Over the objections of several local property owners, the Bakersfield Planning Commission voted 7-0 Thursday evening to “pre-zone” four portions of Kern County for residential development in advance of a decision by a separate agency on whether to make the areas part of the city.
The move is intended to meet state requirements that cities make room for single- and multifamily residential development to help address a statewide housing shortage. The commission’s action would have to be approved by the City Council before staff’s annexation proposal goes to the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Staff said the pre-zoning process, along with related amendments to Bakersfield’s General Plan, was driven by property owners in the affected areas. But no one spoke in favor of the proposal during a late afternoon public hearing, while at least eight people who testified against it raised concerns ranging from the plan’s potential to lower property values and rule out certain business projects, to increased traffic and a lack of government transparency on the matter.
The proposed annexation would not necessarily lead to the kind of low-, medium- and high-density housing laid out in the city’s project report. Even so, Bakersfield and other cities are required to take steps toward allowing such construction or face possible penalties from Sacramento.
If Kern LAFCO later decides not to permit Bakersfield to annex any or all the county areas proposed to join the city, then any related pre-zoning done prior to that time would not take effect.
LAFCO’s executive director, Blair Knox, said by email Thursday he has heard from city staff that the project is underway but that he has received no specific information about Bakersfield’s annexation proposal.
Two of the areas tentatively approved for pre-zoning Thursday are located along northwest Bakersfield: nine parcels comprising 208 acres near Zerker and 7th Standard roads, and eight parcels covering 89 acres around Snow Road and Calloway Drive.
Additionally, the commission moved to pre-zone 17 parcels comprising 275 acres near Pacheco and Cottonwood roads in southeast Bakersfield. The largest of the four areas is southwest of Bakersfield: 31 parcels stretching over 1,020 acres close to Taft Highway and Gosford Road.
In general, the pre-zoning process would designate what is now agricultural, suburban residential or commercial property to instead house residential projects of various densities or, in some cases, open space.
Staff reported the areas were pre-zoned in the 1990s in preparation for eventual annexation by the city. In that sense, Thursday’s proceedings were an update to that stalled process, while also representing a response to the wishes of property owners who staff did not identify.
City Planning Director Paul Johnson told the commission more than 2,500 housing units were built in 2021, which easily exceeded annual totals in recent years before and since. But in order to satisfy the state Regional Housing Needs Allocation mandate, he reported, the Kern Council of Governments has called for developing 37,461 additional units during the next eight years.
Local developer Tom Dee was the first to speak in opposition, saying his company has spent $15 million — and expects to spend $30 million more — building a gated community on 14 acres near Calloway and Snow. With construction well along, he said residential development at the density outlined by the city could make it hard for him to qualify for financing to complete the job.
“I don’t think that the (proposed) zoning standards and the county standards … will be compatible,” he said.
Another property owner that could be affected by the pre-zoning plan, Gurinder Kaur, told the commission she bought commercially zoned property in 2017 at 4700 Cottonwood Road thinking it might be suitable for a metal working shop. Now, because of a zoning change proposed by the city, she said, her hard work and savings may be on the line.
Prior to the vote to send the proposal to the City Council, some commissioners voiced empathy for worried property owners. Among them was Commissioner Cassie Bittle, who noted it was unusual to see so many people show up to a meeting of the Planning Commission.
She agreed with some of the opponents who said the city should do more to reach out to property owners affected by the pre-zoning proceedings, adding that it’s “important to get public input and to get all of these things worked out.” She told the audience she supports the annexation nonetheless.
“I know it’s scary being out in the county and seeing the city get closer to you,” she said. “But it’s been happening for years.”
