Loading...
09 September 8, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00113 RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 2 B. ADDITION OF PROGRAM MANAGER CLASSIFICATION TO THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99- 011, RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974. Overview This item is to: 1) Add the Program Managers to the Conflict of Interest Code's list of designated employees; and, 2) amend RCTC's Conflict of Interest Code by adopting Resolution No. 99-01 1. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 9A. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAMS FOLLOW UP Overview Approve the STP Local Program projects and ensure they are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). 9B. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2001 RTIP, AND 1998 RTIP AMENDMENT SCHEDULE Overview Receive and file. RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 3 9C. 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 Overview This item is to 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. 9D. CITY OF NORCO - REQUEST TO REPROGRAM SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS Overview Approve City of Norco's request to reprogram discretionary STP funds. 9E. AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9969 FOR SOUND WALL #98 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE (PHASE II SW) Overview Award Contract No. RO-9969, for the construction of Sound Wall #98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation, on Route 91, from Tyler St. to Monroe St., in the City of Riverside, to Hillside Contractors, Inc., for the amount of $793,960. Authorize a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) to cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed value of $875,000. RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 4 9F. 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 Overview It is recommended that the Commission 1) approve the 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. 9G. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS WITH BN&SF FOR THE LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA PEDESTRIAN OVER CROSSINGS Overview Approve the agreement, subject to legal counsel, for La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Station Pedestrian Over Crossings 9H. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES FOR THE OPERATION OF A CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL ON I- 215/SR-60 IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Overview The agreement between the Caltrans and the Riverside County SAFE is presented for approval, subject to legal counsel, in the amount of $ 96, 000. RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 5 91. AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) FOR THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES IN THE SAN BERNARDINO AND INDIO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES Overview The agreement between SANBAG and RCTC for dispatch services for Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box Program is presented for approval. 9J. FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE RIVERSIDECOUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE OPERATION OF A FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Overview Approve the Agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to legal counsel, in the amount of $918,500. 9K. CONTRACT AWARD FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICES Overview Award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service on Beat #25. 9L. ADVANCE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Overview This item is to 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. RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 6 9M. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS Overview This item is to: 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. 9N. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-010, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS" Overview This item is to include language in the Commission's Personnel Rules and Regulations for employees to disclose to their immediate supervisor that a relative works for or on behalf of an individual, business or entity that does business with RCTC by adopting Resolution No. 99-010. 90. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE Overview For receive and file. 9P. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS O vervie w For receive and file 9Q. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT Overview For receive and file. RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 7 9R. QUARTERLY Y2K STATUS REPORT Overview For receive and file. 10. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN - "LISTENING" AND "VISIONING" PHASE 25 Minutes Page 143 Overview Presented is the Riverside County Integrated Plan's draft vision statement. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 10 Minutes Page 295 Overview State and federal legislative updates are presented for receive and file. 12. AMENDMENT TO FY 1999-2000 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 5 Minutes Page 311 Overview This item is to approve the request from the SunLine Transit Agency to: 1) amend their FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase two additional SuperBuses from OCTA; and, 2) increase SunLine's Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation by $567,603, to $8,099,603. 13. DONATION OF SURPLUS RAIL TO ORANGE EMPIRE RAILWAY MUSEUM. 5 Minutes Page 313 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the donation of surplus 62 1 lb rail to the Orange Empire Railway Museum for use in the Museum's Grizzly Flats narrow gauge railroad display. RCTC Meeting Agenda September 8, 1999 Page 8 14. PRESENTATION ON ORANGE EMPIRE RAIL MUSEUM ACTIVITIES. 15 Minutes Overview Tom Jacobsen, President of the Orange Empire Rail Museum, will be present at the meeting to brief the Commission on the status and upcoming activities at the Museum. 15. COMMISSIONERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 10 Minutes Overview This item is to provide the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on activities and meetings attended and other issues to be discussed. The Executive Director will present a proposal for a no -cost fund trade with the Southern California Association of Governments for discussion and/or action. 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 17. CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Rea/ Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 234-250-016 and 234- 250-018 Name of Parties: Agency - Executive Director and Legal Counsel Property Owner - Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. 18. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 13, 1999 at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES July 14, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, California 92507. A moment of silence was observed in memory of Commissioner Frank Parrot who passed away on July 11, 1999. Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Gene Bourbonnais Bob Buster Percy L. Byrd John M. Chlebnik Alex Clifford Juan M. DeLara Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly Stan Lisiewicz Tom Mullen Kevin W. Pape John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Andrea M. Puga * Robin Reeser Lowe Ron Roberts Jim Smedley Doug Sherman John F. Tavaglione Jack van Haaster James A. Venable Frank West Roy Wilson Donald F. Yokaitis Mark Yarbrough Arrived after start of meeting 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS A roundtable self introductions followed. Robert Crain William G. Kleindienst Jan Leja Chris B. Silva RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 2 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 2, 1999 M/S/C (Hall/Byrd) approve the minutes of the June 2, 1999, meeting as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. No additions or revisions were submitted. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). M/S/C (Pena/DeLara) to approve the following Consent Calendar items, with the exception of Agenda Items 6A, FY 2000 FTA Section 5311 Rural Transportation Program, and 6S, Schedule of Recurring Consultant. 6B. UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES; 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". 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, make a finding that there are 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". 6C. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND REGIONAL COMMUTER RAIL Approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside Transit Agency and Regional Commuter Rail as presented. 6D. FY 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR TRANSIT Approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for transit in Riverside County as shown on the table in the agenda packet. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 3 6E. TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES (TEA) CALL FOR PROJECTS Direct staff to develop and release a Call for Projects; designate the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee as the Evaluation Committee. 6F. REAFFIRMATION OF CONFORMITY FINDINGS OF THE 1998 RTP AND RTIP FOR PM 10 NON -ATTAINMENT AREAS Receive and file the report on reaffirmation of conformity findings of the 1998 RTP and RTIP for PM10 non -attainment areas. 6G. AMENDMENT TO FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Approve the revised Five Year Capital Improvement Plan for the City of Beaumont. 6H. FY 2000-2004 MEASURE "A" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS Approve the FY 2000-2004 Measure "A" Five Year Capital Improvement Plans, including the City of Calimesa's Plan for FY 1999, as submitted. 61. AWARD OF AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9832 FOR NINYO & MOORE TO PROVIDE ON -CALL MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR MEASURE "A" CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE 1999/2000 FISCAL YEAR. Authorize the award of Amendment No. 3 to Contract RO-9832 to Ninyo & Moore to provide on -call construction material testing services for the projects identified in the staff report for a base amount of $77,185 and an additional extra work amount of $22,815, for a total not to exceed amendment value of $100,000. The extra work contingency will be used as authorized by the Executive Director. The RCTC standard consultant amendment will be used subject to Legal Counsel review and approval. 6J. SMART CALL BOX PROJECT/BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Approve the FY 1998-99 budget adjustment to support the Smart Call Box Pilot Program. 6K. FY 1990-00 SB 821 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Approve the SB 821 allocations as shown in the attached schedule RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 4 6L. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Grant the County's request to amend the site location for the Serfas Club Drive project and approve time extensions as requested. 6M. 1999 REVISIONS TO LOCAL GUIDELINES TO IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-007, 'A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT" 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.)." 6N. AMEND RCTC DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS . ENTERPRISE PROGRAM (DBE) PROGRAM AND OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL FOR FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS 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). 60. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 99-009, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS' Adopt Resolution No. 99-009, 'A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending its Personnel Rules and Regulations" 6P. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Receive and file the status report. 6Q. MONTHLY COST SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file. 6R. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) FOR RCTC/SANBAG SHARED STATE AND FEDERAL ADVOCATES Approve two (2) RFP's: 1) RCTC and SANBAG shared State advocacy services; and 2) RCTC and SANBAG shared Federal advocacy services. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 5 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7A. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS Chairman Jack van Haaster opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one wishing to present testimony, the public hearing was closed. M/S/C (Smedley/Reeser Lowe) to approve the proposed FY 2000 FTA Section 5307 Program of Projects for Riverside County 7B. HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS APNS 233-130-020, 233-130-007, 233,140-004 AND 233-140- 005, BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98, AND RELATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, ALONG STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON AND MONROE STREETS, IN RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Chairman Jack van Haaster stated that this was eminent domain and would require a 2/3 vote by the Commission. Steve DeBaun, Legal Counsel, stated that it is necessary to acquire temporary construction easements to put up that sound wall. There are five temporary construction easements that are listed in the agenda. He noted that an agreement with Felix' has been reached so this will be pulled. In order to adopt a Resolution of Necessity, the Commission is required to make four findings: 1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; 2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; 3) whether the acquisition of temporary construction easements are necessary for the project; and, 4) whether the required offers to acquire the temporary construction easements have been made. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, stated that proof of mailing is included in the agenda packet and had been mailed to affected property owners. Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, explained that the Soundwall 98, located on the south side between Jackson and Madison Streets, is a continuing effort to complete the soundwall project on Route 91 which was part of the widening of Route 91. The acquisition of the temporary construction easements are necessary because the sound walls are located adjacent to the property line and the outside of the footing will be the property line. RCTC contracted with the County of Riverside to make the appropriate appraisals, and to contact and negotiate with the property owners. Approval of this item is needed in order to continue this project on schedule. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 6 Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, explained that there were no written objections, protests or requests received. Janet Parks, County of Riverside Supervising Property Agent, stated that they had settled with all but one party. Chairman Jack van Haaster opened the public hearing. Hearing or seeing no one, the public hearing was closed. M/S/C (Clifford/Smedley) make the findings as noted in the agenda report and Approve Resolution No. 99-006 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Declaring that the Acquisition of Temporary Construction Easement Interests in Certain Real Property Located in Riverside County, California, more Particularly Described as APNS 233-130- 020, 233-130-005, 233-130-007, 233-140-004 and 233-140-005, by Eminent Domain is Necessary for the Construction of Sound Wall #98, and Related Public Infrastructure, Along State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in Riverside, California" 8. STATE ROUTE (SR) 71/91 IMPROVEMENT STUDY Paul Blackwelder, explained that State Route 71 improvements are not included in Measure "A". San Bernardino's Measure included State Route 71, from Route 60 to the Riverside County line and they proceeded to construct the four -lane freeway. That, in conjunction with growth in the Chino Hills area and the traffic increasing going towards 91, created a congestion and safety problems. In an effort to resolve the problems, a Coordination Team consisting of RCTC, SanBAG , CalTrans, SCAG and Riverside County was formed to focus on short term improvements to solve the safety problems and identify longer range improvements to increase capacity. Through the efforts of the Coordination Team and Congressmen Ken Calvert and Jay Kim, interim improvements were approved and funded. By using CalTrans SHOPP funding, California Transportation Commission approved Interregional Road Funding and federal Demonstration Project Program, projects are underway to solve the immediate safety problems and add some capacity. Also, funds were secured to hire HDR Engineering to conduct a study to identify : a) identify improvements for increased capacity on State Routes 71 and 91; and, b) various methods available to fund improvements in the future. Eric Haley, Executive Director, noted that NewTrak, the agency seeking to purchase the 91 HOV facility from the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC), was granted a non-profit status. Eric Keen, HDR, briefed the Commission on the Study. the alternatives identified are from Magnolia Avenue and the Eastern Transportation Corridor. It is the impression that there was a strong predominant movement from San Bernardino and Orange County, but in looking at the traffic projections it is much more evenly distributed. In reviewing the RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 7 alternatives, it is recommended that an additional high occupancy lane be added west of the 71 /91 Interchange, to implement the inner four -lane widening which is Alternative 1-A as quickly as possible. and to review and adopt a Long Range Implementation Plan to address the institutional and financial issues. There is a need to work with CPTC or their successor, NewTrak, to establish a working relationship to implement some of these improvements because they impact their facilities, revenue stream and also impacts their franchise rights, and for a joint powers authority to be pursued to look at these institutional/financial arrangements to implement parts of the project and that the intergovernmental working group that has been established be continued. A long range funding plan also needs to be developed. In response to Commissioner Jim Smedley as to what agencies will be part of the JPA and if Los Angeles County would be involved, Paul Blackwelder, explained that it would likely be RCTC, Orange County, toll road operators and CalTrans. He added that Los Angeles County would not be a member of the JPA but the JPA would coordinate with them. Commissioner Alex Clifford expressed his concern about the four lane recommendation and asked if traffic entering Route 91 will be controlled by the existing lights as they approach the bridge before the 91 using a single lane to cross the bridge. He felt we previously dealt with the safety argument and was not in favor of directing higher highway traffic volumes from Route 71 which would cause a greater bottleneck at the 91 /71. Paul Blackwelder indicated that in addition to controlling the lights, the bridge would be widen and they will redo the ramp onto 91. These improvement would be done in conjunction with the CalTrans auxiliary lane proposal between that point and the eastern corridor. He agreed and confirmed Commissioner Clifford's question that if a motion approving those recommendations it is understood that until determined otherwise by RCTC the two projects are assumed to be connected. Commissioner Bob Buster agreed with Commissioner Clifford that while these are projections out fifteen years, he wondered if their basing the fact that traffic is going down through the canyon, they are not going to want to go through the canyon because this will be bottleneck in 15 years. These improvements should not be added preceding any kind of agreement with CPTC or NewTrak to get official binder in writing to allow improvements on Route 91 at least down to the 241. Eric Keen stated that with regard to the four lane Alternative 1-A, the four lanes would go across the bridge. One reason for that is that, currently, it operates as a two lane facility at that location and there is a back-up of traffic. By adding the additional lane across the bridge structure, it allows free -flow movement to and from the east to Riverside. It not only enhances movement in this corridor, but does not add additional trips onto the roadway (Route 91) in that it is still metered at the ramp. It does allow the movement coming southbound on 71 to go eastbound on 91. By adding additional lanes, back-up traffic will move right through and continue eastbound. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 8 Eric Haley commented that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will be reviewing its Inter -regional Transportation Improvement Program and that will include $22 million for additional projects on 91. He then thanked Stan Lisiewicz for his efforts. Commissioner John Chlebnik indicated that there is congestion westbound and eastbound on Route 91 at different times of the day. By widening 71, will add to the congestion. Unless Orange County widens the westbound to the 55 and maybe beyond, all that this will do is to change where the congestion will be. He suggested just widening the northbound 71 to relieve the congestion on the 91. Commissioner John Tavaglione agreed with Commission Chlebnik and said that if those auxiliary lanes could be built, it will allow a freer flow southbound on Route 91 at least from Route 71 to westbound Orange County. He then questioned NewTrak's potential acquisition of CPTC and RCTC's or CalTrans' ability to build the auxiliary lane without any opposition or threat of lawsuit. Eric Haley stated that NewTrak is not a party to CPTC's lawsuit. Theoretically, the basis for CPTC's suit was that it reduced their market share, that would probably also be the case for NewTrak. Commissioner Andrea Puga commented that the City of Corona is probably the most impacted by this issue. She was able to attend most of the meetings concerning this and the report before the Commission has come a long way to identify the solutions. Communication with the two toll road agencies should be continued and that Eric Haley has done a very good job in doing so. Eric Haley restated the recommendation was to approve the range of options and this time will come back to the Commission to decide the level of financial commitment. Part of the financial commitment will be based on the institutional arrangements that could be made with Orange and San Bernardino Counties and perhaps Newtrak. Commissioner Alex Clifford stated that presently there are physical barriers because when you enter the 71 in Riverside County, it channels down to one lane and traffic is regulated by signals. By widening Route 71 it to four lanes without the downstream widening on Route 91, trying to regulate this by signals becomes a political barrier and the pressure will be turned on by those outside the Inland Empire to start changing the timing on the signals or turning them off. He concurred with Commissioner Buster to tie these two projects together unless otherwise determined by this Commission down the line, make sure that the four lanes occur and at the same time the downstream improvements between 71 and the eastern corridor toll road occur. Chairman van Haaster asked the Executive Director if it was appropriate to tie the two together and if funding opportunities may be lost by doing so. Eric Haley explained that the question of the auxiliary lanes is still tied up in litigation, so RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 9 they are not running on the same track. He would be very reluctant to try to put any conditional language on the CTC's action to approve funding. The points are well taken, but the speed of both decisions are significantly different. One is happening now and the question on the auxiliary lanes is still in court. In response to Chairman van Haaster if the auxiliary lanes never happened, would the Commission want to widen that bridge. Eric Haley responded that this is a policy decision and there are clearly some benefits for the traffic northbound traffic on 91 to have those improvements and there are benefits for intercounty travel. Commissioner Stan Lisiewicz shared his experience going to Temecula by way of 71 and waited for 3 miles of backup traffic in order to get past that one lane choke. He stated that if the Commission do have install two lanes southbound, it would not be beneficial to Riverside residents. Commissioner Chlebnik asked if it would be possible to go ahead with the northbound 71 improvements and set aside the money for the southbound until, and if, the downstream improvements are done on the 91. Commissioner Lisiewicz said that the funds could not be set aside. Eric Haley indicated that the one section is in court and it is a CalTrans project which would be done in cooperation with RCTC, highway improvements take a great deal of time. We have a considerable amount of time to continue to work on this, but I would caution against any signal that says we back away from the commitment that CalTrans has on this $22 million. Commissioner Tavaglione stated that the issue being debated occurred prior to when most of the Commissioners were members of RCTC. We are now left with a congestion on 71 /91, we took the pro -active roll and worked with San Bernardino County and the cities. The key is to have ongoing communications and a team put together to work with the toll road agencies. He agreed with Commissioners Clifford and Buster that the two projects should be combined but it will not happen unless there is a strong concerted effort working with the toll roads to reach some agreement. The Commission should focus on what needs to be done on Route 91 from the Route 71 to 1-15 with regards to future toll roads in connection to the Route 71. Paul Blackwelder stated that the study gives the proper direction, identifies the longer term alternatives and the institutional arrangements. The Commission could approve the study with direction to the staff to continue to work to make sure that the interim improvements are down all at one time. The study does indicate that we want the four lane and the auxiliary lane at one time. