HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 23, 1999 Plans and ProgramsRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT.A TI(
Records a-/7 7c2
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMB/Hi i tt
AGENDA
TIME: 12:00 P.M.
DATE: Monday, August 23, 1999
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
Plans and Programs Committee Members
Roy Wilson / County of Riverside, Chairman
Robin ReeserLowe / City of Hemet, Vice Chair
Jan Leja / City of Beaumont
Robert Crain / City of Blythe
John Chlebnik / City of Calimesa
Eugene Bourbonnais / City of Canyon Lake
Doug Sherman / City of Desert Hot Springs
Percy Byrd / City of Indian Wells
Chris Silva / City of Indio
Frank Hall / City of Norco
Dick Kelly / City of Palm Desert
Will Kleindienst / City of Palm Springs
Al Landers / City of Perris
Bob Buster / County of. Riverside
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Hideo Sugita, Director - Planning and Programming
Plans and Programs Committee
State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
• New Corridors
Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare)
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies/Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs
Congestion Management Program
Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please
complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board.
1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
MEETING LOCATION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501
CONFERENCE ROOM A
PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, AUGUST 23, 1999
12:00 P.M.
AGENDA*
* Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 28, 1999)
Pg. 1
4. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN - "LISTENING" AND
"VISIONING" PHASE
Pg. 7
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the commission receive the information to date and
allow staff to forward this information and the "very draft" vision
statement, if available, to the Commission to receive it at the
September 8, 1999 meeting.
2
5. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION
RESULTS
Pg. 159
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission 1) receive and file the evaluation
study; and, 2) direct staff to use results from the study to develop
the RFP to manage the Commuter Assistance Program in future
years.
6. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS REVISION
Pg. 195
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission recommend revision to the RCTC
Federal Program of Projects to include construction of commuter rail
stations near Van Buren in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona,
and that the Committee authorize staff to schedule the required
public hearing for the Commission's September 8, 1999 meeting.
7 AMENDMENT 1 TO LAND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE RIVERSIDE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE (RCC) FOR TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AT
THE LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION AND AWARD OF A DESIGN
CONTRACT TO KCT CONSULTANTS FOR THE PARKING LOT
DESIGN
Pg. 196
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission 1) approve the attached agreement
with the Riverside Community College to obtain temporary parking
for the La Sierra Metrolink Station subject to RCTC Legal Counsel
review and approval; 2) award a design contract with KCT
Consultants to design the 200 vehicle temporary parking facility
called for in the Tier II Station Study in a manner compatible with
the station parking needs, using a standard RCTC consultant
agreement, for an amount of $16,804 with an extra work amount
of $4,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $20,804.
3
8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A BID PACKAGE (PS&E)
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEASURE A SR 60 HOV LANE
PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY
Pg. 209
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the commission direct staff to prepare, advertise,
and select a consultant who will prepare the plans, specifications
and cost estimate for the construction of the Measure A State
Route 60 HOV lanes in Moreno Valley between the East Junction
with 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. The project will include ramp
improvements at the Perris Boulevard interchange.
9. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2001
RTIP, AND 1998 RTIP AMENDMENT SCHEDULE
Pg. 212
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the Commission receive and file.
10. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Pg. 217
At the Commission's direction, rece'nt rail reports and other
pertinent information are reproduced in a side packet for Committee
or Commission meetings. Staff will be prepared to review these
materials as directed.
11. ADVANCE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO SUNLINE
TRANSIT AGENCY
Pg. 218
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee
recommend that the commission approve SunLine Transit Agency's
request for an advance of $585,000 in Local Transportation Funds
to be repaid by reducing their next two payments of FY 2000 LTF
funds.
4
12. ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA ITEM 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
June 28, 1999
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson
at 12:00 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University,
Suite 100, Riverside, Califomia, 92501.
Members Present:
Percy Byrd
Eugene Bourbonnais *
Bob Buster
John Chlebnik
Robert Crain
Frank Hall
Dick Kelly
Will Kleindienst
Al Landers
Jan Leja
Robin ReeserLowe
Doug Sherman
Chris Silva
Roy Wilson
* Arrived after start of meeting
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (May 24, 1999)
M/S/C (Kleindienst/Crain) approve the minutes dated May 24, 1999 as submitted.
4. SR 71/91 IMPROVEMENT STUDY
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
♦ Eric King, HDR Project Manager for the SR 71/91 Improvement Study, stated that a series of
alternatives were looked at in this study area and the impacts they would have on the region.
Alternative one is an expansion of the existing SR 71 system to accommodate a four -lane section.
This alternative was found to provide additional capacity, as well as, assisting with the bottleneck
at the interchange with SR 91 with substantial positive impact on the operations of both highways.
They recommended that Alternative 1-A be implemented, as soon as possible, as it will have a
positive impact on the traffic congestion along with a positive cost/benefit ratio. Funding options
include revenue from tolls, State Transportation Improvement Program and local funds. To
encompass all of the institutional issues, formation of a Joint Powers Authority that will gamer
support for improvements and build a consensus on how to move ahead is recommended. There
should also be an opportunity for RCTC to work with the CPTC to implement some of these
improvements. Follow-up analysis needs include: 1) Furtherdefining traffic and revenue projections
if we are looking at forwarding any of the improvements that extend toll lanes; 2) Operational issues
to make to ensure the improvements work with existing structures; and, 3) Monitoring and
000001
1s w •
Plans & Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 2
participating in the movement on the CPTC franchise, it will be the key to how these improvements
get implemented in the corridor.
M/S/C (Byrd/Silva) that the Commission approve the SR 71/91 Improvement Final
Study Report.
5. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES
M/S/C (Landers/Silva) that the Commission:
1) Reaffirm its definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet";
2) That based upon a review of requests for services received through the
"unmet transit needs" hearing process, review of existing services and
proposed improvements to the available services, the Commission make a
finding that there is no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in
the Palo Verde Valley area;
3) Adopt Resolution No. 99-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission Adopting a Finding that there are no Unmet
Transit Needs that are Reasonable to Meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area."
6. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND
REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
+ Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager, noted that the only proposed addition to service in the
next fiscal year is a possible expansion of the Inland Empire -Orange County service to include one
mid -day round trip. At this time, staff is proposing that RCTC fund the additional trip for the next
fiscal year.
+ Commissioner William Kleindienst asked if Orange County was approached to assist in funding.
Susan Cornelison replied that they were not approached because this came about after the budget
negotiations were completed and is currently being funded as a demonstration project by RCTC.
+ In response to Commissioner Bob Buster if there were capacity constraints on the Inland Empire -
Orange County Line, Susan Cornelison stated that it depends on the segment. Between Downtown
Riverside and Fullerton, RCTC is entitled to about 30 one-way trains per day as RCTC own the
operating rights but beyond Fullerton and North into Los Angeles County, this is not necessarily the
case. Allowable train slots between Downtown Riverside and San Bernardino is limited. The
segment over which the proposed mid -day service would run, however, does have sufficient
capacity.
+ Steve 011er, Riverside Transit Agency, reviewed their proposed Short Range Transit Plan. The
intent of RTA's plan is to balance the maintenance of existing surfaces with some measured growth
and expansion. Total operating budget for FY 2000 is $26,162,000 (a 15.4% increase over the
previous year). The increase is due to 21% addition in annual service miles. A 17% increase in
ridership and about a 20% increase in passenger revenue would bring to a farebox recovery rate of
19%. For FY 2000, RTA's capital expansion program includes: 1) replacement of CNG
motorcoaches or buses, the addition of what they hope will be 20 expansion buses, 17 new
additional paratransit coaches; 2) $4.7 million worth of ITS technology to modernize their information
systems; and, 3) a CNG fueling station at the Hemet Satellite Office, which will allow expansion of
. ; k p • • t: the "clean fuels" program into the Southern region of the county and bring in the County and local
(}00002
Plans & Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 3
public entities to use this facility to begin converting their fleets to clean fuels.
M/S/C (Kleindienst/Landers) that the Commission approve the FY 2000-2006 Short
Range Transit Plans forthe Riverside Transit Agency and Regional Rail as presented.
7. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
M/S/C (Kelly/Kleindienst) that the Commission approve the proposed FY 2000 FTA
Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
8. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
M/S/C (Kleindienst/Sherman) that the Commission approve the proposed FY 1999-
2000 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County.
9. FY 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT
The following points were made during deliberation of this item:
+ Commissioner Dick Kelly voiced his concern on how the Local Transportation Funds are allocated.
The Coachella Valley being a tourist destination, with a high percentage of second homes in the
area, has a larger demand for public transit that is difficult to meet with the current allocation and
actually makes a larger contribution to the sales tax base than other areas in the County.
M/S/C (Hall/Leja) that the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for
Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table.
Nay: Kelly, Silva, Byrd.
10. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS
This item was pulled from the agenda for discussion and action at a later date.
11. 1999 REVISION TO LOCAL GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-007, "A RESOLUTION
OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING
LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL ACT"
M/S/C (Buster/Boyd) that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-007, "A
Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and
Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act
(pub. Resources Code 2100 Et Seq.)."
12. AMEND RCTC DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) PROGRAM AND
OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
M/S/C (Landers/Buster) that the Commission: 1) Adopt the amended RCTC
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program; 2) Set RCTC's overall DBE goal at
11.6%; and, 3) Authorize staff to resubmit its adopted plan and goal to the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
VAlfar
Plans & Programs Committee Minutes
June 28, 1999
Page 4
13. REAFFIRMATION OF CONFORMITY FINDINGS OF THE 1998 RTP AND RTIP FOR PM10 NON -
ATTAINMENT AREAS
M/S/C (Bourbonnais/Lowe) that the Commission receive and file the report on the
reaffirmation of conformity findings of the 1998 RTP and RTIP for PM10 non -
attainment areas.
14. CETAP UPDATE
M/S/C (Buster/Chlebnik) that the Commission receive and file the CETAP update.
15. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
There were no questions from the members regarding this item.
16. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration, the meeting of the Plans and Programs
Committee was adjoumed at 1:17 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 23,
1999, 12:00 p.m. at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Vet
Traci R. McGinley
Deputy Clerk of the Board
60uO64
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999 - 12:00 P.M.
�Q 1 NAME
AME
_Le
i
re,'"(-(", — .
ti-eJ
REPRESENTING
`mac /2%215
(59 riCsA-
7
lJ7'7 C" i 4, Lt a r C
TELEPHONE AND FAX NO
(740)
ge � `is 759r - /qv 3
'4,.y// 9yo-y�2�� -
9:6) /?Sr- /691
(.0) 3'.3 -,sue 120 . eaol
(5t9)75.s--8-993/ 795--,s-yy
(f -7 )...3f6-66/(
(9e9) S- 90
•
e 3-19- x.L
;, 19 195
ATTENDANCE ROSTER
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999 - 12:00 P.M.
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY AT THIS MEETING, PLEASE
FILL OUT THIS CARD AND PRESENT IT TO A RCTC STAFF MEMBER
sJ6OLLEQ-
NAME w) REPRESENTING
,
ENTING
(P -TA
(AA-
c
TELEPHONE AND FAX NO
`L�4--- 0- 8 9 (aZ_,
-1/335
IC) 5.( - ?o �.
-4-. L-4 / l
Li C 6 (zj" P 4) 4 ?s
AGENDA ITEM 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Riverside County Integrated Plan - "Listening" and "Visioning"
As you are aware the Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) process is the
concurrent, integrated development of a western county Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the identification of new transportation corridors,
primarily in western county and the development of a new County General Plan.
As a stakeholder driven development process a significant level of public out reach
efforts were launched to obtain input necessary to begin the process of integrated plan
development. From project launch to date, which we refer to as the "listening
phase", the following efforts have been accomplished along with summary reports
documenting what the project team heard.
• During late June, 1 999, an opinion poll of 600 residents of the county was
conducted. The poll was divided on the basis of 120 completed interviews in
each of the Supervisorial Districts.
• Between June 17th, and July 16, 1999,12 public workshops were conducted
throughout the county. The workshops were held in the evenings and while
concentrated in western Riverside County the range of the meeting locations
was from Temecula to Corona to the San Gorgonio Pass, Palm Desert and
Blythe.
• In early August, the study effort conducted four focus groups. The area
residents interviewed in a group setting included Temecula/Murrieta/Hemet;
Corona/Norco/Riverside; Moreno Valley/Perris and the Coachella Valley.
Following this memo are the reports documenting the "listening phase". The reports
are:
• Riverside County Public Opinion Survey Report.
• RCIP summary document - First Round of Community Workshops
• Riverside County Focus Group Report
ForwoF
000007
On August 17, 1999 a meeting of the Strategic Partners, which is comprised of the
5 Board of Supervisors and 5 RCTC members, met with key stakeholders to review the
public input to date and had an interactive workshop to begin the development of a
"vision" for the integrated planning effort. The proceedings of the visioning workshop
along with the public input from the outreach efforts will provide the basis for the
development of a very draft "vision" or vision statement to set broad goals and
outcomes for what this County, its communities and stake holders desire it to be in
20 or more years into the future.
Very draft is an appropriate label for the initial vision statement because once the draft
is constructed, the next round of public outreach will be to obtain input on the draft
vision. This will involve a second round of community workshops and polling. The
draft vision statement will also receive wide distribution through the press and we will
be seeking public and key stakeholder input on the draft vision through the planning
effort's advisory committees, public agencies, stakeholders, etc..
The plan development schedule anticipates formal action on a vision statement by
RCTC and the Board of Supervisors in November. From there the plans will then be
developed, through the stakeholder driven, integrated process to create the framework
of how we will achieve the visioning goals.
It is always important to acknowledge that this plan development process is
advantaged by the opportunity to assess the implications of various decisions on the
subjects of growth, land use, habitat, transportation, economy, etc., and their
projected effect on what the county will be in the future.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee receive the information to
date and allow staff to forward this information and the "very draft" vision statement,
if available, to the Commission to receive it at the September 8, 1999 meeting.
000008
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY REPORT
August 6, 1999
000009
0! writ
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF METHODS 3
THE DIRECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4
ISSUES FACING RIVERSIDE COUNTY 7
TRAFFIC AND GROWTH 13
RATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY 16
THE PLANNING PROCESS 23
GENERAL ATTITUDES 26
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES 27
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 29
ANALYSIS 38
VOTER PROFILES 45
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 46
*Ai o
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE3
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF METHODS
DATES AND TIMES: Sunday, June 20 through Wednesday, June
23, 1999. Sunday interviewing hours are from 1:00 PM to 9:00 PM,
weekday hours are from 5:00 PM to 9:00 PM.
SAMPLE: 600 completed interviews with a sample of registered
voters in Riverside County, including 120 from each of the
supervisorial districts. For the desert communities, the far eastern
areas were excluded.
PROCEDURES: Professional interviewers familiar with standard
telephone interviewing procedures were trained specifically for
this survey prior to beginning the interviews. All interviews were
conducted from The Parker Group's central telephone facility and
were observed by an on -duty supervisor at all times.
SAMPLING ERROR: In a scientifically selected sample of 600
respondents, normal statistical error is plus or minus 4% for the
sample as a whole. That is to say, in 95% of all samples drawn
from the same population, the findings would not differ from the
findings reported here by more than 4%. Sampling error for
subgroups or each Supervisorial District in the ,cross -tabulated
analysis is greater.
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODS: The sampling and research
procedures employed here are subject to the normal statistical
and. non -statistical errors in survey research. Non-statistica
errors result from dishonest responses, inconsistency betweeri
expressed attitudes and actual behaviors, and misunderstood
questions. Public opinion data are not meant to be predictive of
future attitudes or behaviors, but are designed to measure
attitudes at the time data are collected.
(179,91Q11
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE4
THE DIRECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
THINGS IN RIVERSIDE' COUNTY ON RIGHT OR WRONG TRACK
;Wrong Track
1e%
'Right Track,
e4%
Key Findings:
IDontKnow
14%
Eir By nearly a four -to -one ratio, voters say that things in
Riverside County are on the right track. This reflects a more
positive view than in other areas of the state.
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE5
EXPECTATIONS ON FUTURE QUALITY OF LIFE
I
Riverside residents are not necessarily optimistic about
the future. While 40% say the quality of life will be better,
nearly two-thirds say that it will be the same or worse than al
present.
+0nPi3
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE6
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
People under 40 tend to be the most likely to say things are
on track in Riverside County, with those in Districts 2 and 4
more likely to say things are on track than voters in the
other districts. People with children are also more likely to
say things are going well than are those without. Latinos
and Asian -Americans are the most likely to say things are
on track, while African -Americans are least likely.
In terms of the future, the most optimistic are younger
people, including those with children, and residents of
District 4, as well as those living in incorporated areas.
Those most likely to say things will get worse are older,
long-term residents of District 3, people who live in the
unincorporated areas, those with the least education, and
white/Anglos.
kf!fj4 i
000014
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 7
ISSUES FACING RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Key Findings:
In an open-ended question, voters say the mos
important issues facing Riverside County are the rate o
growth, crime, violence and gangs, schools and education,
traffic congestion, police issues and jobs. Other issue;
ranged from children's issues to pollution to economi
growth.
'Taxes
7%
Jobs
I Economomy,
14%
MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING RIVERSIDE COUNTY
'Recreation
for Youth
7'/
Traffic
'Congestion'
0%
Accessible;
IHeatth Can'
3%
1Sir.w1,
1 11%
Race
'Relations
7%
'Public Schools
20%
Know
2%
primal
;22%I
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE8
IFF With more limited response options, two issues dominate
as the issues which should be the top priority for they
county's elected officials: reducing crime, gangs and drugs,
and improving public education. Other top issues are
creating new jobs and strengthening the local economy, and
controlling residential growth and preserving open space.
Lower priorities include reducing traffic congestion and
improving transportation, lowering taxes and reducing
govemment waste, providing recreation and after -school
programs for youth, and improving race relations. The
lowest priority is making health care more affordable and
accessible.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE9
SERIOUSNESS OF DIFFERENT PROBLEMS
%
Net
Statement Serious Not Serious Score Serious
Crime, gangs and drugs 87% 11% 1.75 76%
Traffic congestion 78% 21% 2.11 57%
Poor air quality 74% 26% 2.21 48%
Overcrowded public schools 67% 20% 2.21 47%
Racial tensions 70% 27% 2.36 43%
Rapid rate of growth in county 64% 34% 2.54 30%
Quality of public education 59% 31% 2.55 28%
Availability of good jobs 57% 34% 2.63 23%
High taxes 58% 39% 2.69 19%
Ensuring access to quality health care 52% 41% 2.87 9%
Protecting open space 50% 45% 2.96 5%
NOTE:
The "Very Serious/Not A Problem" and "Somewhat Serious/Not Too Serious" categories have been collapsed into
the "% Serious/Not Serious" categories, respectively. Scores are calculated on a 1 to 5 scale, with lindicating a
very -serious problem and 5 indicating no problem Scores under 3.00 represent a serious rating, while those over
3.00 represent not serious. Net serious percentages are calculated before rounding.
Eir When asked to rate the seriousness of problems, there is
a parallel between the issue rankings and the seriousness
of the problem. Most serious was crime, gangs and drugs,
followed by traffic congestion, poor air quality and
overcrowded public schools.
ati#0 1 7
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 10
rP Somewhat less serious, although still serious, were racial
tensions, the rapid rate of growth, the quality of public
education, high taxes, and the availability of good jobs.
Least serious were ensuring access to quality health care
and protecting open space, which nearly half said was not a
serious problem.
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
Crime, gangs and drugs is a higher priority for those with
less education, and for women under 40 and men 65 and
older, and those in Districts 2 and 4. Although these are
seen as serious problems to all voters, they are especially
problematic for long-term residents, in District 5, and among
Latino voters.
Women in general, as well as men under 40, tend to be
more focused on improving the public schools than other
voters. District 3 voters, as well as those with at least some
college education, are most likely to point to the need to
improve schools. As a serious problem school
overcrowding is especially important to women under 40,
those with children, Latinos, residents of the incorporated
areas, and District 3 and 5 voters, with those in District 4
saying it is not much of a problem. Educational quality is
more of an issue for voters under 50, long-term residents,
District 5 voters, renters, and those with children, although
newer residents say it is not a problem at all.
Creating new jobs is a special concern for men under 40,
voters in District 5, those with long commutes, and African -
American and Latino voters. Job availability is most likely
to be cited as a serious problem by men 40-64, District 3
and 5 voters, divorced respondents, those with less
education, and African American and Latino respondents.
iv i �t�)1►iI'
900018
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 11
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.)
For women 40-64 and newcomers, as well as non -
commuters, controlling growth is unusually important. Only
white/Anglo voters care about controlled residential
growth. The growth rate is seen as a more serious
problem by women, and men. 40-64, District 2 voters,
renters, and white/Anglo voters.
Traffic congestion is more of a concern to men than
women, with voters in Districts 2 and 5 most likely to see
traffic as an issue. Of course, the longer the commute, the
greater the concern about traffic. Minorities are especially
troubled by traffic congestion. Despite the higher ranking of
traffic congestion by men, women under 65 are more
likely to say it is a serious problem, as are newer voters,
and those in Districts 1, 2 and 5, and those with the most
education.
Improved recreational opportunities for youth is most
important to women under 65, Democratic voters, those in
District 5, renters, those with children, divorced voters, and
African -American and Latino voters.
Newcomers are the only voters unusually focused on
improved race relations. As a problem, racial tensions
are more serious to women than men,. to voters 40-64,
Democrats, longer -term residents, District 2 and 5 voters,
and African -Americans.
High taxes are not much of an issue compared to other
. issues, but for independent women voters, District 1 and 3
voters, African -American and Latino voters, and those with
less education, it is more of a problem. Those who are very
highly educated do not see high taxes as a problem at all.
The longer someone has lived in Riverside County, the
more serious they say is the air quality problem. District 5
voters, Latinos, and to a lesser extent, those in District 2,
say it is a serious problem.
Of, 414
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 12
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.)
Seniors and Asian -Americans do not say that access to
health care is a problem at all, nor do newer residents or
those in District 4. Health care access is more of a problem
in District 5, to African -Americans and Latinos, and among
renters and those with. children.
Protecting open space is seen as a serious problem by
women, but not by men, and by voters over 40, but not
younger voters. Republicans say it is not a problem, while
other voters see it as a problem. Districts 2 and 5 see the
issue as serious,' while those in Districts 1 and 4 do not.
Minorities do not see the issue as serious; white/Anglos do.
000020
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 13
TRAFFIC AND GROWTH
ATTITUDES TOWARD GROWTH IN RIVERSIDE
iConlin ut+ Growth
1 u%
65%
Stop
;Growth
11%
Key Findings:
There is a clear sense of a need for planned growth in
Riverside County. Although twice as many voters would say
that rapid growth should continue as say growth should be
stopped, two-thirds want planned growth for the future.
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 14
WORST TYPE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION
'Shopping. Etc
24%
ICommuting
42%
Ise Traffic concems revolve largely around commuting,
although some are concemed about traffic driving to
shopping centers and recreational areas in Riverside
County. Fewer people are concemed about increased traffic
around their neighborhoods.
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
Men are more aggressively pro -growth than are women,
with men 40-64 more moderate than the oldest and
youngest voters. Voters in District 1 and those with the
least education, as well as African -American and Latino
voters, are a little more likely to be pro -growth, but on
balance, there is a consensus that planning is needed.
000022
DECISION RESEARCH
ODOOn?
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 15
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.)
There are some differences in terms of traffic concems, with
men under 65 and women 40-64, District 2 and 5 voters,
those with children, and voters with long commutes focused
on commuter traffic. Older voters and those living in
unincorporated areas tend to focus more on traffic in
shopping and recreation areas, while District 4 voters are
the most likely to identify driving in the neighborhoods as a
problem.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 16
RATING RIVERSIDE COUNTY
RATINGS OF RIVERSIDE LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Leader/Organization Excellent Good Fair Poor
Riverside County Business Community 3% 40% 31% 8%
Your Local School District 7% 36% 29% 17%
Your local Congressional Representative in DC 6% 34% 30% 18%
Federal Agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, EPA 4% 36% 31% 17%
Your Local City Council 4% 32% 30% 21%
Your Representative in the State Legislature 3% 32% 32% 13%
Local Environmental Organizations 3% 31% 32% 19%
Riverside County Board of Supervisors 2% 28% 38% 12%
.iverside County Transportation Commission 3% 24% 35% 20%
NOTE:
Leaders and organizations ranked by collapsed score of "Excellent" plus "Good".
Key Findings:
None of the groups and leaders tested are rated as doing
an excellent job, although some are rated as doing better
than others. Only the Riverside County Business
Community is rated as doing a good to fair job. Most are
rated as doing a fair to good job, including local school
districts, congressional representatives, city councils, federal
agencies, state legislators, the Board of Supervisors and
local environmental agencies. The Riverside County
Transportation Commission is seen as doing only a fair job.
000024.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 17
RATING QUALITY OF LIFE IN RIVERSIDE
Organization
Fire protection
Retail shopping facilities
Overall quality of life
Emergency medical care
Police and sheriff protection
Public libraries
Parks and recreational opportunities
Overall county services
Freeway Maintenance
Protection of open space and wildemess
Entertainment and cultural opportunities
Public schools
Public transit
Job opportunities
Road Maintenance
Planning for growth
Activities and opportunities for youth
Air Quality
Access to child care
Excellent
22%
15%
13%
16%
14%
9%
9%
3%
7%
7%
Good
60% 11% 3%
55% 22% 7%
57% 26% 3%
53% 17% 6%
48% 25% 13%
49% 26% 10%
48% 29% 10%
50% 35% 7%
47% 27% 18%
42% 31% 13%
10% 38%
Fair
33%
Poor
17%
8% 36% 30% 16%
4% 31% 30% 19%
5% 29% 34% 20%
4% 30% 35% 30%
4% 29% 37% 21%
5% 26% 36% 23%
4% 25% 31% 39%
2%
NOTE:
Organizations ranked by collapsed score of "Excellent" plus "Good".
23%
23%
13%
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 18
rir The services and amenities which contribute to the
quality of life in Riverside County fare better than the political
groups and leaders when voters are asked to evaluate
them. Fire protection services are ranked as good to
excellent. Solidly good services include emergency medical
care, retail shopping facilities, overall county services and
the overall quality of life.
fir Ranked as good to fair are police and sheriff protection,
parks and recreational opportunities, public libraries,
freeway maintenance and protection of open space and
wilderness.
or Other services and amenities ranked as only fair to good
include the public schools, entertainment and cultural
opportunities, job opportunities, public transit and access to
child care.
'At the bottom of the list, ranked as only fair, are planning
for growth and road maintenance, with air quality ranked as
fair to poor.
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
There is some partisanship to criticism of the Board of
Supervisors, with Democrats and independents more
critical than Republicans. In general, long-term residents
are more familiar with the Board of Supervisors, with fully
half of the new arrivals unable to rate the Board. Long-
term residents are also more critical of their city councils,
while District 4 voters are most satisfied with them.
Interestingly most of those living in an unincorporated area
are able to rate "their" local city council. District 1 voters and
African -Americans are the most critical of the County
Transportation Commission, but there is no consistent
relationship based on length of commute.
"'.1 +Ji
000026
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 19
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cant.)
Men tend to rate the business community more favorably
than do women. Voters in Districts 3 and 4 and in the
unincorporated areas are less able to provide a rating than
are voters in other areas.
Voters 50 and older are less able to rate the school district
than are younger voters, and newcomers are largely
unfamiliar with the schools. Those in District 5 provide the
most critical ratings, while those in Districts 2 and 3 are
least critical of the schools. African -Americans are more
critical of the school district than are other voters.
For the two main Congressional Districts, District 44 voters
are more satisfied than are those in District 43. They are
also more likely to be able to evaluate their member of
Congress.
Voters in Senate District 37 are most familiar with their
State Senator, and provide the most favorable ratings.
Differences across the state legislative districts, however,
are not significant.
Voters in District 4, those with children, and those with more
education are most likely to have a good rating of local
environmental organizations; those in District 3 and with
less education are most critical.
Voters 50 and older, as well as those with the most
education, are much less able to rate activities and
opportunities for youth than are younger voters.
Newcomers are also less able to provide ratings. Those in
District 3 are much more critical of the limited opportunities
than are voters in the other areas. Voters in the
incorporated areas are more likely to say opportunities are
good than are voters in the unincorporated areas. African -
Americans are very critical of opportunities for youth.
000027
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 20
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.)
Job opportunities are seen as more problematic among
voters under 30 than older voters. Those 65 and older, as
well as new residents of the county, are often unable to
provide a rating. Voters in Districts 3 and 4 are less able to
rate job opportunities, while those in District 2 are most
likely to praise local job opportunities. African -Americans
say job opportunities are poor.
Senior citizens are most likely to rate police and sheriff
services as good or excellent, with voters in District 4
especially likely to say they are good. District 5 voters were
least content with police and sheriff services. City residents
were more likely to praise police services than were those
from unincorporated areas. African -Americans were very
critical of police and sheriff protection. Fire protection was
rated well everywhere, with those in Districts 4 and 5
especially likely to provide good ratings. Emergency
medical care is especially highly rated among voters 65
and older.
Men rate parks and recreational opportunities more
favorably than do women. Those under 50 are a little more
critical than those 50 and older, although on balance, all
see them as good. District 4 voters praise the opportunities
the most, and those in the unincorporated areas are less
likely to provide high ratings than are city residents. The
lower the level of education, the lower the rating of parks
and recreational opportunities. Again, African -Americans
are most critical.
Younger respondents and those with children under 18 are
a little more critical of the schools than are voters 50 and
older and those without children under 18. Nearly half the
newcomers are unable to rate the schools. Schools in
District 5 are rated lower than the schools in other areas.
Asian and Latino respondents rate schools the best,
African -Americans the poorest.
4±
000028
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE21
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont)
District 4 voters rate public transit, road maintenance and
freeway maintenance better than do voters in the other
areas of the district; those in unincorporated areas are most
critical of road maintenance. Voters with long commutes are
most likely to rate freeway maintenance as poor. In District
1, public transit is rated worse than in other areas. African -
Americans provide the lowest evaluation of public transit.
Overall county services are rated highest in District 2, and
lowest in District 1. In the incorporated areas, ratings of
county services are higher than for the unincorporated
areas. County services are least well -rated by African -
Americans. For overall quality of life, seniors provide the
highest ratings, as do newer residents, District 4 voters, and
white/Anglo voters.
Seniors are the least likely to say air quality is poor;
younger voters are most likely to be critical of air quality.
District 4 voters do not have a problem with air quality, while
those in District 5 say it is poor.
Newcomers to the area are especially pleased with
shopping facilities, and in general, older voters are more
satisfied than are younger voters. District 4 voters are most
satisfied. African -Americans are least satisfied with retail
shopping facilities.
Public libraries are rated best in District 4, and worse in
Districts 1 and 5. Those with children tend to rate them
better than those without. Highly educated respondents
provided the most favorable ratings of the libraries.
Men rate entertainment and cultural opportunities more
favorably than do women, with men 65 and older the most
favorable. District 4 voters rate them best, while District 5
voters rate them the poorest. Those without children
provide more favorable ratings than do those with children.
African -Americans are least content.
000029
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 22
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont)
Older voters know little about access to child care, as do
long-term residents.
Older voters are also' a little more likely to say the county
has done only fair or poor job with open space
preservation than are younger voters. Democrats are also
less satisfied than are Republicans.
