PLANNING
COMMISSION
STAFF
REPORT
AK: S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2021\21-0424_McCutchen Rd and Old River Rd\01_Hearing Documents
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: September 18, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 6.a TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: September 12, 2025
FILE: General Plan Amendment No. 21-0424/Williamson Act Cancelation 25-0001/ Exclusion from Agriculture Preserve [Document Description] STAFF PLANNER: Ashley Knight, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: A request to (1) General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R -IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential) on 28.91-acres; (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)
APPLICANT: New Gen Engineering Group Inc. OWNER: Orr Development 2, LLC Attn: Blaine Neptune Attn: Keith Gardiner
10800 Stockdale Hwy., Suite 103 29341 Kimberlina Road
Bakersfield, CA 93311 Wasco, CA 93280
LOCATION: Northside of McCutchen Road at Mountain Vista Road APN: 541-010-23 and 541-010-27
PROJECT SIZE: 28.91 acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING General Plan Amendment No. 21 -0424 to change the land use designation from R -IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (low-Medium Residential); (3) Adopt Resolution Cancellation of a Williamson Act Land use Contract of the 28.91-acre site; and (4) Exclusion of 28.91-acres from the boundary of an Agricultural Preserve, and recommend the same to City Council.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site consists of two (2) contiguous undeveloped parcels previously used for agricultural. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north - single family residential and vacant; east – single family residential; south - agricultural; and west –vacant and . This area is in the stages of commencing grading activity for the future development of single-family residential homes.
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
This case was originally scheduled to be considered by your commission on May 15, 2025, following staff’s discovery of records that the project location is in an active Williamson Act Contract. When a project location is in an active Williamson Act Contract, the parcel is not permitted to change the land use or zoning to a residential designation. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment could not be considered until the Williamson Act Contract is cancelled or nonrenewed, and staff recommended that the project be “referred back to staff” to allow the applicant sufficient time to address this issue. Staff has worked with the applicant on the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract which is before your commission for consideration at tonight’s hearing.
• February 24, 1971 – Williamson Act Contract and agricultural preserve recorded, devoting 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).
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) request submitted by New Gen Engineering Group Inc., (applicant), on behalf of Keith Gardiner (property owner) is proposing a GPA to change the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from Resource-Intensive 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 between Buena Vista Road and Old River Road, in southwest Bakersfield [Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 541-010-23, and -27]. The project site is currently under a Williamson Act Contract and this request includes a tentative cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract and exclusion from an agricultural preserve further described below.
The project intends to develop 147 residential lots ( pending Vesting Tentative Tract No. 7410), on approximately 28.91 acres. The residential lots range in size from 4,589 square feet (s.f.) to 11,462 s.f. and the typical lot size is approximately 50 feet wide by 103 feet deep (5,150 s.f.). The net density is 8.64 units per acre, which is consistent with the LMR designation of the project site, which is more than 4 but less than 10 dwelling units per net acre. Mountain Vista Drive will be fully constructed, extending through the project site and connecting to McCutchen Road.
Surrounding properties to the north, east, and south are also developed with single-family residential uses and undeveloped land. The project site is located within the County of Kern administrative boundary of Agricultural Preserve No. 10 and is encumbered by a Williamson Act Land Use Contract.
The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that are vacant and undeveloped. Historically, the parcels have been used for agricultural purposes.
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
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 denser but thoughtful residential development.
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 3: Ensure that residential uses are located in proximity to commercial services, employment centers, public services, transportation routes, and recreational and cultural resources.
The proposed project site is within . 25 miles of an existing school and 1 mile from commercial services.
There are nearby employment centers as well as others throughout the city that can be easily accessed via the existing circulation system.
Policy 75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan.
The project site is located on existing residential zone land near residential land uses. Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing residential land uses at a similar density.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.
WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT AND AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE:
Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve. The project site is subject to a Williamson Act Land Use Contract recorded on February 28, 1969 (Document 12659). Notices of nonrenewal of the Land Use Contract were filed in October 2005 for the portion of the Old River Ranch project site that excluded several outparcels. One of the property owners of the outparcels now desires to request cancellation of the Land Use Contract for two outparcel areas (project site).
The property owner has requested the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. This can be accomplished by paying the cancellation fee to the County Treasurer. Staff has requested that the Kern County Assessor’s Office provide an amount for the cancellation fee. The Kern County Assessor’s Office has established the fee, but the property owner is currently in negotiations with the Assessor’s Office over the fee amount.