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Hunt) to approve the SR 71 /91 Improvement Study Final Report and the Chair create an ad hoc committee including Commissioners Andrea Puga, John Tavaglione, and representatives from San Bernardino County to review the alternatives and provide a recommendation to the Commission. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 10 Nays: Buster, Clifford, Chlebnik 9. PRESENTATION OF COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG) TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITIZATION STUDY Corky Larson, Executive Director of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), informed the Commission that they have adopted the 1999 update of the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPSS) and the Regional Arterial Cost Estimate for the Coachella Valley. The documents lists all of the arterial roadway improvement projects in the Coachella Valley by ranking, including estimated cost of construction. These are submitted to the Commission as Coachella Valley's strategic planning guide. The estimated need, as identified by the various jurisdictions, is approximately $639 million. In response to Commissioner Jim Smedley's question if the developer mitigation fee is wide spread throughout the Coachella Valley or left up to each individual city, Corky Larson explained that it was uniform throughout the Valley with the exception of two cities, all of the cities in Coachella Valley participate because if they do not have a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), the city gives up their local street and road funds to the regional arterial program. 10. FY 2000-2003 CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager, explained that CVAG was directed to coordinate the programming of funds for their area and provide a list of recommended program allocations to RCTC for consideration and approval. Attached to the staff memorandum is CVAG's recommended program for PM 10 Control Measure Projects totaling $5,132,652. The balance of the funds, $9,270,41 5, will be programmed at a later date. CVAG has called a meeting of the local agencies to begin to develop a project list for the Commission's consideration. In the Western County area, a total of 41 projects from 17 agencies was received requesting a total of S61,662,463 in CMAQ funds. The Commission's TAC evaluated all of the proposals using the approved selection criteria and in addition, Ray Gorski was hired to provide support to staff in reviewing the proposals. Presented is the recommended funding list of 18 projects developed by the TAC. In order to fund as many projects as possible, the County of Riverside agreed to phase their project on Valley Way Entrance and Exit Ramp. Also presented are the list of project which were unable to be funded due to lack of funds to support their PM10 Implementation program in Coachella Valley. She noted that broadening the scope on the SR 60 Moreno Valley HOV project to include a reconfiguration at the Perris Boulevard SR 60 Interchange was recommended and approved by the Budget and Implementation Committee. This will not affect the allocation of the CMAQ money. The City of Moreno Valley will provide the necessary right-of-way and additional construction cost will be covered by Measure "A". Commissioner Robin ReeserLowe asked why the CNG Infrastructure in Hemet was not on the list. Cathy Bechtel explained that there is great support for the Infrastructure, but given RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 11 the selection criteria approved by the Commission and the number of projects submitted, there was not sufficient funds. Staff will be working with RTA to try to secure other funds to implement and construct this station. She added that RTA has federal funds available that could possibly be used. Commissioner Alex Clifford asked for clarification, regarding the Nason Interchange in the 60 Project. Paul Blackwelder explained that the Commission will have substantial savings by doing the project at the same time that the Route 60 construction project is done. The total cost, including right-of-way is about $3 million with the right-of-way being close to $1 million and approximately $500,000 will be saved by doing the projects together. There is funding for local circulation and interchange improvement in Measure "A", since the Day Street interchange which is part of the 60 Project was funded through the STIP. The $7.2 million interregional program is in the STIP Proposal. Staff will come back to the Commission for funds to be reprogrammed for Route 60 at a future meeting after the interregional funds are approved. That project was fully funded, but we were contacted by the CTC asking if we had a project that could use $7.2 and funds will be used for the truck bypass which would then allow the Commission to reprogram thoseoriginal funds. Between the STIP, CMAQ and Measure "A" money available, it is not a problem to fully fund this project. Commission Clifford confirmed that the Commission would not be in any way precommitting to any other funds. Eric Haley confirmed Commissioner Clifford's question that by this motion the Commission would be putting the $7.2 million into the Route 60 project. There will be subsequent action to realign the money. He further explained that it puts us in the vicinity of $33 million for this project. Without the $7.2 million we would have been about $7.5 million short. Commissioner Clifford clarified that the $7.2 million is separate from the CMAQ discussions. It is important the Commissioners are aware of this and we need to ensure that we discuss these types of things. In response to Commissioner Puga's request for clarification on the Southern California Edison's Zero Emissions program, Cathy Becthel explained that it was a buy down program for heavy equipment. Public or private agencies would be eligible if they were replacing heavy equipment, if replaced with electric equipment, they will get the differential cost through this buy down program. Eric Haley added that one of the cheapest way to reduce air pollution is by switching from fossil fuel power utility equipment to electrical power utility equipment. Edison and several manufacturers are marketing this approach to a variety of large warehouse and distribution operations. If this takes off you will probably see the SCAQMD embrace it as well. Commissioner John Tavaglione also added that in the Ontario/Riverside/Western Riverside area there are tremendous amounts of warehouse/distribution facilities. This is one way to deal with the diesel emissions, especially with the refrigerator vehicles. Commissioner Tom Mullen stated that originally the Commission planned to borrow from the unused STIP money, if the bill passed, to complete the Routes 60, 74 and other small projects. Route 74 is on track and for Route 60, there is no need to borrow funds as a result of the shift from San Bernardino. Eric Haley added the reason for the Commission RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 12 to sponsor the loan bill is to move the Route 74 project and receive other benefits over time. M/S/C (Mullen/Pape) approve the proposed list of projects for CMAQ Improvement funds available in the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins and direct staff to include these projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. 11. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE David Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, updated the Commission on the proposed legislation and other activities: 1) SCA 3, a constitutional amendment will provide a statewide ballot to allow for transportation sales and use tax for local transportation purposes. It passed on the Senate floor this Monday evening. Last week Senator Burton had a meeting with all of the Executive Directors of self help county agencies and other agencies that would be the implementing agencies should this pass state-wide. At least a draft plan will have to be approved here in Riverside County and should come before this Board in March, 2000 and a final plan in April, 2000, before we go to the ballot in November. That is a very fast pace; 2) SB 315 was initially written to allow for $16 billion in bonds for transportation purposes state-wide, broken down into three different ballot measures. It now looks like it is going to be a one time ballot measure and likely in a $4-8 range; 3) SB 928 by Senator Burton would authorize federal grant anticipation bonds. TEA 21 authorized the tool to allow states to bond against future federal allocations that they are going to be receiving, this bill is the implementation mechanism for the State of California to allow that tool to be available; and, 4) there was a 12.5% cap nationwide on the amount of total pool of dollars available for transit allocation which means that each state would not receive more than 12.5% of the total amount available. California currently receives 13.9% and is looking at a loss of about $1 18 million state-wide and Riverside- San Bernardino is about $4.2 million. Senator Feinstein voted no in Appropriations because of this cap and is currently negotiating and is currently holding the bill from being heard by the full body. Both California and New York will be affected. Commissioner Mullen commented that Congressman Packard is in need of applause for the $1 million for the CETAP and are soliciting Senator Feinstein's support for that. Still need 2-3 votes. The County hired former Congressmen Lowery and Fasio to secure the $200- 300 million needed in order to complete the buy program as it relates to the entire agreement plan, specifically the multi -species plan which will be used as the mitigation for transportation and housing. On the stateside, there are currently negotiations over two versions of a park bond bill, SB 57 and AB 18 of about $2.3 million. Cities as well as counties will reap the benefits. For the Inland Empire, there is a section for $57.3 million that can be used for either park or habitat purchase. Our plan calls for us to purchase somewhere between 15,000-100,000 acres which would then be appropriated into the parks regional system so we could appropriate put equestrian and hiking trails, those types of things where we can and maintain that. In order to be able to do that in the time period necessary to make the Transportation Plan viable. The $57 million for the two county area will not do it, there is $30 million that has been proposed to use for bike trails from the RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 13 ocean to the mountains in the Santa Ana water project, 50% of that $57 million. Currently working with the authors of the bills in an attempt to work that out. We think that is more appropriately put into water bond bill. Currently working to shift that $30 million out of the $57 million. He will provide an update in September. Commissioner Reeser Lowe stated that the Hayden bill will be heard tomorrow. Votes from the Inland Empire are needed asked representatives to fax letters to area legislators. M/S/C (Wilson/Mullen) to adopt the following bill positions: AB 102 - change from "Seek Amendment" to "Oppose"; Support SB 928; and receive and file the Legislative Update. 12. CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH GLADSTEIN & ASSOCIATES IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERSTATE CLEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR PROJECT M/S/C (Mullen/Hunt) Approve: 1) entering into a consultant agreement with Gladstein & Associates; and 2) allocation of $25,000 for the work effort. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 6A. FY 2000 FTA SECTION 5311 RURAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM In response to Commissioner John Venable as to who is eligible to for these funds, Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, explained that these funds are available to public transit operators as defined by the FTA. M/S/C (ReeserLowe/Puga) Approve the proposed FY 1999-2000 FTA Section 5311 Program of Projects for Riverside County. 6S. SCHEDULE OF RECURRING CONSULTANTS Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, explained that two additional contracts were added since the Budget and Implementation Committee reviewed and approved this item: Geographics through September 30,1999 and Inland Empire Transportation Services December 31, 1999. M/S/C (Mullen/Hunt) Approve the Schedule of Recurring Consultants. The contracts will be for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 with the addition of Geographics through September and Inland Empire Transportation Services through December, 1999. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 14 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Chairman van Haaster requested to add an item as an emergency item that has just come before the Commission. This item is the letter from Councilman Karel Lindemans, Chairman of the RTA Board. He requested Commission to approve this item to be added to the agenda for discussion as a late breaking item that has just come before the Commission and RTA will be meeting next week to discuss related items. M/S/C (Mullen/ReeserLowel that the Commission add the discussion of the letter from RTA Chairman Karel Lindemans as a late breaking item that was just brought to the attention of the Chairman, after the posting of the agenda. Nay: Commissioner Yokaitis Commissioner Mullen indicated that the letter being distributed by RTA's Chairman and action by their finance committee is requesting a major transportation corridor study as it relates specifically to adding hundreds of buses which would seem to run directly into what is being attempting in CETAP. This was approved by their committee and is going to their board to approve $1 25,000 for the study. He proposed that within the CETAP process that look at transit, new corridors as well as arterials, within the general plan, envision corridors which are different than what exists today. There should not be any duplication of efforts nor should there be any exclusions. He proposed to split with RTA a component of the CETAP process dealing specifically with transit and that seek the services of Marty Wachs, formerly the Chair of the Grad School of Urban Management at UCLA and now the Chair of Dean at Berkeley, to do the study. Chairman van Haaster stated that a broader question that he and Eric Haley had to deal with is the fact that they have been receiving letters which appear to be a representation, but as near as he could tell there has been no RTA action at the Board level submitting a request to RCTC. He would like a policy for both himself and the Executive Director that requests will be addressed by the Commission from legislative bodies assuming there is legislative action behind it and requests from specific individuals of those bodies, whether the chairman or not, will be referred back to them. Commissioner John Hunt explained that he agreed with Commission Chair's assumption and statements but he has not seen the letter. He said that at the last RTA Board meeting, the Board authorized staff to begin formation of request for ten year routing plan and referred the project to the board financial committee for their recommendation regarding the appropriate fund to be used by the project. On July 7, 1999, the board finance committee met and approved $125,000 to be taken out interest accrued on this agencies reserve. Lengthy discussion took place regarding appropriate scope and delivery of the project. Staff was requested to assemble a scope of work and to provide the Board with a complete description of the project. They are planning to define the context of the ten year transportation plan, including pertinent relationship to other planning efforts within the region. This would be structured to avoid any duplication to determine the impact of growth. Additionally through the study RTA is seeking: 1 ) increased public transportation RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 15 leadership, 2) expand, reorganize, and improve services in public transit to make it more attractive alternative to the automobile, 3) continue to develop a favorable public awareness of RTA, 4) develop a planning process that is community centered and will meet RTA's community transit needs, 5) set a public transit service level described to meet efforts to seek additional funding, 6) demonstrate that RTA committed to improve of the changing needs of community that we serve. The recommendation is to approve a ten year strategic plan process. Commissioner Venable stated that it is very clear that the Chairman Lindemans' letter clearly stated that the CETAP Program as it relates to transit will not work and Commissioner Venable took exception to that. Commissioner Reeser Lowe indicated that Hemet's representative, Marge Tandy, put on record that she is opposed to this study. The City of Hemet is fully committed to the CETAP process and feel that one of those ingredients is transportation as a whole, not separately. Commissioner Andrea Puga expressed that she was not in favor of the RTA study and asked if there is a segment in CETAP that there is money allocated for public transportation study. Eric Haley explained that as the corridor analysis is being done, alternatives to highways will be looked at such as rail, increased bus service, intercity express service. In his discussion with the RTA Chairman, he informed him that CETAP would accelerate some of the work on transit in order to meet his goal for enhanced express transit services. One issue is how rapidly data can be developed within his time line and within the context for CETAP. Chairman van Haaster stated that his direction to the Executive Director was that the Commission should not be specifically responding to any one member. But if the RTA Board, as a whole, wants to come forward with a request then the Commission would consider it. He recommended that the Commission send a letter to RTA to that affect. Commissioners Kevin Pape and Percy Byrd expressed their concurrence. Commissioner Robin ReeserLowe explained that this is the second time she had heard that someone was excluded from the CETAP process. Some of the cities have representatives on the multi -species committee, stakeholders committee and they are not there. There is an important meeting on the 15`h, it goes back to the same issue. There is one member of an organization sending a letter, but complaints can only be made if they are present at the meeting. This CETAP process is quite inclusive, she is not certain how else to reach out to them to attend the Commissioner John Tavaglione agreed with the Chairman van Haaster's recommendation and it would be incumbent upon this Commission to have the leadership of the CETAP process to make a presentation to the RTA Board as to what CETAP is and what it involves. RCTC Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 16 Commissioner Mullen requested that the Karel Lindemans' letter be faxed to each of the Commissioners.. M/S/C (Hunt/ReeserLowe) to: 1) establish a policy that the RCTC Chairman and Executive Director respond to funding requests as approved by submitted to the Commission by their respective boards rather than individual members of the board: and, 2) send a letter to the RTA Board to inform them of the Commission's policy. At this time, Eric Haley presented the following: 1) the UCLA Symposium is an annual transportation conference at Lake Arrowhead at the UC Conference Center, October 24- 26. Commissioner John Chlebnik and Commissioner John Tavaglione requested attendance; 2) a letter sent to all of the western county cities regarding the opportunity to advance Measure "A" money by virtue of a loan; and, 3) he, Commissioners Clifford and Roberts will be attending and making a presentation before the High Speed Rail Committee next week in San Francisco. Commissioner Frank West thanked the Commission for supporting SR 60 Improvement Plan. 15. ADJOURNMENT. There being no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, September 8, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the Corona Public Library, 650 Main Street, Corona. Respectfully submitted, N.ty K nh ver CI : rk o the Bo RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPOR TA T/ON COMMISSION vAME r✓ �� /z, / aek k�ll R Ism 11 C/i_e AI - �epze [Jozip4oHSNQi5 Jot�J \�vArC' uoNE t S 011/1 l�I - Zara j OG 4\ b Signing is not required COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999 9:00 A.M. SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY x? c""� /ice •i .. . GAL /McSA Ci-t yO vt L cz. K 2 -r--7461) � r ., OUK1 ijs ft; 6: •` 144. TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER 6 77- 42Yi l a`?e-9/t �dc?-(- / %2Z-���c �7‘0 /0�1 �6 3- oV/ 74a 09 - 79S---29p3/ 90 9 - 79,r--a.TYy 2.44-7Z715-- ) 3=1c71tl _ 7(�v SS33-S-11 (0/ 7400 39r-S502 / (760)39/ ///7 9/9: 7Z.5 ate) / -'1 17- 01-20 / 7l- 0 3Yt z yk, S lob 67r 5 ,/ 1f/3 696.4 / 9o9 - 755 - 7- /430 / 717-7)0"7 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) NAME // 0!� A /. ^ tl (C OccliSc;:ov (F o v..) y O tc " `� tt '-/ ,L1 S. �0 )1,,`" y J �a ria6.e7= I 1-i Si Qom'; c Al\lar2.e /\ ��) �— Signing is not required AGENCY e ki\1 rn ik)f�� Ca jfrrl►IS TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER /�/O / 76.0 s2 I r ! ZS)J 7g-2 ,227 �9.y-6yyo l FG73 o9s-6 3�3-yv5� l 3v3 - 6�3p / / RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999 9:00 A.M. PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION 1'AME Ai11 Lv Fa srci/ _) /7 57 4 `7 ighLi6rou0a �rr of .1 -Sorg /7! vr.� :04 c s' /`2 e27 ✓��yvY /` 5.5 NOR rY] fir,) pUN)&t_ r 04 )61041 Ali-`DA tOz(6NT G(/)4fra, V AGENCY grD/Z VJ��cr— CaC- .c. -cn1LtrI __Sc-4- C- 51 i� �� g �(-71-7 Rr12ioc-,?_ ,►Cev E-10/02PPLS6 ;/ 01� 4✓,,t,Gto TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER Fee 142- / 803 703 4-3 Z-S -46r7-e) / -3-0P) I 7-WSf I 7?4 j 1,57 7E19=/ 7 3d3 3 ¢ Sr / 9 yes-- 7�idl yi-,=3/ l ; it ?-) y.:L 70 ?s16 //47 WQ )52/ / S -6 (1-6 9 0(t) “2— / 767 CZl3)ep2_ / 039 ,g,q--em -7,5/ RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Signing is not required WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME /Co ‘rs• Signing is not required ,'i/SSc7-7 y/1'/ir1,L, ?.‘/ez o AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER / / / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming Susan Cornelison, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Program of Projects Revision PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission revise the RCTC Federal Program of Projects for the western Riverside County urbanized area to include federal funding for construction of commuter rail stations and authorize amendment of the FY2000 Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; In April the Commission directed staff to begin development of new commuter rail stations at Van Buren Boulevard in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona. Efforts are underway to begin design of these Tier II stations, and both stations are included in the long range commuter rail plan and the current RCTC budget. State and local funds have been identified for approximately one-half of the estimated costs with the remainder proposed to come from Federal 5307 funds which the region has accumulated by virtue of Metrolink train operations in western Riverside County. It is anticipated that approximately $6 million of the Section 5307 funds designated for western region rail projects 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 grantee of federal transit monies, and the grant approval process is quite complex. Before a Federal Transit Administration grant application can be submitted, the Commission's federal Program of Projects must be amended. A public hearing is required for adoption or amendment of the Program of Projects. The appropriate notice of public hearing has been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days prior to this meeting. PROPOSED PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 1999/00 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO BUS APPORTIONMENT: $4,465,893 RAIL APPORTIONMENT: $3,785,814 CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS: $2,519,572 CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: $11,836,243 TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS: $0 TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: $6,985,465 TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: $15,622,057 RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $4,658,000 CITY OF CORONA $13,000 CITY OF RIVERSIDE $124,000 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP. COMM. $6,000,000 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT (1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE $651,000 $13,000 C SCAG (2) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS $150,000 $124,000 C SCAG (3) RTA - 7 TRANSIT REPLACEMENT COACHES $2,450,000 $1,930,000 C SCAG (4) RTA - 18 REPLACEMENT DAR VANS $1,290,000 $1,032,000 C SCAG (5) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR $393,000 $314,000 C SCAG TRANSIT COACHES (6) RTA - MAINTENANCE SPARE COMPONENT $170,000 $136,000 C SCAG (7) RTA-OPERATIONS EQUIPMENT $40,000 $32,000 C SCAG (8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG (9) RTA- OFFICE EQUIPMENT $288,000 $230,000 C SCAG (10) RTA - 5 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (3R,2E) $100,000 $80,000 C SCAG (11) RTA - 2 FLEX -FUEL SERVICE TRUCKS (E) $80,000 $64,000 C SCAG (12) RTA - OFFICE ITS SOFTWARE INTEGRATION $750,000 $600,000 C SCAG (13) RTA - FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS $1,400,000 $160,000 C SCAG V14) RCTC TIER II COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS* $12,750,000 $6,000,000 C SCAG TOTAL PROGRAMMED $20,612,000 $10,795,000 BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS $2,190,465 BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL $9,622,057 4pproved by RCTC: 7/14/99 4mended by RCTC: * Added Project RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Addition of Program Manager Classification to the List of Designated Employees and Adoption of Resolution No. 99-011, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: 1) the Program Manager classification be added to the list of designated employees; and, 2) adopt Resolution No. 99-011, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's Program Manager classification includes the management of major transportation programs such as the Commuter Assistance, Specialized Transit, Rail and Motorist Assistance Programs. They develop and oversee program budgets and develop contracts for services to be performed by consulting firms. The Program Managers participate in making decisions which may affect financial interests. They develop and provide substantive recommendations as it relates to contracts and agreements which are regularly approved without significant amendment or modification by the Commission. Therefore, because their responsibility includes decision making as it relates to budgets, financing of their respective program areas, and developing contracts and agreements, the Executive Director determined that the Program Manager position be added to the list of Designated Employees and, thereby, required to file annual Statement of Economic Interests. A public hearing is required to amend the Conflict of Interest and a notice of the public hearing was posted. This item was approved by the Executive Committee at their July 14, 1999 meeting. Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 99-011 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974 WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (the "Act"), which contains provisions relating to conflicts of interest which potentially affect all officers, employees and consultants of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") and requires all public agencies to adopt and promulgate a Conflict of Interest Code; and WHEREAS, the Commission adopted a Conflict of Interest Code (the "Code") which was amended on November 12, 1998, in compliance with Government Code Section 81000 et seq.; and WHEREAS, subsequent changed circumstances within the Commission have made it advisable and necessary pursuant to Sections 87306 and 87307 of the Act to amend and update the Appendix of the Code by adding the position of "Program Manager" to the list of Designated Positions; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of a public meeting on, and of consideration by the Members of the Board of the Commission of, the proposed amended Appendix was provided each designated employee and publicly posted for review at the offices of the Commission and the Corona Public Library; and RVPUMMV1527585 WHEREAS, a public meeting was held upon the proposed amended Appendix at a regular meeting of the Members of the Board of the Commission on September 8, 1999, at which all present were given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed amended Appendix. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Members of the Board of the Riverside County Transportation Commission that the Members of the Board do hereby amend the Appendix to the Commission's Conflict of Interest Code, by adding the position of "Program Manager" to the list of Designated Positions, a copy of which is attached hereto and shall be on file with the Director of Administrative Services and available for inspection to the public; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said amended Appendix shall be submitted to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside for approval and said amended Appendix shall become effective 30 days after the Board of Supervisors approves the proposed amended Appendix as submitted. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September, 1999. Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission -3- RVPUB\DMV\527565 LEGISLATIVE VERSION APPENDIX CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXHIBIT "A" OFFICIALS WHO MANAGE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS All Commission Officials who manage public investments are included in and governed by this Conflict of Interest Code only with respect to its disqualification provisions. For purposes of disclosure, all Commission Officials who manage public investments, as defined by 2 Cal. Code of Regs. § 18720, are subject to the statutory conflict of interest provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 7 of the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 87200 seq.) . (Regs. § It has been determined that the positions listed below are officials who manage public investments: Members of the Board of the Commission and their Alternates Executive Director Deputy Executive Director Chief Financial Officer Financial Consultants 1 -4- RVPUBIDMV1527565 DESIGNATED POSITIONS GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES' DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED Clerk of the Commission & Director of Administrative Services Director of Plans & Programs Director of Regional Issues & Communications General Counsel Consultants / 1/ 4, 5 2,3,6,7 6, 7 1, 2 Consultants shall be included in the list of Designated Employees and shall disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in this Code subject to the following limitation: The Executive Director may determine in writing that a particular consultant, although a "designated position," is hired to perform a range of duties that are limited in scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described in this Section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The Executive Director's determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. -5- RVPUBIDMV1527565 EXHIBIT "B" DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES The disclosure categories listed below identify the types of investments, business entities, sources of income, or real property which the Designated Employee must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she is assigned. Category 1: All investments and business positions in, and sources of income from, business entities that do business or own real property within the boundaries of the Commission, plan to do business or own real property within the boundaries of the Commission within the next year, or have done business or owned real property within the boundaries of the Commission within the past two (2) years. Category 2: All interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside, the boundaries of the Commission. Category 3: All investments and business positions in, and sources of income from, business entities that are engaged in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the Commission, plan to engage in such activities within the jurisdiction of the Commission within the next year, or have engaged in such activities within the jurisdiction of the Commission within the past two (2) years. Category 4: All investments and business positions in, and sources of income from, business entities that are banking, savings and loan, or other financial institutions. Category 5: All investments and business positions in, and sources of income from, business entities that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the Commission. Category 6: All investments and business positions in, and sources of income from, business entities that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the Designated Employee's Department. Category 7: All investments and business positions in, and sources of income from, business entities subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the Designated Employees's Department, will be subject to such authority within the next year or have been subject to such authority within the past two (2) years. -6- RVPUB\DMV1527565 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Surface Transportation Program Local Programs - Follow up BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the above Surface Transportation Program Local Projects and ensure that they are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 2, 1999 Commission meeting, the Commission approved the TEA 21 STP Local Programs for fiscal years 1999/00 - 2002/03. This also included any funding carryover from ISTEA. The following six cities did not submit projects: Blythe, Calimesa, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, and Norco. To clarify, there was no deadline given to the local agencies for submittal of projects to program the local STP funds in June. However, given the recent issue of timely implementation of projects at the State level, the Commission requested those agencies which did not submit projects to submit projects in 90 days for programming or they would consider reallocating the funds. All six cities have submitted the following projects for approval at the September 8, 1999: AGENCY FUNDING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Blythe $ 42,156 Signal on Lovekin and 1-10 Calimesa $ 77,250 Intersection improvements at Calimesa Blvd and County Line Road Coachella $ 307,370 Rehab Van Buren St - Ave 52 to Ave 56, Overlay Airport Blvd in front of Coachella Valley High School Desert Hot Springs $ 166,523 Rehab on Palm Dr - Hacienda to Pierson Indian Wells $ 83,904 ADA improv. On Hwy 111, rehab, lane widening on Miles and Washington Norco $ 1,091,140 Rehabilitation/Overlay on: Hamner - Fourth St to Santa Ana River, Fifth St. - Corydon to California Avenues, Western - South of Fifth St, Second St - River Road to Hamner Ave, First St - Valley View to Temescal, Seventh St - Valley View to California, Third St - Corona to Hillside, Detroit St - Hamner to Valley View, Parkridge Ave - Second to Cota St. Upon Commission approval, the above projects will be included the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Due to the programming of the STP projects approved in June, the above projects will be programmed in Fiscal Year 2001 /02. This does not preclude any project ready to be obligated to proceed with obligation once it is approved in the RTIP. Local agencies will be notified of the RTIP approval. Financial Assessment Project Cost N/A Source of Funds Surface Transportation Funds •:::...v:.v.:}•::. .{.: :•}:+:•: Y.v}. :::• {i. i•::}v }%•. •. .:. •.. .:..: iti•i••. n{:•.9:1 :'•-.: ..:'%:� .•.}.. •. ..•.. }.n{• h• {• ..::{:::v.....:...n...•.•'F.. k• ir .. $......::.:$:{+.:....... Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable Y RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Improvement Program - 2001 RTIP Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the information on the Regional Transportation Improvement Program - 2001 RTIP Update. By receiving the information, Commissioners should inform their respective agencies of the November 5, 1999 deadline to submit to RCTC local and state projects meeting the criteria for inclusion in the RTIP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 are then 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 5, 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. RTIP FY 2000/01 - 2005/06 Guidelines July 29, 1999 i 1 ' June 1999 Draft of Updated RTIP Guidelines ' County Commissions, IVAG, Caltrans, Etc. work on project Proposed Adoption Schedule for the FY 2000/01 - 2005/06 Federal Regional Transportation Improvement Program July 28, 1999 Final RTIP Guidelines Dec. 17, 1999 DEADLINE - PROJECT SUBMITTAL TO SCAG ' All projects input into Regional database. Projects must be consistent with the 1998 RTP i I i i i i i i Database locked down Financial Plans Due Jan. 4-Feb 21, 2000 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 Feb 22 - Apr 4, 2000 Modeling and analytical work including timely implementation activities 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 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 [ ] No [ ] Environmental Completion Date : Environmental Document Type : Estimated Completion Date of Project: Fund Source Source E $ R $ C $ T $ E $ R $ C $ T $ 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 B - 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: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee 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 Valley. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 /1-215 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 Ca!trans, 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 PS&E design cost will be determined after the selection process is completed. Source of Funds CMAQ matched with Measure A :'}+Ly.,• . • $'�$: •#• .iY�'x}.lj}k7y:�• i.}, :#, .ti :bY'i V4:'• �:>.........:::.:,.:•3 #'�t}.�5:.• �$k{•::t::e •.:...•...:::..:.::•,.:. �.::•:::::•?:.•::•...•.•::::.:..:...:.:.:.:x�Y�{.,,:r.::: .+x�•.•;q.}C1�y�+ . C � P , }<n ;}• ; . ; Y':::' •:,•::}.,+...,,.... t::. v; : •t)•:'3�#•:5.. :' ?4,1..4.r.•.v'4>.:? i:h;:ti,, ti•'{'•:'r :.hl•.•% i. i.:. , 2xe'»�'i • •6: •: t. .: :•5.;' •}^ +:{: ; '•i:ti},� �: +r���...:.. Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 2002 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable State Route 60 60 / 215 to Redlands 'BEGIN PROJECT 1110X SPA INC MORENO VALLEY TEPID PROJE w ALVA 111011000 VICINITY MAT' N LO= • i AY s _a AV li 1R AY 11KK AY dG►LA9a AY w AY iY • aIKRICIt i a B r 1111111101i A! ✓ w ✓ AY Tlf1R LY 00wLA AY eigriliWOOS AV RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Norco Request to Reprogram Surface Transportation Program Funds BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the City of Norco's request to reprogram discretionary Surface Transportation Program funds from a signal installation at Sixth Street and California Avenue to a signal installation at Hamner Avenue and Market Street. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Norco is requesting reprogramming of discretionary Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds of $75,000 from a signal installation at Sixth Street and California Avenue to a signal installation at Hamner Avenue and Market Street. The funds were approved by RCTC in May 1993. The City states that there have been ongoing discussions regarding the future carrying capacity on California Avenue which would continue to delay any design work for the signal at the Sixth Street intersection. Therefore, another high priority site has been recommended and approved at the intersection of Hamner Avenue and Market Street by the Norco City Council. The City states that the project is ready to proceed with design as soon as they are given the authorization to proceed. The City of Norco's request is consistent with the RCTC Substitution Policy which reads: "to allow the substitution of two projects in STP discretionary funding categories or 20% of an agency's overall budget (whichever is larger) by fund type. The substituting agency must provide written certification that the substituted projects are of comparable value both financially and public benefit wise with respect tot he projects they are replacing. Agencies requesting specific project substitution(s) must bring such requests before the Commission for review, consideration and action." This request would also be consistent with the Commissions intentions to deliver projects in a timely manner. If approved, the signal project can begin obligation through Ca!trans Office of Local Programs. Signal installation projects are included in the 1998 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under a lump sum; therefore this action does not require an RTIP amendment. AUG-16-99 09:33 AM CITY OF NORCO 9092705619 P.01 City of Norco CITY HALL 2870 CLARK AVENUE * (909)735•8900 FAX (909)210.5622 * P.O. BOX 42e. 1130:0.CA 91760.0428 August 16, 1999 Ms. Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II Riverside County Transportation Commission 3580 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Ms. Medina: Subject: RTIP PPNO #: 08-RIV32338 (Signals — Sixth Street and California Avenue) — Request for Transfer of Funding In the mid 90's, the City of Norco applied for STP grant funds to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Sixth Street and California Avenue. The City's application was approved; however, in the Interim, our City Council determined that California Avenue would remain a two-lane thoroughfare. As yet, the configuration of the east leg of this intersection on Sixth Street remains to be determined,' end Sixth Street to the west of California Avenue Is a four -lane thoroughfare. Needless to say, we have some issues to resolve before design could begin. Since our request for the subject traffic signal was approved, another intersection In Norco has generated a higher priority for signallzation. The location Is on a major arterial, Hamner Avenue, at the intersection of Market Street. Besides having a high vehicular volume, the Intersection also has high pedestrian traffic due to the proximity of a bank, post office, and shopping center on the west side of Hamner Avenue, and a major employment center (Dyncorp) on the east side. As a result of a high number of complaints, the City commissioned a traffic study, and the results indicate that a signal is warranted. Our City Council has accepted the recommendation, placed the project on this year's Capital Improvement list, and has requested staff to pursue funding substitution for this location. City staff is aware that if the substitution is approved our grant funds would remain at $75,000.00. We are prepared to augment the grant funding with other City funds as necessary. City Council Is eager to have this Intersection signalized to improve safety and traffic flow, and design would begin as soon as funding authorization Is granted. We appreciate your assistance in having our request considered by the Commission, and if you have any questions, please contact me at (909)270-5827. Sincerely, d�,f -tom Joseph S. Schenk Director of Public Works/City Engineer JSS:cka /18133 CITY COUNCIL BARBARA J. CARMICHAEL FRANK HALL ROBBIN G. KOZIEL (Mayer Mow PIOTow Cwma4nr CHRISTOPHER L. SORENSEN C irdlmm NAL H. aARK Cwsil�w f RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Contract No. RO-9969 for construction of Sound Wall #98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation along the South side of Route 91 between Tyler and Monroe Streets in the BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award Contract No. RO-9969, for the construction of Sound Wall #98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation, on Route 91, from Tyler St. to Monroe St., in the City of Riverside, to Hillside Contractors, Inc., for the amount of $793,960. Staff also recommends that a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) be authorized to cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed value of $875,000. The standard RCTC construction Agreement will be used, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel Review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the May RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South side of Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside, the relocation of an existing concrete drainage channel adjacent to Sound Wall #98, and the rehabilitation of an existing concrete drainage channel on the South side of Route 91, between Tyler and Van Buren. The construction costs for the project were estimated to be as follows: Project Estimated Cost Range Funded By Soundwall #98 $450,000 to $500,000 RCTC Canal Relocate & Rehab $275,000 to $300,000 Caltrans Total Project Cost Range $725,000 to $800,000 The project was advertised starting on May 22, 1999. Three (3) bids were received and opened on June 17, 1999, at 2:00 p.m.. A summary of the bids are shown below: Sound Wall #98 Bid Summary Firm (in order from low bid to high bid) Bid Amount Amount Over Low Bid Engineer's Estimate $725,000 to $ 800, 000 1 HILLSIDE CONTRACTORS, INC. $793,960 $0 2 R. FOX CONSTRUCTION, INC. $819,785 $25,825 (+3%) 3 4 - CON ENGINEERING $825,350 $31,390 (+4%) The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and Bechtel, and all concurred that Hillside Contractors low bid was the lowest responsive bid received for the project. A summary of the review of all of the bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are as follows: Checklist Item HILLSIDE R. FOX 4 - CON 1 Bid Letter yes yes yes 2 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est - w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items yes minor error good good none yes correct good good none * incomplete non- responsive 3 Bid Bond yes yes yes 4 List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs > 50% Work yes yes yes yes yes yes 5 Bidder Information Forms yes yes yes 6 Non -Collusion Affidavit yes yes yes 7 Evidence of Insurance **no **no no *The bid from 4 - CON did not include unit prices for a major portion of the work. Therefore, the 4 - CON bid proposal was deemed non -responsive and disqualified. **Hillside Contractors provided a letter from their insurance carrier verifying that Hillside can obtain the Contract required insurance. R. Fox is currently under contract with RCTC and is currently meeting the Contract required insurance. The following summarizes the costs associated with the construction of the RCTC funded Sound Wall #98 and the Caltrans funded Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation for the remaining two responsive bids received: RCTC SOUND WALL #98 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Item No. Description Quantity Hillside Contractors R. Fox Construction Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Temporary Fence 550 M $18 $9,900 $15 $8,250 2 Const Area Signs LS $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 3 Traffic Control Sys LS $75,000 $75,000 $2,850 $2,850 4 Remove Fence 550 M $16 $8,800 $15 $8,250 5 Remove Culvert 1 M $1, 500 $1, 500 $ 500 $ 500 6 Reconst Chain Link 10 M $80 $800 $85 $850 8 Clear & Grub LS $35,000 $29,000 $50,000 $41,500 10 Maint Exist Plants LS $10,000 $8,300 $3,500 $2,905 11 Maint Exist Wig LS $10,000 $8,300 $2,500 $2,075 12 Replace AC 53 M3 $250 $13,250 $45 $2,385 13 CIDH Piles 1070 M $76 $81,320 $102 $109,140 14 Sound Wall 1190 M2 $90 $107,100 $98 $116,620 19 Chain Link Gate 1 EA $700 $700 $1,000 $1,000 20 Concrete Barrier 530 M $250 $132,000 $250 $132,000 21 Mobilization LS $50,000 $41,500 $10,000 $8,300 22 City Riv Permit LS $6,000 $5,000 $500 $415 Total $527,970 $442,540 Caltrans Canal Relocation / Rehabilitation Construction Costs Item No. Description Quantity Hillside Contractors R. Fox Construction Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 7 Remove Channel 89 M3 $150 $13,350 $150 $13,350 8 Clear & Grub LS $35,000 $6,000 $50,000 $8,500 9 Ditch Excavation 50 M3 $100 $5,000 $50 $2,500 10 Maint Exist Plants LS $10,000 $1,700 $3,500 $595 11 Maint Exist Irrig LS $10,000 $1,700 $2,500 $425 15 Reinf Conc Pipe 1.4 M $350 $490 $1,000 $1,400 16 Rock Slope(Facing) 5 M3 $110 $550 $550 $2,750 17 Channel Lining 190 M3 $350 $66,500 $706 $134,140 18 Rock Slope(Fabric) 12 M2 $100 $1,200 $150 $1,800 21 Mobilization LS $50,000 $8,500 $10,000 $1,700 22 City Riv Permit LS $6,000 $1,000 $500 $85 Subtotal $105,990 $167,245 Canal Rehabilitation Bid $160,000 $ 210,000 Total Cost $265,990 $377,245 Work Segment Hillside Contractors R. Fox Construction Sound Wall #98 $527,970 $442,540 Drainage Channel Relocation & Rehabilitation $265,990 $377,245 Total $ 793,960 $ 819, 785 By an approved Caltrans Cooperative Agreement No. 08-1097, Caltrans has committed to pay a lump sum amount, of $300,000, to relocate and rehabilitate the referenced drainage canal. The Hillside Contractors bid for the respective canal work totals $265,990 leaving $34,010 (13%) to cover construction management and any Change Orders that may arise during construction. Additional funding above $300,000, if required, must be authorized. Based on the review by staff and legal counsel, staff recommends that the Commission award Contract No. RO-9969, for the construction of Sound Wall #98 and Drainage Canal Relocation and Rehabilitation, on Route 91, from Tyler St. to Monroe St., in the City of Riverside, to Hillside Contractors, Inc., for the amount of $793,960. Staff also recommends that a contingency amount of $81,040 (10%) be authorized to cover potential change orders encountered during construction for a total not to exceed value of $875,000. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee 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 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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. The agreement requires that any relocated parking must be conveniently located. 3. That RCTC would assist RCC to limit their developer's share of the La Sierra interchange to $400,000 as a result of the proposed RCC development. 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 lay down 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 TD>A� r• ', :.F?.{}ti;CS :$'rf•2:`S T{: ;,}' F};°. • : • :5:5 . IJ :�a:;takx,'{.';,•�{.:• ....`..{.k;.:,iM::::....; fit. • ,..$..,...:.:.'t '° ,,..: ..;:} •?ri:, x ,'.'�C..Y.{.'.•:{•1.cg;: ,. • •s-•y:'-•' }¢; e. v .4.....d}.. •S� �r. • •. �; • i:.0 •+i Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget N Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable Attachment Hirt 111111111‘ / / 1 ,44 TIIIt it11Rn 1RIl 11111R• Tfrlir � r - dNd0d ems_ -31-0,00 f 1 1 S30ddS ONIlSIX3 811 ,w, � litfliirnin66i:6;1:,: perrnrsurwir l �r cti„c6/ 9, / ONDINVd NOI1b1S 11VN Atib210d1V31. 80a VRIV 13NNrH, 'MUM, 0001.1034 1 3 3, N • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I4/l1 a b S 9 l v • �IAI 116.0 1 f• \11111At1 11u1 v•1•1•Iw Lit AUG 02 1999 11:22 FR BEST, BEST 8 KRIEGER 909 666 5036 TO 2#03447677920 P.04/06 FIRST ADDiNDUX TO GROUND LEA88 This First Addendum to the Ground Lease ("First Addendum") between RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY 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. WEERL"A8, the Landlord has leased to Tenant approximately 3.5 acres of property ("Land•) for purposes or a Matrolink commuter rail stop and parking lot for approximately 350 vehicles at the corner of La sierra Avenue and Indiana Avenue in the City of Riverside ("La Sierra Station"); and WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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 Avenge in the City of Riverside but in no case beyond February 28, 2001; and WHEREAS, Landlord has property aontig OUe to the La Sierra Station upon which Tenant can construct its desired 200 temporary parking spaces; and WHEREAS, Tenant desires to lease from Landlord and Landlord desires to lease to Tenant property for the 200 temporary parking spaces. 7/Z9/99 1 AUG 02 1999 11:22 FR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER 909 686 5036 TO 2#034#7877920 F.05/08 NOW, TH MORE, .Landlord and Tenant agree as follows: 1. TUE LEASEZ EIZEMEN. 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.") The exact acreage shall be established upon completion of the preliminary design and Exhibit 1 shall be modified based on that design. 