Longer -term residents, as well as middle-aged voters, are
the most critical of planning for growth. Voters in District 4
generally are satisfied, while those in District 5 are least
satisfied with growth planning. Voters in the unincorporated
areas are less satisfied than those in the cities.
OQU03Q
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 23
THE PLANNING PROCESS
POSITION ON PLANNING PROCESS
IFFC
Lin Favor Lind aelden
Key Findings
Lean Oppeee Qppnee
RP There is overwhelming support for Riverside County
undertaking a comprehensive master planning process.
r' Voters who favor the planning process indicate:
♦ A plan is needed to deal with growth
♦ It is needed for the future
♦ It is a good 'idea
♦ Open space needs to be preserved
It is good that the community is involved in the decision
sr Voters who oppose the planning process say:
♦It will raise taxes
*There are more important issues
*The environmentalists have gone too far
*It is redundant
♦A new bureaucracy will be created
*Too many restrictions already
*It will cost too much
'J00031
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE24
AGREEMENT STATEMENTS
% % %
Statement Agree Disagree Score Net Agree
Riverside needs a long-range plan 93% 5% 1.47 88%
The time is now to plan for the county's future 92% 6% 1.44 86%
With planning, we avoid problems of LA and Orange Co. 90% 7% 1.53 83%
We need other forms of transportation besides freeways 85% 12% 1.69 73%
Too often decisions made without consulting public 76% 18% 1.97 58%
It is worth spending millions for a long-range plan 66% 31% 2.55 35%
We already have a plan and don't need any more 51% 42% 2.81 9%
NOTE:
The "Strongly Agree/Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree/Disagree" categories have been collapsed into the "%
Agree/% Disagree" categories, respectively. Agreement scores are calculated on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 indicating the
most agreement and 5 indicating the least agreement. Scores under 3.00 represent agreement, while those over
3.00 represent disagreement (italic red type). Net agree percentages are calculated before rounding.
Eir There is a consensus that Riverside needs a long rang
plan, and that time to plan for the future is now. Voter,
agree that with planning, the problems of Los Angeles anc
Orange Counties can be avoided: Even when the price tai
of planning is noted, two-thirds say it is worth spending
millions of dollars to plan for the future. Despite this genera
support for planning, the voters say there is no need fo
expensive planning programs to tell Riverside residents
what they already know.
U00032
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 25
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
Voters in all groups are very supportive of the planning
process in Riverside County, although Republicans are less
enthusiastic than others. Support is greatest in District 4,
and least in Districts 2 and 3. People with children are more
in favor than those without, and city residents are more
enthusiastic than are those in the unincorporated areas.
The higher the level of education, the higher the support for
the planning process.
Democrats, more than Republicans, are more enthusiastic
about spending the money for long-range planning, as are
new arrivals, and voters in District 3, renters, and those in
the unincorporated areas.
Women and District 4 voters are especially likely to say that
the problems of LA and Orange Counties can be avoided by
better planning. Young women and new arrivals, more than
others, say the time to start the planning process is now.
Republicans and District 3 and 5 voters, as well as African -
Americans and those with the least education, are most
likely to say that expensive planning programs are not
needed.
000033
1
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 26
GENERAL ATTITUDES
Key Findings:
' Taking the pulse of the public. is a worthwhile exercise.
Voters agree that too often decisions in Riverside County
are made without consulting the public.
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
Long-term residents, those in Districts 2 and 5, African -
Americans and Latinos are especially likely to say decisions
have been made without consultation.
{ tit.)
000034
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 27
L
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Key Findings:
i
IRF. Given the concern with traffic congestion, it is not
surprising that voters strongly agree that new forms of
transportation are needed to improve mobility in Riverside
County.
POSITION ON HALF PERCENT SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION
EIF Riverside's voters indicate they would support extending
the special half -cent sales tax for transportation in all
counties for another twenty years.
000035
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 28
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
Men 40-64 are most' enthusiastic about new freeways, as
are those with the longest commutes and . Latino and
African -American voters.
Voters 65 and older are least enthusiastic about extending
the sales tax for transportation, and Republicans are
opposed. Voters ' in District 5 are also not in favor of
extending the sales tax, while those in District 4
wholeheartedly support it. Those with long commutes are
among the most supportive.
000036
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 29
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WILDLIFE AND OPEN SPACE
1 stain for Endangered Species
. Trash FM for Open Space
Key Findings:
Or Given that voters do not find protecting open space to be
a serious problem, it comes as no surprise that voters are,
closely divided on whether to spend tax money to acquire
open space in Riverside County. By nearly a two -to -one
margin, voters would not be willing to pay higher fees for
trash collection to finance acquisition of open space. On
balance, they disagree with the idea that they would pay
slightly higher taxes to limit residential growth.
000037
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 30
WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE TAXES -INITIAL VERSUS INFORMED
I. Initial
f Informed
Support for open space acquisition increase
substantially when voters are told that it would enhanc
property values and provide permanent protection an
recreational opportunities.
000038
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 31
AGREEMENT STATEMENTS
%
% % Net
Statement Agree Disagree Score Agree
Planning and protecting open space only way to avoid LA's fate 83% 16% 1.87 67%
Everybody benefits from habitat and open space protection 75% 23% 2.21 52%
Obtaining fair market value is no violation of private owners' rights • 72% 21% 2.21 52%
Open space protection plan will maintain air and water quality 72% 21% 2.24 51%
Protect habitats only if compensate private owners immediately 73% 23% 2.15 50%
We need to preserve sensitive areas so as not to lose them forever 72% 23% 2.22 49%
Protecting habitats will enhance property values 68% 26% 2.41 42%
Govt. should protect nature even at expense of property -rights 50% 45% 3.00 5%
I would pay slightly higher taxes to limit residential growth 45% 53% 3.23 -8%
Ythout govt. programs, private owners will protect open space 35% 59% 3.50 -24%
NOTE:
The "Strongly Agree/Disagree" and "Somewhat Agree/Disagree" categories have been collapsed into the `% Agree/%
Disagree" categories, respectively. Agreement scores are calculated on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 indicating the most
agreement and 5 indicating the least agreement. Scores under 3.00 represent agreement, while those over 3.00
represent disagreement (italic red type). Net agree percentages are calculated before rounding.
or Voters tend to offer general support for open space that is
not matched by a willingness to pay for it. They strongly
agree that planning and protecting open space is the only
way to avoid the same fate as Los Angeles, and that
everyone benefits from the protection of open space and
habitat protection. They also agree that protecting habitats
will enhance property values, that open space protection wild
maintain air and water quality, and that sensitive areas need
to be preserved so they are not lost forever.
000039
_ . o
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 32
BAs is the case for open space, voters are closely divided
on their willingness to spend tax money to protect
endangered species.
POSITION ON MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
tie By more than a two -to -one margin, voters favor the
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan when they are
told what it is. However, voters are only committed to saving
more popular species, such as mammals or birds, with
majorities supporting spending tax dollars to protect big horn
sheep and birds such as the Least Bells Vireo, but not the
Coastal Sage or the Quino Checkered Spot Butterfly.
000040
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE33
AMOUNT WILLING OR UNWILLING TO PAY FOR PRESERVATION
90%
Bo%
70%
60%
50x
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%.
6.4 115
sal
150
165
1145
��W1IIin0
t Unwilling
EiP There are strict limits on how much the voters are willing
to pay to purchase open space to protect endangered
species. Support falls off dramatically at amounts over $25
per year, with only about one-third of the voters willing to
pay $50 more per year to purchase additional open space.
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 34
POSITION ON WHO SHOULD PAY TO PROTECT ENDANGERED SPECIES
New
!Homeowners
11%
IDon't I
'Know'
4%
Reject
Whole
Idea
ICom i-bi-b
nation
Someone
Bs,
IAII County Residents
73%
;California Resident
34%
Federal Gov'.
29%
''Not surprisingly, voters say that the federal govemment or
all Califomians, not new homeowners or Riverside County
residents, should pay the cost of protecting species
endangered by new developments.
Eir Voters are sensitive to the implications of acquiring open
space. While they agree that paying fair market value for
private property is not a violation of property owners' rights,
they insist that habitats can be protected only if private land
owners are immediately compensated. They also are fairly
certain that private owners would not protect endangered
species without a publicly financed protection plan.
However, they are divided on the question of whether
govemment should protect natural habitat if it means
restricting property rights.
00004"
DECISION RESEARCH
Pnvant
Overdevaiopmsnt
22%
I Don't Kfiow
12%
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 35
HOW BEST TO SPEND TAX DOLLARS
Provont Loa Anpaiixation
45%
Primary*
(Open Space
14%
Protect
I Enda roma n d
SpaGas
7%
OF The vocabulary that makes voters most willing to spend
tax dollars is not to preserve open space or protect
endangered species and plants, but to prevent Riverside
County from becoming another Los Angeles.
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS
Men are willing, but women are unwilling, to spend tax
money on open space acquisition. Most supportive are men
under 40. There is also a partisan split, with Republicans
opposed and Democrats in favor of land acquisition. New
arrivals are supportive, while long-term residents are
divided. Opposition is especially strong among District 5
voters and African -Americans. These profiles shift when
voters are told that property values will be enhanced
through open space acquisition, although Republicans are
still less willing than others to finance open space
purchases.
000043
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 36
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.)
Spending tax money to protect open space appeals to
women and men under 40, but not to voters 65 and older.
Republicans are largely opposed, while independents and
others are for it. There is also a split based on length of
residence in Riverside County, with newcomers in favor and
long-term residents opposed. District 4 and 1 voters are in
favor, those in Districts 2 and 5 are opposed. Renters are
strongly in favor, while home owners are closely divided.
African -Americans are opposed, white/Anglos are divided,
and Latinos are in favor of the expenditures. The findings
are generally consistent in terms of support for the Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan, with women, younger
voters, Democrats, new voters, renters, those with children,
and white/Angtos most in favor of the plan.
No one wants to pay higher trash fees except men under 40
and renters (who rarely pay the fee), with strong opposition
among Republicans, voters 50 and older, and among
homeowners and African -Americans.
Support for protecting endangered species and protecting
sensitive areas now is greatest among the voters with an
"environmental" profile, including voters under 50,
Democrats and independents, newer arrivals in Riverside
County, District 4 voters, renters, those with children, and
residents of the incorporated areas. The gap between those
with an environmental profile and the others is greatest with
respect to the Coastal Sage.
In general, younger voters are more willing to pay additional
taxes for open space than are those 50 and older,
Democrats and independents more than Republicans,
renters more than owners, those with children more than
those without, city more than unincorporated area residents
and newer residents more than long-term residents. District
4 voters are most willing, while District 5 voters are least
willing. African -Americans are among those least willing to
pay higher taxes for open space. These patterns hold
whether the voters, overall, are willing to pay (under $25) or
whether they are overall unwilling.
000044
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 37
KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.)
The responsibility of govemment to protect open space is
more supported by younger women, new arrivals,
Democrats and independents, voters in Districts 2 and 4,
renters, those with children, city residents, and Latinos and
African -Americans. Most of these same voters are most in
agreement that open space enhances the quality of life and
that property values and water quality are enhanced by
protecting open space and species habitats.
Older voters and Republicans, as well as voters in District 5
and long-term residents, owners and those without children,
feel particularly strongly about the need to compensate
owners for any protected open space. These voters, as well
as minority voters, are least willing to pay slightly higher
taxes to limit growth.
00004'
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 38
ANALYSIS
A. Voters Are Cautious About the Future
While things are generally seen as going well at present, voters hint at a
cautious optimism about the future:
IAt the present time, more than two-thirds of the
voters say that things in Riverside County are on
the right track.
✓Despite the indications that things are moving in
the right direction, most voters do not say that the
quality of life will be better in the future, and one-
third think things will get worse.
.
000046
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 39
B. Planning for Growth is Essential
As is the case in most of California, voters in Riverside County are
concerned about growth. Often there is a conflict between an ideology of free
enterprise, limited govemment, and the desire for limits and controls on growth:
✓ In response to an open-ended question on the
most important issue facing Riverside, a
significant percentage mention growth and growth -
related issues.
/Controlling residential growth and preserving
open space are ranked higher than lower taxes or
reducing traffic as issues for the county's elected
officials to address.
iWhile voters do not want to stop growth, they
also do not want unbridled growth. Voters seek
better planning for growth.
✓Despite this concern with growth, voters are not
willing to pay higher taxes to limit growth.
C. Riverside's Leadership is Rated Moderately
When asked to evaluate civic leadership, none of the groups or individuals
tested are rated as doing an excellent job, and none are rated as performing
poorly:
/The private sector is rated slightly more highly
than public agencies or government leaders.
/The Riverside County Board of Supervisors is
rated as doing a fair to good job, about average in
comparison to other groups tested.
ou'J047
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 40
D. Riverside's Quality of Life
There is a general sense that the quality of life in Riverside County is good,
although there are a few areas where there could be improvements:
./ Most government services in Riverside are
considered to be good, with the basics such as
fire, police and sheriff services, and emergency
medical care generally well -regarded.
'Public facilities and amenities, such as parks
and libraries, as well as private amenities, such as
shopping, are generally considered good in the
county, but there are concerns about the schools
and cultural opportunities.
'Air quality remains a problem in most of the
county, outside the desert area, and one of the
most fundamental issues in the quality of life —
crime —remains an issue.
00U043
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 41
E. There is Strong Support for the Planning Process
In a number of different ways, voters were asked about their level of support
for the planning process, and in virtually every case they enthusiastically endorsed
more planning. This is consistent with their views concerning better -planned
growth in Riverside County, and a recognition that the best way to avoid the
problems of neighboring counties is to plan for the future:
"There is broad and wide support for the overall
master planning process.
"There is a sense that planning for the future
should not be delayed.
"Even when told of the substantial cost of the
process, voters are supportive of it, although they
have to be reassured that the new planning
process is not redundant
000049
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 42
F. Transportation Remains a Complex Issue
Riverside County depends on a good transportation system, but there is no
clear consensus on what makes the system good:
'Traffic problems are generally not seen as
neighborhood problems, but involve either
commuting to work or to recreation and leisure
destinations. Because travel patterns are so
varied, different constituents have different
transportation priorities.
"Despite a constant criticism of traffic, it ranks
well below other issues as the top priority which
the voters want Riverside County's elected officials
to address. Nonetheless, it is seen as a very to
somewhat serious problem.
"Although many voters are unable to rate public
transit in the county, it is rated more favorably than
road maintenance. There is a strong consensus
that . other forms of transportation besides
freeways are needed.
"Although voters rarely like to tax themselves,
there is majority support for extending the sales
tax to fund local highway and public transportation
projects.
G. Voters Seek Low -Cost Environmental Protections
There is a clear consensus that preservation of Riverside's open spaces
and natural environment is important. However, voters are not necessarily willing
to pay for the environmental protections they seek. There are other inconsistencies
in their environmental orientation, especially when environmental values come into
conflict with other values:
t.;
009050
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE43
000051.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 44
./Voters are closely divided on whether or not to
spend tax money to acquire open space in
Riverside County, and are similarly divided on
whether to spend money to protect endangered
species. There is a clear hierarchy of what species
to protect, with mammals and birds ahead of
insects, trees and plants.
✓When environmental protections are tied to tax
and fee increases, voters become very cautious,
unwilling to pay higher trash collection fees, and
capping their tax increases at about $25 per year.
They would prefer to spread the cost of
environmental protections around, hoping that
"others" such as the federal or state government,
will pay for environmental protection.
'One reason they may not be enthusiastic in their
desire to spend money is that they do not
necessarily see the need to protect open space as
an especially serious problem.
✓If environmental values conflict with other
values, support for environmental protections
declines. While voters do not trust private
property owners to exercise good stewardship
over the land, they do believe their private property
rights should be strongly protected, and that
owners should be compensated when their land is
used for open space or habitat protection.
✓Voters are much more responsive to the need to
pay to acquire open space when they are told of
the quality of life and economic benefits and value
of open space acquisition.
✓There is strong support for the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan when it is explained to
the voters. Even with the explanation, however,
voters are reluctant to spend significant amounts
of money and would prefer that 'someone else' pay
for it
000052 4:
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 45
VOTER PROFILES
Although there is some variation, depending on the questions asked, the following
tables describe a general profile of the voters who are more concerned or less
concemed about environmental issues as evidenced by responses on open space
acquisition and the planning process. Groups not listed either vary or fall in
between these extremes.
VOTER GROUPS LEAST CONCERNED,
ABOUT ENVIRONMENTALY
PROTECTION
Women 65 and older
Men 40 and older
Republicans
Districts .3 -.and .5
10 years ormore in Riverside
Home owners
Children under 18
Middle income
African -American
.VOTER:GROUPS°-MC1ST 1y 1,2?
ABO VIRON C3 r
Women -under 65
:Men mnder.40 -:-
:Democrats and:independents
..5.yearslor less in -Riverside
:Renters
Unincorporated area
Not employed -
0UU051
-Have:children.under:'C8- .:
Very,low or.very:high-incorne
blot dncan-American.or= ,
ficOrpvratedarea F t
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 46
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are three key findings in our research. First, our data indicate that
voters are relatively satisfied with the quality of life in Riverside County. On
virtually all dimensions of the quality of life, Riverside is given a good to fair rating,
indicating that the voters are fundamentally satisfied with living in the County.
While there certainly is room for improvement, there is no indication of broad
dissatisfaction which requires short-term attention. Some of the areas most in need
of attention, such as air quality and public education, are out of the hands of the
Board of Supervisors. Others, such as growth and transportation, are being
addressed through the planning process.
The second broad finding is that Riverside County is supportive of a
long-range planning process. Although voters are always reluctant to spend tax
dollars, they feel that the long range planning process is a worthwhile investment.
Nonetheless, our data do suggest that the voters will have to be reassured that the
long-range planning process does not duplicate other efforts. The focus of
planning, for most voters, is on planning for residential growth. Aside from crime,
voters tend to see increased population and overcrowding and the traffic that
comes with it as the most potent threat to their quality of life.
Third, Riverside voters have environmental concerns. Through virtually
every indicator, voters describe themselves as "environmentalists". They are willing
to set aside open space, and they are willing to protect endangered species. Our
000054
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 47
data show that there is, however, a tension between the desire of the voters to do
what is best for the environment and the limited willingness of the voters to pay the
cost of environmental protection. In addition, the voters are very protective of
property rights. For any environmental initiatives to succeed, there have to be
assurances that property rights are protected.
In addition to the observations and recommendations made earlier in this
report, the following are our key observations:
• VOTERS PUT ASIDE THE EVERYDAY PROBLEMS TO
EVALUATE RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Voters are least content with the
quality of life problems they confront every day —crime, air quality,
and traffic. They appear to put these aside because they like living
in Riverside County because of other elements of the quality of life.
As the planning process moves forward with those elements which
enhance some elements of the quality of life, such as open spaces,
recreational opportunities and cultural amenities, it is important not to
lose sight of the genuine concems voters do have as they confront
traffic or crime or poor schools. If voters are worried about someone
breaking into their home because there are not enough police,
spending tax dollars to protect big hom sheep seems like a luxury.
♦ MAINSTREAM THE PLANNING TEAM: Voters have to
understand that the planning process is not driven by environmental
extremists or a government mandate but by mainstream planners,
business people, government officials and ordinary citizens who are
looking out for the future generations of Riverside residents. For
ordinary voters to buy into the process, they have to understand that
this is not a "special interest" tool, but a process in which everyone
can participate.
• EMPHASIZE THE DIFFERENCE OF THIS PLANNING
PROCESS: The voters expressed a willingness to spend money on
planning for the future. However, they have to know that they are not
just getting something they already have, or simply a report which
will be buried in a file cabinet or be placed on a shelf somewhere.
They have to know that this is a comprehensive environmental plan
to enhance the quality of life, not an engineering document or
something useful only for developers. Voters have to be reassured
ghat this is not redundant.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 48
• THE ENVIRONMENT IS AN INVESTMENT, NOT AN
EXPENDITURE: Taking strong environmental positions costs
money. The data suggest that Riverside County is populated with
"lip service environmentalists", voters who are looking for `free"
environmental solutions, or solutions which are paid for by someone
else. The case has to be made to the voters that environmental
improvements cost money, but they are investments in the future
(and in enhanced quality of life and property values), not simply
expenditures. If the environment is not to take a back seat to other
concems, voters must know the case has to be made how much the
future of Riverside depends on long-term environmental planning.
• MAKE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMPREHENSIVE:
There are different preferences between men and women, with men
disproportionately focused on open space and the recreational use
of open space, and women disproportionately focused on protection
of endangered species. Each has to know that a comprehensive
environmental plan requires both, and that they are not mutually
exclusive environmental issues.
• BE ATTENTIVE TO MINORITY CONCERNS: Minority groups all
have different concerns, but our data consistently show that African -
Americans feel somewhat disenfranchised within Riverside County,
and point to racial tensions far more than do other voters.
Consistently, African -Americans rate the County as performing
poorly on key dimensions such as jobs, schools, and youth
opportunities. They are less satisfied with police and other services.
Environmental concerns take a back seat to these more
economically based issues. Our data point to a special need for
increased outreach to the black community to speak to their
concems.
• RIVERSIDE IS A DIVERSE COUNTY: Not only is there cultural
diversity, but geographic diversity as well. Our data consistently
show that Districts 2 and 5, and to a lesser extent, District 3 have
different concems, and lower levels of satisfaction, than voters in
District 4. To be accepted county -wide, the planning process must
take into account the unique needs of each area.
•
' l t/
000056
27.
3 3
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT
PAGE 49
• EXPLORE THE DIFFERENCES IN ENVIRONMENTAL
ATTITUDES ACROSS THE COUNTY: We have presented data
which show a profile of those voters who are more supportive of
environmental activism, and those who are less supportive,
Additional outreach and explanation to those with lower levels of
environmental consciousness may be warranted.
000057
Riverside County Integrated Plan
A Summary of the First Round of
Community Workshops June/July 1999
Preparai by:
Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc,
169 North Marengo Avenue
Pasadena, California
91101
626/7 9872
000053.
�, .
RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
INTRODUCTION
Between June 17 and July 16, 1999, the County of Riverside, with the assistance of technical and
community outreach consultant team members, held a series of twelve community meetings
designed to find out issues that residents would like to see considered in planning. for Riverside
County's future.
The community meetings were held between 5:30 and 8:00 p.m. in twelve locations throughout
Riverside County:
June 12 Temecula
June 21 Riverside (Raincross)
June 22 Riverside (Jurupa)
June 24 Corona
June 28 Moreno Valley
June 29 Palm Desert
July 1 Beaumont
July 6 Lake Elsinore
July 8 Perris
July 13 Blythe
July 15 Hemet
July 16 Sun City
MEETING PROCESS AND DESIGN
The meetings were designed to engage the public in dialog with County staff and the consultants -
and with each other - about issues critical to the success of the Plan and to Riverside County's
future in general. The meetings had four distinct parts: an open house, a brief presentation, small
group discussions and group summaries.
Open House and Interactive Exercises
During the first hour of the meetings, participants were invited to circulate among exhibits
explaining the overall planning process as well as the individual elements: General Plan,
Conservation and Habitat, and Transportation. In addition to learning and asking questions about
the plan elements, participants were engaged in interactive exercises designed to get the dialog
started on current issues and future possibilities for Riverside County. These included: a "postcard
home" written from a future time in Riverside County; identifying favorite open space and
recreational activities; and the "bests and worst" awards for transportation, among others. During
this time, participants were also invited to fill out more detailed surveys at each booth, or to mail
them back later in the postage -paid envelopes provided.
Page 2 of 63
RCEP - S„mma ry 14 Round Cozronuoity Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
0000959
Presentation
After the initial workshop period, participants were invited to listen to a brief presentation on the
Plan by the Sverdrup Team
Small Group Discussions and Summary
After the presentation, small group discussions were held to explore specific issues and possibilities
under the individual Plan areas (General Plan, Conservation and Habitat, Transportation) in more
detail. Using the interactive exercises as a resource, the technical consultants and facilitators took
the groups through a series of questions designed ro engage participants in discussion of issues
facing Riverside County and their community area in particular. MIG assisted in the group
facilitation and graphically recorded the group's discussion.
The sessions concluded with a report by the MIG facilitator/recorders on the results of the group
discussions and a summary of next steps by the Sverdrup project manager.
MEETING RESULTS — SYNOPSES AND DETAILED REPORTS
The following sections include:
• An over -view of common issues
• A review of the correlation between issues raised in the community meetings and issues
raised in a separate opinion poll
• A synopsis of issues by community area and Plan area and
• Detailed community meeting reports, including a summary of comments and results of
the interactive exercises
NEXT STEPS
The results of these workshops, along with opinion poll and focus group results will be used to
develop a draft Vision for the Riverside County Integrated Plan. This draft Vision will be taken out
for review and comment to a similar series of workshops to be held throughout Riverside County in
September/October, 1999.
Page 3 of 63
RCIP - SnrrUm y 14 Round Caramunity Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000060
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
COMMON THEMES
Appreciation of Open Space
People in all areas appreciate the open space and rural character of many parts of Riverside County
and want to preserve it.
Support for Planned Growth
Growth is generally supported but at varied levels around the County, with more concern being
expressed in Temecula, Lake Elsinore and Moreno Valley than in other areas. In all areas, people
were concerned with the need for planning housing and infrastructure together.
Support for Infill Development
Infill development was supported in several areas — specifically Temecula, Hemet and Riverside. It
was seen as a way to preserve open and green space while continuing to grow.
Concern for Jobs and Support for Clean Industry
Jobs are a key social issue with many community areas. Specifically, residents are asking for creation
of "clean industry" jobs so that people can pursue opportunities close to home.
Air Quality
Poor air quality was a consistent theme in the workshops. All areas were concerned with general air
quality issues and areas with truck -related issues (such as Jurupa and Moreno Valley) were
particularly concerned with diesel emissions.
Opportunities for Youth
Participants expressed a need for opportunities for youth, especially in rapidly growing areas with
many young farniiies such as Corona, Moreno Valley, Hemet, Jurupa and Perris. Some were also
concerned that lack of opportunity would exacerbate problems with crime, gangs and drugs.
Range of Housing Variety and Opportunity
Residents want a variety of housing types and are concerned about the sameness of housing being
developed. In addition, they are asking for variety of housing opportunities for various income
levels, especially in Blythe, the Moreno Valley, the Coachella Valley, Perris and Sun City.
Need for Buffers and Green Space •
People in all areas would like more green space and many would like to have buffer zones — but
residents in certain areas feel particularly impacted by industry and freight. These indude Riverside,
Jurupa and Corona.
Private Property Rights
Most would like to see recognition and preservation of private property rights and would like to see
a focus on incentives rather than regulations or penalties.
Page 4 of 63
R.QP - Snmrrmary lII Round Gahmuniry Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
r1
000061
Balance
Most people expressed interest in balancing the rural area's character with infrastructure needs and
protection of rural quality of life while also protecting individual rights.
Public Transportation Access
Public transportation is important to people especially in areas with large elderly or aging
populations. Dial -a -ride is a particular concern in Jurupa, Moreno Valley, Palm Desert, Beaumont,
Lake Elsinore, Perris, Hemet and Sun City..
Need for Cooperation among Cities and Agencies
Several participants saw lack of cooperation among cities, towns and agencies as a significant barrier
to getting things done. Residents at the Beaumont and Jurupa workshops saw this as a particularly
serious problem.
Regional Transit Access
Access to regional public transportation was a specific issue for people present at the Palm Desert
and Beaumont workshops.
Support for Metrolink Expansion
Metrolink service was widely supported at the public workshops. Residents of Riverside, Moreno
Valley, Palm Desert, Beaumont, Lake Elsinore, Perris and Hemet were particularly interested in
Metrolink extensions or expansion.
Preservation and Exploration of Corridor Options
Key north -south and east -west corridors need to be preserved and expanded- Specifically,
participants were concerned with the lack of alternatives to the 91 corridor, the lack of direct access
to Orange County from the Temecula -Elsinore area and indirect and unsafe access between the
Beaumont -Coachella and Elsinore -Temecula areas. There was general support for advance planning
and preservation of corridors.
Environmental Impact of Trucking Corridors
In most workshop areas, people were concerned with the impacts of freight traffic and noise - from
both trucks and trains. Residents in the Jurupa and Moreno Valley areas had particularly strong
concerns.
Lack of Alternative Corridors and Emergency Access
Workshop participants in several areas - including Temecula, Beaumont and Hemet were concerned
with lack of emergency access and availability of alternative corridors, especially during fires and
floods,
Page 5 of 63
J] }' 19 'x' 1R Round Community Workshops
MIG, Inc.
000062
•
A CORRELATION OF COMMUNITY COMMENTS
WITH SURVEY RESULTS
Comments made by community members who attended the Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Meetings reflect many of the opinions expressed by Riverside voters in a recent survey
conducted June 20 — 23, 1999. Please note that a close correlation seems to exist between the
qualitative data captured through the community meetings and the quantitative information gained
through the statistically -correct (with a 4% margin of error) survey.
Rate of Growth, Traffic, and Open Space
At all 12 community meetings, audience members consistently expressed concern about the rate of
growth in their communities, traffic congestion, and the need to preserve open space. Creating new
jobs was cited as an important issue at most of the meetings, also. Reducing criine, gang activity,
and the need to provide recreation or diversion programs for youth were stated as key concerns at
meetings in Corona, Moreno Valley and Hemet. In general, concerns stated at RCIP meetings
correspond to a Key Finding of the survey in which respondents, in an open-ended question,
describe the most important issues facing Riverside County as: the rate of growth; crime, violence
and gangs; schools and education; traffic congestion; police issues; and jobs.
Air Quality and Overcrowded Schools
Another important parallel between concerns stated in the survey and in the community meetings
was poor air quality. In dosed survey questions, crime, gangs and drugs were ranked as the most
serious problems in Riverside County. (Threats to personal safety rank as most important, of
course.) The nexrt serious issues were traffic congestion, poor air quality and overcrowded public
schools. In most community meetings, (9 out of 12) poor air quality was described as a significant
issue. Concern about the inadequacy of school facilities to meet the growing youth population was
stated at several community meetings as well.
Planned Growth
A solid sixty-five percent (65%) of survey respondents support planned growth for the future. This
support seems consistent with sentiments expressed by meeting participants for the Integrated Plan
efforts undertaken by the County. At meetings throughout the County, most community members
expressed support for planned growth. Many participants also expressed gratitude to the County for
giving them the opportunity to express their views through the Community Meetings.
Page 6 of 63
RC - 5„mmnry- 1R Round Commutury Workshops
Juste/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
00U063
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Synopsis of Key Community Workshop Issues
July, 1999
Community
Area
Temecula
General Plan
• Support infill
development
• Balance preservation
and growth
• Concern with job •
development
• Concern with
development in
surrounding County
unincorporated areas
— outside City's
control
Riverside
Jurupa
Support incentives for
infill development to
preserve open space
Concern with
preserving community
appearance and feel
Need for resource
management
Increase buffers
Do resource
management
The Community is
considered a
"dumping ground" -
warehousing and
trucks
Buffers needed — no
industry next to
housing
Improved homing
affordability and less
density
Beautification needed
Improved inter -
jurisdictional
coordination
Synopsis of Issues
Conservation & Habitat Transportation
Support incentive -based
rather than regulatory
approach
Concern with species and
boundaries
Look at "lessons learned"
from others
Need for public
transportation options
and a viable public
transportation system
The freeway presents a
barrier
Concern with impact of
transportation on
habitats
Natural and open space
areas are assets that need
to be preserved
Need to plan for
development
Concern with impact of
habitat plans on private
property rights
Concern with Riverside's
environmental image
Open space and hills are
assets that need to be
preserved
Consider environment as
part of the planning
process
Need incentives to
preserve the environment
and preserve/shepherd
resources
Page 7 of 63
Round Cam• P
June 1999
Workshops
000064
000064
Need for public
transportation options,
including bake lanes
Increased Metrolink
service
Linkages to San
Bernardino County
Corridor improvement
needed: 91, 60/215
interchange, HOV-
Fastrak linkage
Consider cumulative
impact of developments
and transportation
projects
Better public
transportation including
fixed route and dial -a-
ride
Poor surface street
condition
Area is a "sacrifice
zone" with truck and
freight traffic
MIG, Inc.
