City council holds workshop on Bakersfield 2045; staff endorses Alternative 4 and council raises equity and industrial‑use concerns

City planning staff and consultants presented land‑use alternatives for the Bakersfield 2045 General Plan at the Oct. 9 council meeting and asked councilmembers for feedback on a preferred framework staff labeled "Alternative 4." "Alternate 4 is our preferred alternative to be included in part of the general plan," Development Services Director Phil Burns told the council.

Consultant Dela Acosta summarized the project's public‑engagement program (pop‑ups in all seven council wards, focus groups, online mapping) and explained the process: finalize existing conditions, set a vision, develop alternatives, then create policies and later implementation‑level zoning. She cautioned the metrics included in the report are estimates based on identified land and realistic capacity assumptions, and that actual build‑out will depend on market interest and site conditions.

Acosta and the consultant team walked the council through focus areas where staff identified potential change — including Downtown/Old Town Kern, CSU Bakersfield, the Rosedale Corridor, Gosford Southwest, Greater City in the Hills, Brundage Lane and the MLK/Brundage Corridor — and highlighted components of Alternative 4: expanded mixed‑use corridors, enhanced transit accessibility, a research/technology overlay near CSUB and downtown, and some conversions of industrial land to office or mixed use.

Public commenters urged attention to environmental justice and neighborhood impacts. "Residents in these communities have been historically left out of very important processes," Sandra Melgoza Placentia, policy advocate with the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, told the council. She said several neighborhoods in the MLK/Brundage/Old Town Kern focus areas face high pollution burdens and recommended limiting warehouses, liquor and smoke shops while facilitating grocery stores, medical facilities, parks and safe routes to school. Melgoza cited Government Code 65302.10 and state legislation ("SB 244" as cited in the record) to argue the city must consider disadvantaged communities' infrastructure needs when updating the land‑use element.

Wendell Wesley Jr., another public commenter, warned about the social and resource stresses of very dense, large apartment complexes and suggested the city explore acquiring and rehabilitating abandoned homes for affordable ownership or nonprofit use.

During council discussion, Council Member Arias said she generally agreed with the public commenters’ priority for the MLK/Brundage corridor and asked staff to review parcels that remain industrial within the city and nearby county pockets. Staff noted some parcels were not changed because they lie outside city jurisdiction and that parts of the area are subject to an airport compatibility overlay that constrains residential use.

Council Member Freeman expressed strong support for flexibility near Cal State Bakersfield and asked whether the general‑plan land‑use work would be followed by zoning changes; staff said implementation and zoning would come later. Freeman also raised long‑range concerns about flight paths and the risks of placing residential development under airports.

Vice Mayor Gonzales thanked staff for prior briefings, said she supported Alternative 4, and reiterated the council’s goal to increase downtown residential population over time. Councilmembers did not adopt a final map at the meeting; staff sought direction and community input to refine Alternative 4 before next steps including drafting implementing policies and later zoning changes.