2. THE PURPOSR or THE FTRAT ADDRXIDUK. The sole purpose of the First Addendum is temporary provision of 200 parking spaces for Xetrolink riders,consisting or paving, striping, and lighting. Tenant's contractor shall receive a temporary easement for the installation of improvements at Tenant's passenger loading area. 3. THE TRIM DF THE 'MIST ADDENDUM. The term of tha First Addendum shall commence on August 1, 1999, and shall conclude on February 28, 2002. 4. mom zon_pmsIas. The design, approval and installation of all improvements necessary to the parking lot construction shall be the responsibility of Tenant, subject t0 approval by the Landlord, which approval shall not be unreasonably withhold. The design will incorporate two access points t0 the existing adjacent Netrolink Station and will prevent access to the existing City right of tray ad j acant to La Sierra Avenue. KCT consultants, Inc. or another consultant mutually agreeable to Landlord and Tenant/ shall provide engineering, planning and construction management support for the parking lot installation at Tenant's expense. 7/29/99 2 RUG 02 1999 11:23 FR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER 909 686 5036 TO 2403447677520 F.06/06 5. C ifilDEMTLQ FOR THE F1R6T ADD12Mi. No monetary rent 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 Lease 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. gold 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's use of the property. The hold harmless, indemnity, and insurance clauses of the Ground Lease shall have Rill force and effect in this First Addendum as set forth in paragraph 7 below. d. Permit reconfiguration of the permanent parking lot serving the Retrolink 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 tha 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 n29/99 3 AUG 02 1999 11:23 FR BEST, BEST & KRIEGER 909 686 5036 TO 24034#7877920 F.07/08 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 Flan for Landlord's property approved by the Riverside City Council on July 91 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, YaegerHansen, counsel for Landlord by letter of June 21, 1999. Tenant's best efforts in.this regard shall not require or imply Tenant's payment of the Landlord's "local share's obligation in whole or in part. 6. RE WEAL OF ZMPagyznE . 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 shall be at Tenant's sole expense and effort. 7. GROUND LEASE IN FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as expressly provided herein, all terms, conditions and covenants of the Ground 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. Lamm COOPERATIOn Landlord .hall as the property owner sign the RCOP application and permit application to the City of Riverside as prepared by Tenant to obtain permission for 7/29/99 4 AUG 02 1999 11:24 FR BEST, BEST 8 KRIEGER 909 686 S036 TO 2##034##7877920 P.08/08 installation of the improvementsand the parking lot use. WHEREFORE, 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 $Yi Tames L. Suysse,'vice Presfdent Administration and Finance Dated , 1999. TENANT RIVERSIDE couNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BY: Chairperson Dated ,_. 1999 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. BY Eric Haley, Executive Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Dated , 1999 APPROVED As To FORM. By: ' Best, Best & Krieger, LLP Counsel, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Dated , 1999 APPROVED AS TO FORM. By: Clayeon,. Mann, Yaeger 9 Hansen, PLC, Counsel, R vERSlDE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Dated r 1999 APPROVED AS TO FISCAL IMPACT. By: omit• MINAIICCD-NM.cee 7/29/S9 Controller, RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 5 ** TOTAL PAGE.08 ** Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners 4344 Latham St. Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92501 P.O. Box 5705 Riverside, CA 92517-5705 Ph.909/341-8940 rex.909/341-8945 nc@tstonramp_com KCT CONSULTANTS, INC. Quality People Providing Quality Professional Services to Quality Clients July 16, 1999 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. 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 managKCT 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 KCT Consultants, 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 0 2 12 Preliminary Site Design 2 4 8 12 Revised CUP Application 4 4 8 40 4 Processing 8 6 Grading & Drainage Plan 4 12 28 40 Site Lighting Plan 1 6 Construction Phase Admin 2 8 Total Hours 21 42 28 28 92 4 Direct Cost $882.00 $1,470.00 $896.00 $672.00 $1,656.00 $48.00 Multiplier @ 99.6% of Direct Cost $878.47 $1,464.12 $892.42 $669.31 $1,649.38 $47.81 Profit @ 10.5% $184.85 $308.08 $187.78 $140.84 $347.06 $10.06 Total Cost $1,945.32 $3,242.20 $1,976.20 $1,482.15 $3,652.44 $105.87 Consult. Dir. Cost Multiplier Profit Sub -Total Fees Totals Base Mapping $358.00 $356.57 $75.03 $789.60 $1,800.00 $2,589.60 Preliminary Site Design $632.00 $629.47 $132.45 $1,393.93 $0.00 $1,393.93 Revised CUP Application $1,268.00 $1,262.93 $265.75 $2,796.68 $0.00 $2,796.68 Processing $546.00 $543.82 $114.43 $1,204.25 $0.00 $1,204.25 Grading & Drainage Plan $2,204.00 $2,195.18 $461.91 $4,861.10 $0.00 $4,861.10 Site Lighting Plan $252.00 $250.99 $52.81 $555.81 $2,000.00 $2,555.81 Construction Phase Admin $364.00 $362.54 $76.29 $802.83 $600.00 $1,402.83 $5,624.00 $5,601.50 $1,178.68 $12,404.18 $4,400.00 $16,804.18 Estimate for labor.123 L Wed patios u6lsep O auoisein do palloN 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 ssel6ad cin Pa1108 Nsel do Pe110N tiemuns • aumallW ssai6oid 4sel 66/L L/9 and :Nea Patios u6lsap :pafoJd 8/Z 91/Z L waled 6ulpeao enssl OL/LL Z/ L Z/L uolsslwwoo 6uluueld Aq lenoaddy • Z/L L Z/L L uogeoliddv dna ilw £L/0L £L/0L 6Z/6 8Z/6 8Z/6 LZ/6 b L/6 PO ZL M$ uogagsiunupy eseyd umnipuoa LL PO Huued 6ulpeio anssl OL mg Noego Ueld APO 6 Me ueld 6uR116n ails eiedeid 8 Me ueld e6euleia pue 6ulpeio eiedeid 1 PO uolssiwwoo 6uluueld Aq'muddy 9 MC, 6ulssaowd 9 PO uogeoHddy dno puigns V ?AZ uogeollddy dna pes!Aeu £ MZ u6lsaa axis kieulwilald Z MZ 6uiddelN esee L OZ/Z 9/Z £Z/ L 6/ I. 9Z/Z L ZL/ZL 8Z/ L L �L/LL L£/0 L LL/0L £/0 L 6 L/6 9/6 ZZ/8 ispenb 4s L aa4.1eno q4v Jai Deana aweN 4sel al 66/L L/9 and 31f1a3H3S NJIS3a 10� 6upped Amodwal uoRe}S enaG el 010'8 •oul 'sweunsuoa la), RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Construction and Maintenance Agreements with BN&SF for the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Over Crossings BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached form of agreement with the BN&SF Railway Company, subject to RCTC legal counsel final review, and approval for both the La Sierra and West Corona Metrolink Stations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: After the Commission awarded the construction contract for the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Over Crossings on July 1, 1999; Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Rail Way Company (BN&SF) informed RCTC Staff that new agreements would be required for each of the new projects. Previously, RCTC Staff had been informed by BN&SF that the existing agreements ( Shared Use Agreement, Line Sale Agreement and the San Bernardino Easement Agreement) would be adequate for constructing the pedestrian over crossings (see letter from Walt Smith dated February 23, 1995). These agreements were adequate for the construction of the La Sierra Station, West Corona Station, and Southside platform and pedestrian overcrossing that was recently completed. This new position by BN&SF resulted in our Contractor being delayed for one week due to BN&SF refusal to provide the flaggers required by BN&SF for our Contractor to perform any work within 25 feet of the BN&SF track. BN&SF finally agreed to allow our Contractor back to work as long as RCTC agreed to act in good faith to get the new agreements in place and that the Contractor cannot perform any work requiring a crane until both RCTC and the Contractor sign the new agreements required by BN&SF. The current form of the agreement is attached for your information and review. The agreement is currently still under negotiation between BN&SF Staff and RCTC Staff. The final agreement will be presented to the Commission at the September Commission meeting. Staff is expediting this agreement to assure that our Contractor will not be denied access to the work area resulting in construction delays. Most of the terms and conditions of the agreement were either covered by the previous agreements or understood to be conditions of doing work on the BN&SF right-of-way. Staff is working with BN&SF to assure that the terms and conditions that are included in these new agreements do not subject RCTC to new liability that was not previously contemplated or passed on to the contractor through insurance requirements. One of the major issues under discussion between RCTC Legal Counsel and BN&SF is the new provision that work cannot occur during the 4th quarter of the year. This new provision could have a major impact to our contractor who is currently scheduled to be working on both station projects in the 4th quarter of this year. The new provisions also require the contractor to sign agreements directly with BN&SF covering insurance provisions and indemnification issues resulting related to damages or delays suffered by BN&SF as a result of the contractors actions. Financial Assessment Project Cost No additional direct cost. claim from the Contractor RCTC may be subject to a delay Source of Funds npi '$�2L :.:t.{:�n�:....,....v}i�: .....•i,i�#7�..�''?..,h., . �. , y .hv.'x� •}�v}.'•i 4. �... .:. . , w..v. 4 i..,, 1}`..t� }::,.n'i.Y}n.�'..t .�i:�{• %.. 7C;r• +fjtvjC Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Attachments oJc�3q� 'The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company If t Santa Fe N Commuter Rail Construction Group 720 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, California 92408 FAXCOM: (909) 386-4918 February 23, 1995 File: 01004331 FEB 211 1995 f �ECHTE,L VI; Mr. Jack Reagan Riverside County Transportation Commission .� 3560 University Ave., Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 ATTENTION: Bill Hughes Gentlemen: Based on the provisions of the Shared Use Agreement, the Line Sale Agreement and the San Bernardino Easement Agreement, a separate lease for each station site will not be required. The above -referenced documents provide for these stations, however, we would appreciate prints tying the station to Santa Fe stationing for reference. We would particularly like to know the stationing and size of any pedestrian crossing and each end of the station platform. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, L. F. Fox By: wait Smith cc: Messrs. Ray Branstetter DMJM 275 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 314 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Bill Young • Hu tt-aa tars, 'Inc . 15991 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92680 A Santa Fee Pac0c Company RCTC ORIGINAL BNSF Secy. Cont. No: 05026420 "La Sierra Station" Pedestrian Overhead AGREEMENT, made this day of , 1999, between THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter referred to as "BNSF", and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "RCTC". RECITALS: BNSF owns and operates a line of railroad in and through the City of Riverside, State of California. RCTC desires to construct a new pedestrian crossing at separated grades over BNSF's San Bernardino Subdivision main line tracks, to be known as the "La Sierra Station" Pedestrian Overhead and designated as California Public Utilities Crossing No. 2B-18.37 AD and D. O. T. No. 027390T. The La Sierra Station Pedestrian Overhead is being constructed between the north and south passenger platforms for the La Sierra Station. The term "Project" as used in this agreement shall include all work of every kind and character required in connection with the construction of the proposed La Sierra Station Pedestrian Overhead (hereinafter referred to as the "Structure") including, but not limited to, any and all changes to telephone, telegraph, signal and electrical lines and appurtenances, all temporary and permanent track work, grading, drainage facilities as shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof, as well as preliminary and construction engineering, and contract preparation. The parties hereto desire to express in writing their understanding and agreement with respect to the Project and pursuant to which the Structure is to be constructed and maintained. AGREEMENT: ARTICLE I IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants of the RCTC hereinafter set forth, and the faithful performance thereof, BNSF agrees as follows: 1. To grant, and hereby does grant, to RCTC, its successors and assigns, upon and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, permission and license to enter upon and use that portion of BNSF's right of way as is necessary to construct, and thereafter maintain, the Structure as shown on Exhibit "A", excepting and reserving the right to be exercised by BNSF, and by any others who have obtained, or may obtain, permission or authority from BNSF so to do: (a) To operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate any and all existing railroad track or tracks, wires, pipelines and other facilities of like character upon, over or under the surface of said right of way; (b) From time to time to construct, operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate upon said right of way additional facilities of the character described in Subsection (a) of this Section 1. This right is given by BNSF without warranty of title of any kind, express or implied, and no covenant of warranty of title shall be implied from the use of any word or words herein contained. In case of the eviction 1 of RCTC by anyone owning, or claiming title to or any interest in said right of way, BNSF shall not be liable to RCTC for any damage of any nature whatsoever. 