Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update

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

PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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: Northeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-3: Southeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-4: Northwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-5: Southwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-6: Metropolitan Bakersfield Concerns Chart

Appendix A-7: 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: MLK Jr. Community Center Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix E-3: Convention Center Town Hall Meeting Summary

PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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

PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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: 2007 Public Survey Overall suggestions relating to improving land use issues focused around better planning and limiting development. Some A 2007 county-wide public opinion survey prepared for the Kern Council of respondents suggest a moratorium on growth, while others Governments’ “Blueprint” planning process recommended incentives for developers who focus on infill and produced results similar to those from the City/County workshops. The KernCOG revitalization. survey consisted of telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,200 households throughout Kern County, including 600 from CIRCULATION the Metropolitan Bakersfield area.

The Circulation Element of the General Plan describes the Among the key findings from the KernCOG location and extent of existing and proposed transportation survey: routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. . In general, Kern County residents Comments related to circulation included mobility issues in consider this to be a desirable place to general, which include personal and public transportation, roads, live with a high quality of life (87% of respondents). pathways and the ability to walk or bike safely in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. . The greatest concern impacting the quality of life for area residents is crime, with an overwhelming majority Strengths: concerned about gang violence.

The key strengths relating to circulation and mobility identified by . Many residents are concerned about air residents included: quality and its connection to childhood asthma.

. The cross-town freeway, and freeway access to other . Area residents are deeply concerned areas within the state and in relation to Los Angeles and about growth and an increase in population. More than half expressed other employment areas concerns regarding local government planning and policy decisions related to . The value of the existing network of roads and housing and land use. infrastructure already in place . Central Valley residents have the most issues regarding traffic congestion and transportation, but more than half cited . The existing paths and trails available that the roads were not safe and adequate to handle the current Some general comments included “easy to get around,” “roads population. are maintained (large and wide),” ”Transportation hub,” and “Bike The survey showed that overall quality of paths, tourist/visitor attraction.” life received high ratings but that residents of Kern County see room for improvement in many areas, including law enforcement, Weaknesses: healthcare, air quality, public transportation, job opportunities, affordable housing and Transportation and mobility issues are of great concern to area street and road maintenance. residents, with certain areas reporting it as top on their list. The The KernCOG survey was conducted by overall issues residents would like addressed are as follows: the firm of Price Research. Complete results are online at the KernCOG web site: . Traffic congestion; improve circulation http://www.kerncog.org/survey.php

. The need to be more walkable/bikeable; pedestrian friendly

4 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

. 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 auto- dependency, 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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

. 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 PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT

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.

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT - APPENDICES

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

PUBLIC OUTREACH ISSUES REPORT APPENDICES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendix A: Phase I Town Hall Meeting Documents Appendix A-1: Bakersfield Phase I Town Hall Meetings Summary

Appendix A-2: Northeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-3: Southeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-4: Northwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-5: Southwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix A-6: Metropolitan Bakersfield Concerns Chart

Appendix A-7: Town Hall Meeting Comments by Meeting Date

Appendix E-2: MLK Jr. Community Center Town Hall Meeting Summary

Appendix E-3: Convention Center Town Hall Meeting Summary

APPENDIX A: PHASE I TOWN HALL MEETING DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX A TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY DOCUMENTS

The information contained in Appendix A is related to a series of four (4) workshops held in May 2007, identified as Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings. These workshops were held by the County of Kern, City of Bakersfield and Kern Council of Governments (COG) to solicit information from participating citizens in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update/Kern Regional Blueprint Program process being completed concurrently. The Blueprint Program is part of an 8-county San Joaquin Valley wide process, which will result in a preferred regional transportation, land use, and environmental vision associated with anticipated population growth over the next 40 years. The information gathered through the Phase 1 workshops provides citizen input on issues which directly impact the quality of life of residents in Metropolitan Bakersfield. A summary of all information included in each sub-appendix is provided below. APPENDIX A-1 PHASE I TOWN HALL MEETINGS SUMMARY

The Phase I Town Hall Meetings Summary, Appendix A-1, is a compilation of responses provided by all participating Metropolitan Bakersfield residents at a series of four (4) workshops held in May 2007. The information contained in Appendix A-1 includes a summary of “Strengths” and “Weaknesses and Challenges”, as identified by the workshop participants. APPENDIX A-2 NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The Northeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary, Appendix A-2, is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on May 7, 2007, at the East Bakersfield Seniors Center. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Public Outreach component of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, and how this correlates with the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were directed to discuss their views of the “Strengths” and “Weaknesses and Challenges” within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, as well as identify possible solutions and future issues. Appendix A-2 also contains the Agenda, Comment Form, Meeting Evaluation form and facilitator notes.

A-1 APPENDIX A-3 SOUTH EAST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The Southeast Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Appendix A-3 is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on May 21, 2007, at the Martin Luther King Community Center. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Public Outreach component of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, and how this correlates with the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were directed to discuss their views of the “Strengths” and “Weaknesses and Challenges” within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, as well as identify possible solutions and future issues. Appendix A-3 also contains the Agenda, Comment Form, Meeting Evaluation form and facilitator notes. APPENDIX A-4 NORTH WEST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The North West Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Appendix A-4 is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on May 8, 2007, at the Greenacres Community Center. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Public Outreach component of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, and how this correlates with the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were directed to discuss their views of the “Strengths” and “Weaknesses and Challenges” within the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, as well as identify possible solutions and future issues. Appendix A-4 also contains the Agenda, Comment Form, Meeting Evaluation form and facilitator notes. APPENDIX A-5 SOUTH WEST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The Southwest Bakersfield Town Hall Meeting Summary Appendix A-5 is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on May 31, 2007, at the Bakersfield Firefighters Association Hall in Bakersfield. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Public Outreach component of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update, and how this correlates with the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were directed to discuss their views of the “Strengths” and “Weaknesses and Challenges” within the

A-2 Metropolitan Bakersfield area, as well as identify possible solutions and future issues. Appendix A-5 also contains the Agenda, Comment Form, Meeting Evaluation form and facilitator notes. APPENDIX A-6 METRO CONCERNS CHART

The Metro Concerns Chart, Appendix A-6, illustrates graphically the major issues of concern identified by participants at each of the Phase 1 Town Hall meetings. Each issue received votes based on the level of concern expressed by participants; the higher number of votes represents a greater level of concern. The information is broken down by Town Hall Meeting to demonstrate how each area of Metropolitan Bakersfield voted on the issues of concern and highlight areas of concern by region. APPENDIX A-7 TOWN HALL MEETING WORKSHOPS DATA

The Town Hall Meeting Workshops Data, Appendix A-7, contains the raw data collected at each of the 4 individual workshops held in May 2007. The data includes all “Strengths”, “Weaknesses”, and “Challenges” identified by the participants as well as those problems and solutions identified. The data is organized by workshop date and by group number. Votes taken by the individual groups are included in the data.

A-3

APPENDIX A-1: BAKERSFIELD PHASE I TOWN HALL MEETINGS SUMMARY

PHASE I TOWN HALL MEETINGS SUMMARY

STRENGTHS: OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD UPON

Metropolitan Bakersfield residents provided tremendous feedback about the strengths they recognize surrounding them. The comments are listed below in the order of magnitude of votes on comments collected from the workshop participants. Specific comments and votes are available in Appendix B.

STRENGTH: THE PEOPLE The largest category identified as a strength was designated The People: Over 250 votes to comments were about how great the people are. Some examples of the comments include:

“Family friendly” “Philanthropic” “Caring, giving, donates time and money” “Diverse culture and population” “Lots of talented people willing to step up”

STRENGTH: COMMUNITY/SMALL TOWN FEEL Very close in number of votes cast and a good indicator as to how great the people are, the second largest category of comments is Community/Small Town Feel: Almost 240 votes were tallied to comments that were related to the feel of the community. The people of Metro Bakersfield have created a community they are proud to live in, with aspects they really appreciate. Residents enjoy the area’s ambiance and character, with workshop participants using terms such as “caring community” and “small town feel” multiple times. Overall, participants cited the Metro area as a great place to raise a family and be involved in community activities. A sampling of additional comments is listed below:

“Big town with small town quality, values, and warmth” “Willingness to preserve our culture and diversity” “Good community collaborations-organizations” “Faith strong in community” and “Lots of churches”

“Downtown ‘backbone’ of unique historical elements”

STRENGTH: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION The third largest category of comments is referred to as Location, Location, Location: This category garnered 200 votes to comments that were related to convenience, proximity, and easy access. Area residents enjoy the close proximity to Los Angeles, the ocean, and

1 the mountains. Comments included reference to the mild climate as well. A sampling of these comments is listed below:

“Centrally located in California” “Close to Southern California” “The weather” “Easy commute” “Freeway system to all other areas” STRENGTH: PARKS/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/NATURAL RESOURCES The fourth largest category includes comments pertaining to Parks/Open Space/Recreation and Natural Resources: Over 160 votes attributed to comments which had something to do with parks, open space, green belts or recreational areas. Many comments used these terms specifically, with several including direct reference to the Kern River Parkway. Some of these comments include:

“Kern River Parkway - Parks in general” “Recreation” “Bike Path (recreational opportunities)” “Can hike, ski, bike, raft, riding outdoors” “The River (Kern River)” “Parks - Riverwalk amphitheater, open space”

STRENGTH: AFFORDABLE LIVING The next largest category developed was Affordable Living: Over 100 votes were to comments that spoke to the area being affordable, with many specifically noting affordable housing. Some sample comments are:

“Affordable housing” “Affordable living - relative to other areas” “Affordability (cost of living)”

STRENGTH: AGRICULTURE AND OIL Agriculture and Oil was also noted as a strong aspect of the community, with many comments specifically calling out agriculture as a top strength. Some included “Ag/Oil” or “Ag/Oil-Industry.” Comments totaled almost 100.

In addition to these top six categories, the remaining overarching categories included:

Higher Education Opportunities

Water (Ample Supply)

Accountability and Approachability of Elected Officials

2 These strengths, in addition to other factors that may be included in the final analysis, are the baseline to identify what is most important to the residents of this community. The benefits can be enhanced and preserved, so they can remain strong for the community residents to enjoy. For a complete list of comments regarding strengths, please see Appendix B. IV. WEAKNESSES/CHALLENGES

The tough question facing any community: What doesn’t work? These issues become more personal for some, as addressed in this question are topics such as safety, crime, air pollution, and lack of crucial services such as health care. In most cases the issues are interrelated, one deeply affecting the other.

The following issues have been identified by workshop participants as the top weaknesses or challenges facing the greater Bakersfield Metropolitan area:

WEAKNESS/ISSUE: MOBILITY The challenging issues most commonly brought up by participants were Mobility Issues: This is a very large category, relating to traffic, transportation, transit, roads, road maintenance, infrastructure (specific to roads), and walking and bicycling. An approximate number of votes on comments for issues relating to these combine to be over 360, with more than 100 of those related to traffic-specific concerns. Multiple comments particularly addressed walking and biking issues. Some comments are listed below:

“Traffic” and “traffic congestion” “Lack of transportation planning” “More roads, better circulation” “Lack of commuter freeway” “Roads-poor circulation, median islands make roads unsafe, traffic, no cross town freeway” “Need safe, easy access for walking and bicycling” “Bike paths need to be improved or widened” “Roads/infrastructure does not keep up with growth” “Improve transit/public transportation”

WEAKNESS/ISSUE: RAPID GROWTH AND SPRAWL The next largest category was Rapid Growth and Sprawl: Comments related to how the community is growing and taking future shape totaled approximately 225, with many using the specific term “sprawl.” Here is a sampling of some comments:

“Inability to keep up with increased population” “Public services not keeping up with growth” “Allowing development without infrastructure”

3 “Foothill development/loss of habitat” “Losing Ag land too quickly to development” “Not preserving/protecting cultural sites”

WEAKNESS/ISSUE: CRIME Another weakness identified was Crime (Gangs, Drugs): There were almost 140 votes to comments dedicated to expressing concerns related to crime, gangs, drugs, and related illegal activities. Additional samples are listed below:

“Gang activity-lack of law enforcement” “Illegal drug availability” “Not safe to walk in low income area” “Greater control of graffiti and gangs” “Some unsafe streets for walking-drugs, crime, gangs”

WEAKNESS/ISSUE: POOR AIR QUALITY The next concern cited by area residents is Poor Air Quality: Over 130 votes were tallied to comments that expressed concern or indicated that air quality was a serious issue. Comments were consistent with “Air Quality,” “Need to improve air quality,” “Pollution,” and the like. Some specific comments included:

“Bad air and addressing air problems” “Need better air quality” “Air quality is terrible”

WEAKNESS/ISSUE: TRASH, GRAFFITI, AND UNATTRACTIVE BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC AREAS Other areas of concern from residents are of an aesthetic nature, citing Trash, Graffiti, and Unattractive Buildings and Public Areas: With 98 votes to comments of this nature, it is clear that problems arise when a community is neglected. Comments varied from “litter” to “Parks not maintained.” Additional comments were:

“River banks dirty, need better maintenance” “Slumlords” “City is dirty, no curb appeal” “More streetscape/landscaping” “Need to reuse buildings” “Low community self-esteem”

Additional categories for weaknesses/challenges include:

4 Health Issues/Health Services Low Performing Schools Poverty Lack of Youth Programs Lack of Cultural Enrichment Lack of Parks Lack of Medical Resources V. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

After discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the Bakersfield area, participants of the Town Hall meetings were asked by facilitators to list suggested solutions to address some of the issues. Many area residents felt strongly that better planning and community design was needed. Several comments along those lines were targeted to multiple issues. For example, as participants suggested better planning would help mobility issues, similar suggestions were submitted to address more bike lanes and walking paths. Along the same lines, many of the comments were related to fixing or expanding the physical road scheme or other infrastructure changes, which would improve mobility and assist in improving air quality as well.

These ideas will be taken into consideration and used when policies and actions are drafted for the General Plan Update.

The overarching categories developed for these comments are listed below, with some specific examples:

Better Planning/Community Design

−−− “Smarter urban design” −−− “Decentralization/mixed use” −−− “Move to become less car dependent (infill/fewer drive-thrus)” −−− “Study ‘best practices’ from other communities” −−− “Connectivity between neighborhoods”

Fix/Expand/Physical Roads and Infrastructure Changes

−−− “Synchronization of traffic signals” −−− “BUILD cross-town freeway” −−− “Move train tracks or adjust schedules” −−− “Carpool lanes-HOV-Rosedale” −−− “Widen Olive Dr. by replacing homes/businesses where appropriate”

5 More Bike Lanes/Walking Paths

−−− “Sidewalks” −−− “Increase bike lanes” −−− “Better bike and pedestrian facilities” −−− “Sidewalk systems that allow children to walk to school safely-and they’re attractive” −−− “Multi-use areas walk and bike friendly”

Fee or Tax Increases

−−− “Increased development fees” −−− “Increase sales tax” −−− “Increase parking fees” −−− “Variable price toll roads” −−− “Pass ½ cent sales tax”

Plant More Trees/Create More Parks

−−− “Support the tree foundation” −−− “Pocket parks” −−− “Creation of more green space” −−− “Enforce canopy 40% rules in commercial parking lots” −−− “Require developers to create and maintain parks”

Renewable Energy/Sustainability/Recycling

−−− “Solar/renewable energy” −−− “Alternative fuel stations” −−− “Organic farming” −−− “More visible recycling centers” −−− “Incentives for more efficient vehicles” −−− “Carpool incentives”

More Public Transit

−−− “Improve mass transit” −−− “Expand public transportation” −−− “Downtown shuttle system-parking problem”

6 −−− “Valley rail system” −−− “Incentives for public transportation”

Promote Infill Development/Restrict New Growth

−−− “Moratorium on Growth” −−− “Concentrate on infill”

−−− “Encourage urban renewal”

Youth Programs

−−− “Early education” −−− “Increase after school programs”

−−− “More activities for preteen, teenagers, young adults”

Miscellaneous

−−− “Incentive to builders to get projects done now”

APPENDIX A-2: NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM/ METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

TOWN HALL MEETING

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD May 7, 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

On Monday, May 7, 2007, the County of Kern, City of Bakersfield and Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update/Kern Regional Blueprint Program at the East Bakersfield Senior Center. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to collect input about what participants viewed as the strengths of Metro Bakersfield; (b) to collect input about what participants viewed as weaknesses or challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield; and (c) to facilitate discussion and collect input about potential long-term solutions to the challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield.

The Town Hall Meeting is one of a series throughout the Kern Region as part of the Kern Regional Blueprint Program, which is designed to engage policymakers and citizens to create a regional vision and growth principles for the integration of transportation, housing, land use, economic development and environmental protection that will inform local decision-making and guide growth over the next 50 years. Elected officials from the County and each city throughout the Kern region will determine how their jurisdictions will accommodate the regional vision through local decision-making and planning efforts. The Kern Regional Blueprint will also be included as part of the Central California Blueprint Program, which will integrate the outcomes of the Blueprint programs from the seven other Central California counties. The Kern visioning process will continue through December 2007.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 1 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

Community Outreach To build community awareness of and involvement in the Blueprint Program, the County of Kern, City of Bakersfield and Kern COG initiated an outreach program as part of these Town Hall Meetings. Kern COG utilized outreach assistance from Odyssey, a California-based nonprofit organization focused on transportation policy improvements. The County of Kern and City of Bakersfield utilized outreach assistance from Vision 2020, a volunteer organization in Bakersfield, CA. The County of Kern, City of Bakersfield, and Kern COG implemented a number of outreach measures to advertise the meeting, including: • Targeted mail and email of a meeting notice • Coordination with government agencies’ outreach efforts and networks • Inserts in local and community-based newsletters and media publications • Media campaign

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The Northeast Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at the East Bakersfield Senior Center, 2101 Ridge Road, in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, and evaluation form (see pages 13 - 17). Participants were then asked to place red and green dots on an aerial photograph to locate where they lived and worked, respectively. Approximately 55 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Participants then reviewed the “open house” portion of the meeting, which featured display materials of local area maps and data related to existing conditions and future growth projections, as well as other general information. Ted James, Director of Planning & Development Services for Kern County initiated the meeting with brief welcoming remarks and agenda overview. Mr. James recognized local officials in attendance: Bakersfield Council Member Ken Weir, Russell Johnson, Field Representative for Supervisor Mike Maggard, and introduced Bakersfield Planning Director, Jim Movius. Mr. Movius delivered a slideshow presentation that provided an overview, data and the process for developing the General Plan Update for Metro Bakersfield. Mr. Movius then introduced Sheryl Barbich from Vision 2020 who reviewed the format for the small group discussions before dispersing participants to their randomly assigned groups.

After brief introductions among the participants, a facilitator at each small group table guided participants through an open discussion of what participants identified as Bakersfield’s strengths and weaknesses/challenges. The facilitator then guided the group through a discussion designed to identify potential solutions to the top three weaknesses chosen by the participants in each small group. The small group facilitators recorded participants’ discussion points during the small group discussion on

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007 flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

Following the small group discussions, participants reconvened in the large group format to hear brief summary reports from a volunteer from each group. Nancy Kays of Moore Iacofano Goltsman recorded a summary of the reports on large wallgraphic paper at the front of the meeting room, which is attached to this report as photo-reduced copy on page 18.

The following pages summarize comments captured on the wallgraphic and flip chart pages from the small group discussions, as well as those submitted by participants on comment forms. Copies of these documents may be accessed by contacting Kern COG.

II. DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES/CHALLENGES

The small group facilitators asked participants to describe what they view as strengths and weaknesses/challenges faced by the Metro Bakersfield region. Participants also identified what they thought were solutions to the top three weaknesses/challenges identified by each group. Following is the small group summary individually reported at the conclusion of the meeting.

