METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT DECEMBER 2008
Submitted to: County of Kern Planning Department 2700 'M' Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield CA 93301 (661) 862-8600 City of Bakersfield Planning Department 1715 Chester Avenue, 2nd Floor Bakersfield CA 93301 (661) 326-3733 Submitted by: PMC 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 220 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 Phone: (916) 361-8384 Fax: (916) 361-1574
TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction... 1 II. Comments and Suggestions, Correlated to Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Elements... 2 APPENDICES (INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER) Appendix A: Phase I Town Hall Meeting Documents Appendix A-1: Bakersfield Phase I Town Hall Meetings Summary Appendix A-2: Appendix A-3: Appendix A-4: Appendix A-5: Appendix A-6: Appendix A-7: Northeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Southeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Northwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Southwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Metropolitan Bakersfield Concerns Chart Town Hall Meeting Comments by Meeting Date Appendix B: Vision 2020 Web Survey Appendix C: KernCOG Telephone Survey Appendix D: Additional Comments Appendix E: Phase II Town Hall Meeting Documents Appendix E-1: East Bakersfield Senior Center Town Hall Meeting Summary Appendix E-2: Appendix E-3: MLK Jr. Community Center Town Hall Meeting Summary Convention Center Town Hall Meeting Summary i
I. INTRODUCTION The Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update process began in May 2007 with a series of Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings and surveys to involve members of the community who live, work, and play in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Their input was important to help identify issues that need to be considered in the General Plan Update, and to identify potential solutions to issues facing the area. Participants were asked to identify: The strengths of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area that need to be preserved or enhanced, Problems that need to be addressed, and Potential solutions to problems and ways to maintain and improve quality of life in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The results of the Phase 1 workshops and surveys are critical to ensure that the General Plan Update considers community s concerns and contains goals, policies, and implementation measures that the community will support, and to improve the quality of life for residents within the community. COMMENT SUMMARIES This report summarizes the comments received during a series of four Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings in May 2007, held in conjunction with the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) regional Blueprint planning process. Each of the Phase 1 workshops was held in a different quadrant of Bakersfield: northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast. A variety of comments were received which reflect the portion of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area in which the responder lives or works. For example, according to information collected by KernCOG, southeast Bakersfield residents were very concerned about transportation and mobility, whereas southwest and northwest residents had less concern about this issue. The Phase 1 Town Hall Meeting summaries with complete transcriptions are included in Appendix A. Also included in this report are summaries of the Vision 2020 Web Survey conducted in July 2007 and a public telephone survey commissioned by KernCOG. Executive 1
summaries of each survey are included in Appendix B and C, respectively. A complete account of the KernCOG telephone survey is available at http://www.kerncog.org/survey.php. In addition to the comments received during the Phase 1 workshops and through the Vision 2020 Web Survey and KernCOG telephone survey, some community members submitted comments and ideas directly to the City of Bakersfield and Kern County; these are also included in the summaries in this report. Copies of the comments submitted directly to the City of Bakersfield and Kern County are included in Appendix D. KernCOG subsequently scheduled a series of three Phase 2 Town Hall Meetings for the regional Blueprint planning process. These workshops took place in late January and early February 2008. The intent of the Phase 2 workshops was to educate the participants about the KernCOG Blueprint process, to share the results of the Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings, and to present and facilitate discussion and collect input about draft principles and draft illustrative scenarios for future growth. The participants evaluated a set of nine principles developed from the Phase 1 workshops and rated the principles based upon their perceived importance to the future development of Bakersfield. The summaries of the results from the Phase 2 Town Hall Meetings are included in Appendix E of this report. II. COMMENTS CORRELATED TO GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS The information that was collected from the public through the various avenues was sorted into categories matching the current Elements (chapters) of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan: Land Use Circulation Housing Conservation Open Space Noise, and Public Safety LAND USE The Land Use Element designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of various land uses throughout a plan area. A well thought out plan and community design links and supports the other elements of a good General Plan. Metropolitan Bakersfield residents 2
