bakersfield
District
• Approve proposed water connections and
improvements.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 5 of 42

General Plan Amendment &
Zone Change
25-0003
AERIAL
l:J

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
1,000
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 6 of 42

General Plan Amendment &
Zone Change
25-0003

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
..,
> 1,,.__,.. ______ .;.A;;;Nc;E.:;L,;, URA;;_;.;_;; CT;_ ______ ; G RR ~
r ·-··-··-··-··-··-··----··-··-··-··----··-··-··-··-··-·-··-··-··-··-··-··-·•-«----- LR
RR
landUse
USID[HTIAL
-
U -[1r11eRuidenliol, I
dwellingunil/netaue
LMR -low Medium Den1ity
foidential,> uni11bu 1
S: 10dwellingunih/ntl
U -lawOcnlily
lnidtnlial: S:7.26
dwellingunil!i/netam
ll - lu111llnidentiaLts
grtuDCm/dwellingu111il
CDMMEIClll
- GC·GeneialC,mmerdal
- OC - Office(emme1cial

RESOURCE
1-l• •lnoum -lnlensin
- At1i11lt11r1, 2001~t
minimum p0r1rl me
(.;, BAKERSFIELD
t
Feer
1,000
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 7 of 42

General Plan Amendment &
Zone Change
25-0003
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD J ____ _ ··-··----··-··-· -··-··-.. - .. -·•--■--■-••

STOCKDALE HWY
COUNTY
-·c,rv·-..

Zoning
(ommeuia11toe0esignutiou
~ C-OJP.C.D. Combining
- ~~~::i,~~:iorhood ResidentiolZoneOesignotiou
1-1 On1FomityOw,lling
M LimiredMu11iple
LJ FamilyDweHinglonc - 1
unil,12,500sq. h.

BAKERSFIELD
t
Feet
0 500 1,000
10 16 2025
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 8 of 42

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, the project would result in potentially significant impacts with respect to the environmental factors checked below (Impacts reduced to a less than significant level through the incorporation of mitigation are not considered potentially significant.):
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Geology / Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emissions □ Hazards & Hazardous Materials □ Hydrology / Water Quality □ Land Use / Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
□ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service Systems □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A mitigated negative declaration will be prepared. □ I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact report is required.
□ I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect has been (1) adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An environmental impact report is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been (1) analyzed adequately in an earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier environmental impact report or negative declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Yazid Alawgarey 10/28/25
Signature Date
Yazid Alawgarey
Printed Name
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 9 of 42

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be crossreferenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 10 of 42

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project is located on the south side of Stockdale Highway between South Nord Avenue and South Wegis Avenue. The existing visual environment in the area consists of residential properties to the north while the parcels to the east, west, and south are utilized as agricultural land. The project does not conflict with any applicable vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria of federal, state, or local agencies. The project site is located within an area having slopes of 0 to 2 % in any direction. The area is not regarded or designated within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan as visually important or “scenic.” The construction of multi-family residential uses at the site would be in character and compatible with existing urban land uses in the vicinity and is a natural extension of the urban growth occurring in the project area. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. There are no trees, rock outcrops, or historic buildings located at the project site.

Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to or near any officially designated or potentially eligible scenic highways to be listed on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highway System (Caltrans 2017). The closest section of highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is State Route (SR) 14 (Caltrans 2017), located in Kern County over 60 miles to the east. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to responses I.a, I.b, and I.d. As described, the project is located within an urbanized area and is contiguous to existing and newly developed land uses.

There are no local vista protection standards, scenic resource protection requirements, or design criteria that apply to the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 11 of 42

and other regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. This project involves incremental urban growth within the City of Bakersfield’s jurisdiction. This project would be required to comply with City development standards, including Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (zoning ordinance), Title 15 (buildings and construction), and California Code of Regulations Title 24 (building code). Together, these local and state requirements oblige compliance with current lighting standards that minimize unwanted light or glare to spill over into neighboring properties. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a. Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project site is designated by the California Department of Conservation as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance.

However, these parcels have been converted to non-agricultural use per the approval of General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 09-263 – Stockdale Ranch. According to the Farmland I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 12 of 42

Conversion Study as part of the Stockdale Ranch EIR (GPA/ZC 09-263), based on the California Land Conservation Act and the MBGP criteria for prime farmland, the proposed Project site does not consist of prime agricultural lands. Additionally, the proposed Project site was identified for urbanization within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP). b. No impact. The approval of GPA/ZC 09-263 – Stockdale Ranch amended the zone to C-O (professional and administrative office)/P.C.D (planned commercial development) for commercial uses, meaning it is not an agricultural zone and is not under a Williamson Act contract.

The continued use as agricultural land is legal non-conforming until the parcel is developed to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c. No impact. As discussed in II.b, the project site is zoned for commercial uses. No lands within or immediately adjacent to the project site are zoned forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d. No impact. As discussed in II.c, no lands within or immediately adjacent to the project are zoned forest land or timberland and do not contain any forested areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forest land to non-forest. e. Less-than-significant impact.. Please refer to responses II.a. This project proposes commercial uses in an area designated for urban development by the General Plan. Although there are agricultural operations in proximity to the project, it would not experience conflicts in operation due to the proposed development. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 13 of 42

Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The project is located within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) jurisdiction, in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). As such, air quality impacts from the project are controlled through policies and provisions of the SJVAPCD and the General Plan. The SJVAPCD has adopted an Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) and is required to submit a “Rate of Progress” document to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that demonstrates past and planned progress toward reaching attainment for all criteria pollutants.

The SJVAB is classified by the state as being in severe nonattainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard as well as in nonattainment for the state particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The SJVAB is also classified as extreme nonattainment for the federal 8-hour ozone standard, nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard, and attainment/maintenance for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) and PM10 standards.

The SJVAPCD requires local jurisdictions to design all developments in ways that reduce air pollution from vehicles, which is the largest single category of air pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, and from other stationary sources. The Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI) (SJVAPCD 2015) lists various land uses and design strategies that reduce air quality impacts of new development. Local ordinance and General Plan requirements related to landscaping, sidewalks, street improvements, level of traffic service, energy-efficient heating and cooling, building code requirements, and location of commercial development in proximity to residential development are consistent with these listed strategies. Regulation and policy that will result in the compliance with air quality strategies for the new commercial development include but are not limited to, Title 24 efficiency standards, Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards, 2005 building energy efficiency standards, Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 motor vehicle standards, and compliance with the MBGP Air Quality Conservation Element as well as the SJVAPCD air quality guidelines and rules.

An Air Quality study was conducted as part of the Stockdale Ranch EIR (GPA/ZC 09-263). In addition, a traffic letter, dated XX-XX-XX prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers evaluated potential traffic impacts and concluded—per the City of Bakersfield Public Works Department’s review—that the project would generate fewer trips than previously approved plans.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the project would not conflict with, or obstruct the implementation of, the applicable air quality plan. Mitigation Measure 2 requires that the necessary fees be paid to the SJVAPCD. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less-than-significant impact. As discussed in III.a, an Air Quality Study was completed as part of the Stockdale Ranch EIR (GPA/ZC 09-263). This project would also be required, when applicable, to follow air quality control measures and rules required by the SJVAPCD, which include, but are not limited to, SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required), SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule), SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance), and SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Rule), each of which is discussed below.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 14 of 42

SJVAPCD Rule 2010 requires any person constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source operation that emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate from the SJVAPCD Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO). The project will comply with this rule by obtaining authorization from APCO before commencing construction on the project.

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires review and offset of stationary sources of air pollution and no net increase in emissions above specified thresholds from new and modified stationary sources of all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. This is achieved by using mechanisms as approved by the SJVAPCD, such as emission trade-offs by which a permit to construct or operate any source of pollution is granted. The project will comply with this rule by demonstrating compliance when obtaining authorization from APCO under Rule 2010. For example, compliance with Rule 2201 may include using Best Available Control Technology and providing emission offsets.

SJVAPCD Rule 4102 protects the health and safety of the public by prohibiting discharge from any source whatsoever of air contaminants that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people. The project will comply with this rule by not discharging air contaminants or other materials, which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or other annoyance to any considerable number of people.

SJVAPCD Rule 9510 requires the reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter smaller than ten microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) associated with construction and operational activities of development projects occurring within the San Joaquin Valley. Rule 9510 applies to new development projects that would equal or exceed specific size limits called applicability thresholds (e.g., developing more than 2,000 square feet of commercial space, 25,000 square feet of multi-family housing space, 10,000 square feet of heavy industrial space, or 50 residential units). The project is subject to SJVAPCD Rule 9510 because it exceeds the applicability threshold for developing more than 25,000 square feet of 50 residential units.

Accordingly, the project must reduce a portion of the emissions occurring during construction and operational phases through on-site measures or pay off-site mitigation fees. The objective of this rule is to reduce construction NOX and PM10 emissions by 20% and 45%, respectively, as well as to reduce operational NOX and PM10 emissions by 33.3% and 50%, respectively, when compared to unmitigated projects. The SJVAPCD uses CalEEMOD (California Emission Estimator Model) to estimate emissions of NOX and PM10 for potential land uses. Examples of measures that may be implemented to reduce emissions under this rule include but are not limited to, incorporating energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements, providing bicycle lanes throughout a project, using cleaner fleet construction vehicles, providing employee incentives for using alternative transportation, and building in proximity to existing or planned bus stops. When a development project cannot reduce its NOX and PM10 emissions to the level required by Rule 9510, then the difference must be mitigated through the payment of an off-site emissions reduction fee. One hundred percent (100%) of all off-site mitigation fees are used by the SJVAPCD to fund emission reduction projects through its Incentives Programs, achieving emission reductions on behalf of the project. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Some land uses are deemed more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities associated with a land use that could result in a sensitive receptor experiencing sustained exposure to said air pollution. Population groups considered sensitive receptors include young children, chronically ill individuals, the elderly, and/or people who are more sensitive than the general population. Sensitive receptors can be expected to reside in locations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and daycare centers.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 15 of 42

The project is located on the south side of Stockdale Highway between South Nord Avenue and South Wegis Avenue. The nearest sensitive receptors are multi-family residential units to the east of the project site. The nearest school is Del Rio Elementary School, approximately 2.5 miles east of the project. There are no other known hospitals or nursing homes within a one-mile radius. Based on the predicted operational emissions and activity types, the project is not expected to have any adverse impacts on any known sensitive receptor via prolonged exposure to air pollutants.

Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The proposed Project consists of residential uses that do not include activities listed in Table 6 of the SJVAPCD’s GAMAQI. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Discussion
I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 16 of 42

a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site has the potential to result in significant impacts on some special-status wildlife species, but no listed special-status plant and animal species were found on the site during reconnaissance-level surveys as part of the Stockdale Ranch EIR (GPA/ZC 09-263).

Despite there being no indication of special-status wildlife species use on the project site during the site visit, there is potential for use by special-status species in the future due to the project’s overall location within the Central Valley region. A database search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants revealed several special-status species that occur in the region.

The project is subject to the terms of Section 10(a)(1)(b) and Section 2081 permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(“USFWS”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”), respectively. Terms of these permits require applicants for all development projects within the plan area to comply directly with requests of the USFWS and the CDFW.

Mitigation Measures 3 – 4 require a survey prior to ground disturbance for any special-status wildlife species and compliance with any requirements of the CDFW and USFWS to reduce or avoid significant impacts to biological resources. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3 requires training of on-site personnel to increase awareness of FESA and CESA. Therefore, with the implementation of the mitigation measures the project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. No impact. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities located at the site.

