HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-08
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Held Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 3:00 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California.
ROLL CALL
1.
BOARD MEMBERS: Present: BRAD UNDERWOOD, Chairperson
PHIL BURNS
VINCE ZARAGOZA
STAFF MEMBERS: Present: JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director
PAUL HELLMAN, Principal Planner
MICHAEL RICHARDS, Attorney
GEORGE GILLBURG, Engineer II
DELORES OLDHAM, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
2.
No speaker cards were presented.
3.CONSENT CALENDAR
A.Non-Public Hearing Items:
1.Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting held April 8, 2008.
Member Zaragoza moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Member: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza
B.Public Hearing Items:
1.File No. 08-0289 -
Remove from the agenda azoning modification to reduce
the required off-street parking from 128 to 110 spaces to allow for the
construction of a 70-unit low-income housing project in a C-C (Commercial
Center) zone district located at 1401 S Street.
2.File No. 08-0484 -
Approval of a conditional use permit to expand and modify
an existing cemetery, including construction of 4 mausoleums, expansion of
garden plots, addition of reception facilities, and use of 2 metal storage
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 2
containers for maintenance purposes, on approximately 60 acres within an R-1
(One-Family Dwelling) zone district located at 2739 Panama Lane.
3.File No. 08-0507 -
Approval of a conditional use permit to store 242 metal
storage containers for a 2-year period, and permanent use of 2 metal storage
containers and outdoor storage for site landscape maintenance materials on
approximately 1/4 acre, on an approximate 11-acre site within a PCD
(Planned Commercial Development) zone district located at 8920 thru 9410
Rosedale Highway.
4.File No. 08-0532 -
Approval of a conditional use permit to convert a 640
square foot garage into a residential dwelling in an M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) zone district and zoning modification to permit tandem
parking located at 2717 L Street.
5.File No. 08-0550 -
Approval to continue to June 10, 2008 a conditional use
permit to operate a 1,104 square foot automotive repair shop in a C-1
(Neighborhood Commercial) zone district located at 790 E. Brundage Lane.
6.File No. 08-0558 -
Approval of a conditional use permit to construct and
operate a fire station in an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone district located at
5815 Mountain Vista Drive.
7.File No. 08-0575 -
Approval of a zoning modification to reduce the required
off-street parking for a 27,881 square foot commercial office complex from
142 to 131 spaces to allow for the conversion of 2,771 square feet of general
office space to medical office space in a C-O (Commercial Office) zone
district located at 1001 Tower Way.
8.File No. 08-0577 -
Approval of a zoning modification to construct a six foot
high masonry wall in the front yard setback in an R-1 (One-Family Dwelling)
st
zone district located at 2311 21 Street.
9.File No. 08-0578 -
Approval of a zoning modification to permit tandem
parking within an expanded one-car garage to allow for the conversion of a
two-car garage to additional living space for a single-family residence in an R-
1 (One-Family Dwelling) zone district located at 1513 Calle Castana.
The public hearing was opened. No one from the audience requested removal
of any item from the Consent Calendar.
Member Burns requested the removal of Item 3, File No. 08-0507.
The public hearing was closed, with the exception of File No. 08-0507.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 3
Member Burns moved to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of
File No. 08-0507.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members Burns, Underwood, Zaragoza.
4.PUBLIC HEARING:
1. File No. 08-0507 -
Approval of a conditional use permit to store 242 metal
storage containers for a 2-year period, and permanent use of 2 metal storage
containers and outdoor storage for site landscape maintenance materials on
approximately 1/4 acre, on an approximate 11-acre site within a PCD (Planned
Commercial Development) zone district located at 8920 thru 9410 Rosedale
Highway.
The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. No one from the
audience spoke in opposition to Staff’s recommendation. Lee Jamieson, owner of
NW Target LLC, representing the storage, stated he is present for any questions.
Member Burns section 3, condition 8.1 about the open storage materials—there is
a screening requirement in conditions of approval, attempt to screen to the height
of the container, and if that is not the intent he would like to propose that to the
board. Staff responded that Condition 8.1 requires at least a 6’ tall fence, which is
the existing height, and because it is temporary Staff did not envision replacement
with a taller fence. Staff just wanted to maintain the existing screening.
Member Burns referred to Wal-Marts storage area was required to screen the
entire storage area, and it appears in this particular case it is not required as far as
the intent of the use. Staff responded that the Wal-Mart situation was a
permanent facility, and the current facility is temporary. Staff also pointed out that
the condition prohibits stacking of the containers, and therefore no additional
screening is required.