Community
Area
Moreno
Valley
Synopsis of Issues
General Plan
■ Conserve agriculture
and view sheds
■ Provide low-cost and
elderly housing
■ Concern with
overcrowding of
facilities - safety,
infrastructure, schools
• Jobs, gangs and crime
are social issues
• Value rural
atmosphere, parks and
open space
Conservation & Habitat
= Preserve open space
▪ Need wildlife link to
protect animals
= Clear understanding of
impact of habitat areas on
zoning, real estate
agreements needed
• Need for trails and
equestrian facilities
Transportation
■ Concern with SCAG
models and impact on
area
■ North/south
connections to San
Bernardino and other
regional links are needed
• Need accessible
transportation and Bial-
a -ride
■ Concern with trucks and
intermodal facilities
■ Need Metrolink
extension
Bike and pedestrian
facilities are needed
Palm
Desert
Interjurisdictional
issues get in the way
of implementation
Concern with
Riverside County
dichotomies -
Western vs. other
parts of County, rich
vs. poor (especially
Coachella Valley)
Need to plan for
development
Concern with water
conservation
Appreciation of open
space and concern
with encroachment on
agricultural land
Concern with benefit
gained by outside
development interests
Manage trash, landfill
and recycling issues
• Protection of open space
• Preserve desert ecology
• Debate on extent to
which habitats are
preserved - especially
single -species habitats
Plan infrastructure to
meet needs of
development
Interagency
disagreements interfere
with corridor
improvement
Public transportation
including regional
linkages and local dial -a -
ride
Page 8 of 63
RCP - S1immsry 1= Round Community Workshops
Jun/J4y 1999
MIG, Inc.
• tit: t
00.0065
Community
Area
General Plan
Synopsis of Issues
Conservation & Habitat
Beaumont
• Preserve rural areas
• Improve downtowns
and preserve old
buildings
• Regional approach is
needed to planning
and development,
including sharing
economic gains
• Towns should be
merged into one city
• Balance jobs and
housing
■ Reduce pollution and
improve air quality
Preserve open spaces
Improve water and air
qualitY
Protect wildlife
Protect and preserve the
natural terrain
Lake
Elsinore
Page 9 of 63
R.QP - Summer. l■ Round Caranzmiry Workshops
June/July 1999
• Concern with sprawl -
consider moratorium
on development;
reduce miscellaneous
annexations, do cost -
benefit analysis
■ Special concern with
Liberty development
■ Implement
development -
consistent with
General Plan
Preserve open space
Concern with level of
services financed by
new development
Need for a variety of
shopping
opportunities
Need for buffers,
barriers and greenbelts
Protection against
natural hi7nrds
needed
Need clean industry
■ Maintain open space and
country lifestyle
• Concern on Metropolitan
Water District ownership
and development
• Lake runoff
■ Importance of trails
• Need for park policy and
development, including
user fee structure and
developer responsibility
Transportation
Improve regional
transportation - access
and coordination
Improve transportation
for the elderly
Government
fragmentation impacts
implementation of
improvements
Improve the 79 corridor
Provide for emergency
transportation arress
Improve maintenance
Need to plan ahead and
preserve transportation
corridors
Provide access to jobs
Community is neglected
in public transportation
rc'SS
Concern with land use -
transportation
connections
Dial -a -ride is needed in
many areas
Rall extensions are
needed
Conceal with roadway
conditions
Highway 74
provernents needed
Questions on Measure
A uses
MIG, Inc.
000066
Community
Synopsis of Issues
Area
General Plan
Conservation & Habitat
Transportation
•
Address loss of
agricultural land
■
Support habitat
conservation in general
Need to improve east -
west corridor access
•
Buffers and transition
areas needed
but:
• Provide clear
■
Improve dial -a -ride for
the elderly
Perris
•
Provide for adequate
lot sizes
explanation on why
habitat areas are
Increase Metrolink
service
•
Create varied styles
needed
Improve road
and types of housing
■
Preserve waterways and
maintenance
•
Increase density but
riverbeds
■
Question if Measure A
inrreace amrninr of .
■
Will nQtn r•nmrr,ir
.......1e.,.,._«,.,
open space also
Need jobs in rural
areas and jobs -housing
balance
resources to preserve
open space and rural areas
■ Need to create habitat
with freeway/arterial
construction
(specifically Hlghway
74)
Hemet
Support integrated
planning
Need to preserve
green space
Concern with
restrictiveness of large
parcel zoning
Support infill
development
Need to protect
private property rights
Need to plan
infrastructure along
with development
Increased
coordination and joint
planning are needed
Provide job training
and improved social
services
Concern with erosion and
flooding
Concern with Eastside
Reservoir and impacts
Preserve the natural
environment and increase
the amount of green space
Page 10 of 63
REP - Smr m ry 1II Round C.coanxunicy Workshops
June/July 15,99
Concern with mass
transit capacity and
needs
Dial -a -ride service needs
significant improvement
Extend passenger rail
Consider and improve
emergency
transportation access
Improved maintenance
is needed
Consider freight rail
extension
Need explanation of use
of Measure A funding
MEG, Inc.
000067
Community
Area
Sun City
General Plan
• Balance progress and
growth - preserve the
natural beauty and
open space
• Consider urban limit
lines for growth
• Increase availability of
jobs
■ Provide a mix of
housing styles and'
purposes
■ Decrease crowding
• Increase connections
with the County - the
area feels
disenfranchised
Synopsis of Issues
Conservation & Habitat
• Preserve wildlife
• Balance preservation with
property rights
• Create observation as well
as recreation areas
• Plan for diversity of
habitats and habitat
requirements
• Build on existing
recreational and trail
resources
• Consider development's
impact on the food chain
Transportation
■ Road plans should be
detailed
• Concern with area's
status as unincorporated
area and plans
• Public transit service
needs improvement -
fixed route service has
been cut and dial -a -ride
is poor
• Concern with local
arterial expansion -
especially impact of
development
▪ Maintenance needs to
be improved
• Traffic and
development impacts of
Eastside Reservoir need
to be considered
Blythe
• Increase amount of
affordable housing
• Decrease restrictions
on land use to
encourage mix of
housing types
• Preserve Native
American sites
• Mitigate hydrocarbons
- impacts
development in key
areas of Blythe
• Increase job
opportunities -
provide for self-
sufficiency in the area
Page 11 of 63
RCS' - Silmn7at 14 Round
J,me/J,� 1999 0 0 U U
rkshops
• Open space and habitat
preservation
MIG, Inc.
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
TEMECULA
June 17, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• There is a demand for growth but residents want a County that reflects the values of the
community.
Housing
• Inner-city redevelopment is important, we need to work from inner -out
• Housing in Riverside County is market driven. Condominiums have not worked in
Riverside County; they are too densely populated
• Development is a concern - especially to the east of Temecula in unincorporated County
areas and on the Pechanga Indian reservation
Other Comments
Economic Development
• Riverside County needs jobs that attract growth.
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• Problems don't end at the County line - we share problems with San Diego County,
specifically
• The mall and Eastside Reservoir and Rogerdale are also concerns
• The issue is how to accommodate this development and take transportation into
consideration
• Southern Bell is a good example
• Isolation of our youth is a concern - they don't interact because they're in cars
• We need to look at commercial activities that are implemented - especially sports bars
Transportation and Access Issues
• We need a choice of modes
• We need to change the auto paradigm and provide a network of transportation alternatives
currently, alternatives are lacking
• Pedestrian and bike transportation should also be a focus - bike paths should be
differentiated for safety
• There should be a viable public transportation system
• We should decrease dependence on the freeway
• We should promote carpools - right now there's a lack of incentives
• School buses and public transit should be integrated as one system
Page 12 of 63
ROP - Sun r ry 1= Round COmnamiry Workshops MIG, Inc.
June/July 1999
'30U069
• Low farebox return is a problem
• The freeway presents a physical barrier
• There should be on- and off -ramps every 2 miles
• Southwest County congestion causes air quality problems
• There needs to be infrastructure for low -emission vehicles
• Temecula traffic is getting better
♦ We should look at the impact of transportation on habitats - specifically wildlife movement
• A key issue is how to get the resources:
♦ Improve farebox recovery
• Get bond support
• Make the auto and petroleum industries part of the solution
• Do not study things to death!
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• The challenge is to find a balance between Preservation and Growth/Development - the
RCIP plan is balancing both sides
• One common goal is to preserve Riverside County for the future
• Is there a way to retain current species? Growth boundaries might work and can have open
space benefits but how do we irtvii7e boundaries when species do not recognize boundaries?
• The Alamo Hills Area is an area with political and biological issues. We can create an island
but what do we do with the island? Will creating islands only create more problems since it
disrupts the natural chain of events?
• We need to recognize a shared responsibility in preserving open space and multiple species.
• We need to look at other plan models to learn what has worked in other places and what
could work here.
Mitigation Banking Issues
• We need to find an incentive based program for landowners and farmers
• There needs to be a defined set of standards and criteria for conservation easements and
mitigation banking and should not be on a case -by -case basis.
• The public and individual landowner needs to know who the competitors are when working
on mitigation banking.
• The process needs to be a fair.
• Want some local control within federal guidelines.
• Want to know at the local level if there is a conflict of interest.
• The mitigation banking process is a frustrating process.
Housing and Redevelopment Issues
• Inner-city redevelopment is important, we need to work from inner city outward
• Housing in Riverside County is market driven. Condominiums have not worked in
Riverside County; they are too densely popiiar d
Page 13 of 63
REP - Sm-nn127 Pr Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
000070
MIG, Inc.
Growth Issues
• Riverside County needs jobs that attract growth.
• There is demand for growth but people want a County that reflects the values of the
community.
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"If I could change one thing about Riverside County, it would be .. .
• We.need jobs in Riverside County.
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations "manners" and "Losers"
Winners
• Metrolink
• Traffic Directors at 79 South and I-15
• Individual staff contract coordination skills (Gary McKinsey)
• All government Agencies (under the circumstances)
• State of California allowing private enterprise to build roads
Losers
• Fastrak ends at Highway 71- why can't it extend to the HOV lane?
• Construction costs too high for local CSAs to fund
• Driver courtesy
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
`When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• Hiking (3) Quiet, uncrowded
• Landscape photography
• Enjoying solitude
• Camping
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i:e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Temecula/Mur Creek and Santa Margarita River
• Murrieta Creek bottom and Oaks
• Santa Rosa Plateau
"What do you like about this special place?"
• Beautiful habitat - peaceful
Page 14 of 63
RQP - s rrul,ocy 1= Round CryrnTromity Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc
000071
"Why is this place important to you?"
♦ One of the last of its kind in Southern California
+ Beauty
Page 15 of 63
RGIP - SnmmaTy 1st Round Corna 'Workshops
Juneljuty 1999
- 000072
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
RIVERSIDE
June 21, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Too much emphasis on new development and not enough on developing existing resources
and areas.
• Use existing infrastructure and inf ll —no more stripmalls, fill up the Plaza.
• Add urban limit lines like they have in Oregon and Washington
• Change regional emphasis from consumption to conservation.
• Communities lack a sense of space
• Loss of agricultural land
• Garden communities feel friendlier, safer —We'd like that.
• Diesel truck centers are located next to high school ...leads to bad air quality, traffic dangers
for students
Housing
• New develop should look like old development
• Buildings look temporary —little sense of longevity
• Needs to be better building/community fit
Traffic
• We need options to using the car; like trolleys
• Need bike lanes
• Need different distribution systems (besides diesel trucks) and emission controls
Natural Resources
• Water resources need to be considered, along with conservation, recycling, demonstration
projects, flood management.
What an Ideal Community would be like...
• Sense of community; sense of soul
• Have porous pavement •
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• Can we accommodate the expected population increase with proposed solutions?
• We need to link up with San Bernardino County and others
• Things we support with our taxes are not necessarily picked up at the county line
Page 16 of 63
RCP - Surnrrilry 1st Round Community Workshops
juneijuly 1999
MIG, Inc.
• We need to educate people about how their transportation dollars are spent
Transportation and Access Issues
• There has been a history of ciri7Pns being distanced from transportation information
• I don't know whom to ask about transportation information - how to get from here to there
• We need an alternate route to the 91 but the best alternative is through a kangaroo rat area
• There are no surface alternatives to the 91
• The portion of I-15 between Baseline Road and Route 60 is a recent hotspot
• 60/215 weaving causes a hazardous situation
• The image is that access to Los Angeles is the problem
• The HOV linkage to the Fastrak is underused
• We need alternative access - maglev, more Fastrak, congestion pricing
• Not just freeways but arterials, too
• Ports, airports and trains should be linked
• Freight issues are key in this area
• Truck delivery schedules should be changed to nighttime deliveries - trucks cause daytime
congestion
• Railroads, especially the Colton terminal, cause pollution
• Freight up I-10 to Banning is a problem
• There is a conflict between Metrolink and freight
• Metrolink is infrequent - the freight conflicts add to this problem
• Ariy alternative needs to be assessed for air quality impact
• Incentives for clean fuel conversion are needed
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Area Image
• Historically Riverside County was seen as an oasis with its ideal winters and opportunities
for citrus. It was not the wasteland that many view it as today.
• We need to work on changing the public image of Riverside County and highlight its
positives
• We need to highlight natural abundance of Riverside County - it is a commodity
Community Involvement
• We need to address apathy of citizenry
• People in the County need to be part of the solution
• Riverside Neighborhood Partnership and the Mayor's "Night -Out" have worked well to get
the community involved
Area Assets
• The diversity in Riverside County is a benefit
• Trees are an area asset
• Positive features of Riverside County are its natural qualities
Page 17 of 63
RCP - S1*nmiry 14 Round Cry Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
• The City of Riverside has quality of life benefits: citrus areas, university, mountains,
Victorian homes
Open Space and Development
• We need to prioritize open space
• Planning and management of open areas needs to be continuous - it cannot be piecemeal
• Open space is seen as a positive
• There are empty buildings now, why are we building more?
• We need to get fundsfrom development to acquire and preserve land
• People want to know if the government will buy their land at fair market value to preserve
species
• Places to avoid development and protect include San Jacinto Hills and Gavilan Hills
• Riverside County needs collaborative partnerships to preserve and maintain open space and
habitat
♦ Open space increases air quality and can be a solution for other concerns
• Needs to be a reward for private land owners for management of large chunks of open space
• Wildlife corridors should be multi -use corridors
RESPONSES TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"If 1 could change one thing about Riverside County, it would be ..."
• Keep diesel trucks way from neighborhoods. Establish buffer zones so our community is
safe --in terms of transportation and air quality
• Use existing infrastructure. Establish urban limit lines. Tnfill vacant areas. No more
stripmalls, fill up the Plaza!
• There's too much emphasis on new development and not enough on developing existing
resources and areas.
• Use urban line limits like they have in Oregon and Washington
• Change regional emphasis from consumption
• Eliminate apathy
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations "manners" and "Losers"
Winners
• Metrolink
Losers
• Riverside doesn't incentivize jobs and small business like Orange County does
♦ The auto -oriented society
• Not getting information to voters
• The 60/215/91 interchange
Page 18 of 63
RCS - Snmiry 14 Round CoC=Inisy Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
'`utO00075
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTNE EXERCISE QUESTION:
'When 1 spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• Hiking
• Camping
• Garde, (2)
• Breathing dean air!
• I like walking, horseback riding, and raising children with healthy lungs
• Birdwatching
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Citrus Heritage Park
• UCR Botanical Gardens
• San Jacinto Valley
• Santa Ana River area (the whole length)
• San Jacinto wildlife area
"What do you like about this special place?"
• Quiet, inspiring
• Openness
• It is natural
• Open space / wetlands / birds
"Why is this place important to you?"
• Need for meditation
• Development is a great threat
• It feels wild and far away from civilization, when I ride the trail or camp.
• I keep working to add to it
Page 19 of 63
RC 3 - S.,n,,,,2ry 1s Round Conununity Workshops
June/ju}y 1999
MIG, Inc.
,.+ 000'75
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
JT.JJRUPA
June 22, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Industry has built huge warehouses; semi -trucks (making -deliveries) are too close to our
homes, schools, and areas where children play
• We'd like a new community plan. Too much mixed land use —high school students and
large hauling diesels don't mix.
• No buffer between homes and industries
• Loss of rural appearances —and life style (ability to ride horses and walk without dodging
traffic) as a consequence of industries moving in
• Need to balance "big business' concerns with community values and wishes
• We need coordinated planning to indude living conditions for residents.
Housing
• More affordable housing
• Less density
Circulation
• Need to improve the land use and transportation relationship, to generate an efficient public
(mass) transit system.
Open Space
• Local parks are poorly maintained; dirty, poorly lit
• Horse trails are not maintained.
Air Quality
• County needs to honor the "No truck/diesel moratorium". We want dean air. Risk
assessment is 1700 cancer deaths per 1,000,000.
Other Comments
Community Identity
• Glen Avon has its own identity that of a friendly, (tree -lined), peaceful small town.
• Need beautification and clean up. "Feels like beautification (efforts) stops at the edge of our
area?
• Again, about beautification: "Beautify that part of Rubidoux that needs to be improved. The
improvements made to Rubidoux in '96 were basically pointless. That part of Mission was
in great condition but farther down the road, the street is in bad condition."
• We need to incorporate.
Page 20 of 63
RQP - Snmrnuy 12 Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
,!"}}00170 7 7
Coordination Between Agencies
♦ "Poor coordination and too much infighting between agencies, schools, and parks leads to
inefficiency."
Social Issues
• Address the needs of poor and elderly. They are a large percentage of the population.
Public Participation
+ Community members believe they must become more involved to ensure their views are
heard and respected.
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• Is Jurupa a "sacrifice zone"? We're losing green space and air quality is decreasing
• Other environmental issues are the dust from gravel and aircraft noise
Transportation and Access Issues
Trucks
• Truck traffic/depots
• Being a "sacrifice zone"
• Cumulative impact of local projects
• Trucks are a major issue
• Big trucks transport hazardous waste, cause diesel hot spots and accidents
• Truck safety around schools is a concern
• Trucks damage our streets
• Truck depots cause traffic
Traffic and Speed
• Speed and traffic enforcement
• Why do we have a policy to increase speed? To move more traffic?
• The Highway patrol are our only local traffic cops but they're busy on the freeways
Noise
• Noise is a problem
• Freeway, train and truck noise all impact our area
• There is "soundwall spillover", where noise carries across soundwalls to houses located
inside the noise barrier
• Soundwall promises were made and not kept
• Ontario Airport's night policy causes noise problems for the area
Paige 21 of 63
RCM -SSummdzy1st RoundCommunity Wasicshaps
JuQc/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
753
Surface Street Issues:
• Pedley Road - curves and underpass create a dangerous situation. Speed causes safety and
driveway access problems
• Congestion and slow speeds on Valley Way impacts traffic on Granite Mill Drive - it
becomes a commuter bypass
• The Van Buren Curve needs re -engineering
• Schools are endangered by traffic, especially on Valley Way. Potholes are also a problem on
this street
Public Transportation
• Buses are a problem but Metrolink service is good.
• There are no buses on Etiwanda or Sunnyslope - you have to go to Country Village to
connect to Riverside
• Bus stops are not in safe pedestrian locations - stops should be at intersections/corners -
not mid -block
• School transportation affects both safety and traffic
• Bike lanes are few and far between but they're not a good idea on main streets
• School bus loading zones, esperially at Jurupa Valley School, cause traffic and safety
problems
• The freedom to select your own school has increased transportation problems
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Open Space
• Kills, grass, cows and nature are all assets to area
• Conservation important to preserve open space
• Historically in the 1980's open space was not as high of a priority as growth, development
and employment
• People in the area have an appreciation for nature and for things that are not "man made"
• Santa Ana River, Jurupa Hills, Mountains are all important areas to maintain
Planning and Development
• Residential areas need buffers
• Industrial areas should not be right next to residential areas There is a concern with
exploitation of open spaces
• People recognize that the zoning code is interrelated with some density concerns
• Residents need information on zoning restrictions i.e. "area can be no less than l/ acre
parcels"
Environment
• I-Estorically environmental concerns were low on the priority list
• Environment now has a place at the table and is part of the planning process
• There should be financial incentives to preserve and maintain environment
Page 22 of 63
RCP - Sumrnary 1st Round CommunityWorkshops
Junc/Juty 1999
MIG, Inc.
10OQQ2 9
Requirements for the Plan
• The plans need to consider what is best for people
• Community involvement is important in planning process
• There needs to be a look at the long term, not a focus on short-term gam
• The area needs to be maintained and preserved for our children and their children
• It is a matter of money; we spend money on what is important to us. Need to keep
environment in mind
• Need a regional view, it is the best way to protect reserves and corridors
• We need to recognize that resources are not unlimited
• The Plan needs to balance the rural area's character with infrastructure needs
RESPONSES TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"If I could change one thing about Riverside County, it would be... "
• Incompatible land uses
• Haphazard planning
• Traffic congestion
• Inadequate public transportation exists - "Need up -to -dare transportation"
• Need recreation opportunities for youth (such s skate -boarding parks)- Opportunities for
youths would help deter them from crime."
• Poor air quality - "We need clean air." (4)
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSIONS COMMENTS AND WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
+INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, `POSTCARD HOME,"
I moved here/am still living here because . . ." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see..."
• Fewer people living in our area (than LA or Orange County)
• Nature preserves
You really have to see:
• Acres of green zones set aside to retain the area's rural nature
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations `Winners" and "Losers"
Winners
• None Mentioned
Losers
• Only two bridges for street use from Western Riverside Qurupa Valley) to Riverside City. If
the Van Buren Bridge is down over the Santa Ana River, getting to work is a nightmare
• The 60/215/91 interchange
Page 23 of 63
RCP — Summary 1= Round ComrnamayWoriszJaops
June/July 1999
`. 000080
MIG, Inc.
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
`When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• Driving
• Walking (4) Maybe a walking trail just for walkers in the Glen Avon area
• Relaxing in a lawn chair
• Hiking (4)
• Camping (2)
• Fishing
• Rock -hounding
• Bird watching
• Horseback riding (2)
• Running (4) (in open areas with the dogs)
• Basketball (2)
• Gardening (2)
• Bike riding
• Just being with my family
• Playing tennis, softball, soccer
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Rancho Jurupa Park
• The environment along the Santa Ana River - It is one of the few remaining actual rivers in
Southern California in a growing area We have already lost the L.A. River.
• There are not enough natural places in West Riverside. If there were, I would enjoy a park
that had more grassy areas or recreational places.
• Jurupa Mountains - north of 60 freeway
• Jurupa Hills - north of Limonite Ave, near Valley Way / Jurupa Road and 60 freeway
• Jurupa - Joshua Natural Park
• No, but I feel parks should be improved and added and kept dean
• Louis Rubidoux Nature Center
"What do you like about this special place?"
• It's amazing to be in Rubidoux, it is very serene
• It is natural
• It is nearby. Fairmount Park is crawling with derelicts that make it an unsafe place.
• Undeveloped - grasslands, wildlife, especially the birds, (hawks, etc.)
• The lay of the land
• Accessible to public
Page 24 of 63
RQP - Stirnmmy 1sc Round f romuniry Workshops
Juue/Ju 1999
MIG, Inc.
_ ;000081
"I1hy is this place important to you?"
• It is a family area. It is clean and feels like your in the
• My children can grow up seeing rivers as they should
• There are no lighted tennis courts for people that are
places for children to play safely
• For the horseback riding and hiking
• I live here
• Because there isn't such a place
• It's function in educating the public about nature
Page 25 of 63
RCIP - S•,mmmry 15, Round Community Workshops
June/juhy 1999
mountains
be, not surrounded by concrete
only able to practice at night. No
MIG, Inc
000082
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
CORONA
June 24, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Zoning needs to be sure uses are compatible
Open Space
• Need open space between cities. It provides a sense of place, social character and provides
connections between cities.
Other Comments
Social Issues
• We need to provide more free services for youth -diversion programs, mentoring.
• Schools (facilities) need to be improved.
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• Where does the funding come from?
• How do we get to sustainability?
• Environmental issues are important - all the way from CO, generation to dust and dirt from
gravel pits
• Temecula-Mur ieta buildup impacts our area - land use and transportation policy should be
linked
Transportation and Access Issues
Corridor Alternatives and Linkages
+ There need to be more alternate routes
• Specifically, an east west connection to Orange County other than the 91
• Cut -through traffic makes impacts worse - problems on the freeway create local problems
• There is concern that projects may not match up - specifically the Route 91 auxiliary lanes
• There should be a link with Route 241
• Emergency vehicle delay is a concern - especially if they dose 91- where do emergency
vehicles go?
• Can the southbound 15 connection to the 215 be metered?
• Temescal Canyon is congested - especially with trucks
• Impact of development on traffic and impact of traffic on ability to develop further are both
concerns in our area —developments have been turned down because of congestion
♦ Roadway maintenance funding is inadequate
Page 26 of 63
RCS' — Si -nrir ry 1st Round Community Workshops MIG, Inc.
June/July 1999
000083
Truck Issues
• Truck speed
• We should time truck delivery better or move to just -in -time delivery
• Trash haulers are a problem for our area
• There should be more grade crossings for trains
Public Transit
• Bus service needs improvement
• There are no direct bus routes
• Bus stops are far away
• There is concern with CNG bus expense
Bike Issues
• There should be more infrastructure for bikes
• Bike safety should be improved
• Topography gets in the way of bike use
• We should bring Amsterdam bike policies here — have more bike paths and parkways
Other
• Can transportation funding be used for economic development — specifically supporting
structure for small businesses?
• Freeway beautification should be pursued
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Open Space
• We need to slow down progress
• We like the arm -stretching aspect of this area
• We need to address people dumping odds and ends in open space areas
• It is important to maintain open space
• We need open spacebetween cities. It provides a sense of place, social character and
provides connections between cities
• Concrete is just not as attractive as open space
• It is important to preserve and value open space. Agricultural land and open space needs to
be valued for its open space qualities and not for its potential development value".
Habitat Preservation
• We should keep streams as natural entities
• There is question on where the animals will go when there is growth and development
• We need to respect species territories.
• The overall concern is for animal population, not a specific species
• Species are changing
• Cities are their own ecosystem
Page 27 of 63
RCiP - Snmm.zy 1II Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000084
Values
• If we can promote human respect we can encourage respect of natural items
• We value interaction and close connections with natural world
• The outdoors helps social structures and helps teach peace and understanding
• Zoning needs to be sure uses are compatible
Property Issues
• Property ownership rights need to be factored into the preservation equation
• The dollar amount spent in county fees is not indicative of infrastructure services.
RESPONSES TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"If I could change one thing about Riverside County, it would be... "
• Plant more trees and have a nice park in El Cerrito to have friends and family meet.
• Supervisors should get the word out about these meetings to organizations
• Z would make economic development easier to achieve in the unincorporated areas to bring
in more tax base, which in turn brings better things to El Cerrito.
• Why must all areas be made to look alike? In the uniquely special area of El Cerrito, we are
striving to save our plants, animals and quality of life. It is fast disappearing due to massive
developments surrounding us.
• Keep it as it is on east of 15 on Ontario Boulevard.
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSIONS COMMENTS AND WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . .. " & "When you come visit me you really
have to see..."
• Slow living life style
• Open spaces - not housing tracts
• Help widen Ramon Road Bridge in Thousand Palms
Please Note: (This is a message to Ed Studor)
"Dear Ed Studor:
I am living in beautiful El Cerrito. I am still -living here because I love it when you visit. Let's go
down to scenic Temescal Canyon." (Unsigned)
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
'When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• Looking at other people's gardens
• Picnic with church group
• Camping
• Backpacking
Page 28 of 63
E. P S, ,,,wry 14 Round Comn mnity Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
U0008r5
• Canoeing
• Kayaking
• Hiking (2)
• Fishing
• Bird watching (2)
• Spending time with my registered quarter horses. I used to enjoy the blue sky and dean
water before it became polluted. bused to ride in the chaparral areas before things changed
vastly and are still changing adversely
• Walking, nice parks, natural streams, etc.
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• San Jacinto Wildlife Area (2)
• Gavilan Dills
• Potrero
• Vail Lake
• San Timoteo Creek
• Badlands
• Mystic Lake
• The mining open space area about 4000 acres could co -eat with the mines as a preserve
and harbor and protect sensitive and endangered species that still live there
♦ Temecula
• The hill with the rocks on the very top at Cajalco
• Lake Matthews
• Santa Rosa Plateau (2)
"What do you like about this special place?"
• No traffic - no houses (2)
• Lots of wildlife
• Animals and plants either adapt migrate or die. Many are adapting to stay away from hordes
of people
• View of the lake and surrounding
• I was told that it is a sacred Indian burial ground
• Peace and quiet
• Open, clean air a wonderful place to ride my horse
♦ It is natural - Keep it that way
`Why is this place important to you?"
• Love the quiet and the birds
+ The wildlife is able to survive because of little urbanization
Page 29 of 63
RC[P - Snm,nsry 1g Round Co xtaityWorkshops
June/July 3999
MIG, Inc.
,72
i 4�
• Because I have lived there for over 35 years, I have observed many plants and animals.
There is a quiet, peacefulness when the mines are not blasting. Even the mining activity is
tolerable when you compare it to the vast impacts of the fast developing areas.
• I think, it has to do with our drinking water
• Childhood favorite place
• Birds can fly in and the beauty of the water and trees
• I live there — I moved there to get away from the city and crowds.
• It is kept up that way people can enjoy it.
Page 30 of 63
ROP — S,rm rary 12 Round Community Workshops
Juneljuly 1999
111G, Inc.
00008.7
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
MORENO VALLEY
June 28, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Important to control patterns of growth. We need coherent patterns of growth.
• Too much private property is poorly maintained
• Land use policies have to make it profitable for people to stay in agriculture -We need
agricultural protection.
• Scenic impact of windmills has to be considered.
• View sheds -We need protection and understanding of implications for landowners.
• Beware! Land use restrictions and its impacts may have unintended restrictions (pertaining
to the taking of private property and the cost.)
Circulation
• How will traffic be accommodated?
Housing
• We need low cost housing for elderly, and better coordination between City and County for
this.
Conservation
• Water availability and cost is a concern.
Other Comments
Social Issues
• Overcrowding is increasing crime rate.
• Negative media hurts Moreno Valley.
• Police/public safety, and infrastructure demands are already at a pivotal spot -How are we
going to meet additional demands?
• Important to consider current patterns and levels of public services. We need available
information to make decisions about development.
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• How do our plans mesh with SCAG's plans?
• Moreno Valley development is not in SCAG's model - the model needs to match Moreno
Valley's reality. Moreno Valley industrial development and March Air Force Base need
specific attention
• Can we get a development moratorium while we plan?
Page 31 of 63
RC' - 5umniary 1= Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MFG, Inc.
000088
Transportation and Access Issues
Regional Linkages
♦ The north -south connection with San Bernardino County is key
• Is San Bernardino County being considered in the plan?