This project is not located within, or adjacent to, the Kern River riparian habitat area, nor within the Kern River flood plain, or along a canal that has been identified by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c. No impact. There are no wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), located at the project site or within or near the site. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. d. Less-than-significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project would not interfere with wildlife movement (Stockdale Ranch EIR [GPA/ZC 09-263]). The project is not within the Kern River floodplain, or along a canal that has been identified by the USFWS as a corridor for native resident wildlife species. There is the potential during construction to temporarily affect nursery sites such as dens and burrows. Project construction could cause the direct destruction of a nursery site or cause enough of an indirect disturbance to cause special-status wildlife to abandon a nursery site. However, Mitigation Measure 3 requires preconstruction surveys and, if necessary, additional mitigation recommended by a qualified biologist and CDFW to reduce potential impacts on nursery sites. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, wildlife species, established native residents, migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e. Less than significant impact. It was concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances protecting any biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (Stockdale Ranch EIR [GPA/ZC 09-263]). Therefore, I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 17 of 42

the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts are less than significant.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Please refer to responses IV.a, IV.d, and IV.e.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the project would not conflict with the provisions of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. A Cultural Resources Survey which included as part of the Stockdale Ranch EIR (GPA/ZC 09-263). Upon the completion of this survey, it was determined that there are no historical resources on-site. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. It was concluded that the project site has no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites present However, there is still the potential to unearth previously unknown archaeological resources at the site, and grading and other grounddisturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Mitigation Measure 4 requires that construction workers be provided with cultural awareness training. Mitigation Measure 5 requires ceasing work and investigating any discovery if previously unknown archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4 and 5, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts are less than significant with mitigations incorporated.
c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are no known human remains present at the Project site (Stockdale Ranch EIR [GPA/ZC 09-263]). The project could inadvertently uncover, or damage, previously unknown human remains. Mitigation Measure 6 requires that if any human remains are found at the site during construction, work will cease, and the remains will be handled pursuant to applicable law. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the project would not significantly disturb any human remains, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 18 of 42

VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Project construction would require temporary energy demands typical of other multi-family housing projects that occur throughout the state and this development’s construction would not result in inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources beyond typical residential construction. All new construction within the City must adhere to adopted building standards, including California Code of Regulations Title 24, which outlines energy efficiency standards for new, multi-family housing buildings to ensure that they do not wastefully, inefficiently, or unnecessarily consume energy. Therefore, the project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There is no adopted plan by the City of Bakersfield for renewable energy or energy efficiency. As mentioned above, all new development projects within the City are required to adhere to adopted building standards related to energy efficiency. Additionally, the City encourages applicants/developers to go beyond the required standards and make their developments even more efficient through programs such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), which is a green building rating system that provides a framework to create healthy, highly efficient, and cost-saving green buildings. Other encouraged programs available to applicants/developers are Title 20 appliance energy efficiency standards and 2005 building energy efficiency standards. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
I:,

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Discussion
a. The following discusses the potential for the project to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects because of various geologic hazards. The City is within a seismically active area.

According to the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, major active fault systems border the southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Among these major active fault systems include the San Andreas, Breckenridge-Kern County, Garlock, Pond Poso, and White Wolf faults. There are additional smaller faults suspected of occurring within the Bakersfield area, which may or may not be active. The active faults have a maximum credible Richter magnitude that ranges from 6.0 (Breckenridge-Kern County) to 8.3 (San Andreas). Potential seismic hazards in the planning area involve strong ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslides. i. No Impact. Ground rupture is ground deformation that occurs along the surface trace of a fault during an earthquake. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, the project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii. Less than significant impact. The City is within a seismically active area. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (specifically Seismic Zone 4, which has the most stringent seismic construction requirements in the United States), and to adhere to all modern earthquake construction standards. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts are less than significant. iii. Less than significant impact. The most common seismic-related ground failure is liquefaction and lateral spreading. In both cases, during periods of ground motion caused by an event such as an earthquake, loose materials transform from a solid state to a nearliquid state because of increased pore water pressure. Such ground failure generally I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
[8J
□
[8J
□
□
□
[8J
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 20 of 42

requires a high-water table and poorly draining soil for such this to occur. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Public supply wells in Kern County are at depths between 600 and 800 feet below land surfaces (USGS 2016), meaning that groundwater levels are not close enough to the surface to result in sufficiently saturated soils suitable for liquefaction. In addition, future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed by the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts are less than significant. iv. No impact. In Kern County, the common types of landslides induced by earthquakes occur on steeper slopes found in the foothills and along the Kern River Canyon; in these areas, landslides are generally associated with bluff and stream bank failure, rockslide, and slope slip on steep slopes. The project site is relatively flat and level with no major changes in grade. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides.
b. Less than significant impact. Construction of the site would temporarily disturb soils, which in turn could loosen said soils. However, the proposed development entails paving over these soils with impervious surfaces, meaning the project site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.

In addition, the relatively low precipitation that occurs in the project area (on average about 7 to 10 inches/year) results in surface runoff that is intermittent and temporary. The erosion potential at the site, low average rainfall, and the fact that soils are well drained do not make the site susceptible to substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. As discussed above, the soils at the project site would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, lateral spreading, or landslides.

Subsidence is part of the baseline condition in the project area due to historic groundwater pumping and the resultant subsidence that occurs with such activities. The project would not substantially contribute to this baseline condition because the projected water use has been conditionally approved by the California Water Service Company Bakersfield District (the District).

The site has been considered by the District against its current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and it was concluded that the City has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.

Therefore, the project has already been considered in the groundwater analysis in the UWMP and would not exacerbate subsidence in the area beyond the baseline condition.

Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that collapse and compact under the addition of water or excessive loading. Future structures proposed on the project site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. The soils identified on or around the project site is sandy loam, which do not have a high potential to be expansive. Additionally, future structures proposed on the site are required by state law and City ordinance to be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, including those relating to soil characteristics. Therefore, the project would not be I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 21 of 42

located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property, and impacts are less than significant.
e. No impact. The project would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems because the project would connect to existing City sewer services in the area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
f. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Paleontological sensitivity is determined by the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Because paleontological resources typically occur in the substratum soil horizon, surface expressions are often not visible during a pedestrian survey. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit. The project site is entirely underlain by alluvial fan deposits of the late Holocene age, which presumably transition in the subsurface into older, Pleistocene-age deposits.

Like archeological resources, there is the potential to unearth previously unknown paleontological resources at the site, and grading and other ground-disturbing activities have the potential to damage or destroy such resources. Therefore, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 5, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource site or unique geologic feature, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate an incremental contribution and, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases (GHG), could contribute to global climate change impacts. Although the project is expected to emit GHGs, the GHG emissions of a single project into the atmosphere are not necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG emissions from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project’s GHG emissions would typically be small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently, in isolation would have no significant direct impact on climate change. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions and the resulting significance of potential impacts are more properly assessed on a cumulative basis.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 22 of 42

On September 27, 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (the Act) was enacted by the State of California. The Act charged the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) with the responsibility to monitor, regulate, and reduce GHG emissions.

CARB defined the 1990 baseline emissions for California and adopted that baseline as the 2020 statewide emissions cap at the time. AB 32 required new development projects that are not exempt under CEQA to demonstrate at least a 29% reduction in estimated GHG emissions when compared to the 1990 baseline. Subsequent legislation by the California legislature has included Senate Bill 32 (SB 32), which expanded upon AB 32 to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030; AB 197, which increased the legislative oversight of CARB via the addition of two legislatively appointed non-voting members and provided added protections for disadvantaged communities; SB 350, which increased California’s renewable energy procurement goal; and SB 100, which established a landmark policy requiring 100% of electrical retail sales to end-use customers and 100% of electricity to serve state agencies to be produced via renewable energy and zero-carbon resources by 2045.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in the “Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest, Case No. S217763,” determined that the Newhall Ranch project’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did not substantiate the conclusion that the GHG cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The EIR determined that the project would reduce estimated GHG emissions by 31%, meeting the required 29% reduction, by comparing these emissions to business-as-usual (BAU) levels established through AB 32. The Court determined that the EIR’s deficiency stemmed from using this quantitative comparison method developed by the Scoping Plan as a measure of the GHG reduction effort required by the state and attempting to do so, without adjustments, for a purpose substantially different from its original design. The Court’s final ruling offered several examples that an agency can use to determine that a project’s GHG emissions are less than significant (Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest, 2015):

1. Lead agencies can use the business-as-usual comparison methodology if they determine what reduction a particular project must achieve to comply with statewide goals;

2. Project design features that comply with regulations to reduce emissions may demonstrate that those components of emissions are less than significant; and

3. Lead agencies could also demonstrate compliance with locally adopted climate plans or could apply specific numerical thresholds developed by some local agencies, to demonstrate emissions are less than significant.

Although the City of Bakersfield has not developed specific thresholds for GHG emissions, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), a CEQA Trustee Agency for the project, has developed thresholds. These thresholds entail either implementing Best Performance Standards (BPS) or demonstrating a 29% reduction in estimated GHG emissions when compared to BAU levels of emissions. However, the BAU emissions provided by the SJVAPCD are based on the years 2002 to 2004 and 2020. Since the 2020 project baseline has passed, and at this time no new guidance has been approved by the SJVAPCD for the next target year, the 29% reduction requirement cannot be applied to this project to determine GHG emission significance.

Additionally, BPS thresholds have not been established by the SJVAPCD, making the use of BPS on their own an insufficient means of determining significance as well. Lacking any locally adopted climate plans or specific numerical thresholds developed by a local agency at this time, the project relies on design features that comply with state regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 23 of 42

When considering the use of design features that comply with state regulations to reduce GHG emissions, one can look to the argument made by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) in their Final Negative Declaration for the Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plant – Crude Oil Storage Capacity project (South Coast AQMD, 2014). This approach recognizes that consumers of electricity and fuels used for transportation activities are regulated by requiring producers and importers of these resources to participate in programs, such as the GHG Capand-Trade program. Each sector-wide state program exists within the framework of AB 32, and its descendant legislation, which all seek to achieve GHG emissions reductions consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

The main sources of GHG emissions associated with this project are energy use and combustion of gasoline/diesel fuels, each of which is regulated near or at the top of the supply chain. As such, the project will have no choice but to purchase said electricity and fuels that are produced in a way deemed acceptable to the California market. Additionally, the project will abide by California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards and Title 24 requirements, implementing energy conservation features in this proposed development. The project will also implement GHG emission mitigations such as on-site vehicle idling limits and zero emission infrastructure (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). Therefore, the project's GHG emissions will be consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and the project’s contribution to cumulative global climate change impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. CARB is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. As proposed, the project would not conflict with any statewide policy, regional plan, or local guidance or policy adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The project would not interfere with the implementation of AB 32 and SB 375 because it would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction targets identified by CARB and the Scoping Plan as described in VIII.a. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
I:,

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction activities would require the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials such as fuels and greases for the fueling/servicing of construction equipment and fuel tanks, and there is the potential for upset and accident conditions that could release such material into the environment. Such substances would be stored in temporary storage tanks/sheds that would be located at the site. Although these types of materials are not acutely hazardous, they are classified as hazardous materials and create the potential for accidental spillage, which could expose construction workers. All transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials used in the construction of the project would be in strict accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. During construction of the project, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all applicable materials present at the site would be made readily available to on-site personnel. During construction, non-hazardous construction debris would be generated and disposed of at approved facilities for handling such waste. Also, during construction, waste disposal would be managed using portable toilets located at reasonably accessible on-site locations.

Day-to-day operational activities may involve routine transport, use of, and/or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act, namely gasoline transport and storage. The routine transport of gasoline to the project site would have to comply with all laws and regulations related to hazardous material routes and the proper transfer of gasoline to the site. Users should also read product labels for disposal directions to reduce the risk of products exploding, igniting, leaking, mixing with other chemicals, or posing other hazards on the way to a disposal facility. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response IX.a. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material into the environment, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The Air Quality Analysis (AQIA) concluded that the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or result in other emissions that would adversely affect a substantial number of people (Trinity Consultants Small Project Analysis Level Assessment 2024). As mentioned above, the project would be required to adhere to all applicable federal and state laws and regulations concerning the handling of hazardous materials, and impacts are less than significant.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 25 of 42

d. No impact. The EnviroStor (DTSC 2023) and Cortese (CalEPA 2023) lists under Government Code (GC) Section 65962.5 were reviewed. No portion of the project site is identified on either list, which provides the location of known hazardous waste concerns. Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to GC Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area (Kern County 2012). The closest airport to the site is the Meadows Field Airport, which is located approximately 10 miles east. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not located within the specified distance within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted.
f. Less than significant impact. Access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period, and appropriate detours would be provided in the event of potential temporary road closures. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in a substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is consistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997).

This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents. Therefore, the project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. The project site is not located within a “very high,” “high,” or “moderate” fire hazard severity zone (CalFire 2022). The site is surrounded by both developed and undeveloped land, and its vicinity is urban and does not possess high fuel loads that have a high potential to cause a wildland fire. The project site would be developed with hardscapes and irrigated landscaping, which would further reduce fire potential at the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 26 of 42

d. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? e. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
f. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
g. Impede or redirect flood flows?
h. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
i. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. Construction would include ground-disturbing activities that would temporarily disturb and potentially loosen soils. However, during operation, the soils would be paved over with impervious surfaces such that the soils at the site would not be particularly susceptible to soil erosion.

The City owns and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The project’s operational urban stormwater discharges are covered under the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (“CVRWQCB”) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. R5-2016-0040; NPDES No. CAS0085324) (MS4 Permit) (CVRWQCB 2016). The MS4 Permit mandates the implementation of a stormwater management framework to ensure that water quality is maintained despite operational stormwater discharges throughout the City, including the project site. Therefore, by complying with the MS4 Permit, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Currently, there are no irrigation water rights from a local water district associated with the project site. Potable water for the site would be supplied by the City of Bakersfield water District (the District) which has provided a Water Services Verification letter for the project, which receives at least a portion of its supplies from groundwater sources. Also, by state law, the current Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) does not need to address the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) or sustainable groundwater management at this time. It was concluded that the District has sufficient existing capacity to service the project.

Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant impact. The following responses to items X.d. through X.g. discuss whether the project would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 27 of 42

the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces.

Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, and impacts are less than significant. d. Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain any blue-line streams or other surface water features; therefore, the proposed development would not alter the course of a river or stream.

The site would be graded and, as a result, the internal drainage pattern would be altered from the baseline condition. Additionally, the project would increase impervious surfaces on-site (i.e., building pads, sidewalks, asphalt parking area, etc.), which would reduce the percolation of water into the ground and result in greater amounts of stormwater runoff concentrations. If uncontrolled, differences in drainage patterns and increased impervious surfaces could result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. However, the project would be required to comply with the General Permit during construction and the MS4 Permit during operation. To comply with the MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with adopted building codes, including complying with an approved drainage plan that avoids on- and off-site flooding, erosion, and siltation problems. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and impacts are less than significant. e. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, the project’s impacts are less than significant. f. Less than significant impact. To comply with the City’s MS4 Permit, the City requires compliance with an approved drainage plan that would avoid on- and off-site flooding. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts are less than significant.
g. Less than significant impact. A review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Maps shows the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain. Therefore, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts are less than significant. h. Less than significant impact. The City of Bakersfield is located within Central California and is not near a coastal environment that risks flood inundation. In addition, the City is not located within a tsunami zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Map. As mentioned above, the project site is in Zone X, which is a minimal-risk area outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain.

The project site, like most of the City, is located within the Lake Isabella flood inundation area (Kern County 2017), which is the area that would experience flooding if there was a catastrophic failure of the Lake Isabella Dam. There is an approved Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan (Kern County 2009) that establishes processes and procedures for the mass evacuation and short-term support of populations at risk below the Lake Isabella Dam. The City would utilize the Evacuation Plan to support its Emergency Operations Plans. Therefore, due to the project’s location and implementation of related emergency safety plans, the project would not likely risk the release of I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 28 of 42

pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazards, tsunami, or seiche zones, and impacts are less than significant.
i. Less than significant impact. Please refer to response X.d. There is currently no adopted groundwater management plan for the project site or surrounding area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Discussion
a. No impact. The project is a continuation of the existing urban development pattern of the City.

The project does not include a long and linear feature, such as a freeway, railroad track, block wall, etc., that would have the potential to divide a community. The project consists of the development of a 44-acre site that does not impede existing or future movement or development of the City.
b. No impact. The project is consistent with both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan (MBGP) and Zoning Ordinance. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion
I:,

a. No impact. The project site is not within the administrative boundaries of an oilfield and there are no oil wells found on the site (DOC 2022b). Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
b. No impact. The project site is currently designated OC (Office Commercial). No portion of the site is designated for potential mineral resource extraction use such as R-MP (Mineral and Petroleum).

Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site that is delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project would generate both short-term construction noise and operational noise. The first type of short-term construction noise would result from the transport of construction equipment and materials to the project site, as well as construction worker commutes. The total daily vehicle trips resulting from construction worker commutes would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level change would not be perceptible.

The second type of short-term construction noise is related to noise generated during project construction. The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. Construction noise levels during grading would be less than 70 dBA, which would not exceed the hourly noise level standard for the nearest sensitive uses.

Construction noise would cease to occur once project construction is completed. The project will also be required to comply with the construction hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance, I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 30 of 42

which states that construction activities are limited to the hours of 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, and between the hours of 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekends.

Project operations would generate sound levels typical of multi-family housing land uses, which would have to comply with the Bakersfield Municipal Code regarding noise. Stationary operational noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the daytime and nighttime hourly noise level standards of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively. Project-related operational traffic would have very small noise level increases along roadway segments in the project vicinity. Parking lot noise, including engine sounds, car doors slamming, car alarms, loud music, and people conversing, would also occur at the project site. It was determined that the noise levels at all points around the project site would experience noise level impacts that would be less than the City’s daytime and nighttime maximum noise level standards of 75 dBA and 70 dBA.

Therefore, the project would not generate a substantial, temporary, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project that are in excess of the standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. Some ground-borne vibration and noise would originate from earth movement and building activities during the project’s construction phase. Ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activity would be mostly low to moderate. The operation of typical construction equipment would generate ground-borne vibrations that would not exceed guidelines that are considered unsafe for any type of building. Operation of the proposed multifamily housing use would not generate ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the project would not result in the generation of excessive ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise, and impacts are less than significant.
c. No impact. The project site is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area or the vicinity of a private airstrip (Kern County 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project result in:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The proposed project would accommodate population growth in this area through the development of 2,185 residential units. The project will be developed adjacent to existing established residential uses and is therefore the logical extension of existing I:,

urban development. Bakersfield has experienced approximately 13% growth in population (347,483 people in 2010 to 394,328 in 2019) since 2010 (DOF 2019a and DOF 2019b). It is predicted that by 2040, 1,137,676 people will live in Kern County (DOF 2019c). Given that 42.5% of the people in Kern County currently live in Bakersfield (DOF 2019b), and if this trend continues, it is estimated that about 483,512 people would live in Bakersfield in 2040. This means that by 2040, 81,951 additional people would need housing in the Bakersfield area. This Project will be in compliance with the goals and policies of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and will accommodate the orderly development projected increase in Bakersfield’s population by providing residences for existing and future residents in Bakersfield. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. The project site consists of two, large undeveloped parcels of land. The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
Discussion
a. The following discusses whether the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts to public services. The need for additional public service is generally directly correlated to population growth and the resultant additional population’s need for services beyond what is currently available.
i. Less than significant impact. Fire protection services for the Metropolitan Bakersfield area are provided through a joint fire protection agreement between the City and County of Kern. A potential increase in services can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 32 of 42

a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for fire protection, and impacts are less than significant.
ii. Less than significant impact. Police protection for the project would be provided by the Bakersfield Police Department. Potential increases in services can be paid for via property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. In order to maintain acceptable service ratios, or response times or other performance objectives for police protection, and impacts are less than significant.
iii. Less than significant impact. The project is proposed to accommodate existing and future residents within the City. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools, and impacts are less than significant.
iv. Less than significant impact. The proposal does not include nor require the construction of recreational facilities. However, park impact fees are required for residential and High Medium Residential land uses. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks, and impacts are less than significant.
v. Less-than-significant impact. The Project and eventual buildup of this area would result in an increase in maintenance responsibility for the City. Though the Project may necessitate increased maintenance for other public facilities, this potential increase can be paid for by property taxes generated by this development. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project result in:
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 33 of 42

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. Although the project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, park impact fees shall allow the City to upgrade, improve or rehabilitate an existing or proposed public park to better serve the public, and impacts are less than significant. b. No impact. Please refer to response XV.a.iv. The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project result in:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The Project would result in temporary construction-related traffic impacts. Construction workers traveling to and from the project site as well as construction material delivery would result in additional vehicle trips to the area’s roadway system.

Construction material delivery may require a number of trips for oversized vehicles that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes.

These trips may temporarily degrade level of service on area roadways and at intersections.

Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction- related traffic, including construction worker trips, could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes on local I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 34 of 42

roadways and intersections. The Project may require temporary lane closures or the need for flagmen to safely direct traffic on roadways near the Project site.

A Trip Generation Analysis was completed and reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (Ruettgers & Shuler Civil Engineers, 2025). It was determined that the Project has been designed in accordance with City development standards, and appropriate standard conditions of approval have been assigned to the project. The conditions include the dedication and improvement of streets, traffic control measures during construction, pedestrian access, and the payment of impact fees. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and impacts are less than significant. b. Less-than-significant impact. Section 15064.3 of the updated California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or CEQA Guidelines), the statewide application came into effect on July 1, 2020. This CCR Section 15064.3(b) states:

Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within onehalf mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing highquality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, VMT should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have the discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the VMT for the project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's VMT qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate. (4) Methodology. A lead agency has the discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household, or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate VMT and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 35 of 42

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 8th Edition, was used to determine if the project will have a significant VMT impact as shown in the following tables:

Net Single Family Project Trip Generation
Scenario ADT AM PH PM PH
Existing 6033 854 800
Proposed 3820 278 387
Difference -2213 -576 -413
Net Multi-Family Project Trip Generation
Scenario ADT AM PH PM PH
Existing 6033 854 800
Proposed 3710 199 264
Difference -2323 -655 -536
The total regional VMT with project traffic is lower than the total without the project. Therefore, the project would not be in conflict or be inconsistent with CCR Section 15064.3(b) and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. The project would have to comply with all conditions placed on it by the City Traffic Engineering Division to meet accepted traffic engineering standards intended to reduce traffic hazards. The project is within City limits and surrounded by compatible existing and planned land uses and land use designations. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. There is the potential that, during the construction phase, the project would impede emergency access. For projects that require minor impediments of short duration (e.g., pouring a new driveway entrance), the project would be required to obtain a street permit from the Public Works Department. If a project requires lane closures and/or the diversion of traffic, then a Traffic Control Plan, subject to Public Works approval, would be required. During operations, the project would have to comply with all applicable City policies and requirements to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, the need for such permits is determined by the Public Works Department during the permitting and construction phases, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project result in:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 36 of 42

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code §
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project requires a GPA and therefore, request for consultation letters were sent to a list of tribal contacts received from the Native American Heritage Commission in compliance with Senate Bill 18 (“SB 18”). In the letters, the City stated that the applicable tribes may request consultation with the City regarding the preservation of, and/or mitigation of impacts to, California Native American cultural places in connection with the project. To date, none of the tribes have responded to the request. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, and impacts are less than significant.
b. Less than significant impact. There are no tribal cultural resources determined by the lead agency to be of significance onsite. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency to be significant, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project result in:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s Projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
I:,

d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Discussion
a. Less-than-significant impact. The project would require the construction of new water, stormwater drainage, sewer facilities; above and/or belowground electrical facilities, natural gas facilities, and telecommunications (e.g., cable, fiber optics, phone, etc.) typical of general manufacturing development. Water, stormwater, and sewer structures would have to be designed to meet the City’s Current Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual (Bakersfield 1999). Compliance with the Design Manual would ensure that the facilities would not result in significant environmental effects.

Electrical, natural gas and telecommunications facilities would be placed by the individual serving utilities; these entities already have in place safety and citing protocols to ensure that placement of new utilities to serve new construction would not have a significant effect on the environment.

Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less-than-significant impact. The designated water purveyor is the City of Bakersfield Water District (“the District”). The District has provided a letter stating that water service can be supplied in compliance with their current UWMP which accounts for normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Therefore, the project has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less-than-significant impact. Wastewater produced as a result of the project would be treated at the Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) No. 2, which is owned and operated by the City.

WWTP No. 2 has an overall capacity of 25 MGD and a current available capacity of 13.7 MGD (Bakersfield 2025). WWTP No. 2 has sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore, it has been determined that the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less-than-significant impact. It is assumed that solid waste generated because of the project would be disposed of at the Bena Landfill located at 2951 Neumarkel Road, Bakersfield, CA 93307.

By City standards which are designed to achieve state waste stream reduction and recycling goals, the Solid Waste Division of Public Works will conduct a detailed review of the facility at the time of development to incorporate appropriate on-site trash facilities, subject to City approval.

Therefore, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and impacts are less than significant. e. Less-than-significant impact. By law, the project would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including those relating to waste reduction, litter control, and solid waste disposal, and impacts are less than significant.

I:,

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRES: Would the project result in:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Discussion
a. Less than significant impact. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The project is in an urbanized area and access to the site would be maintained throughout the construction period. The project would not interfere with any local or regional emergency response or evacuation plans because the project would not result in substantial alteration to the adjacent and area circulation system. The project is typical of urban development in Bakersfield and is not inconsistent with the adopted City of Bakersfield Hazardous Materials Area Plan (Bakersfield 1997). This plan identifies responsibilities and provides coordination of emergency response at the local level to hazardous materials incidents.

Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts are less than significant. b. Less than significant impact. As mentioned above, the project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, not near wildlands, the site and its surroundings do not possess high fuel loads (i.e., lots of vegetation and other burnable material) to exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore, fire-related pollutant concentrations. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfires and expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and impacts are less than significant.
c. Less than significant impact. The project is located within the Metropolitan Bakersfield City limits and the site, as well as the surrounding area, is extensively developed with existing infrastructure such as roads, power lines, utilities, etc., to support the development of this project. Therefore, the project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate I:,

fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment, and impacts are less than significant.
d. Less than significant impact. The project site is relatively flat, is not within a floodplain, and is not in a moderate-risk to high-risk area for wildfires. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts are less than significant.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Would the project result in:
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of life of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
a. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project, with the implementation of the identified conditions of approval, best management practices, and mitigation measures, would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b. Less than significant impact. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that said project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” This section further states that cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
I:,

BAKERSFIELD
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 40 of 42

Past, present, and future projects in proximity to the project were considered and evaluated as part of this Initial Study. Also, in addition to project-specific impacts, this Initial Study considered the project’s potential for incremental effects that are cumulatively considerable. As described in the responses above, there is no substantial evidence that there are cumulative effects associated with this project. In addition, any future development projects not identified above would be required to undergo a separate environmental analysis and mitigate any projectspecific or site-specific potential impacts, and impacts are less than significant. c. Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As described in the responses above, the project, with mitigation, would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

I:,

BAKERSFIELD
Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 41 of 42

REFERENCE LIST
Bakersfield (City of Bakersfield). 1997. Hazardous Materials Area Plan. January.