Strengths • Friendly • Affordable • Central location o Mountains o Ocean o Los Angeles • Open Spaces o Can still do things • Natural resources • Community activities o Kern River bike path • Diverse economy • Accountability of elected officials o Electeds affordable • Trails plan o River trail o Topography • Farmland • Strong faith base

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

Weaknesses/Challenges • Lack of planning • Lack of infrastructure planning • Lack of accountability • Development without infrastructure • Lack of sufficient green belts • Facilities for the youth need improvement • Traffic circulation • Redevelopment & use of infill development • Incorporation of health in planning process • Air Quality • Population increase • Traffic • Trash • Walkable communities o Not enough trees • Lack of Affordable housing • Poverty • Segregation • Racism • Graffiti • Gangs • Low education attainment • Ineffective public transportation • Need more safe bike/walk paths • Older sections need rehabilitation • Maintaining a people friendly community • Public services can’t keep up

Solutions • Infill development • Define true costs of development • Urban renewal in centers • Half-cent sales tax • Transportation impact fees • Citizens exercise the right to vote • Better and more understandable communication with the public o More town hall meetings o Use of multi-media o On-line agendas • Electeds need higher pay • More eyes on the street • Head Start Programs • Incentives for Low-income neighborhood development • Plant more trees • Hybrid cars

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

• Connect bike paths • Efficient transit • Stabilize growth o Growth moratorium • Increase volunteerism • Walkable/Bikeable communities • Decreased sprawl • Green development • Solar/renewable energy o Solar Photovoltaics • Cost effective road models • Mixed use development • Farmland preservation

III. TOP ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

Each small group identified the issues of most concern and potential solutions. The following table outlines the top nine participant concerns recorded on flip chart pages and submitted on comment forms. Individual tables record summary comments to the top nine identified concerns.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

Top Concern Related to Metro Bakersfield’s Future Growth Growth Management Infrastructure Planning Walkable/ Bikeable Traffic/ Mobility Gangs/Crime Air Quality Landscaping/ Tree Planting & Maintenance Services Safety & Equity Urban Renewal

TOTALS 46 37 37 37 32 28 27 22 22

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed growth needed to be stabilized. Some participants suggested there should be a moratorium on growth. Participants agreed public service needs should be continuously re- evaluated, updated and streamlined. Some participants suggested issuance of building permits should GROWTH be limited to projects where infrastructure is in place to support the growth. Participants identified the MANAGEMENT need to increase mixed use development including providing incentives for infill. Some participants suggested issuance of building permits should be limited to infill development. Participants identified the need to continue revitalizing downtown. Participants discussed the prospect of studying the advantages/disadvantages of concentrated growth. Participants agreed there needed to be good planning decisions made and then require (by participation in the political process) the decision makers to follow the plan.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants identified the need to increase transportation impact fees and the need for the City and INFRA- County to do a joint cost-benefit analysis. Participants identified the need for better communication of STRUCTURE proposed changes in roads i.e. road widening, etc. Some felt public transportation should be enhanced PLANNING and free. Others identified the potential for increasing or instituting parking fees to encourage people to use public transportation. Participants identified the need to mix high density with low density in a strategic manner. Some participants felt developers should be required to create and maintain parks.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants identified the need to plan commercial development and schools for walkability. Participants WALKABLE/ identified the need to plant more trees along bike paths as well as community wide and offer BIKEABLE better/professional maintenance of all trees. Some participants identified a need to provide some form COMMUNITY of separation between bike lanes/paths and vehicular traffic. Participants generally agreed there should be a network of connected bike paths. Participants agreed there was a need for sidewalks in some parts of Metro Bakersfield. Participants expressed the opinion that walled-in communities do not lead to walkability. Some participants felt there should be detailed standards, developed by a citizens committee, for walkable communities and those standards inserted into the General Plan.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants identified the need to decrease sprawl, increase mixed-use development, enhance public TRAFFIC/ transportation, develop better bike friendly roads, and have better City/County coordinated planning for MOBILITY roads. Participants also identified the need for a sales tax for road construction and maintenance and increased traffic impact fees. Some participants felt housing should be built only in incorporated areas.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants agreed that reducing gangs and crime needed to begin with children. Participants believed there should be more investment (community centers) in low-income neighborhoods. Some participants GANGS/ believed police substations should be located in high crime areas and law enforcement provided with high CRIME tech tools. Some participants believed empowering neighbors and creating truly walkable communities would reduce gangs and crime.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants identified the need for more efficient transportation alternatives i.e. mass transit, carpools, walking and biking. Participants generally agreed with incentives for use of public transportation, carpools, AIR energy conservation such as solar power, “green” homes and office building, hybrid vehicles etc. QUALITY Participants identified the need for more trees and better maintenance of trees. Participants felt there may be a need to prohibit use of 2-stroke engines, wood-burning fireplaces, etc. Some identified the need for pollution standards on diesel engines. Generally participants agreed planning for smarter urban design was needed.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 8 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed recycling centers/bins should be required in new development and in LANDSCAPING/ redeveloped areas. Participants also agreed recycle bins should be free. Generally participants TREE PLANTING agreed more trees needed to be planted in new developments and more professional maintenance & MAINTENANCE of trees in public areas. Some participants felt there needed to be a higher canopy of trees and there should be a permit required to prune trees. Participants identified a need for an informational/educational list of trees that should be planted in the area as well as trees that are not conducive to the area. Participants generally agreed there should be more consequences for littering and fines should go to cleanup. Use of prison labor and the need for more volunteers was also identified as a means to clean up landscaping along roadways.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Trash on roadways was identified as a concern. Solutions included providing free recycling centers. SERVICES, Additionally, some participants felt recycling centers should be a requirement in new development and SAFETY & redevelopment. Some participants identified a need for more street sweeping personnel and the potential EQUITY to utilize prison labor to clean up litter. Some participants indicated that existing parks are not safe or adequately maintained. Participants agreed new parks are needed in older areas. Creation of more green space was identified as something people wanted. Participants felt there needed to be more investment in low-income neighborhoods i.e. providing police substations in high crime areas. Gang violence was a major concern to participants.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 9 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

URBAN Participants agreed that urban renewal should be encouraged. Participants agreed that revitalizing RENEWAL downtown was important and felt incentives should be available for those providing infill development. Some participants felt building permits should be limited to infill development. Participants agreed that landlords need to be held accountable for the appearance and maintenance of their properties. Participants felt there should be a study on the advantages/disadvantages of concentrated growth.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 10 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

The following concerns were identified including the number of votes received by the groups:

• Health 15 • Agriculture/Habitat Preservation 14 • Miscellaneous Economic Issues 14 • Infrastructure Maintenance 13 • Education Including Vocational 12 • Growth Affecting Public Services 10 • City/County Coordination 10 • Blight 9 • Housing 8 • Poverty 6 • Homeless 5 • Development Not Paying Way 4 • Water 1

Participants provided the following additional comments via comment cards:

Health • Incorporation of health that is explicit in the planning process • Use health impact assessments • Low emphasis on individual preventative health practices • Medical resources

Education • Low educational attainment • Equal public education

Miscellaneous Comments • Poverty • Segregation • Racism • Lack of affordable housing • Improve facilities for youth for positive experiences via recreational facilities and library system

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 11 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

ATTACHMENTS

The following pages contain handouts and presentation materials featured at the meeting and described in the summary report.

• Agenda • Comment Form • Evaluation Form • Wallgraphic

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 12 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

A G E N D A

May 2007

I. Welcome and Introductions

II. Presentation: The General Plan Update…..Why Now?

III. Small Group Discussions

a. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Vision b. Prioritizing Issues

IV. Large Group Discussion

a. Reports from Small Group Discussions

V. Next Steps

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 13 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY MEETINGS MAY 2007

C O M M E N T F O R M

Thank you for participating in this process! Your comments are important to us, so please use this form to provide written comments about the discussion topics and any other issues. Please submit your completed form at the end of the meeting to the registration table. Otherwise, you may mail this form within one week of this meeting to: Planning Department, City of Bakersfield, 1715 Chester Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301.

Meeting Date: ______Meeting Location: ______

1. Please provide any comments related to the slideshow presentation.

2. What do you like most about your community?

3. What are the major areas or issues for improvement in your community?

PLEASE TURN OVER

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 14 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

4. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its MOST POSITIVE aspects?

5. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its BIGGEST CHALLENGES?

6. Please share any additional comments about the project.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 15 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 16 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 7, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 17

APPENDIX A-3: SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM/ METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

TOWN HALL MEETING

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD May 21, 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

On Monday, May 21, 2007, the County of Kern, City of Bakersfield and Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update/Kern Regional Blueprint Program at the Martin Luther King Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to collect input about what participants viewed as the strengths of Metro Bakersfield; (b) to collect input about what participants viewed as weaknesses or challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield; and (c) to facilitate discussion and collect input about potential long-term solutions to the challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 1 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The Southeast Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at the Martin Luther King Community Center, 1000 South Owens Street in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, and evaluation form (see pages 10 - 13). Participants were then asked to place red and green dots on an aerial photograph to locate where they lived and worked, respectively. Approximately 40 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Participants then reviewed the “open house” portion of the meeting, which featured display materials of local area maps and data related to existing conditions and future growth projections, as well as other general information. Ted James, Director of Planning & Development Services for Kern County initiated the meeting with brief welcoming remarks and agenda overview. Mr. James introduced Bakersfield Planning Director, Jim Movius. Mr. Movius delivered a slideshow presentation that provided an overview, data and the process for developing the General Plan Update for Metro Bakersfield. Mr. Movius then introduced Sheryl Barbich from Vision 2020 who reviewed the format for the small group discussions before dispersing participants to their randomly assigned groups.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

Following the small group discussions, participants reconvened in the large group format to hear brief summary reports from a volunteer from each group. Jenna Monterrosa of Moore Iacofano Goltsman recorded a summary of the reports on large wallgraphic paper at the front of the meeting room, which is attached to this report as photo-reduced copy on page 14.

II. DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES/CHALLENGES

Strengths • Family atmosphere • Agricultural and produce production • Diverse population • Geographic location • You can get involved • Strong faith based • Affordability • Centrally Located o 4-5 hours to Las Vegas • Affordable housing (compared to LA) • Caring community • Community generosity • Small town atmosphere

Weaknesses/Challenges • Air Quality • Gang Activity • Rapid Growth – No Planning • Transit System • Traffic Congestion o Need public Transportation o Too long to get anywhere • Growth exceeds infrastructure Solutions • Change transit system

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

• Electeds take responsibility • Develop up, not out • Develop rail system • Electeds take part in transit system and community • Make city people friendly o More sidewalks • More parent involvement in community • Better education system • More PSA’s – “Life as it is” • More life skills mentors • Carpool • Alternative fuels o Low emissions o Cleaner vehicles • Live close to work • Less truck traffic • Forest and range management • Organic farms • More bike paths • Sales tax to improve highways • Finish roads

III. TOP ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

Each small group identified the issues of most concern potential solutions. The following table outlines the top nine participant concerns recorded on flip chart pages and submitted on comment forms. Individual tables record summary comments to the top nine identified concerns.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

Top Concern Related to Metro Bakersfield’s Future Services Safety & Equity Traffic/ Mobility Growth Management Air Quality Gangs/Crime Blight Education Vocational & Academic Poverty Misc. Economic Issues

TOTALS 50 47 35 30 30 30 29 20 19

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally identified a lack of accessible recreation facilities and services for “at risk” low SERVICES income citizens as a concern. Some participants viewed a lack of summer recreational programs for SAFETY & youth as a problem. Participants identified a lack of equal opportunity for prosperity and lack of cultural EQUITY diversity as a concern. Some felt the law enforcement system needed to be more culturally friendly. Some also felt there was intolerance for alternative life styles. Participants also identified the need for free recycling opportunities.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Participants generally agreed traffic congestion was an issue and identified the need for better public transportation. Some participants felt planning needed to be done for a light rail system. Participants TRAFFIC/ identified the need to complete the Westside Parkway, Highway 58 and Highway 178. Some felt there MOBILITY needed to be more mixed use and higher density living opportunities. Participants also identified the need for better synchronization of traffic signals. Participants identified the need to pass the ½ cent sales tax for transportation.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed Metro Bakersfield is primarily low density with increasing sprawl GROWTH development. Some felt there had been rapid growth without sufficient planning. Some identified the MANAGEMENT need for “Smart Growth” and higher density planning. Some felt that allowing homes to be built where there is no commercial development (grocery stores, etc.) is an issue. Some participants felt there needed to be growth boundaries. Some participants felt there were too many gated communities.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants agreed that air quality was an issue. Participants identified the need for improved transit AIR QUALITY service, affordable alternative fuels and energy, and less truck traffic. Some participants felt communities should be more walkable with businesses nearby. Some identified the need to live closer to where you work. Some participants felt the biggest polluters needed to be identified and regulated. Some participants felt growth should be slowed.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed gang violence, crime and illegal drug availability was a problem. GANGS/ Participants felt there needed to be more of a focus on K-6 education, support for strengthening families, CRIME and community mentoring. Some participants identified the need for educational collaboration for job skills and a focus on teaching trades in schools. Some identified a need for more recreational opportunities and some felt there needed to be more police officers.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed there were a number of blighted neighborhoods in Metro Bakersfield. BLIGHT Participants also identified graffiti as a problem. Some identified a lack of sidewalks, infrastructure and empty buildings as an issue in some areas. Some participants felt that confined animal facilities were creating odor problems.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

EDUCATION Participants identified a lack of skilled nurses, occupational preparation (exposure to potential jobs), VOCATIONAL & and no vocational programs in high school as a concern. Some participants felt low performing K-12 ACADEMIC schools need more resources. Some participants felt the average educational attainment of the population was a concern. Many participants felt a lack of higher paying jobs in the area created a “brain drain” (educated population leaving the area).

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed poverty is a concern. Some identified the rate of unemployment as a POVERTY contributor to poverty. Some participants felt there was growing divide between the wealthy and the working poor.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

MISC. The prison system is a large part of Kern’s economy, and some participants felt this was a negative. ECONOMIC Some participants identified the lack of competitive wages as an issue. Some participants felt big ISSUES business was not regulated sufficiently; others felt there were too many fast food facilities.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 8 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

The following concerns were identified including the number of votes received by the groups:

• Infrastructure Planning 17 • Agriculture/Habitat Preservation 17 • Growth Affecting Public Services 13 • Walkable/Bikeable 7 • Health 6 • Infrastructure Maintenance 3 • Landscape/Trees/Maintenance 3 • Homeless 1

Participants provided the following additional comments via comment cards:

Affordable Housing • Providing enough affordable housing will be a challenge

Water • Water conservation is a challenge

Miscellaneous Comments • Connections need to be made between the problems with Bakersfield and the causes/reasons for the problems.

ATTACHMENTS

The following pages contain handouts and presentation materials featured at the meeting and described in the summary report.

• Agenda • Comment Form • Evaluation Form • Wallgraphic

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 9 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PL AN UPDATE

A G E N D A

May 2007

I. Welcome and Introductions

I. Presentation: The General Plan Update…..Why Now?

II. Small Group Discussions

a. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Vision b. Prioritizing Issues

IV. Large Group Discussion a. Reports from Small Group Discussions

V. Next Steps

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 10 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY MEETINGS MAY 2007

C O M M E N T F O R M

Meeting Date: ______Meeting Location: ______

1. Please provide any comments related to the slideshow presentation.

2. What do you like most about your community?

3. What are the major areas or issues for improvement in your community?

PLEASE TURN OVER

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 11 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

4. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its MOST POSITIVE aspects?

5. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its BIGGEST CHALLENGES?

6. Please share any additional comments about the project.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 12 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 13 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting Southeast Bakersfield Summary Report – May 21, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 14 APPENDIX A-4: NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM/ METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

TOWN HALL MEETING

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD May 8, 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, the County of Kern, City of Bakersfield and Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update/Kern Regional Blueprint Program at the Greenacres Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to collect input about what participants viewed as the strengths of Metro Bakersfield; (b) to collect input about what participants viewed as weaknesses or challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield; and (c) to facilitate discussion and collect input about potential long-term solutions to the challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 1 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The Northwest Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at the Greenacres Community Center, Senior Room, 2014 Calloway Drive, in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, and evaluation form, (see pages 12 - 15). Participants were then asked to place red and green dots on an aerial photograph to locate where they lived and worked, respectively. Approximately 35 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Participants then reviewed the “open house” portion of the meeting, which featured display materials of local area maps and data related to existing conditions and future growth projections, as well as other general information. Ted James, Director of Planning & Development Services for Kern County initiated the meeting with brief welcoming remarks and agenda overview. Mr. James recognized local officials in attendance: Bakersfield Council Member Dave Couch, Russell Johnson, Field Representative for Supervisor Mike Maggard, and introduced Bakersfield Planning Director, Jim Movius. Mr. Movius delivered a slideshow presentation that provided an overview, data and the process for developing the General Plan Update for Metro Bakersfield. Mr. Movius then introduced Sheryl Barbich from Vision 2020 who reviewed the format for the small group discussions before dispersing participants to their randomly assigned groups.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007 flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

II. DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES/CHALLENGES

Strengths • Spirit of Collaboration • Higher education opportunities – Bakersfield College; CSUB • Economic opportunities – agriculture; oil • People – family friendly • Agriculture • Affordable Housing • Location/Proximity o Mountains o Ocean o Los Angeles • Parks/Open Spaces/Riverwalk • Approachable public officials • Water supply • Small town spirit • Donate to needy

Weaknesses/Challenges • Air Quality • Traffic • Congestion • Free/convenient recycling • Health o Obesity rates

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

o Diabetes o Heart disease o Cancer • Separation of land uses • Lack of good planning – overbuilding/caving in to developers • Lack of infrastructure planning (roads etc.) • Lack of walkability • Lack of City/County cooperation/coordination • Development fees for infrastructure • Water – is there going to be enough for all the growth? • Road maintenance • Not protecting farmland – no vision for the future • Gang violence • Crime rate • Education levels • Job availability • Leaders not listening to the people • Urban sprawl

Solutions • Infill development • Smart Growth • Restructure City Code • Traffic impact fee • Half-cent sales tax • Reduce congestion/travel time o Incentivize carpools o Staggered work schedules • Walkable neighborhoods – sidewalks • Public transit o Incentives o Downtown shuttles • High speed rail and light rail • Vocational education • Kern River Parkway funding • Widen Rosedale Highway • Roads before growth • Mixed use development • Sustainable solar power • Use of native landscaping • Redevelopment • Gang research, awareness, suppression • Strengthen family values • Outlaw leaf blowers • Fewer drive thru businesses • Sell water for income stream for roads

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

• Supervisorial redistricting • Urban growth boundary

III. TOP ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

Top Concern Related to Metro Bakersfield’s Future Growth Growth Management Traffic/ Mobility Infrastructure Planning Air Quality Gangs/Crime Misc. Economic Issues Health Services Safety & Equity Walkable/ Bikeable

TOTALS 35 32 31 30 22 22 21 20 17

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed rapid growth and the influx of people to the area was causing sprawl. GROWTH Some participants identified what they termed “walled-in” communities as unfriendly to pedestrians and MANAGEMENT bicyclists. Some participants felt land uses were not mixed and therefore not friendly to pedestrians. Some participants suggested the need for urban growth boundaries. Some participants felt the City/County should review planning principles for criteria for ordinances for subdivisions.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Generally participants agreed there was a need for smart growth development, walkable communities and infill development/redevelopment. Some participants identified the need for a ½ cent sales tax for road construction/maintenance as well as the need to increase traffic impact fees. Some participants TRAFFIC/ suggested building as many roads as possible when money is available. Participants generally agreed MOBILITY funding sources needed to be identified for the Kern River Parkway (Alt. 15). Some participants felt that growth should not be allowed until there was funding identified for infrastructure and an actual timeline for when roads would be built. Participants also identified the need for more public transit choices and incentives for utilizing transit. Other comments included the need for stronger political will, staggered work schedules and widening of Rosedale Highway.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed traffic impact fees needed to be increased and a ½ cent sales tax INFRASTRUCTURE passed for road construction and maintenance. Participants identified a parking problem PLANNING downtown and the need for a downtown shuttle system. Participants generally agreed with the concept of mixed use design, more compact development, and the need for more parks

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants agreed public transportation needed to be improved and encouraged. They also agreed AIR QUALITY public transit needed to be passenger friendly. Some identified the need for a downtown shuttle. Some participants wanted to have parking set aside for hybrids and incentives provided for use of less polluting vehicles. Participants generally agreed the public needed to be less dependent on cars and identified a need for more infill development and redevelopment to encourage walking. Participants felt there needed to be better planning for bikeability and walkability. Some participants expressed the desire to see more native landscaping that required less resources to maintain. Others wanted to increase the tree canopy. Many participants wanted the use of leaf blowers to be eliminated. Participants suggested the use of incentives to use solar energy for commercial and residential buildings.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed there needed to be more early education and support for strengthening families through existing collaborative groups. Participants also identified the need to do more research GANGS/ into how gang members develop and how schools and the community can intercede earlier. Participants CRIME also expressed the desire for more community involvement and awareness. Some felt there needed to be a law enforcement gang unit.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 8 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

MISC. Participants generally agreed jobs were too low in pay to keep college graduates in the area. Participants ECONOMIC identified the need for CSUB to increase the number of majors especially engineering. Participants felt ISSUES businesses needed to actively recruit CSUB graduates. Participants identified the need to attract high tech industries to the area. Participants felt there was a lack of industry diversification and that the economic development that has occurred is for short term gain with negative long term consequences i.e. dairies.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants identified the need to plan a sidewalk system that would allow children to walk to school safely, and provide more connectivity between neighborhoods. They also identified the need for more tree canopy for shade to encourage walking. Many felt there needed to be more green space, HEALTH and homes/parks within ¼ mile of each other. Participants expressed a desire for safer bike lanes and the need for more bike racks. Participants felt employers should provide incentives to encourage employees to walk during the day and potentially provide workout facilities. Participants felt there should be more mixed-use design such as restaurants, retail, and grocery stores close to work and home.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 9 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Generally participants expressed there was poor community recycling. Participants felt recycling centers SERVICES, should be more visible and that home recycling containers and composting bins should be free to induce SAFETY & people to recycle. Some participants identified the lack of diverse entertainment/theater/fine arts as an EQUITY issue. Others felt there was a lack of indoor recreation for 18-21 year olds. Some participants identified the lack of a children’s hospital as a service needed in the community.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

WALKABLE/ Participants identified the need for pedestrian friendly environments. Participants acknowledged the BIKEABLE community was not walker friendly and created a dependency on autos. Some participants felt there needed to be more bike paths and others felt bike lanes were poorly developed. Some participants thought there was a need to create incentives for developers to design walkable communities.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 10 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

The following concerns were identified including the number of votes received by the groups:

• Agriculture/Habitat Preservation 14 • Landscape/Trees/Maintenance 11 • Water 11 • Blight 11 • City/County Coordination 11 • Infrastructure Maintenance 7 • Education Including Vocational 7 • Development Not Paying Way 7 • Urban Renewal 5 • Housing 5 • Growth Affecting Public Services 2

Participants provided the following additional comments via comment cards:

Water • Is there going to be enough for all the development • Where is water going to be recharged

Health • Obesity rates • Diabetes • Heart disease

I. Miscellaneous Comments • Provide today for tomorrows needs – water, open space, affordable housing, and public services • Lack of strong elected leadership – special interests funding their campaigns • Lack of coordination between City and County – City acts like a “Big Bully” – not respectful to County • Our Supervisor does not listen or respond to our concerns

ATTACHMENTS

The following pages contain handouts and presentation materials featured at the meeting and described in the summary report.