Member Burn referenced the request for two permanent and if there will be no
condition for additional screening for the two permanent, and inquired where the
location would be of the two permanent containers. Staff responded that they do
no have a specific condition, and they could modify the condition to provide
screening for the two additional containers so that are not visible from outside of
the storage area.
Mr. Jamieson stated that when the put the containers in there was a differentiation
between what happed with Wal-Mart and Home Depot, because the same
requirement was made on Home Depot as you go east on the northwest
Promenade center. He explained that you can’t see any of the containers from the
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 4
public right of way unless you happen to be in a real tall car and look back. He
said that all of the containers have been moved to the west end of the site so that
there is really no visibility from any of the public right of way. He also explained
that the two containers would be similar and would be down towards the power
lines. He pointed out that he would be comfortable with screening the two
containers.
Member Zaragoza inquired if there is a consensus that the permanent containers
not be visible within the public right of way of the condition, or are they saying
screening to match the two permanent containers. Staff responded that it would
be appropriate to have the two permanent containers not be visible from the
public way Staff responded that it would be appropriate so that the permanent
ones are not visible from the public way so that they are not back in two years
asking for an extension.
Clarification was discussed on how the condition would be written, and Staff
confirmed that the permanent containers will not be visible from the public way,
which includes Main Plaza Drive to the east, and to the north where there are
single family homes, which have a six foot block wall.
Member Burns moved to adopt attached Resolution with all findings and
conditions, adding a condition of the two permanent storage containers will not
be visible from the public right of way, approving conditional use permit 08-0578
as depicted in the project description.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
2.File No. 08-0330 -
Zoning modification to reduce the required off-street parking
for a residential facility for drug and alcohol rehabilitation for 57 clients and 5
staff members from 48 spaces to 10 spaces in a C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial)
zone district located at 2111 & 2117 F Street.
The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. Martin Hansen,
President and CEO of Legacy Behavioral Services, gave a background of the
company. He stated that Legacy is appealing to the Board because it wishes to
improve the substance abuse services that they offer in downtown Bakersfield. He
stated that Legacy is not asking to introduce new services to the downtown
neighborhood, but instead they are asking to rebuild on a property that they
already utilizing. Mr. Hansen went on to explain that their request is not changing
the property’s historic use, nor is it being inconsiderate to the local community.
He pointed out that the design of the facility has taken recommendations from the
local neighbors, and went door to door to the neighbors in an effort to assure that
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 5
community support is present. Mr. Hansen commented that they had hoped that
the findings would focus primarily on the parking modifications and not zoning
issues, as it is his understanding that the City planners established zoning as a
uniform way of deciding what kind of buildings and businesses may be
constructed, and where. He explained that the current project is a C-1 zone,
which allows for their type of business, and he doesn’t believe it is appropriate to
have a zoning issue, but rather a discussion about the feasibility of a parking
modification to the project that Legacy is pursuing.
Mr. Hansen referenced the three major points that the City based their decision. 1)
The City planners found that the proposed facility has a potential to be injurious
to the properties in the area, by over concentrating the number of residential
treatment facilities in the area. He explained that the residential treatment facility
has been in operation on F Street since the mid 1970s, and a search of the adjacent
residential properties reveals that the property owners purchased their properties
long after the existence of the residential treatment. He also stated that discussions
with several local property appraisers collaborate the fact that any devaluation of
property values would have already occurred at the time of their purchase. He
pointed out that this facility has existed for over 30 years in the downtown
neighborhood.
2) The existing facilities at 2111 through 2117 F Street were built in 1899 and are
nearing the end of their useful life. He stated that currently they are used by
Legacy Behavioral Services as an extension to the residential treatment by
housing sober living clients. He explained that 24 clients can currently be housed
in multiple structures on the proposed property. He stated that since the property
contains three separate duplexes and a house, the clients are not contained within
a single structure, which results in clients being over exposed to the public. He
explained that the new facility would replace the existing 24 bed capacity
structure with a new aesthetically pleasing facility designed to limit client
exposure to the public. He provided comments from their immediate neighbors,
which include, Bonnie’s Best states, “Removing the old run down buildings will
be a much needed improvement to our neighborhood.” Lauren McCain, owner of
McCain Family Chiropractic stated, “It will improve the look of F Street.”
Belinda Comacho, owner of All About You stated, “I have no reservation with
this new plan. Plus, it will improve the look of F Street.”