have expressed a need for plans that direct new growth into the existing developed areas, with a focus on more parks and pathways that link businesses together and enhance the downtown core and historic community. The public comments regarding strengths and weaknesses related to land use are summarized below. Strengths: A common theme represented by the public comments gathered from the various sources was that Metropolitan Bakersfield has a small town feel and according to the results of the telephone survey nearly 90% of respondents feel it is a desirable place to live. Overall strengths include: Shopping is available and close by Education is varied and schools are positioned well within the community There is a diverse opportunity for cultural and faith-based activity The proximity to agriculture provides fresh foods and economic opportunity Centrally located between the mountains, the coast and northern and southern California Parks, open space and recreation is readily available; with a key focus on the Kern River Parkway and trail system. Some direct comments related to these strengths include close proximity of services (convenient), Downtown backbone and unique historical elements, lots of schools, well dispersed, small town atmosphere, and strong faith base. Weaknesses: The main concerns expressed by Metropolitan Bakersfield residents in relation to land use are rapid growth and sprawl. From every group, there were comments related to expansion into agricultural lands and open space. Many respondents fear the infrastructure will not keep up with the population growth, with 84% of the telephone respondents rating their local government as average or below when it comes to housing and land use policies. Other weaknesses identified were: Not enough hospitals or clinics; no children s or veteran s hospital There is a great need for infill development and urban revitalization The desire for walking/bike paths that connect land uses 3
Specific comments include rapid growth outpacing services (better planning), replacing agricultural with housing, lack of planning for growth/urban sprawl and loss of downtown area, and low ratio of parks to population. Kern Council of Governments Potential Solutions: Overall suggestions relating to improving land use issues focused around better planning and limiting development. Some respondents suggest a moratorium on growth, while others recommended incentives for developers who focus on infill and revitalization. CIRCULATION The Circulation Element of the General Plan describes the location and extent of existing and proposed transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. Comments related to circulation included mobility issues in general, which include personal and public transportation, roads, pathways and the ability to walk or bike safely in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Strengths: The key strengths relating to circulation and mobility identified by residents included: The cross-town freeway, and freeway access to other areas within the state and in relation to Los Angeles and other employment areas The value of the existing network of roads and infrastructure already in place The existing paths and trails available Some general comments included easy to get around, roads are maintained (large and wide), Transportation hub, and Bike paths, tourist/visitor attraction. Weaknesses: Transportation and mobility issues are of great concern to area residents, with certain areas reporting it as top on their list. The overall issues residents would like addressed are as follows: Traffic congestion; improve circulation The need to be more walkable/bikeable; pedestrian friendly 2007 Public Survey A 2007 county-wide public opinion survey prepared for the Kern Council of Governments Blueprint planning process produced results similar to those from the City/County workshops. The KernCOG survey consisted of telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,200 households throughout Kern County, including 600 from the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Among the key findings from the KernCOG survey: In general, Kern County residents consider this to be a desirable place to live with a high quality of life (87% of respondents). The greatest concern impacting the quality of life for area residents is crime, with an overwhelming majority concerned about gang violence. Many residents are concerned about air quality and its connection to childhood asthma. Area residents are deeply concerned about growth and an increase in population. More than half expressed concerns regarding local government planning and policy decisions related to housing and land use. Central Valley residents have the most issues regarding traffic congestion and transportation, but more than half cited that the roads were not safe and adequate to handle the current population. The survey showed that overall quality of life received high ratings but that residents of Kern County see room for improvement in many areas, including law enforcement, healthcare, air quality, public transportation, job opportunities, affordable housing and street and road maintenance. The KernCOG survey was conducted by the firm of Price Research. Complete results are online at the KernCOG web site: http://www.kerncog.org/survey.php 4