• Regional linkage with San Bernardino, San Diego and Orange Counties are important
Congestion and Corridors
• Overall, congestion is a great concern
• Congestion from accidents is especially bad because alternate routes, when they exist, are
congested also - this needs to be considered in the plans
• Route 60 lane drops cause a problem - it goes from 4 to 3 back to 4 lanes
• Should Route 60 improvements be mixed flow or HOV?
• If the grade is fixed it increases Moreno Valley congestion
Interjurisdictional Coordination
• Interjurisdictional continuity is needed on circulation plans
• There should be incentives for consistency (as there are in Orange County)
Truck Issues
• We need to get truck traffic off the freeway
• We need a truck climbing lane on Routes 15 and 215
Rail Needs
• Rail and inter -modal
• Rail service expansion is important - all the way from a Joint Powers Authority for rail
service to freight to high-speed rail
• Consultants should look at the San Jacinto line extension study
• Truck -Rail inter -modal transfers should consider the existing major east -west rail corridor
• Is it possible to do inter -modal transfer at March Air Force Base?
• Is it possible to have rail service along Route 60 into the city?
Metrolink
• Metrolink bypasses Moreno Valley - plans are to go from Riverside to Hemet and not stop
in Moreno Valley
• Lack of Metrolink service from Moreno Valley adds to route 91 congestion
Bus Service
• Accessible public transportation, especially for disabled people, is lacking
• The system is overbooked but only one person is on board - is this a contradiction?
♦ Tie -down abilities for wheelchairs are inconsistent, as is driver training
• Bus service stops too early, especiaily for special events such as the (reworks
• Bike and Pedestrian train connections are important - equestrian trails, too
Page 32 of 63
RCMP _ S,!mmatyr lx Round Community. Workshops
junelJuiy 1999
MIG, Inc.
00008!i
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Special Plains in Rite side Cownty That Neal To Be Maintaiied
Anza Valley
Moreno Valley
4000 Acres of "Cycle Park"
Open Space
San Jacinto (2)
Unincorporated Northern Ills of Moreno Valley
Golf Courses
Davis Road
San Jacinto Wildlife Area (Frills Adjacent to San Jacinto Hills)
Tree Mound
Santa Rosa Plateau
Wildlife Corridors
• Want wildlife corridor linkages
• Animals and plants can not protect themselves
• We enjoy knowing that species are around us
Trails and Equestrian Use
• Would it be possible to create a trail cirde around the county for horse riding?
• We want multiple -use trails
• We do not like motorcycles — they are invasive and scar the area
• Could be possible to create a trail cirde around the County for horse riding?
• An east -west trail connection is possible
• Fire and utility roads are good equestrian trails
• We want more equestrian trails
Development and Open Space
• It is harder to preserve open space once development starts
• People want a "no surprises" agreement and a pre -listing agreement in real estate
transactions
• We need to increase awareness of zoning codes and restrictions
• When people build next to open space they need to be aware of neighboring species and
sign a waiver they understand the conditions
• Cluster homes impact infrastructure. These developments tend to want urban amenities
• Larger lot homes are important to maintain the lifestyle of the Moreno Valley
General Issues
• People in the area value a sense of community
• We have an opportunity to do something now to preserve for the future
• Balance is the key
• We need to increase understanding
RESPONSES TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"If I could change one thing about Riverside County, it would be... "
• Gangs
• Lack of employment
• Kids need more free activities and opportunities
Page 33 of 63
REP - Summ ty 1. Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
:.000090 •
• Poor condition of roads
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSIONS COMMENTS AND WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still 'living here because . .." & When you come visit me you really
have to see . " (Interactive exercise comments are noted with an asterisk*)
• Rural atmosphere - It's a city away from the City
• Natural parks
• No smog at higher altitudes
• Open spaces free of signage
• Parks and programs for kids
• Easy drive to San Diego or Orange County
• Proximity to deserts, mountains, ocean and urban areas
• Open spaces
You really have to see:
• Victoria Avenues, Palm Springs Museum, Mission Inn *
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations "manners" and "Losers"
Winners
• None mentioned
Losers
• The 60/215/9.1 interchange (additional mention)
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"When 1 spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
♦ Horseback riding (2)
♦ Bicycling
♦ Hag (3)
• Multi -use trails
• Open space
• Yardwork
• Gardening
• Enjoying the wildlife and natural settings I can find
Page 34 of 63
RCP - Si' ,ni ry 14 Round Comity Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
.0010,91
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Santa Rosa Plateau (2)
• Bogart Park
• Idyllwild
• Whitewater
• San Jacinto Wildlife area
• Santa Ana River Park, horse trails and bike trails
"What do you like about this special place?"
• Trails, wildlife
"Why is this place important to you?"
• I live here
• All open space is important
• It keeps people off the streets and safe
Page 35 of 63
RQP - S„rryrn y 1s Round Con2nn ity'Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000092
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
PALM DESERT
June 29, 1999
Note: At this workshop, there was a combined discussion of General Plan, Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan and Transportation issues.
Overall Issues and Observations
• Palm Desert, the Coachella Valley and Riverside County are all one system
• Interjurisdictional issues get in the way of implementation
- For example, on 1-10 Caltrans, trucking Coachella Valley Association of Governments,
Federal Agencies (including Fish and Wildlife) and local cities all get into the act
- We need to get commitments to put improvements on the fast track
• We need to mesh idealism with financial and political reality - there are no "quick fixes"
• There are dichotomies in Riverside County:
One is a dichotomy of regions - those on this side of the mountain (Coachella Valley
and beyond) and those on the other side of the mountain (western Riverside County)
The other is a financial dichotomy - especially in this area. We have the high -end vs.
the working people
• The working people need "working wage" jobs
• We need balance in societal values
General Plan Issues
• We need to recognize a plan's vision vs. its reality
• We don't need any more Hollywood glitz. However, visitors maintain vitality. One idea is
to maintain Palrn Springs' eclecticism
• There is a need for more land use planning - we need to recognize what's happening in
Orange County
• The question is how to accommodate a plan when change is rapid
• We need to prevent encroachment on agricultural land
• We also need to manage trash, landfill and recycling issues
• Development is pushing southeast to Thermal but is also increasing in developed areas - we
need to plan for infrastructure requirements in both
• Water control is an issue
We need to look at the Arizona model and use of xeriscapes
Conservation education and practice are key
We need to keep the desert a desert - the look and the ecology - and preserve natural
beauty. There should he less golf course watering and a more natural Landscape
• Bighorn sheep need to be protected
• In general, there is an appreciation of open space
• There is debate on the extent to which we preserve natural habitats, especially large single -
species habitats
Page 36 of 63
RCS' Summary 14 Round Community Workshops
Jure/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000093
We need to look to "lessons learned" from Orange County and Los Angeles County —
prevent ecological issues
• There is question on who benefits from development — do the people in the area benefit or
do "carpetbagger" developers?
• There need to be more opportunities for kids
The Best Things about the Coachella Valley Are...
• The people — the diversity, the residents themselves and our guests
• Its beauty
• The climate
• The lifestyle
• It's a great place to raise kids
• The quality of life
• The open space
• The cost of living
• Agriculture
• Good health care
. • Active philanthropic organizations
RESPONSES TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE,
"If I could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be . . . "
• Get rid of blowing sand, small particles are unhealthful
• Control west side air pollution to our valley
• Where will all the water come from?
• Convert the Salton Sea into a major water resort area
• Preserve the mountain slopes in the Coachella Valley
• Affordable electricity for seniors and low income citizens. SCE us a monopoly and rates
exorbitant.
• Have a major university in Coachella Valley .
• Create a medical university in the Coachella Valley
• Will a train system like the monorail be good for the valley?
• Support Amtrak
• More alternatives for travel destinations via Amtrak
• Better public transportation to and from Coachella Valley
• Ample provisions for bus turnouts and shelters during development review process
• Not have our area turn into L.A. — specifically we need plan for water
• Better schools and more education — maybe a big university in the area
• Improve our cultural and economic mix — stress the importance of a multicultural
environment
• Deal with waste issues
• Get rid of slumlords
Page 37 of 63
RCIP - Summary Round Community Workshops
jurie/july 1999
MIG, Inc.
000094
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE ...
WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"1- moved here/am still living here because . . ." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . "
• The climate
• The beauty and peacefulness of the desert
You really have to see:
• Civic Center and Palm Desert
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations `manners" and "Losers"
Winners
• None Mentioned
Losers
• Hadley trucking uses surface streets at high speed
• Trucks on Highway 60— too scenic for dangerous trucks
• Number of trucks and diesel
• Road maintenance and drainage in Meadowbrook
• Traffic lights not coordinated at streets adjacent to Freeway onramps
• Transportation within Coachella Valley
• No synchronized traffic lights in Coachella Valley
• Uncovered bus stops with no water in Coachella Valley - no wonder people don't take
public transport
• Public transportation to and from Coachella Valley to Riverside and Los Angeles
Page 38 of 63
RCIP — Stamm ry 1stRound Commanily Workshops
]une%july 1999
MIG, Inc.
000095
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
BEAUMONT
July 1, 1999
Note: At this workshop, the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan discussion was combined
with the General Plan and Transportation issues.
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Cabazon needs a modernized downtown.
• In Calimesa, we need to limit growth to preserve rural life style.
• Need to limit expansion of cities.
• Planning should encompass regions. Important to recognize linkage between Beaumont,
Banning, Cherry Valley, Calimesa, and Cabazon. (Collectively called San Gregorio Pass).
• C.O.I.s are important in this area.
• Old buildings need to be preserved and remodeled.
• Prevent piecemeal annexation.
Circulation
• Regional transportation doesn't extend past city boundaries.
• Transportation needs to be addressed better before high -density development takes place.
• Elderly needs should be addressed —especially lack of public transportation —before senior
housing is developed.
Conservation
• Providing enough water for growth is a problem. May need tertiary -treated water.
• Quality of water should be considered.
• Entire Pass needs to be preserved.
Safety
• Housing is built in flood zones.
Air Quality
• Air pollution is a serious problem.
Other Comments
Economic Development
• Jobs to housing ratio are too low.
• Pass should consider establishing a Joint Power Agreement to increase revenue sharing, and
shared services to capture economic benefits.
• Need jobs that create greater disposable income (income that's left after paying taxes)
Page 39 of 63
ROP - Snmmapy 1s Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000096
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• Beaumont is the industrial hub - the Pass is the gateway to the East
• People in the area have a strong belief in the future
• Identity is an issue - we need one name and one Mayor - this workshop title is an indicator
of this: it's called the Beaumont workshop but covers Cherry Valley, Banning, Cabizon and
Calamesa as well.
• There are too many small governments and connections are lost
• Fragmentation of governments makes it difficult to develop corridors and to determine
what's compatible in the area - for example, a proposed Magic Mountain -like theme park
and a GM plant may be incompatible uses
• Without government cooperation we can't determine impacts of transportation,
development and industrial location decisions
Transportation and Access Issues
Significance of the Area
• The Pass is the gateway to the East
• All travel decisions are made in Beaumont
Corridor Preservation
• Five highways converge in Beaumont
• Transportation corridors are important
• We need to take advantage of the opportunity to preserve transportation corridors - this is
the last frontier for open land that still has the ability to access the Los Angeles basin
• If we develop transportation corridors now, industry will go where it should
Transportation and Jobs
• We need to tie transportation decisions to access and economic development opportunities.
We need jobs for young people and the ability for them to access jobs in other areas.
Specifically:
• Open up the 79 corridor to San Diego - that's where the high-tech jobs are
• Consider a passenger airport in this area this is key to development of technical jobs here
in the Valley. Palm Springs airport is tourist -oriented and Ontario is too far away.
Development of Norton Air Force Base is a possibility
Public Transportation
• Get Metrolink extended to this area
• Bus transportation in individual communities is fairly satisfactory but regional connections
are difficult
• People have to transfer between individual systems - some trips take a whole day
• There is no way to access the Palm Springs area by public transit
Page 40 of 63
REP - Sumrnmy 1s Round Communrzy Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000091
Safety and Maintenance
• Routes 60, 10 and 79 are hazardous
• Local road maintenance is poor - we need curbs, sidewalks and striping
Emergency Access
• We need to keep the area open for emergency transportation - all the way from access for
fire crews to hazardous material cleanup (due to large number of trucks and freight trains
coming through) to emergency medical services
• Because medical facilities are few and far between, air evac for medical access is key
Other Issues
• Air pollution is a problem for our area
• We don't want to be another Moreno Valley - Moreno Valley has poor access to jobs, no
public transportation and "no escape" from Highway 60
• Bike lanes are nice but secondary
RESPONSE TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE,
"If I could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be .. . "
• Bus service to and from Palm Springs
• Air Quality. It is getting worse. Should be more emphasis of electric cars and other sources
to replace diesels
• Merge Banning, Beaumont, Cherry Valley, Calimesa into one city - with one city hall and
one government
• Ecology! Ecology! Ecology! Trash disposal. Stripping the land of natural (illegible) that
only increases humidity
• Wild life habitat
• My concern is the commercial and industrial development proposed for San Timoteo
Canyon. It needs to be compatible with open space
• No sewer treatment plant on East San Timoteo Canyon Road
• Protect C.O.Is
• Stop city expansion and leave C.O.Is alone
• More input on water issues and land use
• Job to housing ratio
• Plot out permanent trails in San Timoteo Canyon
• Have you considered monorails?
Page 41 of 63
RCMP - Srinurmy 12 Round C ommitn,ly Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000098
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE . . .
GROUP DISCUSSION COMMENTS & WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . .." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . " (Interactive exercises comments are noted with an asterisk *)
♦ Rural atmosphere (2)
♦ Low property costs
• Beautiful mountains, rolling hills (3)
• Diversity of natural terrain
• Clean air
• County and city work well together
• Open space, quiet (3) *
You really have to see:
• Orchards, scenery, mountains, wildlife (3) *
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations `manners" and "Losers"
Winners
• Lots of open area - please plan use well
• Air conditioned buses
• County road repair
• Less traffic in the Pass area
Losers
• Semi -truck traffic on freeways
• Semi -trucks on city streets
• Truck traffic, accidents and road debris
• Regional access for transit dependent individuals - needs to be more coordination between
providers
• Interstate 10 needs repair where it meets up with the 60
• Street striping
• Banning and Beaumont should be deaned up of all trash
• Too much competition for freeway access (i.e. railroad operations) and 24 hour load and
unload operation
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• Bicyde riding
• Looking at things which do not remind me of urbanization
• Walking the trail in Glen Avon
Page 42 of 63
RCIP - Snrnrn ry 12 Round C,amonmity Workshops
June/July 1'919
MIG, Inc.
000099
• Hiking, long walk with my dog, gardening, growing flowers, BBQ in backyard, bird watching
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• San Timoteo Canyon
• Bogart Parkin Cherry Valley ,
• Edward Dean Museum
"What do you like about this special place?"
• Open space, rolling hills
• Great for outdoor hiking and horseback riding
• Great land and environment
"Why is this place important to you?"
• I live there
• Shade trees and wild animals roam, aesthetic atmosphere
• A great place for all activities
Page 43 of 63
R C tP - Smm� y 1= Round Com.muuiry Workshops
Junc/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
OOU100'
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
LAKE ELSINORE
July 6, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Need curbs and gutters in our area.
• Development's continuing as General Plan is produced. We need a moratorium so that
community can have a "say" in development.
• Potential and future growth can lead to loss of community character.
• City annexation has been piece meal and non-contiguous.
• Prevent urban sprawl through use of sunset clauses.
• Need more sensible boundaries.
• Need open space/wooded area —with parks, playgrounds —in new developments.
• We have inadequate services, infrastructures, water resources, and schools for the new
development (that's taking place).
• Need stronger community input and implementation of EIRs.
• Need a greater variety of shopping areas.
Housing
• Developers don't respect General Plan.
• We need a cost -benefit analysis (reflecting externalities— true cost to society such as
pollution) to calculate what developers should really be paying.
Open Space
• Need barrier (open space) between developments.
• Green belts would help.
• Important to examine what's habitat area and what can be built on.
Safety
• Need stronger restrictions (of where people can build) to protect again natural hazards.
Other Comments
Community Identify
• Need plans to reflect each community distinct interests.
Economic Development
• Need clean industries. Provide policies and incentives to attract them.
Page44of63
RQP — Snmmaty 12 Round Cnmrrilmuy Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
t,
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• The land use -transportation connection needs to be considered, especially in relation to job
creation
- Land use patterns and growth should be considered
- The Temecula area is surrounded by County unincorporated areas - this makes it
difficult for areas such as this to control their own destiny with regard to the land use -
transportation connection
• The Meadowbrook area has been ignored and neglected:
There is no public transit
The community needs a community center
Transportation and Access Issues
• The area needs more alternative forms of transportation:
- There is no dial -a -ride in some areas - there is a need to consider tradeoffs between
dial -a -ride and fixed route
- There may be a possibility of bus maturing to rail
The Moreno Valley area needs rail
The San Jacinto Branch is a possibility
For all public transit, funding resources are a concern
• Road conditions on marry streets and highways are poor - specifically:
- . Residents are concerned that Bundy Canyon and Railroad Canyon cannot handle the
projected growth
- Macy in Meadowbrook needs improvement
- Mission Trail and Olive are hazardous - especially given the overflow from Elsinore
Storm games
- The 91 freeway is crowded and needs resurfacing
• Highway 74 is a particular concern:
- It is dangerous - people question whether the safety figures - specifically number of
fatalities - are accurate
There are no signs, speeding cars and unsafe passing on the highway
The corridor was number one on the .Measure A list but there is confusion as to what
is going to be done and when: widening the 2 -lane road to 4 lanes and straightening
curves. The curve straightening is to be done in the next 18 months but the widening
will take 3-4 years
• Measure A is a resource but results are unclear to some - and it will need to be re -voted
soon
There are concerns whether the promises of Measure A have been kept
Officials need to communicate what has been done - specifically funding of the
60/215 connection, Highway 60 into the Moreno Valley and Rau
Page 45 of 63
RCJP - Serino r 1= Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
0010102
MIG, Inc.
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Spatial Places In Riverside Courgy Thar Need To Be Afazitained
All parks and open space (2)
Santa Rosa Plateau
Riding trails
San Timoteo Canyon
Temescal Canyon
Wasson Canyon
Wetlands
Lake Elsinore
Development
• There is concern over the new Liberty Development, which is at the south end of the lake -
it proposes approximately 8,000 homes
• MWD plans could be at odds with private property rights
• MWD needs to plan mitigations with the city of Lake Elsinore
Water Quality and Environment
• There is concern about runoff into Lake Elsinore and nutrient buildup in lake. Nutrients
build up and then the standing water evaporates, leaving all the damaging runoff byproducts.
The county needs to mitigate this issue.
• There are concerns over shutting down Elsinore Valley treatment plant, due to noise and
during special species habitation
• There are concerns over dumping in open areas - we need better enforcement
Corridors and Equestrian Trails
• Riding trails plans submitted to county have in the past been ignored. Need better
coordination to make sure these plans are included in planning processes
• Have riding trails that connect the Santa Ana River with Lake Elsinore
• Temescal Canyon Road needs to be preserved
Park Development
• Temescal Canyon needs active and passive parks
• There is concern over the low priority that the county gives its parks
• We need a policy for mainraining parks. An adaptive management plan will need funding.
• The money to maintain parks could come from user fees. "If you want to use it - you need
to pay for it".
• There is concern over developers .trading land for less desirable areas for park and open
space designation
• Some donated parks have been designated not to have user fees.
• Temescal Canyon area needs parks and could be different types at different sites
Lake Elsinore and Wetlands
• Lake ownership issues include: the bottom, water and surface areas - these are all owned by
different parties
• Land around lake is all privately owned. The launch ramp is the only revenue generator for
the City
+ We need to increase awareness of wetland areas and their benefits
Page 46 of 63
RC!? - Summary 1II Round f ormmmin, Workshops MIG, Inc.
June/July 1999
`:000103
Voter Involvement
• There could be $57 million dollars for parks in the Inland area is state bond passes
• Low local voter turnout has hurt local after school programs, especially those associated with
the Ortega Trail
RESPONSE TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION,
"If I could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be . . . "
• Political representation. Meadowbrook is split between three County Supervisors that's why
nothing is ever achieved_
• Speed limit enforcement on 74. And we see too much passing on double lines
• Do. the 74 in Meadowbrook
♦ To build a community center and provide public transportation in Meadowbrook
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSION COMMENTS & WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . .." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . " (Interactive exercise responses are indicated with an asterisk")
• Open Space (6) "Preserve, carefully planned"
• Affordable housing
+ Country life style
You really have to see:
• Donkey, pigs, sheep, ducks, chicken, dogs, cats, and k -rats
• The outlet center
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations "Winners" and "Losers"
Winners
• None Mentioned
Losers
• Lack of planning and permitting development without infrastructure
• Planned rerouting of Cajalco Road
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing...
• Reading and gardening
Page 47 of 63
RGIP - Snm.,y 14 Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc
000104
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Citrus Park
• Mystic Lake (2)
• Temescal Wash
"What do you like about this special place?"
• Scenic landscapes
• Except for farming, it is pretty much left natural
• Natural area
`Why is this place important to you?"
• Historical value
• Natural habitats
• It is neat to see all the birds and wildlife
Page 48 of 63
RQP - 5„mn,ary 1sr Round miry Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
00,0105
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
PERRIS
July 8, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Loss of agricultural land should be addressed.
• Important to recognize that development standards and interests may differ between very
rural area and urban areas. For example, rural areas with migrant workers need economic
opportunities —jobs!
• We need soft transitions between urban areas and open space habitats. Important to
establish urban limit lines.
• We want well -planned growth that makes development economically feasible
• Development is fine if we keep our small -town -feel
Circulation
• Transportation needs to be improved for all. East/west corridors especially.
Housing
• Adequate lot size is preferred over small lots with large homes
• A variety of housing styles is preferred, including a mix of lot sizes, to avoid boring
developments. Design standards would help.
Open Space
• Higher density is fine if open space is allocated for public use (trails, parks) within
developments.
• Ecosystem approach preferred over establishing large areas for habitat. Development
shouldn't be disrupted. Clarity of purpose for habitat preservation is important.
Conservation
• Water resources need to be address
Other Comments
Economic Development
• Jobs and housing balance is a concern.
American Indians
• Tribal councfis should be involved in this planning.
Page 49 of 63
RCM - Summary is Round Cominmit3rWodishops
June/July 1999
MEG, Inc.
• t 04 o
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
Transportation and Access Issues
• Interested in seeing Metrolink to Perris, especially the downtown area
• Why does LAFCO draw boundaries down the middle of the road? Meadow Brook has
been paying for thirty-five years
♦ Ensure coordination of improvements
• Need public transportation to poorer areas in order to facilitate welfare -to -work programs
(3)
• Need other transportation options like shuttles and T.RI.P
• Especially need inter -city transportation
• Avoid impacting cities and communities trough transportation facilities that create sprawl
• Explore alternative modes of transportation
• Make cities more self contained to promote walking and biking
• Create landscaped, appealing freeways
• We need more freeways
• Need better communication between Caltrans and ROTC to speed economic development
• Need many modes of transportation plus good inter -modal connections, such as pedestrian
facilities and shelters and equestrian trails
• Balance increasing alternative arterioles with open space
Issues Concerning Highway 74
• Concern regarding widening of Highway 74. People are frustrated about impacts. Need
better communication with residents
• Concerned regarding large housing development project. Need better communication with
residents
• County needs to be more involved in envisioning Highway 74 improvements. Cahrans and
the county are not in sync. It is unclear what the right-of-way impacts will be
• Need to fast track the environmental review process and identified improvements
Comments from Transportation Map
• County work -welfare program representative is concerned about lack of transit service
along Gavilan and Cajalco roads: people living in these areas need access to jobs in Perris
and Temecula
• State parks representative expressed interest in working with the planning effort to enhance
wildlife corridors between Perris Lake and San Jacinot Wildlife Preserve. Also concerned
with the widening of the 71 freeway and that it not expand outside current right-of-way
• Need an east -west connection, especially to serve traffic from Eastside Reservoir
♦ Make highway 74 a direct connection
♦ Improve the 4th Street - Placentia ramps
♦ Need freeway to continue the alignment of 79 north to 74 to the 60
• Need access north from the 60 to San Bernardino County
• Need expressway along Cajalco Road
Page 50 of 63
RCIP - Summary 1s Round Commvnuy Workshops
June/Juh 1999 MIG, Inc.
000107
• Need Metrorail extension to Perris from Riverside
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Special Places In Rize side Cory 7hat Ned To Be Maintained
San Jacinto Riverbed Mystic Lake
Lake Perris
San Jacinto Wildlife Area
Waterways
• We need to preserve natural waterways
• We need to keep the San Jacinto riverbed natural
• People support the state conservation board buying areas surrounding Mystic Lake
• We need to keep Mystic Lake shallow — Lake Perris is a deep water lake
Preservation and Open Space
♦ We need to preserve open space
• The plan needs to strike a balance between growth and preservation
• The cost of preserving open space is not "too much" — it will be much more expensive later
• We want urban limit lines for cities to prevent further annexation
• Community members love the open space and rural character of area
• We need to make a connection between rural character and preservation of open space
• Perris and surrounding areas need more parks, both passive and active
Wildlife and Habitat Conservation
• Sycamore Canyon needs a habitat conservation area
• There is a lack of connectivity of areas
♦ There are economic issues in preservation, again the key is balancing preservation with
growth
• New and existing freeways and arterials need to maintain or create habitat corridor crossings
• Improvement" is defined as returning area to whatever the historic habitat and natural
dynamic was
Transportation Corridors
• There is a concern that people will want a north/south. corridor that could cut through the
San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Mystic Lake. We want alternative forms of transportation
realised first
• Measure A has not been implemented. It included rail into Perris and improvements on
I-Eghway 74
• The Highway 74 extension will hurt downtown Perris and could pose safety issues for
schoolchildren trying to cross
• There is a need for a Chino Hills and Prado Base connection
Page 51 of 63
RCS' a S m-rrn2 y 1= Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
►��: c ,, ,�,_ OO�J10�
RESPONSES TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE,
"If you could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be . . . "
• Transportation for the elderly in areas like Hemet. Better access to L.A.
• Metrolink connection to and from the communities to cut down traffic and emissions
• Upkeep on roads especially concentrating in Mead Valley. Develop Cajalco to be 4 lanes
traveling to Corona
♦ Political mind set from conservative thinking to Democratic, Dialectic view
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSION COMMENTS & WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . . ." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . " (Interactive exercise comments are noted with an asterisk")
• Parks
• Small town feel
• Rural areas (3)
• The people - genuine and caring
• Community involvement - ability to shape our community
• Green grass and flowing water
• Education facilities, colleges/universities *
• Career alternatives *
• Proximity to oceans, mountains, deserts *
• Orange groves *
• Orange Festival, Market street where I can play in misters and see waterfalls. I like hiking in
Citrus Park (Van Buren). (comments from a five year old child) *
You really have to see:
• BMX (Penis Speedway) raceway* (comments from a nine year old child)
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
'When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• Landscaping (at home), passive use of open space, picnics, fishing, and walking and
observing
• Gardening, hiking (2), camping
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Lake Perris
• SJ CDFG Reserve
• None in particular, but any place with groves of trees, water ways and hillsides
Page 52 of 63
RCP -- SI=mm tty 1st Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000109
"What do you like about this special place?"
• It's bio-diversity
• These types of places allow us to unwind, to think. Kin of like having a window with a view
at your office
"Why is this place important to you?"
• It is a SKR love reserve and I'd like to see it expanded and preserved
Page 53 of 63
RQP - 5trrnpsity 1= Round Community Workshops
Juue/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000110
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
BLYTHE
July 13, 1999
Note: At this workshop, there was a combined discussion of General Plan, Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan and Transportation issues.
Land Use
• Land use designations make it prohibitive for low-income populations to have an affordable
home --(For example, mobile (affordable) homes aren't allowed in some areas by zoning
code).
Housing
• Housing shortage exists, in general, because of large number of prison employees (have
moved in)
• Lack of affordable homes in our area; too much sub -standard housing exists in low-income
areas, such as Ripley, (near Blythe) with outdoor plumbing ("outhouses") in some cases.
Conservation (Preservation)
• Important to preserve ancient Native American sacred sites, such as Giant Intaglios Figures
Safety
• (The need for) Hydrocarbon mitigation —as petroleum products from previous gas stations
mix with the high water table —affects development (prohibitively expensive) along
Hobsonway
RESPONSE TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION,
"If I could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be . . . "
• This area is referred to as the stepchild of Riverside County. We are sometimes forgotten
communities and left out of projects, plans, etc.
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSION COMMENTS & WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . . ." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . " (Interactive exercise comments are noted with an asterisk*)
• Generations of my family have lived here
You really have to see:
• Sacred sites and surrounding hills that are filled with petroglyphs and geoglyphs.
• Richness of culture. You really have to see the Colorado River and Intaglios
Page 54 of 63
RCS' - Siimm2ry 1II Round Coroccanany Workshops
Juneljuly 1999
MIG, Inc.
000111
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
HEMET
July 15, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• Schools need physical improvements.
• School facilities should offer multi -uses.
• Concern for the policy of large parcel zoning (one dwelling unit per 10 acre) in Eastside
Reservoir area. (May be too restrictive)
• Should use the expertise of agricultural landowners (regarding economic feasibility) to
determine agricultural land policies. Consider the use of T.D.R. (as in northern California).
• Need more development within the city.
• Developers need to consider infrastructure demands, and water resources before building.
• Regarding vacant areas: land use projections and possible impacts should be considered.
Circulation
• Streets are too narrow. Can't ride bikes or walk safely. Weren't designed to support change
in Hemet from retirement community to family community. Need to examine patterns of
growth impacts —not just circulation —on families.
• There's inadequate public transportation.
• Alternative modes of transportation needed.
Open Space
• Need more green space in developments.
Other Comments
Coordination Between Agencies
• Need better planning between schools, states, and cities to correlate the needs/ways to meet
those needs.
• Need streamlined permit process for development.
Social Issues
• Community youths need pre -job training and more activities.
• Important to provide senior services and intergenerational activities (such as mentoring of
youth by seniors)
• Community needs more access to information about the services (mentoring, for example)
that are available. We should tap into the local colleges as resources.
Page 55 of 63
RG[P - Summary 1¢ Round City Workshops
June/july 1999
MIG, Inc
000112
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• People support the concept of having an integrated planning process:
• It is important to plan and put improvements in place before it's too late
• People need to thing "big picture" for Riverside County and not focus on the small things
• People need to consider wants vs. needs
• There is great value in getting to know County staff as people - and having them answer
your questions and concerns. They are more responsive than people sometimes give them
credit for!
• Residents need to support Measure A and get it re -voted
• But there are some who question what has been done with Measure A
• Volunteers are a key resource in the Hemet community - as people age the lack of public
transit will be a hindrance to this resource
Transportation and Access Issues
Transportation and Development
• There is a need to consider land use and transportation connections:
• We anticipate an influx of visitors to the Reservoir - what will be the impact on corridors?
• Transit needs to be linked to job access, opportunities and development - For example,
DPSS is relocating to the old Sears building - what will access be like?