Mr. Hansen stated that the City planners indicated that the proposed use is
permitted by right in the C-1 district, however they want to deter the project by
denying this modification. He commented that in speaking with the Planning
Commission, it was conveyed to Legacy that there is a general feeling in the
neighborhood that they do not want, “those people,” in the neighborhood. Mr.
Hansen pointed out that they went door to door with the neighbors within 300 feet
of the property, and although there were isolated concerns, the general consensus
was positive. He stated that Legacy has a good neighbor policy that has helped
develop good relations with their neighbors. He explained that Legacy screens all
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 6
of their clients before acceptance, and stated that Legacy does not accept violent
offenders, sex offenders, or individuals who would pose a threat to the
community. He pointed out that they accept individuals who are someone’s son,
brother, grandson, or nephew. He continued to point out that they accept those
who will go on to reside in neighborhoods throughout Bakersfield.
Mr. Hansen gave an example of how they were able to help a teenager overcome
his struggles, and how he succeeded.
The City’s third point was that the proposed residential care facility is considered
incompatible with surrounding developments, and that it would be very difficult
to reuse the proposed 5,500 sq. ft. facility for another use with only 10 off-street
parking spaces. Mr. Hansen asked that the Board consider that the residential
facility on F Street is the oldest treatment facility in all of Kern County, and
thousands of productive members of the community attribute their sobriety to this
treatment facility. He also pointed out that the business owners and predominant
members of out society are products of the Legacy facility. He stated that the
facility is not only compatible, but also a vital part of the community, and has
been a part of the neighborhood longer than most people have lived there.
Mr. Hansen further pointed out that the need for treatment in Kern County is
greatly on the rise, and as a non-profit, Legacy is committed to helping the
community. He stated that if the proposed modification is not approved, Legacy
will continue to provide services on the site as it stands. He also commented that
many businesses are allowed to design their own structures to fit their needs, the
needs of their business and the needs of their customers. He referenced
McDonald’s which has a unique appearance which makes their use difficult for
any other fast food chain for use other than a fast food chain. They are permitted
because the community sees a need for their service. He pointed out that Legacy
does not dispute the fact that the facility is being designed with a purpose in mind,
but is also being designed with flexibility. He explained, that while there may be
truth to the City’s statement that the building would be difficult to reuse, if you
consider McDonald’s as a difficult reuse for any other purpose than fast food,
then Legacy is offering to commit the property to the service of individuals with
alcohol and drug abuse dependency issues. He pointed out the prior history of
the treatment facilities at this location, explaining that when previous treatment
facilities at the site were closed, the site reused with similar types of facilities. He
stated that he does not think the building will ever be faced with a lack of desired
tenants.
The third point brought by the City is that the findings of the city planners is that
the modification would be inconsistent with the purposes and the intent of the
City ordinance, further stating that the modifications would not be in harmony
with and beneficial to the surrounding properties. Mr. Hansen pointed out that in
the mid 1970s residential treatment began in downtown Bakersfield under the
non-profit name Pathways, which opened in an old boarding house at 2105 F
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 7
Street. Pathways then expanded services into 2106 E Street, 2111 F Street, 2113
F Street, and 2117 F Street, and those properties have been used for many, many
years. He explained that the facility has served the local community for nearly 35
years, and has an established business in the neighborhood, and has become part
of the neighborhood’s character, as well as the social and economic stability of
the neighborhood. Mr. Hansen went on to state that the property at 2105 F Street
opens its doors to local narcotic anonymous and alcohol anonymous almost every
week. He stated that local residents of the community consisting of all walks of
life attend those meetings.
Mr. Hansen stated that he believes that the City planners do understand that the
property in question has and will be used for the population that they concerned
about. The modification will not change any of the factors, except that a newer,
nicer-looking facility will be introduced into the area. Mr. Hansen commented
that the failure of the modification would require Legacy to expand by leasing and
purchasing additional properties throughout the neighborhood, but they feel that
the most consistent with the purpose and intent of the City ordinance is the
construction of one facility designed to best serve the community.
