S:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner of Renfro Rd and Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Escribe\June\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 escribe.docxS:\05_Land Division\PP-TCTM-25-0005_VTTM 7451_SW Corner Of Renfro Rd And Olive Dr\01_Hearing & Noticing Documents\Escribe\June\Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 Escribe.Docx
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 4, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: 6.a
TO: Chair Bittle and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director J.Eng
DATE: May 29, 2026
FILE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451
STAFF PLANNER: Veronica Martinez, Associate Planner
REQUEST: A proposed vesting tentative tract map for single -family residential purposes containing 313 buildable lots, 1 multi- use trail lot, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres, zoned R -2 (Small Lot Single -Unit Dwelling), including a request for alternate lot, street and storm drain design, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060.A.1 (Ward 4).
APPLICANT: OWNER:
McIntosh & Associates Diamond Farming Company
10800 Stockdale Hwy Suite 103 P.O. Box 21251
Bakersfield CA 93311 Bakersfield CA 93390
PROJECT LOCATION: Generally southeast of Olive Drive and Santa Fe Way in northwest Bakersfield.
APN: Portion of 463-040-13.
PROJECT SIZE: 40.77 acres CEQA: Section 15162 (MND)
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LR (Low Density Residential) and HMR (High Medium Density Residential)
EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution and suggested findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) with conditions
VTTM 7451
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The proposed project site is currently agricultural land and is bounded by agricultural land to the north, east, west and south. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad is located adjacent to the southwest corner of the proposed subdivision.
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• January 13, 2010 - City Council approved the pre -zoning of property within the sphere of influence boundary (ZC No. 09-0591). The project site was prezoned to R-1 (Single-Unit Dwelling) and R-2 (Small- Lot Single Unit Dwelling) (Ordinance 4611).
• March 15, 2011 - The project site was annexed into the City as part of the Kratzmeyer Ranch annexation (Annexation No. 625).
• April 24, 2024 - City Council approved a Zone Change to change the zoning of 988 acres in various properties throughout the City from various zoning classifications to MX-1 (Mixed -Use Neighborhood), MX-2 (Mixed-Use Transit), R-2 (Small Lot Single-Unit Dwelling), R-3 (Medium Density Multi-unit Dwelling), R -4 (High- Density Multi -Unit Dwelling), R -4-HD (High- Density Multi -Unit Dwelling – Hillside Development Overlay), and R-5 (Very-High Density Multi-Unit Dwelling) (ZC No. 24- 0055; Ordinance No. 5176). Zone Change No. 24-0055 was in support of the Housing Element update.
The zoning classification of the project site changed from R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Small-Lot Single Unit Dwelling).
• January 6, 2026 – The application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) was deemed complete.
• March 19, 2026 – Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) was originally scheduled for consideration. At the applicant’s request, the public hearing was continued to May 7, 2026. • May 7, 2026 – Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) was continued and the applicant requested that the public hearing for this project be re —advertised for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission on June 4, 2026 to allow additional time to provide a respon se to comments received from the public.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The proposed vesting tentative tract subdivision consists of 313 buildable lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot on 40.77 acres for purposes of single -family residential development. The majority of the residential lots range in size from 3,440 square feet (s.f.) to 3,600 s.f., and the typical lot size is approximately 40 feet wide by 86 feet deep (3,440 square feet). The net density is 8.65 units per net acre in the HMR designation and 7.21 in the LR designation, which is consistent with the HMR and LR designation of the project site. Additionally, the tract is required to construct a 12.5 -foot multi-use trail along the south side of Olive Drive per the Western Rosedale Specific Plan.
Consistency/Deviation from Design Standards. The applicant has requested eight deviations from City standards as listed below in Table A. Except as may otherwise be described in this staff report, the proposed project, subject to the conditions of approval, complies with the ordinances and policies of the City of Bakersfield.
