![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Untitled-design-23-750x350.png\")
<\/p>\n\n <\/p>\n
Bakersfield\u2019s proposed RISE General Plan lays out a vision for a greener, more connected and more equitable city by 2045. But as residents and community advocates review the roughly 500-page draft, some say it does not go far enough to address environmental and health disparities already documented across Bakersfield.<\/p>\n
During a community meeting hosted Tuesday by local community organizations, advocates urged residents to weigh in on the draft and push the city for more specific policies, programs and investments in neighborhoods facing the highest pollution burdens.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe community has the solutions. They just need to listen to us,\u201d one resident commented during the meeting.<\/p>\n
The General Plan is intended to guide Bakersfield\u2019s decisions on land use, infrastructure, public services and investment through 2045. The draft describes it as a framework for city decision-making and investment priorities over the next two decades.<\/p>\n
The draft identifies Bakersfield\u2019s disadvantaged communities and incorporates environmental justice policies throughout the plan, particularly in Chapter 12, \u201cQuality of Life.\u201d The city says those policies are intended to address inequitable environmental impacts and direct targeted investments in infrastructure, public health and environmental improvements toward the residents most affected.<\/p>\n
But Abby Power, a land use and transportation policy advocate with Leadership Counsel, said the concern is not that environmental justice is absent from the draft, but that its language may not be strong enough to require measurable change.<\/p>\n
Power said the organization would prefer the city convert its Quality of Life chapter into a dedicated environmental justice element incorporating the policies required under Senate Bill 1000.<\/p>\n
The law calls for policies addressing pollution burdens and health risks, as well as access to healthy food, physical activity and safe and sanitary housing. Power pointed to asthma as one area where she believes the draft falls short.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s no measurable targets for pollution reduction, no measurable targets for reducing air pollution,\u201d Power said. \u201cThere is no language about, for example, reducing asthma rates by a certain percentage.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said some East Bakersfield census tracts have asthma rates higher than 90% of census tracts statewide and argued that the plan should include policies specifically aimed at improving health outcomes in those communities.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd yet the general plan does not have a policy that\u2019s aimed at reducing asthma rates in those communities,\u201d Power said.<\/p>\n
The city\u2019s draft does acknowledge the connection between planning decisions, environmental burdens and disadvantaged communities. Its environmental justice section states that pollution exposure, inadequate infrastructure and other burdens can result from land-use planning trends and other government decisions.<\/p>\n
The plan also says disadvantaged communities are identified based on cumulative environmental and socioeconomic conditions, including disparities in infrastructure investment and public services.<\/p>\n
Advocates are also questioning how the city prioritizes future investments.<\/p>\n
Power said the city\u2019s own maps show a stark geographic divide, with disadvantaged communities concentrated largely in East Bakersfield and relatively few in West Bakersfield. She argued that decades of land-use decisions and infrastructure investment have contributed to that disparity.<\/p>\n
She pointed to differences in parks, trees and infrastructure as examples of investments she said have historically been greater in West Bakersfield.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are bigger parks, better infrastructure in the parks, for example, more trees, more kind of like barriers between industry and homes,\u201d Power said. \u201cBut the east side of Bakersfield has not gotten these investments.\u201d<\/p>\n
Residents echoed that concern.<\/p>\n
One participant proposed that city investments be prioritized in areas identified by the city\u2019s own maps as having the lowest life expectancy and greatest pollution burdens.<\/p>\n
\u201cI would ask for investments to be prioritized and spent first where the life expectancy has the lowest estimate,\u201d the resident said, adding that the city should establish equity-based metrics so \u201cthe most pollution burden places are the ones that receive the most funds and receive them first.\u201d<\/p>\n
Residents also identified a range of specific priorities they want incorporated into the plan, including more trees, better sidewalks, improved parks, cooling centers, asthma resources and changes to truck routes.<\/p>\n
Participants discussed programs that have helped families manage asthma, including home visits, air filters, air purifiers and assistance navigating diagnoses and other resources. One participant argued that those programs should not depend solely on temporary grant funding.<\/p>\n
Leadership Counsel said it plans to collect the recommendations raised during the meeting and submit them to the city.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe are going to provide all of your feedback from this meeting today to the city,\u201d Power said, encouraging residents to also submit their own comments.<\/p>\n
Power said the draft allows residents to request changes before the document is finalized. She also acknowledged that the city conducted outreach earlier in the planning process but raised concerns about the accessibility of the draft\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen they published the draft of the general plan, they did not have any public engagement planned for it,\u201d Power said.<\/p>\n
Residents subsequently asked the city to extend the public comment period. The deadline was moved from August 20 to September 27, according to Power. Residents also asked for the draft to be translated into Spanish and Punjabi and requested additional workshops aimed at residents in disadvantaged communities.<\/p>\n
By the end of the meeting, residents had identified priorities ranging from trees, sidewalks and park improvements to pollution reduction and public health programs.<\/p>\n
For advocates, the stakes extend beyond the document itself.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a document that is going to guide the decisions that the city makes on behalf of the community through 2045,\u201d Power told residents. \u201cSo, it\u2019s going to shape what the city looks like in 2045.\u201d<\/p>\n
The public comment period is now an opportunity for residents to say what they want that future to look like.<\/p>\n