Mr. Hansen pointed out that the facility restricts clients from having vehicles, and
the treatment process requires that clients have little interaction with the outside
world until the clients gains some control over their addiction. He also stated that
they currently house 53 clients between the three properties, and there area a total
of 11 off-street parking places. He pointed out that these parking spots are almost
always empty. He stated that the two parking spots at 2106 E Street are always
empty, and the parking at 2105 F Street consists of four parking spots, and
typically holds two to three cars. The five parking spots at the 2111-2117 F Street
currently houses 24 clients and typically has one or two parked cars at any given
time. He stated that Legacy does not believe that the parking modification will
have any effect on the neighbors, the residents or the visitors to the surrounding
area, however it will have significant impact on Legacy’s services. It will allow
Legacy to invest in the facility itself and allow Legacy to design a facility in such
a way that the high quality services will be delivered and the neighborhood will
be improved. He stated that they believe that the land use is approved by the City
zoning and ordinance, and the issue before the Board is not the use of the land,
but rather the off-street parking. He pointed out that the parking should not be
used as a tool to override existing zoning. He asked that if the Board cannot
approve the modification, that they issue a resolution giving as much parking
relief as they feel is reasonable. He also asked that Legacy, as a non-profit, not be
asked to endure another process of obtaining parking relief.
Dr. Jim Malone stated he is not associated with this facility. He explained that his
daughter needed to be in an alcohol rehabilitation center, and he had a hard time
finding a place that looked conventional that he would feel good about having her
stay. He stated that they ended up having her go to Ventura. He stated this
Legacy facility is more conventional, newer and up to date and will attract more
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 8
people from this area. He stated that this modification is more in keeping with
what people would like to see in this community.
Joyce Olivas stated that she works with Joyce Lagreco Insurance business across
the street from this facility, and explained that she has no opposition to Legacy’s
goals. She stated that they are asking not just for a couple of extra parking spaces,
but a whole bunch. She stated that when the people get into a sober living facility
they can get a job and they can have a car. She is concerned about the future and
where the potential additional cars will be parked. She explained that they all
have very limited parking in this area. Ms. Olivas commented that she is
confused as to the number of clients they can have at the facility. She inquired
why Legacy didn’t buy other properties in the area and use it for parking. She also
expressed her feeling that Legacy made a threat that if they do not get the parking
the buildings will stay as they are.
st
John Garone, property owner of the property located on the corner of 21 and F
Street, which is the southwest corner. He stated they have owned the property
since about 1974 and they just went through an extensive remodel on the
property. He stated that there are serious parking problems in the area, and this
project will just compound the existing problem.
Ray Manning stated he owns a building in the area as well, and he has the same
problems with people parking on their private off-street parking. He stated that in
his view the proposal is eventually these people should be getting cars if they are
being rehabilitated, and it is a formula for disaster. He said they also have
problems from functions from the Fox Theatre and this facility’s parking would
compound the problem.
Mark Querry, who works with Legacy, responded that he has been canvassing the
area in the last several days, and that he had spoke with Ms. Olivas who was most
opposed to the project. He pointed out that it appeared to him that she was not
opposed because of a parking issue necessarily, but it was “those people” in their
facility. He also commented that if Legacy is to develop parking, it would be for
its clients and not for the general area, as Mr. Manning and Ms. Olivas inferred.
Mr. Querry’s concern is that as he was canvassing the area he saw Ms. Olivas pull
through the alleyway behind Legacy, and it appeared as though she parked in the
Carriage Jewelers parking lot. He stated that he went and spoke with Don at
Carriage Jewelers and asked if parking is a problem for him, to which Don
responded that it was a problem because “they,” (Joyce Legreco Insurance), “park
in my parking spot all the time.” Mr. Querry stated that he believes it is more of
an issue of how “they” (Joyce Legreco) can get more parking for their facility
because they don’t have enough. He stated that Legacy has made a good
argument that they don’t need the parking for their clients. He stated that they are
committing the properties for the services of individuals who have addictions.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 9
Mark Querry stated that having access to transportation is not conducive to their
clients’ treatment process, as they deny them access to transportation. He stated
this is not a question of whether or not they should be there, but that they are
asking for a parking variance. He restated that if they are not going to be granted
a parking variance as written they are asking for whatever relief that the Board
would allow them to have.
Mr. Hansen replied to Joyce that she knows that they provide sober living
services, explaining that there are two duplexes on E Street, which really aren’t
part of this discussion, and they do have sober living on the current site. He
explained that they are on the current site because in the condition of the current
building they are not really conducive to treatment, and they want to provide
treatment. He explained that sober living is a controlled environment, but it’s not
treatment. He stated that they want to treat people. He also stated that the current
facility is being designed so that it can be licensed as a State licensed treatment
facility. He pointed out that sober living usually generates about $600-$800 per
client per month for all meals, toiletries, etc. Residential treatment usually is
about $1,600-$1,800. Therefore, the chances of them having a desire to revert to
sober living would be something that not only would they want to do from a
mission and vision standpoint, but it doesn’t make sense to pay the bills. He
explained that with a $21,000 a month lease you are not going to do the sober
living to pay the lease. He also pointed out that with the 57 current clients, with
11 parking spaces, and not even half of them are used, which is a historical
number. The 10 out of the 57 could be sober living and could have a car, but the
frank reality is that someone who has just done five years in prison, or has had an
addiction, typically doesn’t have the money for a car.