VTTM 7451
VTTM 7451
Table A. Deviation Requests
REQUEST
(BMC - Bakersfield Municipal Code
and Subdivision Design Manual)
BMC/ Subdivision Design Manual Section APPLICANT’S
REASON/JUSTIFICATION
STAFF COMMENT/
RECOMMENDATION
1) Request a storm drain that
collects runoff from Olive Drive to
be routed through Lot 116 of Phase
1. Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual ref 3.10. Storm Drain.
This configuration is
necessary to properly
capture runoff from Olive
Drive, which slopes to
the west. The current
project conditions do not
provide adequate space
for a temporary sump,
and routing the storm
drain from the west side
of the tract to the east
and then back to the
west is not feasible.
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
2) Request Alignment Criteria for
Streets: Request a 300 -foot radius
on a local street Walnut Heaven
Avenue where 500 feet is required.
Subdivision and Engineering Design Manual ref 5.4.2.1.b.
Alignment Criteria for Streets. Minimum centerline radius of horizontal curvature shall be as follows:
a. Expressways/Arterials/ Collectors - 2000 feet or greater b. Local or Industrial Streets - 500 feet
c. Tangent distance between horizontal curves shall be a minimum of 400 feet on Major Streets and 200 feet on Local Streets.
d. Exceptions to the above minimums will be considered by the City Engineer when topography or other conditions warrant, within the following limits:
The proposed request is
due to street
configuration of the site
along the restricted
subdivision boundaries.
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 5
The following considerations shall apply to Local Streets when considering the above exceptions:
1. The central angle (delta) does not exceed 10 degrees.
2. The street or cul-de-sac is less than 350 feet in length.
3. Parking will be removed from the street.
4. Other street or traffic control configurations which prevent attainment of a 25 mph travel speed.
5. "Broken back" or "flat back" curves with short sections of tangent (less than 200 feet) between will not be allowed.
3) Request to allow Reduction of
Lot Frontage & Lot Width for:
Phase 1-3, All Lots
BMC Section ref 16.28.170.B. Lot Frontage. All residential lots shall have a minimum street frontage of fifty-five feet except as follows:
1. The minimum street frontage for an interior one -family dwelling lot that is less than six thousand square feet in area shall be forty-five feet.
2. The minimum lot frontage for a corner lot shall be sixty feet except for a one- family dwelling lot that is less than six thousand square feet in area where it is fifty feet. For purposes of measuring frontage on a corner lot with a radius return, the distance shall be measured from the point of intersection of the extensions of the street side property line and the front property line.
Requesting reduced lot
street frontage to 40 ft
where 45 ft
minimum is required for
interior lots. Requesting
reduced lot
width to 40 ft where 55 ft
minimum is required for
interior
lots and 45 ft where 60 ft
minimum is required for
corner
lots. These reductions
allow for the creation of
smaller lot
sizes in compliance with
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
Street Centerline Radius Tangent
Expressways/Arterials 1500 feet 200 feet
Collectors 1000 feet 200 feet
Locals (see below) 300 feet 100 feet
VTTM 7451 Page 6
BMC Section 17.10. The
proposed
smaller lot sizes
accommodate higher
density within the tract
boundaries.
4) Request to allow reduction of
Lot Depth for: Phase 3, Lots 2 and
3 BMC Section ref. 16.28.170.C.2. Lot Depth. The lot depth is the length of a line that bisects a lot from a point on the front property line measured halfway between the side property lines to a point on the rear of the property. The minimum depth for residential lots shall be one hundred feet, except as follows:
1. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting agricultural or residential suburban zoned property shall be one hundred forty feet.
2. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting a freeway or railroad right -of-way shall be one hundred twenty feet.
3. The minimum depth for a one family dwelling lot in an R -2 zone shall be ninety feet except as required in subsections (C)(1) and (2).
