Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Amen.

Welcome to the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission meeting. This television broadcast is brought to you by the local cable companies, the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield. You can watch the rebroadcast of this meeting Saturday at 7 p.m. and Sunday at 10 a.m. The agenda for this meeting can be downloaded at www.bakersfieldcity.us. presiding over this evening meeting, Vice Chair Cassie Biddle.

It is my pleasure to call to order the November 20th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Madam Clerk, will you call the roll, please?

Chair Strickland. Vice Chair Biddle.

Here.

Commissioner Brent Oliver. Here. Commissioner Cater.

Here.

Commissioner Kaur. Commissioner Martin? Commissioner Neal? Here.

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Bear with me, I'm obviously the Vice Chair. Adam's out of town today. Okay.

Madam Clerk, next item please. Madam Chair, just for the record, Commissioner Martin is now here and it's 5.31.

Perfect. Madam Clerk, next item please.

Public statements.

Public statements are now received at different times depending on the item. I will call on Madam Clerk to call for public statements at the appropriate time. So please listen carefully for the correct time to speak. Does anybody in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items not listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please come forward and state your name. Does anyone in the audience wish to address the commission regarding items listed on tonight's agenda? If you are here for non-consent public hearing item 6A, now is not the time to speak. You will be given an opportunity to speak at a later time. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, next item please.

Agenda item four, consent calendar items.

All matters listed under the consent count or consent items do not require a public hearing and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on said items unless staff or a commissioner requests specific items to be discussed and are removed for separate action. May I get a motion to approving consent item 4A?

So moved.

Commissioner Neal, can I get a second?

Yes, second.

Commissioner Oliver.

Can I get a vote? Yeah.

Motion passes with Chair Strickland and Commissioner Kaur absent.

Madam Clerk, next item please.

Agenda item five, consent calendar public hearing items.

Now is the time for consent calendar public hearing items. If the item is not removed by a commissioner, staff, or a member of the public, the commission will vote on all items in one motion without further comment. If an item is removed, it will be placed at the end of the non-consent public hearing items. At this time, I will open all of the consent calendar public hearing items. Does any member of the public wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item? Will you please come up and state your name? Or do we have to do that?

Virgil Miller.

Is it just removed until the end? Do you know which item you want to remove?

Yes, item number 25-0023.

That would be. That's 5C, 5C.

Excuse me, can I ask a question? Our screen is not showing that it was moved down to the non-consent calendar. So I just want to be clear what we're voting on, on our screen.

Okay, so the.

Does that make sense?

You mean that we're pulling item 5C?

Yeah.

Yes, but when Commissioner Biddle read it, she read that there was already a number six item.

Oh, no, no, that was a mistake. There is no six.

There is no item six, yes. Okay, so I was confused. So now that item is being taken off the consent. Okay, thank you. Correct, yes.

So we're moving item 5C for a regular hearing.

Okay, so I don't need to do this.

Did we get his name? Okay.

Were there any other? Does any commissioner or staff wish to remove a consent calendar public hearing item?

Okay, so staff, so, no.

At this time, the consent calendar public hearing items not removed are now closed. May I get a motion to adopt staff's recommendation on the consent calendar public hearing items not removed incorporating all staff memorandum and revised staff recommendations?

So moved.

Commissioner Martin? A second by Commissioner Cater.

Please cast your votes. And to clarify, you are voting on 5A, 5B, and 5D.

Motion passes with Chair Strickland and Commissioner Kaur absent.

Madam Clerk, next item please.

Agenda item six, which is originally agenda item 5C.

Are my papers right?

Oh, OK. OK.

Now is the time for the non-consent public hearing items. Before we begin, I want to explain how the hearing will be conducted. Staff will first give a report, then those in favor of the project will be allowed to speak. Those in opposition to the project will be able to speak after all those in favor have spoken. Each side will be given five minutes to provide a rebuttal comments. Individual speakers may ask questions during their statements. but the questions will not be answered until the public hearing on that item is closed. Written comments may be given to the clerk who will provide copies to the commission. Please be respectful of others participating in the hearing by not repeating the remarks of previous speakers and presenting any new comments or thoughts in a concise and clear way. Mrs. Ng, sorry, not Mr. Johnson, would you please provide us with your staff report?

I'd like to introduce Yazeed Alogheri, a planner with our department.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Yazeed Alogheri, and I am an assistant planner with the City of Bakersfield's Development Services Department Planning Division. Agenda item 5C is Conditional Use Permit 25-0023. The applicant is JNS Health Systems, LLC. The project site is located at 12411 Riverfront Park Drive on approximately 0.24 acres. The project site is zoned R1, single unit dwelling, which permits a community care facility by right. However, facilities housing seven or more residents require a conditional use permit. The project site general plan designation is LR, low density residential. The applicant is requesting to allow a 12 bed residential care facility for the elderly by converting the interior of an existing 3,262 square foot home. The proposed project would provide a public convenience by expanding services for elderly residents, The exterior facade of the building will remain unchanged, helping to preserve the neighborhood's overall character. The project is also consistent with the intent of both the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and Bakersfield Municipal Code. The applicant has confirmed the public outreach was completed and no opposition was expressed during their open house. However, staff received 11 opposition comments beginning on Wednesday, November 12th. Staff recommend approval of the project, and that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

The public hearing is now open. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Okay, good evening commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present our elderly residential care facility project for approval. My name is Jenny Pandal and I'm here with my father and business partner, Dr. Steven Pandal, a practicing physician, and Robert Cush, our legal counsel. I would like to thank the planning staff for their hard work and analysis on this project. As for myself, I have worked as an RN for 20 years, and 15 of those years in home health. Dr. Pandal was born and raised in Kern County, and we are both business owners here. As a traveling home health nurse, I have cared for the elderly in countless residential care homes. and assisted living facilities of all sizes in several counties throughout California. Our elderly population and the cost of caring for the elderly are rising. And with the last of the baby boomers retiring, caregiving needs for the elderly are expected to increase dramatically in the next five to 25 years. The elderly generally have three choices, private in-home caregiving, a large assisted living facility, or residential care homes. We believe we can best serve the community with a residential care home where we can provide affordable and personalized care. Residential home care provides a safe environment and a high standard of care allowing seniors to age gracefully and with dignity. Being across the street from the park, we anticipate the residents having a safe place to take walks. Otherwise, you will not likely see our residents or staff that much. We chose this home in particular because of the open space across the street. We will have a chef to prepare meals, allowing our caregivers to focus on caregiving needs. Most people prefer the privacy of their own room, which is why we are taking the extra step to reconfigure the home into 10 bedrooms. We anticipate the occasional couple or friends who will have the option to share a room. The footprint of the home will not change. The garage doors will be replaced with windows and planters to blend with the landscape. A professional gardener will maintain the landscape for curb appeal and maintain the neighborhood cohesiveness. We held a neighborhood outreach on October 25th and we have received a number of public comments both in support and against the project. And we appreciate the comments and we would like to provide a brief response. Comments against the project generally concern proximity to other homes, traffic, parking, safety, noise, lighting, operational disruption, property values, and community cohesion. There is an existing ARF adult residential facility located at 12412 Monterey Beach Drive. and that's one block south of Riverfront Park Drive. And some residents on Monterey Beach Drive have expressed concerns about the proximity of the adult facility to our proposed project and the manner in which that adult facility is being managed. It is important to note that the adult facility is different than the RCFE facility and that we are subject to different regulation and zoning. A single neighborhood can have both an ARF and an RCFE located in close proximity to one another. While we understand their concerns, we have no control over how another facility is managed. And we believe that because our residents are elderly and our operations are fundamentally different, we can avoid these concerns. And we appreciate our neighbors concerns about increased traffic and parking. In general, senior housing generates fewer vehicle trips than most residential uses with different peak patterns than surrounding single family homes. Only the administrator and chef will be doing the shopping for the home like any other home. Our residents are considered homebound and will not have vehicles, nor will they be driving. Our staff will have ample parking in the driveway, and at most we will have four staff members at peak when the administrator is present. Because the house includes a side RV parking, we can accommodate a minimum of four vehicles in the driveway. Our guests visiting the residence, our residents must do so during visiting hours, and with the park across the street, we feel we have less impact if guests park on the street. Our home will not be getting any more deliveries than the typical home that receives mail, Amazon, or DoorDash deliveries. Some of the concerns are coming from residents on Monterey Beach Drive, which is a cul-de-sac, and there is really no reason for any of our staff or guests to be driving down that street. As far as noise lighting and operational disruption, our CFEs are considered to provide a quieter, more home-like environment with better staff-to-resident ratio, and this allows staff to attend to resident needs in a timely manner and avoid disturbance. We specifically chose a home where the kitchen and common areas are easily visible. We will do a thorough evaluation before accepting residents to make sure they're a good fit for a cohesive community in the home. The home will not need any outdoor lighting except for along the front walkway at night like any other home. And the residents are not leaving home at night. We are both medical professionals. My father and I understand the concern for sanitary issues. Any biohazard materials will be handled in the manner required by law. we can take the extra step of ordering extra trash containers to accommodate needs. We will be mindful of regular maintenance and neighborhood appearances. It is important to us that we contribute to a harmonious integration into the neighborhood, and we want our residents to feel that they're in a harmonious community. Condition of approval 2-6 requires applicant to take reasonable measures to minimize any disturbance to the surrounding residential community, and that is what we will do. In terms of property values, multiple studies show that RCFEs and similar facilities are associated with stable or increased market prices. The more likely cause of decreased home values are due to factors like maintenance and outdated features. a common issue with any home. We are significantly upgrading the home features and positively impacting the home value in the neighborhood. I just want to thank you again for hearing my remarks and I'm just going to ask my team if they want to add anything.