Mr. Hansen replied to the question of how many beds are being added to the
facility, by stating that they have 57 beds currently, 24 of which are located on the
property which they plan to demolition and build a new 57 bed facility, which
nets 33 more beds. He stated that he does not think that there are going to be
parking issues with their facility. He commented that he has talked with Bonnie’s
Best and explained that with the addition of 10 spaces they don’t think they will
be used, and they anticipate that she will be able to use their parking. He also
st
stated that the accountants on 21 and E Street are elated because every day at
lunch when Bonnie’s Best has their lunch crowd, they put orange cones in their
parking lot so that Bonnie’s Best customers aren’t taking their parking. He stated
that he does not think that their project is going to be detrimental to anyone’s
parking in the area.
Member Zaragoza inquired as to the square footage at 2108 E Street, and the
square footage of 2105 F Street. Mr. Hansen responded that the square footage at
2105 F Street is approximately 2,400 sq. ft. on the downstairs, and 2,300 sq. ft. on
the upstairs. He stated that the E Street property is around 1,200-1,400 sq. ft.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 10
Ms. Olivas stated that she has never parked at Carriage Jewelers. She also stated
that she never told Mark anything about “those people,” and that they discussed
the parking issues. She also pointed out that there are people coming out of
prison that are living at these facilities.
The public hearing was closed. Member Zaragoza commented that he does
believe that drug and alcohol problems or rehabilitation is a priority to be
addressed in the City, and this is an issue on not whether or not by right the
applicant should expand, but rather a question of how may parking spaces the
applicant can develop. Member Zaragoza clarified that it appears that the current
resident at 2108 E Street, and 2105 F Street total about 30, and the proposed new
building will house another 50, which will be a total of about 87 residents, which
is a 65% increase in residents. He went on to summarize that currently between
2108 and 2105 there are around four staff members, and the proposed facility
will have an additional four which total to about eight, which is a 100% increase
in staff. In addition, the current square foot for both buildings is around 6,000 sq.
ft., and the total square footage with a 5,500 additional sq. ft. totals 11,550, which
is almost a 100% increase. He explained that the existing proposal is going to be
almost doubled in staff and square footage, and the residents will increase by
65%. Given this, and the fact that there is current parking, but the parking is not
conforming with the most recent zoning ordinance, the requirements are
substantially higher. Member Zaragoza inquired if they are saying by zoning
regulation it should really be close to 68 parking spaces, further inquiring how
they got to 48.
Staff responded that the issue really stems with the existing buildings on the
current property, and that Staff was not aware that the existing buildings on the
site were being used for sober living. Up until recently they were just privately
owned rental units, and they were told that at some point the owner agreed to
vacate those buildings and let Legacy utilize that space for their facility. Staff
stated that essentially, if this modification is not approved, they are going to have
to go back and revisit how the operation is currently being conducted. Staff
indicated that they did a walk through of the property, and they don’t believe that
there are 24 residents.
Member Zaragoza commented that if there was nothing there and they wanted to
do an addition of about 5,500 sq. ft. new facility, about 48 spaces would be
required based on the number of beds and number of staff. Staff confirmed this.
Member Zaragoza commented that the applicant is requesting a 79% reduction of
parking, to which Staff confirmed, clarifying that they are looking at these
independently because they are individual properties that could be sold off.
Member Zaragoza stated that there were several good letters in support, and that
Bonnie’s Café spoke directly to the parking issues, indicating that there are few
cars parked behind the facility, and that 10 spaces would be more than adequate
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 11
for their needs. Member Zaragoza explained that the parking requirements are
tied to any type of regulatory requirement when it comes to this type of infill
project, and historically they have been pretty consistent with the BZA as far as
requiring those types of improvements on other sober living types of
environments. Staff commented that the last similar facility was a modification
for a 26 bed facility with three staff and was approved with 12 spaces, which was
about half of what was required. If the same logic is applied in this case, this
facility would require about 24.