• There needs to be transit linkage to the colleges
Rail and Guideways
• Rail is a need and an opportunity:
• Passenger rail needs to be extended and expanded
• Light rail should be considered
• The freeway corridors could be used to move buses
• Rail speed needs to be improved for freight
• People need to consider the rail -economic development connection
Public Transit Access
• Public transit in general is a problem in the area. There is lack of knowledge and
confidence in the system:
• Some contend that no one believes in mass transit
• Some question whether people in the area will ever use transit
• The Southern California population in general is difficult to serve with transit
• Low demand causes less use and higher per passenger costs
• The public should be re-educated about mass transit and its benefits
• More buses are needed but long delivery time is an issue
Page 56 of 63
RCIP - S mmatr 14 Round Comsmuniry Workshops
J'nef'alY 1911 0 113
MIG, Inc.
Special Transportation Issues
• There are serious gaps and needs in the transit system
Dial -a -Ride is "the joke of the Valley" - the bumping system results in cancellation of
trips at the last minute and people in the middle (specifically Seniors who aren't
disabled) fall through the cracks
There is no transportation for kids after school - no one is responsible
A park -and -ride is needed - especially at Ramona and Sanderson - where car-poolers
could meet up
Highway Issues
• The area needs better roads out of town:
• The area is sometimes "locked in" after rainstorms because of eroded or flooded roads -
Drainage is especially a problem on 79, South State, Ramona and the bridge to Idyilwild
• Overall quality and capacity of the roadway system serving Hemet blocks emergency and
other access
• Highway 79 needs improvement - some things are being done but more is needed
• Highway 74 between Perris and Elsinore is also dangerous
• Ramona Expressway needs to be expanded to 4 lanes and extended to Valle Vista
• Hemet needs to be connected to the airport
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations:
• Concerned about the assumptions of the doubling of population -self-defeating assumption
• Let's see projections and policy decisions
• Concern that the Kangaroo Rat process took eight years. That one species took so long,
how long will a multiple species process take?
• Like animals -but how about private property rights? A balance is needed between
preservation and property rights.
• Concern that Kangaroo Rat property has been removed from tax rolls
• Do not want the area to be like the San Fernando Valley
• Recognize that the Board of Supervisors has the final decision
• The state and federal government have to help with land acquisition.
• Endangered species study. How in depth is it?
• How do other species interact?
Community Involvement
• Need more input into policy decisions. Community needs to be actively involved.
Housing and Redevelopment Issues
• Low lands development is more accessible.
• Incentive should be provided for farmers to preserve agricultural land
Area Asset
• Eastside Reservoir -New recreation areas attract water contact, boating, camping, golf
Page 57 of 63
RCP - Summary is Round Community Workshops
June -/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
1t ti ,,
000114
Transportation
• Transportation issues surround Eastside Reservoir. Shouldn't impact surrounding
communities.
Requirements for the Plan
• The Plan should include funding mechanisms —One area should not have to pay for all of it.
• Green belt areas
• Reforest where fire damage
• More open space/with reason .
• Want to make sure plan looks at integrated corridors
• The MSHCP should rely on existing information, data generated at University of California
at Riverside, while gathering new data
• Study resources collaboratively with University of California at Riverside
• It was suggested that there be a computer keyword search —MSHCP
Development and Open Space
• Concern about preserving snakes, gophers, rodent population
• Need healthy natural areas
• Islands —for the most part self -managing but as developing encroaches, they need more
outside managing
RESPONSE TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION,
"If I could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be . . . "
• Transportation within our community and to nearby communities (3) *
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE...
GROUP DISCUSSION COMMENTS & WRITTEN COMME/sITS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . .." 67 "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . " (Interactive exercise comments are noted with an asterisk*)
• County services are good
• Building department was very helpful, easy to work with.
• Friendly, small town feeling (3) * .
• Community involvement thrives *
• Preservation of the natural environment *
• Natural beauty *
You really have to see:
• The Ramona Bowl and the mountains *
• The Natural I-Estory Museum *
• Idyllwild and our hills *
• The new reservoir (3) *
Page 58 of 63
RCP - Snmrn2Ty 1= Round Community Wodtshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
000115
+ Sight from driving from Lamb's canyon
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
Transportations "manners" and "Losers"
Winners
• Retirement areas provide own transportation
• Road to Idyllwild is o.k.
f Traffic lights on Florida provide almost non-stop flow of traffic
• There are a lot of routes to travel in lots of directions
Losers
• Need improved bus service between Hemet and Riverside or extension of Light Rail Service
• Stetson at Soboba needs repaving
• Seniors who shouldn't be driving are still driving!
• Efforts should be increased to encourage commuters to carpool!
• The damage that cars and trucks do to air quality
• Road condition - repave 79
• Divide and widen Ramona Expressway
RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION:
"When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... "
• . Fishing, deer hunting, water Skiing, biking, softball
• Gardening, picnic in mountains, hike a bit in forest with NO FEE!
• Hiking, swimming and driving through the county discovering new places
• Camping, fishing, bike riding, hiking and swimming
"Is there a special natural place in Western Riverside County that is important to you to
maintain? (i.e. Lake Matthews, Santa Rosa Plateau)"
• Simpson Park
• Mount San Jacinto
'What do you like about this special place?"
• It's naturalness
• All of Mount San Jacinto range
"Why is this place important to you?"
• Beauty / quiet / space
♦ For my soul
Page 59 of 63
RCP — Sinrninary 12 Round Conar=rty Workshops
Jusae/July 1999
M[G, Inc.
000116
Riverside County Integrated Plan
Community Workshop Summary
SUN CITY
July 16, 1999
General Plan Discussion
Land Use
• How will growth be accommodated and our rural beauty preserved?
• There's an inadequacy of school sites —and parks —for our growing population.
♦ We're not anti -growth but we need a balance between progress and growth.
• Urban limit lines (as in Portland) would control growth.
Housing
• We need mix of housing styles (single family, apartments) to meet needs and lifestyles.
Circulation
• Roads in our area need to be improved (better maintenance).
• Transportation corridors will destroy rural qualities by inducing growth.
Open Space
• Natural wild life is better than more housing.
Conservation
• Water quality is a concern.
Other Comments
Quality of Life
• It's getting too crowded. Crowds are visiting the dam and causing littering and speeding on
our streets.
Economic Development
• We need jobs for growing population ... Let's make them clean industries so we have no
more air pollution.
Communication
♦ We need better communication with county. There's no contact when we have a problem.
• Need clarity of language so we know what's being proposed. (Recent rezoning made some
people feel confused, frustrated).
Land Value
• The value of my property has been devalued so much I can't sell (Why I am still living here.)
Page 60 of 63
RCP - Stu -Tunny is Round Cornrnrn y'Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
UO0117
Transportation Discussion
Overall Issues and Observations
• Sun City, is an unincorporated area and has no "official" representation
• However, incorporation would be difficult because of the area's limited tax base
• In addition, people in the area couldn't afford the taxes
• One possibility is to get a Civic Association together that would represent the area for the
County Supervisor - However, the question would be defining the boundaries: who is
represented inside and outside of Sun City?
• The public needs to know the details of road plans - there are many uncertainties and
questions:
• What are the dates of completion
• What types of improvements are planned
• How can the County best get the word out?
Transportation and Access Issues
Public Transportation
• The dial -a -ride service is outrageous:
• There is a long wait for people (-Ailing in to schedule rides
• The return trip scheduling is unreliable
• There is no driver assistance - drivers seem to use excuses not to access facilities (for
example, overhanging trees damaging vehicles)
• For much of the service, people have to be ADA certified - however, the only certification
is done in Riverside
• Fixed route service no longer meets the area's needs:
• Services have been cut - trips that used to take an hour now take 2 to 3 hours
• For policy reasons, welfare to work transportation has replaced Senior transportation
Highways and Roads
• Newport widening is necessary but controversial:
• Widening Newport will bring in more traffic
• But it brings better transportation - we need to realize that growth is going to happen
• There are left turn problems out of driveways
• Scott Road should be considered as an alternative
• Development has had an impact on roads - especiallyNewport but, in general, all east -west
connections:
• There is much development on the books along Newport Boulevard from Goetz to
Menifee
• We have fantastic freeways but development brings truck traffic - especially gravel trucks
• Other Access Issues:
• Road condition in Riverside County is poor
• There is confusion on Eastside Reservoir access plans - does the County have them)
• The area supports French Valley airport expansion plans
Page 61 of 63
Rm' - Summary 1= Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999
000118
MIG, Inc.
The area isn't particularly interested in regional transportation - even if people had regional
transportation they couldn't get to it
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion
Special Places in Rizerside Cowry That Neal To Be Maintain
Lake
Matthews
Santa Rosa Plateau
HILs behind the west side of Sun City
Mystic Lake
I North Peak
Warm Springs Creek
Ortega
L I-iighway
1
Cleveland National
Forest
Kabian Park - Bureau of Land Management and County land
Issue Areas:
Overall Issues and Observations:
• Many people moved to Riverside County for open space and the rural feel of the County
• The Plan needs to have an adaptive management plan
• Less responsible people should not be able to sue due to negligence
Housing and Redevelopment Issues:
• Want to preserve landowners' rights
• Need to balance preservation with property rights
Open Space:
• Some areas should be reserved for observations - not all should be for active recreation
• Areas without access could be kept as "extras" to other preservation areas
• Need to have open space between cities
• We have trails in place - we need to build from existing resources
• There is plenty of recreation available
• People are concerned about litter in recreational areas
Habitat Preservation:
• Need to have information on rules and "common sense" in dealing with wildlife.
• For botanical species, translocation can be unique - it is associated with soils
• Needs to be a native -exotic balance
• T anger animals require larger areas to roam but population growth can get in the way
• Animals need corridors and areas without intrusion from people
• Diversity is key to a healthy habitat
• The food chain can be disrupted by development
RESPONSE TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION,
"If I could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be . . . "
• Their attitude towards the people who they are supposed to be trying to serve.
Page 62 of 63
RCIP — Siipimary 14 Round Comrmmiry Workshops
June/July 1999
MIG, Inc.
°� +_000119
WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE ..
GROUP DISCUSSION COMMENTS 8c WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM
INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "POSTCARD HOME,"
"I moved here/am still living here because . .." & "When you come visit me you really
have to see . . . " (Interactive exercise comments are noted with an asterisk *)
• Open space
• Rural life style
• Wild animals (No more cows, though!)
• Potential to accommodate growth by planing. (We can) take the best of Orange County
and mix with our rural life style.
• I love the area and the quiet. You really have to see the mountains, blue skies, clean air, the
stars at night (2) *
• I am living here because it is so clean, well -maintained, low crime rate and mainly the very
nice senior areas. *
You really have to see:
• My trees and flowers, nice view of the hills. *
• The wineries in Temecula and the reservoir that's being built *
• The nice people who live here (2) *
Page 63 of 63
RQP - 5mmma y 12 Round Community Workshops
June/July 1999 P
MIG, Inc.
I 000120
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FOCUS GROUP REPORT
August 18, 1999
000191
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 3
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWING 4
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 6
FOCUS GROUP LOCATIONS AND METHOD 7
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSANTS 8
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY 10
PLANNING AND GROWTH IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 13
TRANSPORTATION 18
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 22
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
Appendix 1--Screener
Appendix 2 --Focus Group Outline
Appendix 3 —List of Participants
00012??
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 3
INTRODUCTION
This report contains the findings of the four focus groups conducted for Riverside
County on the topic of long-term planning. The research was designed to follow up an
extensive public opinion survey of the county. At present, Riverside County is in the
process of creating a long-term plan to deal with transportation and environmental
issues as the County continues to experience rapid growth. Topics explored in the
research include general feelings on the state of the county, transportation,
environment, and planning in Riverside County. The video and audio tapes are
available for further documentation of our findings.
9001, 3
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 4
FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWING
Focus group discussions yield qualitative data based on in-depth discussions with
a limited number of people. Focus groups provide the discussants with an opportunity to
explain their answers, and allow the discussion leader to probe more deeply than is the
case with other forms of interviewing. Focus group interviews differ significantly (and
must therefore be interpreted differently) from interviews in random -sample public opinion
surveys. In addition, focus groups cannot substitute for large-scale public opinion survey
interviews. Although every effort is made to select groups of respondents who are
"typical" of the community, statistical representation of the community as a whole is not
possible with such small groups. Focus groups, however, do provide some indication of
why people hold an opinion and the reasoning informing those views.
Focus group results must be viewed cautiously for a number of reasons. First,
under even the very best group leadership, a group dynamic emerges. Certain
individuals may through their style, personality, or loud voice, dominate and set the tone
for a particular group. Second, the questions raised by the leader, although open-ended,
sometimes are suggestive of ideas and concepts that may not at first occur to the
discussants. Third, there may be a tendency for a group consensus to emerge because
of the reluctance of individuals to differ with others in the group. Fourth, real conditions or
actions, such as attending a meeting, writing a letter in support of a project, altering
patterns of consumption or engaging in political action cannot be extrapolated from
r� s
000124
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 5
comments made in a focus group. Finally, individuals who can be recruited to participate
for a $60 or $75 fee are likely to be somewhat more interested in the topic than the
"average" person, or have more time on their hands, or simply need the money more than
those who are called as prospective discussants but who decline to participate.
000125
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 6
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Dr. Robert Meadow, President of Decision Research, moderated the
discussions. In each of the groups, the discussion followed an outline developed in
conjunction with Patrick O'Reilly from Stoorza, Ziegaus and Metzger, Inc. The
discussion guide, which is attached to this report, allowed for the discussants to explore
the topics guided by the moderator, with suggested time limits for each topic. Some
topics were raised directly by the moderator, others emerged from the discussion, so
the order in which topics were raised and discussed varied slightly from group to group.
They were not told who was sponsoring the groups. The discussants were encouraged
to speak honestly and from their personal experiences rather than to try to forge a
consensus on the topics under discussion. Each discussion session lasted two hours.
00012E
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 7
FOCUS GROUP LOCATIONS AND METHOD
Four focus group discussions were held, with each group selected for the
diversity of its population and geographic location. The areas selected were Corona,
Norco and Riverside (August 2; 6:00 PM Group), Moreno Valley/Perris (August 2, 8:00
PM Group), Coachella Valley, including Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio, Rancho
Mirage and Indian Wells (August 3), and Temecula/Murrieta/Hemet (August 4). The
August 2 and 4 sessions all occurred at a centrally located facility in Riverside, CA. The
sessions took place at 7:00 PM in each location except on August 2, when one session
was held at 6:00 PM and a second was held at 8:00 PM.
The first two groups and the final session were held at Atkins Research Group's
focus group facility in Riverside. The third group was convened at the Marriott Rancho
Las Palmas in Rancho Mirage, near Palm Springs. Atkins Research Group recruited all
participants. In each location, discussants. were seated around a rectangular
conference table. The room was equipped with invisible recording microphones, and a
one-way mirror for observation purposes. At the Rancho Mirage location, the room was
equipped with closed circuit television.
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE8
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSANTS
1
Based on criteria established in conjunction with Riverside County, all
discussants were between 25 and 65 years old, an age group chosen because they are
more likely to be rooted in the community, more likely to be focused on the future than
the oldest residents, and more likely to be users of County facilities, including
transportation and recreational facilities. There were twelve to fifteen discussants in
each group. All groups contained a mix of men and women and represented a full
range of incomes. By appearance and demeanor, participants ranged from working
class to middle-class (although some in the Palm Springs group were more
prosperous), consistent with the demographics of each of the areas. In the
Riverside/Norco/Corona group, the discussants were exclusively white. Most
participants had moved from Orange County or other areas within Southern California.
In the Moreno Valley group, there were two African -Americans, two Latinos, and one
Native American. In the Moreno Valley/Perris group, there was a mix of newcomers to
the County and longtime residents of the area. In Palm Springs, few of the participants
were born in the area, although several were longtime residents. Many were
transplanted from New York, Illinois or Nebraska, not from elsewhere in Southern
California, as was the case in the other groups.
In the Riverside group, there was a real estate agent who was knowledgeable
000128
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 9
about land and zoning laws. In the Moreno Valley discussion, a retired truck driver
emerged as the group's leader. No one individual dominated the conversation at the
Palm Springs session. In the Temecula group, one woman, a homemaker and Mary
Kay saleswoman, in her thirties was very vocal and helped shape the discussion.
Discussants in the Moreno Valley lacked a familiarity with environmental issues
and instead focused on more immediate economic needs. Participants from Palm
Springs, Riverside and Temecula were more affluent and focused on how growth was
effecting their communities.
The screener and the sheets are attached to this report.
000V.I.
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 10
PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Participants were asked about their general feelings about the direction of
Riverside County. Generally, residents were positive about their local community, but
overall, less enthusiastic about Riverside County. Indeed, their focus was largely on
their own city. For many of the discussants, Riverside as a County was not important to
their thinking about any of the issues such as growth, planning or transportation. In
many ways, they reflected a segmented and unintegrated Riverside County, one with
many cities, but no overarching identity. Several said the County was too large and too
diverse to consider it a single entity.
One important exception was participants from Moreno Valley who were highly
critical of the County's condition. These residents felt that the population was growing
too fast and had few positive things to say about Riverside County. Moreno Valley
participants concentrated on the empty stores in their neighborhoods and the lack of an
adequate police force. As expected, these working class residents focused on
improving wages and the overall economic situation in the County, rather than
increasing recreation facilities or other topics they viewed as secondary to daily
necessities. All other issues, especially transportation and the environment, were
framed as influencing the economy. If transportation improvements would facilitate high
quality industry in the County, then the participants expressed support. However, if
r' t
000130
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 11
saving endangered species might obstruct economic opportunity, or is a roadblock to
advancements, residents opposed the measures. In addition, participants from other
areas pointed to Moreno Valley as an example of where things went wrong. Some even
seemed "thankful" that they did not live in that area.
Opinions also varied among the three other discussion groups. For example,
participants from Riverside, Corona and Norco were more concerned with quality -of -life
issues, such as graffiti and increasing traffic. Many residents, especially women in the
group, mentioned the increasing danger of gangs. One participant, a Republican
woman in her late 30s, said she felt sorry for the kids in higher grades because of the
danger and worries about safety in the high schools. However, these participants were
happy to see the increasing growth of Riverside County, but wanted to see the
expansion of facilities, such as wider roads and more schools, to accommodate the
newcomers. These voters were very focused on traffic issues
In Palm Springs, participants felt generally good about their immediate area, but
feared that the booming. population may destroy their way of life. Participants reacted to
the future consequences of growth rather than concentrating on current problems that
needed immediate attention, such as quality -of -life issues, such as increasing cultural
opportunities and heavy local traffic, also were areas for improvement.
The conversation in the Temecula/Murrieta group also contained similar
concerns about growth. Participants felt that things in Riverside County are going well,
especially in comparison to Orange County, but the County needs to better prepare for
the effects of an exploding population. There was a sense of Temecula as a special
00013?'
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 12
place that might well be ruined with more growth. Virtually all the discussants indicated
they moved to Temecula because of the quality -of -life, the beauty and ease of living,
but they feared that quality of life might be compromised in the future. Several residents
pointed to the heavy traffic and overcrowding in Orange County as something their
County needs to combat,
All groups expressed low trust in government. Participants were skeptical of tax
increases, including an increase in the sales tax, because they fear that the money will
be misappropriated. Many participants pointed to the need for a reviewing system or
auditing system to enforce responsibility or accountability from public officials. One man
in the Riverside group felt that funds dedicated to environmental projects also suffered
from waste. A top priority for him was
"keep[ing] our tax dollars here [in California and Riverside County] instead
of giving it to the rest of the country.... One of the things that is a total
waste... is spending millions and millions of dollars to build a sound wall
through a forest. 'Oh, we can't let these little animals listen to the cars ride
by." Give me a break."
{J i 13
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE13
PLANNING AND GROWTH IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Almost no participants were knowledgeable about a long-term plan for Riverside
County. When asked to consider a plan, most residents failed to look far enough into
the future. For example, one participant thought ten years would be planning far in
advance. Many participants, especially those in the Moreno Valley, failed to see
beyond the current situation.
A. Support Network for Growth
Many residents seemed eager to improve infrastructure planning, such as
widening roads, building more schools, and other facilities necessary for a growing
community. Participants felt that too often in the past these steps where taken after
population growth instead of anticipating it.
Participants in Riverside linked the close proximity of houses with overcrowding
and thus, societal problems. One Democratic man in his forties commented, "I would
not want to be a kid right now and have to go to school. It's not safe." Another man, a
Republican in his late -30s, pointed to "a lack of communication from surrounding areas"
that resulted in "too many shopping malls." From his point of view, local governments
are not working together and thus, overbuild certain things.
Those from the Moreno Valley were more critical of the pace of growth. One man
over 60 thought that the area is growing "too fast" , but another man in his 30s
000t32
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 14
complained that "businesses are closing, something is going wrong..." and some areas
in the Moreno Valley are a "ghost town." Despite the pessimism in Moreno Valley
rooted in the struggles of every day life, including long commutes and declining
property values, not all participants expressed as bleak. portraits of growth. A woman in
her 40s complained that it is a buyer's market for real estate, but still felt confident
about her life because her son "just got into a magnet school."
In Palm Springs, participants worried that growth was changing the makeup of
their communities. A Democratic woman in her 40s was "afraid because we like small,
quaint town feel" and thought newcomers would destroy the atmosphere of the area. A
woman in her late -50s worried that each school is "growing by leaps and bounds... and
weighs heavily on each little city." The result is problems with unemployment and then
drugs. She concluded, "if you don't monitor [growth], it will slaughter us."
Temecula residents were also concemed about growth. They concentrated on
preventing over -development and congestion similar to Orange County. Many
participants voiced a desire for controlled growth. For example, a 40 year -old man feared
that "in ten years Riverside County will be like Orange County" so "growth should be
regulated." He also felt that the county has done a poor job in "compensating ... The rest
of things are lagging behind [the growth of homes]."
(/Q0134
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 15
B. Planning for the Environment, Transportation and the Economy
There was a remarkable lack of understanding about the interaction between
planning, the environment and transportation. The discussants were almost reluctant to
talk about the issue even when pressed by the moderator. The connection between the
growing smog problem and too many cars on the roads was mentioned, but in general,
additional public transportation was discussed as way to ease commuting and traffic
congestion, not improve the environment. In terms of reserving open space for animals
or recreation areas, participants were puzzled by who owned or controlled the land.
One Temecula participant, a man in his forties, mentioned that he wanted to preserve
"the green hills" he sees on his daily commute.
When discussing a plan for the future, residents consistently spoke of the need
for economic growth, especially increasing the number of high -quality industrial jobs.
However, not all businesses were as attractive. because they only create low wage
service oriented jobs. Many voiced a concern about too many warehouse jobs
(Riverside/Corona/Norco), long commutes and weak local businesses (Moreno Valley),
service jobs (Palm Springs), and uneven economic development in the
Temecula/Murrieta area.
60 0 13 5
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 16
C. Growth and Crime
Wealthier participants expressed fears of rising crime. Participants implicitly
mentioned race and class when talking about growth. Many women voiced concems
about safety and linked increased growth with a decrease in security. One 60 -year -old
human resources worker from Corona commented, "the more people, the more crime. I
don't know how you stop that." In addition, the gang problem in Moreno Valley was
mentioned in each group as evidence of how growth can negatively affect a community.
Because the current growth is not generating high skilled jobs, "certain types of
people" who are willing to take service jobs and other low -paying positions are changing
the makeup of these communities. These new arrivals wer not viewed positively.
Participants in Rancho Mirage and, to a lesser extent, Riverside want the services
provided by these newcomers, but do not feel safe around them and resent their
inclusion in their communities. For example, one woman in the Rancho Mirage
discussion said, "they will leave their $7 a hour job and rob you in the parking lot on the
way out because you just can't live on that." Thus, participants realize that these
service jobs do not pay a living wage, but believe that these workers will turn to crime to
make up the difference. A 30 -something stay -at -home -mom in Riverside wondered if
there was a zoning law against multiple families living under one roof. She resented
these multiple families in some cases her neighbors, were living together while her
husband and herself were struggling to "scrape the mortgage together."
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 17
Participants in Rancho Mirage expressed a frustration over the division between
areas of Riverside County. These discussants did not feel a kinship with other parts of
the County and even took pains to separate or distinguish themselves from other areas
in Riverside County. Repeatedly, participants pointed to Moreno Valley as a place
where things have gone wrong. They wanted to avoid having Palm Springs "turn into
another Moreno Valley." A 61 -year -old woman from Indian Wells stated, "Have we ever
dealt with the other side of Riverside County? It is like Northern and Southern
California. We have our own world out here and we have our own problems." Residents
of the Palm Springs area do not want to be saddled with the problems or concerns of
other areas. In more than one group, the discussants mentioned dividing Riverside
County to form a new one.
000137
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 18
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation was a top issue for each focus group. However, in different parts of
the County, improving transportation is conceived in different manners. In several groups,
the discussants were confused by the word "transportation", and were predisposed to say
that it meant public transit, not transportation in general. Those in Riverside, Moreno
Valley, and Temecula are more reliant on freeways for commuting and view Riverside
County's congestion in comparison to other, worse off areas in Califomia. Those in the
Palm Springs area think of transportation in more local terms; these participants are
concerned about increasing traffic on local roads.
A. Freeway Traffic
Participants in Moreno Valley, Riverside and Temecula were more concerned
about freeway traffic than those in Palm Springs. The group in Palm Springs wanted to
relieve street traffic. In each group, there was a consensus that the existing freeways
should be widened to deal with heavy traffic and continued growth. Participants also
agreed that the freeway system, more than public transportation, was the best way to
travel in the County. Several participants in the Riverside discussion felt that the
congested highways were not safe. One real estate agent claimed, 'the on and the off
ramps are the worst. They are so dangerous. People are going like crazy."
As expected, when asked, "where would you put a new freeway?" each group
:600138
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 19
selected a route that would provide the greatest ease for their area. However, no
proposal was set forth to improve the overall congestion of the County.
B. Public Transportation
Participants support public transportation in the abstract, but are skeptical of its
value in Riverside County. Public transportation was considered too slow or illogical
because it failed to get the rider close enough to the destination, with several asking
what does the passenger do to get to the final destination when the bus or train arrives
at the station
In the Riverside focus group, participants agreed that the public transportation
was insufficient, but did not have any solid ideas for fixing the system. Few of the
participants had tried the trains or buses, although Metrolink was often mentioned as a
possible solution to transportation problems. One retired aerospace worker proposed a
system of monorails over the existing highways.
In the Moreno Valley/Perris discussion, people doubted that commuters would
use a shared system of transportation. In broad terms, they would like an improved
system of transportation, but as individuals doubted they would utilize it. One
Republican woman in her thirties thought, "even if people used it on special occasions
or every once in a while, it would help out the rest of us. It would leave a spot of the
freeway." Several participants, including a nurse in her mid -40s thought it was essential
that the buses run more frequently. The long waits between buses, some approaching
an hour, made the public transportation unattractive and cumbersome. Compared to
00139
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 20
other groups, these participants had utilized the existing system more often. Still, one
retired truck driver from Perris claimed, "people don't want to ride something they can't
steer" and "even if Metrolink stopped in front of my door, I still want my own
transportation." He linked owning a car to personal independence.
Participants in Palm Springs were more positive about existing public
transportation, especially the Sun Bus. One woman who was a Native American tribal
leader thought, "the Sun Bus is making an excellent effort." A female Rancho Mirage
resident expressed an interest in an increased mass transit system "that goes
everywhere" and complained that, "everyone needs a car" because of the lack of public
transportation. An expanded rail system to travel to Los Angeles also was popular
among participants.
C. Toll Roads
Participants were divided over the use of toll roads. Some participants felt that
the toll roads served a purpose and were an- 'excellent way to avoid heavy freeway
traffic. In the Riverside discussion, a woman in her 30s felt that more toll roads were the
answer to the traffic dilemma, but a man in his 30s disagreed and thought that the toll
roads should be abolished. In the same group, one stay -at -home -mom was willing to
pay a slightly higher sales tax if the tolls were lifted. Other participants thought the toll
roads were expensive, especially if a driver needed to use the road everyday for
commuting. One young woman in the Temecula group said, "it sure beats sitting in
traffic, but if I had to do it everyday, it wouldn't work with my budget." Many participants
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 29
looked to the toll roads as an occasional solution to traffic, but not realistic for everyday
use.
Participants also questioned if toll roads equally served all segments of the
population. A 36 -year -old carpenter from the Moreno Valley felt that toll roads "become
an elitist thing because you have to afford" to use the highway. From another point of
view, a 30 -something County employee used the toll roads because it saved him time,
and thus, money. For him, the toll road was superior because "it is so empty... that toll
road is a Godsend because no one is on the road."
D. Minor Transportation Concerns
Participants in Palm Springs were upset about heavy street traffic. One woman
could not understand why the "ten-minute" drive to drop her child at school had to take
20 minutes. Another woman was concerned about "signal rage" and thought that the
biggest problem with transportation was the unusual length of traffic lights and the
inclusion of cameras on traffic lights to capture drivers who run red lights. These
discussants failed to see the bigger transportation picture throughout the county, largely
because they were not exposed to the same kind of traffic the residents in the Western
portions of the County faced.
OOU14t
DECISION RESEARCH
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 22
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Within each group, participants had different ideas for what an "environmentalist"
is. To many, simple things like clean air, water, and even streets qualified as supporting
the environment. None thought about endangered species, and most had to be prompted
before even thinking about open space. When questioned further, support for
endangered species and open space emerged but was complicated.
A. Endangered Species
Similar to survey results, participants' support for protecting endangered species
varied according to the type of animal. Although few thought about species
endangerment without prompting on the topic, there was a clear hierarchy of animals
they were willing to pay to protect, with mammals, especially the big horn sheep,
receiving stronger support than reptiles or rodents or insects. The big horn sheep are
viewed as an important symbol of in the Palm Springs area. In contrast, other animals
are less important and their protection has disrupted the economy of the County. For
example, one participant in the Rancho Mirage/Palm Springs session referred to a
housing project in Los Angeles that was stopped because of one blue butterfly. In the
Riverside and Moreno Valley sessions, the "kangaroo rat" received a large amount of
attention. Participants ridiculed efforts to save the "K -Rat". They exhibited very little
A
00014?
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 23
understanding of the relationship between one species and other species dependent on
the first species.
Saving endangered species was often linked to extremism. In the Riverside
discussion, one stay -at -home -mom explained that her environmental stance "depends
on the issue. I won't put [an animal] before a person, but it would depend on just saving
it. If there was a purpose and a need for the land, then OK." A 60 -year -old woman
referenced the dinosaurs; "I don't think you can save everything." A similar sentiment
was echoed in Moreno Valley group. A 42 -year old housewife thought it is our
"responsibility to take care of the land, the animals that live out there, but I don't go to
extremes to say you can't build something there." Some participants felt that saving
endangered species was important, but secondary to the economic needs of Riverside
County. However, several participants in the Palm Springs area connected natural
beauty of the environment with community pride. One County welfare worker told the
group that she is "so grateful for the awe-inspiring landscape of California, ... and I am
sad it is being overdeveloped and taking away so much beauty."
Several people commented that disturbing the natural habitat of endangered
species was not a major concern. One participant thought "if the burrow of the K -Rat
was destroyed, the rat would move three feet to the right. Who is to say that the first
location was the original location?" A Republican man from Riverside said, "it's
ridiculous when a building can't take place... pick [the endangered animal] up and put it
someplace else." Thus, the animals always are moving so disturbing their current home
is of little concern.
00014?