Bakersfield. 1999. Proposed Subdivision & Engineering Design Manual. June.

Available: < https://www.bakersfieldcity.us/943/Subdivision-Engineering-Design-Manual > Accessed: March 21, 2024.

Bakersfield. 2023. Wastewater Treatment Plants. Available:
<http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/gov/depts/public_works/sewer/wastewater_treatment_plants.htm>.

Accessed: October 20, 2025.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. Available:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>. Accessed: October 18, 2025.

CalFire (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.

Available: < https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ >.

Accessed: October 19, 2025.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available:<
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1a acaa>. Accessed: October 16, 2025.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1993. Burrowing Owl Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

April.

City of Bakersfield Water District. 2025. Verification of Water Service letter. July.

CVRWQCB. 2016. Order No. R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.

Available:<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/general_ orders/r5-2016-0040_ms4.pdf>. Accessed: October 20, 2025.

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022a. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Available:< https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp >. Accessed: October 20, 2025..

Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022b. Well Finder CalGEM GIS.

Available: < https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp>. Accessed: October 17, 2025.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substance Control). 2023. EnviroStor.

Available:<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed: October 20, 2025.

Findlaw. 2015. Center for Biological Diversity v. The Newhall Land and Farming Company, Real Party in Interest. Available: < https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-supreme-court/1719578.html >.

Accessed: October 14, 2025.

Kern County. 2009. Lake Isabella Dam Failure Evacuation Plan.

Available:< https://kerncountyfire.org/jsp-uploads/Isabella-Dam-Failure-Plan.pdf >.

Accessed: October 14, 2025.

Environmental Checklist and Analysis
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\03_CEQA\IS_MND_CGPA-25-0003 rpn edits.docxx Page 42 of 42

Kern County. 2012. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. November.

Kern County. 2017. Lake Isabella Flood Area. Available:< https://kernpublicworks.com/building-andcode/floodplain-management/lake-isabella-flood-area/>. Accessed: October 14, 2025.

Ruettgers & Schuler. 2025. Trip Generation Analysis. August.

SJVAPCD (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. March.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2014. Final Negative Declaration For Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery Carson Plan – Crude Oil Storage Capacity Project. Available:
< http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/documents/permit-projects/2014/phillips-66- fnd.pdf >. October 20, 2025.

Stockdale Ranch Environmental Impact Report (GPA/ZC 09-263). 2009. SCH No. 2009071068. October.

YA: S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2025\PP-CGPA-25-0003_17027 Stockdale Hwy\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\PC

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.e.

TO: Chair Strickland and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J. Eng
DATE: January 9, 2026
WARD: 5
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change 25-0003 [Document Description] STAFF PLANNER: Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: (1) General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential); and (2) Zone Change to amend the zone classification from CO/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) zone on approximately 49 acres.

APPLICANT: Bolthouse Properties OWNER: same as applicant Bradford J. DeBranch
11601 Bolthouse Drive Suite 200
Bakersfield, CA 93311
LOCATION: Southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and South Wegis Avenue APN: 534-011-50
PROJECT SIZE: 49 Acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: OC (Office Commercial) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt Resolution Adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from OC to LMR; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING amending the zone classification from C-2/PCD and R-2 and recommend the same to City Council.

File No. GPA/ZC 25-0003
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is currently utilized as agriculture farmland, as are the properties to the south, east, and west. The properties to the north are developed with single-family residential.

BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
 March 25, 2011 – The project site was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as a part of a larger annexation; Annexation 548, Stockdale No. 15 (Resolution 104-10).  November 21, 2017 - The project site was rezoned as C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) as part of a 564+ acre General Plan Amendment and zone change, and certified Environmental Impact Report, Stockdale Ranch EIR SCH No. 2009071068 (GPA/ZC 09-0263 – Stockdale Ranch).

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (“GPA/ZC”). The proposed request is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from OC (Office Commercial) to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential) and a Zone Change to amend the existing zone from C-O/PCD (Commercial Office/ Planned Commercial Development) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) on approximately 49 acres.

The proposed request is to address the ongoing demand for residential development and will accelerate completion of the Stockdale River Ranch buildout. No formal plans have been submitted, with the exception of preliminary conceptual plans. All future developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance which will require a sewer study and a drainage study to retain drainage on site.

CALIFORNIA STATE HOUSING BILLS:

Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5, establishes limitations to a local government’s ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects, emergency shelters, or farmworker housing that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(3)(j), when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

File No. GPA/ZC 25-0003
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) is a process mandated by California state law that requires jurisdictions to plan for new housing to accommodate projected growth. The RHNA assigns the number of housing units that the California State Housing and Community Development Agency (HCD) determines is necessary to build in an eight-year cycle for each jurisdiction, organized by affordability level. The project would contribute additional R-2 residential units on 49 acres to the City of Bakersfield’s 6th Housing Element Cycle from 2023 through 2031.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:

As previously stated, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was previously certified for the project site as part of the overall analysis for the Stockdale River Ranch Project. The Final EIR (“FEIR”) was certified by the City on March, 2010 (SCH No. 2009071068). The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines, Section 15164 (b) states that an Addendum to a previously adopted FEIR shall be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 call for the preparation of subsequent EIR or supplemental Negative Declaration have occurred.

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.

Comments Received. As of this writing, no written comments have been received in response to the notice of public hearing.

Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on October 1, 2025, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification File No. GPA/ZC 25-0003
marks the initiation of the 90-day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.

COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS:

The project provides land use within an area that consists of both single-family and multi-family residential use. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.

CONCLUSIONS:

Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide for residential use to complement the existing single-family residential development in the area.

Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as noted above. Should the applicant submit site development plans, they will be reviewed for compliance with requirements and regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards.

File No. GPA/ZC 25-0003
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance.

Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from OC to LMR; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from C-2/PCD and R-2.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A: Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments Attachment C: Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• Adopt MND with Attachments
• Approve GPA with Attachments
• Approve ZC with Attachments

TO: Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner
FROM: Susanna Kormendi, Civil Engineer III (Traffic)
DATE: 9/2/2025
SUBJECT: PP-CGPA-25-0003 – Trip Generation Analysis Proposed Zone Change from Commercial Office to Residential for Stockdale Ranch
Traffic Engineering has reviewed the Traffic Letter dated August 20, 2025, prepared by Ruettgers & Schuler Civil Engineers.

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed zone change.

The parcel is located on the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Wegis Avenue, consisting of approximately 43 acres. The current zoning is C-O (Office Commercial) with an allowable 665,200 SF of commercial office as per the 2009 traffic study by McIntosh and Associates. The proposed zoning is R-2 to allow for small single-family units (up to 425 units based on allowable density) or multi-family units (up to 567 units based on allowable density).

The trip generation of the two residential options were compared to the approved commercial office trip generation.

As per the trip generation study, the project is expected to generate 576 fewer trips during the AM peak hour and 413 fewer trips during the PM peak hour based on 425 single-family units and the project is expected to generate 655 fewer trips during the AM peak hour and 536 fewer trips during the PM peak hour based on the 567 multi-family units. Since there will be fewer trips than approved, no further analysis is required.

Based on the above, the following mitigations would be appropriate:

Prior to the issuance of building permits:
 The project applicant shall participate in the Regional Traffic Impact Fee (RTIF) program by paying the adopted fees in place for the land use type at time of development.

SK:sk
S:\Docs\Planning\GPA ZC\GPA2025\GPAZC 25-0003 17027 Stockdale Hwy\GPAZC 25-0003 17027 Stockdale Hwy Traffic Memo.docx

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jennifer M. Byers, Economic and Community Development Director DATE: February 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Public hearing to consider Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Hearing on Behalf of the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (Ward 2)

1. Conduct a public hearing as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to receive comments relating to the plan of finance for the issuance by the Housing Authority of Kern of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 of the Authority’s Revenue Bonds (Bonds) for the purpose of financing rental housing projects.

2. Adopt Resolution approving the plan of finance for the issuance by the Housing Authority of Kern of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 for the construction of a 36-unit affordable housing complex located at 530 4th Street in Bakersfield California and certain other matters relating thereto.

3. Indemnification Agreement between the City of Bakersfield (City) and the Housing Authority of the County of Kern.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends Council conduct a public hearing, adopt the resolution and approve the Indemnification Agreement
BACKGROUND:

The City of Bakersfield received a request from the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (Housing Authority) to conduct a public hearing, as required by the Internal Revenue Code, in order to issue, pursuant to a plan of finance, of one or more series of its tax-exempt bonds, notes, or other evidence of indebtedness in an amount not to exceed $7,000,0000 (the “Bonds”) for the benefit of the Borrower pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State (commencing with Section 6500) (the “Act”), the proceeds of which will be used to make a loan to a to-be-formed limited partnership with Bakersfield Senior LP to construct 36 affordable housing units within the Bakersfield Senior Affordable Housing development (the “Project”) located at 530 4th Street. This Project is targeted to low-income seniors earning up to 60% of the Kern County Median Income (AMI).

The Bonds will be tax-exempt private activity bonds for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, require the approval of the elected body of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over the location where the project to be financed is located. The City will not be under any obligation to repay the Bonds.

In order for the Housing Authority to issue the Bonds, the City must conduct a public hearing allowing members of the public to comment on the proposed Project, and approve the Housing Authority’s issuance of the Bonds. Although the Housing Authority (not the City) will be the issuer of the Bonds for the Project, the financing cannot proceed without the City approving the issuance of the Bonds.

The Housing Authority will issue the Bonds for the benefit of the Project. No financial obligations are placed on the City for the costs of the Project or the repayment of the Bonds.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact on the City of Bakersfield. Bonds are payable solely out of the revenues derived by the Borrower (Housing Authority) from the Project.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Indemnification Agreement
1 RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

APPROVING A PLAN OF FINANCE FOR THE ISSUANCE BY THE

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF KERN OF MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE BONDS (NOT TO EXCEED $7 MILLION) FOR THE ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 36-UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX LOCATED AT 530 4TH STREET IN BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA.

WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the County of Kern (the “Housing Authority”) is authorized pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of financing rental housing projects; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority proposes to undertake a plan of finance to issue its multifamily housing revenue bonds in one or more series from time to time in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,000,000 outstanding at any one time (the “Housing Authority Bonds”) for the purpose of financing the development and construction of approximately 36 units of affordable rental housing known as Bakersfield Senior Affordable Housing, to be located at 530 4th Street within the City of Bakersfield, California (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, proceeds of the Housing Authority Bonds are expected by the Housing Authority to be used to make a loan to Bakersfield Senior LP, a California Limited Partnership, the initial owner of the Project, of which Golden Empire Affordable Housing, Inc. will be the Managing General Partner, to finance the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority Bonds will be qualified “private activity bonds” for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the proposed plan for the issuance of private activity bonds to finance the Project is required to be approved by the “applicable elected representative” of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which the facility financed by such bonds is to be located, after a public hearing held following reasonable public notice (collectively, the “TEFRA Actions”); and
WHEREAS, the Project is located in the City of Bakersfield (the “City”) and the members of the City Council (this “City Council”) are the applicable elected representatives of the City; and
2 WHEREAS, there has been published, at least 7 days prior to the date hereof, in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, a notice that a public hearing regarding the plan for the proposed issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds would be held on the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, such public hearing was conducted on the date hereof by this City Council, at which time an opportunity was provided to interested parties to be heard with respect to the proposed plan for the issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds and financing of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City shall not have any liability for the repayment of the Housing Authority Bonds or any responsibility for the Project; and WHEREAS, it is intended that this resolution shall constitute the approval of the proposed plan for the issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds required by Section 147(f) of the Code.

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

1. The City Council finds and declares that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Approval of Plan of Finance for the Issuance of Housing Authority Bonds. This City Council hereby approves the proposed plan of finance for the issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds by the Housing Authority for the purposes of financing the Project. It is the purpose and intent of this City Council that this resolution constitutes approval of the proposed plan for the issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds for the purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.

3. No City Liability for Authority Bonds. The issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds shall be subject to the approval by the Housing Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Housing Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Housing Authority Bonds.

4. No City Responsibility for Project. The adoption of this resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to:
i. Provide any financing to construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project, as a result of the TEFRA Actions; ii. Approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit, or 3 other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, or operation of the Project;
iii. Make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Housing Authority; or
iv. Take any further action with respect to the Housing Authority, its issuance of the Housing Authority Bonds, or its acquisition, construction, or operation of the Project.

5. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on March 11, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER ARIAS, GONZALES, WEIR, SMITH, KOMAN, BASHIRTASH, KAUR NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER _

APPROVED

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

KAREN GOH
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent - Public Hearings TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Terry, Chief of Police
DATE: February 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to consider Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 2022-177 with American Traffic Solutions, Inc. dba Verra Mobility(not to exceed $11,500,000 with Cost Neutrality Provision) for Photo Enforced Redlight Citation Program approaches throughout the City of Bakersfield.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of the Amendment.

BACKGROUND: Since April 10, 2002, the Bakersfield Police Department (BPD) has partnered with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. to implement and operate a digital photo enforced red light camera system in the City of Bakersfield.

The agreement includes a Cost Neutrality provision that provides the City with a safeguard from being required to pay more than actual cash received. The not-to-exceed amount reflected in the Agreement is the flat-rate fee that the City pays per month, per approach, for operation of the red light cameras.

However, the fees are offset by amounts collected from enforcement of the traffic violations. To date, the City has never paid more than the amounts collected (i.e., system has remained cost neutral).

On February 1, 2008, the BPD and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. changed the business model of the agreement to comply with changes in the California Vehicle Code and subsequently entered into a second 5-year Agreement No. 08-015 with a term date of August 13, 2022. Under this agreement the city paid for a monthly flat fee for each of the twelve existing approaches.

On August 31, 2022, the city and contractor entered into Agreement No. 2022-177 to increase the number of approaches with a not to exceed amount of $5,810,000 and a new term date of August 31, 2027.

Additionally, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. was acquired by a new entity, Verra Mobility. The following is the breakdown of existing red light cameras:

Tier 1: Four Approaches ($1,075.60 per approach / per month, under existing Agreement)  California Ave. & Oak St.- EB California Ave. @ Oak St.  Chester Ave. & Brundage Lane - NB Chester Ave. @ Brundage Lane  Coffee Rd. & Truxtun Ave. - SB Coffee Rd. @ Truxtun Ave. straight and turn lanes Tier 2: Twelve Approaches ($4,375.00 per approach / per month, under existing agreement)  California Ave. & Oak St.- NB Oak St. @ California Ave.  Ming Ave. & Fwy 99 - EB Ming Ave. @ Fwy 99
 Ming Ave. & Real Rd. - WB Ming Ave. @ Real Rd.
 California Ave. & Stockdale Hwy - SB California Ave. @ Stockdale Hwy and EB California Ave. @ Stockdale Hwy
 White Lane & Wible Rd. - EB White Ln. @ Wible Rd. and SB White Ln. @ Wible Rd.  Coffee Rd. & Stockdale Hwy - SB Coffee Rd. @ Stockdale Hwy and NB Coffee Rd. @ Stockdale Hwy  Old River Rd. & Ming Ave. - SB Old River Rd. @ Ming Ave. and NB Old River Rd. @ Ming Ave.  Oswell St. & Bernard St. - NB Oswell St. @ Bernard St.

The City now desires to amend Agreement No. 2022-177 to expand the number of approaches, extend the term date to August 31, 2029, and increase compensation to $11,500,000. Any additional approaches installed through a mutually agreed upon Notice to Proceed will be charged at a fee of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per month. Proposed additional approaches which may be installed during the Term of this Agreement, in City’s sole discretion, are identified as follows:

Proposed Expansion Approaches ($5,000.00 per approach/per months, under proposed Amendment):
 Ming Ave. and Gosford - EB Ming Ave. @ Gosford Rd. and WB Ming Ave. @ Gosford Rd. and NB Gosford Rd. @ Ming Ave. and SB Gosford Rd. @ Ming Ave.
 White Lane & Stine Rd. - NB Stine Rd. @ White Ln. and SB White Ln. @ Stine Rd. and EB Stine Rd. @ White Ln. and WB Stine Rd. @ White Ln.
 White Lane & Gosford Rd. - NB Gosford Rd. @ White Ln. and SB Gosford Rd. @ White Ln. and EB White Ln. @ Gosford Rd. and WB White Ln. @ Gosford Rd.
 Ming Ave and New Stine Rd. - NB New Stine Rd. @ Ming Ave. and SB New Stine Rd. @ Ming Ave. and EB Ming Ave. @ New Stine Rd. and WB Ming Ave. @ New Stine Rd.  Panama Ln. & Stine Rd. - NB Stine Rd. @ Panama Ln. and SB Stine Rd. @ Panama Ln. and EB Panama Ln. @ Stine Rd. and WB Panama Ln. @ Stine Rd.
 Panama Ln. & Ashe Rd. - NB Ashe Rd. @ Panama Ln. and SB Ashe Rd @ Panama Ln. and EB Panama Ln. @ Ashe Rd. and WB Panama Ln. @ Ashe Rd.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The agreement includes cost neutrality provisions for the City, which it does not require to pay the vendor more than or come out of pocket with more than the income received.

COUNCIL GOAL:

Safety and Resilience
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Signed Amendment

2. Exhibit A

S:\BM\AGREEMENTS\AGTS FY2025-26\VERRA MOBILITY\Final Red Light Camera Exhibit A.CAOedits.docx

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE
A. Fixed Monthly Fees:

Commencing on the Effective Date, the Customer agrees to pay Verra Mobility the Fixed Monthly Fees as provided for the following Current Approaches:

CURRENT APPROACHES
Intersection Name Approaches 1 2 3 Monthly Cost
California Ave. & Oak St. EB California Ave. @ Oak St. $1,075.60 NB Oak St. @ California Ave. $4,375.00
California Ave. & Stockdale Hwy SB California Ave. @ Stockdale Hwy $4,375.00 EB California Ave. @ Stockdale Hwy $4,375.00
White Lane & Wible Rd. EB White Ln. @ Wible Rd. $4,375.00 SB White Ln. @ Wible Rd. $4,375.00
Coffee Rd. & Stockdale Hwy SB Coffee Rd. @ Stockdale Hwy $4,375.00 NB Coffee Rd. @ Stockdale Hwy $4,375.00
Old River Rd. & Ming Ave. SB Old River Rd. @ Ming Ave. $4,375.00 NB Old River Rd. @ Ming Ave. $4,375.00
Oswell St. & Bernard St. NB Oswell St. @ Bernard St. $4,375.00 Chester Ave. & Brundage Lane NB Chester Ave. @ Brundage Lane $1,075.60 Coffee Rd. & Truxtun Ave. SB Coffee Rd. @ Truxtun Ave. $1,075.60 Ming Ave. & Fwy 99 EB Ming Ave. @ Fwy 99 $4,375.00
Ming Ave. & Real Rd. WB Ming Ave. @ Real Rd. $4,375.00
Any additional approaches installed through a mutually agreed upon Notice to Proceed will be charged at a fee of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) per month. Proposed additional approaches which may be installed during the Term of this Agreement, in Customer’s sole discretion, are identified as follows:

EXPANSION APPROACHES
Intersection Name Approaches 1 2 3 Monthly Cost
Ming Ave. and Gosford
EB Ming Ave. @ Gosford Rd. $5,000.00
WB Ming Ave. @ Gosford Rd. $5,000.00
NB Gosford Rd. @ Ming Ave. $5,000.00
SB Gosford Rd. @ Ming Ave. $5,000.00
White Lane & Stine Rd.

NB Stine Rd. @ White Ln. $5,000.00
SB White Ln. @ Stine Rd. $5,000.00
EB Stine Rd. @ White Ln. $5,000.00
WB Stine Rd. @ White Ln. $5,000.00
White Lane & Gosford Rd.

NB Gosford Rd. @ White Ln. $5,000.00
SB Gosford Rd. @ White Ln. $5,000.00
EB White Ln. @ Gosford Rd. $5,000.00
WB White Ln. @ Gosford Rd. $5,000.00
S:\BM\AGREEMENTS\AGTS FY2025-26\VERRA MOBILITY\Final Red Light Camera Exhibit A.CAOedits.docx Ming Ave and New Stine Rd.

NB New Stine Rd. @ Ming Ave. $5,000.00
SB New Stine Rd. @ Ming Ave. $5,000.00
EB Ming Ave. @ New Stine Rd. $5,000.00
WB Ming Ave. @ New Stine Rd. $5,000.00
Panama Ln. & Stine Rd.

NB Stine Rd. @ Panama Ln. $5,000.00
SB Stine Rd. @ Panama Ln. $5,000.00
EB Panama Ln. @ Stine Rd. $5,000.00
WB Panama Ln. @ Stine Rd. $5,000.00
Panama Ln. & Ashe Rd.

NB Ashe Rd. @ Panama Ln. $5,000.00
SB Ashe Rd @ Panama Ln. $5,000.00
EB Panama Ln. @ Ashe Rd. $5,000.00
WB Panama Ln. @ Ashe Rd. $5,000.00
B. Customer Operating Costs. The Customer's monthly program operating costs are estimated to be $250.00 per active Approach ("Customer Operating Costs"). The gross cash receipts received by the Customer each month from the Kem County Superior Court through the collection of red light Citations shall first be applied to the Customer Operating Costs. In order to ensure cost neutrality to the Customer, the Customer will only be obligated to pay Verra Mobility from the gross cash receipts received from the Kem County Superior Court after first deducting the Customer Operating Costs. In the event that a balance remains unpaid due to a deficit in gross cash received by the Customer compared to the invoiced amount, Customer will provide to Verra Mobility with each monthly payment, an accounting of such gross receipts supporting the amount withheld.

C. Cost Neutrality:

1. The Customer shall have the option to make payments to Verra Mobility in accordance with this Cost Neutrality payment option. Under this option, the Customer may defer payment of that portion of the monthly service fee in excess of the amount collected during that month until the Customer has collected sufficient funds pursuant to this Agreement to pay that portion of the monthly service fee ("Deferred Monthly Service Fee"). A Deferred Monthly Service Fee shall be paid from the funds collected in the following month pursuant to this Agreement provided that sufficient funds are collected during that month to pay the Deferred Monthly Service Fee. Specifically, the funds collected each month, less the Customer Operating Costs, shall be applied first to any unpaid Deferred Monthly Service Fees and then to that month's Fixed Monthly Fee; provided, however, that the Customer shall never be required to pay in any month an amount in excess of the funds collected that month.

2. Verra Mobility shall maintain an accounting of the net balance of the Fixed Monthly Fees and Deferred Monthly Service Fees owed to Verra Mobility. In any event, the Customer will not be obligated to pay the full amount of an invoice for any given month unless there is sufficient revenue collected in that month to pay all of the amounts of the prior invoices that were deferred as well as the full amount of the current month's invoice.

3. Cost Neutrality will be reconciled at the end of the term of the Agreement. In the event the Agreement ends or is terminated and an invoice balance is still owed Verra Mobility , all subsequent receipts from paid Citations from the Camera Systems for a period of 12 months from the date of termination will be applied to such balance and paid to Verra Mobility.

S:\BM\AGREEMENTS\AGTS FY2025-26\VERRA MOBILITY\Final Red Light Camera Exhibit A.CAOedits.docx

4. Cost Neutrality is guaranteed except as follows:
a. If police or Authorized Employees fail to approve violations by the due date, in good faith and due diligence;
b. If Systems are deactivated due to Customer requirement; c. If the Customer fails to provide a full accounting monthly of all paid Violations in good faith and due diligence;
d. If collections are not reasonably pursued, unless, despite attempts by the Customer to encourage collections by the courts, the courts fail to pursue unpaid Violations; or e. The Customer fails to enforce right turn violations (from automated red light violations) in good faith and due diligence, if and when Systems are configured for this purpose as mutually agreed between Verra Mobility and the Customer.

BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL PRICING PROVISIONS AND OPTIONS:

1. The Customer and Verra Mobility shall work in good faith to mutually agree to upgrades to the front (face) camera of the Camera System for the existing Approaches listed in the table below if it is determined by the parties the upgrade would significantly improve prosecution of Violation.

All such upgrades will be documented in a mutually agreed to Notice to Proceed.

BA-CAST-01 California Ave & Stockdale SB
BA-COST-01 Coffee Rd at Stockdale Hwy SB
BA-COST-03 Coffee Rd at Stockdale Hwy NB
BA-MI99-0l Ming & Fwy 99 EB
BA-MIRE-01 Intersection of Ming and Real WB
BA-OACA-01 Intersection of California Ave and Oak St NB BA-ORMI-01 Old River at Ming Ave SB
BA-ORMI-03 Old River at Ming Ave NB
BA-OSBE-01 Oswell & Bernard NB
BA-STCA-01 California Ave & Stockdale EB
S:\BM\AGREEMENTS\AGTS FY2025-26\VERRA MOBILITY\Final Red Light Camera Exhibit A.CAOedits.docx BA-WHWI-01 White Ln & Wible Rd EB
BA-WIWH-01 White Ln & Wible Rd SB

2. Except as provided above in Section C, Cost Neutrality, the Customer agrees to pay Verra Mobility within thirty (30) days after the invoice is received. A monthly late fee of 1.5% is payable for amounts remaining unpaid 60 days from date of invoice.