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 since its GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
enactment in 1965. Nearly 16 million of California’s 30 million acres of farm and ranch land are currently protected under the Williamson Act.
The Williamson Act preserves agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The act creates an arrangement where local governments create agricultural preserves, which are areas of their jurisdiction w here landowners can enter into contracts under a standard set of rules. Once an agricultural preserve is created, a landowner within that area can choose to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under a minimum 9-year rolling term contract in exchange for the property’s tax assessment being based on actual use, rather than potential market value.
Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract and Agricultural Preserve: A cancellation is almost always done as a component of a larger project that will be changing the use of the land to something that is not consistent with agriculture or open space. Only the landowner can petition to cancel a contract. To approve a contract cancellation petition, a county or city must conduct a public hearing and make specific findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Because this is a discretionary action, there is frequently an associated CEQA action.
The existence of an opportunity for another use of the property is not sufficient reason for cancellation.
In addition, the uneconomic character of an existing agricultural use shall not, by itself, be a sufficient reason to cancel a contract. The landowne r must pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5% (standard Williamson Act contract) or 25% (Farmland Security Zone contract) of the current fair market value of the property based on the determination by the county assessor.
The “Consistency” Findings (A.) Vs. The “Public Interest” Findings (B.) : Tentative cancellation may only be granted by the council if it makes one of the following findings:
A. That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (Chapter 7 of Title 5). City Council must make the following 5 “consistency” findings (GC 51282 b.1-5.):
(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a Notice of Nonrenewal (NNR) has been served under Section 51245.
(2) That the cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent lands from agricultural use. (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan.
(4) That cancellation will not result in discontinuous patterns of development. (5) 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 the development of proximate noncontracted land.
OR
B. That the cancellation is in the public interest. City Council must make the following 2 “public interest” findings (GC 51282 c.1-2.):
(1) That other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter.
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
(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 the development of proximate noncontracted land.
(Note: a NNR is not required for cancellation in the public interest.) Staff recommends approval of the proposed Williamson Act Land Use Contract cancellation, in accordance with the above findings, as listed under the cancellation is in the public interest category as contained in the attached draft resolution. Staff also recommends approval to petition the Kern County Planning and Resources Department to exclude from Agricultural Preserve No. 10. The intent of the Agricultural Preserve program is to conserve agricultural land and discourage premature or unnecessary conversion to urban uses. In order for property to be developed for urban or non -agricultural purposes, it must first be excluded from the Agricultural Preserve prior to the cancellation of the associated Williamson Act Land Use Contract. The subject property no longer qualifies for inclusion in the Agricultural Preserve due to its planned conversion to urban development, which is inconsistent with long-term agricultural use.
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 co nsistent 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.
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 Housin g 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 497 -units at the moderate income level to the 5th Cycle of the Housing Element.
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the following project-specific analysis and technical studies: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, wildfires, and mandatory findings of significance.
The initial study determined that compliance with the 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. Mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, traffic and agriculture were identified. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND was circulated for a 30-day public and agency review period starting July 28, 2025, through August 27, 2025 (SCH No. 2025031371).
Comments Received. As of this writing, three comment letters have been received for the Initial Study.
Staff’s responses are as follows:
The first comment letter was submitted by Janine McC oy, a resident in the River Crossings Community.
Staff’s responses are as follows:
1. Comment: While I understand and support the need for growth and development, my support is contingent upon these new homes not causing any depreciation in the value of my property. As a homeowner, maintaining the integrity and value of my investment is of utmost importance to me.
Response: The City acknowledges concerns regarding property values. While the City does not regulate real estate pricing, it does implement land use planning and zoning practices intended to ensure that developments are consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. The project applicant is required to comply with all adopted development standards, including landscaping, traffic mitigation, and architectural guidelines. These measures are intended to promote neighborhood quality and minimize potential adverse effects on adjacent properties.
2. Comment: I respectfully request to be notified of any upcoming public hearings, planning meetings, or decisions related to these developments.
Response: Your request to be notified of future hearings and planning-related actions concerning this project has been noted. Please ensure your contact information is current with the Planning Division.
The second comment letter was submitted by the Department of Conservation Land Resource Protection are as follows:
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
1. Comment: The project site contains Prime Farmland as designated by the Department’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Department requests the environmental review include a discussion of direct and indirect farmland conversion, potential land us e conflicts, cumulative impacts, and any local agricultural mitigation programs or policies. The Department also recommends the consideration of agricultural conservation easements or other feasible mitigation measures.