So I'm Jennifer's dad, and I just wanted to echo what she said. And we're aware that even though there's some concerns about the project, there's recognition, even within the opposition, that these kind of facilities are necessary in the community. And we totally agree with that. That's why the project's important to us.

Can you provide your name, please, for the record?

My name is Steven, S-T-P-H-E-N, Pandol, P-A-N-D-O-L. Do we have any other speakers in favor of the project?

Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition of the project? Please step to the microphone, identify yourself, and proceed.

Hi, my name is Virgil Miller. I live at 12408 Monterey Beach Drive and directly behind the proposed facility. I'm also the one that went around and gathered the petition that we submitted. So I hope you've had a chance to read all the opposition letters and emails that our neighborhood has sent you. We have provided you with the signed petition in opposition of the conditional use permit, and it was almost unanimous. We had one neighbor that was on vacation, and then the property next to the proposed facility are relatives and wouldn't answer the door, so I don't know about their opinion. And then the facility next door to me on Monterey Beach, of course, there was no one to contact. I would just like to highlight a few of the key points that was included in some of the documentation that was sent to you. There aren't any other homes in our Palisade neighborhood anywhere near the number of 10 bedrooms and four and a half baths or more. The planned outside remodel replacing the garage doors also does not match any other house in our neighborhood. I feel that several things are understated on the conditional use permit application that will impact our neighborhood, including traffic, parking, the number of workers, and the number of visitors. Based on my experience with the three-patient facility next door to us, we've had increased traffic, emergency vehicles, parking issues, additional noise, and a general disregard for the neighbors that I think will be significantly magnified when you have a 12-patient facility. They also forgot to mention that there's already a third facility, just eight houses to the east of their proposal as well. It's a six bedroom or a six patient elderly care. The proposed facility may be in violation of California Health and Safety Code 1520.5 requiring facilities to be 300 feet apart. This facility will be back-to-back with the facility on Monterey Beach. Lastly, this proposed commercial type facility would make our homes less desirable by future buyers, thus lowering our home values. If approved, it could even promote more similar facilities in our neighborhood. I strongly urge you to deny this conditional use permit, number 250023, and allow us to enjoy our neighborhood as it was originally intended, which is as single-family homes, not as a commercial business area. Thank you. Did you have any questions for me?

No. Right now is not the time for that, thank you. Do we have any other speakers in opposition of the project?

Thank you, commissioners and staff. My name is Brian Alexander. My wife and I live two doors down from the proposed facility. As I alluded to in my letter that you and staff, that gave to staff and you should have a copy of, we're not speaking against having an elderly care facility in our neighborhood. We have one, a six-bedroom facility at 12301 River Park Drive. My mother, in fact, spent the last few months of her life last year in that facility, seven doors down from what is currently being proposed. I believe they serve an excellent opportunity as an alternative to large multi-bed facilities. What we object to is a 12-bed commercial facility in a residential neighborhood. The six bedroom facility that my mother stayed in used the existing floor plan with no modifications to accommodate the residents. When the owner decides to close that facility as they get closed, they can easily resell that as a single-family residence. The proposed commercial facility plans to convert a four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bath single-family residence into a ten-bedroom, four-and-a-half-bath commercial assisted living facility, all while adding almost 800 additional square feet to the existing building. In fact, one bathroom will be equipped with two toilet stalls, normally found in commercial buildings. This facility could never be sold again as a single family residence again. It would most likely be sold as another facility. By their own submission on the floor plan, it would have an R4 high density occupancy. The applicant states that they will maintain the appearance of a single family home. and will not significantly alter the characteristics of the neighborhood. Staff said there would be no alterations to that. He just made that comment. But according to the front elevation on the drawing submitted, the two-car garage door and the single-car garage door would be replaced by three five-foot by four-foot windows, making this residence look again like a commercial project and less like a home, and making the only residence in the neighborhood not have a garage door. The applicant states the traffic will be minimal and they will no likely be more than a traditional family. The fact is that the 12 residents in this facility will represent 12 separate families, all of which can have their loved ones visit them on a daily basis. even if just some of those families visit on any given day, that would create a large amount of traffic and parking. That coupled with the workers, the daily visits from hospice, the medical transports, and the doctor visits, to and from doctor visits, this would far exceed any traditional family. With my letter, I provided a list of RCFE since, but since then, I was able to go on the state's Department of Social Services website, which shows all the licensed residential care facilities for elderly within the Bakersfield area. The list is much like the one I provide with the exception of three homes on Andromeda Lane are not shown on the state's list and the nine bedroom facility which I had listed twice on Guernsey is now closed. The rest of the residents above seven beds that are not commercial facilities are in remote parts of the county. which leaves only one house on 3801 Paseo Rosa Road, a 10 bedroom licensed facility that is the only one over six in the city limits, according to the state's website. I called and drove by there and they've utilized the five bedroom floor plan that existed and they did not remove the garage door to accommodate the 10 bed facility. So from the outside, it looks like a house. um so this request is not commonplace and does not appear and has not been done in the city of bakersfield ever please do not underestimate the scope of this project approval of this project creates a very profitable business model that will be duplicated repeatedly To be able to create a large 12 plus bedroom commercial facility using an existing shell of a large house can be very profitable venture and all at the expense of the neighborhood. To reiterate, we are not against elderly care facilities in our neighborhood. We currently have one and we've utilized it. We object to a 12 bed commercial facility being located in a residential area. We feel that what makes our neighborhood unique has made it a target of this commercial venture. We are located across Linear Park, limiting the sheer number of homeowners available to protest. As the staff reports, larger residence facilities over six people is discretionary. We urge you to reject this project as planned. If the applicant wishes to create a more appropriate six bedroom facility, they have that right and they do not need the neighborhood or the city's approval. Thank you very much.

Do we have any other speakers in the audience?

Hi, my name is Donna Balch. Good evening, commissioners. So first of all, I think I would have different feelings about having this facility in our neighborhood if it was being opened by someone in our neighborhood and who had a stake in our neighborhood. I wasn't aware of the open house that they had on October 25th. So already, I feel like we just aren't aware of what's happening with this facility. Currently, with the adult facility on Monterey Beach Drive, I feel like just that home has changed the character of our neighborhood. And it's not the people who are staying there. It's the workers who work there. They speed down the streets. I feel like they're constantly yelling across and creating a lot of noise. I have tried to go up and try to be nice and welcome them, but it's just a different kind of feel. And I would hope that any kind of facility would try to come into the neighborhood and not change it, but be a part of it. And yeah, I had all the same points as everyone else before me, so I won't repeat them. Thank you.

Carl Balch.

I live at 12401 Monterey Beach Drive. I am also a physician and live in the community here, and I've lived there for about nine years now. I think the reason you all saw 20 signatures speaking out against this is because our neighborhood was not really paying much attention to these kind of things. And the adult facility that was put on our street, which is Right behind this one was opened within roughly the last year, and it has had a massively disruptive effect on our neighborhood, such so that all of these people have come and signed petitions and wrote letters and done all this because it has been a very negative experience for us to have one of these facilities. And the facility that opened is significantly smaller than the one that is being proposed. The facility that was opened has less beds, and we have constantly four cars parked in the driveway, often protruding into the street, and four to five, six cars also parked on the street along that area there. Police coming to the facility at times to deal with situations in relation to that, or medical care needing to come. I know there is obviously a need for elderly facilities of this kind, but obviously there's EMS that needs to be involved, doctor visits, paramedics, especially for an increased number like this. It's kind of ridiculous to say, oh, well, there would be no increased traffic or impact on the streets in the neighborhood. I mean, obviously, with what we've seen in a smaller facility, it's had a massive impact on traffic, police, medical, noise, all these kind of things. We have small children in our neighborhood and where it used to be very safe to say, oh, you know, go walk down the street and it's very easy. Now we have, you know, strange people hanging around and, you know, it's just really, it is not integrated well into the neighborhood. And that's why people, that's why we're all here. I haven't paid much attention to city council. I mean, you're all doing great work, I'm sure. But the reason we're here is because we've seen what an immense negative impact this has had on our community. And so the idea that let's open a third facility like this within a 600-foot radius, I mean, it just seems like there's blood in the water and developers are looking at our neighborhood and seeing, well, how many of these can we open up and how much can we exploit this neighborhood with commercial interests? This is a single residential family neighborhood. with people that have lots of small children and families, and that's how it was originally zoned and originally intended. And Bakersfield is a very large city with many areas of mixed use and commercial space that is all available, and I do not understand why our small two-block radius is being targeted with multiple care facilities. I mean, maybe it's something, the differential between the cost of the area where we live. We do have this beautiful park right there where we like to walk with our children, walk together, ride bikes, things like that. So I can understand the desire for commercial exploitation, but again, we've had two of these already recently that have had a very negative impact on our community. And I do think with such a large city and so many places that these kind of facilities can go, I would urge to look at other places that these kind of things can go without, again, putting so many in such a small area really changing the character and nature of our community. It's been a beautiful place to be living and raising our children, and I just hate to see it slipping away from us and changing in character. When the other facility had opened, we have seen more houses go up for sale, more people leaving the community, less families in the community. Halloween this year, in years past, we had kids, you couldn't stop the kids from coming in. We had almost no kids visit our community this year. We bought all the candy and nobody showed up. And I mean, again, that's a silly thing to bring up, but I mean, again, it speaks to the change in character of our community. While this was a small family community, now we're having, again, commercial exploitation. And I would urge you to look at the two that we already have within a 600-foot radius there. I feel like we're already doing our part to serve the community with that. We don't need to just keep adding on more and more commercial businesses. Thank you for your consideration.

