Kern Regional Blueprint Project The Policy Environment Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA—LU, 2005): New requirements for integrated planning & use of visualization techniques Caltrans Program – California Regional Blueprint Planning Program (2001) – provides planning funds to implement new requirements Federal Interagency Task Force on the San Joaquin Valley (2000) California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (June, 2005) – Governor’s executive orders, Strategic Action Proposal, seed grant program San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District – provision of grant matching funds; District’s stated interest in “…decisions that reduce vehicle emissions associated with population growth” and “…measures to reduce of offset emissions associated with mobile sources. California Center for Rural Leadership – Blueprint Learning Network. Assembly Member Parra’s Legislation – AB 31 & AB 1878 (2005/06) Financial Incentives – Propositions 1B & 1C
Kern Regional Blueprint Project Coordination with California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley Kern’s representatives include Supervisor Barbara Patrick, Bakersfield Council Member Sue Benham, Tejon Ranch staff member Barry Hibberd & local businessman Ray Dezember Strategic Action Proposal which includes a land use and a transportation component SAP approved & submitted to Governor in November Governor issued new executive order extending the Partnership to
Kern Regional Blueprint Project The project “vision” will be created from a broad-based community participation effort to identify shared strategic goals and values for an improved quality of life 50 years into the future. Values are those beliefs and behaviors intrinsic or essential to the achievement of a shared vision.
Kern Regional Blueprint Project A “scenario” is a set of constraints, attractions & growth factors which results in a different outcome. A “scenario” is a way to ask “what if” this was done…How might the outcome be different. No “scenario” is a prescription for or prediction of the future
Kern County Trends “By 2050 the number homes without children is expected to grow from 2 out of 5, to 1 out of 2. Yet 87 percent of new housing built is large lot single family homes." Source: 2000 Census, California Department of Finance (DOF) "Less than 10 percent of Kern's land is not affected by one of the following 6 uses, ag, oil, public land, flood plain, steep slope, or already urban." Source: Kern COG "Kern's Population is forecasted to reach 1 million by 2020 and possibly 1,600,000 by 2050" Source: DOF Bakersfield’s population trend: 1965 – 65,000; 2006 – 312,000; 2050 – 1,060,000
Kern Regional Blueprint Project Constraints
Sample UPLAN Attractions (Sphere of Influence, General Plans)
Sample UPLAN Constraint Layers (Habitat and Public Lands)
Kern Regional Blueprint Project
Comprehensive workshops & public meetings Retain the services of a professional meeting facilitator Cycle 1: 4 roundtable workshop & 16 sub- regional public meetings to provide education & define a vision & values (Jan. thru Mar. 07) Cycle 2: 4 roundtable & 16 sub-regional public meetings to evaluate scenarios & select a “preferred” alternative (May & Jun. 07) Kern Regional Summit: 1 meeting among all stakeholders to endorse a “preferred” alternative
For more information go to:
Kern Council of Governments Transportation Funding: Measure I Voter Turnout – approximately 53% Voter Fatigue: Total votes for Governor – 147,613, for Measure I – 143,356, drop off -- 4,257 or 2.88% Measure I votes required: 66.7% or 95,618 Measure I vote breakdown: Yes – 80,830 (56.8%) No – 62,526 (43.2%) Measure I votes short of passage – 14,788 or 10.3% of votes cast No measure on the Kern ballot requiring a 66.7% majority passed. 2 communities failed to produce 50% approval for Measure I Approximately 17 precincts produced 66.7% approval: 16 in Bakersfield & 1 in Arvin. WHY???????????? Program and campaign message too complex Recent federal funding “earmarks” confusing Last on a LONG ballot Too many other finance measures Insufficient radio & no TV advertising Too few “champions” aggressively promoting the cause 2/3 rd requirement simply too high Forget ALL of the above…voters in Kern simply expressed their interests.