AK S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2022\22-0372_8235 Stine Rd\01_Hearing Documents\PC
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: April 16, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: Consent Hearings TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director
DATE: April 10, 2026
WARD: 7
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 22-0372 STAFF PLANNER: Ashley Knight
REQUEST: (1) An amendment of the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (2) a change in zone classification from R -S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone.
APPLICANT: Cornerstone Engineering, Inc. OWNER: David Gill 5509 Young St. 13707 Road 192
Bakersfield, CA 93311 Porterville, CA 93257
PROJECT LOCATION: 8235 Stine Road; generally located at the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive
APN: 532-020-17 and 532-020-20
PROJECT SIZE: Approximately 3.71 acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) Adopt Resolution APPROVING the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (3) Adopt Resolution APPROVING change in zone classification from R- S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone.
File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-S-2.5A (Residential Suburban - 2.5-acre minimum) SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is residential land. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – single-family residential; east – single-family residential and a banquet hall; south – Ridgeview High School; and west – a canal adjacent to single-family residential.
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• April 27, 1993 - City Council approved the annexation of the project site to the City of Bakersfield as part of Annexation No. 370, Segment IX (Resolution 34-93).
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (GPA/ZC).
The General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) and Zone Change (“ZC”) request submitted by Cornerstone Engineering Inc. (applicant), on behalf of David Gill (property owner) is (1) proposing a GPA to change the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) or a more restrictive designation ; and (2) proposing a change in zone classification from R- S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling) or a more restrictive zone on approximately 3.71 acres. The project parcel is located on the northwest corner of Stine Road and Ryzona Drive, in southwest Bakersfield [Assessor’s Parcel numbers (APNs) 532-020-17 and -20].
The project intends to develop a multi-family dwelling complex with a mix of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units for a total of 34 units. The residential density range for this zone is 6.1 to thirteen dwelling units per net acre, which is consistent with the proposed HMR designation of the project site.
The project site consists of two contiguous parcels that have existing multiple single-family dwellings and various accessory structures. Surrounding properties to the north and west are single -family residential uses, to the east are a banquet hall and single -family residential, and to the south is Ridgeview High School.
Approve Zone Change as Requested. If the zone change is approved to R-2 as requested, an application for site plan approval is required for future multi-family residential projects. The project will be reviewed by the Site Plan Review (SPR) Committee, as listed below, for compliance with City development standards. The Development Services Director may then approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site plan. There is no requirement for Planning Commission consideration unless the Development Services Director’s decision is appealed.
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 con sistent 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 File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
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 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 3.71 acres to the City of Bakersfield’s 6th Housing Element Cycle from 2023 through 2031.
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 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 multi -family 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 multi -family 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 multiple -family residential developments or, if the project is approved, will be developed through the fair-share payment of impact 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 multiple-family land use within an area that predominantly consists of single-family residential use. Allowing multiple-family residential at the site would allow for the increased development of a variety of residential types and dens ities beyond the current condition. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.
File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
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 across the street from an existing Ridgeview High school and one (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 land near residential land uses. Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing residential land uses at a different density.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.
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: Air Quality Impact Analysis; Phase I Cultural Resource Survey; Biological Resource Evaluation; Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Travel Analysis.
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. 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 February 17, 2026, through March 19, 2026 (SCH No. 2026020609).
Comments Received. One comment letter was submitted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). DTSC’s comments and staff’s response are as follows:
1. DTSC recommended that an appropriate State or local regulatory agency provide concurrence that the project site is safe for construction and the proposed use.
Response: Staff noted that projects involving hazardous materials are subject to regulatory oversight through required submittal of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, as well as compliance with applicable stormwater permitting requirements (NPDES). These processes ensure agency review and site safety. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.
2. DTSC recommended that the MND acknowledge the potential for hazardous substance releases from past or future activities, and identify procedures for investigation, remediation, and regulatory oversight if contamination is identified.
Response: Staff indicated that these concerns are addressed through existing regulatory requirements and processes described in Response 1. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.
3. DTSC noted the potential presence of aerially deposited lead (ADL) in soils due to historical use of leaded gasoline and recommended soil sampling prior to ground disturbance.
File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
Response: Staff stated that soil analysis is required during grading and building permit review, and any contaminants identified will be handled in accordance with applicable regulations.
Impacts would remain less than significant. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.
4. DTSC recommended that any imported soil be properly sampled and documented to ensure it is free of contamination, consistent with DTSC guidance.
Response: Staff responded that imported soil will be regulated in accordance with applicable state and federal requirements. The project proponent was advised of this recommendation.
5. DTSC recommended that if the site has a history of agricultural or related uses, additional investigation for pesticide contamination be conducted in accordance with state guidance.
Response: Staff acknowledged this recommendation and advised the project proponent accordingly.
Environmental Conclusion. 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. With mitigation, significant environmental impacts were not identified for the proposed project.
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 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. Signs are required as part of the public notification process and must be posted between 20 to 60 days before the public hearing date. Photographs of the posted signage and the Declaration of Posting Public Hearing Notice signed by the applicant are on file at the Planning Division.
Comments Received. As of this writing, no comments have been received.
Tribal Consultation. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, staff mailed a letter on November 17, 2023, notifying the American Indian Tribes of the proposed project and location of the site. The notice starts the 90-day consultation period required under SB 18. As of this wr iting, no tribal consultation has been requested.
Community Outreach. The applicant hosted a community outreach meeting on March 12, 2026. Invitation letters were mailed by the applicant to property owners within 300 feet of the project site. According to the meeting sign-in sheet, one individual attended.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide for an increase in density to residential use to complement the existing single-family residential development in the area.
File No. GPA/ZC 22-0372
Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance . The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to multi- family development, as noted above. As conditioned, the site plan review is required to comply with requirements and 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) An amendment of the Land Use Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan land use designation from ER (Estate Residential) and SR (Suburban Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential); and (3) a change in zone classification from R-S 2.5A (Residential Suburban 2.5 acre minimum) to R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling) Zone.
ATTACHMENTS:
Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
Site Plan
Elevations
Landscape Plan
Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• MND with Attachments
• GPA with Attachments
• ZC with Attachments