Response: The City acknowledges the Department of Conservation’s role in monitoring agricultural land conversion and appreciates the input provided. The subject site is designated Resource - Intensive Agriculture in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and is cur rently zoned R -1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) for residential uses, while also being under a Williamson Act contract as part of an agricultural preserve. The General Plan Amendment and Williamson Act Contract cancellation request propose a change to Lo w Medium Density Residential in accordance with regional growth strategies and the City’s long-term housing goals.
It is noted that the project site encompasses approximately 28.91 acres, which represents less than
0.004% of Kern County’s total 866,127 acres of harvested crops reported in 2022. While the site is under a Williamson Act contract, it is not subject to a s eparate conservation easement. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was previously adopted in 2006 for this site, which found the conversion impact to be less than significant, and an MND is currently being considered for the present General Plan Amendment/Williamson Act Contract cancellation.
In regard to mitigation, the City has determined that the scope and scale of this conversion does not constitute a significant regional impact under CEQA Guidelines §15206(b), which pertains to the conversion of more than 100 acres of Williamson Act land. As such, the City will not be requiring agricultural conservation easements or payment of mitigation fees in this case.
Nevertheless, the City respects the Department’s guidance and will continue to review such recommendations on a case -by-case basis. Should similar projects of a larger magnitude be proposed in the future, more comprehensive farmland mitigation strategies may be considered in accordance with state guidelines and local planning policies.
The Department’s request to be notified of future hearings and staff reports has been noted and will be accommodated accordingly.
The third comment letter was submitted by Lozeau | Drury LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). Staff’s responses are as follows:
1. Comment: The commenter asserts that the project may result in significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) rather than adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
Response: The City has determined that preparation of an EIR is not required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15070 –15071, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate where feasible mitigation reduces potential impacts to less than significant. Substanti al evidence in the record supports the conclusion that impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels.
2. Comment: Concerns are raised regarding the conversion of farmland, including land currently under a Williamson Act contract, and the adequacy of mitigation for direct, indirect, and cumulative farmland impacts.
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
Response: The project site is under a Williamson Act contract; however, cancellation is being processed under the “public interest” findings of Government Code §51282(c). The approximately
28.91-acre conversion represents less than 0.004% of Kern County’s total harvested acreage and does not constitute a significant regional impact under CEQA Guidelines §15206(b).
3. Comment: The commenter states that the project will generate Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in excess of state thresholds and that the proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Response: The project incorporates feasible mitigation measures, including EV -capable infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, participation in the Regional Transportation Impact Fee program, and the extension of Mountain Vista Drive from McCutchen Road to Panama Lane, which improves circulation and reduces trip lengths. CEQA requires feasible mitigation, not elimination of VMT impacts.
4. Comment: The letter identifies air quality impacts, including construction and operational emissions, and alleges that the MND does not adequately address cumulative effects on sensitive receptors.
Response: The MND’s technical studies used standard CEQA methodologies, including CalEEMod, to quantify emissions. No substantial evidence demonstrates that project -related emissions will exceed adopted thresholds after mitigation. Disagreement with methodology does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant effect.
5. Comment: The commenter raises concerns related to hazards, including potential contamination from past agricultural use and possible impacts to future residents.
Response: Hazards and hazardous materials were evaluated using standard CEQA protocols.
Mitigation measures require assessment and, if necessary, remediation of agricultural residues such as pesticides or arsenic in soils prior to residential development. With these measures, impacts are reduced to less than significant.
6. Comment: The letter asserts that the project may result in indoor air quality impacts related to formaldehyde and other emissions from building materials, and states that these impacts have not been adequately addressed in the MND.
Response: Compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) formaldehyde standards ensures that indoor air emissions remain within applicable regulatory limits. CEQA does not require addressing speculation beyond these existing regulatory requirements.
7. Comment: The commenter claims that substantial evidence exists in the record to support a “fair argument” of significant environmental effects, thereby requiring preparation of an EIR under CEQA.
Response: The City has reviewed the entire record and determined that, with the mitigation measures identified, no substantial evidence exists that the project will result in significant unmitigated impacts. Additionally, the Old River EIR (SCH No. 2005031113) evaluated cumulative and regional impacts for this area, including transportation, air quality, and farmland conversion, and found them less than significant with mitigation. The current project is consistent with those GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
assumptions and does not result in new or more severe impacts. Accordingly, preparation of an EIR is not required.
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.