Do we have any other speakers in opposition?

Please step forward and state your name. If we have more speakers, if you can move up to the front to make it a little bit.

Hello, good evening. My name is Cindy Keene, and I live at 12601 Monterey Beach, just the street directly behind the proposed facility. I did write a letter, and it pretty much is what everybody already said, thank goodness. I do have a main thing to add, though, and that is the developers have assumed the safety of the park. And I really want you to consider the fact that that has changed. I myself was the victim of an attempted robbery out there recently. I would love to just go on and tell you all about it, but what happened and what's happening in our city is that people are coming from the increased development at like Riverwalk, the lake and the Target and all the new things that are happening. But it's busy. And so what happened to me is that kids on a motorbike came down off the bike path part of the park. And I was on the pedestrian area. They drove down and drove at me. And I always wear a cross. All right. So that's part of it. I just do. And they approached me. They said, ma'am, do you have a minute to talk about the Lord? I'm like, Well, sure, you know? And so we began interacting and they tried to get me to come to them. And I had no idea that kids would be scary, right? These were like high school kids and they tried to get me to come to them. Well, let me see your phone, let me see your phone. I'll show you, you can have a prayer app. And I was like, wow, that's interesting, you know? And then they said, well, come here, come here. Let me see your phone. I'll show you how you can get it. And pretty soon, I'm like, you know what? Too much. And I just said, I just talked to God directly. And I walked away. Well, I turned around and down, because we are a close community. We know each other. They go down the way and they drove up to another elderly woman. I mean, I'm old. So they pick somebody else and they go up to her. And I'm kind of hanging out watching. And pretty soon they speed away in the direction of the lake, Truxton Lake. Not Truxton Lake, but it's Riverwalk Lake. Anyway, so the dirt's flying up and everything, and they go away. And I thought, okay, so that was weird. So I went and spoke with her, and she said that they just straight up tried to rob her. They pulled up in front of her. They demanded money. And she was scared, and she just started screaming, and they drove away. Meanwhile... Another woman who's older like us came up. She's a retired attorney. Do not mess with her. She knows her stuff. So they pulled up next to her. They pulled up next to her side and brushed up against her like they were going to knock her down. These same two kids. And then they pulled up in front and blocked her way and demanded money. And she said, that's illegal. And she took out her phone to take their picture and they sped away and that's when they came to me. All that in the same, whatever, half hour. So we stood together and we did call the police. We had a report, we said exactly the location, their description and where they went. Long story short, it grieves me to consider a person potentially more in need of help than I am, like less sturdy on your feet or whatever, assuming that that park is a safe place. It is not. I have reduced my activity of walking in that park. It was my go-to. I mean, my heart just soared to be in that park. It's lovely. I've seen horses racing down in the riverbed. I've seen trucks pull up with horse trailers. I got pictures. And out they go, and they're racing back and forth. We've all seen this increase in the e-bikes and the scooters and all. They're riding at night. I literally have gotten off the pedestrian because they're not on the bike. They come down where people are walking, and I get off and I stand by a car until they go by. There's a lot of issues in our city that need to be addressed. That is one of them. The use of the park, we walk by, we smell marijuana, and I honestly don't know what's legal or not. I don't think it's great for them to be in the park smoking and drinking, and then the next day there's trash.

That's a public nuisance.

And for anyone to think that that is a good place for an older person is mistaken, flat out mistaken. I would not myself want to live there. I wouldn't put anyone I know or love in that place. So again, I agree with another speaker where they said, it's not that we don't want elder care. There's just a lot. And the impact on that particular neighborhood would put them at risk. And I know that part of the plan of this is to make it financially profitable, but one lawsuit will end all of that.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers in opposition?

Seeing none, does any commissioner have any questions for the public on this item? Remember, this is not the time to express opinions on the matter. It's only the time to ask questions.

All right, good evening, everybody.

My question is for the owner. Could you please come up to the podium? My first question is, can you share why you picked this location for this facility?

Yeah. So it is the square footage It does matter. Like I said, I've been in homes throughout California. Bakersfield has the larger homes. This neighborhood, sorry. So the home, being that we could convert it to, eventually when we do the reconfiguration, with the garage and we're gonna add a sunroom in the back like where there's a covered patio we're gonna enclose it to make a sunroom for the residents and so it'll be about, I'm kind of guessing, like 4,200 square feet of living space for the residents. And so that was a big thing for us. We needed to maximize as much space as possible because, obviously, people do need space. So that gives our residents 350 to 400 square foot of living space per resident, depending on our, we're not going to be at full capacity all the time. So it will depend on our census. So in addition to that, yes, the park is attractive. I definitely understand the concern of, of course, safety. The residents will never be alone. They're always going to have a staff member. So if they were to go take a walk, they wouldn't be by themselves. But I mean, I've gone there plenty during the day and I see lots of people walking and biking and I think taking reasonable safety measures, I think we can accommodate that. And why else did we choose it? I mean, it is a home that we could reconfigure and that we could, was in a price that would make sense as well. Is there any other things that you can think of? I think those are the big things.

I mean, space is a big thing. Okay, I still have a couple more questions. Thank you for your response to that. What sort of amenities will the home be providing for the 12 residents?

Yeah, so I mentioned that we're having the chef because we want the caregivers to be able to focus on caregiving. So the caregivers will, depending again on how many residents are there, whether it's 8, 10, 12 at any given time, you know, we don't want to have more than six persons to a caregiver. So in addition to food being prepared, having all their activities of daily living taken care of for them, assistance with showers, assistance with dressing, laundry, cleaning, basically all their needs will be met in that way. And in addition to that, we will have specially trained staff, including myself, for activities for the residents in the home on a daily basis. Social engagement is very important. So actually a congregate's home like this is actually beneficial for people with memory issues. And so we want to engage them even more with certain activities that are appropriate.

How will you use the backyard and outdoor spaces at the property?

Yeah, so we have planned raised beds because we know some of our residents may like to be outdoors, maybe some like to garden. So we are doing raised beds in the garden. And then we have a gazebo that already exists there. So we'll have table chairs for sitting. And then the sunroom is going to be kind of an indoor-outdoor space. We will have it... temperature controlled however when people are in there if it needs to be and but it'll it'll be you know a nice private space if needed say family comes to visit they want to have you know a bigger room to have some privacy and again everyone will have their own room so they can also use that for visiting as well can you describe the needs of your typical resident Yeah, so most of our residents will be probably 85 years plus. And so most of their needs, so they're going to have physical and memory issues in general. So they're going to need help with activities of daily living, essentially. These are residents who you know, maybe their family is needs to work and they need you know They need to have their loved one with 24-7 care basically because we are going to be providing supervision 24-7 and so Yeah

Okay, and then just one more question. Have you considered whether your business would still make sense at this location with less beds or less rooms?

We have. We've actually done an extensive cost analysis. actually one of the neighbors who sent in a letter sent in a list of facilities and if you look on that list you'll see a lot of repeat names and that's because when you have six beds If you buy a new home here, a six bed isn't gonna be negative income. So that's why you see multiple of the same name. You have to have at least three homes in order to be sustainable. a six bed level that's very challenging and so we looked at ten beds how does how do we make that work okay like that's doable potentially but that's very tight you know we're trying to make sure that our caregivers are paid well are just our cost for the caregivers will be about 55% of our budget every month and so you know things happen and we feel like we don't want to be stressed around okay we could be okay at that but like what if something happens you know what if vacant there's too many vacancies um for too long for example so we have looked at that extensively We also feel that when we have more people to do activities, that actually could be a benefit for our residents. Because we can actually have people come in with planned activities and kind of make it more of a lively, fun environment for them.

Those are all of my questions for the owner. I do have a couple of questions for staff.

OK. Thank you.

Do you have any information on that park across the street from the proposed home?

No, I do not. There is a park ranger program that patrols all city parks. They can certainly contact that program with the parks department and discuss maybe increased patrols there.

And this is also for staff. Does the owner of the property have a separate right to remodel the property to create a 10 bedroom space, separate and apart from this commercial operation? But say it wasn't a business, but would an owner have a right to apply to convert a garage and to create 10 beds in this space?

As long as they meet building code and fire code. We do, throughout the city, we have garage conversions for accessory dwelling units. So in other parts of town, people are converting their garages so they don't have a garage door, they have windows for their bedrooms. So yes, if it's for the family, They can convert or remodel the home to meet their family's needs as long as it meets building and fire codes.