• Agenda • Comment Form • Evaluation form • Wallgraphic

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 11 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

A G E N D A

May 2007

I. Welcome and Introductions

II. Presentation: The General Plan Update…..Why Now?

III. Small Group Discussions

a. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Vision b. Prioritizing Issues

IV. Large Group Discussion a. Reports from Small Group Discussions

V. Next Steps

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 12 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY MEETINGS MAY 2007

C O M M E N T F O R M

Meeting Date: ______Meeting Location: ______

1. Please provide any comments related to the slideshow presentation.

2. What do you like most about your community?

3. What are the major areas or issues for improvement in your community?

PLEASE TURN OVER

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 13 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

4. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its MOST POSITIVE aspects?

5. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its BIGGEST CHALLENGES?

6. Please share any additional comments about the project.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 14 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 15 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Northwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 8, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 16 APPENDIX A-5: SOUTHWEST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM/ METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

TOWN HALL MEETING

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

SOUTHWEST BAKERSFIELD May 31, 2007

I. INTRODUCTION

On Thursday, May 31, 2007, the County of Kern, City of Bakersfield and Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update/Kern Regional Blueprint Program at the Bakersfield Firefighters Association Hall in Bakersfield. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to collect input about what participants viewed as the strengths of Metro Bakersfield; (b) to collect input about what participants viewed as weaknesses or challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield; and (c) to facilitate discussion and collect input about potential long-term solutions to the challenges faced in Metro Bakersfield.

Prepared by Kern Council of Government 1 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The Southwest Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at the Bakersfield Firefighters Association Hall, 7400 Wible Road in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, evaluation form, and Vision 2020 information (see pages 12 - 15). Participants were then asked to place red and green dots on an aerial photograph to locate where they lived and worked, respectively. Approximately 40 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Participants then reviewed the “open house” portion of the meeting, which featured display materials of local area maps and data related to existing conditions and future growth projections, as well as other general information. Ted James, Director of Planning & Development Services for Kern County initiated the meeting with brief welcoming remarks and agenda overview. Mr. James recognized local officials in attendance: Bakersfield Council Member, Harold Hanson, Bakersfield Council Member, Zack Scrivner, Andy Stanley, Representative for Congressman Kevin McCarthy, and introduced Bakersfield Assistant Planning Director, Jim Eggert. Mr. Eggert delivered a slideshow presentation that provided an overview, data and the process for developing the General Plan Update for Metro Bakersfield. Mr. Eggert then introduced Sheryl Barbich from Vision 2020 who reviewed the format for the small group discussions before dispersing participants to their randomly assigned groups.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007 flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

II. DISCUSSION: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES/CHALLENGES

Strengths • Lowest cost of living in area • Central Location • Graffiti removal • School System o Involvement o Cost of education • Proximity to services • Affordable housing • Low cost higher learning system • Small Community o Small town feeling o “Middle America” • Agricultural base • Airport • Kind People • Child development services • Pro Growth • Pro Business • Diverse

Weaknesses/Challenges • Air Quality • Transportation o Grade Separation

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

o Roads need repair • Lack of parks o Community o Regional • Lack of infrastructure planning • Protection of Resources • Congestion • Drug abuse • Teenage birth rate • Gang violence • Lack of improvements o Revitalization of neighborhoods • Police support • Need additional entry-level housing • Lack of support by electeds • Human services support • Medical resources • Rapid growth o Lack of planning • Revitalize neighborhoods • Low educational test scores

Solutions • Half cent sales tax o Prioritize costs o Widen roads o Finish cross-town freeway o Construct beltways • Fix roads right the first time o Educate public of costs/tradeoffs o Lower medians o Improve safety • Synchronize signals • Add improvements to existing parks o Buy land for parks • Incorporate parks in development • More parks/open space • Alternate fuels o Alternate transportation options (bicycles) • Traffic impact fees • Increase availability of public transportation • Air regulation • Rideshare • After school programs • Intervention at school to prevent gangs/crime • Positive interaction with police

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

• On the job training for youth • Mandate drug testing for those individuals on social services • Incentives for redevelopment of older areas • Inform residents of resources • More activities for youth and families • Be more selective about development

III. TOP ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

Top Concern Related to Metro Bakersfield’s Future Services Safety & Equity Infrastructure Planning Gangs/Crime Education Vocational & Academic Air Quality Growth Management Traffic/ Mobility Urban Renewal Infrastructure Maintenance

TOTALS 75 67 51 45 43 32 32 27 24

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed there was a lack of cultural community events and entertainment for youth SERVICES and adults. Some felt there was not enough to do, including shopping opportunities. Some identified a SAFETY & lack of services for seniors and families with children. Some felt there was a lack of family recreational EQUITY opportunities and parks in certain areas (low income). Participants identified a need for more high quality childcare, after school activities, and services for latch key children. Some identified a need for better (free) recycling programs. Some participants identified a need to overhaul the welfare system.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed infrastructure has not kept pace with growth and development. The INFRASTRUCTURE following areas were identified: freeways, roads, and community parks with pools and sports PLANNING facilities, classroom capacity/schools, sewers, and landfills. Participants identified the need to incorporate neighborhood parks in new development. Participants expressed an interest in prioritizing top traffic improvements including costs for construction and possible funding options and providing the public with the information.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed gang violence and illegal drug activity was a problem. Some participants GANGS/ identified domestic violence and child abuse as a concern. Participants identified the need for early CRIME intervention/education and mentoring programs. Some participants thought big brother and big sister programs could help. Some participants expressed a desire for the police department to build a more positive relationship in the community to encourage trust. Participants agreed the community needed to work together to solve problems.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Some participants identified the lack of vocational education in schools as a weakness. Some EDUCATION participants expressed concern with K-12 education, high dropout rates, low-test scores, low graduation VOCATIONAL rates, and the perceived disparity of school resources. Participants expressed concern with the need for & ACADEMIC nurses and teachers in Kern County. Some participants expressed the desire for better education programs to curb teen pregnancy rates.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants identified air quality as poor. Participants identified the following as potential solutions: AIR alternative fuels, solar/wind power, green building, smart homes, replacement of old diesel engines, use QUALITY of hybrid vehicles, and more open space with trees. Participants expressed an interest in increased density and a reduction in sprawl as another potential solution. Participants also expressed a desire for carpool lanes, improving public transportation, and increasing bicycle use. Some identified the potential for utilizing environmentally friendly farming techniques. A few participants wanted to ban leaf blowers, incandescent lights, and dairies.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 8 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

GROWTH Some participants expressed a concern that Metro Bakersfield was growing too fast creating what they MANAGEMENT identified as urban sprawl. Some expressed a concern that too much new housing was being built. Some participants expressed a desire for multi-use commercial/residential and infill development. Participants generally agreed with the concept of being more selective about what is allowed and keeping special interest groups from making decisions for Bakersfield. A few participants wanted a cap on development.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants generally agreed traffic was an issue and identified the need for better circulation. TRAFFIC/ Participants identified the need for a cross-town freeway. Most agreed traffic signals needed to be MOBILITY synchronized and public transportation improved. Participants identified the need to pass the ½ cent sales tax for transportation and the desire for higher developer impact fees. Many participants wanted a cross-town freeway built and roads widened to accommodate today’s traffic.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 9 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

Participants agreed revitalization was needed in older, historically low-income areas of Metro Bakersfield. URBAN Some felt there should be incentives for redevelopment in older neighborhoods. Participants generally RENEWAL agreed with continuing to revitalize downtown. Some participants expressed a desire for a more attractive urban core.

CONCERN SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

INFRASTRUCTURE Participants generally agreed improvements were needed to existing parks. Other participants MAINTENANCE identified the need for better bike and pedestrian facilities. Some participants expressed the desire for better road maintenance and the need to fix roads correctly the first time.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 10 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS

The following concerns were identified including the number of votes received by the groups:

• Growth Affecting Public Services 21 • Agriculture/Habitat Preservation 20 • Health 19 • Blight 17 • Misc. Economic Issues 10 • Walkable/Bikeable 7 • Housing 6 • Landscape/Trees/Maintenance 5 • Water 5 • Poverty 4 • Homeless 2

Participants provided the following additional comments via comment cards:

Water • Designate land appropriate for ground water banking • Water recycling programs for all sections

Recycling Programs • Recycle all materials possible (mandatory curbside for business & residential) • Disposal of sewage sludge away from farmland and water bank areas

Miscellaneous Comments • Need more high quality child care centers • Need more high quality education programs • Keep our agricultural • Social services needs improvement • Rethink cement islands and current road philosophy that cement islands make a better looking and safer road

APPENDIX

The following pages contain handouts and presentation materials featured at the meeting and described in the summary report.

• Agenda • Comment Form • Evaluation form • Wallgraphic

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 11 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

A G E N D A

May 2007

I. Welcome and Introductions

II. Presentation: The General Plan Update…..Why Now?

III. Small Group Discussions

a. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Vision b. Prioritizing Issues

IV. Large Group Discussion a. Reports from Small Group Discussions

V. Next Steps

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 12 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY MEETINGS MAY 2007

C O M M E N T F O R M

Meeting Date: ______Meeting Location: ______

1. Please provide any comments related to the slideshow presentation.

2. What do you like most about your community?

3. What are the major areas or issues for improvement in your community?

PLEASE TURN OVER

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 13 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

4. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its MOST POSITIVE aspects?

5. When you envision your community in the year 2050, what are some of its BIGGEST CHALLENGES?

6. Please share any additional comments about the project.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 14 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 15 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – Southwest Bakersfield Summary Report – May 31, 2007

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 16 APPENDIX A-6: METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD CONCERNS CHART

Concerns Related to the Future of Metropolitan Bakersfield

180

160

140

120 Northeast Bakersfield 100 Northwest Bakersfield s e t Southeast Bakersfield o V 80 Southwest Bakersfield TOTALS 60

t l ty ty n g e ty ic le a i ili e in m li b u b n ri a m a w q o m n u e e e E e a C Q d k n & M g l / a i e a P s ir c B R ty n e g A A / n e a r n & le a f M u a l b b a ct G a a r S th u n k U s tr o l e w s ti a c ro a a W i fr c rv G n o e I V S n o ti a c u d E Issues of Concern

APPENDIX A-7: TOWN HALL MEETING COMMENTS BY MEETING DATE

NORTHEAST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING MAY 7, 2007 Group 1 1 Strengths Votes Weather 3 Easy commute 5 Agriculture 10 Centrally located 9 Topography 6 Openness to community input 2 Trails plan 7 Economic opportunities 5 Adequate and fairly inexpensive parking 1 Friendliness and helpfulness 5 Kern River corridor 7 Good place to raise a family 3 Affordable housing 4 Education 1 Willingness to preserve our culture and diversity 4 Entertainment diversity 2 Restaurants 2 Walkability 2 Rich history 4 1 Weaknesses Votes Inability to keep up with increase population 10 Traffic 9 Lack of mixed use 5 Lack of coordination between city and county 5 Lack of walkability 2 Lack of vision by city/county leaders and business community 3 Too much trash on roadways-low maintenance 7 Slumlords 3 Sprawl 6 Social and environment injustice 4 Poor landscaping on thoroughfares 6 Public services not keeping up with growth 8 Graffiti-blight 6 City is dirty-no curb appeal 3 Lack of recycling 1 Lack of Identity 2 Lack of parks in mostly East Bakersfield 5

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Nothing to enhance environment (ex. Banning leaf blowers) 1 Homeless 3 Using our green space 3 General Plan amended too easily four times a year 1 Lack of farmland protection 4 Ignoring inner city 5 Ineffective public transportation 6 Pot holes 4 More trees and better tree care 7 Lack of neighorhood safety, leading to child inactivity, leading to obesity 4 Gangs 4 Shootings 4 No city wide car-pooling system 2 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Sprawl Incentives for infill development Limit building permits to infill Eliminate septic tanks in urban areas Good planning Mixed use Follow the plan made by decision makers Study advantages of conecntrated growth Revitalizing downtown Better police protection Landlords need to be accountable for renters Build a casino Public services not keeping up with growth Stabilize growth Shorten time-line on jobs Re-evaluate needs, update, and streamline Increase incentives for public servants Increase volunteerism

Survey-model other municipalities that build roads cost effectively Too much trash on roadways Use prison labor without salary More volunteers Increase consequences for littering Use PSAs about littering Double street sweeping personnel Make sure fines go to cleanup Recycling centers required in new and redevelopment Recycling cans should be free

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 More trees and better tree care Support the Tree Foundation Provide more maintenance Higher canopy trees

Increase amount of trees in new development-two trees minimum Less pruning-no pruning first five years Require permit to prune trees Informational-educational tree list Highly not recommend some trees Inability to keep up with increased population Need to overanticipate the population growth Concentrate on infill Moratorium on growth

Allow only the amount of building permits that infrastructure will support Build more multiunits Apply for more bond money Higher sales tax Higher traffic impact fees Traffic Fewer culs-de-sac Enhanced public transportation Increase sales tax More bike friendly roads Better road planning City/County coordination Decrease sprawl Just wait-it will take care of itself Expand lanes/width Traffic engineers have to drive in traffic Housing only in incorporated areas Mixed use Subdivision tracts walls need to be permeable

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Group 2 1 Strengths Votes Asking for community input 2 Location-close to LA, etc 3 Community Activities 5 Places for offroad activites 1 Smart enough to plan for global warming 2 Higher education-BC and CSUB 8 Friendly community 2 Crosstown Freeway-Fairfax-Downtown 4 Cooperation between City/County 4 Open space existing 6 Great quality of life 3 Kern River Bikeway-Parks in general 5 Agricultural Easements 3 Faith strong in community 7 Can actually pick ag products 1 Air Quality Control Board-AQ getting better but more needs to be done 1 NE Hillside Ordinance 3 Doing something about roads 2 Youth outreach programs-DARE, etc 1 1 Weaknesses Votes General Plan been compromised-Amendments No check and balance to changes. Conditional Uses too easily granted 6 Ag land is being used up-Not enough open space 5 School Facilites not adequate-Required bonds, Development not paying way, Sewers inadequate, not keeping up with infrastructure planning 5 Poor air quality 5 Poor quality of health 1 Affordable housing not near jobs 2 Abandoned commercial building-New being built 2 Racism 2 Accountability of Electeds-Citizens not holding their feet to the fire 6 Building codes-Geotechnical issues (Not Understood) North East 1 Dependence on oil-Re: Soka Etc 5 Farmers Market-lacking 2 Gang violence 4 Crime 5 Inadequate Transportation Infrastructure Planning 9 Development did not pay its own way 4 Walkability-Lack of-Bikeability 5

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Lack of light rail 1 Heavy traffic leads to road deterioration 1 Provincialism-We can do it our own way 4 Poverty 6 Lack of affordable housing 4 Controlling traffic-signal lights-Traffic flow-Lack of planning 1 Sprawl Development 5 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Lack of adequate planning for infrastructure Better recycling-especially by government 1/2 cent sales tax (public officals admit they didn’t plan adequately and show how it will be different) Increase transportation Impact fees, cost-benefit analysis by City/County together Better communication of proposed changes i.e. road widening etc. Incentive to builders to get projects done now Incentivize infill development Make bus free Increase parking fees Mix high density with low density-strategically Variable prices toll roads Control school bus routes and stops, not on highway Accountability of Electeds Public participation Town halls in wards increase Public needs to vote Get electeds input on accomoplishments Make communications so everyone can understand; Keep things out in the open, use media-KGOV, Subcommittee meetings-more advertising, Indexing of agenda items, Investigative reporting Need to pay council members more Walkability Bike Lanes Bike paths-curb between bike and car Sidewalks Trees Plan commercial development for walkability Plan schools for walkability-small neighborhood schools No walls around communities Limitations on new building-refurbish older buildlings, Infill commercial development Inadequate parks-especially in East Bakersfield

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Group 3 1 Strengths Votes Recreation 3 Downtown Core 4 Residents With Deep Roots 3 Affordability-Relative 6 Convenient Shoppping and Services 4 Opportunities For Indivduals To Get Involved 1 Structured Activities For Children 2 Family Oriented 4 People Care About Community 3 Pivotal Location In State-Proximity 5 The River 3 Diverse Economy 5 Lots Of Churches 1 Agricultural Background 3 Government Accessibility 1 Scale Of The Community-Population Size 2 1 Weaknesses Votes Education-Kids Don't Care 2 Sprawl-Keep Growing Out 6 Older Sections Need Redevelopment 7 Strengthen Library and Recreational Activities for Kids and Adults 4 Better Environments for Walking and Biking 8 Continue to Improve Downtown Core 3 General Education Level Is Low 4 Infrastructure-Roads, Sewer, etc. 6 Air Quality 8 Inadequate Utilization of the River as a Resource 4 Maintenance of Health 4 Greater Control of Graffitti and Gangs 4 Mall Needs More Businesses-East Hills 2 Safer Bike Paths-Continuous Bike Lanes 5 Need More Street Lights 2 Low Ratio of Parks to Populaiton 4 Access to Recreation for Kids Limited 2 More Affordable Housing 2 Parks Not Maintained 1 Substitution of "splash parks" for swimming pools 1 Lack of Trees and Properly Pruned Trees, and Interconnected Parks and Bike Paths 7 Lack of Funds put for Code Enforcement 4 Public Services-Not Enough to be Responsive 2

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Need Slower Speeds in Residential Areas 1 Historical Parts of City not Recognized and Maintained 3 Homeless Live Along River 2 Lack of Mixed Use 2 County Islands-Duplication 2 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air Quality Prohibit The Use of 2 Stroke Engines 2 Plant More Trees and Take Care of Them Better 7 Encourage/Incentives For Car Pools 4