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 24
However, a participant in the Rancho Mirage session thought that if we build
walls or fences to designate reserved areas for endangered species, "someone will
push it back two feet and then again, until there are two fences several feet apart on top
of the hill and no room for the animals." Here participants felt that a balance was
needed to preserve the open spaces for animals and encourage economic growth in
the community. One stay-at-home mother from Riverside told the group, "when I go to
the zoo and just to hear about the big animals like the tigers and the pandas... that are
going extinct, I would believe in saving that."
When the concept of a "food chain" or the interdependence of animals was
introduced into the discussion, support for endangered animals increased. One woman
in the Temecula discussion was able to sway the group by arguing, "we have no right to
say yes to one, no to another. We don't know what effect that has on the eco-system....
We need to find the right balance. If we are human, we need to be humane."
Participants felt that the statement "made me think about cause and effect" and "that
everything effects everything else."
In general, the voters were reluctant to spend money on protecting endangered
species, a finding not surprising given the limited value they placed on most species.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 25
B. Open space and beautification
Some participants. categorized keeping the ,County clean and lush as
environmental issues. Physical beauty and green space was linked to the image of the
County. One participant thought a dirty city would detract from the economy while a
well -kept community would maintain and draw new industries. In Riverside, Moreno
Valley and Temecula, this line of thinking linking open space with green spaces was
more dominant. Preserving land for animals was connected to maintaining or
developing areas for recreation. 'To me, environmentalism is how things look," claimed
onesecretary in the Temecula group.
In Palm Springs, participants did not think reserving open space was an issue.
They did not want the hills to be overdeveloped, but rejected the notion that there was
not enough space in the area. Discussing a lack .pf open space in these desert
communities, made little sense to the participants.
)W0145
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 26
C. Clean air and water
Participants were 'more willing to categorize themselves as environmentalists
when the discussion turned to clean air and water than on the topic of endangered
species. Perhaps these issues which contribute to the health of human beings are more
acceptable than protecting endangered species which are viewed as a barrier to
development and thus, improving or building the economy. Men were more likely to
mention clean air and water as primary concerns when asked about environmental
views. One thirty -year -old woman in the Temecula group succinctly stated, "I want it
[clean air]. I want to keep it." Like her, few participants had detailed opinions about
clean air and water, but simply used the phrases to signal something they wanted to
improve and maintain.
Smog was a growing concern for many participants in the Riverside and Moreno
Valley areas. In two sessions, participants joked they wish they had a big fan to blow
the smog back to Los Angeles. Smog represented a visible outcome from
overcrowding. In Palm Springs/Rancho Mirage, participants linked the use of the Sun
Bus with decreasing or preventing smog. However, another participant claimed the
evidence of smog was already evident in the area and signaled the over -development
of the area.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 27
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Few residents of Riverside County are knowledgeable of multiple species and
comprehensive transportation planning. However, once the concept of the food chain
and interdependence among animals is introduced, residents are more supportive of a
broader plan to safeguard a range of animals. As expected, participants are more
supportive of large mammals, such as the big horned sheep that add character to their
county. Attempts to save small animals, most notably the Kangaroo Rat, are seen as
disrupting "progress" or hampering the economy. Funds spent on these animals would
be viewed as frivolous.
Riverside County residents take pride in the open spaces of the area. Many
participants moved from other areas in California or around the country in order to take
advantage of the natural beauty of the area. They do not want to see the hills crowded
with houses or shopping malls. Participants want to preserve the atmosphere of
Riverside County, but also want green parks and other recreation places for their
enjoyment. This links to participants' desire to improve or enhance their quality of life.
Riverside County residents want a stronger economic base and more cultural and
recreational outlets.
Nevertheless, participants remain skeptical of efforts to increase taxes for
endangered species or for transportation improvements, about all because they do not
trust politicians to spend the tax money wisely. They prefer attempts to "make
,�,�Uu1.4'7
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
PAGE 28
developers pay" because, in the residents' minds, builders are the cause of growth and,
by extension, the displacement of animals.
There are a number of recommendations that follow from our focus group
research:
• EDUCATE AND COMMUNICATE THE NEEDS AND BENEFITS OF A
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN: Once participants were told
— either by the moderator or by a fellow discussant — about the food chain
and the interdependence of animals, they became more likely to support
protecting all species. This information heightened concem for smaller
animals, such as lizards or K -Rats, and stressed the need to maintain all
aspects of the food chain in order to protect the "more popular" animals.
Also need to link how a MSHCP translates into traffic relief and economic
development.
• GREENBELTS OVER CORRIDORS: Residents do not like the idea of
land reserved solely for the use of animals, but approve of areas that serve
a dual purpose — saving land for animals and setting aside space for people
to use as recreation areas.
• APPOINT A CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE: Few participants knew about the
County's efforts to form a long-term plan for Riverside. However, all
participants were skeptical of how tax dollars are spent and feared that
politicians were not being forthright about the usage of public funds. In all
cases, participants wanted ordinary citizens, more than' the press or
advocacy groups, to represent their interests and hold public officials
responsible. Participants trust each other more than anyone group.
• EMPLOY AN AUDIT: To overcome citizen cynicism about appropriation
of funds, any project should include some sort of audit or system of citizen
oversight. Increasing citizen involvement builds support for a plan.
• NAMES FOR PROJECT: Several themes that could be employed in
message development emerged, in rough outline, from the discourse.
Participants favored the theme of "enhancement" rather than
"improvement," since the latter term implies more strongly that the County
suffers from detects. There were mixed reactions to millennium themes,
especially titles that would not carry far into the century. Names that
connect to improving the quality of life in Riverside County also may be
useful.
000.14.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX 1
SCREENER
000149
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
FOCUS GROUP SCREENER
Male Female (Recruit mix)
Hello. My name is , and I am calling from Decision Research. Today we are
calling people about some issues here in Riverside County.
1. Are you registered to vote?
1. No --Thank and terminate
2. Yes —Continue
2. Do you or does anyone in your household work (Delete anyone who answers yes)
1. In market research or in public relations?
2. For a newspaper or news organization?
3. For an elected public official?
3. Into which of the following age groups does your age fall? (Recruit mix)
1. 18-25 (Thank and terminate)
2. 26-39
3. 40-49
4. 50-64
5. 65+
4. Have you ever participated in a marketing research or focus group discussion group?
1. Yes (When was the last time you participated? If less than 1 year, terminate)
2. No
5. In politics today, do you usually vote for Democrats or Republicans or are you an
independent
1. Democrat (Not more than 6)
2. Republican (Not more than 6)
3. Independent, other (not more than 4)
We are conducting a research group discussion on issues conceming residents of the (fill
in community) area, and are interested in your opinions. The group will be held in
(location) on (fill in correct date and times). Light refreshments will be served, and you
will be paid $x for your courtesy and cooperation in attending. We will be sending you a
confirmation letter with a map of directions on how to reach the facility.
Thank you for your help
Note locations for recruitment for each group.
OOO1.50
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX 2
FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE
OOO154.
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE
PAGE 2
Riverside County
Group Discussion Outline
1. INTRODUCTION (10 Minutes)
A. Group members introduce selves —name, occupation, family status, spouse
occupation, length of residence in Riverside County, what city or
community hobbies/leisure activities.
B. Moderator introduction, explanation of purposes of group, ground rules
C. Keep an open mind
2. OPENING DISCUSSION (20 Minutes)
A. I am feeling about things in Riverside County these days
6. Riverside 2010 was named best county to live in U.S. News and World
Report —How did this come about
1. How did Riverside avoid problems of Los Angeles and Orange Co?
2. What did Riverside do about transportation issues?
3. What did Riverside do about growth?
4. What did Riverside do about environmental protection?
C. How will Riverside sustain high quality -of -life in the future?
D. Some people are happy with how things are, but not optimistic about future
How is this possible
3. FOCUS ON TRANSPORTATION (30 Minutes)
A. How would you describe transportation in Riverside nowadays?
B. What is good about transportation?
C. What is bad about it?
1. Freeways
2. Local Streets
3. Public transportation
4. Bus
5. Rail
a. Who would use rail?
1. Would you use it?
2. What other forms would you use
b. Where should it go
B. Do you know what a transportation corridor is?
1. Where would you put a corridor?
C. How should transportation improvements be financed?
1. Would you pay sales tax for transportation improvements?
000152
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE
PAGE 3
2. How much would you pay?
D. What is the relationship between good transport and economic development?
E. Who do you trust on transportation issues?
1. Political leadership
2. Business community
3. Other?
4. FOCUS ON ENVIRONMENT (25 Minutes)
A.What is meant by "environment"?
1. Are you an environmentalist?
2. Who are they?
B. What are the elements of the environment?
1. Open space —how do you define it?
a. Public land
b. Land with no buildings
c. Undeveloped private land
d. Passive or active open space
1. Familiarity with the terms
3. Which is more valued?
4. Why?
2. Water and Air Quality
3. Endangered Species
a. What species are worth saving?
b. If they are all connected, where dq we stop? How
5. Is there a conflict between growth and environment?
6. At what point is threat of Los Angelization real
C. What is your sense of the interrelationships of species •
D. How much would you pay for environmental protection
1. Cost ranges in taxes
a. What do you think you would get for that
2. If you do not pay, who will?
a. Private landowners —should they be compensated?
1. For land
2. For preserving species
b. Requirements on developers?
E. What is relationship between environment, jobs, economic development,
tourism roads?
F. How do you learn about the environment?
1. What do you want to know?
2. How would you want' to be informed
000153
;} y
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE
PAGE 4
G. Who has credibility on environmental issues
H. What do we have to do for the benefit of future generations?
5. PLANNING IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY (25 minutes)
A. How do we plan for Riverside in the future?
B. How do we grow, yet plan at the same time?
C. Do you know what a General Plan is?
1. How does it work
2. How is it updated?
3. How would you like it explained.
D. Is the Riverside County prepared to meet challenges
1. Is business responsive
2. Population prepared
3. Is govemment nimble, creative enough
E. What kind of job is Riverside County doing with respect to planning?
1. Who else is involved in planning?
a. Developers
b. Business
c. Government
c. Communities
d. Environmentalists
2. What do you think of each?
2. How can you participate in the process
a. What outlets are available?
1. Civic associations
2. Interest groups
b. What do you want available
F How can planning be improved?
G Should we rely on market or government planing?
H. Old Methods of Planning
1. Separate planning for transport, environment, economy
2. Long time frame
3. No cost sharing
4. Reactive —build first, ask questions later
5. Government centered
I. New Methods of Planning
1. Integrated
2. Environment first
-. i 7
000.15'1
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE
PAGE 5
3. Multiple participants
4. Shorter time frame
5. Centered on quality -of -life
6. Save taxpayer money
J. Do you understand linkage of long -tern planning to future of County
1. How would you be informed about this?- •
2. How important is open space to futue of county
6. PROPOSED PROJECT (.:5 minutes)
A. Best name for plan for future of Riverside
1. Riverside 21
2. Riverside Lifestyle Protection Project
3. Riverside Lifestyle Enhancement Project
B. Other names for the process?
7. THANKS AND CONCLUSION. (10 Minutes)
A. Overall, are you optimistic about future?
B. If you could talk to officials, what would you say?
C. Any issues not addressed?
D. Thank you for your participation.
«0015
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX 3
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
000156
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: AUGUST 2, 1999
CORONA/NORCO{RIVERSIDE (6:00 PM)
NAME GENDER AGE CITY PARTY ID
Tammy F 29 Corona Republican
Linda F 39 Riverside Republican
Daniel M 62 Corona Independent
Kelly F 30 Riverside Independent
John M 36 Riverside Republican
Stephanie F 37 Rubideaux Democrat
Helen F 60 Corona Democrat
Martha F 57 Norco Democrat
Gary M 40 Riverside Democrat
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:
MORENO VALLEYIPERRIS (8:00 PM)
NAME GENDER AGE
Kelly F 32
Mary F 48
Detra F 44
Pat M 39
Patty F 42
Roger M 36
Doug M 61
Desiree F 24
Staci F 31
Keith M 30
Joel M
Alick F
AUGUST 2, 1999
CITY
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Perris
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
Perris
Perris
Moreno Valley
Moreno Valley
PARTY ID
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Republican
Independent
Republican
Democrat
►oo(yI 5A',
DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: AUGUST 3, 1999
PALM SPRINGS (7:00 PM):
NAME
Allison
Mary
Rob
Luis
Marilyn
Nilda
PJ
Lisa
Joan
Al
Olga
Migdalia
Janet
June
Elizabeth
GENDER
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
AGE CITY
49 Palm Springs
50 Palm Springs
33 Palm Springs
52 Palm Springs
58 Indian Wells
35 Cathedral City
33 Rancho Mirage
30 Palm Desert
56 Rancho Mirage
35 Cathedral City
39 Cathedral City
34 Palm Springs
61 Indian Wells
34 Palm Springs
50 Palm Desert
PARTY ID
Independent
Independent
Democrat •
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Republican
Republican
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Independent
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: AUGUST 4, 1999
TEMECULAIMURRIETNHEMET (7:00 PM],
NAME
Gary
Pat
Jan
Dianna
Lori
Jim
Laura
Gina
Jim
Dawn
Susie
Leticia
Guz
GENDER
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
F
F
F
M
AGE
42
49
40
35
36
41
36
30
43
34
42
30
39
CITY
Murrieta
Hemet
Temecula
Murrieta
Murrieta
Temecula
Wildomar
Temecula
Temecula
Elsinore
Murrieta
Hemet
Temecula
PARTY ID
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Republican
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Democrat
40001.55)
AGENDA ITEM 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans and Program Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Results
At its May 12, 1999 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to enter into a
contract with Strategic Consulting & Research (SCR) to perform a study to evaluate
the effectiveness of RCTC's Commuter Assistance Advantage Rideshare and Club
Ride Programs and the similar San Bernardino Associated Governments' Commuter
Assistance Programs which RCTC manages.
The study looked at the following: 1) the length of time an incentive participant
continued to rideshare after the initial three month period; 2) the importance the
incentive was in motivating the participant to begin ridesharing; 3) the number of
days per week the participant continued to rideshare; 4) if no longer ridesharing, what
factors caused the participant to stop; 5) the types of improvements, if any,
participants and employers suggest; 6) the impact the programs have had on a
employer's trip reduction plan; 7) the vehicle miles traveled/cost effectiveness of
vehicles reduced; and 8) a rating of the performance of the consulting program staff.
SCR has completed their review of the Commuter Assistance Programs. Included in
your agenda packet is SCR's Executive Summary and report for your review. In
addition, a presentation will be made at the Committee meeting.
Based on unsolicited comments, RCTC and SANBAG's Commuter Assistance
Programs are considered to be among the most proactive and respected
transportation demand management efforts in the South Coast Air Basin. They have
served as a model for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's
Voluntary Rideshare Program as well as the Orange County Transportation Authority's
Voluntary Metrolink and Rail Feeder Program. We have also received requests for our
rideshare program marketing materials from other areas and states interested in
starting similar programs. For several years, these programs have won awards and
continue to be nationally recognized.
The purpose of the evaluation was to gather information to shape the future direction
of the Commuter Assistance Program. While the programs continue to receive high
marks from commuters and employers, the evaluation found that it may be time to
consider some changes to the programs' structure. Highlights of the results of the
evaluation together with recommendations for the future structure, administration and
operation of the incentive programs are as follows:
1) 70% of the participants surveyed indicated that the Commuter Incentive
Programs influenced their decision to begin a rideshare arrangement;
2) 87% of participants continued to share rides after the completion of the
three month incentive program;
3) Performance of consultant staff was rated high in the overall
management and administration of the Commuter Assistance Program;
4) 65% of participants reported the Club Ride newsletter as "useful" and
"informative";
5) 36% of the 1,606 participants surveyed indicated that they were sharing
rides prior to enrolling in the Commuter Assistance Program.
6) Review by SCR staff reinforced that the method for calculating the cost
effectiveness for vehicles reduced is consistent with the California Air
Resources Board recommended methods. However, since the evaluation
found that 36% of the participants were actually sharing rides at the
time they started the incentive program, the "prior mode" of participants
needs to be considered so that the effectiveness is not overly stated;
7) While 20% of Club Ride and Team Ride participants indicated that the
programs had a major influence in their decision to continue ridesharing,
both programs were rated as "somewhat effective" to "effective" for
maintaining long-term ridesharing. The programs tend to reinforce
decisions to continue sharing rides rather than acting as the primary
factor in continuing to not drive alone;
8) 82% of the respondents stated that they would be more likely to
continue to share rides if the Club/Team Ride program eligibility began
immediately after completion of the three-month program; and
9) There is little "name brand" identity among the six,Commuter Assistance
Programs. The consultants recommend that RCTC and SANBAG
combine logo and program names rather than continue to keep the
programs separate with separate identities. However, before any
decision on this recommendation can be made, it must be fully explored
with SANBAG staff and agreed to prior to implementation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission: 1) receive and file the evaluation study; and, 2) direct staff
to use results from the study to develop the RFP for managing the Commuter
Assistance Program in future years.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION & SAN BERNARDINO
ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS
EVALUATION OF
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
1999
SCE
00016.1 _.
EVALUATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S AND SAN
BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS' COMMUTER ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANT
AND
EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR
SURVEY RESPONSES
Submitted to:
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
Submitted by:
Strategic Consulting & Research
18008 Sky Park Circle, Suite 145
Irvine, CA 92614
and
Transportation Management Services
234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 400
Pasadena, California 91101
With Assistance From:
ETSC
13580 Samantha Avenue
San Diego, California 91229
August 6, 1999
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 6
Methodology 11
Survey Results
In -County and Out -County Commuter Incentive Programs 13
Club Ride Program and Team Ride Program 20
Employee Coordinator Survey 23
Review of Cost Effectiveness Evaluation Process 26
Conclusions and Recommendations 29
Appendix
Commuter Incentive Program Evaluation — Commuter Survey
Survey Instrument
Cross Tabulations
Employee Transportation Coordinator Survey
Survey Instrument
Cross Tabulations
I
II
EVALUATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S AND SAN
BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS'
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the 'results of a survey of commuters and Employee Transportation
Coordinators (ETC) participating in the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC)
and San Bernardino Associated Governments' (SANBAG) Commuter Incentive Programs.
Findings are presented on the effectiveness of these programs along with recommendations for
the structure, administration, and operation of the incentive programs.
INTRODUCTION
The RCTC and SANBAG formed a bi-county partnership to address regional transportation goals
including assisting commuters with finding and using alternative transportation. An important
part of this assistance includes offering commuters rewards for sharing rides by using public
transportation, carpooling, vanpooling, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting instead of driving
alone.' RCTC's Commuter Assistance Programs were started in 1991 while SANBAG began
sponsoring similar efforts in 1993.
Three programs form the core of the Commuter Assistance Programs:
The Out -County Commuter Incentive Programs for both the RCTC (i.e., Advantage
Rideshare) and SANBAG (i.e., Option Rideshare) are geared towards county residents who
commute to work outside of the county. This program is designed as a start-up incentive program
for individuals who commute to work between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on
weekdays, at least one day per week. The program offers incentives, ranging from TrainBuck$
that are provided to Metrolink riders to Unocal Autoscrip coupons. Both the RCTC Advantage
Rideshare program and the SANBAG Option Rideshare programs are open to county residents
who work for an employer located in any neighboring county.
The In -County Commuter Incentive Programs for both the RCTC and SANBAG are oriented
towards county residents who commute inside the county. This program is also designed as start-
up incentive program for individuals who commute to work between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m. on weekdays, at least one day per week. The program offers incentives, such as
Unocal Autoscrip coupons and Lucky's grocery gift certificates. RCTC's In -County Advantage
Rideshare program includes western Riverside County residents and SANBAG's In -County
Option Rideshare program includes all San Bernardino County residents.
The terms "ridesharing" and "sharing rides" used in this document refer to any means of travel other than driving
alone.
000164
These programs are designed to attract commuters who drive alone to work into some form of
ridesharing.
The RCTC Club Ride Program and the SANBAG Team Ride Program are directed at
county residents who have been ridesharing at least once a week for the previous six months.
These programs provide their members with discounts on products and/or services at
participating local merchants.
The Club and Team Ride programs are designed to offer a reward for maintaining ridesharing
over a long period of time.
METHODOLOGY
A kick-off meeting was held with RCTC and SANBAG program managers to ensure that the
SCR project team fully understood all program objectives and parameters. Based on discussions
at this meeting the sampling design was established which was to split the surveying evenly
between the two counties and to focus primarily on the most recent incentive recipients with half
of all survey respondents receiving their incentive in 1998 or 1999. The balance was then spread
evenly over the previous four years. Also, based on input from this meeting and program
materials, the SCR team developed a memorandum explaining the various programs.
Draft survey instruments were prepared for both commuters and ETCs and submitted to
RCTC/SANBAG project management for review. After making all desired changes, these
surveys were loaded into the CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system and pre-
tested. Surveys were conducted between June 10`h and 27`h for both commuters and ETCs.
Cross -tabulations of the completed data were then produced and used to present and analyze the
results of this study._ Tabulations of the data are provided in the Appendix, sections I and III.
KEY FINDINGS
There were few significant differences in survey results between participants or Employee
Transportation Coordinators from Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Over 70 percent of participants reported that the Commuter Incentive Program had some
influence on their decision to share rides. However, one-third of the Advantage/Option Rideshare
participants indicated that the programs had a "major" influence on their decision to not drive
alone. This suggests that the Advantage/Option incentives reinforce decisions to start sharing
rides, but may not be sufficient to change travel behavior on their own. The Commuter Incentive
Programs appear to be a needed compliment to the assistance commuters receive from their
employers as half of the respondents indicated that incentives from their employers were not
sufficient for them to start sharing rides.
A majority of the commuters (i.e., 87 percent) who participated in the Commuter Incentive
Programs continued to share rides immediately after the completion of the three-month incentive
period. Participants share rides for approximately ten months after they complete the three month
incentive payment period. Moreover, over 50 percent of participants are still ridesharing today.
These responses show that the investments in Commuter Incentive Programs pay off well past
the period in which commuters receive incentive payments.
Respondents indicated that outside circumstances, such as changes in residential or work
location, rather than inconvenience or dissatisfaction with ridesharing or the Commuter Incentive
Programs, were the primary reasons they stopped sharing rides.
Nearly 90 percent of participants indicated that the three month period needed to qualify for
receiving incentive payments was adequate or more than adequate time for qualifying to receive
the incentive. Similarly, over 90 percent of participants responded that the amount of the
incentive (i.e., $2.00 per day) was an adequate or more than adequate incentive for getting
commuters to change travel behavior.
Many more participants were sharing rides prior to their participation in the Advantage/Option
Rideshare programs than had been assumed. Almost one-third (i.e., 29 percent) of respondents
indicated that they were sharing rides prior to joining the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs.
The presence of these commuters in the programs indicates that employer representatives who
qualify participants are not as effective in admitting only commuters who are driving alone to
work as would be desired, participants are providing false information, ETCs are misinterpreting
the rules, or all of the above. It is not possible to compare these findings with the previous
1994/95 study because the travel mode of participants prior to starting the Commuter Incentive
Program was not included in the reporting for that study.
Club/Team Ride participants value the services and rewards afforded to them. Fifty percent of
the respondents indicated that the programs had some influence on their travel decisions, with 18
percent indicating that the programs had a major influence on their continuing to share rides.
EMPLOYEE TRANSPORTATION COORDINATORS
Nearly 40 percent of ETCs believe that the $2.00 a day incentive program is very effective in
encouraging commuters to rideshare as compared to 35 percent of participants. Similarly, only 10
percent of the ETCs indicated that $2.00 per day is not at all effective as compared to 28 percent
of participants reporting that the program had no effect on their decision to share rides.
ETCs and participants both report that the three month incentive period was about the right
length of time needed to get acquainted with ridesharing.
ETC opinions about why participants stop sharing rides differs with those of participants as they
believe employees stop sharing rides due to its inconvenience (i.e., 56 percent) with participants
indicating that outside circumstances, not inconvenience, influenced their decision to stop
ridesharing. It should be noted that the employer representatives are basing their response on
what they hear from commuters, and may not reflect the real reasons.
3
ETCs generally rate the Club and Team Ride programs as only somewhat effective to effective
for maintaining long-term ridesharing.
ETCs rated the overall program at a B+ using an A -F grading scale. This ranking was reported
for individual rating factors including: having professional courteous staff, providing effective
promotional materials, returning phone calls in a timely manner, and clearly communicating the
parameters ofthe program. These ratings are similar to those reported in the 1994/19.95
evaluation.
COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION
The cost effectiveness analysis method used for evaluating the Commuter Assistance Program's
incentive projects is sound, of appropriate rigor, and consistent with other methods used in
California and around the U.S. It is based on the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
standardized method that is considered the "best practice" within the industry.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are offered regarding the Commuter Assistance Programs:
1. Review methods for qualifying Advantage/Option Rideshare participants since over one-third
of enrollees indicated that they were sharing rides at the time they started receiving incentives
from the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs.
2. Focus marketing on employers and commuters who may not work at sites at where employer -
provided incentives are provided thus making the incentives more influential in decisions
regarding choice of travel to work. This may mean targeting smaller worksites, conducting
direct mail activities, or other more focused marketing.
3. Consider modifying Club/Team Ride activities:
Create one program that combines the Option/Advantage and the Club/Team Ride programs
as commuters and employee coordinators do not distinguish between the two types of
programs, and in some cases find it confusing. The incentive payment features offered by the
Advantage/Option Rideshare programs should serve as a way to create interest in sharing
rides among persons driving alone to work. The efforts to sustain the use of commute
alternatives used by Club/Team Ride should commence directly after the completion of the
three month incentive payment period. Consolidating the programs would eliminate some
complexity of participation that is perceived by potential participants.
Assist existing carpoolers and vanpoolers who need help in finding new and/or rejuvenating
existing shared rides. Providing assistance in the form of new and enhanced ridematch lists,
communicating with transportation service providers, and providing personal trip planning
may be able to sustain trip reduction among former Advantage/Option Rideshare participants
at a lower cost than recruiting new enrollees. Efforts to communicate with commuters as they
are completing their tenure in the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs regarding assistance
needed to continue sharing rides could increase the rideshare retention rate.
4. Modify Trip Reduction Calculations
The `prior mode' of participants needs to be considered in determining trips reduced as each new
enrollee does not represent a reduced 'trip since 36 percent of participants were sharing rides
previously.
600168
5
EVALUATION OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION'S AND SAN
BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS'
COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a survey of commuters and Employee Transportation
Coordinators (ETC) participating in the Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC)
and San Bernardino Associated Governments' (SANBAG) Commuter Incentive Programs.
Findings are presented on the effectiveness of these programs along with recommendations for
the structure, administration, and operation of the incentive programs.
Background
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated
Governments (SANBAG) formed a bi-county partnership to address regional transportation goals
including assisting commuters with finding and using alternative transportation. An important
part of this assistance includes offering commuters rewards for sharing rides, using public
transportation, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting instead of driving alone. In 1991 RCTC
used funds from the Measure A half -cent sales tax to create Advantage Rideshare, a program of
financial. incentives to reward western Riverside County residents for not driving alone to work
for the first three months after changing their means of travel.
In 1993, SANBAG created Option Rideshare, an incentive program identical to Advantage
Rideshare, directed to residents of San Bernardino County. Both agencies contract with a vendor
to deliver both programs. Advantage Rideshare and Option Rideshare operate nearly identically
to provide financial incentives to commuters, except RCTC does not provide $2.00 per day for
commuters using buspools. In lieu of $2.00 per day, RCTC provides $25.00 per month per seat
on an annual basis.
RCTC's Commuter Assistance Program also includes the Rideshare Club of Riverside County
(i.e., Club Ride), which is also funded by Measure A and has been operating since 1993. Club
Ride is a membership program that rewards commuters who have been ridesharing at least once a
week for six months to retain ridesharers over a long period of time. Club Ride encourages
members to promote ridesharing and participation in the Commuter Assistance Programs among
coworkers, friends, and neighbors. SANBAG has offered a comparable program known as Team
Ride. Beginning in 1997, Team Ride was offered to commuters who work at work sites with less
than 250 employees, and on July 1, 1998, the program was made available to all eligible
commuters regardless of the number of people employed at their work site.
Eligibility
Commuters are eligible to participate in Advantage or Option Rideshare, if they live in either
western Riverside County or San Bernardino County, respectively, and work for an employer
;QQrfl69
located within the county or any neighboring county, such as Riverside, San Bernardino, Los
Angeles, Orange, Kern, Ventura, and San Diego, that has agreed to participate in these programs.
The "In" or "Out" County references used in this document indicate whether the participating
commuter's work site is located within or outside of the sponsoring county, however, there is no
difference in services provided to commuters.
Table 1
Commuter Assistance Incentive Program Guidelines
Residential Location
V
Work Location .
Program
Western Riverside County
Western Riverside County
Advantage Rideshare: In -County
Western Riverside County
Outside western Riverside County
Advantage Rideshare: Out -County
Western Riverside County
Any work location _
Club Ride
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County
Option Rideshare: In -County
San Bernardino County
Outside San Bernardino County
Option Rideshare: Out -County
San Bernardino County
Any work location
Team Ride
Target Markets
Advantage and Option Rideshare
These programs are directed toward commuters who drive alone to work. Commuters are not
eligible to participate in Advantage Rideshare or Option Rideshare if they have been in a
ridesharing arrangement in the last 90 days or have received incentives from a publicly funded
ridesharing program in the last six months.
Club and Team Ride
Club Ride and Team Ride encourage continued use of alternative transportation by offering
tangible rewards for commuters who have been ridesharing for at least six months. This program
also targets those who do not rideshare, by using members to motivate others to participate in
ridesharing.
Program Features
Advantage and Option Rideshare
Employers register in either Advantage or Option Rideshare by completing an Employer
Information Form and signing a Statement of Participation, which requires the employer to
actively market, monitor, and track ridesharing among participating employees.
Eligible commuters join the programs by completing an Enrollment Form which includes their
address, phone number, social security number, employer information, the rideshare mode they
will be using, and the date they will begin ridesharing.
Commuters must participate in their selected rideshare mode for at least once per week in order
to receive the incentives for this three-month program. Eligible commuters must travel to work
between 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on weekdays. Commuters submit an Incentive Claim Form
after ridesharing three consecutive months in order to claim their incentive.
000170
Club and Team Ride
Western Riverside County and San Bernardino County commuters who have been ridesharing for
at least six months can also be rewarded for using alternative modes of transportation by joining
Club or Team Ride. Club Ride members receive discounts at over 160 local merchant locations.
Members are provided with both a Club Ride Membership Card and a Club Ride Merchant
Discount Catalogue that lists the participating merchants and the discounts they provide. Team
Ride members receive discounts at over 75 local restaurants and entertainment venues. Members
are provided with a personalized Team Ride Membership Card and a listing of the participating
merchants.
If employers are already enrolled in Advantage or Option Rideshare, they do not need to enroll in
Club or Team Ride. Employers not already in the database are asked to fill out an Employer
Information Form. All employers complete a Marketing Materials Order Form to receive Club
and Team Ride marketing materials at no charge. Commuters join Club and Team Ride by filling
out an application which is signed by both the commuter and their employer representative.
Member benefits, information, and renewal statements are sent to the member's homes. A Club
Ride newsletter is produced three times a year that includes information on events and contests,
special member offers, and pertinent commuter -related information. Promotional contests are
held exclusively for Club Ride members. Members are asked to renew their membership
annually if they are still ridesharing.
Incentives
Advantage and Option Rideshare.