Do we know whether the proposed plan meets building and fire codes?

They have not submitted building plans, but it will be required to meet those codes.

Okay. Yeah, if the owner can speak to that question.

also our architect as well, and we can certainly accommodate the needs that the fire department will require as well as the building department.

Okay.

I think those are all of my questions. Thank you. Okay, I have a question for the applicant.

Sorry, you're up and down so much. You're getting your steps in today. Did you mention, or, because I had put notes down here, and I don't want to accuse you of saying this, but I just, it's, my question is specific to, did you mention your clients are homebound?

Yes, they are considered homebound, okay, because it is When it is too difficult, first of all, they don't drive. They don't have vehicles.

This is where my question is very specific to. Does your license or does this type of facility prohibit the clients bringing a vehicle with them?

Yes, we don't allow that.

Yeah. It doesn't state that in, that I know of, in the CUP, so would you be willing, should this commission agree to modify this

Yeah, it's not a problem.

To state that clients are not allowed to bring a vehicle. Okay. I would agree with that. You would be open to that? Absolutely. All right. Next question is, oh, is there a requirement? Again, this is related to like your license or specific to this type of facility. Is there a requirement for the number of caregivers per client?

Yeah. So, as I said, six to one is pretty common.

Okay. Is it a requirement, though, or does it?

Let me think for a second because there's a lot of rules.

And maybe it's not your place to answer that. And the reason I'm asking is because your application states that there will be three employees at all during the day.

Oh, well, I'll clarify that. I can't tell you 100% from my recollection. I don't think there is a rule on the six to one. That's just general practice because you will go to lots of facilities and there will be, you know what? I might be wrong. I think for DSS, I think it is six to one.

But your application is just, I'm clarifying, this is a question. You're essentially requesting that 15 people be there virtually all day.

Well, so say we were at max capacity with 12 residents, which is not necessarily where we'll be all the time. But if we were, we'll assume that we are, then we would have two care staff.

Mm-hmm.

and then there's always of an administrator that does not need to be there at all times they're required to be there about twenty hours a week but they're generally on call all the time okay then the chef So that person might not be there, say, from 8 to 5. They might be there at more odd hours, like 6 to 3 or something, or 6 to 4. Or they might need to go shopping in the middle of the day. So they would break it up. The care staff has to be there. They have to be there with the residents. Nobody else does. So that would be two people at all times.

Okay, but I think the way the application is written or the way the conditional use permit would be approved would be to have the 12 and the three. So I'm just, I was just trying to make sure what was like required for that facility, so.

I think I'm not sure actually what you're asking then because you're just asking if it's required to have three people there during...

day I was because I was considering if it was legally available to reduce the number of other people in that building at all times so that's kind of where my questions are related to okay did I answer yes your question I think you did thank you and for staff can I do my staff questions now too okay so Can we really confirm, and I would have appreciated this maybe on the report, specifically where those other two, we keep hearing the residents and stuff saying, oh, this is this one and this is this one, and I did see that one DSS thing on Riverfront Park, but I'm not seeing the specific one that they say is three, I don't know, anyway.

Commissioner Oliver, if you look at your screen, there is a map. Okay. The red text shows the location of the current CUP application. Behind it and a little to the West, I would assume, is the existing three-person adult facility. That facility is not elderly. It is called a crisis facility that the state has licensed. And then outside of the 300-foot radius of the location of the proposed CUP that we're considering tonight is a six-person elderly residential home to the east, and that's shown in blue text.

Okay, perfect. And then I guess my last question is... Related to our ability as commissioners to add Language to the conditional use permit at this time. That's we can request that I'm asking if we can request that specific language be put in there as as to different restrictions on the permit and

Commissioner, yes, that is part of the conditional use process. It's up to the Planning Commission to determine what conditions would be appropriate for the operation of the proposal. You can amend, delete, add conditions if you wish, and you may also deny the application.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the owner. This is Ms. Pandell. Thank you. If you could come up. You mentioned the hours. I'd like to know what are your hours of operation for visiting? What are visiting hours proposed?

And we propose that because we like the idea of having the residents be able to get going in the morning and not have disturbance. And then for those families say who wanted to come visit, if they were working during the day, which probably a lot of people are, that they had the opportunity to come after work. We're certainly willing to amend those, but that was our proposal.

So right now you don't have anything particularly in place to limit, let's say that, because for our purposes for this commission, we have to assume you're at capacity. So if you're at 12 and you have, and I do believe state law, I'm pretty familiar with these, I think you have to have three people, right, for the 12.

With the administrator, yes.

With the administrator, right.

Yes.

So if you have that 12, and let's say that five folks, their families try to come at the same time, then perhaps you could... you know limit Or so you would know, so you don't have 12 families maybe all showing up.

That would be highly unlikely, but yes. I understand that. I think that what we could do in a situation like that is if we kind of notice that certain people are coming at the same time, we're going to have close relationships with these families. And I think that we could try to request some staggering of time. I think that would be reasonable to ask of families if that's something they can accommodate.

Okay, thank you, that's my only question there. And then, staff, Ms. Ng, how many of these type of facilities, I know that we had a request in the state over seven, we have to, you know, then it would go to a conditional use permit, like the Planning Commission, but I know we had one that we approved not long ago, that was from six to eight at that accommodation. How many facilities like this single-family residential do we currently have in the city limits that have this 12 capacity? Are there any?

Based on staff research, back in 2008, A conditional use permit was approved for a facility up to 54 residents, and that location was OUT ON HIGHWAY 178 NEAR THE MOUTH OF THE CANYON, AND IT'S KIND OF AN ISOLATED RANCH TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT IS MORE LIKE A CRISIS CENTER AND REHABILITATION LOCATION. I BELIEVE IT'S STILL IN OPERATION, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMPLAINTS WITH THAT. OF RECENT FINANCIAL USE PERMITS, LAST YEAR IN 2020, This commission approved a conditional use permit increasing the number of residents from six to 10 residents, and that was located in the vicinity of Buena Vista and Campus Park.

Okay, so essentially for the purpose of Bakersfield and a smaller residential, we have one exemption that's from six to 10. One exemption, one- It's on recent history, yes. Okay, all right, thank you, Missing. I appreciate it. That's all my comments for right now. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, a couple of questions. Mostly staff directed, but a few for the applicants in neighborhood. So I'll start with the staff questions. At a high level, we've had, During my tenure on the Planning Commission, we've had a few issues or items come up that were requests for the conditional use for a larger resident care facility. And I was just, I had asked Ms. King earlier to describe the relationship between the city and HCD, a state housing agency, with regards to the housing crisis and the role that residential care facilities play within that larger sphere.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Cater. Yes, so as the Planning Commission is aware, we've been dealing with or working with HCD for a number of years now in terms of getting our housing element approved. And the HCD's primary position is basically to enforce state housing law. And within that, it's integrating people with disabilities and other special needs into community settings, and one of them being community care facilities such as the one being presented today. So it is something that HCD is pushing for. They want more housing, whether it's through ADUs or junior ADUs or community care facilities, large or small. and so it is a goal of HCD that they've expressed to us before, and it's actually part of the housing element that is pending to be approved by HCD any day now.

Okay. Yeah, because I guess, My question's in reviewing the staff report. Facilities over seven or more go through a conditional use process. That's correct. One of the questions I have is residential care facilities independent of number of residents served are permitted use within the C1 and the C2 zone? and associated with that use within the C1 and C2 are specific requirements that parking standards, other kind of commercial level standards. And I didn't see in the staff report any analysis as far as kind of equal accommodation within this facility. And so I was just curious if planning staff could clarify large residential care facilities why they exist in both commercial and residential and what i'm seeing is different standards applied based on zoning not based on use and how that works commissioner kater you are correct it is based on zoning and land use designations in this particular case it is low density residential and r1 zone

and those are residential in nature. So we consider that residential and in our current zoning ordinance, we do not require parking in residential or residential development. If there is a facility to be constructed in a commercial zone, then parking would be required because that's a requirement of their parking ordinance. And it would be a commercial designation zoning and land use.

So then I'm curious if a conditional use permit is required for these facilities of seven and above in a residential zone, what impacts are looked at that aren't looked at for residential homes of six and below?

Mr. Chair, six residents or less are licensed through the state and approved through the state. The city has no jurisdiction over that. regarding seven or more residents. It is a conditional use permit through the city, and it is at the discretion of the commission and council. If you believe parking is required, you may do so and add that condition. Staff analyze this as residential in nature, and our zoning code does not require parking, so that's why we are not requiring parking.

But if there was an overlay of C1 on this same site with the same configuration, we would require parking?

Yes, if the zoning was commercial and the land use was designated as commercial, parking would be required per our parking ordinance.