Energy Conservation-For Example: Solar Power,Hybrid Cars, Light Bulbs 8 More Compact Development 5 Decrease Pesticide use and Other Agricultural Activities 5 Incentives for Energy Efficient, Less Polluting Cars (e.g.. Tax Breaks) 3 Incentives for Public Transportation 5 Incentivize "Green Building"-KSFCU 4 Enforce Canopy 40% Rules in Commercial Parking Lots 5 Reduce fireplace burning 1 More Efficient Road System (syncronize lights - express roads, drive thru engine idle) 9 Parks and Bike Paths City and County Plant More Trees 1 Support Tree Foundation 1 Connect the Bike Path-Fairfax 3 Plant More Trees Along the Bike Path 7 More Bike Paths Connecting to "The" Bike Path. A Network of Connected Bike Paths 8 Separate Bike Lane/Paths From Streets 0 Less Parking in Bike Lanes- or Widen Bike Lanes 2 Require Developers to Create and Maintain Parks 2

Existing Parks Are Not Safe Nor Maintained-Volunteer Patrols 2

Upgrade Existing Parks and Build New Ones in Older Neighborhoods 9

Encourage Annexation of Islands-Consistent Roads and Transition Zones 2 Consistent Code Enforcement Between City and County Related to Road Development 0 Creation of More Green Space 9 Kern River Element-Examine, Market-Not Commercial 4

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Group 4 1 Strengths Votes Communities have a say so 4 Farmland (local ag product/food supply) 7 People are friendly and caring 2 Traffic is better than Los Angeles Job opportunities (afdvantage of big city) 1 Location (accressibility to ocean, desert, mountains) 4 Ethnic diversity (especially food) 5 Growth and urbanization Economic opportunity Wide streets Bike path (recreational opportunites) 2 Education (B.C. CSUB--connected to the community) 1 Community pride, helping others, philanthropy 1 Welcoming- unforgetable Weather 1 1 Weaknesses Votes Air pollution 4 Lack of planning for growth/Urban sprawl and loss of downtown area 4 Confusion between City and County bound jurisdiction/lack of cooperation between city and County in recreation (i.e. recreational facilities developed with school) Code enforcement and compliance/Slum lords and absentee landlords 2 Ag economy (educate importance) Educational opportunities (loss of brain power to other areas) 2 Walkable- no sidewalks, block wall barriers, should be able to walk to school/people friendly communities prevented by walled communities/individual communities not linking to each other 5 Reactive financial community planning (EIRs lack fiscal analysis or true cost of development) 1 Lack of transportation options (non-motor vehicle) Medical resources overwhelmed/lack of medical personell 2 Urban renewal- older areas are overlooked (lack of maintenance and infrastructure) 2 Farmland preservation (safety/quality regulations, transportation costs, water, less food) 2 Water planning/consumption 1 Economic base damaged by loss of farmland Street sweeper more than once a year in County Gangs, crime, and graffiti 3 Traffic congestion 2 Imbalance property taxes fund schools creating imbalance Standards

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air quality Power plant siting Proper planning (walkable communities) Photo voltaic cells for development More efficient transportation (mass transit, car pool) Decentralization/mixed use Planting trees Knock down mountains-install fans Planning Transparency Broader community involvement Infill development Require fiscal analysis from developer (include true cost of development along with allocated costs) Include cumulative effects of development Accountability to public Encourage urban renewal People friendly community Safety by environmental design Walkable communities (sidewalks, trees, separate bike path) Mixed-use (7-day a week place) Pocket parks Attending school in neighborhood Sense of neighborhood Animal control enforcement City/County metro standards

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 Group 5 1 Strengths Votes People are friendly and caring 9 Beautiful 2 City with economic opportunities 3 Freeway system to access other areas 10 Location, location, location (2 hours from all) Family ties, close connections 1 Spirit of collaboration (No turf wars) 5 Can hike, ski, bike, raft, riding outdoors 11 Weather 3 Affordable housing 7 Rural atmosphere and opportunity 4 Natural resource capital for state (oil, ag, energy, renewable) 7 Downtown "back-bone" of unique historical elements 5 Big town with small town quality, values, and warmth 2 Individuals can make a contribution 1 Ethnic diversity 4 Closeness of Ag sources to Bakersfield 4 Bike paths, tourist/visitor attraction 8 Low crime compared to other communities our size 1 Still have open space to decide how to use based on our decisions 7 Electeds available and approachable 3 1 Weaknesses Votes Gang crime 8 Lack of commuter freeways (transportation) 7 Urban sprawl 4 Bike safety (and peds) no bicycle roadways/ not walkable communities, too auto dependent 10 Air quality 11 Health indicators poor 6 Few neighborhood swimming pools 1 Lack of trees/ canopy 7 Not street safe/ security low 3 library/educational enrichment system/lack of fine arts eg concert hall (PAC) 5 Brain drain 2 No casino 0 Public transportation infrastucture lacking 9 Block wall communities prevent activity Community lacks commitment to transportation self-help/poor job communicating local problems and how to solve them 6 Low community self-esteem 2 Need to create more jobs/more industry 4

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007 More newspapers 1 Not enough mixed-use (downtown and elsewhere) 4 Allowing development without infrastructure 7 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air Quality More walking/trees Smarter urban design Fast/clean buses Pollution standards on diesel Solar/renewable energy Green homes/offices Regional quality control Reduce gang crime Truly walkable communities High tech tools for law enforcement Police sub-stations in huigh crime areas Start with the kids Empower neighbors (greenfield with group) Invest in low-income neighborhoods (community centers) Walkable communities Hold developers accountable for walkable communities Factor detailed standards into Metro Bakersfield General Plan Create new commitees to develop details of walkable communities and insert into General Plan Create incentives for developers to desigbn walkable communities

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northeast Bakersfield Workshop May 7, 2007

NORTHWEST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING MAY 8, 2007 Groups 1 and 2 1 Strengths Votes Family Friendly 5 Small caring community atmosphere 4 Wide streets 2 Nice parks 4 Bike trail 2 Low crime rate 1 More concerts and other cultural events 1 Strong school system 1 Open spaces 1 Affordable housing 5 Caring community 3 Water supply 6 Ag and oil resources 2 Accessible electeds 0 Neighborhood schools 2 Multi-diversified economy 2 Accessibility to other metro areas 4 1 Weaknesses Votes Traffic congestion 6 Urban sprawl (Rapid growth) 4 Increasing gang crime 4 Lack of city/county cooperation/communication 6 Poor air quality 6 The heat 2 Poor accountability and conservation of water 5 Poor community recycling 2 Declining community involvement in some areas 1 Inadequate collection of fees from developers for infrastructure 5 Growing graffiti problem 1 Developers not required to provide sufficient space for parks, etc. 1 Lack of railroad grade separation and noise control, etc. 2 Poor coverage by GET 1 Lack of walkable and walker friendly community-Auto dependency 2 Community and voter apathy 1 Lack of shaded walks and tree canopy 0 Lack of indoor recreation for 18-21 year olds 1 Crowded schools 1

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Inability to keep college grads here 4 Inadequate hospital resources 3 High teen pregnancy and infant mortality 2 High home foreclosure rate 0 Jobs too low paying 5 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Jobs too low in pay and college grads leave Bakersfield Attract high tech industries Increase number of majors at CSUB especially engineering Actively recruit CSUB graduates Traffic Move to smart growth mindset and restructure city government Increase traffic impact fees Pass 1/2 cent sales tax Sell water to other cities (municipal water districts) to fund city roads Air Quality Limit drive thru's Car pool Improve mass transit Increase bike lanes Increase tree canopy Lack of City/County Cooperation/Communication City review county planning principles for criteria for ordinances for subdivisions Redistrict supervisorial districts in metro area

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Groups 3 and 4 1 Strengths Votes Higher education 6 Caring community 6 Small town feel 4 Collaborative spirit 3 People donate to those in need 7 Strong relationship between public and private sector 4 Groups and non-profits - strong/work together 4 Parks- riverwalk, ampitheatre, open space 7 Open space 2 Space/large lots 3 Care about downtown 4 Hospitals- heart hospital 6 Art and entertainment 3 Shopping Restaurants- good prices, old restaurants Beauty- mountains and river 2 Location 4 Affordability of housing 3 Quality volunteers 2 Good climate- outdoor activities 5 Good governments- city and county/ good services (police and fire departments) 5 Approachable public officials 7 Many people serve on public boards Agriculture and oil 5 Bike trail 3 Growth 1 Weaknesses Votes Bike trails should be extended (use entire river) Safer bike lanes 3 Poor appearance of city as people approach (e.g., Highway 99/Rosedale) 6 Gang violence 7 Only one ambulance service 1 Traffic 7 Growth too fast- influx of people 4 Public transportation 2 Air quality 7 River/river banks dirty- need better maintenance 2 Brain drain 1 Lots of health problems- cancer, obesity, heart disease, asthma, etc (no clinics) 6 No children's hospital 4 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Losing ag land too quickly to development 4 Crime rate 2 Road maintenance 2 Types of businesses- no one else wants "dumping ground" 4 Drug problem 4 "Adult" entertainment 3 Walled communities 3 Ghettos/blight 2 Growth without infrastucture 1 River safety Lack of urban redevelopment 2 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Gang Research into how gang members develop/ how school and community intercede Raise community involvement and awareness Law enforcement gang units Early education Support/strengthen families through existing collaborative groups Traffic KR Parkway (Alt. 15 etc.)- identify funding sources Build as much as possible as money is available Widen Rosedale Stronger political will Don’t allow growth until roads- identify funding and actual timeline Staggered work schedules More public transit choices Incentives for alternative transit choices Walkable communities Development/redevelopment infill

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Groups 5 and 6 1 Strengths Votes Location (central location)/proximity (mts, ocean, city) 6 Affordability 5 Agi/oil 5 Bakersfield flare / big city-small town 5 Bike path/recreation/long range plan/recreational opportunities 5 Priority on family/family friendly 5 Faith based 4 Business opportunities 3 Jr college/higher education 3 Neighborhoods 3 Community leaders that work together (very approachable) 2 Downtown (we have one) 1 Generous community 1 Local business/friendly 1 Resources/non-profits 1 1 Weaknesses Votes Air quality 9 Lack of infrastructure/planning 7 Transportation/roads 6 Economic development/short term gain with long term consequences (dairy) 5 Housing/availability of affordable housing/downtown 5 Obesity/health 5 Sprawl 5 Lack of diverse entertainment/theater/fine arts 4 Lack of industry diversification 4 Bike lanes poorly developed (not bike path) 3 Crime 3 Not propecting farm land 3 Water (not paying attention) 3 Disconnect/lack of consensus/coordination between city and county 2 Image/Bakersfield image 2 Lack of coordinated resources for crime victims 2 Education (not skill ready/lack vocational/high drop out rate/suspended kids need not go home) 1 Encroachment of urban on rural (islands forced to join city/annexation) 1 Lack of government hearing concerns/response 1 Poverty 0 Too many prisons 0 Vehicles with boom boxes (noise) 0

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air quality Eliminate blowers for gardeners Move to become less car dependent (infile/fewer drive thru's) Reduce congestion/travel time (lights sync/more walkable neighborhoods/incentive for car pools/cross-town freeway) Public transportation (short commutes/encourage use/passenger friendly) Develop more green space trees Study "best practices" from other communities High speed rail

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Groups 7 and 8 1 Strengths Votes The People 8 Recreation 5 Medical Training-KMC and Nursing Programs-CSUB, BC 1 Oil 4 Agriculture 8 Affordable Housing 7 Convenient Education 2 Climate 1 Small Town Feeling 3 Kern River Parkway and Bike Path 4 Trail System 1 Downtown Vibrant 1 Location- Accessible 4 Spirit Of Collaboration 1 Conservative Community 1 Community Facilities- (e.g. Rabobank) 4 Culture and History- K.C. Museum 2 Safe Community 3 Theatre, Art, Music (Variety) 3 Churches- Diversified 2 Ethnic Diversity 4 NASCAR Track and 4 More Tracks 3 Economic Opportunities- Good Location 1 Airport Includes International 1 Heart Hospital and Cancer Center 1 1 Weaknesses Votes Lack Of Skilled Labor 2 Some Unsafe Streets For Walking-Drugs, Crime, Gangs 2 Environmental Offset Development Fees 1 Health Indicators High-Obesity, Heart, Etc. Relates Back To Walkability 8 Attention To Environmental Issues-Not Enough 1 No Urban Growth Boundaries 4 Conflict Between City, County, Shafter- No Cohesive Plan 3 Need Beltway 3 Lack Of School Facility Planning 1 Not Enough Bike Paths 4 Esthetics- Some Areas Look Better Than Others-Ugly 5 Walls Along Streets Are Unfriendly- Requires Walking In The Streets 4 Development Following Infrastrcture-Not Planning 5 Not Enough Traffic Calming Devices 2 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Auto Dependent 5 Lack Of Pedestrian Friendly Environments 5 Litter 3 Lack Of Free Convienient Recycling 8 Streets Too Wide- Too Fast 2 Not Enough Police And Fire Relative To Number Of People 2 Need To Reuse Buildings 3 Historic Preservation- Lacks 1 Lack Of Transportation Options; Light Rail 6 Urban Sprawl 5 Air Quality 8 Heat 0 Traffic 8 Water Issues- Sustainability 3 Road SystemOut Of Date 5 Loss Of Agriculture 6 Speed Of Closing Of Pending Projects- Too Slow 1 Land Use Is Not Mixed-Not Walkable 6 "Good Ol' Boy" Decision Making Behind The Scenes 0 Lack Of Shading In Landscape-Need Shade, More Trees 3 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air Quality Set Aside Parking For Hybrids- Incentivize Less Polluting Vehicles, Bikes, Etc. Increase Public Transit Options Indirect Source Rule- Implement And Enforce

Create More Mixed Use To Increase Walkability- Less Pollution More Use OF Solar-Commercial And Residential-More Incentives More Landscaping- Native, That Requires Less Resources Tax Incentives For Public Transit Riders Downtown Shuttle System-Parking Problem Train Gardeners To Not Use Blowers So Much Outlaw Leaf Blowers Free Convienient Recycling Free Home Containers More Visisble Recycling Centers Incentives To Homeowners To Recycle Green Waste Onsite- Provide Compost Bins Cities To Get Corporations To Subsidize Recycling More Ways To Get Batteries, Etc.

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007 Health Issues Require Shower Facilities In Buildings To Encourage Walking Sidewalk Systems That Allow Children To Walk To School Safely- And They're Attractive More Safer Bike Lanes-More Integrated, Bike Racks More Tree Canopy For Shade To Encourage Walking Employers Encourage Employees To Walk During Day

Mixed Use Design-Restaraunts, Retail, Grocery Close To Work Stores That Pass The Popcicle Test Downtown Public Gym Enticements For Businesses To Provide Workout Facilities- For Example Parking Exceptions Connectivity Between Neighborhoods Community Education For More Healthy Eating More Parks Open Schools For Recreation More Green Space: Pocket Parks: Homes With Parks Within 1/4 Mile Downtown More Attractive For Walking, Public Restrooms, Water Expand Public Transportation Compact Development-Closer To Walking

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Northwest Bakersfield Workshop May 8, 2007

SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING MAY 21, 2007 Group 1 1 Strengths Votes River walk 2 Room to grow 4 Family atmosphere (good place to raise a family) 12 Parks 4 Small town atmosphere 4 Downtown does look like a metro area 4 Grow produce and ag products 10 Diverse culture and population 10 Geographic location- good transport crossroads 10 Collaboration with groups 5 Water banking 2 Buck owens crystal palace 2 Older neighborhoods 0 Arts 5 Get involved and make a difference 10 Friendly people 4 Shopping 2 Strong heritage 3 Kern River, parkway, bike trails 6 Close to Los Angeles but not in it 5 Strong faith base 10 Sports teams 1 Good weather- year round 4 University- good access to education (BC-national) 8 Lots of lakes 1 Panorama park 2 Mountains close proximity 3 Affordability and investment potential (home) 11 Law enforcement 3 Jobs 2 1 Weaknesses Votes Poor air quality 10 No vocational high school 3 Gang activities 9 Roads need repair 3 Sprawl/ low density in metro 6 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007 Rapid growth- lack of planning 9 Lack of equal opportunity for prosperity 3 Transit system 9 Bigger airport/ flights 2 Traffic congestion 7 Foothill development/ loss of habitat 3 Blighted neighborhoods 8 Not ped friendly- not walkable 5 Slow-paced, more programs for youth 3 Fast food facilities- too many- not healthy 4 Lack of summer recreational programs for youth 3 Prison system is a large part of the economy 6 Loss of family farms 4 Low performing schools (K-12) need resources 8 Illegal drug availability 4 Poverty 8 Transient population 1 Slow police response in certain areas 6 Community support for CSUB 2 Limited free recycling program 3 Poor self-image 1 Law enforcement system need to be more culturally friendly 6 Graffiti 3 CAFs (confined animal facilities)- stinky animal places 1 Valley fever 3 Un-regulated big business 1 Highway system 7 More shopping 1 Crime 8 More streetscape/landscaping 3 Bad local radio 2 Lack of skilled nurses 1 Earthquake/evacuation routes 5

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air Quality Pesticide regulations reduce PM10/2.5 Improve transit system/ train-trolley Identify/ regulate big pollutors Elected officials responsibility Increase housing density's build up "Green" government agency vehicles Alternative fuel stations Walkable community w/ businesses and stores More trees/ plants Encourage ag biofuels Incentives for alternative architecture with high energy conservation Transit System City rail system Valley rail system City pedestrian- bus stops closer Decision makers take the bus More express bus routes Gangs More cops Educational system- more trade schools Increase recreational activities More focus on K-6 education- more life education More jobs Community mentoring (by community members) Family support- parenting Schools, churches, collaborations PSAs, billboards focus on collaboratives Educational collaboration for job skills Expand entrepreneurial education (aka junior achievement)

Clean up delapidated areas, incentives for builders, incentives for using job skills

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007 Group 2 1 Strengths Votes Ag Production 8 Character Of People 7 Spirit Of Collaboration 5 Affordable Housing 9 Geographic Diversity 4 Quality Of Education 3 Traffic 0 Opportunity For Sports 2 Excellent School Facilities 2 Strong Business Community 4 Diversity Of Industry 6 Philanthropic Community-Caring 11 Emerging Arts And Cultural 5 Good Parks And Recreation 2 Boundaries 2 Centrally Located In California 11 Airport And Train Station 5 Potential For Job Growth 4 Simple To Communicate With Legislators 2 Open Space 5 Mountain Views 2 Strong Ag And Oil- Backbone Of Economy 6 Potential In General 3 Accessible Medical Care 1 Supportive Community Agencies 4 Strong Christian Community 6 Mild Winters 3 Fraternal Organizations 2 Strong Patriot 4 Slow Pace 3 Potential To Be A Leader In Cultural Diversity 4 Quality Of Family Life 5 1 Weaknesses Votes Lack Of Cultural Diversity 5 Growth Exceeds Infrastructure 8 New Parks Without Restrooms 2 Air Quality 11 Uneducated Population 8 Unemployment 4 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007 Traffic 8 Graffitti 6 Poor Public Transit 4 Not Enough Smart Growth/Planning/Density 5 Not Preserving/Protecting Cultural Sites 3 Creating Ghettos 2 Not Learning From Mistakes Of LA 2 High Incidence Of Poverty 6 Gang Violence 8 Loss Of Prime Ag Land 4 Losing "Country" Life-Farmland Community 0 Sustainable Recreational Opprtunities- eg Community Pools, Horsetrails 2 Brain Drain 5 Not Enough Bike Paths, Walking Trails 1 Rising Gas Prices 2 Intolerance To Alternative Life Styles 3 Growing Chism Between Wealthy And Working Poor 2 Accessible Recreation Facilities And Services For "At Risk" Low Income 5 Not Enough Recycling 5 Teen Pregnancy 3 Too Many Gated Communities Instead Of Solving Problems 3 Need To Grow Downtown "Up"-Make It Into City Instead Of Ghetto 6 Lack Of Competitive Wages 4 Lack Of Growth Boundaries 3 High Schools Have No Swimming Pools 1 No Gyms In K-8 1 Lousy Drivers 9 Streets Change Names 0 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Air Quality Live Closer To Where You Work Carpooling-Public Transportation Affordable Alternative Fuels/Energy Low Emmission Vehicles Organic Farming Higher Corporate Penalties Slow Down Growth Less Truck Traffic Forest And Range Management

