Cities Index.
07_Correspondence.pdf

Bakersfield City Council
September 16, 2026

Document
07_Correspondence.pdf
Meeting
September 16, 2026
Body
Bakersfield City Council
Pages
3
Original file
12.9 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on pub-bakersfield.escribemeetings.com. That file is the official record.

City of Bakersfield
Planning Division
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Response to CPUC Comment Letter – Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 SCH No. 2026020227
Dear Ms. Martinez,
On behalf of the Applicant for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451, we appreciate the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) review of the proposed project and acknowledge the comments provided in the March 9, 2026 correspondence regarding the nearby BNSF railway crossings.

The Applicant and project team recognize the importance of maintaining safe multimodal circulation within the project vicinity and appreciate the CPUC’s coordination throughout the environmental review process. The comments provided by the Rail Crossings Engineering Branch do not identify any unavoidable impacts associated with the project, nor do they object to approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map or the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Rather, the letter recommends that the City eval uate future crossing improvements and consider appropriate mitigation measures as development occurs within the surrounding area.

The proposed project is consistent with the City of Bakersfield General Plan and the City’s established residential growth policies by providing orderly urban development adjacent to existing infrastructure and planned circulation improvements. The project has been designed in coordination with City staff and incorporates roadway, pedestrian, and utility improvements that will improve circulation and connectivity in the area while contributing needed housing inventory within the City limits.

As acknowledged in the CPUC letter, any future rail crossing improvements would be subject to separate engineering analysis, coordination with BNSF Railway, and authorization through CPUC General Order 88-B processes. The project Applicant understands and accepts that future public infrastructure improvements may be required as development progresses in the area and that such improvements can appropriately be addressed through the City’s standard conditions of approval, future capital improvement programming, fair-share impact fee programs, or future improvement plans as determined by the City Engineer.

P.O. Box 21687, Bakersfield, CA 93390 P. 661-834-4814 F. 661-834-0972 The Applicant further notes that the CPUC comments are largely precautionary and forward-looking in nature. The letter recommends evaluation of potential measures such as signalization, pedestrian improvements, lighting, and fencing, but does not conclude that the existing crossings are unsafe or incapable of serving the proposed project. Any future traffic increases associated with the project can be adequately addressed through the City’s established development review and traffic mitigation framework.

The project also supports several important City objectives, including:
• Expansion of the City’s housing supply through development of 313 residential lots within an urbanized area;
• Efficient use of existing public infrastructure and roadway networks; • Implementation of planned circulation improvements consistent with the General Plan;
• Promotion of walkability and multimodal connectivity through sidewalks, trails, and neighborhood street systems; and
• Orderly growth patterns that reduce pressure for leapfrog development outside the City’s planned service areas.

The Applicant remains committed to working collaboratively with the City of Bakersfield, CPUC staff, BNSF Railway, and other responsible agencies during future engineering and improvement plan phases to ensure all applicable safety standards and regulatory requirements are satisfied.

Based on the foregoing, the CPUC correspondence does not present substantial evidence of a significant unavoidable environmental impact and does not alter the conclusions of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The comments can be adequately addressed throu gh existing City conditions of approval and future engineering review processes. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the City continue to support approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 7451 and certification/adoption of the associated environmental document.

Sincerely,

Blaine Neptune, President
McIntosh Engineering Group

← All documents from this meeting