Not the time for comments, just questions, so I'll move on. So, and then this is kind of applicant slash maybe the city. Provided in this packet of comments, there is a Department of Social Services letter dated January 30th, 2024. I believe it's for the facility that is a three-person capacity on Monterey Beach Drive. There is a checkbox that says the department has determined that the proposed facility is a new adult residential facility and is more than 300 feet from any other licensed residential care facility. If the referenced applicant meets the other requirements for licensure, the department will approve the application. Should your agency review determine that the proposed facility is 300 feet or less from another residential care facility and request denial of the license applied, uh... for on this basis of over concentration please notify us in writing within forty five days so I was curious if the applicant tonight had gone through a similar process and if it had been identified due to the clear proximity of being less than three hundred feet from one another city staff has not received such a letter from the state as of yet And again, not the time for comments, but I was just curious, on the process of kind of reviewing this project, where does a letter like this fall into the development process, if you wouldn't mind, the applicant? could you hold it up so I can see what yeah sorry I it's gonna be like the smallest but it's a it was sent to the planning department from the Department of Social Services I believe yeah if you could pull it up stuff or I can walk over a copy but I will note it does appear to be for not your project, but for the adjacent project. And I will also note just there are multiple boxes to check. One of them is that two facilities can be considered within 300 feet. I was just curious if this process had been one that had been commenced on the property.

You might, because this is something that our planner requested.

Okay.

Did you request it?

Yeah.

But... Yeah, I can tell you that when we went through that process, because our CFEs do need to be 300 feet apart from each other, and this is an ARF. It's a different type.

That's different. Okay, that was one of my questions, is if they're different classifications.

And I think that my guess is that he included this because just to demonstrate that it was an ARF.

ARF, not CRF? Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Cater, I think the difference is that that property, the one on the document that you just mentioned, is less than six. So they went through a separate process through the state. And so the state sends that letter for purposes of ensuring that there's no over concentration. But it exempts elderly care facilities and foster homes. So I don't know if we would even get a letter like this.

Can we just get a clear definition on ARF versus RCF? Yeah.

I actually don't know what the acronym stands for, but I just know that it's six or less.

Because again, the page before is a picture of the floor plan on a wall taken from like 40 feet away. So there's not a lot of context to the document. So I would love to know the terminology.

Okay, I don't know what that picture is, but an ARF is an adult residential facility. It serves people 18 to 59. Okay. Okay, whereas an RCFE is a residential care facility for the elderly, which serves people 60 plus.

Fantastic, I appreciate that, that is very helpful. Okay. Thank you, I appreciate that. And then, I was just curious, within the footprint of the existing house, the increased number of beds, if in the licensing of these facilities, is there a required minimum common area living area ratio, and does the project meet those minimum standards?

Yeah, so the agency that would oversee that is the Department of Social Services, and they do not have a square footage requirement in terms of bedroom or common space of course we're trying to maximize that for our residents as best we can and the reason this home layout was nice is because the common space is all in the middle of the home so we can make the bedrooms on the outside of the home the only requirement is that every room has to have a bed it has to have a side table a lamp a chair and either an armoire or a closet which we are able to accommodate

Thank you.

And then I guess this is maybe a neighbor question, but does this neighborhood have any CCNRs or kind of minimum, like a HOA? And is that a doc, or not an HOA, but a CCNR as far as, okay.

Okay.

And is that something when these care facilities move, this is for city staff, I guess, when these facilities move into a neighborhood with CCNRs, are they required to comply with the requirements of the CCNRs? and held accountable to that?

Commissioner Cater, CCNRs are enforced by the neighbors, not by the city. Okay. So it would be up to the neighborhood to organize that enforcement.

Okay. Thank you. I guess those are my questions for now, so yeah.

I have a couple of follow-up questions based on what other commissioners asked. I'm gonna follow up on the question that you just asked. For all of those present in opposition, has anyone taken a look at the CCNRs and determined that this project violates the CCNRs of the neighborhood?

So we do not have an HOA in our neighborhood, which is probably why we're being targeted for these kind of things. And that's part of what's been the draw for many young families to come here is because it's more affordable. It's in one of the nicest school districts in Bakersfield. It's Buena Vista, Ronald Reagan. And so for a lot of people, they come there and they say, well, maybe you can't afford to live in the Grand Island, right? But you can go there and not pay an HOA and still get access to a high-quality school.

Mm-hmm.

So that is something that is very attractive to young families to be here. That's part of why I bought the home there. That was what brought us there. And again, that's part of what makes the affordability attractive for young families to come there. It's also part of why the affordability is attractive for them to come there. It's also part of why they feel they can come there because we don't have an HOA that can stop something like this. So I think that's part of why we've been selected for this.

And can you please give your name again for the record?

Carl Balch.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, this question is for staff. I'm sorry, I think another resident of the neighborhood wanted to answer.

Can you come up, because we need your name?

My name is Christy Tabor, and I am the real estate agent that has helped Ms. Pendall and Steven Pendall acquire the property. I'm not in opposition, so I might be out of line. If I am, I can excuse myself. I just wanted to speak to the residents who are opposed to this, and again, if I'm out of line, please let me know.

I think you can answer her question, but that's about it, right?

Okay, my response is to the traffic.

Let me answer to the Commissioner Neal's question.

Okay.

About the CCNR. There will be a rebuttal period. There will be a rebuttal period. Well, you'll have the opportunity to speak on that, but right now it's just answering any of the Commissioner.

Okay, I don't have a response to that, but if I have a chance, I would like to speak. You will later on. Okay, very good. No problem. Thank you.

Regarding the CCNRs. Okay.

Brian Alexander, I was actually one of the, worked for the developer. It does have CC&Rs. I have not read them with aspect to this. They are in effect, because I think they ran 30 years, plus auto renewals. I'm sure they had something with regards to both architectural control and commercial ventures inside the deal, but I did not look at them beforehand, but I can provide them.

Thank you. All right. My next regarding the CCNR question, if there...

I can provide a copy of the CCNRs. I don't have it with me, but I was an original buyer in this area.

Can you please provide your name just for the record?

My name is Thomas Keene. I live at 12601 Monterey Beach, and I do have a copy of the CCNRs. I just don't have it with me. Okay.

Thank you. Okay, the next question is for staff. I heard the term crisis center or crisis home a couple of times in regards to the three-resident home that's on the street, Monterey Beach, directly behind. I really want to understand the difference between what a crisis home is specifically with regard to the comments about noise and traffic and first responder presence in the neighborhood versus the type of home that this is being proposed.

Commissioner Neill, staff did not characterize the three-person care facility as a crisis center. We just differentiated that it is not for the elderly. Perhaps some of the speakers refer to that three-person facility as including crisis, but not staff. So I can't speak to that question.

And also the attachments from the social services department says thrive crisis home. So just wondering if there's a distinction between that and what's currently being proposed, if they will have a different character in terms of impact on the neighborhood. So that was my question. But since that didn't come from staff, does any member of the public have a response for that that is knowledgeable about that?

Virgil Miller. I live next door to that facility. When I looked it up, when it first started, it's considered a, I believe it's an adult facility for non-ambulatory patients, is how it's described. And they currently have up to three patients, and they require two workers per patient at any given time. And so that's where all the traffic is coming, especially at shift change. So that's...

Commissioner Neal, in reading the document, it looks like that's the facility's name, but the Department of Social Services identifies it as a residential care license. So I don't know if that helps.

Okay, and just to be clear to the applicants, this is a residential care. You would be pursuing a residential care license for this facility?

Yes, so it's a ARF versus an RCFE. And the ARF serves 18 to 59-year-olds. And our facility serves the elderly 60 plus. And ARFs, I think the two caregivers to one, look, I don't know this particular facility, but oftentimes it's like psychiatric or mental disabilities, and that's why it requires two to one staff.

Okay, thank you. And... I guess this question is for the owner too. I've heard patients versus residents as well a lot. And I just want, the rhetoric is really important in terms of the impact. So I want to understand that.

I'm glad you addressed that because it is important to distinguish these are not patients. We are not providing any medical care. We're providing supervision, 24-7 supervision, for people who need help with their activities of daily living. They're just, like I said, having physical or cognitive issues that require supervision.

Thank you for that.

I have one other question for staff. Ms. Ng, so if this commission decided to deny this application, would Mr. and Ms. Pandell still be able to operate the six-person facility, which seems to be like the majority of those that we have in Bakersfield outside of the one recently?

Yes, they may go through the state to obtain that license for six residents, and the city would not have any jurisdiction.

Okay, or we could put a stipulation to make a different number up to 12.

That is your prerogative, yes.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Singh.

I just have a few questions for the applicant. Are you from here in Bakersfield, or are you from out of town?

I'm a resident, but I'm a traveling nurse. I've been traveling for the last three years, so I'm currently residing in San Luis County.

And how many other locations do you own here, or your family own here in Bakersfield as far as residential care?

I do not own any. This would be our first one, yeah.

And do you have any other in the state of California, or is this going to be the first for the operation?

First and only, yeah.

Okay.

That's all I had. I think my commissioners had most of the questions. Let's go, let's see. Is there anyone who wishes to provide a rebuttal on this item? If so, please prepare to step to the podium. Each side will only have five minutes. So make your comment succinct without repeating the remarks of the previous speakers to ensure that everyone wishing to provide rebuttal comment has a chance to do so. I will now close, oh wait, yep.

Good evening, Robert Cush, counsel for the applicants, spelled K-U-H-S. Do they have the time going?

Yeah.