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007 Group 3 1 Strengths Votes Small town atmosphere 9 Easy to get around 8 Generosity of the community 12 Easy to get involved 2 Lots of shopping 1 Market place well planned 6 Efforts at beautification- downtown 6 Affordability- housing 2 The river 0 Central location- go any where 7 Lots of activities for younger kids 0 Lots of schools- well dispersed 1 Good water management 4 Scenic bluffs 0 Lots of parks 2 Easy to start a business- business friendly 2 Kern County fair 4 Good community collaborations- organizations 7 Lots of talented people willing to step up 8 Diverse population 6 Lots of hospitals, expanding, mobile blood banks 2 1 Weaknesses Votes Traffic congestion (no freeway west of 99) 8 Don't feel safe- crime 1 Public transportation on street with autos 4 Air quality is terrible 9 Can't walk anywhere- traffic is bad- not planned for pedestrians- no plazas 1 Not enough students go to college- not enough outreach- financial aid needed- no motivation to go 0 Diversity is not represented sufficiently in government 0 Allowing homes to be built where there is no commercial development (grocery stores, etc.) 3 Occupational preparation lacking- exposure to potential jobs 4 Nothing to do for younger adults 7 Highest fast food to population ratio- obesity 1 Lack of sidewalks and infrastructure- empty buildings 10 Lack of diverse quality job opportunities 2 Only one person- dog catcher 0 Lack of adequate police to cover some areas- response time is slow (BPD and Sheriff) 7 Smells coming from sewage plant- move out 0 Building before infrastructure is in place 5 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007 Don’t use up farmland, build up instead of out 3 Pay for blue recycle 3 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Traffic Congestion Electric train/light rail Freeway- westside parkway Finish 58 and 178 Mixed use and high density living Pass sales tax for transportation Hire planners experienced in growth More bike paths Transportation to outlying communities Higher density roads- more lanes Synchronization of traffic signals Public campaign to "plan you trip" Encourage carpooling Autobahn Larger developer burden for transportation development Air Quality Cleaner vehicles Scrubbers on smokestacks Ban gas lawnmowers Incentives for solar Code fewer drive-thrus Incentives for more efficient vehicles More trees- less asphalt (code ratio of how many square feet of asphalt= number of trees Ban blowers American Lung Association- Air Quality flag system technic to undust Higher density development

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southeast Bakersfield Workshop May 21, 2007

SOUTHWEST BAKERSFIELD TOWN HALL MEETING MAY 31, 2007 Group 1 1 Strengths Votes Cost of living 9 Transportation hub 1 Small town feel 5 Low crime 1 Location in California (mountains, beach, metro) 8 School systems 7 Currently short commute time 5 Low wage base 0 Easy access to elected officials 4 Good economy 3 Low cost of higher education 7 Access to education 4 Recreation (Kern River, bike path, parks) 3 Fire department 3 Library system 2 Graffiti removal program 8 Great community involvement 5 1 Weaknesses Votes Lack of entertainment 5 Transportation- lack of freeways/roads 8 Lack of brain power 1 Lack of community parks (regional with pools and sports facilities) 8 Bad roads- pot holes 6 Lack of land fills- under capacity 2 Air quality bad 9 Lack of community events- cultural 4 Revitalize downtown 5 Not bike friendly 4 Lack of proper planning for growth (ex. Sewer, roads) 7 Incomplete roads, lack of safety 2 Lack of natural resources protection (oil and agriculture) 7 Need more tree canopy 2 Need more after school activities 5 Lack of new schools/ classrooms 3 Higher education, lack of opportunities 2 No planning for water shortages 2 More power plants 1 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Lousy high school boundaries 2 Outside interest telling us what to do 3 Need more services for seniors 1 Not pedestrian friendly 3 Gangs 6 Health care- need better doctors 6 City/ county staff competency 3 Need services for families with children 3 Need better recycling programs (prefer free) 6 Too much urban sprawl 5 Need more advertising for community involvement 1 No by pass around Bakersfield 1 Reached third world status 1 High unemployment 4 Too many amendments to General Plan 1 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Transportation (Lack of Freeways) Pass 1/2 cent sales tax Fix the road right the first time Syncronize the signals Have new development pay higher inpact fees Seek state/federal grants Float more bonds Stop development Lack of Community/Regional Parks Add improvements to existing parks If there is land available, buy it Incorporate neighborhood park in new development

Form a community/government committee to study and recommend Conform/comply with existing standards Seek state/federal funds Air Quality More open space and trees Alternative fuels Better bike and pedestrian facilities More solar/wind power Modern farming methods Better traffic circulation Re-route trucks out of town More mass transit Utilize rural route spurs

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Group 2 1 Strengths Votes Community involvement 5 Family oriented 2 Small town feel 5 Productive (ag and oil) 5 Affordability (homes and lifestyle) 8 Trying to improve 0 Charitable minded (money and time) 8 Unique culture 2 Institutions of higher learning great (supportive of teachers) 8 Friendly people 6 Support services and organizations 3 Good planning (new neighborhoods, streets etc.) 1 Energy natural resources 1 Year round weather 3 Close proximity of services (Convenient) 9 Open minded religons 6 Centrally localed recreation (mountains, beach, forest) 4 Diversity- acceptance 4 Variety of job opportunities 3 Parks and trees added recently 3 Diverse topography (river bluffs) 5 1 Weaknesses Votes Infrastructure not kept pace with growth and development 6 Weather 2 Roads- maintenance 6 Changing environment (character) with population growth 1 Air pollution 11 Not enough high quality child care 5 Litter 7 Roads not keeping pace with development - 4 lanes-2-4 8 Shortage of parkland per capita 2 City officials too favorable to developers 3 Lack of planning east side streets (edison hwy) 7 Child abuse and domestic violence 4 Safety services not keeping up- fire, jail, police 7 Lack of entertainment options 3 Lack of participation in local entertainment, culture venues 5 Drug and substance abuse 3 Should not have pay- recycle 3 Traffic congestion 11 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Outside exploitation- homes etc. 1 Family recreation limited in certain areas 3 Gang activity- lack of law enforcement 10 Water consumption- not sustainment 3 Destruction of natural topography- river, bluffs 3 Not enough public involvement 5 Closed minded- very conservative 2 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Traffic Vote for 1/2 cent sales tax Increased development fees Better planning with road construction Public transportation Incentives for public transportation (energy efficiency)

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Group 3 1 Strengths Votes Many sports teams 2 International airport 9 Low unemployment 5 Diverse zoning opp- Homogeneous community 2 Ability to have a walkable community 3 Room to expand 6 Traffic not bad 5 Indian gaming 0 Low density population 3 Low crime rate 1 Growth 2 Small community 9 Variety- diverse 5 River 7 Friendly people 7 Location- Close to Souther California 13 Easy to get involved 6 Accessible within town 4 Low cost of housing 11 Willingness to help each other 3 Ag base 9 Water shortage 4 Afforable education 3 Colleges bring people in 4 Recreation after school for kids 0 Collabrative network for kids 4 Teaching hospital / excellent healthcare facilities 6 Mild winters 0 Abundant activities 0 Transportation hub 5 Landfill space 1 Bike trail 5 Art/ theater 5 Active downtown 2 1 Weaknesses Votes Need better air quality 12 Graffiti 1 Lack of parks in low income 4 More diverse entertainment 1 Urban renewal 10 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 More roads/ better circulation 9 High teenage birth rate 8 Light rail 2 K-12 education is weak 7 Not safe to walk in low income areas 6 Drug abuse 9 Weather- hot 2 Crisis in educational system- Job trades 7 Gangs 3 Stray animals- urban wildlife issues 4 Nursing shortage 3 Aid for homeless 2 More big trees 3 High dropout rate 6 Teacher shortage 2 More places for latch key 3 Bigger farmers market 5 High rate of obesity 5 Bigger shopping mall 2 Better stores 2 Senior citizen opportunties 1 Odor 2 More dog parks 1 Multi-use commercial/residential 3 Sprawl- need infill 6 Professional salaries low 6

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Stuff Early education- Birth control (Identify source of the problem) More (better) education opportunities Advertise problem/ solution Programs to involve fathers More funds for transportation Increase gas tax/ sales tax for transportation Increase after school programs Increase requirement for community service Green belts to preserve ag space Make it harder to get on welfare Multi-use areas walk and bike friendly More middle class job opportunties Attractive urban core

Smart growth/ walkable/ better transportation/ Higher density raise developer fees to pay for needs Air Quality Trees Drive less Reduce sprawl (increase density) Improve transporttation system Car crushing program Increase bike use- bike paths Carpool incentives Carpool lanes- HOV- Rosedale Parking fees Green buildings and smart homes Biofuels- encourage Incentivize solar housing No fireplace use No outdoor BBQ Ban leaf blowers Ban incandescent lights Require government cars to be hybrid Speed up truck traffic through town No dairies Replace old diesel engines Environmental friendly farming Make available health aids from bad air quality

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Group 4 1 Strengths Votes Affordable- conservative 8 People are kind 2 Family oriented 11 Still small enough to have voice heard 1 Many new trees and parks 1 Small town atmosphere 10 Location- ocean, mountains, Los Angeles, Las Vegas 11 Family home 1 Can assist special-needs children and headstart 8 Size 0 1 Weaknesses Votes Gang violence- more restrictions (send them to war), not enough police protection, drugs 11 Lack of improvement in older areas 4 Roads- poor condition, medium islands make roads unsafe, traffic, no cross town freeway 10 Speeders- speed limits too high 0 Improve transit/ transportation 4 Growing too fast 1 Poor air quality 4 Not enough to do, including shopping- little for younger generation 9 Elected don’t get it (transportation, gangs in the park, drugs) 7 Human services needs overhaul 2 No veterans hospital 6 Revenue into the city/county for prison medical (to KMC) 4

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Gang violence, drugs, not enough police protection Send gang members to war (age appropriate) Intervention in schools- 5th grade Police department build up positive relationships in the community to build trust No fathers in the home- mentoring Start talking about good things in life Stay out of jail, stay off drugs Big brother, big sister programs On the job training- need to develop some jobs Mandatory drug testing for welfare Career services center- but no values at home- TV- Kids raising themselves Facilitate tattoo removal Kids in trouble are returned to "bad environment" (judges) Intervention in the home important- some high school programs are being integrated- need to be accountable Need more foster homes, more CASA volunteers Human services needs an overhaul Educate that the prison system is for profit- waste money- encourage recidivism We need to work together to solve DARE for early intervention- 6th grade or younger Roads, traffic, transportation Flow of traffic should be the guiding philosophy of transportation planners and road builders. Current use of cement islands may impede traffic flow- can be more dangerous in accidents Grind down highway to make it smooth like Hwy 101 Widen roads to accommodate today's traffic Ticket cameras on every traffic light What is the priority for road maintenance- who decides? Prohibit cell phones while driving BUILD crosstown freeway Nothing to do, including shopping Lack of family things to do that builds family relationships More activities for pre-teen, teenagers, young adults The fair- 4 times a year Plaza with higher quality shops

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Group 5 1 Strengths Votes Small town feeling 8 Friendly community 5 Wonderful ag. 4 Conservative 6 Close to lots of things (I.e. mountain climbing) 6 Affordability 8 Growing job opportunities 6 Close proximity with in community, convenient 4 Quiet, peaceful 2 Roads are maintained (large and wide) 2 Weather 3 Mixed business opportunties 5 Pro-business/ pro-community 9 Lots to do (golf, bike trails, parks) 5 Very giving community (generous) 3 People come here as a vacation spot 0 People invest in property, live out of town 1 Excellent schools K-College 3 Diversity (people and land uses) 9 Open access to decision makers 5 Access to communityu based services 2 Safe 4 1 Weaknesses Votes Signalization poor/ traffic flow (19 of 20 traffic lights will stop you) 6 Rapid growth outpacing services (better planning) 11 Don’t focus on infrastructure first (allowing development without infrastructure) 3 Urban sprawl 5 No revitalization in older neighborhoods 8 Graffiti 8 Gangs 5 Lack of youth entertainment 2 Work on welfare system (not working) 3 Youth education (poor test scores) 8 Disparity of school resources 6 Bad air and addressing air problems 7 Passing traffic tax 3 Park improvements (run down, lack of bike paths) 2 Grade separations needed between road and train tracks 10 Too much new housing 6 Housing prices are too high (especially for first time homeowners) 6 1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007 Response time for police and health care services 3 Replacing Ag. land with housing 6 Building for now and not for the future 6 Low graduation rates 3 Ag. Regulations regarding air impacts and quality 0 High gas prices 7 Problem Solutions Votes 1 Rapid Growth Cap on development

Widen Olive Dr by replacing homes/businesses where appropriate Just say No Metro approach to planning More selective about what we allow Keep outside groups from making decisions in Bakersfield

Prioritize top traffic improvements including costs for construction and possible funding options. (Needs to be public) Construct beltways and other needed frreeways Separation between road and track Make top priority

Possible tax (better public education regarding process and issues Better public transit (location and availability) Ride share program Move train tracks or adjust schedules Revitalization Incentives for re-development in older neighborhoods Available funding to citizens (needs to be more available and residents need to know how to apply for it)

1 Where this column is left blank, it indicates that no votes were taken.

Southwest Bakersfield Workshop May 31, 2007

APPENDIX B: VISION 2020 WEB SURVEY

APPENDIX B VISION 2020 WEB SURVEY

The Vision 2020 Web Survey Executive Summary was conducted in July 2007, in conjunction with the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) regional “Blueprint” planning process and the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update. The survey consisted of a series of questions prepared and administered to approximately 51 residents of the Metropolitan Bakersfield area. The questions focused the participants to respond to questions relating to the top 3 “principle weaknesses” or obstacles to accomplishing the community's vision for the future. The participants were then asked to indicate the level of regulation or other restrictions they recommend to accomplish the goal of minimizing the identified weakness. Participants were then asked to describe the trade-off that they would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal. For instance, if a participant identified “poor air quality” as their principle weakness and s/he requested to “maximize the intensity” of regulations or restrictions to address this problem, the trade off might be to require “carpooling or no burn days” within the community. The results of the survey identify many suggestions voiced by the participants, covering all facets of community interest.

B-1

QUESTION #1 : In your opinion, what are the principal strengths of Greater Bakersfield.

Participant Principal Strength 1 Principal Strength 2 Principal Strength 3

1 Family Oriented Diverse Economy Centrally Located 2 Weather prices room to grow That we can BARELY make it across town in 20 3 That it has a down-home feeling of small towns. We have sprawling farm land! minutes still! 4 Well planned road network Small town atmosphere Excellent Land Use Planning 5 close to cool places small town feel river goes through it 6 A renewal in the Downtown Affordable housing A concerned City Governemnt 7 Downtown revitalization 8 Sense of Community Helpfulness No Non-sense 9 Sense of Community Location Size and growth

10 Location & Proximity to LA, Coast, Mountains Cost of Housing favorable Sense of Community and Colletive Responsibility

11 size of population, a critical mass effort and interest in including John Q Public Kern River Parkway; however it could be made recreational opportunities in the surrounding 12 better by keeping water in the river year-round mountains and extensions of bike path into neighborhoods 13 Volunteerism Friendliness Small close-knit community 14 People are at least talking about it The Community's involvement in helping other 15 Community resources Big city with a small town feel thru difficult times 16 Location Mineral resources Economy 17 Community Involvement 18 Climate rural image Our people! Bakersfield has a friendly, helpful Location - we are just far enough away, and just 19 We are NOT YET Los Angeles and welcoming community close enough, to everything else 20 Still small enough to have a slight commute Friendly people everywhere! Quality schools 21 jobs in rural areas transportation for rural areas child care QUESTION #1 : In your opinion, what are the principal strengths of Greater Bakersfield.

Participant Principal Strength 1 Principal Strength 2 Principal Strength 3

22 affordablility the bike path open space

They find ways to use low income communities 23 money to fund their other projects in other areas

24 Location to Los Angeles/Coast Size Cultural diversity Four regions geographically surrounding a 25 Growth due to available real estate Vision 2020 central downtown

Bakersfield College vocational programs, 26 Level headed people Energetic people especially industrial automation and electronics

27 ease of doing business with MOST city officials moral quality of community 28 open, generous spirit outdoor recreational opportunities location-proximity to ocean, mtns, LA 29 affordable housing local colleges open space/outdoor activities 30 Has not yet got too big 31 Weather Small town feel Museums, events, shopping 32 Small town feel great access to councilmembers and staff 33 Affordability Opportunity for expansion Industry 34 Friendly community. Low cost housing. Good quality of life. 35 Changing attitudes in electeds Kern River Parkway Arts District 36 Affordable Housing Traffic Control in town Walking routes in part of town 37 Friendliness of citizens Relatively safe neighborhoods Diverse population location. hub to LA, Bay area, Vegas, Housing affordability, You have to have the Room for lot"s of growth (industry) (building)(new 38 Sacramento area people here to lure the high quilty job"s ventures) Great location midway between LA/Northern 39 affordable housing jobs California 40 the river friendly people mountains 41 community involvment 42 Kern River Open space Easy, inexpensive living QUESTION #1 : In your opinion, what are the principal strengths of Greater Bakersfield.

Participant Principal Strength 1 Principal Strength 2 Principal Strength 3

Relatively short distance to access the 43 Our bike path Wide variety of restaurants and entertainment mountains, desert, and coast. 44 affordability education proximity to other amentities Approachability of elected city and county Vision of people like those who founded the Kern 45 Big city with a small town feel officials River Parkway 46 Centrally Located in California Close to many climates Lower cost of living than some areas 47 graffiti removal program Hometown feeling community comes together time of need open community-can be someone in BKS-work 48 generous spirit-helping community small town atmosphere-big city attractions hard-be genuine 49 relatively warm winters 50 nice communities parks downtown bakersfield improvement 51 Gang Wars Fat Cat's Bible belt

QUESTION #2: In your opinion, what are the principal weaknesses or obstacles to accomplishing our community's vision for the future.

Participant Principal Weakness/Obstacle 1 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 2 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 3

1 Transportation Air Quality Crime Some people unwillingness towards change and development downtown needs to be faster and 2 roads growth better We have empty, unused buildings in the middle 3 It's becoming more like Los Angeles. It's becoming more like Los Angeles. of town. LAFCO has no clue about proper planning and 4 Funding for roads Elected officials lack decisive leadership vision 5 traffic/poor road planning overdevelopment air polution 6 Lack of money for road improvements Short sightedness on continuing growth Lack of concern from County Government 7 Urban sprawl lack of a "Green" vision air pollution 8 Road construction Lack of effective mass transit Rampant gang activity 9 Air quality Quality of schools, levels of education poorly planned growth Urban Sprall leading to degradedation of Geographical Conditions make air quality a Lack of quality in-fill building of residential and 10 environmental, transportation, asthetics, and challenge business options sense of community pace of development exceeding pace of air quality will continue to make this area 11 proportion of people in poverty planning unattractive and unhealthy poor air quality, it affects resident's health and Urban sprawl that overwhelms infrastructure and 12 makes it hard to attract and retain an educated low educational achievement degrades quality of life and environment workforce 13 Air quality Road conditions Building without vision of future (see #1)

Lack of vision and courage on the part of political 14 Lack of regulation of growth Lack of alternative transportation options leaders

15 Poor AIR quality Traffic Congestion gang violence,crime 16 Air quality Illegal Aliens Corrupt power (Gorge Soros) 17 Public Transportation Not enough afforable housing lack of transportation options and too wide of 18 suburban Sprawl unsustainable development roads QUESTION #2: In your opinion, what are the principal weaknesses or obstacles to accomplishing our community's vision for the future.