3. The provision of all necessary communication, broadband and telephone services to the Approaches will be the sole responsibility of Verra Mobility.

4. The ongoing supply of DSL or cable services to the Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Customer.

5. The on-going provision of any and all necessary electrical power to the Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Customer.

The Customer is responsible for installing and maintaining all required signage. The Customer shall be solely responsible for the fabrication, installation and maintenance of any signage, notices or other postings required pursuant to any law rule or regulation of a Governmental Authority ("Signage"), including, but not limited to, the California Vehicle Code § 21455.5(a)(l).

6. In those instances where damage to a Camera System at an Approach is caused by negligence on the part of the Customer or its authorized agent(s), Verra Mobility shall provide the Customer an estimate of the cost of the repair or replacement of the damaged Camera System. Upon authorization to proceed with the repairs or replacement, Verra Mobility shall replace or repair any damaged Camera System and invoice the Customer for the repair cost. In those instances where the Camera System is damaged or inoperable due to any reason other than the negligence on the part of the Customer or its authorized agent(s), Verra Mobility shall not be required to repair or replace the Camera System unless the Customer is willing to pay for the cost of replacement and repair of the Camera System. If the Camera System is not replaced or repaired ownership of the Photo Enforcement Infrastructure shall transfer to the Customer.

7. Roadway/Intersection improvement projects:
a. Customer shall reimburse Verra Mobility the costs of replacing and/or modification of operational Approaches.
b. If a system is deactivated at the Customer's request due to roadway construction, the Fixed Monthly Fee will continue.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 11, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Hearings
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: March 6, 2026
SUBJECT: Public appeal hearing to consider Planning Commission’s approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424, Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001, Exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10, and its proposed mitigated negative declaration.

Next Gen Engineering Group Inc., representing ORR Development 2, LLC, is proposing a General Plan Amendment, Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001, and Exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10
on approximately 28.91 acres generally located on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road. (Ward 5). The request includes:

1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2. Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential)

3. Resolution adopting the tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract and Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve.

Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted the appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the request.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

BACKGROUND:

The project is a request for an amendment to change the land use designation from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential) intended for consistency with the existing residential zoning; Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract will allow for the proposed residential development; and Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agriculture Preserve, releasing the property from development restrictions.

Project Summary
The proposed project seeks the above approvals to establish consistent land use and zoning designations within the project site and with surrounding residential areas. The General Plan Amendment (GPA) proposes to amend the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from ResourceIntensive Agriculture (R-IA) to Low-Medium Density Residential (LMR), or a more restrictive designation, on approximately 28.91 acres located on the north side of McCutchen Road, an arterial street, between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road [APNs 541-010-23 and -27]. The request also includes a tentative cancellation of the existing Williamson Act Land Use Contract and exclusion from the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10.

The project proposes the development of 147 single-family residential lots (pending Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7410) with lot sizes ranging from 4,589 to 11,462 square feet and an average density of

8.64 dwelling units per net acre, consistent with the LMR designation. Mountain Vista Drive, a collector street, will be extended through the site to connect with McCutchen Road, improving local circulation.

Surrounding properties are characterized by single-family residential uses and undeveloped land. The project site consists of two contiguous, vacant parcels historically used for agriculture. All future development will be reviewed for compliance with municipal regulations and CEQA.

Site History
 February 24, 1971 – Williamson Act Contract and agricultural preserve recorded, committing land for agricultural use. (Book 4491, Page 521)
 January 23, 1998 – Parcel Map No. 10155 was recorded.  February 22, 2006 – Annexation No. 498 – Old River No. 3 was annexed to the City of Bakersfield to facilitate the “Old River Ranch Development” (ORRD). This project site was not part of the ORRD but was included as a portion of this annexation area to avoid creating a county island (Resolution No. 053-06).
 September 18, 2025 – Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the project as described above under “Subject”, and recommended approval to the City Council.  September 29, 2025 - Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted the appeal to the Planning Commission's approval of the request.

Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve.

The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, has been the state’s premier agricultural land protection program, which preserves agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses.

The project site is subject to a Williamson Act Land Use Contract (WAC) recorded on February 28, 1969 (Document No. 12659). The property owner now requests cancellation of the WAC for the two parcels (project site) and the project site’s exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10. In accordance with the Williamson Act and described in the Planning Commission staff report, certain procedures must be followed and findings must be made in order to cancel a WAC. In accordance with the findings of Government Code 51282 c-1-2, the cancellation is in the public interest in that the cancellation will facilitate development of Mountain Vista Drive, a collector street to McCutchen Road, an arterial street which provides for vital connections in the City’s circulation system.

Approval of the WAC cancellation and exclusion of the project site from the agricultural preserve facilitates the development of needed housing and construction of Mountain Vista Drive. As part of the WAC cancellation process, the cancellation is tentative until the property owner pays the required cancellation fee to the County Treasurer, and the City Council accepts proof of the payment. The amount of the fee is determined by the County Assessor.

Environmental Review and Determination
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impactsto a less- than-significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting July 28, 2025, through August 27, 2025 (SCH No. 2025031371).

Comments Received. The following comments were received. The Planning Commission found the responses included in their staff report adequately addressed the comments listed below.

1. A letter from Janine McCoy, a resident of the River Crossings Community, expressed general support for growth but raised concerns about potential impacts on property values and requested to be notified of future hearings.

2. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provided comments focused on best practices and mitigation measures related to hazardous materials, which did not oppose the project.

3. The Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, raised concerns regarding the conversion of farmland and recommended consideration of agricultural mitigation strategies.

4. Two letters dated August 27, 2025 and September 17, 2025, were submitted by Lozeau | Drury LLP, on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), opposed the use of an MND and asserted that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required based on potential impacts related to farmland conversion, vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and hazards.

Public Notification
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian on September 5, 2025. All property owners within a 1000-foot radius of the project site typically receive mailing notices of the public hearing. However, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the hearing (BMC

17.64.050.B.4). This notification process adheres to both city ordinance and state law. Notice in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18 was also mailed to the Native American Tribes of the proposed project on March 10, 2025.

Planning Commission Action
The project was considered by the Planning Commission on September 18, 2025. A representative of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) was present and spoke in opposition to the project. Brandon Martim, legal counsel for the Applicant, was also present and spoke in support of the project at the hearing. After hearing testimoniesfromboth representatives, the Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of the project and recommended approval to the City Council. The Planning Commission’s findings are contained in Resolution Nos. 47-25 and 48-25.

On September 29, 2025, an appeal to the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project was filed by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”).

The appeal states that the City failed to prepare an Environmental Impact report as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and on the project’s impact on local farmland conversion, vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and hazards. Pursuant to Bakersfield Municipal Code Section

17.64.090(A) and (B), the appeal was submitted in writing to the City Council within 10 calendar days after the Planning Commission decision. The decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive.

In the final analysis, due to its overarching consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and its consistency with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as described above. Any future development proposed on the project site will be required to acquire approval of a tract map to ensure consistency with City development standards as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element.

City Council Meeting and Subsequent Action
As noted above, the appeal was scheduled for consideration at the November 18, 2025, City Council Meeting, however prior to the scheduled 5:15 City Council Meeting, Lozeau Drury (SAFER) submitted a substantial comment letter of 91 pages. Staff were directed to recommend that the General Plan Amendment, Williamson Act Cancellation, Exclusion from the Agriculture Preserve, and Mitigated Negative Declaration be referred back to staff to allow staff and the applicant an opportunity to review and respond to the comment letter.

The Lozeau Drury (SAFER) letter dated November 18, 2025, states the opinion of their field professionals that the MND for the project is insufficient. The comments focus on shortcomings of methodology, data interpretation, and consideration of site-specific constraints. Overall, the comments recommended further clarification, additional analysis, and more documentation to ensure the project’s impacts are properly understood and addressed before a final action is taken.

The applicant’s legal counsel (Brandon Martin, Esq.) provided written comments (attached as referenced herein) to Lozeau Drury’s (SAFER) letter dated, November 18, 2025. Mr. Martins response letter to staff is dated as November 18, 2025 but was received by Staff on January 8, 2026. The response letter from Mr. Martin concludes that the City’s environmental review and MND are adequate and legally sufficient, and the issues raised by SAFER and their consultants do not rise to the level requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The response letter explains that the Planning Staff reviewed the submitted studies and the potential environmental impacts were appropriately analyzed and mitigated consistent with CEQA requirements.

CONCLUSION:

Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to residential development, as described above. Any future development proposed on the project site will be required to undergo a Site Plan Review, ensuring consistency with City development standards as put forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

Overall Recommendation. The project has been found to be consistent with General Plan policies and City Zoning Ordinance requirements. City staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424, Williamson Act Cancellation No. 25-0001, Exclusion from the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10 and deny the appeal.

City Council Option
The decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive. City Council has the following options regarding this appeal request:
 Deny the Appeal. If the City Council were to deny the appeal, the General Plan land use designation would be amended to LMR (Low Medium Density Residential); the Williamson Act Contract would be tentatively canceled; the 28.91 acres would be removed from Agricultural Preserve No. 10. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for this project would also be approved.
 Uphold the Appeal. If the City Council were to approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's approval, the project site could not be developed as proposed and would retain its current condition.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The action to deny the appeal and uphold the 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
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolutions
a. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. Resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424 c. Resolution adopting the Tentative Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract and Exclusion from Agricultural Preserve No. 10.

2. Attachment A: Map Set
a. GPA Aerial
b. GPA Zone Classification
c. GPA General Plan Designation

3. Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration

4. Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolutions
a. Approved MND with Attachments
b. Approved GPA with Attachments
c. Approve WAC with Attachments

5. Attachment D: Planning Commission Staff Report

6. Attachment E: Studies

7. Attachment F: Appeal letter Lozeau Drury, September 29, 2025, including Comment Letters, August 27, 2025, and September 17, 2025.

8. Attachment G: Comment letter Lozeau Drury, November 18, 2025

9. Attachment H: Comment letter Brandon Martin, January 8, 2026

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM R-IA
(RESOURCE-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOW-MEDIUM

RESIDENTIAL), LOCATED NORTH OF MCCUTCEN ROAD AT
MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE (EXTENDED) (GPA 21-0424).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract; and (3) Exclusion from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve, all on 28.91 acres; and
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a public review period from July 28, 2025, to August 27, 2025, in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2025, and accepted public testimony both in support and opposition. Following deliberations, the Commission approved Resolution No. 47-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project; and WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on September 29, 2025, on the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, November 19, 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 proposed Negative Declaration 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, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted a comment letter prior to the scheduled hearing on November 19, 2025. The project was referred back to staff to allow Staff and the applicant sufficient time to review and respond to the comments received; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, as the

Page 2 of 3 ends

time and place for a public hearing before the City Council to consider the proposed Negative Declaration 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, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the staff report, the Planning Commission’s deliberation, and action.

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. The hearing notice regarding the Project was published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation, on March 1, 2026, 10 days prior to the hearing.

Pursuant to BMC 17.64.050.B.4, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the hearing. This notification process adheres to both city ordinance and state law.

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 under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

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 Resolution No. 47-25 are hereby adopted.

3. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is hereby adopted subject to the mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporatedherein. o0o
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 11th day of MARCH 2026, by the following vote:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit: A Mitigation Measures
B Location Map
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 1 of 3

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield’s CEQA Implementation Procedures.

PROJECT NO. (or Title): General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancellation 25-0001 COMMENT PERIOD BEGINS: July 28, 2025
COMMENT PERIOD ENDS: August 27, 2025
MITIGATION MEASURES (included in the proposed project to avoid potentially significant effects, if required):

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

2. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant/developer shall consult and comply with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service requirements related to listed plant and animal species protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)

3. Prior to ground disturbance, a focused survey for burrowing owl shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Planning Division by the applicant/developer. The survey shall follow the methodology developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993).

If the survey results identify the presence of burrowing owl nests, prior to grading (including staging, clearing, and grubbing), surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no more than 30 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance and in a sufficient area around the work site to identify any nests that are present and to determine their status. A sufficient area means any nest within an area that could potentially be affected directly and/or indirectly by the project. In addition to direct impacts, such as nest destruction, nests might be affected by noise, vibration, odors, and movement of workers or equipment. If the Project applicant identifies active nests, CDFW shall be notified and recommended protocols for mitigation shall be followed, and a copy of the mitigation protocols shall be submitted to Planning Division.
(.;,
BAKERSFIELD THE SOUND OFz;~ ~
Exhibit A
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 2 of 3 If any ground disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the project footprint, avoidance measures shall be implemented. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The biological resource evaluation performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measures for the Western Mastiff Bat roost detected in trees as follows:
a. A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more 30-days before the start of construction activities.
b. Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. c. Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. d. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, e. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
f. Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
g. Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
h. Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

5. Prior to construction and as needed throughout the construction period, a construction worker cultural awareness training program shall be provided to all new construction workers within one week of employment at the project site. The training shall be prepared and conducted by a qualified cultural resources specialist.

6. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System’s Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

7. During construction, if human remains are discovered, further ground disturbance shall be prohibited pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The specific protocol, guidelines, and channels of communication outlined by the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code 5097.97, and Senate Bill 447 shall be followed. In the event of the discovery of human remains, at the direction of the county coroner, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) shall guide Native American consultation.

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 3 of 3 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

8. During construction, if paleontological resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified paleontological resource specialist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include fossil salvage. Ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery site (within 50 feet) shall not resume until the resource-appropriate measures are implemented or the materials are determined to be less than significant.

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

9. All residential dwellings shall be Electric vehicle (EV) capable by installing a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as “EV READY.” Applicant will also construct on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off-site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road.

10. Prior to or concurrently with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division of the project’s participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program as well as payment of the adopted fees in place for the land use type at the time of development.

Agricultural Mitigation Measures:

11. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/property owner shall remit the required Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation. Documentation confirming payment of the cancellation fee, calculated as 12.5 percent of the land’s fair market value as determined by the Kern County Assessor, shall be submitted to the Planning Division. No grading, construction, or ground disturbance shall occur until confirmation of fee payment has been received by the Planning Division.

Exhibit B

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL DENYING THE

APPEAL AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE

MAP DESIGNATION OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
GENERAL PLAN FROM R-IA (RESOURCE – INTENSIVE

AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) LOCATED

NORTH OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE
(EXTENDED) (GPA 21-0424).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract; and (3) Exclusion from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve, all on 28.91 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 18, 2025, and approved Resolution No. 48-25, which recommended that the City Council approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed an appeal with the City Clerk on September 29, 2025, on the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the project; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, November 19, 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, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted a comment letter prior to the scheduled hearing on November 19, 2025. The project was referred back to staff to allow Staff and the applicant sufficient time to review and respond to the comments received; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026 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 proposed Negative Declaration 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, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act

Page 2 of 3 ends

(CEQA); 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 Resolution No. 48-25 are hereby approved.

3. The City Council hereby denies Lozeau Drury LLP’s appeal.

4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424. ---------o0o--------
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 11th day of March 2026, 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

Page 3 of 3 ends

By: ____________________________

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: General Plan Amendment Map
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 1 of 3

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA\GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_7.21.25.docx Page 3 of 3 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

Agricultural Mitigation Measures:

Exhibit B

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL

DENYING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING THE TENTATIVE

CANCELLATION OF A LAND CONSERVATION CONTRACT
(WILLIAMSON ACT) AND EXCLUSION FROM

AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE FOR AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN FROM R-IA
(RESOURCE-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOWMEDIUM RESIDENTIAL), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF

MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN VISTA ROAD
[GOVERNMENT CODE 51282(a)(1)] (GPA 21-0424).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner) is requesting: (1) an amendment to the land use map designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract; and (3) Exclusion from the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10, all on 28.91 acres; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield in accordance with the provisions of Sections 51232, 51233, and 51284 of the Government Code, did set, WEDNESDAY, November 19, 2025, at the hour of 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 said City Council on said application. Notice of the time and place of hearing was given at least ten (10) calendar days before said hearing by publication in The Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), submitted a comment letter prior to the scheduled hearing on November 19, 2025. The project was referred back to staff to allow Staff and the applicant sufficient time to review and respond to the comments received; and WHEREAS, the Clerk of the City Council set Wednesday, March 11, 2026 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 proposed Negative Declaration 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, the subject parcel was originally entered into a Land Use Agreement with the County of Kern pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Government Code Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7, Section 51200 et seq.) commonly known as the “Williamson Act”, on February 24, 1971, as shown in Book 4491, Pages 520 of the Office of the Kern County Recorder;
WHEREAS, the subject parcel was annexed into the City of Bakersfield on February 22, 2006, as Old River No. 3 (Annexation No. 498), joined to the annexation to facilitate the “Old River Ranch Development” (ORRD). The Kern County Land Agency Formation

Page 2 of 4 ends

Commission (LAFCo) required the subject outparcel to be included in the annexation area to avoid creating a county island (Resolution No. 053-06).

WHEREAS, Williamson Act Land Use Contract Cancellation of 28.91 acres and the exclusion of same acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 is described as follows:

Williamson Act Contract Cancellation:

McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), has applied for the cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract for the 28.91 acre within Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 located on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road in Southwest Bakersfield, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California (APN 541- 010-23 and 541-010-27); and
Exclusion of 28.91 Acres from Agricultural Preserve No. 10:

McIntosh and Associates (applicant), on behalf of ORR Development 2, LLC (property owner), has applied for the exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 located on the north side of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road in Southwest Bakersfield, in the City of Bakersfield, County of Kern, State of California (APN 541-010-23 and 541-010-27); and
WHEREAS, the requested cancellation covers portions of the northeast quarter of Section 123, Township 30 South, Range 27 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as described in Exhibit “A”, and shown generally in Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the project site contains approximately 28.91 acres; and WHEREAS, the subject site is also part of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 21- 0424) to allow the development of urban uses on the site; and WHEREAS, the applicant for the property owner has indicated the purpose of the request is to develop single-family residences within the City of Bakersfield limits; and WHEREAS, the property lies within a path of development with approved urban development projects in progress; and
WHEREAS, said urban development projects, as well as local government agency efforts, have extended supporting utilities and infrastructure adjacent to the property; and WHEREAS, the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has not been served based on the public interest findings; and
WHEREAS, the cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent contracted lands from agricultural use, since there is no evidence in the record to suggest that this project will be precedent-setting, and no comments were received to indicate there might be other lands removed from Contract, with remaining cultivated properties

Page 3 of 4 ends

being unaffected; and
WHEREAS, the cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, subject to prior approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424; and
WHEREAS, the cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of urban development since adjacent lands in the City of Bakersfield are developed or approved for urban development, and the property lies within the path of rapid urban development and between two approved urban projects; and WHEREAS, there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed, or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted lands. The project is located between approved urban projects and will result in a more contiguous pattern of urban development than other, noncontracted lands farther from existing urbanized lands; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and adopted in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 51283, the Kern County Assessor will determine the full market value of the land with respect to which the cancellation is requested, as though it was free of the contractual restriction, and will certify to this Council the fair market value and the amount of the cancellation to be paid prior to final approval of the cancellation of the contract; and
WHEREAS, prior to any further consideration for development entitlements or approvals on the property, payment of the Williamson Act Contract cancellation fee shall be made to the Kern County Treasurer in accordance with State, and WHEREAS, upon the property owner paying the cancellation fee to the Kern County Treasurer, the landowner is to notify the Planning Department, satisfying any contingencies in the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation have been satisfied to including a copy of proof of payment of said cancellation fee, and WHEREAS, within 30 days of such notice, the Planning Department shall execute a Certificate of (Final) Cancellation and present it by Resolution to the City Council at the next available meeting, and
WHEREAS, if the Resolution is approved by the City Council, the City Clerk shall have the Certificate of (Final) Cancellation recorded with the Kern County Recorder, and WHEREAS, the Planning Department shall petition the Kern County Planning Department to modify the County’s Agricultural Preserve Map boundaries to execute the subject property from the Agricultural Preserve Map No. 10 boundaries, and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council considered all facts, testimony, and evidence concerning the administrative report, and the Planning Commission’s

Page 4 of 4 ends

deliberation, and action, and
WHEREAS, the facts presented in the administrative report and evidence received both in writing and by verbal testimony at the above referenced public hearing support the following findings:

1. That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter.

1.1 The cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract is in the public interest and outweighs the objectives of this chapter as the cancellation will allow for the development of needed road right-of-way which will provide for health and safety improvements.

2. That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put or, that the development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate noncontracted land.

2.1 The proposed use of the contracted land to residential use will provide a contiguous pattern to the existing residential urban development which is immediately adjacent to the subject contracted property.

3. All required public notices have been given. The hearing notice regarding the Project was published in the Bakersfield Californian, a local newspaper of general circulation on November 8, 2025, 10 days prior to the hearing. Pursuant to BMC 17.64.050.B.4, if the number of owners exceeds one thousand, as is the case with this proposal, in lieu of mailed notice, notice may be provided by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in the newspaper ten days prior to the hearing. This notification process adheres to both city ordinance and state law.

4. The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been followed.

5. A adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

6. Based on the initial study and comments received, staff has determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.

7. The infrastructure exists or can easily be provided to accommodate the types and intensities of the proposed development.

8. The public necessity, general welfare and good zoning practice justify the recommended cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract on the

Page 5 of 4 ends

28.91 acres, located on the north side of McCutchen Road and at Mountain Vista Road.

9. The project site, with approval under General Plan Amendment No. 21- 0424, will be designated LMR (Low Medium Residential) under the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Plan.

10. The recommended cancellation is compatible with the surrounding uses.

11. The recommended tentative cancellation is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, subject to prior approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424.

12. That the tentative cancellation is consistent with the purposes of Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7 (the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the Williamson Act) of the Government Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND AND RESOLVED as follows:

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

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the cancellation of a Land Conservation Contract (Williamson Act) and exclusion from the Agricultural Preserve has been approved and adopted.

3. That the City Council has, pursuant to Section 51282 of the Government Code, made the required findings to tentatively approve the cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract.

4. The Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation and exclusion of the project site from Kern County Agricultural Preserve No. 10 will occur when said property cancellation fee has been paid to the Kern County Assessor., and the City Council adopts a resolution approving the Certificate of (Final) Cancellation.

5. The City Council hereby tentatively approves and adopts the tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91 acres and exclusion of the subject property from Kern County Agricultural Preserve Map No. 10, subject to prior approval for the project of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424.

6. The tentative cancellation of the Land Conservation Contract (Williamson Act) and exclusion from the Agricultural Preserve, as outlined above, is hereby approved, subject to prior approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424, and payment of the cancellation fees.

Page 6 of 4 ends

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of March 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: _Arias, Gonzales, Weir, Smith, Koman, Bashirtash, Kaur NOES: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER:

JULIE DRIMAKIS, CMC
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED:

KAREN GOH
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By:

VIRIDIANA GALLARDO-KING
Deputy City Attorney
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Original Williamson Act Contract
Exhibit B: Location Map and legal descriptions
Exhibit C: Certificate of Tentative Cancellation
Exhibit A

Exhibit B
EXHIBIT "A"

WILLIAMSON ACT CANCELLATION

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 10155, IN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS PER MAP RECORDED JANUARY 23, 1998 IN BOOK 49, PAGES 82 AND 83 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

CONTAINING MORE OR LESS 28.91 AC. GROSS
nMclNTOSH II & AssociATES

NEW GEN ENGINEERING GROUP
10800 Stockdale Hwy, Ste. 103 • Bakersfield, CA 93311
661-834-4814 • 661-834-0972
P:\PROJECTS\15008.07-MOLATORE\Legals\Legal Desc WAC.docx Exhibit B
Recording requested by
and for the benefit of the

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD

CITY CLERK
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD CA 93301

CERTIFICATE OF TENTATIVE CANCELLATION

WITH RESPECT TO LAND UNDER CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS
(LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1965)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

1. The City Council of the City of Bakersfield has given tentative approval of the petition of _________________ for _______________ for cancellation of contractual restrictions contained in a contract which a notice of nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245 of the Government Code, said notice was recorded on ______________, as Document No. _______________ in the office of the Kern County Recorder, as to the land hereinafter more fully described, entered into under the Land Conservation Act of 1965, and which land is located in Agricultural Preserve No. __ in the County of Kern, after public hearing duly noticed and held.

2. The name of the owner of the land herein mentioned, at the time of cancellation was _____________________.

3. The amount of the cancellation fee determined by said City Council to be paid as deferred taxes upon such cancellation, in accordance with paragraph (b) of Section 51283 of the Government Code, and certified by said Council as being due pursuant to said Act, is the sum of $____________.00 for the ___ gross acre site and that the recently announced Kern County assessment portion is 100% of the cancellation fee.

Exhibit C

4. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 51283.4, the Council has established the following conditions and contingencies, and has declared that a Certificate of Cancellation of said contract with respect to said parcel of land will be issued and recorded within thirty (30) days after being notified by the landowner that each and all of said conditions and contingencies is satisfied:
(a) Payment in full of the cancellation fee hereinabove mentioned; and (b) Unless said cancellation fee is fully paid, or a Certificate of Cancellation is issued, within one year from the date of recordation of the Certificate of Tentative Cancellation, such fee shall be recomputed as of the date the landowner notifies this City Council that he/she has satisfied the conditions and contingencies, as provided in subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51283.4, and the landowner shall pay any additional fee arising from such recomputation as a further condition to issuance of a Certificate of Cancellation; provided, however, that the landowner shall not be entitled to refund of any cancellation fee previously paid even if the recomputed fee is less; and
(c) Landowner shall obtain all permits, if any, necessary to commence the project of the proposed alternative use, and
(d) Landowner shall satisfy all conditions of approval as stated in the attached Council Resolution No. ______ as Exhibit “B”.

5. Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 51283.4, if land owner has been unable to satisfy the foregoing conditions or contingencies, he shall notify this City Council of the particular conditions or contingences he is unable to satisfy; within thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice, and upon a determination by this that the landowner is unable to satisfy the foregoing conditions or contingencies this Council shall execute a Certificate of Withdrawal of said tentative approval of the cancellation of contract and cause the same to be recorded; however, the landowner shall not be entitled to the refund of any cancellation fee previously paid.

6. The real property to which the foregoing tentative cancellation proceedings applies is situated in the City of Bakersfield, State of California, and is described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.

Dated this day of , 20XX, by order of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield.

XX
Principal Planner
AK S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\09_Last Steps\Tentative Cancelation_City Council.docx

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

MAP SET

MITIGATED

NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\01_Hearing Documents\CC\2nd Meeting - Appeal 3.11.2026\03_Mitigated Negative Declaration.docx Page 1 of 46

EXHIBIT “A”

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21-0424/WILLAMSON ACT CANCELLATION 25-0001 Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

If any ground disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the project footprint, avoidance measures shall be implemented. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant/developer shall follow CDFW protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The biological resource evaluation performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measures for the Western Mastiff Bat roost detected in trees as follows:
a. A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more 30-days before the start of construction activities.
b. Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. c. Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. d. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, e. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\01_Hearing Documents\CC\2nd Meeting - Appeal 3.11.2026\03_Mitigated Negative Declaration.docx Page 2 of 46

Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
f. Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1:1 ratio every 100 feet.
g. Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
h. Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

9. All residential dwellings shall be Electric vehicle (EV) capable by installing a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as “EV READY.” Applicant will also construct on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off-site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\01_Hearing Documents\CC\2nd Meeting - Appeal 3.11.2026\03_Mitigated Negative Declaration.docx Page 3 of 46

II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along McCutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road.

Agricultural Mitigation Measures:

PLANNING

COMMISSION

RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION NO. 47-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTION

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT

TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RELATED
TO PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21-0424;
CANCELLATION A WILLIAMSON ACT LAND USE CONTRACT;
AND EXCLUSION FROM AN AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE ON 28.91

ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN
VISTA DRIVE (EXTENDED).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates is requesting: ( 1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91-acres; (3) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve; and (4) A Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be considered. (Ward 5)
WHEREAS, it was determined that the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 5:30 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 Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given· in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission accepted public testimony both in support and opposition.

WHEREAS, the laws and regulations relating to the preparation and adoption of Mitigated Negative Declarations as set forth in CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield CEQA Implementation Procedures have been duly followed by City staff and the Planning Commission; 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, 30 days prior to the hearing.

Page 1 of 2 ends

2. The prov1s1ons 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 under CEQA.

3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project is the appropriate environmental document to accompany its approval as the Project will not significantly impact the physical environment.

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

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

2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council.

3. The project is subject to mitigation measures found in Exhibit A for the Project located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on September 18, 2025, on a motion by Vice-Chair Bittle and seconded by Commissioner Martin, by the following vote:

AYES: Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Cater, Kaur, Martin, Neal, Strickland ABSENT: None
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: Location Map
APPROVED± ..

A~LAND, ~=~ -h>C CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Page 2 of 2 ends

Exhibit A
~ BAKERSFIELD Tl-£ SOUND OF £-,dJ,fNJ '8,<(,, NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Bakersfield Development Services Department, Planning Division, has completed an initial study (attached) of the possible environmental effects of the following-described project and has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. It has been found that the proposed project, as described and proposed to be mitigated (if required), will not have a significant effect on the environment. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Bakersfield's CEQA Implementation Procedures.

Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures:
l. Prior to grading plan approval, the applicant/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division that they are compliant with air quality control measures and rules required by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The documentation shall specify that the Project has complied with the SJVAPCD's Indirect Source Rule (Rule 9510).

Biological Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

S:\03_Advance Planning\01 _GPAs\01 _Aclive\2021 \21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEOA \GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-0001 MNO_l.21 .25.docx Page 1 Of 3 If any ground disturbing activities occur during the burrowing owl nesting season (approximately February 1 through August 31), and potential burrowing owl burrows are present within the project footprint, avoidance measures shall be implemented. In the event that burrowing owls are found, the applicant/developer shall follow CDi=W protocol for mitigation and comply with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

4. The biological resource evaluation performed by Pruett Biological Resource Consulting 2024 requires mitigation measures for the Western Mastiff Bat roost detected in trees as follows:
a. A biological resource pre-activity survey conducted by a qualified biologist no more 30-days before the start of construction activities.
b. Biological resource monitoring during each initial phase of ground disturbance. c. Compliance reporting provided to the required oversight agencies for all biological resource field surveys, monitoring, and additional tasks as warranted. d. A Worker Environmental Awareness Program outlining special-status species that may access, use or otherwise transverse the project area will be implemented, e. If known or natal SJKF dens are identified at any time during construction, protocols enumerated in the USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the Endangered San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (2011) should be implemented, and the appropriate agencies contacted for guidance.
f. Vertical sided trenching deeper than 2-feet will include escape ramps at no more than a 1 :1 ratio every 100 feet.
g. Vertical sided holes that are not capable of being ramped should be covered or otherwise secured to the greatest extent practicable.
h. Pipes, conduit and similar material 3 inches or greater should be capped to prevent wildlife from becoming inadvertently trapped in the piping.

Cultural Resources Impact Mitigation Measures:

6. During construction, if cultural resources are encountered during construction or ground disturbance activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease and the area cordoned off until a qualified cultural resource specialist that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the specialist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant cultural resource, additional investigations may be required. These additional studies may include avoidance, testing, and excavation. All reports, correspondence, and determinations regarding the discovery shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Information System's Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California State University Bakersfield.

S:\03_Advance Planning\0I_GPAs\01 _Active\2021\2 l-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA \GPA 2 l-0424_WAC 25-0001 MND_l.21.25.docx Page 2 of3 Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measures:

Traffic Impact Mitigation Measures:

9. All residential dwellings shall be Electric vehicle (EV) capable by installing a dedicated circuit within the service panel and provide a receptacle or blank cover labeled as "EV READY." Applicant will also construct on-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Mccutchen Road extending to the west tract boundary, ensuring no gaps in the infrastructure. This will facilitate future off-site improvements, constructed by others, that will provide access to Buena Vista Elementary School and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Buena Vista Road. Furthermore, the project will also include construction of off-site pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure along Mccutchen Road to the east. This will close the existing gap between the project, Independence High School, the Career and Technical Education Center, and the existing Class II Bike Lane along Old River Road.

10. Prior to or concurrently with the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division of the project's participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee Program as well as payment of the adopted fees in place for the land use type at the time of development.

Agricultural Mitigation Measures:

11. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant/property owner shall remit the required Williamson Act cancellation fee to the California Department of Conservation. Documentation confirming payment of the cancellation fee, calculated as 12.5 percent of the land's fair market value as determined by the Kern County Assessor, shall be submitted to the Planning Division. No grading, construction, or ground disturbance shall occur until confirmation of fee payment has been received by the Planning Division.

S:\03..Advonce P/onning\01 _GPAs\01 _Active \2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\04_CEQA \GPA 21-0424_WAC 25-000 I MND].21.25.docx Page 3 of3 \!)

ALCAZAR
AVE >-
~
~ z
<(
..J
0 u
GC
General Plan Amendment
21-0424
Williamson Act Cancellation
25-0001
"'Q'.

Ul Ul IX > v,
iii ii
I-
"' 0
z
Ul
~

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
LR ::1
I-
<( >- Q'. <(
J.: ~ CL.
::>
Ul

STORA ALVARET AVE
GPA 21-0424
LR

TATUK WAY
<( >- - <(
~ ~ ::> Q:
..J Ul
0>
u-
~ CLACKAMAS RIVER AVE Q'.

Q:
1-
Ul
,.:
<(
..J

MC CUTCHEN RD
HMR
LR
I

BASENTO WAY I
I
z Q'.
~~o , r.- <(
z lg ~ LR
:E >
I
I
I-
"' Q:

Ul
>
Q'.
,.:
::>
>- 0
,.:

YUKON RIVER AVE ---
,.:

Ul
Ul
Q'. >- u <(
~~ LR
0 LR ~ ~REITENBUSH AVE
<(
0 Q'.
<(
\!) 11- Ul 1/l LR ,.:
<(
..J

LAKE BRACC IANO AVE
I-
"' Q'.

Ul
>
Q'.
::>
\!)
zl
[
1-:-
"'
~ ARNO RIVER
~ LN Q'.
z
<(
iZ=
Q'.
<( LR :E
II ~ 1/l LR I ~ I > ARGI e,vER-AVl i

HUSLIA RIVER AVE
LR ]
i-=
"'
z
u ~u
,
0 \!)
<(
..J
LR
PS
lndeptndrnc,
High lchool
Exhibit 8
LR
Land Use
RR Ru,al Rnldential

2.S g,oss acres/dwelling unit
(R Estate RHidential
I dwelling unit/ net aue
SR Suburban Residential
S: 4 dwelling units/ne t aue
SR/LR
County: S: 4 dwelling unih/net
aue
City: :. 7.26 dwelling units/net
acre
LR low Density RHidential
~ 7 .26 dwelling units/net aue
lMR low Medium Den, ity
Residential
> 4 hut :. 10 dwelling units/
net aue
HMR High Mediuno Den, ity
Reiidential
> 7.76 unih but
:. 17 .42 dwelling units/ net
aoe
HR High Den,ity Re,idential
> 17 .42 units bu t
s 12.6 dwelling unih/net aue
HC Highway Commercial
GC General Con1n1enial
MC Majot Con1meuial
OC Office C ommeuiol
MU( Mind Use Commercial
LI light lndu,toial
SI Serwi<e lndushial
HI Heawf Indus.trial
P Puhli, Fo<ilttiH
PS Public,'Pf'iwate Schools
Pl Publi, lta1upo1 talion
Corridors
P-SW Solid Waste Fo<ilities
OS Ope11 Spa<e
OS-P Po.-h and Reneation
OS-S Slopes uceeding 30%
R-IA Resource ·
Intensive A9ricuhure
20 acre minimum panel size
R-lA le,,ouHe ·
Extensiwe Agri<ultu, e
20 aoe minimu1u pa1ul siie
80 o<re min (William,on Act)
R-MP Resource ·
Miuuah & Pefloleun,
5 one min imum pane l si,e
UER Urban Estate Reside-ntiol
WH t etn Roseda k- Pion
0 . .5 one net minimum pouel
sire
WM West Ming Specific Plqn
l:J

BAKERSFIELD
0 t
Fee t
500
8/29/2025
1,000
RESOLUTION NO.48-25

RESOLUTION OF THE BAKERSFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21-0424 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE

DESIGNATION FROM R-IA (RESOURCE - INTENSIVE
AGRICULTURE) TO LMR (LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) ON 28.91-

ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF MCCUTCHEN ROAD AT MOUNTAIN
VISTA DRIVE (EXTENDED).

WHEREAS, McIntosh & Associates is requesting: ( 1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan from R-IA (Resource - Intensive Agriculture) to LMR [Low-Medium Residential); (2) Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on 28.91-acres; (3) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve; and (4) A Mitigated Negative Declaration will also be considered. [Ward 5)
WHEREAS, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been recommended; and
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Planning Commission set Thursday, September 18, 2025 at 5:30 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 Planning Commission to consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Project as required by Government Code Section 65353, and notice of the public hearing was given in the manner provided in Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission accepted public testimony both in support and opposition.

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 proposed 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, 30 days prior to the hearing.

3. The public necessity, general welfare, and good planning practices justify the Project.

4. The Project is compatible with the land use designations and development of surrounding properties and is internally consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan.

Page 1 of 2 ends

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 hereby recommended for approval by the City Council subject to the conditions of approval in Exhibit A and located on the map as shown in Exhibit B, both of which are incorporated herein.

AYES: Bittle, Brandt Oliver, Cater, Kaur, Martin, Neal, Strickland ABSENT: None
Exhibits (attached):

Exhibit A: Mitigation Measures
Exhibit B: Location Map

APPROVED

ADAM STRICKLAND, CHAIR
City of Bakersfield Planning Commission

Page 2 of 2 ends

Bakersfield City CouncilMarch 11, 2026

Bakersfield City Council
March 11, 2026