Member Burns inquired if the downtown area has reduced parking regulations, to
which Staff responded in the affirmative. Staff explained that the current
reduction in parking for some uses is about a 50% reduction, but does not apply
across the board to all uses. Staff stated that the boundary is F Street, and
everything further to the west falls under the current ordinance.
Member Burns stated that he did not believe that 10 parking spaces was enough
for this facility, and thinks that a minimum of 24, if not more, would be more
appropriate.
Member Underwood echoed the comment about the seriousness of the
rehabilitation. He thanked everyone in attendance as well. He further indicated
that he did not see in the report any mention the usage currently on the property,
and that Mr. Hansen is looking at 33 more beds compared to what the existing use
is right now. He inquired if they should have had a CUP on the two existing
facilities. Staff responded in the negative stating the issue would be with the
parking as well, as in a C-1 zone these types of facilities are allowed by right.
Staff pointed out that if the property changed use to something other than rentals,
a CUP could be required, and also stated that the bigger concern is the
requirement for a building permit for the change of use.
Member Underwood commented that that Mr. Hansen’s comparison to
McDonald’s is mixing apples and oranges. He inquired if Mr. Hansen has thought
about demolishing one of the other two properties and utilizing it for parking. Mr.
Hansen responded that he thinks the need in the community is high and there are
so many individuals who are living under bridges and out walking on the street,
without a place to go, and their concern is trying to meet the meets of those
individuals in the community that are lost.
Member Underwood commented that it is probably evident that the applicant
doesn’t need as many parking spaces that are being asked for, but there should be
a few more than what the applicant is asking for. He stated that he thinks Ms.
Olivas makes a valid point in her comment about today the applicant’s policy is
not to allow individuals with vehicles, but what about tomorrow. Mr. Hansen
responded that while the Board does not know him and his ethics, Legacy has
always been built on honesty and they are in the business of helping people. He
pointed out that historically they have never needed a lot of parking.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 12
Member Underwood stated that he has noticed cars parked in front of the facility.
He inquired if those cars were for the applicant’s facility, and if he would object
to removing parking from the front of the facility because there is a need for
traffic flow through that area. Mr. Hansen stated that he cannot identify whose
cars are parked in the front. He stated that Bonnie’s Best would be most
influenced by their business, and they have a good neighbor policy.
Member Underwood inquired if it would be a possibility to require a condition to
remove on-street parking. Staff responded that they usually defer to the traffic
engineer because they are the ones that set the time and the spacing. Staff stated
they could add this to the condition as long as they can have the traffic engineer
look at it to make sure it is not creating a problem.
Mr. Hansen stated that the problem he would have with a no parking zone is that
it would hurt Bonnie’s Best, and he would feel horrible if that occurred. Member
Underwood stated that they would want to confer with Bonnie’s Best, and that he
is more concerned with the operation of the signal, and making it more
operational for traffic flow.
Staff commented that rather than tie the elimination of front parking to this
particular project, they could make a referral to the traffic engineer to look at F
Street in general so they are not putting the problem on the applicant, nor any
other business. Member Underwood stated that if it was approved he may want to
put something to the effect that the applicant would not object to the elimination
of front parking on F Street.
Member Underwood stated he has a hard time disagreeing with item 1 with regard
to the granting of, “the subject modification would not be material or detrimental
to the public welfare nor injurious to property or improvements in the zone of
which the property is located.” He also stated that he would have a hard time
disagreeing with item 3 with regard to the granting of, “a modification would not
be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Bakersfield zoning ordinance.”
Member Underwood recommended uphold Staff’s recommendation.
Member Burns stated he agrees with Chair Underwood regarding Staff’s
recommendations. He stated that he would support Staff’s denial of modification,
however, in light of the fact that downtown parking may be getting some reprieve
in the future, he would be willing to entertain some regulatory relief. He stated
that 10 parking spaces would not be enough, however.
Member ____ agreed that 10 parking spaces is not sufficient. He commented that
his rough calculations put it at 30 parking spaces.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 13
Staff stated they would want to renotice the application indicating the increased
number of parking spaces.
_______ pointed out that the initial notice was confusing to some as to what
actually was being requested, so re-noticing with a different proposal would allow
for clarification.
Member Zaragoza asked Mr. Hansen if he could come up with more spaces. Mr.
Hansen stated that part of the design was to create an atrium inside the building,
which took up more sq. footage of the lot. Mr. Hansen stated that they are willing
to cooperate and he would be willing to work with a different number.
