Planning commission approves three-year extension for 83‑lot Bakersfield tract map

Bakersfield, Calif. — The City of Bakersfield Planning Commission on Jan. 16 voted to extend by three years the approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 7397, a previously approved subdivision that allows 83 single-family lots and a drainage sump on 19.98 acres south of Highway 178 west of Comanche Drive.

The extension — the first of up to six additional years permitted under the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance — was approved after staff recommended the three-year extension with no changes to the original conditions. "Staff recommends approval of the extension of time for three years, to expire Dec. 15, 2027, with no changes to the previously approved conditions of approval," planning staff said during the hearing.

Why it matters: The extension preserves the developer's existing map approval while the developer delays construction, citing economic and supply-chain challenges. Nearby residents raised safety, nuisance and infrastructure concerns that commissioners asked staff and the applicant to monitor during the extension period.

Staff presentation and recommendation

Planning staff summarized the request as a three-year extension for VTTM 7397 due to market conditions, supply-chain issues and high interest costs that have delayed the developer's next steps. Staff told the commission that the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance allow the commission to grant extensions of time and noted city practice of granting extensions in three-year increments. Two letters with concerns had been submitted and staff included summaries and responses in the staff report.

Public comment and concerns

Three members of the public and a developer representative spoke during the item. Chris (last name not provided), a nearby landowner, said the slope above his property is "so steep that when I try to walk up the hill ... I slip and slide" and expressed concern that heavy rain or erosion could cause slope failure. Marv Davison, who identified himself as a neighbor and said he is president of the Palm Mutual Water District, also urged a "substantial retaining wall" to manage the steep slope, asked that weeds and tumbleweeds be managed to reduce fire risk, and raised concerns about water pressure for homes at higher elevations. Cindy Parham, representing the developer, said the parcel is "untouched" since earlier approvals and that the developer has no timetable to start construction; she said the developer is "aware of the slope" and "agreed that there needs to be a retaining wall."

Commissioner questions and staff responses

Commissioners asked whether the commission could add new conditions (for example, requiring retaining-wall drawings) as part of the extension. Planning staff replied that because there have been "no substantial changes to the map that was approved," the commission was only extending the map's life and could not impose new approval conditions at this time; any design details or new conditions would be reviewed when the developer returns with active development proposals. Staff also noted city design standards require consideration of retaining features when grade changes exceed two feet.

Action and outcome

Commissioner Bridal moved to approve the three-year extension; Commissioner Martin seconded. The motion passed. The clerk recorded the outcome as "Motion passes with Commissioner Neal absent." No abstentions were recorded in the transcript.

Next steps and other notes

Staff told neighbors the staff report and responses to submitted letters are available and offered to provide copies. Staff also advised that code-enforcement action is complaint-driven and provided instructions for filing service requests on the city website. The developer has no timeline for construction; any required retaining walls, utility upgrades or other design work will be set when a developer returns with active applications.

Votes at a glance

- Extension of time for VTTM 7397 (83 single-family lots on 19.98 acres): Approved (motion moved by Commissioner Bridal; seconded by Commissioner Martin). Vote recorded as passed; Commissioner Neal absent.