Developers pitch buying and expanding city senior properties; Council and residents urge legal review of surplus‑land process

Two developers presented a proposal to acquire and expand two city‑owned senior housing properties — Desert Jade and Legacy — and to add new affordable senior units and a community center. Presenters (listing a speaker who introduced the developers) said Desert Jade has about 95 units and Legacy about 12, and cited an internal waiting list of roughly 80 seniors who need affordable housing. The presenters offered a plan that would require no rent increases for current residents, on‑site management, 24/7 maintenance, and a development timeline that, if approved, they said could break ground within 60 days with 30–40 units ready within 12 months and full completion in two to three years.

Council members primarily treated the session as a presentation rather than an action item; the city manager told the council the item had been agendized to allow public comment and that additional staff analysis would be necessary if the council wished to pursue it further. Several public commenters and the city clerk urged the council to follow the state Surplus Land Act process: declare surplus, offer the property to eligible public agencies and affordable housing entities, and work with Kern County and the state to ensure fair competitive offers. Resident Jeanne O’Loughlin explicitly described the statutory sequence and warned of legal challenges if the city failed to follow the surplus‑land rules.

Other public commenters raised concerns about the city’s outstanding $3.17 million SDI loan tied to the Legacy site, the need to clear title and tax payment records, and the municipal obligation to allow other affordable‑housing bidders to participate. Some residents and a council member said they supported private investment if the city cannot or will not develop Legacy itself, but they also urged the council to make any next steps contingent on full legal and title review, fair‑bid procedures, and adherence to state law.

No formal sale, lease or vote occurred at the meeting. City staff and the presenter said they could return with more detailed financials, title work, and legal counsel analysis if the council asked staff to pursue next steps. Several speakers also pressed developers about staffing of on‑site positions and protection for existing city employees; developers said they would interview incumbents and consider their tenure in hiring decisions.

The matter remains at the discussion stage; council did not direct staff to begin statutory surplus‑land procedures during the meeting.