Member Underwood moved to continue this item to June 10, 2008.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
3. File No. 08-0523 –
Conditional use permit to convert a 2,400 square foot single-
family residence to a residential facility for drug and alcohol rehabilitation for 14
clients and 2 staff members and zoning modification to reduce the required off-
street parking from 13 spaces to 3 spaces in an R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family
Dwelling) zone district located at 1900 Clarendon Street.
The public hearing was opened and the staff report was given. Pastor Jehosephat
Jordan of Christ First Ministries, as well as Stop the Violence, asked the
committee to find a away to accommodate this program in view of the fact that
there is no perfect spot to put a drug rehab. He elaborated how there is a need for
living quarters for the these addicted people. He pointed out that these people do
not have cars and the facility should not be denied due to parking issues.
Shawn ______, Executive Director of Stop the Violence, stated the applicant
takes people in who no one else will take. The applicant has a garden that helps
facilitate food for everybody in the neighborhood. He state that the applicant
provides hope for this community.
John Dearmon(??) stated that he is a recovering addict, and went to the subject
facility. He stated that if there are limitations put on this facility they are limiting
the recovery of someone’s future.
Freddie Morales stated he stayed in the facility for one year, and the program
helped him a lot, and he now has a family he is responsible for.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 14
Jessie Tatum stated he is a recovering addict and a project of Isaiah’s Sober
Living. He said he can’t say enough good things about the facility. He pointed
out that most of them ride bicycles, and that three parking spaces is more than
adequate.
Gary Rumrial, the manager of the Partnership Food Bank, commented that many
of the members are people that go through the home and they assist in the
distribution of emergency food to many people in that community.
Joe Desimone, the owner and operator of Building Futures Sober Living Homes,
stated that he operates about 45 beds in six different homes in Bakersfield. He
stated that he was a student of Isaiah. He believes that what he is teaching these
men will last a long time. He commented that Isaiah provides a recovery that is
beneficial to the community.
Alejandro Rivera stated he owns the property at 915 S. Williams, and is new to
the neighborhood, but does realize that there is no ideal area for rehab facilities.
He stated he has lived at this address for 1 ½ to 2 years, and the rehab facility was
a surprise to him when he made the investment. He stated that it was not apparent
to him that it was a rehab facility, and the residents are hardly ever seen. He
stated that he feels safer knowing that the once drug house that use to be there is
now a rehab facility with people who are trying to put their lives together. Mr.
Rivera stated that from a parking standpoint, there are a few issues with parking
and that is possibly due to the construction occurring. He stated that he would
like to see some sort of operational statement from the facility knowing when the
curfew hours are, what type of people will be staying there, etc. Otherwise, he
state that he is in favor of the facility.
Isaiah Crompton, the applicant, stated that he started the men’s home 13 years
ago. He commented that he would like to carry on his mother’s legacy for love of
the people, and he likes to give back to the community what he has learned
through his experience. He stated that they own land across the street, and they
can try to work with what the issue is with parking. He asked Staff and the Board
to reconsider and allow a CUP so that they can continue their ministry in the
community.
No one spoke in favor of Staff’s recommendation.
The public hearing is closed.
Member Zaragoza echoed the commendations to Isaiah’s Sober Living for their
commitment to building community and rehabilitating men. He clarified if this is
a request to the BZA to approve CUP for 14 clients and 2 staff members in an R-2
zone district, and to reduce required off-street parking from 13 spaces to 3 spaces.
Staff confirmed this understanding.
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 15
Member Zaragoza clarified that current zoning would allow by right a residential
facility for drug and alcohol rehabilitation for 6 clients, and inquired how many
staff members. Staff responded that if it is State licensed, the could have up to 6
residents, and the number of staff are not restricted.
Member Zaragoza then clarified that it is really a request to go from 6 clients to
14, and to reduce parking spaces from 13 to 3. Member Zaragoza inquired as to
the sq. footage of the existing facility, to which the applicant responded there are
7 bedrooms and 1 ______. For clarification, Member Zaragoza stated that the
2004 CUP was 2,700 sq. feet, with 7 bedrooms, and was approved for 10 clients.
The current application is 2,400 sq. feet with only 4 bedrooms, and the request is
for 14 clients, which is 4 more clients and 300 sq. ft. less than the one approved in
2004.
Member Zaragoza deferred to Staff with regard to the reference in the
administrative report about the over concentration standard. Staff responded that
it is a standard that is applied by the State Dept. of Social Services who license
certain types of residential facilities, but not the drug and alcohol rehabilitation
facilities, and Staff has adopted the State’s standard as a prudent policy to use
when looking at CUPs. Staff pointed out that it is not part of their code but a
point of reference used when looking at proposed CUPs.