Better public transportation and transit Road maintenance All sources cited traffic and traffic congestion numerous times, with an almost equal number of comments related to lack of walkability, lack of pedestrian friendly environments and the lack of bike and pedestrian safety. Comments also referred to the lack of light rail and ineffective public transportation. Specific comments were received regarding road maintenance and potholes. Potential Solutions: Bakersfield area residents strongly expressed a willingness to participate in helping solve transportation and circulation problems by means of multiple suggestions: Voting for additional taxes and funding to support transportation improvements Supporting more public transportation and transit Supporting alternatives to autodependency, such as better bike and path systems Continuing to participate in the planning process to ensure better community design and transportation efficiency Improved circulation will also address some of the other issues related to quality of life such as better air quality, one of the largest areas of concern for Metropolitan Bakersfield residents. HOUSING The Housing Element provides policies and programs intended to ensure that housing will be built to meet the needs of all economic segments of the community. Comments on housing varied based on where the respondent resides, but overall Metropolitan Bakersfield residents feel there is affordable housing available, as well as large lot and rural opportunities. Strengths: Affordable housing is available, especially in the 5
eastern portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield The cost of living is relatively low In general, most comments regarding strengths were very basic and to the point such as affordable housing and low cost of housing. Weaknesses: The main concerns expressed regarding housing focused on new development and the location of new housing. Metropolitan Bakersfield residents fear new housing will replace valuable agricultural land and open space Several comments address gated and walled communities, citing they promote isolation and inhibit walk/ bikeability and community connectedness Some areas were identified as blighted with slumlords Additional comments included affordable housing not near jobs and housing/availability of affordable housing downtown, with a SW resident citing housing prices are too high (especially for first time homeowners). Potential Solutions: Since housing was not identified as one of the top concerns, few comments were provided on solutions directly linked to housing issues. Mixed-use development and higher density development were suggested as solutions to a number of issues relating to sprawl, air quality and transportation. Planned and limited growth, the most common solutions submitted, would also affect housing development. CONSERVATION The Conservation Element provides for the conservation, development, and use of natural resources. The two most valuable resources available to humankind are clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Fresh produce is available within close proximity for many area residents; and the Metropolitan Bakersfield area is also blessed with proximity to another valuable natural resource: oil. Conserving and preserving these natural resources was important to many respondents. 6
Strengths: The two great natural resources identified by area residents are agricultural land and the oil industry The Kern River Parkway, outlying natural areas and mountains provide beauty and recreational opportunities The climate and mild weather lend to year-round opportunities for recreation and outdoor activity Water is available Metropolitan Bakersfield residents are aware they are lucky when it comes to natural resources. Comments included good climate-outdoor activities, scenic beauty, strong agricultural and oil-backbone of economy, and natural resource capital for the state (oil, agricultural, energy, renewable resources). Weaknesses: The greatest concern regarding natural resources and the environment is air quality. Poor air quality is identified in all the data as a top and growing concern. Many factors contribute to air quality, and the top factors identified by area residents are traffic congestion, poor circulation/transportation and leaf blowers. Other concerns related to natural resources are: Poor air quality leads to health issues, which is also a concern for area residents Rapid growth and sprawl is threatening the natural areas There is a lack of recycling facilities available Respondents expressed a concern with the lack of preservation of natural resources Specific comments included lack of natural resource protection (oil and agricultural), lack of farmland protection, no planning for water shortages, air quality is terrible, poor air quality, and poor community recycling. Potential Solutions: A wide variety of suggestions for improving air quality were collected. Many respondents suggested better planning and mixed-use development to promote walk/bikeability and a decrease in auto use as the best solution to poor air quality. Improved transportation 7
planning, redirecting traffic and synchronizing signal lights were also suggested. Residents feel incentives for alternative fuels and the use of public transportation are important. Some comments included incentives for more fuel efficient vehicles, Increase tree canopy, incentives for alternative architecture with high energy conservation, decrease pesticide use and other agricultural activities, increase public transit options, and free convenient recycling. OPEN SPACE Detailing how open space, recreational areas and natural resources will be preserved and managed is covered in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The Metropolitan Bakersfield and surrounding areas enjoy close proximity to the mountains, trails, lakes and other resources for recreation and relaxation. While many residents cite the parks, trails and open space as a top strength, a lack