YA: S:\03_Advance Planning\01_GPAs\01_Active\2024\24-0372_9600 Michele st\01_Hearing Documents & Noticing Documents\PC
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2025 AGENDA CATEGORY: 5.c.
TO: Chair Cater and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennie Eng, Assistant Planning Director
DATE: March 14, 2025
WARD: 7
FILE: General Plan Amendment and Zone Change No. 24-0372 STAFF PLANNER: Yazid Alawgarey, Assistant Planner
REQUEST: (1) General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from GC (General Commercial) and SR (Suburban Residential) to GC (General Commercial ); and (2) Zone Change to amend the zone classification from C-2 (Regional Commercial) and A (Agricultural) to C -2 (Regional Commercial) zone on approximately 2.63 acres.
APPLICANT: LAV//Pinnacle Consulting & Engineering OWNER: Fred Giminiani 2008 Living Trust Scott Quintana 128 New Towne St
13061 Rosedale Highway, Suite G199 Bakersfield, CA 93312 Bakersfield, CA 93312
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Taft Highway and Michele Street
APN: 514-060-27
PROJECT SIZE: 2.63 Acres CEQA: Mitigated Negative Declaration
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GC (General Commercial), and SR (Suburban Residential) EXISTING ZONE CLASSIFICATION: C-2 (Regional Commercial), and A (Agricultural)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from GC and SR to GC; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING amending the zone classification from C-2 and A to C-2 and recommend the same to City Council.
File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is currently an undeveloped parcel. Surrounding properties are primarily developed as: north – undeveloped land (County of Kern); east and south – developed with auto and truck fueling stations and convenience markets; and west – West Branch Canal and a single -family residence (County of Kern).
BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE:
• January 28, 1998 -– City Council approved the pre-zoning of the project site and other parcels within the City’s sphere of influence as part of the 2010 Bakersfield General Plan update (Ordinance 3819).
• November 21, 2017 - The project site, as one of six parcels, was annexed into the City of Bakersfield as part of Annexation No. 654 (Michele No. 1) (City Council Resolution No. 003 -17) (LAFCo Resolution No. 17-12).
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change (“GPA/ZC”). The proposed request is a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from (GC) General Commercial and (SR) Suburban Residential to (GC) General Commercial on 0.37 acres, and a Zone Change to amend the existing zone from (C -2) Regional Commercial and (A) Agricultural to (C -2) Regional Commercial on 1.19 acres, within portions of the existing 2.63-acre parcel.
The proposed request is for plan consistency bringing the general plan land use designation and zoning to be consistent within the parcel itself and adjacent parcels. The existing parcel includes multiple land use and zoning designations, of which commercial designations cover the majority. This GPA/ZC application proposes to eliminate the split designations to result in a 2.63-acre, C-2 commercial parcel. There are no current plans to develop the project site. All future developments will be analyzed for municipal and CEQA compliance which will require a sewer study and a drainage study to retain drainage on site.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DETERMINATION:
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Staff prepared an initial study to review the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Initial Study was based on the Biological Resources Study only.
The Initial Study determined that compliance with recommended mitigation measures, local ordinances, state laws, and construction to the standards of the Uniform Building Codes will reduce impacts to a less- than- significant level. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA. The MND was circulated for a 30 -day public and agency review period from December 30,2024 to January 28, 2025 (SCH No. 2024121189).
Comments Received. As of this writing, two comment letters were received from Kern Delta Water District and Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), in response to the Initial Study. Kern Delta Water District comments state the y would like to be kept informed on any development as the property boarders its Branch One Canal. SAFER submitted a 168 - page response in opposition of the MND. Staff requested the applicant to provide a response to the comments but as of t he writing of this report, staff has not received any responses from the applicant.
Staff responses to the comments submitted by SAFER are as follows:
File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
1. Comment: There is a fair argument that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have a Cumulatively Significant Air Quality Impact.
Response: As there is no proposed project to be developed at this time, there is no air quality impact. The applicant will comply with all CEQA and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements at the time of development.
2. Comment: The IS/MND does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate potential impacts from Valley Fever.
Response: There is no evidence on the record that indicates that a threshold has been identified to analyze for Valley Fever.