Participant Principal Weakness/Obstacle 1 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 2 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 3

Air quality -- though it is gradually improving, Poor community planning and transportation Education -- too many of our citizens are under- 19 many people are in poor health from breathing options: we are spreading out too far, not educated or mis-educated our air properly planning and maintaining roadways

20 Lack of funded residential recycle program No YMCA comprehensive facility here Too high speed limit near residential areas 21 jobs in rural areas transportation for rural areas activities in rural areas forkids 22 Roads air quality strip malls, like along ming avenue School System needs to ensure a equal Lack of funding for Recreation centers or youth Lack of child care in all area for children 0 to 5 in education for all children. They need make sure centers for children 7 to 21. No after school 23 low income areas. We need a better bus system all scholls have the same good teachers, recreational centers for children in low income in all areas of Bakersfield supplies playgrounds areas 24 Good old boy mentality Law enforcement that sucks big time Racial Prejudice from all cultures Politics by City/County leadership preventing the 25 Lack of coordinated highway system Lack of downtown parking right growth cops raid the dispensary instead of going after Lack of 2nd chances for dropouts and 26 too little urban planning hard-core druggies. I don't like potheads, but uneducated immigrants they need ot triage their efforts. lack of planning standards for project eg. traffic 27 traffic congestion air quality and landscape issues 28 air quality low educational attainment of population lack of green space, trees, pedestrian friendly 29 sprawl air quality traffic 30 Poor government at City and County levels Education continues to lag the state No real new employment opportunities 31 Air Lack of a downtown/social scene/focal point Transportation (highways, public transp.) traffic - need more roads built before more 32 homes Lack of job opportunities for individuals with 33 Lack of funding Getting the community to "buy into" the vision degrees 34 Transportation Air Quality Not enough greenbelts 35 Air quality traffic vandalism/grafitti QUESTION #2: In your opinion, what are the principal weaknesses or obstacles to accomplishing our community's vision for the future.

Participant Principal Weakness/Obstacle 1 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 2 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 3

Linking all communities/areas with walking Builders need to pay and plan for more walking, 36 Parks in some areas need to be updated routes biking trails Majority of new restaurants, shopping, and parks 37 Loss of prime farmland Poorly designed roads in the NW

not luring big company"s for major job growth, Not enough for young people to do (No baseball 38 (we badly need distrabution centers) lack of Freeway"s and road repair"s stadium)(bigger zoo)(more night life,not just major players down town bar"s)

no enforcement of litter laws. Lived here many improve transportation-cut through red tape/build years. Our neighborhoods/streets/town is very businesses are relying on too many illegals 39 more roads, widen streets like Olive Drive & littered with fast food trash and other trash- rather than local citizens make more lanes on Olive Drive enforce lit

poorly-planned growth, lack of open space/trails 40 insufficient roads pollution included

41 lack of open space air quality

42 city officials are not willing to stand up for ideals illegal dumping,littering development without taste and infrastructure.

City council members working against having a lack of power/authority of a committee to make Lack of vision by our city leaders which other 43 community meeting point for running, walking real improvements cityies seem to have and hiking on dirt 44 air quality sprawl gang problems Lack of commitment to creating more multi use Poor traffic flow and circulation and road 45 Air Quality trails conditions

46 Illegal Drug Traffic Low educational level of residents Violent crimes; guns; knives; dogs not on leash

47 fast growth of new development fast growth not enoough schools and parks streets and traffic problems 48 Air Quality Transportation system need higher paying jobs urban sprawl (incl. materialism, not human scale, 49 air and light pollution inadequate protection endangered species water waste,energy waste...) QUESTION #2: In your opinion, what are the principal weaknesses or obstacles to accomplishing our community's vision for the future.

Participant Principal Weakness/Obstacle 1 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 2 Principal Weakness/Obstacle 3

the continue of urban sprawl, we are leaving the not enough entertainment it would be nice to older buildings in bakersfield to rot instead of 50 lack of freeways creates traffic have a zoo or water park updating them which creates more bad neighborhoods

51 Mind set Oildale The old school QUESTION #3: For the first obstacle you QUESTION #4: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #3 for your first obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal. of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness. (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity")

1 maximize intensity Less convienent commute. I would be willing to pay more in taxes! We have to do this. try to do Measure I again. Can we raise 2 maximize intensity taxes without a vote? I would be willing to trade off some of the "Slum-lords" that have purchased properties here in K.C. 3 maximize intensity to allow the dibilitation of the property with outrageous rental rates for a property of my own to care for and nourish the solid foundation that remains today. 4 maximize intensity Increase sales tax, which would capture out-of-town travelers who use our roadways. 5 increase intensity no new developments without heavy taxes for roads and bikeways 6 maximize intensity Maintain current level of service for the metropolitan road system, but only in the short term. 7 maximize intensity Slow growth. 8 maximize intensity Higher construction costs or local tax assessments or a higher hotel residency tax.

9 maximize intensity More spending (taxes) on roads to alleviate conjestion, more spending on public transportation

All three of the weaknesses I listed in response to #2 above are interrelated. Possible legislative actions would include: Incentives for quality in-filling with residential/business construction; disincentives for large lot suburban residential homes (taxes based on lot sixe; higher property 10 maximize intensity taxes for larger lots to offset infrastructure costs(roads, sewers, etc.); higher gasoline taxes to enhance movement toward higher mileage autos/trucks and reduced driving driving with the taxes; more bike paths; slow development until infrastructure is already planned. it won't kill development; we will still be 11 increase intensity the place with a lot of room to grow and be cheaper than more desireable (coastal) areas, even with a slowdown.

Increased fees for new developments to cover infrastructure costs and offset air quality impacts. 12 maximize intensity Stricter land use rules that encourage more "compact" development and discourage sprawl. Slower growth.

13 maximize intensity Whatever it takes to clean up the air we need to do, including increase taxes. QUESTION #3: For the first obstacle you QUESTION #4: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #3 for your first obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal. of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness. (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity")

It's not an issue that requires trade-offs, just courage and vision, which are mighty hard to come by these days. We need people who can make the hard decisons, such as decisions to put some real 14 increase intensity controls to improve air quality -- NOW, NOT 10 YEARS FROM NOW!. We need people who aren't beholden to big money and vested political interests who want to maintain the status quo. Our problems are far too urgent for that. 15 maximize intensity none

16 maximize intensity Require Ag to spray water on the dusty roads when farming. Reduce toxic emissions in all areas.

There should not have to be any trade-offs for this. The city itself needs a better layed out public 17 maximize intensity transportation system. It needs to have extended hours to run throughout the night. I want Bakersfield to become a place where kids can SAFELY bike and walk to stores, parks, and 18 maximize intensity schools. I don't want Bakersfield to sacrifice quality in the name of growth, which seems to be the current trend. I would gladly trade test scores, standardization and "accountability" for an education that was better suited to a wide variety of children, which includes focuses on the arts, teaching children to 19 maximize intensity take better care of their bodies (and not just learn to play sports), and vocational training opportunities for those who are not academically inclined. We would be raising a more productive, creative and cultured generation. 20 maximize intensity Pay more garbage disposal fees for recycle containers information for familys of low income for child care provision. like family or friends being 21 maximize intensity compensated for watching children. there are a lot of people wanting to improve the lives of their family, but don't want their children left with strangers Increase in taxes to pay and maintain new roads/freeways/expressways as well as impove current 22 maximize intensity roads. 23 maximize intensity Stop focusing on the newer areas of town and upgrade the low income areas of town 24 maximize intensity There wouldn't be any trade offs for losing the good old boy mentality. 25 maximize intensity Would support a half-cent sales tax for transportation QUESTION #3: For the first obstacle you QUESTION #4: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #3 for your first obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal. of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness. (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity")

Slower development. A slower economy would be ok too, since the housing bubble hasn't really 26 maximize intensity helped most of us. limit number of developments that have high number of trips but low number of employment 27 maximize intensity oportunities, eg., big box warehouse/distribution centers. Developers should pay more for traffic impacts. 28 increase intensity No tradeoffs personally except for traffic delays due to work or building of new roads. Stop building more homes, too many in foreclosure or for sale. less development;fewer construction jobs;some depression in local economy;some increase in 29 maximize intensity housing costs (<10%) Better planning and more parks and sports facilities at the cost of poorer fire protection and lower 30 maximize intensity police salaries. Limits on gas powered equipment, increased taxes/fees for public transportation, bike routes, and 31 increase intensity pedestrian corridors. But don't take away my woodburning fireplace! (but incentives for inserts and pellet stoves would be good.) Developers should pay more for traffic impacts. 32 increase intensity No tradeoffs personally except for traffic delays due to work or building of new roads. Stop building more homes, too many in foreclosure or for sale. A modest increase in home owner's & sales taxes that directly funds Vision 2020's goals and 33 increase intensity objectives. 34 maximize intensity half cent sales tax to fund road construction. 35 increase intensity Higher gas prices, fewer distribution centers (affecting jobs) The trade off would be less cost in the future for insurance and hospitals that would be taking care 36 maximize intensity of the medical problems due to obesity I would be willing to accept almost any trade-off imaginable. I think that it is of the utmost importance to preserve our farmland. Growing food here keeps money here and people employed. 37 maximize intensity I don't see the advantage of selling this special land for house building or commercial development. I'm deeply concerned that we will lose all of the land that we grow our food in and then we'll be reliant on other countries for our food. 38 maximize intensity Support raising Taxes,I would support bond"s. QUESTION #3: For the first obstacle you QUESTION #4: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #3 for your first obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal. of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness. (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity")

Perhaps a small tax increase, but many people are wary of taxes that do not go towards what they 39 maximize intensity were intended for. Too many committees formed to talk about doing something for years-just do it.

40 increase intensity increased sales tax to fund 41 maximize intensity land use planning that requires an open space buffer City/County officials and advocates(this means you people) should practice what they preach. 42 increase intensity Think about quality (of life), not quantity. Money should not be the highest priority. I would be willing to pay a fee to access recreational areas to which I could run, bike or hike with my family and community. I do a lot of traveling and meet a lot of nice people and get a good sense of their community when I'm able to attend their community out door recreation are specific for 43 maximize intensity running/walking, hiking and biking. I just got bake from Pheonix where I visited South Point Park. I meet a lot of people that gave me some good advise about where to take my family while visiting their city. car pooling 44 maximize intensity no burn days 45 maximize intensity Higher taxes or user fees if necessary. 46 maximize intensity Not sure. Stop allowing developers to keep building new homes. Home sales are going down and developers 47 maximize intensity keep building. Have them put thier money in revitalizing our older neighborhoods. 48 maximize intensity higher priced gas-diesel to encourage less truck and car use-make rapid transit a viability

You are asking people to put this in a sacrifice framework--please help them keep in mind that current/upfront costs are misleading because the pollution, etc. longterm costs are delayed--and the benefits of change are not always immediate--but I would pay higher gas prices, higher 49 maximize intensity residential taxes, fewer strip malls (not a problem to me!), no lawns (I don't have one anyway), no private pools--higher home prices-----I don't see any open-end area on this survey so I'll put everything here -- QUESTION #3: For the first obstacle you QUESTION #4: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #3 for your first obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal. of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness. (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity")

I WANT: development curtailed, esp. sprawl housing and strip malls--new homes oriented on the land to save energy (20-30% savings for the life of the house just from how it's situated on the lot-- why doesn't Bak mandate this!)--solar option on all new homes--no private swimming pools (a new development is putting one on each property!)--no traditional lawns--no fireplaces in new homes--a green roof program--"living machine" sewage treatment --Bakersfield joins the Sierra Club's green 49 cities program--parks in the SE--better safeguarding of threatened and endangered animals--and (cont.) when the heck are we getting a low-cost spay/neuter clinic for the cats and dogs, 30,000 of them killed each year because no one wants them! -- also, a festival marketplace downtown along the canal but carefully planned so that it isn't junky McDonald's/Gap and doesn't squeeze out local/small businesses--email me at [email protected] if you have questions (I am a CSUB prof, teaching environmental psychology)

They need to spend less time building out into the SW communities and improve existing communities. I live in NE Bakersfield and there isn't any good dining or shopping spots. There are 50 increase intensity also empty buildings sitting and not being put to use. Also Bakersfield has an extreme lack of culture when you go to any other city there are things to do such as Zoo's, better shopping, better clubs, and dining.

51 maximize intensity

QUESTION #5: For the second obstacle you QUESTION #6: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #5 for your second listed in #2, please indicate the level of obstacle, please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the regulation or other restrictions you would goal. recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity").

1 increase intensity No driving personal vehicle on bad air days.

people need to get over the small town stuff, We are not a small town anymore! We need to keep 2 increase intensity growing, try to bring better jobs. Groups like Castle and Cooke are doing a great job at helping Bakersfield grown in the right way! Help Groups like then Keep builing in Bakersfield

I'm not sure about this high-speed commuter train yet, but I do believe it will decrease traffic, yet, I 3 continue current activities do not want it to increase the indigents in K.C. Council and Board members need to drop their petty politics and be decisive. Some of the newer 4 increase intensity elected officials worry too much about non-issues because they are easy to deal with. Buck it up and be a leader! 5 increase intensity development is not good for our farmland Once again, maintain level of service, but only in the short term. Need a change in City/County 6 maximize intensity approach to allowing development without suitable road improvemnts. 7 maximize intensity Increased fees, etc to pay for services such as curbside recycling etc. 8 maximize intensity Pay a per use fee, increased property or business tax. One school district (Kern County schools) to help eliminate inefficiencies, political agendas, 9 increase intensity incompetence and corruption of different school districts. 10 maximize intensity See response to #4 reducing poverty isn't something easily accomplished by a city; the poor will always be with us. 11 continue current activities Getting out of poverty has to include the desire to succeed, to commit to education, among other things. That's bigger than this plan can accomplish. Our poor air quality is such a huge problem that I would be willing to accept almost any trade-off to improve it. Trade-offs could include air-quality impact fees for development, ban of sale of grossly polluting two-stroke engines such as two stroke lawnmower and leaf blowers; use of city and 12 maximize intensity county funds to subsidize replacement of old engines in agriculture and industry; emphasis on air- quality impacts when permitting new dairies and other businesses or expansions of existing facilities 13 increase intensity Channel needed funds to road conditions. QUESTION #5: For the second obstacle you QUESTION #6: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #5 for your second listed in #2, please indicate the level of obstacle, please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the regulation or other restrictions you would goal. recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity").

Some higher prices, more restrictions on what can be built where, possibly more taxes. These 14 maximize intensity would be well worth it if done right because the benefits would outweigh any disadvantages and would be long-term 15 maximize intensity not known 16 maximize intensity Follow the law or announce you Sanctuary City status. Once again, there should not have to be trade-offs for this. The housing prices have increased at 17 increase intensity an alarming rate which has made it impossible for individuals and families to own their own home or have adaquate housing. I want to see more bus service and a light rail option. If we only build infrastructure for cars then 18 maximize intensity we will Definitely regret it in the future. I would happily hop on a bus or three if they would take me wherever I needed to go, whenever I 19 maximize intensity needed to be there. I already recycle; but I would "go solar" if I could afford the capital outlay, and make other efforts to reduce household greenhouse emissions. 20 increase intensity Massive community-wide fundraiser to "raise the roof" on a downtown YMCA. 21 maximize intensity transportation so people can get to their jobs from rural areas, longer buss hours I don't think this obstacle be can be achieved without regulating traffic that travels through our county via 99 and I5 as well as fixing our own roads, so we don't have so much stop and go with 22 continue current activities our own cars. Also we need to better regulate counties to the north that send pollution our way via wind and the jet steam. Why must I trade off anything? The low income areas have been trading off are funding for years in 23 maximize intensity Kern County. The trade off would be that you stop finding ways to use low income areas money and focus that money and any extra fundings into are areas for us to use Fire 1/2 of the police force and hire new people who can act and think like adults not big kids with 24 maximize intensity authority and power. 25 continue current activities Not applicable I think there ought to be traffic stops on I-5 where it comes into the valley, with drug sniffing dogs. It would be expensive, but since I-5 is a pinch point in the transportation system, they could catch a 26 increase intensity lot of people. They would have to stop everybody in order to make it fair, but I think it would be worth doing, at least for a while. QUESTION #5: For the second obstacle you QUESTION #6: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #5 for your second listed in #2, please indicate the level of obstacle, please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the regulation or other restrictions you would goal. recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity").

27 increase intensity limited population increase. The community needs to step up to mentor and encourage students to complete education so that 28 increase intensity we can improve the quality of our workforce. tough enforcement of no burn rules; restrictions on ag pollution;larger subsidies of public 29 maximize intensity transportation to encourage use;more monies spent on bike paths; tough tree trimming/planting ordinance. Kern High School district should be split up and we should have anumber of competing unified 30 maximize intensity school districts funded by higher taxes Increased taxes & incentives. Good grief - we need a place to take visitors to, or to go to ourselves 31 maximize intensity on weekend mornings/evenings - a place that shouts "Bakersfield" that we can be proud of. A walking mall with shops/restaurants, etc 32 continue current activities na More money spent on advertising and a firm commitment to meeting goals in a timely manner that 33 increase intensity directly impact the community, are readily visible as having been accomplished, and which have tangible public benefit. 34 increase intensity Trip linking. Bike riding. 35 increase intensity 1/2 cent sales tax, property assessment to support bike paths 36 maximize intensity Other higher income areas could cut back to provide updating parks in older sections.

I would be willing to use public transportation, if it was designed to get me across town a bit more quickly. I do NOT think that widening roads is the answer to our congestion problems. I believe that designing our city to be more pedestrian/bus/bike friendly is the answer. For instance, why can't we ask grocers to build closer to neighborhoods where they can be reached by walking? 37 maximize intensity I live in La Cresta and would like to see some sidewalks put in these County pocket areas. I think that the streets in the County pockets weren't expected to be as busy as they are when they were first built. My street runs along side Garces High School and there is always traffic, which I'm not complaining about, but it would be nice if we had a sidewalk to walk on so that we weren't in constant fear of traffic when we try to walk places. QUESTION #5: For the second obstacle you QUESTION #6: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #5 for your second listed in #2, please indicate the level of obstacle, please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the regulation or other restrictions you would goal. recommend to accomplish the goal of Participant minimizing this weakness (Note: selections only included "continue current activities", "increase intensity", or "maximize intensity").

38 increase intensity raise taxes, bond"s. Start an anti-litter campaign all over city/county-Billboards, signs, encourage people to report violaters who dump trash on our streets. Bakersfield has a very serious litter/trash problems-the 39 maximize intensity streets, the freeways, our neighborhoods, our alleys. This really needs to be brought to people's attention-it's out of control. 40 increase intensity better development standards to benefit the entire city. 41 maximize intensity mandatory reduction of driving a unhealthful air days Include more in the budget for night cameras and bi-lingual litter education. Then fine and 42 maximize intensity prosicute heavily. 43 maximize intensity I would be willing to participate as a committee member 44 maximize intensity developments being planned around walkable community guide lines, etc 45 increase intensity Pass additional sales tax dedicated to improve roads. 46 maximize intensity Ban sale of guns to private citizens; no guns allowed. 47 continue current activities What trade off? Give the developers costs of building schools and parks. 48 maximize intensity willing to be taxed for better system--toll roads if need to what incentives can the city create?--use of public transport (closest bus stop to my home is 2 49 maximize intensity miles)--darker streets and parking lots and signage (I would like that, actually!)

Anything would be a good tradeoff for these improvements. I hate our city planning commision for 50 increase intensity this reason. I feel Bakersfield has been horribly planned there isn't a good central area we can bike to and shop. Even though there have been improvements downtown there could still be more done.

51 increase intensity QUESTION #7: For the third obstacle you QUESTION #8: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #7 for your third obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal.

Participant of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of minimizing this weakness.

1 increase intensity A little less privacy in my neighborhood. Downtown needs money and lots of it, We need people to go in and remodel building, build new 2 increase intensity ones, stuff to give us the downtown fell like San Fransisco. I would be willing to give up going to the mall if we would get better shops downtown. 3 continue current activities No comment Hire a Lafco exectutive officer that knows the law and has knowledge of proper planning and land 4 maximize intensity use. The current individual is an idiot. 5 increase intensity more safe bike paths so we can bike to work Same answer as in # 6, but kick start County Governement and elected officials into timing future 6 maximize intensity development with the improvements in infrastructure. 7 maximize intensity Limiting says allowed to drive. 8 maximize intensity Back ground checks, police involvement. better master plan for growth, make sure developers pay for road improvements, utilities, and 9 maximize intensity include parks in any new housing developments 10 maximize intensity See response to #4 follow leads of progressive, green cities: fluorescent lighting, better mass transit, mandatory recycling, plastic grocery bags. Read the 4/16 issue of Newsweek for ideas. We sounded like 11 maximize intensity babies on the fireplace burning restrictions (i.e., it's my God-given right to burn mentality). We also should conserve water with the odd/even limits (odd # houses water lawns on odd days). Something! Anything! I can't see any trade-offs required to improve educational achievement in K-12 schools and college- 12 maximize intensity going rate. 13 increase intensity Say no to some new developments.