Commuters meeting the eligibility requirements receive incentives for each day they rideshare for
three consecutive months. Commuters will receive a financial incentive of up to $2.00 per day in
the form of gift certificates for each day they carpool, vanpool, buspoolz, use public bus, bicycle,
walk, or telecommute. Commuters who use rail to travel to work can receive up to $44.00 toward
the purchase of a monthly pass or $10.00 for a ten -trip ticket per new rider that is paid in the
form of TrainBuck$ which can only be redeemed for commuter rail fare.
Commuters must not have participated in a rideshare arrangement for the previous 90 days.
Eligible commuters must also have not received an incentive from another publicly funded
commuter incentive program for the past six months. If commuters received an incentive more
than six months ago, they may receive another incentive if it is for a commute mode different
from that for which they already received an incentive.
2 The buspool incentive applies to Option Rideshare (i:e., San Bernardino) and not Advantage Rideshare (i.e.,
Riverside).
Club and Team Ride
Club Ride members are able to redeem discounts at over 160 local merchant locations. Many
different types of merchants offer Club Ride discounts, including: restaurants, entertainment
venues, car washes, bicycle shops, dry cleaners, car care businesses, gift stores, and other
services.
Team Ride members can receive a 20 percent discount at over 65 restaurant locations, in addition
to discounts at other entertainment venues including several area bowling lanes, the Pharaoh's
Lost Kingdom Theme Park, and the Glen Helen Blockbuster Pavilion. Members present their
personalized Membership Card at the time they place their order to redeem these Club Ride and
Team Ride discounts.
Participation
A total of 22,957 Riverside and San Bernardino commuters have been served by these Commuter
Assistance Programs, since 1991 and 1993 respectively. 3,355 employers in Riverside, San
Bernardino, Los Angeles, and Orange counties have enrolled in the programs since their
inception.
Riverside County
Since 1991, 9,673 western Riverside County commuters have participated in Advantage
Rideshare; 5,818 of these participants worked in Riverside County and 3,855 worked outside of
Riverside County. 7,825 residents have participated in Club Ride since 1993.
% OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARTICIPATION1
San Bernardino County
Since 1993, 6,341 San Bernardino County commuters have participated in Option Rideshare;
4,052 of these participants worked in San Bernardino County and 2,289 worked outside of San
Bernardino County. Since 1997, SANBAG has enlisted 1,427 commuters in the Team Ride
program.
Vtdoi-72
9
on DC. 202
% OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PARTICIPATION]
SAN BERNARDINO
OUT -COUNTY
36%
SAN BERNARDINO
IN -COUNTY
64%
Findings From 1994/1995 Evaluation
An evaluation of the Riverside County Commuter Assistance Program was conducted in 19953.
This evaluation found that the program was successful in encouraging commuters to begin and
continue ridesharing, the incentives and basic program structure were effective, and $2.00 per
ridesharing day was the minimum incentive which should be offered. A key recommendation
from this previous evaluation was for RCTC to provide a lump -sum payment of incentives at the
end of the 90 -day period. This incentive payment recommendation has been implemented in both
the Advantage Rideshare and Option Rideshare programs.
' "Evaluation of Riverside County Transportation Commission's Commuter Assistance Program — Final Report,"
Applied Management & Planning Group, March 30, 1995.
0.00173
METHODOLOGY
Six tasks were performed including:
1. Initiate Project Study and Collect/Review Background Information
Strategic Consulting & Research (SCR) and Transportation Management Services (TMS)
reviewed all program information and promotional materials. A Progress Report describing the
four programs was delivered to the RCTC/SANBAG project management team prior to the
surveying beginning.
2. Conduct Agency Interviews
SCR and TMS project managers met with the RCTC and SANBAG project managers to review
all project objectives and to discuss sampling design. The project schedule was also set at this
meeting.
3. Develop Survey Instruments
SCR developed draft survey instruments for both program participants and ETCs utilizing the
detailed project objectives determined in the project kick-off meeting. These were provided to
RCTC and SANBAG project managers for review. SCR incorporated all desired modifications
and programmed the survey instruments into our CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone
Interviewing) system. The surveys were then pre -tested to ensure skipping patterns were
operating properly. SCR's surveyors conducted mock interviews with the survey to familiarize
themselves with the survey instrument and then commenced surveying.
4. Develop Sampling Design
SCR and RCTC/SANBAG project management jointly decided to primarily survey respondents
who had received their incentives within a relatively recent time -frame to increase the likelihood
that they could recall the impact of the program in their decision -making process. Accordingly, it
was decided that for each county, 400 surveys would be conducted with respondents who had
received payment in 1998 or 1999, and 100 each would be surveyed who had received their
incentive payment in each of the four preceding years.
Employee Transportation Coordinators were randomly selected from two calling lists so that 25
were completed with employers in each county.
5. Conduct the Survey
A pretest of the program participant survey was conducted with approximately 20 respondents.
Based on the results of the pretest, minor survey modifications were made to more clearly
communicate the intent of specific questions. These changes were incorporated into the survey
instrument and surveying began.
0001'4
11
_SCA 1 Statoegic Coasutting & Reswai - /rvne, C.4 -(949 752-5900 - W ' . an DC - (202) 785-4$00
6. Analyze data and prepare the report
SCR tablulated and TMS analyzed the data, interpreted results, and prepared the evaluation
report. ESTC provided analysis of the program evaluation process and TMS provided analysis of
survey results leading to recommendations.
SURVEY RESULTS
Findings from the surveys conducted of participants of both the RCTC and SANBAG Commuter
Assistance Programs and ETCs are presented in this section. The findings presented are
representative of all participants as the responses for Riverside and San Bernardino participants
were very similar.
Advantage and Option Rideshare
The results of the commuter surveys of both the RCTC Advantage Rideshare program and the
SANBAG Option Rideshare program demonstrated that both the In -County and Out -County
Commuter Incentive Programs were effective in encouraging employees to begin and continue
ridesharing.
Emplover Size
Most participants work at employer sites with 500 or more employees — 40 percent of the
commuters worked at employer sites of this size. Twenty-two percent of the respondents reported
that less than one hundred people were employed at their work site, 19 percent reported a
workforce size of between 100 and 249 employees, and 20 percent stated that between 250 and
499 people were employed at their work site.
Rideshare Participation
Nearly 90 percent (i.e., 87 percent) of participants continued to share rides after the completion
of the three-month incentive payment period. Twenty-nine percent of participants were sharing
rides to work before participating in the programs in spite of guidelines that prohibit commuters
from participating if they are sharing rides to work. The presence of existing ridesharers in the
099 1 76
13
program may be attributed to employer representatives who are not careful in qualifying
participants, misinterpreting program rules, participants providing false information, or all of the
above.
During the three-month program participation, 61 percent of participants were ridesharing five or
more days per week, 23 percent reported ridesharing four times per week, and 10 percent
reported sharing rides three times per week. Those who used public bus reported the highest
frequency of ridesharing with 81 percent sharing rides five or more days per week. Interestingly,
the percent of commuters ridesharing five or more days per week decreased with the length of
time since completing the program. For example, 56 percent of participants registering for the
incentive program in 1994 were sharing rides five or more days per week as compared to 66
percent sharing rides five or more days per week among persons registering in the program in
1999. The incidence of ridesharing five or more days a week also decreased with the higher the
income of the respondent.
INCIDENCE OF 5+ DAYS PER WEEK RIDESHARING BY YEAR]
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
1O%
0i
060177
Over half of the respondents (i.e., 56 percent) indicated that they are ridesharing to work when
asked about their mode of transportation after receiving the incentive. Of the commuters who are
sharing rides, 44 percent are doing so five or more times per week with 14 percent ridesharing
four times a week. Vanpoolers and those using the transit (bus and rail) reported the highest
percentages of ridesharing five or more days per week. Twenty-six percent of the ridesharers
reported ridesharing less than once a week.
Nearly half of the respondents (i.e., 49 percent) stated that saving money led to their participation
in either Advantage Rideshare or Option Rideshare. The other most frequently cited reasons for
their participation in the ridesharing program experiencing less stress and congestion.
6 0 %
40%
00%
T0%
10%
0%
WHY COMMUTERS START RIDESHARING
SAVE 00017
LEES 070121
CO FFFFF 10 N
LEVEL
101110E 1
COWORKERS
LOFT OTHER
0 0 O 1
OTHER
The most frequently stated reasons for continuing to rideshare after the three-month program
were convenience (i.e., 34 percent) and enjoyment (i.e., 29 percent). In addition, one -quarter (25
percent) of the respondents indicated that driving alone was too expensive.
0t)01'178
Almost half (46 percent) of commuters who are ridesharing have decreased the number of days
per week they rideshare to work due to a schedule change. Sixteen percent of the respondents
attributed their reduction of ridesharing to losing their carpool or vanpool partner(s). Thirteen
percent of the commuters reported that they reduced the number of days they rideshare because
of inconvenience.
Just over half of the respondents (i.e., 58 percent) stated that they thought the program has
encouraged their employer to be more supportive of alternative modes of transportation.
Means of Travel
The Advantage and Option Rideshare database provided by RCTC and survey results showed
that more people tended to carpool than to use any other form of ridesharing during and after the
three-month program participation. Carpooling was the most frequently used mode of travel
during the three-month Advantage and Option Rideshare Commuter Incentive Program, as
shown by the Advantage/Option database. The use of vanpooling was considerably less;
specifically 67 percent carpooling and 13 percent vanpooling. Commuter rail also accounted for
11 percent.
f R ID E S H A R IN G M O D E
PU BLIC BUS
2%
COMMUTER
R A 1L
1 1%
BUSPOOL
3%
VANPOOL
12%
WALK
B IC Y C L E 7%
3%
TELECOMMUTE
1%
CARPOOLING
f4 %
Commuters who participated in a buspool during the three-month program had the highest
ridesharing retention rate (i.e., 95 percent). Ninety-one percent of the respondents who vanpooled
090179
16
and 89 percent of those who used a bicycle continued to rideshare after they stopped receiving
the program incentives.
The average tenure in ridesharing after the completion of the three month incentive payment
period was 9 to 10 months. Vanpoolers, buspoolers, and rail riders averaged 11 months of
ridesharing after the completion of the incentive payment period.
HOW LONG DID YOU CONTINUE TO RIDESHARE
AFTER THE 3 MONTHS?
Eighty-seven percent of the respondents stated that they shared rides with co-workers. Twenty-
five percent of the respondents shared rides with a family member. Sixteen percent of the
respondents used their employer rideshare services to find their rideshare partner.
Effectiveness of Commuter Incentive Programs
The Commuter Incentive Programs contribute to a commuter's decision to start sharing rides
with over 70 percent of participants indicating that the Commuter Incentive Programs influenced
their decision to start sharing rides to work. One-third of the Advantage/Option Rideshare
participants that responded to the survey indicated that the programs had a "major" influence on
their decision to not drive alone. This suggests that the Advantage/Option Rideshare incentive
reinforces decisions to start sharing rides., but may not be sufficient to change travel behavior by
itself. The Commuter Incentive Programs appear to be a needed compliment to the assistance
commuters receive from their employers as half of the respondents indicated that incentives from
their employers were not sufficient for them to start sharing rides.
Incentives
The maximum value of incentive received by participants for ridesharing in either the Advantage
or Option Rideshare programs was $2.00 per ridesharing day. Seventy-one percent of the
respondents stated that the $2.00 per day incentive level was adequate, while 22 percent reported
that it was more than adequate. Only six percent of the respondents thought the $2.00 per day
'oorriso
incentive was inadequate. The respondents who used public bus as their ridesharing mode during
the program had the highest rate (i.e., 38 percent) of those who stated that a $2.00 per day
incentive was more than adequate.
Reasons for Ceasing to Rideshare After Program Completion
Most of the respondents (i.e., 87 percent) indicated that they continued to share rides after
completing the three-month incentive payment period. Reasons for ceasing ridesharing varied
from the 26 percent of participants who indicated that they "lost their carpool or vanpool" to the
24 percent that had a change in their work schedule. Only two percent indicated that they did not
like to rideshare. Only six percent of those not continuing to share rides indicated that their
dissatisfaction with the program due to it being inconvenient was the cause for starting to drive
alone after the three-month incentive payment period was completed.
1 1 %
4 0%
1 1 %
1 0 %
2 1 %
2 0 %
1 1 %
1 0 %
1 %
0 %
1P R IM A R Y REASON TO STOP RIDESHARINO 1
Approximately three-quarters of the respondents who stopped sharing rides stated that no
incentive would have .convinced them to continue ridesharing.
Administration of Commuter Assistance Program
Commuters were asked whether three months was a sufficient period of time for employees to
experiment with ridesharing. The majority of respondents (i.e., 61 percent) stated that three
months was about the right amount of time. Twenty-six percent of the respondents responded
that the three-month time period was more than enough time to get people to try and continue
modes of transportation other than driving alone.
Nearly all of the commuters (i.e., 95 percent) reported that they did not experience any
administrative problems with the program when asked whether they encountered any challenges
or problems that could not be resolved during their three-month participation.
Demographic Profile
A total of 1,606 past and current Commuter Incentive Program participants were surveyed. The
survey population for the commuters is presented below.
Sixty-six percent were enrolled in the In -County Commuter Incentive Programs and 34 percent
participated in the Out -County programs.
Seven hundred and seventy-seven of the respondents participated in these programs in 1998/99
(48 percent). Sixteen percent were in the three-month program in 1997, 15 percent in 1996, 16
percent in 1995, and 5 percent in 1994.
Gender •
A majority of the respondents (i.e., 64 percent) were female. Thirty-six percent were male.
Age
Over one-third of the survey respondents (i.e., 38 percent) were in their 40s; another third (i.e.,
28 percent) were in their 30s; one -fifth (19 percent) of the participants were in their 50s; while 11
percent were in their 20s.
Ethnicity
A majority (i.e., 60 percent) of the survey respondents reported being Caucasian. Twenty-two
percent of the participants described themselves as Latino or Hispanic and 11 percent stated that
they were African -American.
70%
e0%
50%
4 0 %
00%
2 0 %
1 0 %
0 %
60%
i'111111V111111,11,111111111
11,
o
•
C• U C• 0 40 N
N IS
A
IC
E T H N IC IT Y r
A F 11 IC A N
A Y E N IC A N
A CIA N
O
TH
.111:11111110101111111111;
E N
Employment and Annual Household Income
About one-third of the respondents (i.e., 35 percent) reported a professional employment
classification, while 24 percent fell in the technical classification and an additional 23 percent
were clerical or secretarial.
The mean household income was approximately $51,000. Most of the respondents were close to
this figure with 39 percent reporting a total annual household income of between $41,000 and
•
;f
000.180
$75,000, and about one-third of (i.e., 29 percent) stating that their total annual household income
is between $20,000 and $40,000. One -fifth of the participants (20 percent) reported an annual
household income of over $75,000, and four percent indicated household income below $20,000.
Club Ride Program and Team Ride Program
Just over half (52 percent) of respondents reported that the Club Ride or Team Ride program had
some influence in their decision to continue ridesharing after they stopped receiving the
Advantage/Option Rideshare incentive payments. Eighteen percent of participants indicated that
the programs were a "major" influence in their decision to continue sharing rides. This result
suggests that the Club/Team Ride programs serve to reinforce decisions to continue sharing rides
rather than acting as the primary factor in continuing to not drive alone.
C L U B /TEA M R ID E'S IN FLU E N C E IN D E C IS 1O N
TO CONTINUE RIDESHAR NG
NO IN FLU E N C E
8 %
MAJOR
'1 8 %
M IN 0 R
3 4 %
Over 70 percent of Club/Team Ride participants have continued to renew their membership. Of
those who did not renew their membership, one-third indicated that it seemed too involved,
another third reported that they did not believe their membership had expired, 15 percent
reported outside circumstances, nine percent do not like or use the program, another nine percent
did not realize they had to renew their membership, and seven percent stated that they no longer
rideshare.
WHY D ID N 'T YOU RENEW C L U B /TEAM RIDE? I
NO LONGER
RIDESHARE
7%
D 0 N 'T L IK E
PROGRAMS
9%
0TH E R
16%
DIDN'T KNOW I
HAD TO RENEW
9%
H A S N 'T
EXPIRED
29%
TOO MANY
-- HASSLES
31%
Over half of the Advantage and Option Rideshare participants who had not signed up for the
Club/Team Ride programs stated that they were unaware of the program. Subsequent probing of
a selected number of these respondents revealed that most respondents were aware of the
Club/Team Ride services and features, but they were not aware of the program's name. In fact,
almost 30 percent of Team Ride participants and five percent of Club Ride participants stated
that they were unaware of the programs they were registered in, but did recognize the services
and benefits of the programs. Part of this can be explained by the relative newness of Team Ride,
however, it may also be the result of a lack of concern for a "brand" name and that many
participants thought that the Club/Team Ride programs were a continuation of the incentive
programs they had completed recently.
Forty-one percent of the respondents did not sign up because it was "too much of a hassle" and
18 percent stated they do not like to use discount programs. Sixteen percent were unaware of the
program. This is of concern as there is little, if any, complexity to registering for the Club/Team
Ride Programs. It appears that any additional registration process may inhibit participation. For
those members who receive the quarterly Club Ride newsletter about ridesharing, 65 percent
reported that it was useful and informative.
[WHY DIDN'T YOU SIGN UP FOR CLUB/TEAM RIDE?,
DON ' T LIKE UNAWARE OF SCHEDULE
DISCOUNT PROGRAMS PROBLEM
PROGRAMS
000184
21
Most of the respondents (i.e., 82 percent) stated that they would be more likely to continue to
share rides if the Club/Team Ride program eligibility began after completion of the three-month
program instead of six months later. Over three-quarters of the respondents (80 percent) stated
that they did not encounter any administrative problems that could not be resolved.
Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) Survey
Key findings from the surveys conducted of the ETCs of both the RCTC and SANBAG
Commuter Assistance Programs are presented below. The ETC survey results of both the RCTC
and SANBAG programs were very similar.
Incentives
The ETC survey results indicate that the ETCs believe that the $2.00 a dayprogram is very
effective in encouraging qualified commuters to rideshare. Thirty-nine percent of the ETCs
reported that the $2.00 per day incentive is very effective, 24 percent stated it is effective, and 24
percent believe it is at least somewhat effective. Only ten percent of the ETCs indicated that
$2.00 per day is not at all effective as compared to 28 percent of participants reporting that the
program had no influence on their decision to share rides.
EFFECTIVESNESS OF THE $2.00 A DAY INCENTIVE
NOTAT ALL
EFFECTIVE
10%
SOMEWHAT
EFFECTIVE
24%
DON'T KNOW
2%
EFFECTIVE
24%
VERY EFFECTIVE
40%
When asked what minimum dollar amount is necessary to motivate employees, over half of the
ETCs (i.e., 54 percent) agreed with $2.00 per day, while about one quarter (i.e., 27 percent) of the
respondents said it should be higher (i.e., $3.00 to $5.00 per day), and a tenth of the ETCs
thought it could be less than $2.00 per day.
Program Time Period
About two-thirds of the employer representatives stated that three months was about the right
length of time for the program; the remaining third of the ETCs were evenly split between those
who felt the time period was too short and those who thought it was more than enough time.
Accordingly, three months is an appropriate length of time for employees to experience other
commute alternatives. This finding supports responses provided by participants. ETCs wanting to
lengthen the program time period feel it should be expanded to five or six months.
00018E
SCR -s
23
Carrsutting & Research • Irvine, CA. (949.752-5.900 •, 41 shin.ton,1?C • 202 785.4800
Rideshare Participation
The ETCs' responses varied significantly when asked their opinion about the percentage of
employees who continued to rideshare after they stopped receiving incentives. The results vary
considerably from less than ten percent to 100 percent, with the average at 53 percent.
ETC opinions about why participants stop sharing rides is at odds with the responses of
participants as they believe the primary reason employees discontinue ridesharing is that it is "too
inconvenient" (i.e., 56 percent) and participants indicated that outside circumstances, not
inconvenience, influenced their decision to stop ridesharing. The next most frequently reported
reasons by ETCs for employees to stop ridesharing are changes in their employment location
(i.e., 17 percent) or moving to another residence (i.e., 10 percent). It should be noted that the
employer representatives are basing their response on what they hear from commuters, and may
not reflect the real reasons.
WHY D O N 'T EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO R ID E S H A R E 7
DON'T LIKE
RIDESHARIN O
7%
CHANGED
RESIDENCE -.
10%
CHANGED
EMPLOYMENT/
LOCATION
17%
OTHER
10%
TO 0
INCONVENIENT
I S %
Employee coordinators stated that the primary reasons for their firm continuing to offer the
Commuter Incentive Programs is it helps to increase ridesharing (i.e., 29 percent), that there is a
positive employee response (i.e., 22 percent), and that a high percentage of employees live in
Riverside/San Bernardino County (i.e., 12 percent).
Program Administration
ETCs were generally satisfied with the administration of the program. The average turnaround
time for the incentive payments has been anywhere from less than two weeks to three weeks
according to over 50 percent of the ETCs. Fourteen percent of the ETCs indicated that it takes
longer than three weeks. Thirty-four percent of the ETCs did not know what the payment
turnaround time was. The average incentive payment turnaround time is closer to three weeks in
Riverside County and two weeks in San Bernardino County. Only ten percent of the ETCs stated
they have experienced any problems with payment turnaround time.
0(018"
Continuation of Commuter Assistance Program
When asked how the three-month program could be improved, only 28 percent offered
suggestions, which included increasing the variety of incentives offered, expanding coverage to
other counties, and making the incentive time period longer.
ETCs generally rate the Club and Team Ride programs as only somewhat effective to effective
for maintaining long-term ridesharing.
The primary reasons for continuing with the Club and Team Ride programs are the positive
employee response (i.e., 45 percent), and helping to maintain the organization's Average Vehicle
Ridership (i.e., 21 percent). About one-third (i.e., 31 percent) of the ETC respondents stated that
they did not know the main factor contributing to their firm's continued participation in the Club
and Team Ride programs.
Commuter Assistance Program ETC Evaluation
ETCs rated the overall program at a B+ using an A -F grading scale. This was also true for all
individual rating factors including: having professional courteous staff, providing effective
promotional materials, returning phone calls in a timely manner, and clearly communicating the
parameters of the program. ETCs rated the RCTC program higher in the 1994/1995 evaluation,
with a majority giving the program an "A" in the same categories.
HOW WOULD YOU GRADE THE INCENTIVES PROGRAM
OVERALL?
Support materials were all rated by ETCs as "very useful," "useful," "somewhat useful," or "not
at all useful." Converting this to a numeric 1-4 scale where "1" is very useful and "4" is not at all
useful, the different materials ranged from 2.10 to 2.64. The program implementation package
was deemed most useful at an average of 2.10. This was followed in descending order of
usefulness by sample newsletter articles at 2.18, Club/Team Ride program posters at 2.22, and
zip -code listings and sample Rule 2202 pages at 2.44.
COST EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROCESS
Existing Process
The cost effectiveness of the Commuter Assistance Programs is evaluated in a manner consistent
with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) recommended methods. This has become the
industry standard for program evaluation throughout the state and in many other parts of the
United States.
The appropriate performance measure for cost effectiveness is cost per trip reduced since the
program is targeted at relieving traffic congestion. This is calculated by dividing total annual
program costs by total annual trips reduced. Trip reduction is determined directly from monthly
reporting forms submitted by employers or commuters where carpool riders, vanpool riders,
transit riders, walkers, bicyclists, and telecommuters are credited with a trip reduced for each
shared ride. Total trips reduced are calculated by multiplying daily reductions by the average
number of days per week/month and weeks/months in the program.
Evaluation methods for Advantage and Option Rideshare Programs do not account for the prior
mode of participants since it was assumed that all participants were driving alone prior to
receiving incentives. The survey responses cited previously found that approximately 36 percent
of participants were sharing rides at the time they started the incentive programs. The `prior
mode'. of participants needs to be considered in determining trips reduced as each new enrollee
does not represent a reduced trip as many participants were sharing rides previously.
Club and Team Ride do not reduce trips, per se, but they maintain ridesharing arrangements.
Many program evaluations assume a ridesharer equates to a vehicle trip reduced when, in
actuality, the new carpooler may have switched from transit, resulting in no net trip reduction.
Two other performance measures include vehicle miles of, travel (VMT) reduction and emission
reduction. Total one-way vehicle trips reduced are multiplied by the average one-way trip length.
Trip and mileage emission factors (from ARB) are then applied for Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG), Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM1o), and Carbon Monoxide (CO).
Recommendations
The method for determining the cost effectiveness of the Commuter Assistance Program's three-
month incentive program elements is sound, rigorous and consistent with statewide practices.
The one recommendation that should be implemented concerns how trip reduction is calculated
for the Club/Team Ride program. The other three recommendations made below are intended to
offer suggestions on area's of updating and future enhancements. As such, they are not intended
as "must do" items, but rather are offered as suggestions.
00U189
26 •
1. Modify Trip Reduction Calculations
RCTC and SANBAG should develop a trip reduction factor that can be used to calculate trips
reduced per new enrollee should the program continue without more rigorous methods in place to
disqualify existing ridesharers. This figure would replace the values taken from enrollment
forms.
Each member of Club/Team Ride is assumed to equate to a trip reduction. Thus, the total number
of members is used as the number of trips reduced. Unlike the Advantage/Option programs=
RCTC and SANBAG do not know who is a carpool driver versus carpool passenger in these
programs. It is recommended that trip reduction factors be applied to carpool and vanpool
member statistics in order to convert Club Ride and Team Ride members to trips reduced. These
trip reduction factors will eliminate carpool and vanpool drivers from the trip, VMT and
emission reduction calculations.
To do so, it is recommended that the total number of carpool members be multiplied by 0.6
(assuming an average carpool occupancy of 2.5 ((1 — (1 -2.5) = 0.6)) equating to six -tenths of a
trip reduced for every carpool member. Likewise, the total number of vanpool members should
be multiplied by 0.9 (assuming an average vanpool occupancy of 10 ((1 — (1 _ 10) = 0.9))
equating to nine -tenths of a trip reduced for each vanpool member. If RCTC and SANBAG
possess locally generated carpool and vanpool occupancy statistics, these should be used in
determining the trip reduction factors. These factors (multipliers) can be added as a new column
in the Club/Team Ride spreadsheet.
2. Compare Cost Effectiveness
One additional analysis that might be performed to demonstrate the comparative cost
effectiveness of the program is to compare the cost per trip reduced to results from other
evaluations in California and to other types of Transportation Demand Management strategies.
This would provide policy makers with an indication that the funds spent on the incentive
programs are cost effective in comparison to other programs and other means of reducing trips.
In FY 97/98, the cost per trip reduced for the Club Ride, Advantage Rideshare and Option
Rideshare projects ranged from $0.19 — $4.25. One source for comparisons is "Comparative
Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of 58 Transportation Control Measures (Transportation
Research Record 1641, 9/98) ". These ranges compare favorably to other evaluations of financial
incentives from around California that exhibited a range of $ (0.44) — $7.04 (the $0.44 saved was
from a program that also generated revenue from parking fees). Fixed route transit projects cost
$0.22 — 75.60 per trip reduced. Vanpool projects cost from $1.33 — $20.49 per trip reduced).
From an air quality standpoint, ARB considers a mobile source reduction project cost effective if
it reduces a pound of pollutants for $10 or less. The RCTC and SANBAG programs appear to
meet this standard as well.
0 0.010;D
3. Update Emission Factors
RCTC and SANBAG use ARB's 1996 guidance document and the emission factors included
therein (from EMFAC 7F). ARB's newest guidance "Methods to Find the Cost Effectiveness of
Funding Air Quality Projects" (4/99) includes new emission factors (from EMFAC 7G). The new
factors (for the period 1997-2001) are:'
ROG
Nox
PMio
Trip end VMT
Factor Factor
(g/trip) (g/mile)
4.98 0.55
2.05 1.02
n/a 0.45
4. Explore Inclusion of Access Mode
Given that the overall goal of the Commuter Assistance Program incentives is congestion
management, the air quality analysis is adequate. However, if air quality becomes a more
important focus of the program's objectives, the mode of access to ridesharing should be
considered as each "cold start" associated with a vehicle trip needs to be accounted for regardless
of the destination (e.g., accessing a carpool at a park and ride facility). This is an important issue
if a significant proportion of commuters access their alternative mode by driving alone to a pick-
up point. One way of accounting for this in the evaluation is to not assign a "trip reduced" to
park -and -ride commuters, but credit the miles of travel that are reduced. Therefore, in the
RCTC/SANBAG evaluations, a new column for park -and -ride trips would need to be added.
Registrants would need to be asked how they accessed their new commute alternative. Emissions
analysis would be applied to the net trip reduction column (not including park -and -ride) and the
VMT reduction column (average miles times all trips reduced). For congestion relief, total trips
reduced could be reported and for air quality, park -and -ride trips could be subtracted. It should be
stated again, however, that for congestion management purposes, park -and -ride trips are equally
effective because they reduce vehicle trips and VMT in the most congested corridors.
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
The Advantage/Option Rideshare programs are successful in changing the travel behavior of
commuters.
Nearly 90 percent of participants continued to share rides after they stopped receiving incentives.
Ridesharing went from 36 percent of participants before taking part in Advantage/Option
Rideshare to 87 percent after participation in the program.
The Advantage/Option Rideshare Programs contribute to, but may not be directly responsible
for, changing travel behavior.
Over 70 percent of participants reported that the Commuter Incentive Program had some
influence on their decision to share rides. However, one-third of the Advantage/Option Rideshare
participants indicated that the programs had a "major" influence on their decision to not drive
alone. This suggests that the Advantage/Option Rideshare incentives reinforce decisions to start
sharing rides, but may not be sufficient to change travel behavior on their own. The Commuter
Incentive Programs appear to be a needed compliment to the assistance commuters receive from
their employers as half of respondents indicated that incentives from their employers were not
sufficient for them to start sharing rides.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Focus marketing on employers and commuters that find non -employer incentives more
influential in changing travel behavior. Many survey respondents did not think that the
Commuter Assistance Programs had a significant influence on their decision to change
their means of travel. There were several exceptions to this finding especially among bus
riders, employees at smaller firms, and commuters living in households with lower
incomes. Moreover, many survey respondents felt that the incentives offered by their
employers were sufficient to get them to change their means of travel.
Many more Advantage/Option Rideshare participants were sharing rides prior to their
participation than had been assumed.
Thirty-six percent of participants were sharing rides to work before participating in the programs
in spite of guidelines that prohibit commuters from participating if they are sharing rides to work.
The presence of participants that had been sharing rides prior to joining the program may be
attributed to employer representatives that are not careful in qualifying participants or
misinterpret program rules and/or participants that provide false information.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Review methods for qualifying Advantage/Option Rideshare participants since over one-
third of enrollees indicated that they were sharing rides at the time they started receiving
incentives from the Advantage/Option Rideshare programs. Changes could include
t•
inr
educating employer representatives to be more rigorous in qualifying commuters,
disqualifying employers that allow existing ridesharers to participate, and directly
qualifying commuters.
Develop a trip reduction factor that can be used to calculate trips reduced per new enrollee
should the program continue without more rigorous methods in place to disqualify existing
ridesharers. This figure would replace the values taken from enrollment forms.
Advantage/Option Rideshare participants who stop sharing rides after completing the
incentive program do so largely for reasons that are outside the direct influence of the
programs.