3. Comment: The IS/MND does not disclose, analyze, or mitigate potential emissions from Toxic Air Contaminants.
Response: As there is no proposed project to be developed at this time, there is no air quality study requested. The applicant will comply with all CEQA and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requirements at the time of development.
4. Comment: There are several special status species present on the Project site.
Response: The Biologist report prepared did not locate any endangered species but advised that additional surveys prior to implementation ground disturbance should be conducted. A new survey will be required when development on the site is proposed.
5. Comment: The City does not have substantial evidence to support its conclusions that impacts to biological resources are less than significant.
Response: The Biologist report concluded that the project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by State or federal endangered species regulations. Therefore, the project impacts are less than significant.
6. Comment: There are several unstudied impacts from the project on biological resources.
Response: The Biological Study was compiled by a qualified party and future developments are required to abide by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) polices.
7. Comment: The IS/MND improperly concludes that there are no cumulative impacts to biological resources.
Response: See response to comment #6.
8. Comment: The IS/MND mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Response: The Biologist Survey concludes that Mitigation measures ensure a new survey to be File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
conducted prior to obtaining grading permits. All future developments are required to abide by CEQA, USFWS, and CDFW polices.
9. Comment: An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant effects.
Response: Staff has completed an initial study and has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration would reduce impacts to a less -than significant level. Per CEQA, if a project will not result in potentially significant adverse effects to the environment, and MND is sufficient. This project removes inconsistent zoning and land use designations from a predominantly commercial parcel only. There are no significant adverse effects to the environment as described in the MND.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Public notice for the proposed project and environmental determination was advertised in The Bakersfield Californian and posted on the bulletin board in the City of Bakersfield Development Services Building, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California. All property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by United States Postal Service mail regarding th is public hearing in accordance with city ordinance and state law. Additionally, a public hearing notice was issued via email to all interested parties that submitted written comments.
Comments Received. As of this writing, no written comments have been received in response to the notice of public hearing.
Tribal Consultation. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 18, a letter was sent by staff on November 22, 2024, to inform the American Indian Tribes about the proposed project and its site location. This notification marks the initiation of the 90 -day consultation period mandated by SB 18. At present, no request for tribal consultation has been received.
COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS:
Compatibility with Land Use Element. Staff has reviewed the proposal for compatibility with the applicable goals and policies contained within the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Land Use Element and finds the following:
• Goal 1: Accommodate new development which captures the economic demands generated by the marketplace and establishes Bakersfield’s role as the capital of the southern San Joaquin Valley.
The site shall provide additional commercial services similar to its neighboring parcels.
• Goal 3: Accommodate new development which is compatible with and complements existing land uses.
The project site is consistent with this goal by providing additional commercial services to both its local population as well as travelers passing through Bakersfield.
• Policy 75: Provide adequate land area for the expansion of existing uses and development of new uses consistent with the policies of the general plan.
File No. GPA/ZC 24-0372
The project site is located on existing commercial land near commercial and industrial uses .
Therefore, adequate land is available for the project, and the project expands existing commercial land uses at a different density. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy.
CONCLUSIONS:
Consistency with Surrounding Development. The project would provide for additional commercial development in the area.
Consistency with General Plan/Zoning Ordinance . The proposal is consistent with land use goals and policies as contained in the General Plan related to commercial development, as noted above. Should the applicant submit site development plans, they will be reviewed for compliance with requirements and regulations as set forth in the Bakersfield Municipal Code Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) and City Development Standards.
Recommendation. Staff finds that the applicable provisions of CEQA have been complied with, and the proposal is compatible with the surrounding area, land use designation, and zoning ordinance.
Therefore, staff recommends your Commission: (1) Adopt Resolution ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (2) adopt Resolution APPROVING general plan amendment to change the land use designation from GC and SR to GC ; and (3) adopt Resolution APPROVING amending the zone classification from C-2 and A to C -2, and recommends the same to City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Map Set
• GPA/ZC Aerial
• GPA/ZC Zone Classification
• GPA/ZC General Plan Designation
Attachment B: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Attachments Attachment C: Planning Commission Draft Resolutions
• Adopt MND with Attachments
• Approve GPA with Attachments
• Approve ZC with Attachments
Attachment D: MESA Biological Study
Attachment E: Comments to MND