Thank you. Just a couple of things. I think we can all agree that this community needs elderly housing. That doesn't seem to be an issue in dispute. What seems to be in dispute is whether folks want it in their backyard or would prefer it in some other location, right, NIMBY, which I'm sure is an issue that comes before this body quite often. One of the things that resonated with me as I look at this project and as I look at the housing element update for the city in general is that we have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis in terms of quantity and we have a housing crisis in terms of cost. I think that's clear. The directives from the state is to solve those housing crisis. We've seen the advent of accessory dwelling units in various neighborhoods which add the same sort of impacts that we're talking about here. These facilities are a function of economics and economies of scale. And I think you all realize that by your questioning. So when you reduce the number of beds, you increase the cost to the patient. You make that service less affordable, less accessible to the community. One thing you did not hear tonight is any issues with the similar elder care facility down the street. We didn't hear about muggings. We didn't hear about noise. We didn't hear about trash. And that's because these facilities are fundamentally different than the adult care facility, which is going on in the block to the south. Our patients do not drive vehicles. They do not own vehicles. So what we are talking about is a traffic impact from staff. That's it. And the goal that we were trying to achieve is to provide something better and more affordable than either a memory care facility, which can run 10,000 plus a month, or a high rise facility that deals with patients on a massive scale. And that's really the proposal that's before you. And one of the reasons that this body may not have considered a 12 bed facility in the past is that the mandates coming from the state to provide reasonable access under the housing laws, under our American with disabilities laws to provide a reasonable opportunity for our growing elderly population to have a safe, quiet, and affordable place to live. And I think the applicants have done a pretty stellar job of answering your questions. If you have any additional questions of a legal nature, you're welcome to direct those to me. Thank you for your time.

Do we have any other speakers in favor of the project? Yep, got a minute and 30 seconds, come on girl. Again, Christy Tabor.

I grew up with a grandmother that had a rest home is what it was called at that time. And it was a 10-bed facility, and it was out in Shafter. And as a young child, I was able to interact with everyone that was in the facility. And I can attest to the number of visitors at that time that came and went. And I noticed that it was a more sad situation at that time because those people were there because they had nowhere else to go. And I'm not saying that that would be the case in this situation, but many times people are put in there because their families may be too busy. or they do not have anyone to take care of them. So when we're talking about traffic, I can't guarantee that there would be a lot of traffic and that there would be less traffic, but many times there is less traffic in these types of facilities because the family members are not there to take care of them. That has just been my own observation. and it is a quieter place. So I just wanted to let people know that I personally do not feel, having witnessed it, that there would be a lot of traffic there. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that's five minutes for speakers in opposition. Please come up to the podium and state your name.

Carl Balch again, thank you. So I guess just quickly, obviously there's a lot of discussion about traffic. Just for quick consideration, 12 residents in a place, two to three staff members, a chef, she talked about people coming in for entertainment to do care for that. In a facility of this type, that many people, laundry is a significant issue. Elderly of this type obviously can have times where dirtying the laundry and having bowel movements and things like that. If they're not having industrial cleaning on site for that, that means they need an outside company to come in to take the laundry elsewhere to do biomedical waste. You have medical appointments for people, anyone who's 70 and up, they have lots of medical conditions that needs medical transport, medical transport coming in to pick people up and bring them to their doctor's appointments, of which these people often have many. And then if you have that many people crammed into such a small space, you're hoping that the families don't all come together at the same time. So you're kind of hoping and praying that these people, that their families don't care for them and don't want to come visit them, but there is nothing to ensure or promise in any way that they won't have caring and loving families who want to come visit their family members. So it is very, very easy to imagine how quickly three staff members, Chef, medical transport, waste disposal, laundry, family members, all of this can quickly explode into the street with very large numbers of traffic, cars kind of moving on that. The three-person facility that we have there has overwhelmed our streets with cars. I know it's different because some of those people have cars themselves, but that is a three-bed facility. We're talking about a much larger operation here. to think that there would be no minimal impact on traffic, parking, and everything else in the area there, I think seems like wishful thinking.

Thank you. Brian Alexander once again.

I would like to rebut the fact about the sixth bed not being viable. The reason that they have multiple ones is because they are so viable. There are people that I know that have retired based on the income of these six-bed facilities. This is nothing more than a large-scale economic commercial development inside a residential footprint. That's all it is. It's a very profitable one as well. And you're going to see a lot more if you pass this. There's a reason we only have one that's a 10-bedroom. And I addressed it. But on the outside, it looks like a house. The reason you don't have complaints about the one down the street is because, again, it looks like a house. This will not look like a house. And talking to a real estate agent this morning, one thing they said that can drive down values, not necessarily the elderly care, but the fact that you've lost garages. It makes a completely different look to the whole facility and the neighborhood. So the fact that that's not viable on six beds is not accurate. Thank you.

Virgil Miller. One other thing that has gotten overlooked that we deal with next door is probably once or twice a month, they have a staff meeting. And just this past weekend, we had 20 cars on our street because they had all their different shifts come and stay there all day. in addition to the county and the state that come and do inspections. Every time they call for emergency services, a hook and ladder comes from our fire department, a couple of patrol cars, an ambulance. And in our situation, the fire truck even has a problem trying to turn around in our cul-de-sac because they bring this gigantic unit with them. So it does become an issue, and I think some of their understating of the number of staff as patients, or residents as you want to call them, get older, they require more staffing. I believe. They may require more care. And so I don't know what the state rules are on those care levels, or if that person has to move out of that facility. But anyway, I'll just leave you with that. I just think there's going to be a lot more impact than is advertised.

Yes, Kim Miller, 12408 Monterey Beach Drive. I just wanted to respond to a comment from the owner's attorney. insane nobody had mentioned anything about facility down the street that's because it was outside of the radius that we were told that we could address and there's also another one just beyond that on the other side of the peninsula and i know firsthand neighbors down there they're complaining about the traffic in the same complaints that we've had on monterey beach drive so it's similar

The problems are there. I will now close the hearing on the item and return it to Commission for comment and action. All right. Wow.

We don't really get a lot of these that are this difficult. So I just wanna first start my comments by saying thank you for everybody that showed up tonight, including the applicant, doctor, and also other attorney, but also all of the residents of the neighborhood that showed up. tonight often when we're reviewing this stuff you might develop a hypothesis as to like which way you might be leaning in terms of what you've received in terms of the paperwork but it's moments like this one where you show up and it really is based on what happens in the hearing, who shows up, what they say, and all the things that aren't in the paperwork that come up. So with that preface, I'm gonna provide my comments on the project. The first thing is that I believe that everybody belongs. Those that are old, those that are young, those that are able, and those that are not able. And so this project for me is extremely difficult because I believe that our elderly belong despite whatever ailments or conditions that they might have that we all hope that we may never develop when we age or We hope to get their age and even then we'd be grateful to keep living if we have special, some sort of special needs. So this is really hard for me in that regard because I do believe that our elderly should not be pushed to the outskirts of our cities or into rural areas. I do believe that our elderly should live among us. And in the past, we had multi-generational living. It was a normal thing within your household. And so bringing elderly back into our neighborhoods, to me, is a positive thing, not a bad thing. I believe that it's a beautiful location that was selected by the applicants for such a home. There's a park across the street. I am concerned about that street and elderly walking across and the traffic on the street. But I believe that having access to a park and maybe the neighbors can work together on how to keep everybody in the neighborhood more safe with regard to the comments that were raised about the park. And certainly I want to hear some follow-up in terms of what's going on over there because That's a big thing for anybody in the neighborhood, not just the potential residents of this facility. I believe that our elderly deserve a life filled with people with no restrictions on time and place and et cetera on when we can visit with our loved ones. But the applicants have proposed what I think to be a reasonable hours of visitation, nine to nine. I think that's pretty reasonable. And I believe that they deserve to be with each other and to have friendship and companionship together because A lot of elderly are chronically lonely. So I believe that a facility that puts our elderly in one place together, especially if there are amenities, and that's why I asked about it, are services being offered and facilitated? And I wish I could have heard more about what you plan to offer. But these are beautiful things for our aging populations that need assistance to just enjoy life. So with all of that being said, I am in support of the project. I do believe that 12 is a lot. It's twice the... twice the buy right number. We have approved 10 in the past in a location that to me was not even as good for such a facility with it being there's no neighbors across the street. You only have your back neighbors and neighbors right door. There's a park there. And the property will be 4,200 square feet of living space. In an average home of 2,000 square feet, you could have five or six people living in that space, and this is double that. So I don't understand why we can't fill the space with more people. That doesn't... But 10 beds is a lot of beds. I'm sorry, 12 beds is a lot of beds and 10 rooms is a lot of rooms. So I'm gonna just leave it up to others on the commission if they have any sort of proposals to open up some discussion about how if we were to approve the project, what we might wanna see to kind of mitigate some of the concerns raised by members of the public. such as limitations on cars or where they can be parked. Maybe they should be parked on the opposite side of the street. Those sort of things to where we can kind of address what the very real issues that the residents have brought up, but also still allow space in our city and within our neighborhoods for this type of use.

So that's my comment.