I'd pay more taxes for a transit system that was more comprehensive and was intermodal. For example, right now we have no bus service to the Amtrak station or the airport. That's pathetic. You should have made this survey longer. It's pretty narrow in scope and it doesn't even begin to 14 maximize intensity allow a person to make real concrete suggestions. I remember you did this process a number of years ago and am very disappointed that no real changes seem to have come from that. Time to step it up and work for real change instead of just talking and patting each other on the back. QUESTION #7: For the third obstacle you QUESTION #8: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #7 for your third obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal.

Participant of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of minimizing this weakness.

15 maximize intensity not known We should not support a Bustamante regime or Bakersfield CA will not be respected as an asset to 16 maximize intensity America. 17 continue current activities N/A Prioritize green building and smart growth. Let's become a model for growth, rather than a model 18 maximize intensity for what Shouldn't be done. Mixed-use and walkable development is crucial. I would happily pay a half-cent tax (or more!) to improve our roadways and fund better public 19 maximize intensity transportation. 20 increase intensity City planners agree to lower speed limits on River Run, Panarama, Panama, etc more training and activities in rural areas, those of us in rosamond and other areas of distance 21 maximize intensity miss out on the training and activities for kids Only allow develpments of nice quality, similar to the new Action sports mall in Calloway and 22 increase intensity Brimhall. Also encourage developments that encourage walking or bike riding, similar to the to river walk development or the market place. Just stop finding ways to use our funding and let stay in our community. Stop treating us like when you do something for us like give use a health clinic we should just be happy for the next 50 years 23 maximize intensity until you all think we should have something else. Help to me are progress a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly events What trade offs we should be learning about each other and accepting each other uniqueness. We 24 maximize intensity should have educational celebrations for all cultures. 25 increase intensity Not applicable We could give up the rigorous testing in the schools, and also some of the credentials. We might 26 increase intensity not get the high school grads as well educated, but we'd be able to get more people to a higher level of competency in life skills 27 maximize intensity slow down in growth until infrastructure can catch up. 28 increase intensity #NAME?

29 maximize intensity increased assessments for road improvements; slower growth;local sales tax dedicated to roads. QUESTION #7: For the third obstacle you QUESTION #8: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #7 for your third obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal.

Participant of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of minimizing this weakness.

City of Bakersfield leadership should be forced to work with other agencies such as KEDC or the 30 maximize intensity City council should change the City manager

When gas was 50 cents a gallon, I advocated taxing it to make it $3/gal, with the benefits to pay for alternative transportation (this would have decreased air pollution, too!) People said nobody would ever pay that much for gas. Now it is $3/gal, and all we have to show for it is rich oil companies. 31 maximize intensity Traffic is a huge drawback to Bako - don't allow new developments until those turkeys pay for the roads. If that drives up housing prices, shucks - we all benefit. Oh yeah - in questions 1&2 I assume you meant "principal", not "principle" ...

32 continue current activities na

Less regulation & more subsidies to encourage high tech industries that hire individuals with 33 maximize intensity college degrees to relocate or establish themselves in Bakersfield. Plant more trees, shrubs. Willing to pay a little more in property tax for more neighborhood parks. 34 increase intensity Especially in the south-southeast side of town. 35 continue current activities Reduce services to put more staff on grafitti removal 36 continue current activities Higher home prices.

I can't think of any trade-offs for this goal. I currently live in the Northeast part of town. One of the advantages of living in this part of town is that I am within walking distance of a grocery store and park. One of the disadvantages is that I don't go to the new restaurants in the NW part of town because driving that far away for a meal seems ridiculous. I am very disappointed that the Park at Riverwalk was built, but where newer developments are being constructed in the East part of town, 37 increase intensity there are no new parks. In fact, I've heard that at least one park was planned near the Edison area and now that the houses have been built, there is no park. We need parks with equivalent beauty and frivolity on the East side of town! My guess is that the socio-economic level of the residents on the East side of town is lower than that of the residents on the West side of town, so wouldn't it seem that the residents of the East side of town need parks more than those in the West?

38 maximize intensity Raise taxes, support bond"s 39 maximize intensity Require local businessess to verify citizenship of its employees. improving the roads/traffic flow would help with this- fewer cars idling. More and better public 40 increase intensity transport, walkable neighborhoods. QUESTION #7: For the third obstacle you QUESTION #8: For the level of regulation you listed in Question #7 for your third obstacle, listed in Question #2, please indicate the level please describe the trade-offs you would be willing to accept to accomplish the goal.

Participant of regulation or other restrictions you would recommend to accomplish the goal of minimizing this weakness.

41 continue current activities regulations Send officials to see what other cities have done. Draw a line around the city and stop irratic 42 increase intensity development. Encourage infill and higher rise apts. Offer govt. incentives. 43 maximize intensity I would be willing to participate as a committee member 44 maximize intensity curfews,etc Plant more trees and control pruning or tree butchering by so called tree trimmers. If I felt safe 45 increase intensity riding my bike on the street I might consider riding it instead of driving. For now the only safe place to ride a bike is on the river bike trail. Don't allow people to own a dog unless they prove they can handle responsibility; nobody needs a 46 maximize intensity dog. 47 continue current activities What trade off? Have developers pay to build larger streets for their developing areas. 48 increase intensity give incentives to encourage higher paying jobs slower/ less development (not a problem to me!)-- in 2006 I saw a nest of burrowing owls and their 49 maximize intensity babies bulldozed to make a sump for a fitness center that hasn't even been built yet--clearly there is inadequate protection of the threatened and endangered animals Like I said the planning commity just needs to get in gear and start improving the existing 50 increase intensity communities in Kern County. Take a break from all of the urban sprawl already. 51 continue current activities APPENDIX C: KERNCOG TELEPHONE SURVEY

APPENDIX C KERN COG TELEPHONE SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2007 KernCOG Telephone Survey Executive Summary presents findings related to the data compiled through a county-wide telephone survey prepared for the KernCOG “Blueprint” planning process. 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. A total of 10 findings were concluded based on the data gathered. These include:

• Kern County residents consider Kern County a desirable place to live.

• Kern County residential consider crime is a serious problem impacting the quality of life in their community.

• There are major regional differences concerning what is considered the most serious problem impacting the quality of life.

• Air pollution is a more salient issue for Central Valley residents than for residents in other parts of the country.

• Kern County residents have strong views concerning growth and the impact growth has on quality of life.

• There are regional differences concerning funding for roads.

• Respondents have mixed views concerning traffic and transportation.

• Intensity and direction of opinion is clear concerning call box emergency services.

• Support for additional motorist aid service is consistent.

• Respondents have mixed views concerning the overall quality of life in their community.

This executive summary provides additional information and statistics collected for each of the above-identified findings.

C-1

APPENDIX D: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED BY CITY AND COUNTY

The additional comments received by the City of Bakersfield and Kern County includes 9 letters and emails with attached information or supporting evidence that were submitted by Metropolitan Bakersfield residents and business owners for inclusion in the public record. The letters and emails are dated from May 7, 2007 through June 13, 2007 and address a large variety of issues that the constituency wished to provide as input. Some of the items addressed issues such as Transportation, Public safety, Gangs, Air Quality, Alternative Energy, Animal Control, Land Use and Circulation, Farmland Preservation and Affordable Housing. Other issues not previously addressed at the workshops were included, such as: discussing cement islands in roadways, limiting big box retailers in the city, global warming, species protection, teen employment and opportunity, and a plethora of observations, suggestions and commentary were submitted.

D-1

APPENDIX E: PHASE II TOWN HALL MEETING DOCUMENTS

APPENDIX E TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY DOCUMENTS

The information contained in Appendix E is related to a series of three (3) Phase 2 Town Hall Meetings, held by the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) as part of the regional “Blueprint” planning process. The Phase 2 workshops were held in late January and early February 2008 as a follow-up to a series of Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings held in May 2007. The intent of the Phase 2 workshops was to: (a) educate participants about the purpose of the KernCOG “Blueprint” process; (b) to provide results of Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings held in May 2007 and outreach efforts regarding the visions, values, and top issues for the future; and (c) to facilitate discussion and collect input about draft principles and “scenarios” for future growth.

Phase 2 of the Kern Regional Blueprint Program focused on developing principles for future growth and a preferred illustrative scenario for development in each sub-region, building from the regional vision and priority issues developed through the Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings. The following nine principles were identified as priority elements by Phase 1 participants and were presented for discussion at the Phase 2 Town Hall Meetings:

1. Use compact, efficient development and/or mixed land uses 2. Provide a variety of housing choices 3. Provide adequate and equitable services 4. Use and improve existing community assets and infrastructure 5. Provide a variety of transportation choices 6. Enhance economic vitality 7. Conserve energy and natural resources, and develop alternatives 8. Conserve undeveloped land and spaces 9. Increase civic and public engagement

The Phase 2 workshop participants evaluated the nine principles, identified above, and rated these principles based upon their perceived importance to the future development of Bakersfield. A summary of all information included in each sub- appendix is provided below. APPENDIX E-1 EAST BAKERSFIELD SENIOR CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The East Bakersfield Senior Center Town Hall Meeting Summary, Appendix E-1, is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on January 29, 2008, at the East Bakersfield Senior Center. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, and the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were invited to play a “card game” using spades, diamonds, clubs and hearts to address the importance of the vision and identify their preferences of the nine (9) draft principles of

E-1 the Kern Regional Blueprint. Participants evaluated the need for each of the nine principles, as well as the potential effectiveness of the scenarios identified. APPENDIX E-2 DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Town Hall Meeting Summary, Appendix E-2, is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on January 30, 2008, at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, and the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were invited to play a “card game” using spades, diamonds, clubs and hearts to address the importance of the vision and identify their preferences of the nine (9) draft principles of the Kern Regional Blueprint. Participants evaluated the need for each of the nine principles, as well as the potential effectiveness of the scenarios identified. APPENDIX E-3 BAKERSFIELD CONVENTION CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

The Bakersfield Convention Center Town Hall Meeting Summary, Appendix E-3, is a compilation of information gathered at the workshop held on February 6, 2008, at the Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room. The summary addresses how participants were invited to attend the meeting, and the focus and format of the meeting to establish the discussion items pertinent to the Kern Regional Blueprint Program. Participants were invited to play a “card game” using spades, diamonds, clubs and hearts to address the importance of the vision and identify their preferences of the nine (9) draft principles of the Kern Regional Blueprint. Participants evaluated the need for each of the nine principles, as well as the potential effectiveness of the scenarios identified.

E-2 APPENDIX E-1: EAST BAKERSFIELD SENIOR CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM TOWN HALL MEETING—PHASE 2

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

EAST BAKERSFIELD SENIOR CENTER January 29, 2008

I. INTRODUCTION

On Tuesday, January 29, 2008, Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Kern Regional Blueprint Program at the East Bakersfield Senior Center. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to educate participants about the purpose of the Blueprint; (b) to provide results of Phase 1 outreach efforts regarding the visions, values, and top issues for the future; and (c) to present and facilitate discussion and collect input about draft principles and draft illustrative “scenarios” for future growth.

Background Kern COG is an association of city and county governments primarily created to address regional transportation issues. Its member agencies include the County of Kern and the eleven incorporated cities within the Kern Region and ex-officio members representing Caltrans, Golden Empire Transit District and the Congestion Management Agency.

The Town Hall Meeting is one of a series throughout the Kern Region as part of the Kern Regional Blueprint Program, which is designed to engage policymakers and citizens to create a regional vision and growth principles for the integration of transportation, housing, land use, economic development and environmental protection that will inform local decision-making and guide growth over the next 50 years. The Kern Regional Blueprint is not a City General Plan or a County Specific Plan; it is a 2050 visioning project designed to complement other planning processes. Elected officials from the county and each city throughout the Kern region will determine how their jurisdictions will accommodate the regional vision through local decision-making and planning efforts. The Kern Regional Blueprint will also be included as part of the Central California Blueprint Program, which will integrate the outcomes of the Blueprint programs from the seven other Central California counties.

Phase 1 of the outreach process focused on introducing the Blueprint Program, developing a regional vision for the future of the region and its communities, and understanding the participants’ priority issues related to growth. Phase 2 of the process is focused on developing principles for future growth and a preferred illustrative scenario for development in each sub-region, all of which builds from the regional vision and priority issues developed in Phase 1.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 1 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

Community Outreach To build community awareness of and involvement in the Blueprint Program, Kern COG initiated an extensive outreach program as part of these Town Hall Meetings, which will carry and expand into future phases of the process. With outreach and coordination support from Odyssey, a California-based nonprofit organization focused on transportation policy improvements, Kern COG implemented a number of outreach measures to advertise the meeting, including: • Direct phone calls to a broad range of community-based organizations including business, social service, cultural, and other interests; • Targeted mail and email of a project newsletter and meeting notice; • Coordination with government agencies’ outreach efforts and networks; • Inserts in local and community-based newsletters and media publications; • Media campaign.

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The East Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at the East Bakersfield Senior Center, 2101 Ridge Road in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, and evaluation form (handout materials may be found at www.kerncog.org). Approximately 29 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Participants then reviewed the “open house” portion of the meeting, which featured display materials of local area maps and data related to existing conditions and future growth projections, as well as other general information from Kern COG. Becky Napier of Kern COG served as the meeting facilitator and initiated the meeting with brief welcoming remarks and an agenda overview. She then recognized local officials in attendance: Ken Weir, Council Member Ward 3, City of Bakersfield; Jim Movius, Planning Director, City of Bakersfield; Jim Eggert, Assistant Planning Director, City of Bakersfield; Scott Denney, Supervising Planner, County of Kern; Karen Northcutt, Consultant, City of Bakersfield/County of Kern; and introduced Kern COG Senior Planner, Robert Ball.

Mr. Ball delivered brief introductory remarks describing the relationship of the Blueprint to local planning activities followed by a slideshow presentation that provided an overview of the purpose of, need for, and process for developing the Blueprint. The slideshow included results of the Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings in Metro Bakersfield including a list of participant’s growth concerns for the future. The slideshow also introduced the draft principles for growth in the Kern region, which provide guidance and direction about how to manage future growth, as

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

well as illustrative pictures to further describe each principle’s meaning and intent.

Ms. Napier then reviewed the format of the small group discussions before convening participants to their small groups. After brief introductions among the participants, a facilitator at each small group table guided participants through a discussion of participants’ reactions to the draft principles. As a discussion tool, the facilitators introduced a “card game,” which is designed to allow participants to share their beliefs of how effective each principle would be in achieving the vision for future growth. The small group facilitators recorded participants’ discussion points and the card game tallies during the small group discussion on flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

Following this small group discussion, participants heard a brief presentation from Robert Ball regarding draft “scenarios” for future growth in the sub-region. Mr. Ball explained that each of the four scenarios represented varying levels of compact development, or the amount of development that is focused on existing urban areas. He also provided data regarding performance measures for each scenario, including the relative change in air quality, energy use, water consumption, and other measures.

Ms. Napier then asked participants to reconvene in their small groups to review the scenarios and data in more detail, which were provided as handouts and on large posters at each small group table. She asked that each participant indicate their preferred scenario and to share their ideas and reasons as part of the small group discussion. The small group facilitators guided these discussions and recorded comments on the flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

Participants then reconvened in the large group format to hear brief summary reports from a volunteer from each group regarding the Draft Principles and scenarios. Ms. Napier facilitated the discussion and also recorded a summary of the reports on flip chart pages at the front of the meeting room.

The following pages summarize comments captured on the flip chart pages from the small group discussions, as well as those submitted by participants on comment forms. Original copies of these documents are on file with Kern COG.

II. DISCUSSION: DRAFT PRINCIPLES

Participants discussed the draft principles in terms of their beliefs of how effective each would be in achieving the visions and values for future growth. The small

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

group facilitators asked participants to provide any overall comments about draft principles, and then proceeded to review each principle in turn.

Each participant received a set of five cards as part of the “card game.” The facilitator explained that the suited cards represent levels of effectiveness in achieving the visions for future growth. The suited cards were labeled as:

♠ Spades represent “No effect” ♥ Hearts represent “Small effect” ♦ Diamonds represent “Moderate effect” ♣ Clubs represent “Major effect” “X” represents “Delete this principle”

As the small group facilitator introduced a draft principle, each participant raised the card that represented his belief in the effectiveness of the principle. After tallying the results on the flip chart pages, the facilitator asked participants to comment on why they played their respective cards, which the facilitator recorded on the flip chart pages. The facilitator also encouraged participants to record their card play and associated comments on their comment form. Following is a summary of card game results and participants’ comments on each principle:

Use compact, efficient development and/or mixed land uses Participants generally agreed the use of compact development would ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete use land and other resources more effect effect effect effect efficiently and improve air quality. Participants also agreed that 15 10 1 0 0 compact development could lead to more efficient public transit, more walkability, and more convenient access to stores, parks, etc. Some participants wanted more redevelopment and infill development. One participant identified the need to consider child care needs when constructing new communities or redesigning existing communities. Some participants suggested wide streets were a selling point in Bakersfield. They expressed concern that compactness would lead to narrower streets that weren’t safe.

Provide a variety of housing choices Most participants suggested that a mix of housing choices is ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete necessary for all income levels, effect effect effect effect age groups, and social and racial groups within the community. 14 11 0 0 0 They felt it was a quality of life

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

issue to have a mix of decent/quality housing choices. Some participants suggested that this principle is market driven and that implementation by government is difficult. Some participants suggested that having affordable housing with no landlord on site to monitor and enforce regulations is a negative. People expressed the need for citizens to take pride in their community.

Provide adequate and equitable services Participants generally expressed a desire to maintain and or/enhance ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete quality education, child care, effect effect effect effect affordable health care and parks 26 0 0 0 0 and open space within the community. A few participants felt poor neighborhoods are underserved. One participant suggested Metro Bakersfield needed a unified parks and recreation district.

Use and improve existing community assets and infrastructure Participants expressed a desire to redevelop existing housing and ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X commercial developments. Some Major Moderate Small No Delete participants expressed the need to effect effect effect effect recognize the value of historical 18 7 1 0 0 places. Participants discussed the Baker Street redevelopment project and expressed excitement for the project but wondered if the development would remain affordable. Participants generally agreed there needs to be transparency in the development of these types of projects and a focus on not repeating poor quality developments.

Provide a variety of transportation choices Participants generally agreed this principle would have a positive effect ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete on air quality. Participants effect effect effect effect suggested the current transit system is ineffective and could be improved 18 5 2 0 0 by having more direct routes. Participants agreed the single occupancy vehicle attitude needed to be changed for this principle to be effective. Participants expressed the opinion that transportation variety follows compact development such as transit villages. Some participants identified the need for high speed rail.

Enhance economic vitality Participants expressed the opinion ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete that there was a disconnect effect effect effect effect between higher education and local 10 14 1 0 0

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

industry i.e. agriculture and petroleum. Specifically, participants discussed that the highest education center in the community, CSUB, doesn’t focus educational options on agriculture or oil. Some participants identified the need for improved employment opportunities for youth. Some suggested using mentorships as a way to assist economic vitality within the community.

Conserve energy and natural resources, and develop alternatives Participants identified water as a critical natural resource and ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete expressed the need to preserve effect effect effect effect quality resources. Participants 19 6 0 0 0 expressed a desire to develop alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels. One participant suggested that a municipal solar utility should be established. One participant discussed the need to take advantage of dairies and use manure as an energy source. One participant suggested that bio-fuels should be limited because it affects the food supply and consumer costs.

Conserve undeveloped land and spaces Participants recognized the importance to Kern County and the ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete nation of maintaining the military effect effect effect effect air space in eastern Kern County. 16 8 1 0 0 Others felt the Bakersfield Air Park also provides an important service. Participants generally wanted to avoid overdeveloping agricultural lands. They also wanted to protect natural habitat and the Kern bluffs. One participant identified the Kern River Plan as a tool to preserve and restore the lower Kern River through Bakersfield. Some participants identified a need for more parks and recreational areas.

