Bakersfield planning commission denies application for 12‑bed residential care home at Riverfront Park Drive
Loading...
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment and debate over traffic, neighborhood character and zoning precedent, the Planning Commission voted to deny a conditional use permit for a proposed 12‑bed residential care facility at 12411 Riverfront Park Drive (CUP 25‑0023).
The Bakersfield Planning Commission voted to deny conditional use permit 25‑0023, a proposal to convert a single‑family home at 12411 Riverfront Park Drive into a 12‑bed residential care facility for the elderly.
Staff presented the project as consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield general plan and municipal code and recommended approval, saying the project would preserve the home's exterior while reconfiguring interior space. Assistant planner Izzy Dalo Gary told the commission that staff had received 11 opposition comments beginning Nov. 12 and described the site as about 0.24 acres in an R‑1 (single‑unit dwelling) zone. The applicant, JNS Health Systems LLC, proposed converting a 3,262‑square‑foot house and expanding living space by enclosing a covered patio to create roughly 4,200 square feet of living area.
Opponents — including neighbors who submitted a nearly unanimous petition — told the commission they had observed increased traffic, frequent emergency responses and changes to neighborhood character after a nearby licensed care facility opened. "I strongly urge you to deny this conditional use permit number 25 0 0 2 3," Virgil Miller told the commission, citing concerns including traffic, parking and proximity to existing facilities. Several residents also argued the proposal would alter the house exterior (converting garage doors to windows) and could depress property values.
Applicant Jenny Pandell, an RN, and counsel Robert Kush defended the project as an affordable alternative to large assisted‑living facilities. Pandell said residents would be "homebound" and therefore would not drive, described a staffing plan with two care staff on duty at maximum capacity plus an administrator and a chef, and said the operator was prepared to accept conditions including a prohibition on residents bringing vehicles. Kush pointed to state policy pressures and the need for elderly housing in Bakersfield.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on licensing distinctions, spacing rules and parking. Staff said the Department of Social Services had not sent a written over‑concentration notice for this application as of the hearing and clarified that an ARF (adult residential facility) serves ages 18–59 while an RCFE serves people 60 and older. Neighbors cited a separate statutory concern, referencing "California Health and Safety Code 15 20.5" (as raised in public testimony) and asking whether required separation distances applied.
After extended discussion about impacts, precedent and the city's zoning line between six and seven residents, Commissioner Martin moved to deny the application; Commissioner Brent Oliver seconded. The motion passed (the clerk recorded that Commissioner Keator and Commissioner Neal voted no, and that Chair Strickland and Commissioner Kaur were absent), ending the commission's consideration of CUP 25‑0023. Staff read instructions explaining the applicant may appeal the commission's decision to the City Council within 10 days.
The commission's action does not prevent the applicants from pursuing a state license for a six‑resident facility, which staff said would fall under state jurisdiction and not require a city conditional use permit.