Requesting reduced lot
depth to 95 feet
minimum where 120
feet is required for rear
abutting a railroad right
of way. The
developer is proposing to
develop a linear park
adjacent to the
railroad right of way that
is 100 feet wide. The
linear park will
serve as a large, ample
buffer between the two
residential lot’s
rear yards and the
railroad. Reduced lot
depth allows for more
lots to accommodate
higher density.
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
5) Request to allow reduction of
Lot Depth for Phases 1-3, All Lots
BMC Section ref. 16.28.170.C.3. Lot Depth. The lot depth is the length of a line that bisects a lot from a point on the front property line measured halfway between the side property lines to a point on the rear of the property. The minimum depth for residential lots shall be one hundred feet, except as follows:
Requesting reduced lot
depth to 75 feet
minimum where 90
feet is required. Note,
with the exception of a
few lots, the
majority of the lots range
from 86 to 90 feet in
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 7
1. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting agricultural or residential suburban zoned property shall be one hundred forty feet.
2. The minimum depth for a lot with a rear yard abutting a freeway or railroad right -of-way shall be one hundred twenty feet.
3. The minimum depth for a one family dwelling lot in an R -2 zone shall be ninety feet except as required in subsections (C)(1) and (2).
depth. Lots
have been configured in
a creative way to yield
higher density
through a smaller
dwelling unit subdivision.
Reduced lot depth
allows for more lots to
accommodate higher
density with public
local streets.
6) Request to allow Double
Frontage Lots for: Phase 1, Lots 93
through 120
BMC Section ref. 16.28.170.H. Double Frontage Lots . Double frontage lots having a depth less than two hundred feet will not be approved except where, as determined by the advisory agency, conditions permit no other reasonable form of platting, or where the proposed double frontage lots abut a street which functions as a major street and the advisory agency deems it to be reasonable due to such controlling factors as traffic, safety, appearance and setback. Each such lot shall have a six-foot-high masonry wall (the height shall be measured from whichever side of the wall the adjacent finished grade is higher) with landscaping (on the exterior side) installed by the subdivider adjacent to the rear property line or, where the wall and landscaping are to be maintained by a homeowners association or maintenance district installed within the street right -of-way and additional landscape easement or adjacent common lot.
Alternate wall and landscape concepts may be approved in areas where, in the opinion of the advisory agency, topographic or other physical conditions make strict adherence to this criteria undesirable. Conceptual wall and landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the advisory agency prior to filing of any final tract or final parcel map.
Lots with rear yard
adjacent to Olive Drive
will be limited by a
block wall and 12.5 foot
wide public multi-use
equestrian trail
and landscape lot. Actual
frontage will be limited
to the interior
street Acorn Valley Drive.
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 8
7) Request to allow Clear Sight
View
BMC Section ref. 17.08.175. Clear Sight View.
A. On all corner lots located on uncontrolled
intersections, no obstruction to motor vehicle driver
views in excess of three feet higher than curb flow
line grade shall be placed on any corner or reversed
corner lot within a triangular area formed by the
intersecting street curblines and a line connecting them at points sixty feet from their intersection point.
B. On all lots abutting an alley or driveway, no
obstruction to sight view shall be permitted within the triangular area formed by the alley or driveway edge and edge of the sidewalk closest to the interior property line, or the street right-of-way line in the absence of a
sidewalk, and a line connecting them at points ten feet from their intersecting point.
C. Motor vehicle driver site distance at controlled
intersections shall be maintained in accord with the following design standards:
Design speed (mph) 20 30 40 50 60
Minimum corner
intersection sight
distance (feet)
200 300 400 500 600
Corner sight distance measured from a point of the minor road at least fifteen feet from the edge of the major road pavement and measured from a height of eye of three and three-
quarters feet on the minor road to a height of object of four and one-half feet on the major road. The location of the object to the left of the minor street is to be measured at twelve feet from the nearside edge of the major road with parking or six feet from the nearside edge of the major road without
parking. The location of the object to the right of the minor All corner lots as
proposed will comply
with clear sight lines.