Many participants reported "loss of carpool or vanpool partners" as the reason they stopped
sharing rides. The investment in getting commuters to start sharing rides that is represented by
the cost of the Commuter Assistance Programs is considerable, as are the benefits since every
participant will share a ride for an average of 12 to 13 months. Benefits could be increased even
further without a commensurate increase in costs if more Advantage/Option Rideshare
commuters continued to share rides for longer periods after their incentive period is completed.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Provide commuters with more direct help in reforming carpools and vanpools rather than
letting carpools and vanpools disband. Efforts to communicate with commuters when they
are completing their tenure in the Advantage/Option programs regarding assistance they
may need to continue sharing rides could increase the rideshare retention rate.
The Club/Team Ride programs appear to support commuters that share rides.
Club/Team Ride program participants value the services and rewards afforded to them, however,
nearly 50 percent of the respondents indicated that the programs had no influence on their travel
decisions, with an additional 34 percent indicating that the programs had a minor influence.
This finding suggests that RCTC and SANBAG:
Review the Club/Team Ride program elements, the market the programs are directed
towards, and the marketing approach, especially in light of the help carpoolers and
vanpoolers may need to keep sharing rides when arrangements start to deteriorate.
Consider communicating with Advantage/Option Rideshare participants regarding the
Club/Team Ride programs before their tenure expires since many participants were
unaware of the Club/Team Ride programs.
Eliminate the six-month waiting period needed to qualify for Club/Team Ride programs as
survey results suggest that interest in Club/Team Ride programs would be substantially
greater if the eligibility period started after completion of the three-month
000193
30 .
Advantage/Option Rideshare incentive period (i.e., 82 percent would be more likely to
participate).
Evaluation methods for the Advantage and Option Rideshare Programs do not account for the
mode of participants prior to joining the programs as it had been assumed that all participants
were driving alone prior to receiving incentives. The survey responses cited previously found that
approximately 36 percent of participants were sharing rides at the time they started the incentive
programs.
000194.
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Program of Projects Revision
Efforts are underway to begin design of the Commission's Tier II rail stations at Van
Buren in Riverside and at Main Street in Corona. Both stations are included in the
current RCTC budget and Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan.
State and local funds have been identified for approximately one-half of the estimated
construction costs with the remainder proposed to come from Federal 5307 funds
which the region has accumulated by virtue of Metrolink train operations in Riverside
County. It is anticipated that approximately $6 million of Section 5307 funds will be
required, but a more definitive estimate will not be possible until the designs are
completed six months from now.
In order to expedite construction, staff needs to begin the federal application process
as soon as possible. RCTC has never before been a direct recipient of federal transit
monies, and the grant process is quite complex. Before a Federal Transit
Administration grant application can be submitted, the Commission's federal Program
of Projects must be amended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend revision to the RCTC Federal Program of Projects to
include construction of commuter rail stations near Van Buren in Riverside and near
Main Street in Corona, and that the Committee authorize staff to schedule the required
public hearing for the Commission's September 8, 1999 meeting.
000195'
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans & Programs Committee
FROM:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Amendment 1 to Land Use Agreement with the Riverside
Community College (RCC) for Temporary Parking Lot at the La Sierra
Metrolink Station and award of a design contract to KCT
Consultants for the parking lot design.
RCTC adopted the recommendations of the Tier II Station study at the April 1999
Commission meeting. One recommendation was to provide for a temporary parking
facility at the La Sierra Metrolink Station because the current parking lot use was
running higher than 90%. The need for the temporary parking lot will be eliminated
as soon as the Van Buren Metrolink Station is constructed. Proposals for the final
design of the Van Buren and Corona Main Street Metrolink Stations have been
requested.
The land for the present La Sierra parking lot was leased from RCC in 1994 for 49
years with an option to extend for another50 years. RCTC Staff has discussed the
need for the temporary parking facility to accommodate approximately 200 vehicles
with the Riverside Community College who also owns the land surrounding the La
Sierra Station site. RCC has agreed to lease the additional acreage required to RCTC
for free under the following conditions:
1. RCTC uses the RCC consultant KCT Consultants to perform the design of the
temporary parking lot. KCT Consultants is currently under contract with RCC
to perform preliminary design engineering for a future development on the RCC
property. The proposed KCT scope of work is attached for your review and
approval. KCT proposes to perform the required design tasks for the amount
of $16,804.
2. That RCTC work with RCC with regards to the future parking lot design such
that the final parking lot configuration will be compatible with the RCC
commercial development. This may require that some of the current station
parking be relocated to a different location on the RCC property.
3. That RCTC would assist RCC in maintaining their developer's share of the La
Sierra interchange to $400,000 as a result of the proposed RCC development.
000t96
A further benefit of the agreement is that the contractor constructing the La Sierra
pedestrian overcrossing will be able to use an additional portion of RCC property for
a temporary laydown area eliminating the need to provide the contractor space in the
existing parking lot. The complete agreement proposed by RCC is attached for your
review and approval.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost $16,804 + extra work of $4,000 for a total of $20,804
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Included in Program Budget
TDA
N Year Programmed
Approved Allocation Year of Allocation
Year
Budget Adjustment Required Y
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission:
1. Approve the attached agreement with the Riverside Community College to
obtain temporary parking for the La Sierra Metrolink Station subject to RCTC
Legal Counsel review and approval.
2. Award a design contract with KCT Consultants to design the 200 vehicle
temporary parking facility called for in the Tier II Station Study in a manner
compatible with the station parking needs, using a standard RCTC consultant
agreement, for an amount of $16,804 with an extra work amount of $4,000
for a total not to exceed amount of $20,804.
000197
LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION
AT d5F RR R/MI
`li:' LKW-11.ifil*
1
g 110.
t
. .• r aver.
1:1,74`1/4111 a 1.41 1 Y _t
RCFC S Y C D rLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL R/w
4.1011111 1 SH401.4
#'M11,01
11' f !
AREA FOR TEMPORARY
RAIL STATION PARKING
7n0
1
1
1
1
It
348 EXISTING_SPACES
ttUE
A4E
tD l ►�ttA -
- VL IYw &Mill ►Wl
lUol11111 Y UAW ►,.L
•
Fizt9T ADDE= TO GROUND LEASE
This First Addendum to the Ground Masi ("First Addendum")
between RIVERSIDE COMITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a public agency
("Landlord") and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION,
a public agency ("Tenant") dated December 13, 1994 ("Ground
Lease") is made by and between these parties effective
, 1999.
SAS, the Landlord has leased to Tenant approximately 3.3
acres of property ("Laud") for purposes of a metrolink commuter
rail stop and parking lot for approximately 350 vehicles at the
corner of La Sierra Avenue and Indian Avenue in the City of
Riverside ("La Sierra Station"); and
SAS, Tenant is aware that Landlord is currently
soliciting a developer to develop a mixed use project on its
adjacent property; and
WHEREAS, said'Ground Lease is in full force and effect; and
WEEREAS, Tenant desires to temporarily expand its parking
capacity by 200 parking spaces at the La Sierra Station while
Tenant constructs a new rail station and parking lot at the
corner of Van Buren Boulevard and Indiana Avenue in the City of
Riverside but in no case beyond February 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, Landlord has property contiguous to the La Sierra
Station upon which Tenant can construct its desires 200 temporary
parking spaces and
?M=EA.S, Tenant desires to lease from Landlord and Landlord
desires to lease to Tenant property for the 200 temporary parking
spaces.
1
00019'9
NOW, TEEREFORE,.Landlord and Tenant agree as follow:
1. THE LEASER PREmISEE. Landlord will additionally lease
to Tenant and Tenant from Landlord the property of approximately
two (2) acres described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto which is
incorporated by reference herein (the 'Additional Lease Area. N)
The exact acreage shall be established upon completion of the
preliminary design and Exhibit 1 shall be;modified based on that
design.
2 • TER P'VRPOSP or Twr FTRxT AQO Wntim. The sole purpose of
the First Addendum is temporary provision of 200 parking spaces
for Mstrolink riders, consisting or paving, striping, and
lighting. Tenant's contractor shall receive a temporary easement
for the installation of improvements at Tenants passenger
loading area.
3.ZETTIMEJIL2ELLTRIL_Amgasm.The term of tha First
Addendum shall commence on August 1, 1999, and shall conclude on
February 28, 2001.
4. NARKING LO DErGt1. The design, approval and
installation of all improvements necessary to the parking lot
construction Shall be the responsibility of Tenant, subject to
approval by the Landlord, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. The design will incorporate two access
points to the existing adjacent Metrolink station and will
prevent access to the existing City right of way ad j•acent to La
sierra Avenue. KCT Consultants, Inc. or another consultant
mutually agreeable to Landlord and Tenant1shall provide
engineering, planning and construction management support for the
parking lot installation at Tenant's expense.
»iW
2
000200
5. CCNSIU!`RATION FOB Th! F:1 T AD1 DUM. No monetary rant
shall be paid by Tenant to Landlord pursuant to this First
Addendum. In consideration for the First Addendum, Tenant agrees
to the following:
a. Apply for a revised Conditional Use Permit (RCUP)
from the City of Riverside for the parking lot use. Landlord
shall sign any necessary applications as owner.
b. At the time it constructs its parking lot on the
Additional Less° Area, satisfy the applicable requirements of the
City of Riverside for such a parking lot including but not
limited to lighting, paving and striping.
o. Hold harmless and indemnify Landlord, its trustees,
employees and agents from any and all damages, rights of action,
costs and liability of any kind whatsoever, arising out of
Tenant'a use of the property. The hold harmless, indemnity, and
insurance clauses of the Ground Lease shall have full force and
effect in this First Addendum as set forth in paragraph 7 below.
d. Permit reconfiguration of the permanent parking lot
serving the Metrolink Station subject to the Ground Lease if
requested to do so by Landlord and/or a party purchasing or
leasing the property described in Exhibits A-1 and A-2 of the
Ground Lease from Landlord, on the condition that the party
requesting the reconfiguration pay for it and provide alternate
parking during the period of reconfiguration. Permission for
reconfiguration is subject to the requirements of Tenant to
conveniently serve its riders, but shall not be unreasonably
withheld. This permission for reconfiguration shall be subject
to a separate written agreement between the parties. This
ri29199
3
000201
condition shall survive the termination of this First Addendum.
e. Use Tenant's beat efforts to assist Landlord in
limiting, to an amount not to exceed $400,000.00, Landlord's
"local share" requirement to fund a portion of the La Sierra
Avenue -91 freeway overpass -widening as established by the
Specific Plan for Landlord's re ert
F P Y approved by the Riverside
City Council on July 9, 1991 or any revised specific plan. The
$400,000.00 amount is based on an estimate provided by the Public
Works Department of the City of Riverside to Clayson, Mann,
Yaeger i Hansen, counsel for Landlord by letter of ,Tune 21, 1999.
Tenant'sbest efforts in•this regard shall not require or imply
Tenant's payment of the Landlord's "local share" obligation in
whole or in part.
6. REMOVAL OF rMPRcv @. The Tenant agrees to remove
all improvements constructed under this First Addendum and
environmental hazards resulting from Tenant's use within ninety
(90) days of the date Tenant ceases using the Additional Lease
Area or within ninety (90) days of the termination date of the
First Addendum, whichever comes first. Said removal Bail be at
Tenant's sole expense and effort.
7. GR0jjRZ LgASE iH FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as expressly
provided herein, all terms, conditions and covenants of the
around Lease shall remain in force and effect and shall control
Landlord and Tenant and shall apply to the Additional Lease Area
pursuant to this First Addendum.
8. yaNDLORD COOPERATI0 1`s Landlord .shall as the property
owner sign the RCOP application and permit application to the
City of Riverside as prepared by Tenant to obtain permission for
7/2949
4
00020?
installation of the improvements and the parking lot use.
THEREFORE, the parties execute this First Addendum to Ground
Lease to be effective on the date first written above.
Dated , 1999 LANDLORD
RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Dv'
James L. Suysse, vice President
Administration and Financ
Dated , 1999. TENANT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
BY:
Chairperson
Dated ,_. 1999 RECOILED FOR APPR VAL.
By
Eric Tuley, Executive Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
=KIM=
Dated 1999 APPROVED AS TO FORM.
8y:
Best, Best & Krieger, LLP
Counsel, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMIssION
Dated , 1999 APPROVED AS TO Foam.
By:
Clayeon,. Naar, Yaeger &
Ranson, PLC, Counsel,
RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT
Dated
1999 APPROVED AS TO FISCAL IMPACT.
By:
CANNto
AWIAICCD-AW.LW
7/29/99
Controller, RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRAN5PORTATIQN COMMISSION
5
000203'
** TOTAL PAGE.08 **
KCT CONSULTANTS, INC.
P°OD'° PTOkl:fnk3 Q1134'V ProIessiu^•VS^ i Ps !_' Qi:a rk Cljxris
July 16, 1999
_ivil Engineers
Surveyors
Planners
4344 Latnam St
Suite 200
Riversiae CA
92501
PO Box 5705
Riverside CA
92517-5705
Ph 909,341-8940
Fax 909/341-8945
kctinc tstonramp com
William R Hughes, P. E.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
Re: La Sierra Metro Link Station, Temporary Parking Lot
Dear Mr. Hughes:
KCT Consultants, Inc. (KCT) is please to present this proposal for engineering services
regarding the development of approximately 200 temporary parking spaces on property
owned by Riverside Community College District (the "District") adjacent to the La Sierra
Metro Link station. The principals of KCT have had a long history with this property, and
are intimately familiar with the site, and with the land use and construction permit
requirements of the City of Riverside. We believe that the inclusion of KCT on your
professional team for this project will enhance your ability to attain goals for schedule and
'budget.
Based on our discussion and understanding of the project, KCT proposes to provide the
following:
Scope of Services
1. Base Mapping. Perform a field survey to obtain existing ground elevations on a 50
foot grid, location and elevations of existing driveway improvements, and existing
utilities and structures in the project area. The mapping will be digitally compiled
with boundary and easement data contained in our files. The resulting map will
depict the two to three acre project site, adjacent street rights of way for La Sierra
Avenue and McMillan Street, the closest rail road track, and the westerly extremity
of the existing Metro Link parking and drive aisle.
2. Preliminary Site Design. Utilizing the Base Mapping described above, two
preliminary parking and circulation layouts will be developed for review and
approval by RCTC. The resulting approved site design will be inserted into the
Conditional Use Permit application and Grading Plan described below.
000204
William R Hughes, RCTC
La Sierra Metro Link Temporary Parking Lot
July 16, 1999
Page 2
3. Revised Conditional Use Permit. Prepare an application and exhibit for a Revised Conditional
Use Permit in accordance with the requirements of the City of Riverside, including:
• Application forms
• Environmental questionnaire
• Property owners notification package
• Site Plan exhibit, with preliminary engineering and lighting details
• Project description
The application package will be submitted to the City of Riverside Planning Department for
processing. (It is assumed that application and processing fees, if any, will be provided in a
timely manner by RCTC).
4. Processing. Assist client in processing the CUP application package by attending meetings
with City staff, attending project team meetings, responding to questions and requests for
additional information, and representing the project before public hearings (Planning
Commission and City Council). After approval of the CUP application, assist client in
obtaining construction permits by interfacing with various departments in the City of Riverside.
5. Grading Plan. Prepare a precise grading plan depicting temporary paving and sheet flow
drainage over existing ground, including general notes, erosion control and Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and process plans through City engineering and Planning
Departments. (It is assumed for this project that geotechnical engineering will not be required
due to the temporary nature of the improvements.)
6. Site Lighting Plan. As a sub -consultant to KCT, W. A. Doby Engineering, Inc. will prepare a
lighting and electrical power plan to provide temporary lighting for the parking lot, including
verification of existing service conditions, construction documents and specifications,
processing through the City of Riverside for permits and project meetings. (Note: It is
assumed that the existing Metro Link station has sufficient power capacity to serve the project.
If engineering for offsite facilities is required, additional engineering costs may be incurred).
7. Construction Phase Administration. KCT and W. A Doby will assist RCTC's project manag K(
-111=1110.-
000205
William R Hughes, RCTC
La Sierra Metro Link Temporary Parking Lot
July 16, 1999
Page 3
during the construction phase by responding to requests for information and clarifications and
performing site visits as requested. Two meetings and one progress and one final site visit
from each firm is included in the budget.
Fee Schedule
Professional fees for the services described above, including designated sub -consultants, are set out on
the attached Estimate of Professional Fees.
Exclusions and Assumptions
The following services are available, but excluded in the Scope of Services for this proposal:
• It is assumed that geotechnical investigations and engineering are not required for this
project due to its temporary nature.
• Drainage for the proposed parking lot will perpetuate natural (existing) conditions.
Engineering for underground drainage facilities is excluded from the scope of this
proposal.
• It is assumed that the project will not require the relocation if any underground or
overhead utilities.
No land division mapping or processing is included in the scope of this project.
Advertisement for and selection of a contractor will be undertaken by RCTC.
We are prepared to commence work on this project immediately upon receipt of authorization to
proceed. We have enclosed our Standard Agreement Between Client and Consultant for your review
and approval. Should you have any questions, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss our
proposal and the scope of this project with you.
We look forward to working with you. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
KCT Consultants, Inc.
Daniel J. Kipper, PLS
Principal
KCT
+ter
000205
KCT C. JItants, Inc.
08/17/99
RCTC
Temporary Parking Lot
La Sierra Station
ESTIMATE OF PROFESSIONAL FEES
Project Sr . Assoc .
Position Principal Manager Engineer Egn ./Sur. Technition Clerical
Salary Rate $42.00 $35.00 $32.00 $24.00 $18 .00 $12 .00
Base Mapping
Preliminary Site Design
Re vised CUP Application
Processing
G ra ding & Drainage Plan
Site Lighting Plan
Construction Phase Admin
0 2
2 4
4 4
8 6
4 12 28
1 6
2 8
Total Hours 21 42
Direct Cost $882 .00 $1,470 .00
Multiplier @ 99. 6% of Direct Cost $878 .47 $1,464.12
Profit @ 10. 5% $184 .85 $308 .08
To tal Cost $1,945.32 $3,242 .20
Base Mapping
Preliminary Site Design
Revised CUP Application
Processing
Grading & Drainage Plan
Site Lighting Plan
Construction Phase Admin
Estimate for Iabor.123
Dir. Cost Multiplier
$358.00 $356. 57
$632. 00 $629.47
$1,268.00 $1,262. 93
$546. 00 $543. 82
$2,204. 00 $2,195.18
$252. 00 $250. 99
$364. 00 $362. 54
$5,624.00 $5,601.50
12
8
8
12
40
40
28 28 92
$896.00 $672.00 $1,656.00
$892 .42 $669.31 $1,649 .38
$187 .78 $140.84 $347.06
$1,976 .20 $1,482.15 $3,652 .44
4
4
$48 .00
$47.81
$10 .06
$105 .87
Consult.
Profit Sub -Total - Fees T otals
$75 .03 $789.60 $1,800.00 $2,589.60
$132.45 $1,393 .93 $0.00 $1,393 .93
$265.75 $2,796.68 $0.00 $2,796 .68
$114.43 $1,204 .25 $0.00 $1,204.25
$461.91 $4,861 .10 $0.00 $4,861 .10
$52. 81 $555.81 $2,000 .00 $2,555.81
$76.29 $802 .83 $600.00 _ $1,402.83
$1,178.68 $12,404.18 $4,400 .00 $16,804.18
KCT Consultants, Inc.
ID
1
2
Task Name
RCTC La Sierra Station
Temporary Parking Lot
DESIGN SCHEDULE
Durat
Base Mapping 2w
Preliminary Site Design 2w
3
4
Revised CUP Application
Submit CUP Application
2w
Od
5
Processing
5w
6 Approval by Planning Commission
Od
7 Prepare Grading and Drainage Plan
3w
8 Prepare Site Lighting Plan
3w
9
City Plan Check
5w
10
Issue Grading Permit
Od
11
Construction Phase Administration
8w
12
Od
ter
8/22
/1
9/5
4th Quarter
9/19110/3110/1710/31
L
11/1411/2812/12112/261 1/9 11/231 2/6 12/20
Tue 8/17/99
1st Quarter
91 9/21
9/1 'ls:. ... 9/28
9/28 ♦ Submit CUP Applicati on
9/29 ;'JI ii ij F� __£ : 11/2
11/2 4 Approval by Planning Commission
10/13
10/13
£'sarifi..m° .10 .761; .
•£li��!i££ €Iei�'s£££
1
11/10
/2
/2
E�E3'c3�lif£Ezs.:a£z'sPE.. .:i •°::�:
::£::sz£sF•E:;£££:
Issue Gr ading Permit
12/15
Project: design sched
Date: Tue 8/17/99
Task Summary
Progress
Mile stone
Ej�'EE�ii�sl'£s :s��[�rrsfe F!
::Rxa-s
Rolled Up Task
12/14
12/14
� £rx ¢ iEEFz{{ ## {1
sz.is .s ..:. .. ...1� .£...£££..iill£££IE£!iIl
111111111111111111 1111111111111111111
Rolled Up Milestone 0
Rolled Up Progress
design sched
Page 1
2/8
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director
Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Request for Proposals to Develop a Bid Package (PS&E) for the
Construction of the Measure A SR 60 HOV Lane Project in Moreno
At the July 1999 RCTC meeting, the Commission approved $26,165,880 of CMAQ
dollars to design and construct the SR 60 Measure A HOV lane project between the
East Junction of the SR 60 and 1-215 to Redlands Boulevard in Moreno Valley. Now
that this money has been made available for this project by the Commission, staff is
requesting direction to prepare a request for proposals to select a design firm that can
prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the project.
This project will be coordinated with the 1-215 projects between Day Street and the
SR60/91 /I-215 Interchange that will be constructed by Caltrans in the same time
frame. The SR 60 HOV project will also include the improvements to the Perris
Boulevard interchange ramps that the Commission included with the authorization of
the CMAQ funds.
Staff will advertise a request for proposals, create a selection panel which will include
staff from Caltrans, RCTC , City of Moreno Valley, and Bechtel. The results of the
selection panel will be brought back to the Commission for review and contract award.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Total estimated project cost is $
PS&E design cost will be determined after the selection
process.
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
CMAQ matched with Measure A
N
Year
Included in Program Budget
Approved Allocation
Y
Budget Adjustment Required
Y
Year Programmed
Year of Allocation
Financial Assessment
Financial Impact Not Applicable
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission direct staff to prepare, advertise, and select a consultant who
will prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the construction of the
Measure A State Route 60 HOV lanes in Moreno Valley between the East Junction
with 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. The project will include ramp improvements at
the Perris Boulevard interchange.
'i00,219
State Route 60
60 / 215 to Redlands
'BEGIN PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
MORENO VALLEY
ON
000211
AGENDA ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans & Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans and Programs
SUBJECT:
Regional Transportation Improvement Program - 2001 RTIP, and 1998
In order to receive federal funding and/or approvals for transportation projects, the
projects must be included in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)
which is required to be updated every two years by the Environmental Protection
Agency's Transportation Conformity Rule. This document is also referred to as the
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The FTIP/RTIP is a six -year
programming document which contains transportation improvements projects that meet
one or more of the following criteria:
1) Federally Funded
2) On State Highway System
3) Requiring Federal Approvals and/or Permits
4) Regionally Significant
The RTIP must conform with a federally approved air plan known as the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The conformity analysis is performed by the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) which for the southern California region is the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG).
The process begins with each County Transportation Commission's (Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial) submittal of the following to
SCAG: project information entered into the RTIP database (new, amended, and deleted
projects), a report demonstrating that all Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
projects programmed in the first two years of the previous RTIP are being implemented
as programmed, and a resolution stating that all funding is committed and does not
exceed apportionment levels.
Once SCAG receives the submittals from the CTC's the information is processed and
analyzed for adherence to requirements outlined in the Transportation Conformity Rule.
There are three conformity tests that are performed: 1) Emissions Tests; 2) Financial
Constraint; and 3) Timely Implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs).
All three tests must be met in order to make a conformity determination of the proposed
RTIP.
The emissions analysis looks at all the proposed projects in the region which :ate then,
000212
modeled in the regional transportation computer model. Outputs of the transportation
model are then included in an emissions model which displays the amount of emissions
per pollutant the proposed RTIP generates. The purpose of this is to ensure that the
region is not exceeding the air quality standards per pollutant set forth in the 1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments.
The financial constraint test is to ensure that all transportation funds programmed in the
RTIP are committed funds. Federal funding must not exceed apportionment levels. All
projects must have identified/committed funding before inclusion in the RTIP.
Implementation of TCMs as programmed in the previous RTIP must be met. The CTC's,
upon submittal of every RTIP update, commits by resolution to implement all TCM
projects as scheduled to demonstrate priority to these projects.
A finding of conformity for each of the 3 tests can be difficult to attain. SCAG has
scheduled the conformity analysis to be performed from January to June 2000. If there
are problems finding conformity the schedule could be extended. Once the SCAG
Regional Council finds the RTIP to be in conformance with the SIP, it is submitted to
Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). FHWA is the approving agency with EPA commenting on the conformity
analysis procedures. In the past, it has taken approximately three months to receive
federal approval (FTIP approval).
The 2001 RTIP Update is ready to begin. SCAG has provided a schedule (attached)
which identifies the submittal date for the CTC's on December 17, 1999. Projects
programmed by RCTC (i.e. CMAQ, STP, TEA, STIP Regional Improvement Program, Short
Range Transit Plan, and Federal Demonstration projects) will be programmed by RCTC
staff. All other local and state projects meeting the above criteria for inclusion in the
RTIP must submit the required information to RCTC by November 5th 1999. Agencies
must fill out the attached RTIP Project Submittal Form which will be accepted by E-mail,
fax, or regular mail.
Once the 2001 RTIP is federally approved approximately in August -September 2000, the
1998 RTIP will become null and void. All projects in the current 1998 RTIP will be
carried over to the 2001 RTIP. Over the next few months, agencies will be contacted
on the status of their projects. If projects have been fully obligated, they will be deleted.
Projects which have not been obligated will be updated to reflect the current status.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
op,0213
RTIP FY 2000/01 — 2005/06 Guidelines July 29. 1999
Proposed
Adoption Schedule for the
FY 2000/01 - 2005/06 Federal Regional Transportation Improvement Program
r
1
1
✓
June 1999
July 28, 1999
Dec. 17, 1999
Jan. 4 -Feb 21, 2000
1
■
■
Draft of Updated RTIP Guidelines
County Commissions, IVAG, Caltrans, Etc. work on project
Final RTIP Guidelines
DEADLINE - PROJECT SUBMITTAL TO SCAG
All projects input into Regional database. Projects must be
consistent with the 1998 RTP
Database locked down
Financial Plans Due
SCAG staff working with Caltrans and County commissions, will
analyze project submittals.
• Analyze projects for consistency with 1998 RTP
• Analyze projects for air quality conformity
• Financial Constraint
• Programmatic Analysis
• Timely Implementation Report Due
1 Feb 22 - Apr 4, 2000 Modeling and analytical work including timely implementation
activities
1
■
•
April 5, 2000 Modeling Report due to RTIP Section
April 6-18, 2000 Final draft write-up and Management Review Period
April 20, 2000 RTIP sent out for reproduction
April 25, 2000 30 -Day Public Review period starts
May, 2000 Public Hearings throughout SCAG Region
June 1, 2000 Regional Council scheduled to adopt RTIP
June 9, 2000 Report to FHWA,.FTA, EP
Southern California Association of Governments 7
000214
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
2001-2006 RTIP PROJECT SUBMITTAL FORM
Lead Agency Name : Date
Contact Person Phone #:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Circle One: New Project Amend Project Delete Project
Circle One: State Project Local Project Transit Project
If Amending a Project, Go to Section B.
If Deleting a Project, Go to Section C.
SECTION A - New Projects
Route or Street:
Project Limits:
Detailed Description of Project:
If Lane Widening, how many existing lanes?
How many lanes are being added?
Length of Project (miles or feet):
Project on CMP System? Yes [ 1 No [
Environmental Completion Date :
Environmental Document Type :
Estimated Completion Date of Project:
'000215
Fund
Source
Source
E S
RS
C S
T S
E S
R S
C S
T S
FUND SUMMARY
(000's)
FY 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06
FY 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 • 04/05 05/06
E=Engineering R=Right of Way C=Construction T=Total
Total Cost of Project: $
SECTION 13 - Amending Projects In Approved RTIP.
RTIP PPNO#
Please provide a detailed description as to why the project is being amended:
If applicable, please fill out the appropriation fund changes in Section A.
SECTION C - Deleting Projects
RTIP PPNO#
Circle One: Why is the project being deleted?
Completed - Completion Date:
(Month/Year)
Dropped
Other - Explain:
:`9.1.021f3
AGENDA ITEM 10
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager
THROUGH:
Eric Haley, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Rail Program Update
At the Commission's direction, recent rail reports and other pertinent information are
reproduced in a side packet for Committee and Commission meetings. Staff will be
prepared to review these materials as directed.
OVERVIEW
The most recent rail operating reports and related materials are provided as a side
packet at Committee meetings. Staff will be prepared to discuss these materials at
the Committee's direction.
000217
AGENDA ITEM 11
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
August 23, 1999
TO:
Plans & Programs Committee
FROM:
Jerry Rivera, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans and Programs
SUBJECT:
Advance of Local Transportation Furtds to SunLine Transit Agency
SunLine Transit Agency submitted a grant application for Section 5307 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funds in fiscal year 1999. However, because the FTA instituted
a new electronic application and reporting system which has incurred many serious
problems and has slowed rather than accelerated the processing of federal grants,
SunLine has not yet received the $585,000 of operating funds for FY 1999 included
in the grant.
SunLine does not provide for any contingency reserves in its budget and depends on
timely payment of grants. They are severely short of cash and are requesting an
advance to cover the $585,000 short -fall. They propose to repay the loan by
deducting it from their next two payments of FY 2000 Local Transportation Funds
(LTF). Staff recommends approval of their request.
Financial Assessment
Project Cost
Source of Funds
Included in Fiscal Year Budget
Year
Included in Program Budget
Year Programmed
Approved Allocation
Year of Allocation
Budget Adjustment Required
Financial Impact Not Applicable
1
000218
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee recommend the Commission approve SunLine Transit Agency's
request for an advance of $585,000 in Local Transportation Funds to be repaid by
reducing their next two payments of FY 2000 LTF funds.
:=@QO2'1
July 23, 1999
7/7/y.)
MEMBERS:
Desert Hat Sprigs Rancho Mirage Indio
Palm SArrngs Palm Desert Coachella
Cathedral City Indian Wells Roversiae Counts.
La Qurnta
A Public Agency
Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director '
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Ave.
Riverside, CA 92501
Dear Eric:
As I am sure you are aware, The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has instituted a
new electronic reporting system (the TEAM system) that has incurred serious pains at
birth and in this first year of its operation has slowed, rather than accelerated, the
processing of federal grants. As a result, SunLine has not yet received the $585,000 of
operating funds for Fiscal Year 1999 that are contained in the FTA grant.
We are now nearly one month through Fiscal Year 2000. Needless to say, under the
circumstances, we are severely short of cash. SunLine does not provide for any
contingency reserves in its budget, and depends on the timely payment of grants.
We would greatly appreciate any assistance that you could provide to us in advancing
$585,000 to us to cover this short -fall. It could be repaid by deducting it from the second
and third payments to us for the Fiscal Year 2000 LTF funds. That would allow us to
receive the first LTF payment intact, which is needed to pay for Fiscal Year 2000
expenses already incurred.
Thank you for any assistance you can provide in this matter:
Sincerely,
Kichard Cromwell III
General Manager
William A. Maier
Chief Financial Officer
000220
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276
Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845