150 likes | 366 Views
Project Overview. November 30, 2006. 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
E N D
Project Overview November 30, 2006
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 12-31-08.
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
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: http://www.kerncog.org/blueprint/
Kern Council of GovernmentsTransportation 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 • 2/3rd requirement simply too high • Forget ALL of the above…voters in Kern simply expressed their interests.