Increase civic and public engagement Participants collectively agreed there was a need to get the public ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete involved. Participants suggested effect effect effect effect use of the internet, television and message boards as a way to 14 6 3 0 1 engage the public. Other participants suggested going to neighborhood school cafeterias, church halls, and community centers. A few participants identified the need to involve young people in the plan via student planning seminars. Participants generally agreed that people wanted to see results of their input within a reasonable period of time.

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

Missing principles Participants identified the following missing principles:

¾ Develop/attract industrial base. ¾ Provide affordable childcare and after school activities for youth. ¾ High speed rail. ¾ Teen mentorship.

III. DISCUSSION: DRAFT SCENARIOS

Following Mr. Ball’s presentation of the draft scenarios and associated performance measures for the sub-region, participants indicated their preferences for the draft scenario of compact development and associated performance measures that best reflect the visions for growth and appropriate level of implementation of the draft principles. The four scenario options included:

• No change, or maintaining development patterns as projected in today’s local land use planning policies • Some change, or some increase in compact development • Moderate change, or a moderate increase in compact development • Major change, or a major increase in compact development

After tallying participant’s preferences for scenarios, the small group facilitator asked participants to comment on their choices, which the facilitator recorded on the flip chart pages. The facilitator also encouraged participants to record their scenario choice and associated comments on their comment form. Following is a summary of participants’ scenario choices (with tallies noted next to the scenario names) and comments:

Major Change (12) Some participants who selected the major change scenario felt there was a need for major change but felt that it wasn’t realistic. Participants also expressed that they would be for major change if it was done correctly. Some were against tearing down existing neighborhoods. Participants identified a need to plan for and implement road construction before demand occurs. Some that voted for major change did not want to mix too many multifamily dwellings in single family neighborhoods due to the perceived potential for increased crime.

Moderate Change (10) Participants who selected the moderate change scenario felt major change was unrealistic or too dense. They expressed the need for realistic change based on the demographics.

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting – East Bakersfield Senior Center Summary Report—January 29, 2008

Some Change (2) Some participants expressed that they would like to have a middle ground between moderate change and some change. Others suggested they wanted single family homes, affordable homes and to maintain what open space and green we have.

No Change (0) Participants did not support this scenario.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES AND COMMENTS Participants provided additional comments during the small group discussions and via comment cards.

• The density options were great. How do we get votes and decision makers support? • Probably a socio-political change needed before there can be a structural change. This may occur as the population makeup changes from new blood infusion. • Compact growth creates even more traffic. • Transit is a good idea for others but it’s not for me.

______Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 8 APPENDIX E-2: MLK JR. COMMUNITY CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM TOWN HALL MEETING—PHASE 2

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY CENTER January 30, 2008

I. INTRODUCTION

On Wednesday, January 30, 2008, Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Kern Regional Blueprint Program at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to educate participants about the purpose of the Blueprint; (b) to provide results of Phase 1 outreach efforts regarding the visions, values, and top issues for the future; and (c) to present and facilitate discussion and collect input about draft principles and draft illustrative “scenarios” for future growth.

The Town Hall Meeting is one of a series throughout the Kern Region as part of the Kern Regional Blueprint Program, which is designed to engage policymakers and citizens to create a regional vision and growth principles for the integration of transportation, housing, land use, economic development and environmental protection that will inform local decision-making and guide growth over the next 50 years. The Kern Regional Blueprint is not a City General Plan or a County Specific Plan; it is a 2050 visioning project designed to complement other planning processes. Elected officials from the county and each city throughout the Kern region will determine how their jurisdictions will accommodate the regional vision through local decision-making and planning efforts. The Kern Regional Blueprint will also be included as part of the Central California Blueprint Program, which will integrate the outcomes of the Blueprint programs from the seven other Central California counties.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 1 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Summary Report—January 30, 2008

illustrative scenario for development in each sub-region, all of which builds from the regional vision and priority issues developed in Phase 1.

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The Metro Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. at the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, 1000 South Owens Street in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, and evaluation form (handout materials may be found at www.kerncog.org). Approximately 15 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Summary Report—January 30, 2008

well as illustrative pictures to further describe each principle’s meaning and intent.

Ms. Napier then reviewed the format of the small group discussions. After brief introductions among the participants, facilitators guided participants through a discussion of participants’ reactions to the draft principles. As a discussion tool, the facilitators introduced a “card game,” which is designed to allow participants to share their beliefs of how effective each principle would be in achieving the visions for future growth. The facilitators recorded participants’ discussion points and the card game tallies during the group discussion on flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

Following this discussion, participants heard a brief presentation from Robert Ball regarding draft “scenarios” for future growth in the sub-region. Mr. Ball explained that each of the four scenarios represented varying levels of compact development, or the amount of development that is focused on existing urban areas. He also provided data regarding performance measures for each scenario, including the relative change in air quality, energy use, water consumption, and other measures.

Participants reviewed the scenarios and data in more detail, which were provided as handouts and on large posters at each small group table. Participants were asked to indicate their preferred scenario and to share their ideas and reasons as part of the group discussion. The facilitators guided these discussions and recorded comments on the flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report. Original copies of these documents are on file with Kern COG.

II. DISCUSSION: DRAFT PRINCIPLES

Participants discussed the draft principles in terms of their beliefs of how effective each would be in achieving the visions and values for future growth. The small group facilitators asked participants to provide any overall comments about draft principles, and then proceeded to review each principle in turn.

♠ Spades represent “No effect” ♥ Hearts represent “Small effect” ♦ Diamonds represent “Moderate effect”

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Summary Report—January 30, 2008

♣ Clubs represent “Major effect” “X” represents “Delete this principle”

Use compact, efficient development and/or mixed land uses Participants generally agreed there was a need to build up ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete infrastructure in existing effect effect effect effect neighborhoods. Participants 11 1 1 0 0 agreed with the concept of preserving agricultural lands. Participants suggested that urbanization can produce the negative outcome of encouraging separate societies/communities and isolated neighborhoods. One participant expressed the opinion that the community has walkable (Stockdale), but that the South East is not walkable.

Provide a variety of housing choices Participants generally felt there currently is a mix of housing choices ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No and that developers build to sell to Delete effect effect effect effect the current market demand. Participants generally agreed that as 7 5 1 0 0 the community grows, there will be a need for a mix of housing choices.

Provide adequate and equitable services ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Participants agreed that services are Delete not equitable everywhere in Metro effect effect effect effect Bakersfield. When 11 2 0 0 0 services/resources are not available within one’s neighborhood, citizens are required to travel to get the basics. Some participants stated that if basic services cannot be offered in an area, the area should not be developed.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Summary Report—January 30, 2008

Use and improve existing community assets and ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete infrastructure effect effect effect effect One participant felt this principle would have a small effect unless 10 2 1 0 0 other issues are addressed first.

Provide a variety of transportation choices Participants generally agreed population density is required for this ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No principle to be successful. Delete effect effect effect effect Participants also identified the necessity for senior citizen 10 3 0 0 0 transportation. Participants generally agreed that funding for public transit and new bus routes should be attached to development/growth.

Enhance economic vitality

♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete effect effect effect effect 12 1 0 0 0

Conserve energy and natural resources, and develop alternatives Participants agreed resources must be valued and wasting resources ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No costs the consumer. Participants Delete also recognized that the more effect effect effect effect people you add, the more 9 4 0 0 0 demand/strain/competition there is for existing resources.

Conserve undeveloped land and spaces

♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete effect effect effect effect

10 2 1 0 0

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Summary Report—January 30, 2008

Increase civic and public engagement ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete effect effect effect effect 11 2 0 0 0

Missing principles Participants identified the following missing principles:

¾ Need for administrative follow-up to ensure objectives care carried out in the future. ¾ Need an information dissemination plan. o Church announcements o Billboards o Message Boards o Variety of media o Mailers ¾ Bring in more participants and newcomers o Churches o Each person establish a personal network o Walk neighborhoods

III. DISCUSSION: DRAFT SCENARIOS

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6 Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Summary Report—January 30, 2008

Major Change (4) Participants who selected the major change scenario recognized that as population increases throughout the world, demand on resources will be too great. People will have to learn to lessen their impact to conserve resources, remain economically viable, and maintain affordability. Participants felt variety can have benefits & be beautiful.

Moderate Change (7) Participants who selected the moderate change scenario expressed the opinion that they wanted to maintain the community identify and major change went to far. They also expressed the opinion that landowners, developers and the market will decide how development occurs unless there is the political will to change it. Developing political will takes organizing which takes communication and communication takes passion and a desire to express a unified position.

Some Change (1) The participant that chose the some change scenario expressed that he/she wanted to know what is going on all along the way. He/she was afraid development would be done wrong and he/she didn’t trust that anything would happen.

No Change (0) Participants did not support this scenario.

Additional Comments Participants provided additional comments during the small group discussions and via comment cards.

• County and City need a disaster plan that is available to all. • Change needs to happen and can happen in a county in the U.S., but little will occur if the people within this very department that have computers and an income, will not sit down tomorrow morning and develop new things like a blog. • Compact growth creates more traffic. • Transit is a good idea for others but it’s not for me.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7

APPENDIX E-3: CONVENTION CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING SUMMARY

KERN REGIONAL BLUEPRINT PROGRAM TOWN HALL MEETING—PHASE 2

S U M M A R Y R E P O R T

BAKERSFIELD CONVENTION CENTER POTATO ROOM February 6, 2008

I. INTRODUCTION

On Wednesday, February 6, 2008, Kern Council of Governments (COG) hosted a Town Hall Meeting for the Kern Regional Blueprint Program in the Potato Room at the Bakersfield Convention Center. The purpose of the meeting was: (a) to educate participants about the purpose of the Blueprint; (b) to provide results of Phase 1 outreach efforts regarding the visions, values, and top issues for the future; and (c) to present and facilitate discussion and collect input about draft principles and draft illustrative “scenarios” for future growth.

The Town Hall Meeting is one of a series throughout the Kern Region as part of the Kern Regional Blueprint Program, which is designed to engage policymakers and citizens to create a regional vision and growth principles for the integration of transportation, housing, land use, economic development and environmental protection that will inform local decision-making and guide growth over the next 50 years. The Kern Regional Blueprint is not a City General Plan or a County Specific Plan; it is a 2050 visioning project designed to complement other planning processes. Elected officials from the county and each city throughout the Kern region will determine how their jurisdictions will accommodate the regional vision through local decision-making and planning efforts. The Kern Regional Blueprint will also be included as part of the Central California Blueprint Program, which will integrate the outcomes of the Blueprint programs from the seven other Central California counties.

Phase 1 of the outreach process focused on introducing the Blueprint Program, developing a regional vision for the future of the region and its communities, and

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 1

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

understanding the participants’ priority issues related to growth. Phase 2 of the process is focused on developing principles for future growth and a preferred illustrative scenario for development in each sub-region, all of which builds from the regional vision and priority issues developed in Phase 1.

These efforts will continue to build Kern COG’s outreach database over time, leading to ever-expanding outreach measures in future phases of the process.

Town Hall Meeting Agenda and Format The Metro Bakersfield meeting was held from 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. in the Potato Room at the Bakersfield Convention Center, 1001 Truxtun Avenue in Bakersfield. Upon entering the meeting facility, participants signed-in and received a nametag and handout materials including an agenda, comment form, and evaluation form (handout materials may be found at www.kerncog.org). Approximately 79 community members representing residents, businesses, local government agencies, and community-based organizations attended the meeting.

Participants then reviewed the “open house” portion of the meeting, which featured display materials of local area maps and data related to existing conditions and future growth projections, as well as other general information from Kern COG. Becky Napier of Kern COG served as the meeting facilitator and initiated the meeting with brief welcoming remarks and an agenda overview. She then recognized local officials in attendance: Stan Grady, Development Services Director, City of Bakersfield; Jim Eggert, Assistant Planning Director, City of Bakersfield; Vince Zaragoza, Principal Planner, City of Bakersfield; Scott Denney, Supervising Planner, County of Kern; Howard Silver, Vice Board Chair, Golden Empire Transit; and introduced Kern COG Assistant Director, Darrel Hildebrand.

Mr. Hildebrand delivered brief introductory remarks describing the relationship of the Blueprint to local planning activities followed by a slideshow presentation that provided an overview of the purpose of, need for, and process for developing the

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 2

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

Blueprint. The slideshow included results of the Phase 1 Town Hall Meetings in Metro Bakersfield including a list of participant’s growth concerns for the future. The slideshow also introduced the draft principles for growth in the Kern region, which provide guidance and direction about how to manage future growth, as well as illustrative pictures to further describe each principle’s meaning and intent.

Ms. Napier then reviewed the format of the small group discussions before convening participants to their small groups. After brief introductions among the participants, a facilitator at each small group table guided participants through a discussion of participants’ reactions to the draft principles. As a discussion tool, the facilitators introduced a “card game,” which is designed to allow participants to share their beliefs of how effective each principle would be in achieving the visions for future growth. The small group facilitators recorded participants’ discussion points and the card game tallies during the small group discussion on flip chart pages, and participants also recorded comments on their own comment forms, all of which are summarized in the following pages of this report.

Following this small group discussion, participants heard a brief presentation from Kern COG Senior Planner, Robert Ball, regarding draft “scenarios” for future growth in the sub-region. Mr. Ball explained that each of the four scenarios represented varying levels of compact development, or the amount of development that is focused on existing urban areas. He also provided data regarding performance measures for each scenario, including the relative change in air quality, energy use, water consumption, and other measures.

II. DISCUSSION: DRAFT PRINCIPLES

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 3

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

Use compact, efficient development and/or mixed land uses Participants generally agreed this principle would alleviate ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No transportation problems, create Delete more walkable communities with effect effect effect effect less dependence on single 51 13 0 0 1 occupancy vehicles, and improve the health of citizens. Participants also agreed this principle lead to better use of land and open space. Participants stressed that compact development needed to be done tastefully with high quality development that had a sense of community and easy access to public transit. Participants also stressed that higher density development needed to be safe and appealing and not intended only for low income households. Participants listed as very important the need for compact development to be in proximity to parks and hubs for walking, biking, and public transit. Some participants identified the need for community recycling centers and zoning that allows mixed uses in one building i.e. retail, office, residential.

Provide a variety of housing choices Most participants agreed it was desirable to have a variety of ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete housing that is attractively designed, effect effect effect effect safe, and with a sense of community. Some participants 41 12 9 0 3 identified a need to address issues

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 4

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

of segregation and encourage diversity. Other participants expressed the need to be careful not to plan housing types on top of each other i.e. high density housing next to one acre parcels that are not walkable. These participants felt the General Plan and Zoning Code should be adhered to unless there is a real community need to do something different. Several participants identified a need for choices such as duplexes and senior housing next to medical services. One participant expressed the opinion that people must lose their fear of other people to take advantage of this principle, and that income doesn’t necessarily define “nice people”.

Provide adequate and equitable services Participants generally agreed education and good schools were ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete critical to the community. Participants effect effect effect effect also felt that expansion of services 41 16 4 1 0 needs to keep pace with growth. Others felt that proximity and access to services is the most important factor.

Use and improve existing community assets and infrastructure Participants generally agreed the successes of downtown revitalization ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete should be built on. Participants effect effect effect effect expressed a desire to provide incentives to provide infill 50 10 1 0 0 development. Others thought historical resources should be preserved and blighted areas removed to provide for infill opportunities. Some participants thought the zoning laws should encourage infill.

Provide a variety of transportation choices Participants generally agreed the

attitudes of people toward public ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete transportation need to change for this effect effect effect effect principle to be successful. Participants agreed that transportation 52 7 2 1 0 choices need to be connected and identified the need to reserve corridors for future transit options, such as rail lines, now. Participants also identified the need for improve transportation options to outlying cities in Kern County. Some participants identified this as the most important principle that is highly needed now and will be needed more in the future.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 5

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

Enhance economic vitality Participants agreed that vocational ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete education in high schools is effect effect effect effect necessary. Participants agreed that 38 14 7 2 0 not everyone will go to college and that education needs to enhance vocational opportunities for the job market. Others identified a need for more diversity in jobs opportunities as well as a need for core jobs outside of government and the service industry. Participants agreed that an employed workforce at sustainable wages benefits everyone.

Conserve energy and natural resources, and develop alternatives Participants agreed air quality was of vital importance. Some participants ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete agreed this was the number one issue effect effect effect effect and that we should use alternative 53 8 1 1 0 sources of energy that take advantage of our climate i.e. solar, wind, etc. Participants agreed water resources need to be conserved and that the competition for water will only keep increasing with population growth. Some participants expressed the need to utilize native plants in landscaping and gray water for irrigation. Some participants expressed the need for conservation education programs and the need to remove barriers to conservation.

Conserve undeveloped land and spaces Participants agreed that agricultural lands need to be preserved and that ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No Delete we should not depend on other effect effect effect effect countries for our food supply. Participants agreed that as the 45 12 1 2 1 population grows, preservation of “open space” will become more valuable. Some participants identified a need to establish an urban boundary to help regulate growth outward from Bakersfield. Some participants identified a need to protect habitat corridors.

Increase civic and public engagement Participants agreed that all levels of government should collaborate. Some ♣ ♦ ♥ ♠ X Major Moderate Small No participants agreed community Delete involvement is important but it is effect effect effect effect leadership that gets things done and 41 14 5 0 1 government officials need to lead or get out of the way. Participants agreed public engagement should be inclusive of everyone to avoid conflicts in the future. Some participants suggested partnering with social service agency

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 6

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

sites and programs and tribal governments to increase participation. Most participants agreed that getting people involved was difficult.

Missing principles Participants identified the following missing principles:

¾ Develop cultural centers and senior centers ¾ Increased recreation for youth ¾ Sustainability ¾ Mental health services ¾ Conservation programs ¾ Greenbelts and open space should be a separate principle

III. DISCUSSION: DRAFT SCENARIOS

Major Change (31) Participants who selected this scenario thought major change would be good if properly managed with open space and greebelts incorporated through the denser urban core. Some expressed that all inpacts are minimized with this scenario and it is the only rational choice with population growth. Others stated that because our resources are finite, we need to act decisively now to provide for future generations. One participant discussed the depletion of fossil fuel worlwide and the probability that alternative energy sources will not provide current levels of energy; therefore, major change to protect the integrity of our communities.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 7

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

Moderate Change (17) Participants selected this scenario because they felt the major change scenario was not the most desirable. Some thought the major change scenario would not maintain a desired quality of life in the more compactly built areas and feared those areas might become the blighted areas of our future cities. Participants indentified the need to establish principles and ensure the future development conforms to the principles.

Some Change (0) Participants didn’t think this scenario was “good enough”.

No Change (0) Participants did not support this scenario.

Additional Comments Participants provided additional comments during the small group discussions and via comment cards.

• Top Phase 1 outcomes (gang violence) were completely forgotten or ignored. • There was less concern with the issues than there was with the process. • Staff tried to sell the idea that this would affect future development. Actually politics and power will trump any process such as this. As with Will Rogers, the City Council never saw a promoter they didn’t like. Someone will build a pretend canal out South Union or half-build a hotel, or in a place where kids grow up with baseball and football. Fill a sport arena with highly hyped ice hockey and give the arena an odd sounding name of a foreign bank no one ever heard of or close neighborhood pools in favor of the wealthy. • Infrastructure for safety for blind and visually impaired is spotty, confused and at times dangerous. Competing disability concerns dilute effectiveness of any change. Center for the Blind & Visually Impaired (CBVI) is committed to working cross discipline to arrive at solutions that are economically viable and serve the greatest good. • The Phase 1 Report did not include Tribal Governments’ input. KCOG has been meeting with Kern County area Tribes during July – December 2007. We look forward in Phase II efforts and the improved inclusion of the Kern Regional Blueprint Project. • The vision of this County will be largely based on our economical growth. Hopefully the people will determine that based on a combined effort of thought and hard work. • It’s time for major changes. We do have some leaders and organizations to support these changes. We need to find the funds. Make these changes now, before we turn into another Orange County or LA County. • The Kern River Plan Element needs to be an integral part of the Bakersfield Metro area vision.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 8

Kern Regional Blueprint Program Town Hall Meeting - Bakersfield Convention Center, Potato Room Summary Report—February 6, 2008

• The 61% Hispanic population is a very diverse group. Diverse in immigration status, educational level, language use, even shopping patterns. Be careful not to bunch us all together. • Compact growth creates more traffic. • Transit is a good idea for others but it’s not for me.

Prepared by Kern Council of Governments 9