Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gpa Zonechange 24 0003 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission refers proposed general‑plan amendment and rezoning back to staff after mineral‑rights, CEQA concerns
Summary
The commission closed the public hearing on a request to amend 77.3 acres from SR to LR and rezone from estate to R‑1, and voted to refer the item back to staff after a late attorney letter raised deficiencies in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and notice to mineral owners.
The Planning Commission on July 16 referred a proposed general plan amendment and zone change (GPA/zone change 24‑0003) for roughly 77.3 acres north of Snow Road back to staff after a late legal submission raised questions about mineral‑rights notice and the adequacy of the environmental review.
Assistant planner Yazid Alugheri summarized the request as a change from SR (suburban residential) and estate zoning to LR (low density residential) and R‑1 single‑family zoning, which would allow up to an estimated 469 single‑family homes. Staff recommended approval in the staff report.
Blaine Neptune of McIntosh and Associates, the applicant’s consultant, told the commission the project implements the Bakersfield RISE general plan and housing element and proposed buffers and retention basins to address neighbors’ concerns.
During public comment, attorney Maureen Bright, representing mineral‑interest holders including Crimson Resource Management, argued the Mitigated Negative Declaration relied on two unsupportable assumptions: that a recorded waiver of surface access rights existed and that horizontal drilling would preserve access to minerals. Bright said mineral owners were not notified as required and presented declarations claiming that horizontal drilling was not feasible at this site; she urged the commission to deny the MND and require a full Environmental Impact Report.
Other opponents raised concerns about traffic, groundwater and schools; environmental groups said the MND failed to adequately address greenhouse gases, hazardous materials, biological resources and indoor air quality.
Given the attorney submission received the same day, staff and the applicant asked for time to review. Sabrina Teller, counsel for the applicant, said the team preferred a near‑term continuance so it could respond to the new material. Commissioners voted to close the hearing and refer the item back to staff to provide additional analysis and response. The referral passed with Vice Chair Martin and Commissioner Strickland absent.
Next steps: staff will review the attorney materials, add mineral‑interest holders to future notices, and prepare a response packet and recommendation for a future hearing; the commission did not take a final vote on the general plan amendment or rezoning at this meeting.
