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 i 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 1 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