All right, I think tonight my frustration with this project is not the residents, it's not the applicant, it is the city's policy regarding these residential care facilities. We just wrapped up multiple years of looking at our housing element, and the city's line in the sand between six and seven is so unclear. It is so unknown what the quantifiable anticipated impact on a neighborhood is once you cross that threshold. The fact that it just says seven and more means that in theory we could put 400 home beds, the way our code is currently written. So to me it's been a really difficult conversation because we are not, A VOTED ON BODY WE ARE ADVISORY BODY THAT ARE APPOINTED TO BE HERE AND HAVE A GOOD CONVERSATION WE'RE NOT MADE TO CREATE LAW OR TO. AND IT IS JUST THE CITY STANDS ON THIS VERY VERY IMPACTFUL USE THAT IS IN NEIGHBORHOODS NOT JUST ON STREET CORNERS OF MAJOR STREETS. makes it really challenging to have this conversation because it is not clear to residents if they can anticipate as many beds that can fit legally within an occupiable STRUCTURE CAN GO IN. IT'S NOT QUANTIFIABLE IN HAVING LOADS AND IMPACTS QUANTIFIED IF THERE WAS A C1 OVER A PIECE OF LAND VERSUS AN R1 GOING OUT THE WINDOW DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME BECAUSE BEING ABLE TO TELL THE RESIDENTS TONIGHT THAT BASED ON THIS USE THEY COULD ANTICIPATE SEVEN ADDITIONAL VEHICLES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IS A LOT EASIER TO DIGEST THAN Too bad we can't tell you anything. It's just, to me, it has been very frustrating to deal with. I will say residential care facilities play a vital role in society. They have had a profound impact on my family personally this past year. And I think quantifiable impacts are so important because in the same way you have a neighbor that might love to throw huge parties every weekend, I mean, the residential care facility that I was at a lot this year, there were nights when five of us were there, but it's because we were saying goodbye to a loved one. And so it is not that we were going there because we wanted to have a good time or we just had nowhere else to go. These are touch points of very difficult parts in people's lives, and I think that that is important to context and why it's important to be able to quantify the impact on a residential neighborhood. So the conversation is not pitting neighbors' concerns for safety, traffic, against very real, hard touch points in people's lives, saying goodbye to loss. And to me, that is my frustration, is that um i don't think as a city our tools really clarify that once you get above that six like below six there's no we have no comment um and so to me um and that's just um my time for opinions um but i think as we look at this tonight i think um it would be helpful to understand really what what a clarity on what impact, I mean, cause I heard from city staff basically, you can add whatever you want. And that to me, that's not what we're here to do. We're here to measure impact and kind of determine what's the opening line in the commission, you know, balance individual property rights with the wellbeing of our community. And so to me, I would look for staff for a little more direction as far as what we, you know, asking about CCNRs and then being repeated that those don't really matter anyway because it's neighborhood enforcement isn't a very good answer because it doesn't give us information that we can use to talk about how neighbors' concerns are adequately addressed with an applicant's rights to develop the property. So I'd ask the city what the bounds of helpful dialogue look like so that we can move forward as a commission. like are we able to add conditions to their operating statement to read alignment are we able to yeah I just to me it I feel like the responses don't give us the tools we need to make an effective and in an appropriate decision with what we've heard tonight

Mr. Cater, I do understand your perspective. However, staff has accepted, for the majority part, the applicant's proposal and operational statement, and we believe that 12 residents is appropriate for this location, and we have provided some conditions of approval. It is up to the judgment of the Planning Commission whether or not that is adequate or not. I don't know if we can help you beyond that. Staff has made a decision that this is an appropriate use at this location as proposed.

What was that?

Yeah, I guess to me, what is the rationale that 12 is acceptable? Because I guess to me, I mean, a bigger question for staff is if 12 is acceptable and there's little to no conditions, then why is it not just permitted by right? So that residents can know that residential care facilities really exist at a scale of whatever is able to be achieved. What's the purpose of the conditional use process if the staff's opinion is the applicant puts a number on the table and we say that looks good?

Commissioner Cater, it is a case-by-case review. In this case, staff has made the determination 12 is appropriate for this location, and based on the site plan they provided, it appears to be adequate.

Yeah, I guess I think I understand what Commissioner Cater, and correct me if I'm wrong, but more meat on the bone for why it's appropriate, acceptable.

Commissioner Neill, the applicant provided a multi-page operational statement, and reading through that, it appears that they have addressed most of the concerns related to staffing, operations, deliveries, and all of that. And based on that, staff is recommending approval.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, first, I want to echo my fellow commissioners and the applicant. You know, I'm very familiar with these facilities. I have a friend who has a couple of them at the sixth capacity, so I'm very familiar. My mom was an RN, and I've actually worked at some of these facilities. and seeing how they operate. And understanding that some of these facilities that we have in the high rises, as somebody kind of nicknamed it, some of those facilities can cost, you know, $12,000, $15,000 a month. And that is really egregious for the average person, even the, you know, even upper middle class wealthy people, that's a lot of money, unless you have a lot of money saved in retirement. So these facilities allow for our elderly, as you said, Commissioner Neal, to be in our community. And to do that, they range 3,500 to 7,000, depending on Medicare, Medicaid, or who's paying it in private insurance. But the issue that I'm having, and I think we could really be dancing on a dangerous line, is 94% of these facilities we have in town are six occupants, 94%. And that really would be higher considering that 10 of them are very large facilities. And so the kind of R1, C1, as you said, Commissioner, I agree with that too. We're kind of dancing on a fine line that if we allow people just to redo a residential home to pack 10 bedrooms in there, I think that can set a very dangerous precedent of more corporate interest. And I'm not saying that that is the case with this applicant per se, but it does have a risk of saying, hey, we don't have to have a parking lot. We don't have to do this. Let's just go get some more residential houses. And of course, this is a great spot for them because it's relatively cheaper cost for 3,000 square foot dwellings. And so I think it's very dangerous and to my fellow commissioners points here, because there isn't some type of criteria for us to say what is enough or what isn't. I would say from my perspective, And they are very lucrative. I understand the applicant said, well, it needs to be much higher. Well, then we wouldn't have 148 that are at the six. And I know very much how lucrative they can be at the six. You have a major increase in EMS services that come because a lot of these guys are not providers for medical. Oftentimes something that's a little more minor because of liability and insurance today, they call the ambulance every time, right? Insurance is paying the bill. I see it. So that does increase a lot. And if you're talking about a 12% 12-room remodeled home where there's 12 bedrooms roughly, can't be more than 180 square feet, which is decent size, but yeah, 10-bedroom. That is going to absolutely be an increase in traffic and EMS and all of these things. And I don't see how you've made a point to get an exclusion to double what we have set as the standard of 94% of our facilities like this in this community. And that's just my thought. I applaud. We have to find ways to reduce costs, the economy, everything that's happening, rising costs everywhere. We're all incurring it. I won't go on that song and dance, but I applaud the applicant for trying to find ways and yes, reduce the cost by having it larger. But I also have issues with the staffing levels when you're talking about 12 individuals that are gonna have very critical needs. And I've seen it because I've seen these facilities. So where I stand, we have 94% of these facilities. We have already set a precedent in this community as this body, whether we meant to or whether it's far before my tenure, I'm new this year. I do not feel comfortable with this, and I think we have a precedent, and I think, and that's why I asked that question earlier, Ms. Ng. If we deny it, then they would be able to have six, they would be able to move forward with the state with a six-person facility. Is that correct?

Commissioner Martin, they would be able to obtain license from the state for a six-person facility. However, if this commission deems to deny the CEP, there is an appeal process to the city council.

Thank you very much. And that's where I stand, fellow commissioners. Thank you.

Thank you. love this job i take it very seriously um one of the things that i'm so encouraged by is all the participation that happened tonight just like commissioner neal said i think it's it speaks volumes to my decision-making process and i really want to listen to the neighbors i really really think and i'm asking Commissioner O'Neill just to read reconsider her support Just at the level of this occupancy. So that that's what speaking to me the most as well is is the the fact that because there isn't a Precedent or there isn't zoning ordinances that address this Specifically and that we are just such a subjective group, you know creating some you know, decisions on this, that I think people will use that in the future to, I mean, as they should, you know, I mean, if there isn't a ordinance on the books, then they're going to go, well, you approve this here and you approve that there. So anyway, my complaints are specific to the fact that the CUP is so vague. I'm disappointed that there aren't more, and if I was to be changed my mind to be in support of this, it would have to have a lot more restrictions on it, mainly the number of beds. It's due to, I too have had elderly parents, I have had many visits recently with EMS and all the things, and just even the volume of the appointments. There's just going to be a tremendous impact on that neighborhood with 12 plus the three employees and all the things, and I'm just not in support at this level at all. I disagree with the argument that... There's a housing crisis in quantity. I completely do not buy that that would be a essential or that it would help change my view of the need to have this type of permit, the conditional use permit, because you are exceeding the six by right. So I also, the last thing I want to do is I want our commission, as we come up with these conditional use permits and we're changing the structure of the home, I want us to consider the resaleability of the property later. I think that when we reviewed something earlier in the year, I was told that, well, that's not, You shouldn't, and one of the questions you had, Commissioner Martin, was could, I believe it was you, could they make 10 bedrooms in the residence if it was just for a family, a single family? Was that you, Ms. Neal? I'm sorry. And that's true. I've built 10-bedroom homes. So, I mean, it's a thing. But also, there's not all the added value things that go along with that, or the extra trash cans you'd need for 15 people using a facility. I mean, you know, so it is truly commercial to me. This is just gone above and beyond, and I do want us to consider that when you modify a structure that much, would it create blight if that house didn't sell then after its intended use, so. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME STATE MY OPINION.

