Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies appeal, upholds Planning Commission on Taft Highway zone change; environmental concerns raised by opponents
Summary
The council denied an appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission’s approval of a general‑plan amendment and zone change for a 2.63‑acre parcel at Taft Highway and Michelle Street, while opponents argued the change requires an environmental impact report because it could enable future commercial uses with air‑quality and biological impacts.
The Bakersfield City Council on May 28 denied an appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s March recommendation to approve a general‑plan amendment and zone change for roughly 2.63 acres at the northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michelle Street.
The application, filed by LAV Pinnacle Consulting and Engineering on behalf of the Fred G. Jimmy Neehan 2008 Living Trust, proposed consolidating split land‑use and zoning designations on the parcel and reclassifying 1.19 acres of agricultural zoning to C‑2 regional commercial so the property would be a single commercial parcel.
Phil Burns, the city’s Development Services director, told council the change would align the parcel’s zoning with neighboring commercial uses and that any future development would require separate site‑plan review, municipal‑code compliance and environmental review as appropriate.
Opponents represented by the firm Lizelle Drury LLP and the Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) urged the council to require a full environmental impact report (EIR). Attorney Kyla Staley argued that the general‑plan amendment and zone change create “reasonably foreseeable and indirect changes to the physical environment” and presented consultant analyses that, in her view, showed the mitigated negative declaration (MND) underestimates potential air‑quality impacts (including diesel particulate matter and valley fever exposure) and biological impacts such as habitat fragmentation and vehicle‑wildlife collisions.
Staff and the applicant argued the project is a procedural rezoning to consolidate existing designations; staff prepared a blue memo responding to a 315‑page comment letter and concluded the MND and proposed mitigations are sufficient to reduce impacts to less‑than‑significant levels.
Outcome: Council member Bashir Tash moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval; the motion passed. The clerk recorded that the motion was approved (with Council member Adias absent).
What to watch: any future development on the site will require project‑level environmental and site plan review that must address air‑quality, biological and traffic impacts per municipal and state environmental rules. SAFER’s request for an EIR was denied by the council; the record shows the city prepared an MND and a detailed response to commenter materials.