of park facilities in northeast Bakersfield was identified. Strengths: Parks, natural resources, open space and recreation are the crowning jewels of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Residents had a multitude of comments in appreciation related to the Kern River Parkway, mountains, lakes, trails, trees and open space. Residents would like to: Maintain and build more parks, plant more trees, and preserve what is already there Resident want to be able to walk and bike safely to enjoy the open space and natural amenities of the area Some comments related to parks, open space and the natural environment included parks, Riverwalk amphitheater, open space, can hike, ski, bike, raft, riding outdoors, the mountains, scenic bluffs, and, simply, river. Weaknesses: There were a few comments directly stating need more parks or maintain parks and one that pointed out some new parks do not have restrooms. Other weaknesses related to walkways and bikeways. In some cases a lack of shade canopy was mentioned. Potential Solutions: As mentioned above, the most affected area regarding parks and open space is the NE 8
portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield. During the town hall meeting in that area, many comments were gathered as suggestions for improving this aspect. Suggested more than once was connecting the bike paths in that area Planting more trees was suggested both for Open Space and Air Quality issues More green space and parks was also suggested to improve health issues Some specific comments included more tree canopy for shade to encourage walking, separate bike paths/lanes from streets, and pocket parks. NOISE The Noise Element of a General Plan identifies and appraises noise sources and problems, and includes implementation measures to address them. Limited comments received from the public are directly related to noise issues and no strengths or weaknesses were clearly identified. Some comments regarding noise generated from this public input are in relationship to leaf blowers. In one case, an email sent directly to the City expressed strong concern over no apparent regulation to the use of leaf blowers and called them noise and air polluters. PUBLIC SAFETY The Safety Element of a General Plan addresses protection from any unreasonable risks associated with hazards such as fire, flood, and earthquakes. While California residents in general are faced with these issues on a regular basis, the safety issues addressed by Metropolitan Bakersfield residents within this public feedback are more of a personal nature. Within the summary of the town hall meetings, many responses were sorted into a category called Safety, Services & Equity. Another category, designated The People was also created to address these issues, and to recognize the overwhelming feedback submitted that was directly related to the actual residents of the community and their behavior. Since the public feedback did not include discussions relating to natural disasters, this section will address the remaining issues associated with safety and social issues. Strengths: Respondents consider themselves and other community residents friendly, generous, kind, caring, philanthropic, and family oriented 9
The majority feel Metropolitan Bakersfield is a desirable place to live with a good overall quality of life Responses expressed an appreciation for diversity, culture and strong commitment to faith Comments recognized the willingness of area residents to step up and participate in community activities There is an overall appreciation for the educational and higher education system In general, many positive comments were collected that spoke of Metropolitan Bakersfield being a nice place to live, with a small town feel. Several comments were simply the people, character of the people, family friendly, great community involvement, diversity, and generosity of the community. Weaknesses: Issues also discussed within these avenues of public feedback related to crime, poverty, blight, graffiti, trash and the overall deterioration of neighborhoods. Many cited a lack of public services for parts of the community, such as police protection or health care. Other issues represent physical threats such as gang activity and drug use. These comments also varied depending on where the respondent lived. There was a high response and great concern expressed over gang activities, crime and drug use Many expressed concern and a correlation of the crime and gang problems to low performing schools, poor test scores, teacher shortages and lack of activities for youth after school Other concerns focus on health indicators such as asthma, obesity and the over abundance of fast food and lack of exercise School facilities in some areas were described as being below standards with no gyms or sports facilities in the high schools Specific comments included several references to crime, gangs, increased gang activity, poverty, homeless, shootings, drug problems, graffiti, litter, blighted neighborhoods, disparity of school resources, crisis in educational system-job trades, K-12 education is weak, and poor quality of health. Potential Solutions: Suggestions related to Safety included early education, more after school activities for youth, and raise community awareness and involvement. Some identified organizations like Big Brother/Big Sister and suggested community educational programs. Other comments suggested interventions, more law enforcement, and harsher penalties. 10
With regard to health issues suggestions ranged from walkable/bikeable solutions for exercise and improved air quality, others suggested funding for additional facilities such as clinics and hospitals. 11