After tentative map
approval, the developer
will provide lot
plots with floor plans for
clear line of sight
approval from the
Building Department.
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
VTTM 7451 Page 9
road is to be measured at one-half the major street width plus three feet from the nearest edge of the major road.
8) Request to allow traffic calming
measures installed on block
lengths for local streets
BMC Section ref. 5.2.6.6. Block Lengths. Block lengths for Local Streets are measured from street intersection to street intersection.
a. The maximum block length for low traffic volume streets (less than 750 ADT) is 600 feet.
b. The maximum block length for medium traffic volumes
streets (less than 1500 ADT) is 800 feet.
Requesting traffic
calming measures
installed on block lengths
for local streets
exceeding 800 feet in
length. The proposed
traffic calming measures
will be incorporated per
the neotraditional
neighborhood design for
Birchbend St., Linden
Hill St., and Elm Ridge St.
that are each 1,075 feet
in
length. Due to the nature
of the small lots within
the
subdivision, requesting a
deviation from the
Standard ST-15
with a modified version
that is feasible to
accommodate
driveways and street
parking for 40 foot wide
lot widths.
City staff has
reviewed and does
not object.
APPROVE
VTTM 7451
Circulation. Access to this subdivision would be from Firridge Way (local) on the subdivision's east boundary and from Poplar Spring Avenue (local) on the south.
Park Land In- Lieu Fees/Dedication. North of the River provides park and recreational services to the project site. The nearest NOR park is Austin Creek Park located approximately one mile south of the project site.
In addition, the tract will provide a public park in Lot C, Phase 3, on 0.72 acres. Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall satisfy applicable park land dedication requirements and enter into an agreement with the North of the River Recreation and Park District to implement Conditions No. 17-20.
Mineral Rights. The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission approve waiver of mineral rights signatures on the final map pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 A.1 as the party’s right of surface entry has been waived by recorded document prior to recordation of any final map. Staff has received evidence of surface waiver; therefore, the final map shall have a statement indicating the mineral owner’s name and nature of his or her interest. Nonetheless, should ownership change, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that prior to recordation of the first final map, the subdivider shall provide evidence verifying surface waiver from mineral interests otherwise the subdivider must return for a public hearing for a revised tentative map before the P lanning Commission in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve waiver of these signatures on the final map, subject to the condition.
The applicant submitted a letter stating that the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Geologic Energy Management (CalGEM). There is one known well on the property and active operator of record. If a well is uncovered, the subdivider must co nsult with CalGEM regarding proper abandonment of the well, in accordance with the municipal code (Condition 25).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
Based upon an initial study, Staff determined the proposed project, with mitigation, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The MND was circulated for public and agency review from February 5, 2026 to March 9, 2026. The following special studies were submitted: biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, and air quality analysis. The list of mitigation measures has been updated on the attached Initial Study and in the list of conditions in response to comments submitted on the project.
Comments Received. Three letters related to the proposed MND were received by staff. Respectively from The Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Sierra Club, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) [Letter dated February 10, 2026]. DTSC submitted comments requesting:
1. Because the site has been historically used for agricultural purposes, the project should evaluate potential soil contamination from pesticides, organochlorine pesticides, arsenic, petroleum products, and other contaminants that may be associated with prior agricultural activities.
VTTM 7451
2. Recommended that any imported soil or fill material be tested and documented to ensure it meets applicable screening levels and is suitable for residential use.
3. Recommendations and any necessary sampling, analysis, or mitigation measures be incorporated into the environmental review process for the project.
Trinity Consultants has addressed the DTSC comments in their letter:
1. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments were conducted for the project site and did not identify contaminants at the level of concern associated with prior agricultural uses.
2. No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified on the project site.
3. If any soil or fill material is imported to the site, documentation of the origin of the material will be provided to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil or fill material to the site.