Comments Received. One comment letter was submitted to the City during the public hearing circulation period.
The following comment letter was submitted by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Staff’s responses are as follows:
1. Comment: CDFW notes that the Project site is within the geographic range of several special - status species and expresses concern about whether proposed mitigation measures are sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant or avoid unauthorized take.
Response: The City acknowledges CDFW’s trustee and responsible agency role and has reviewed the biological resource evaluation prepared for the Project. The MND incorporates mitigation measures for special -status species, including preconstruction surveys, avoidance buffers, and consultation with appropriate agencies, ensuring that potential impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
2. Comment: CDFW states that the Project is within the known range of the San Joaquin kit fox and recommends enhanced preconstruction surveys, no-disturbance buffers, and potential incidental take authorization if avoidance is not feasible.
Response: The City concurs that San Joaquin kit fox are present in the Bakersfield area. Mitigation Measure 4 in the MND requires preconstruction surveys consistent with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols and includes procedures for avoidance and cons ultation if dens are discovered. These measures are consistent with CDFW’s recommendations and ensure compliance with CESA and the federal Endangered Species Act.
3. Comment: CDFW states that the Project is within the range of Swainson’s hawk and that suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists in the area. CDFW recommends preconstruction surveys, seasonal avoidance buffers, potential incidental take authorization, and compensatory mitigation for foraging habitat loss.
Response: The City acknowledges the presence of Swainson’s hawk within the region. The MND requires preconstruction surveys consistent with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000) guidance and implementation of appropriate no -disturbance buffers. The City GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
will coordinate with CDFW if active nests are detected, and mitigation for foraging habitat will be considered consistent with CDFW’s 1994 Staff Report.
4. Comment: CDFW notes that the Project area may contain suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl, which is currently a candidate for listing under CESA. CDFW recommends updated preconstruction surveys, avoidance buffers, and potential incidental take authorization if avoidance is not feasible.
Response: The MND includes Mitigation Measure 3 requiring preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl using the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If active or inactive burrows are identified, avoidance buffers or consultation with CDFW will be imple mented. These measures ensure compliance with CESA candidate protections.
5. Comment: CDFW identifies the Project area as within the known range of Crotch’s bumble bee, a candidate for listing under CESA, and recommends site -specific habitat assessments, focused surveys, and consultation if presence is confirmed.
Response: While the biological resource evaluation did not identify suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee, the City acknowledges CDFW’s recommendations. If future surveys indicate potential habitat on-site, consultation with CDFW will occur, and appropriate avoi dance or minimization measures will be implemented.
6. Comment: CDFW identifies the potential for other species of special concern such as the Tulare grasshopper mouse and California glossy snake and recommends habitat assessments, preconstruction surveys, and avoidance measures.
Response: The MND requires preconstruction biological surveys to evaluate potential special - status species habitat. If these species are observed, construction activities will be adjusted to avoid disturbance, including use of appropriate buffers and relocation by a qualified biologist.
7. Comment: CDFW provides editorial comments regarding nesting birds, recommending surveys and buffers during the breeding season to avoid take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code.
Response: The MND includes Mitigation Measure 2 requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys if construction occurs during the breeding season. Buffers consistent with CDFW recommendations will be applied to avoid nest disturbance, ensuring compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code.
8. Comment: CDFW requests that any detections of special-status species during surveys be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
Response: The City acknowledges this request. Project biologists will submit species occurrence data to the CNDDB in accordance with CDFW guidance.
GPA No. 21-0424/WAC 25-0001
9. Comment: CDFW notes that the Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife and that CEQA filing fees will be required at the time of the Notice of Determination.
Response: The City acknowledges that CEQA filing fees will be paid in compliance with Fish and Game Code §711.4 and CEQA Guidelines §753.5 at the time of the Notice of Determination.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project is designed to introduce a low-medium density residential use that complements the prevailing single-family residential development in the vicinity.
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 an d regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards.
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 R-IA (Resource – Intensive Agriculture) to LMR (Low-Medium Residential); (3) Adopt Resolution Cancellation a Williamson Act Land Use Contract on the 28.91-acre site; and (4) Exclusion of 28.91 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve, and recommend the same to City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Map Set
• GPA/WAC Aerial
• GPA/WAC Zone Classification
• GPA/WAC General Plan Designation
Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments Attachment C: Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• Adopt MND with Attachments
• Approve GPA with Attachments
• Adopt WAC with Attachments
Attachment D: Comments