COMMISSIONER BRYANT-OLIVER, I JUST WANTED TO COLORIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING POLICY AND THE CITY HAS NO POLICY. THE CITY HAS AN ORDINANCE THAT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT IF THERE ARE SIX OR LESS RESIDENTS, IT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT. And the ordinance also says that if it's seven or more, then it requires a CUP. So we do have a process. I think the issue that the commission has is that the seven or more doesn't have a ceiling. And so I can't speak for why the ordinance is written the way it was written, but it doesn't have a ceiling and neither does state law.

Well, and I'll clarify, it's not just exclusive to the ceiling. I mean, the issue that I have is that the use exists in another zone as a permitted right, regardless of scale. But there are certain things, the quality of the wall, separating it from its neighbors, the quantity of parking, how trash is handled. And so to me, I take issue that with the CUP, because to me, the CUP process works to reconcile a commercial-level quality of construction with the requirements of a single-family residential neighborhood. And to me, what I didn't see in staff's evaluation was any effort to reconcile those things. You know, there were some basic requirements analysis of we're in compliance with kind of building and life safety aspects which is one component but to me it is um it seems problematic when that we are conditioning and making these projects more complicated in zones that don't exist in single-family neighborhoods than we are them coming into a single-family neighborhood. And I just didn't see in the CUP why we were either... I mean, and that's why I go back to... What we were presented with, to me, the city's stance is more akin to it being a by-right use, and it shouldn't even come before this commission because it was just basically, they've met the requirements of life safety, of building, and so to me, it's not just the no ceiling, but it's more that We condition these very needed projects a lot more in a different zone, and then we're not analyzing these projects as they move into a zone that is more single family in nature. um well not just by nature by definition um and so to me like those issues of you know how trash is contained how things are separated it's you know it just there needs to be more definition around it because this project fit 12 because of the size of the structure but there the way that this is going there's no like if someone were to tear down a house and rebuild the biggest building they could to fit the zoning requirements, in theory, there is no ceiling to how many of these could exist and still be considered single family and therefore no parking requirements. So to me, the logic got lost a little bit, and that is really my challenge with the project. Residential care facilities, I'm a huge advocate for, again, very impactful personally in my life. It just feels like... The process doesn't really, yeah, so beyond the ceiling, it's just that we're putting these conditions on commercial properties, but not residential properties. And that seems strange. And we've given a line in the sand, which is six or below. And so it feels like the logic is lost a little bit. But otherwise, I mean, I think, yeah, so that's just my, that's my problem with the application tonight.

Can I ask you a question? because obviously you know this, that the applicants did go through this process and spent a lot of money on this process and their use isn't very far from other uses that have been permitted in the past. And I'm just wondering if we can refer this back to staff to come up with some more recommendations ideas about how we can maybe move over some of, because if the concern is that setting precedent tonight would create an opportunity for this particular iteration of the use that obviously residents don't like to happen more easily after this, maybe we should slow down a little bit and think about some of the things that were raised or questions that were raised where we don't have answers or where we want a little bit more depth and refer it back to staff with like some very specific questions or even just to allow more time for us to follow up on everything that was presented tonight as a commission.

I don't want to speak first, but I thought you were looking at me, so I'll go. I mean, I appreciate that approach because, again, I think my frustration with the process, not necessarily the project, I think that having an understanding of the analysis of why we thought 12 was acceptable is, if this was quantified and reviewed through a process associated with a buy-write use in C1, whether it's trash, whether it's fire, or whether it's separation between uses, all those different, and to me, I think, because again, you look at 12, and we're looking at a parking load of in a commercial zone of, I believe it's six spots, and then whatever the city quantifies for employee parking. So we're not talking about 400 parking spots. But to me, that is data that points to the scale of impact as we quantify it. So I think I like your motion.

absolutely maybe we can even look at some of the conditions that are placed on the commercial um similar uses over seven and above that aren't necessarily present uh in the conditions that we placed here and whether or not some of those things even if it's not an exact match to what is placed on those but um a condition that would address all the concerns that we've heard um and because we got this today right and then the opposition showed up right so I THINK SLOWING IT DOWN AND JUST REALLY LOOKING DEEPLY AT BOTH SIDES WOULD BE GOOD.

SO YES, WE CAN DEFINITELY REFER IT BACK TO STAFF. THE ONLY THING IS THAT WE ALREADY CLOSED THE HEARING SO WE JUST HAD TO RENOTICE IT FOR A LATER TIME.

SO IS THAT A MOTION?

SO THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO, YES.

MR. MARTIN.

Yeah, I was gonna, we'll hear your motion first. I was ready to motion to deny. I think with the 94% of the current facilities that we have in this town, we have stayed with the six and below. And if what I'm hearing from staff that we are not, this is amongst our discretion. And I see with the traffic and the EMS, and I'm sorry to the applicant, as Commissioner Neal and others said, this is tough, but for me, I don't think we need to waste people's time and my thought, if we wanna do that internally as planning, but I would motion at this time to deny the application, understanding you'll still be able to have the six if my motion succeeded.

I have a motion on the table. Do I have a second?

I second it. Madam Clerk?

So the last motion goes first. I don't know which, I heard that motion. Did you make a motion for that?

My motion is to refer this back to staff.

Okay, so the last motion goes first. If the motion fails, then we fall back on the original motion.

No, my motion was first, which was to refer it to staff. Yours was second, so we gotta vote on the denial first.

Yes, vote on the denial first.

So if we say yes, we're denying the project. If we say no, we're not denying the project.

And then we fall back on your motion to refer back to staff.

Okay, so a yes means deny on this one.

So I know that Martin moved the motion. Who seconded the motion?

Brant Oliver. Okay, so I have a motion by Commissioner Martin and a second by Commissioner Brant Oliver. Can we cast your votes?

Motion passes with Commissioner Cater and Commissioner Neal voting no, and with Chair Strickland and Commissioner Kaur absent.

So the project's denied. That's correct. May I read the appeal?

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Vice Chair, may I read the appeal? Yeah, go ahead. Statement. You may appeal a commission's decision to the City Council within 10 days of the date of the commission's decision by submitting your request in writing to the City Council in care of the Office of the City Clerk. Your appeal must satisfy the requirements of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and may require a non-refundable filing fee. If you are a project applicant or any person outside of the mailing notice, you may be required to pay the fee. Additional information is listed on the welcome sheet that's attached to your agenda, or you're certainly welcome to call the planning department for more information. Thank you.

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item seven, communications.

Does staff have any communications?

We will not have a December 4th Planning Commission meeting, and we are unclear about the December 18th, but we will let you know. Also, January 1st is a holiday, so perhaps the next time we meet will be January 15th. If that's the case, happy holidays.

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item eight, commissioner comments.

Do I have any comments from my commission?

Yeah, this was really hard. I just want both sides to know that we really do take your concerns very seriously as residents of the neighborhood, but then also the owners of that property that want to do something different. We take it very seriously. This is, I always say, an issue of the tragedy of the commons. We have different ideas about how we wanna share space. And it's, just the way it is unless we have some very black and white clear rules around these kind of what I would say gray area type things. So I don't know, depending on who's sitting in the seats, it could go either way on any of these things. So I just wanted to say thank you for everybody that showed up tonight to participate in this process.

I totally agree it was super difficult tonight. I really want to echo Mr. Cater's, Commissioner Cater's points because what I meant through this whole zoning thing, and I'm not, unfortunately my vocabulary is not very wide and my experience of speaking is not very good, but I do mean that I want people to have clearer boundaries within our ordinances, especially as it relates to this. I think so often they're buying property with the assumption that they're gonna get to use it as is intended. And I see our state and our city just completely changing that. And it's extremely frustrating to me. I feel like the property owners are losing a lot of their Rights and it it's very bothersome to me this my decision tonight really had nothing to do with The fact of whether you know we need elderly care and all that because I again I completely support that I just don't support it at a level at which the people who own the property Surrounding it or uninformed at what could happen in the future, and I also feel like this short amount of time we have was not the appropriate time to create a very strict policy. And I urge us to somehow either refer it to city council or something, but to get some stricter, more informed, clear rules on this particular issue, because it is needed. And I do want our elderly within our neighborhoods, but I want a lot of cohesiveness and a lot of clarity as far as the property owners go.

Yeah, I want to echo that. I get frustrated very much with the state constantly changing that. And I'm very much an individual and a property rights guy. That's critical. But we also have to make sure that the intended use of that property as best we can, given the confines of the state, that we do that thoughtfully. And we absolutely need elderly care. This is a tough one today. And we have to try to balance that up here. And we do have to bring costs down for that. We have to do it thoughtfully and safely for families and children and the neighborhoods. And that's why I made my motion on that today. I think we have to look further about what guidelines and how we want to do that. We have to do it thoughtfully or it could turn into a commercial, a residential, it's just commercial and people are doing that to skirt different commercial requirements. on this type of business and others. But thank you all for coming here, especially in the weather too. It's great to see participation here and to hear your input, and that weighs heavily on us. And I hope to see that this facility does move forward under the confines of six residents or not, as we can evaluate in the future if we wanna do something different. Thank you to everyone and my fellow commissioners.

Madam Clerk, next item, please.

Agenda item nine, adjournment.

This meeting was adjourned at 7.41 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you.