Member Zaragoza inquired if there were any other similar facilities within 300
feet of this application, other than the one next door, to which Staff replied they
are not aware of any. Staff pointed out that facilities with 6 or less residents are
not required to obtain approval from planning or building.
Member Underwood stated when he looks at the picture he sees a vacant lot, and
inquired if the applicant built the facility ahead of time and is now coming
forward asking for a CUP. Staff responded that the home was built as a single-
family home, which is allowed by right in this location. Staff confirmed that the
applicant did not approach the city with the idea of converting this to a group
home until they applied for the permit after the home was completed.
Staff clarified that the site plan provided by the applicant is not very clear, but
they are proposing is that the existing 2-car garage would be used to provide 2
parking spaces, and they would essentially demolish the porch cover to the left of
the garage and put a covered handicapped stall in that location. Staff pointed out
that if building code requires the handicapped stall to be enclosed, then the
applicant would try to use the garage for that space, and then put two parking
spaces under the future car porch, however they would have to modify the
configuration of the existing home just to provide the three spaces.
Member Zaragoza inquired how many parking spaces were required for the CUP
approved in 2004. Staff responded they don’t have that information, but perhaps
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 16
2 or 3 for 10 residents. Staff also pointed out that there was a reduction to
probably 3 or 4.
Member Zaragoza stated there is a need for this type of facility, and the BZA is in
favor of these facilities that address the need of people that are dealing with
addictions. He stated that he would be willing to entertain something less than
14???? (sic 3)
14, or maybe less than 10, but definitely not He state that the
parking space requirements are reasonable given how big the sq. footage is.
Staff clarified that a denial of this application would require either an appeal to
City Council, or wait a year and reapply, subsequently paying a new application
fee. Staff stated it could be operated as a facility with 6 residents.
Member Underwood recognized Mr. Crompton. Mr. Crompton stated that 10
would work for them. Member Underwood asked about the property across the
street, to which Mr. Crompton stated it is a garden currently, but they could make
parking out of it.
Member Burns stated that he would concur with 10 spaces. Mr. Crompton
reiterate that their initial proposal was for 14 clients, and if 10 would work they
can work with 10.
Member Burns inquired if Mr. Crompton would be willing to reduce the 10
clients, but keep 3 parking spaces. Mr. Crompton stated he would have to work
with them on the parking. He reiterated that his clients do not have vehicles when
they come to the facility.
Pastor Jordan stated they are not on the same page when they are talking about
parking. He pointed out that drug addicts don’t have cars, and parking should
never be an issue.
Member Burns stated that the Board has to be consistent with the code.
Member Zaragoza stated that he is in favor of Member Burns recommendation,
and that one tell-tell thing is that there was no one present representing the
residential neighborhood against the project. He stated that he would entertain
going from 6 to 10 clients with 5 parking spaces, which is a reduction of more
than 50%.
Staff pointed out that when looking at the site plan, one of the negatives of the
third parking stall that Staff has recommended by removal of the porch, as well as
more pavement in the front yard, which takes away from the residential character
or the look of the home. However, he stated an alternative is if there are 10 or
less, they may not need one of those stalls to be a handicapped stall, which would
give them 4 parking stalls if they allowed a tandem arrangement by use of the
driveway. Staff commented that if the driveway was used there wouldn’t be as
Minutes, BZA, 05/13/08 Page 17
much asphalt in the front and the porch would remain intact, thereby maintaining
the character of the home, and lessening the institutional look.
Member Zaragoza inquired if it is possible to require the applicant to utilize the
property across the street. Staff stated that could be looked at, but you have to
consider creating a parking lot in a residential area, which is not beneficial to a
neighborhood.
Member Burns moved to adopt the attached resolutions with all findings and
conditions, approving conditional use permit to convert 2,400 sq. ft. single-family
residence to a residential facility for drug and alcohol rehabilitation for 10 clients
an 2 staff members in an R-2 zone district, and zone modification to reduce
required off-street parking spaces from ___ spaces to 4 spaces located at 1900
Clarendon Street.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Members: Underwood, Burns, Zaragoza
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
5.COMMUNICATIONS
None.
6. BOARD COMMENTS:
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was concluded at 5:25 p.m.
Delores Oldham, Recording Secretary
_______________________________________
JIM EGGERT, Assistant Planning Director