Sierra Club (Letter dated March 9, 2026). The Sierra Club submitted comments requesting:
1. The MND does not sufficiently evaluate impacts related to affordable housing, air quality, biological resources, farmland, greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative effects.
2. The Project’s location in an area of pollution, proximity to sensitive receptors, lack of analysis regarding Valley Fever, reliance on regional air quality thresholds, deferred biological surveys, and inadequate evaluation of cumulative impacts.
3. The MND should adopt a net zero threshold for air pollution impacts.
4. An inadequate analysis was conducted of sensitive receptors.
5. The cumulative analysis is defective.
Trinity Consultants, Inc. has addressed the Sierra Club comments in their letter:
1. The project complies with applicable CEQA requirements, air quality thresholds, and adopted local and state planning documents. Therefore, the Project’s air quality and greenhouse gas impacts were determined to be less than significant or adequately mitigated.
2. The Project’s emissions were quantified and found to be below SJVAPCD significance thresholds, and additional mitigation measures, cumulative project lists, or a Developer Mitigation Contract with the Air District were not required.
3. The project incorporates features intended to reduce emissions, including an all -electric residential development without natural gas connections, native and drought tolerant landscaping, and additional greenhouse gas mitigation measures incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration as measures GHG-1 through GHG-9.
4. The project is consistent with statewide greenhouse gas reduction strategies and adopted plans.
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) [Letter dated March 9, 2026]. CPUC submitted comments requesting:
1. The residential development would increase pedestrian and vehicular activity near the BNSF rail corridor and nearby at-grade crossings, potentially creating additional safety impacts.
VTTM 7451
2. The City evaluates and considers improvements and mitigation measures at the Kratzmeyer/Olive Road crossing area to address increased traffic and bring the crossing up to current standards.
3. If future roadway connections are proposed to Reina Road, the Reina Road at -grade crossing should be evaluated for potential safety improvements and mitigation measures.
Trinity Consultants and the applicant have addressed the CPUC comments in their letters:
1. The Kern Council of Governments Phase 8 Community Prosperity Protection Study identifies potential roadway improvements along Santa Fe Way and Kratzmeyer Road intended to reduce freight traffic through populated areas of Bakersfield.
2. The proposed improvements would provide additional north-south and east-west transportation connections, reduce conflicts between freight and passenger vehicles, and divert truck traffic away from sensitive receptors such as schools and residences.
3. Proposed transportation projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy include modifications to existing systems and grade crossings, and Kern COG will continue coordinating with local agencies to ensure future transportation improvements are consistent with regional and local planning efforts.
4. The CPUC comments did not identify any unavoidable impacts or object to approval of the project or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
5. Any future rail crossing improvements would be addressed through future engineering review, City conditions of approval, and coordination with BNSF Railway and CPUC.
Please refer to the attached correspondence for additional details.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in 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 additional written public comments have been received.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consistency with General Plan and Zoning Ordinance . The applicant has requested approval of VTTM 7451 (Phased) to subdivide 40.77 acres into 313 buildable lots, 1 multi-use trail lot, and 1 park lot ranging in size from 3,440 s.f. to 3,600 s.f. on property designated LR and HMR in a R-2 zone. The purpose of this request is to facilitate future residential development on an infill site. The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan, which encourages continuity o f existing development and allows incremental expansion of infrastructure. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and any future development onsite will also be required to comply with all applicable regulations and design standards as identified in the Zoning Ordinance.
VTTM 7451
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the existing land use designation and land uses in the surrounding area. Staff finds the proposed subdivision is reasonable and the request to w aive mineral rights is consistent with BMC Section 16.20.060 A.1. Based on information in the record, Staff recommends your Commission adopt the Resolution and findings APPROVING Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased) as outlined in this staff report subject to the recommended conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Map Set
• Aerial
• Zone Classification
• General Plan Designation
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 (Phased)
Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments
Correspondence
Planning Commission Draft Resolution