2. To furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment, and do the "Railroad Work" required due to the construction of the Project, such Railroad Work and the estimated cost thereof being as shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. In the event that construction of the Project has not commenced within six (6) months from the effective date of this Agreement, BNSF may, in its sole and absolute discretion, revise the cost estimates set forth in said Exhibit "B". In such case, BNSF shall provide to RCTC its revised cost estimate highlighting all changes that are made. Any item of work incidental to those items listed in said Exhibit "B", but not specifically mentioned therein, may be included as part of this agreement as an item of work upon written approval of RCTC, if practicable. Construction of the Project shall include the following principle elements of work by BNSF: (a) Preliminary engineering, design, and contract preparation; (b) Furnishing of such watchmen and flagmen as may be necessary for the safety of BNSF's property and the operation of its trains during construction of the Project; (c) Furnishing of engineering and inspection as required in connection with the construction of the Project; (d) The making of such changes in the alignment, location and elevation of its telephone, telegraph, signal and/or wire lines and appurtenances along, over or under its tracks as may be required to accommodate construction of said Project and; (e) Any signal work necessitated by construction of the Project. 3. To do all work provided in Article I, Section 2 above with its own employees working under Railroad Labor Agreements or by contractor(s), if necessary, and on an actual cost basis. 4. RCTC agrees to reimburse BNSF for work of an emergency nature caused by RCTC or RCTC's contractor, in connection with the Project which is reasonably necessary for the immediate restoration of railroad operations, or for the protection of persons or BNSF property. Such work may be performed by BNSF without prior approval of RCTC and RCTC agrees to reimburse BNSF the reasonable cost for all such emergency work. 5. To submit to RCTC periodic statements for payment covering the cost of the work performed by BNSF, and upon completion of the Project, a detailed statement of final costs, segregated as to labor and materials for each item in the recapitulation shown on Exhibit "B". ARTICLE II IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants of BNSF herein set forth and the faithful performance thereof, RCTC agrees as follows: 1. To furnish to BNSF plans and specifications for the Project. Four sets of said plans, together with two copies of calculations, and two copies of specifications, shall be submitted to BNSF for approval prior to commencement of construction. After having been approved by both RCTC and BNSF, said plans and specifications are hereby adopted and incorporated into this agreement by reference. 2. To make application to the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") for an order authorizing construction of the Project. RCTC shall furnish to the 2 Commission plans for the construction of the Project, approved by BNSF, together with a copy of this agreement. 3. To furnish BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects written authorization to commence the Railroad Work. 4. To provide for and maintain minimum vertical clearances, as required by the Commission. 5. To acquire all rights of way necessary for the construction of the Project. 6. To make any and all arrangements to secure the location or relocation of wire lines, pipe lines and other facilities owned by private persons, companies, corporations, political subdivisions or public utilities which may be found necessary to locate or relocate in any manner whatsoever due to the construction of the Project. 7. To construct the Project as shown on Exhibit "A" and do all work provided for in the plans and specifications for the Project, except such work that BNSF herein agrees to do. Principal elements of work to be performed by RCTC in the construction of the Project are as follows: (a) Construction of the Structure; (b) Necessary Grading and Paving; (c) Provide suitable drainage, both temporary and permanent; (e) Apply and maintain the Commission's Crossing Number 2B-18.37 AD and D. O. T. No. 027390T in a conspicuous location on the Structure; (f) Installation of a locked gates across the existing pedestrian grade crossing and; (g) Extension to the existing fence, located between tracks, a sufficient distance to encourage use of the Pedestrian Overhead by station patrons who park at the east and west ends of the station parking lot. 8. To furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment in performing the work it agrees to perform herein. All work of construction with respect to said Project shall be undertaken by RCTC, or RCTC's contractor and shall be performed at such times as shall not endanger or interfere with the safe and timely operations of BNSF's tracks and other facilities. 9. To require its contractor(s) to notify BNSF's Roadmaster at least ten (10) business days in advance of commencing work on BNSF property or near BNSF's tracks, when requesting a BNSF flagman in accordance with the requirements of Exhibit "C" attached hereto, in order to protect BNSF from damage to its trains and property. 10. To require its contractor(s) to furnish BNSF's Director of Structures, for approval, four copies of plans and two sets of calculations of any shoring or cribbing proposed to be used over, under, or adjacent to BNSF's tracks. The use of such shoring or cribbing shall conform to the standard side clearance set forth in the Commission's requirements which govern such clearance. In case the use of such shoring will impair said clearance, RCTC will ensure that application is made to the Commission for approval of such impairment during the period of construction of the Project. 11. The RCTC agrees to include the following provisions in its contract with any contractor performing work on said Project: 3 (a) Fiber optic cable systems owned by various telecommunication companies may cross or run parallel in BNSF's rail corridor. The contractor shall be responsible to contact BNSF and/or the telecommunications companies to determine whether there are any fiber optic cable systems located within the Project boundaries that could be damaged or their service disrupted due to the construction of the Project. The contractor shall also pothole all lines either shown on the plans or marked in the field in order to verify their locations. The contractor shall also use all reasonable methods when working in the BNSF rail corridor to determine if any other fiber optic lines may exist; (b) Failure to notify, pothole or identify these lines shall be sufficient cause for the RCTC Engineer to stop construction at no cost to the RCTC or BNSF until these items are completed. Costs for repairs and loss of revenues and profits due to damage to these facilities through negligent acts by the contractor shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The contractor shall indemnify and hold the RCTC and BNSF harmless against and from all cost, liability and expense arising out of or in any way contributed to these negligent acts of the contractor and; (c) The telecommunication companies shall be responsible for the rearrangement of any facilities determined to interfere with the construction. The contractor shall cooperate fully with any company performing these rearrangements. 12. To also incorporate in each prime contract for construction of the Project, or the specifications therefor, the provisions set forth in Article II, Sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 (a) and 13 (b), 15 and in Article III, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,and 10, and the provisions set forth in Exhibits "C" and "C-I", attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. 13. That, except as hereinafter otherwise provided, all work to be performed hereunder by RCTC in the construction of the Project will be performed pursuant to a contract or contracts to be let by RCTC, and all such contracts shall provide: (a) That all work performed thereunder, within the limits of BNSF's right of way shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner, and in accordance with plans and specifications approved by BNSF. Those changes or modifications during construction that affect safety or BNSF's operations shall also be subject to BNSF's approval; (b) That no work shall be commenced within BNSF's right of way until each of the prime contractors employed in connection with said work shall have (i) executed and delivered to BNSF a letter agreement in the form of Exhibit "C-I", and (ii) delivered to and secured BNSF's approval of the required insurance; (c) That if, in RCTC's opinion, it shall be for its best interest, RCTC may direct that the construction of the Project be done by day labor under the direction and control of RCTC, or if at any time, in the opinion of RCTC, the contractor has failed to prosecute with diligence the work specified in and by the terms of said contract, it may, in the manner provided by law, terminate the contractor's control over said work and take possession of all or any part thereof and proceed to complete the same by day labor or by employing another contractor(s), provided that all such contractor(s) shall be required to comply with the obligations in favor of BNSF hereinabove set forth and, provided further, that if such construction is performed by day labor, RCTC will, at its expense, procure and maintain on behalf of BNSF the insurance required by Exhibit "C-1 ". 14. BNSF shall have the right to request that any RCTC employee, any RCTC contractor, or any employee of a RCTC contractor who performs any work within BNSF's right of way and which affects BNSF's operations or facilities, be removed from the Project for incompetence, neglect of duty, unsafe conduct or misconduct. In the event RCTC or its contractor elects not to honor such request, BNSF may stop work within 4 its right of way until the matter has been fully resolved to BNSF's satisfaction. The party whose employee has been asked to leave the Project will indemnify the requesting party against any claims arising from such removal. 15. RCTC's employees, agents, contractors, representatives and invitees shall wear the current BNSF Personnel Protective Equipment ("PPE") when on the BNSF's rail corridor during construction of the Project or subsequent maintenance after completion of construction. BNSF PPE shall meet applicable OSHA and ANSI specifications. Existing BNSF PPE requirements are: (i) safety glasses; permanently affixed side shields; no yellow lenses; (ii) hard hats with high visibility orange cover; (iii) safety shoes with hardened toe, above the ankle lace up and a defined heel; and (iv) high visibility reflective orange vests. Hearing protection, fall protection and respirators will be worn as required by RCTC and federal regulations. 16. To advise BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, in writing, of the completion date of the Project within thirty (30) days after such completion and to notify BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, in writing, of the date on which RCTC and/or its Contractor will meet with BNSF for the purpose of making final inspection of the Project. ARTICLE III IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. That all work contemplated in this agreement shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and each portion shall be promptly commenced by the parties hereto obligated to do the same and thereafter diligently prosecuted to conclusion in its logical order and sequence. Furthermore, any changes or modifications during construction that affect BNSF shall be subject to BNSF's approval prior to commencement of such changes or modifications. 2. That such work shall be done in accordance with detailed plans and specifications approved by BNSF and subject to the Commission's approval, with minimum clearances of not less than those specified by the Commission, or as otherwise authorized by the Commission for BNSF's tracks at this location. 3. RCTC and BNSF shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, adhere to the construction schedule for all Project work. The parties agree that BNSF's failure to complete the Railroad Work in accordance with the construction schedule by reason of inclement weather, unforeseen railroad emergencies, or other conditions beyond BNSF's reasonable control, will not constitute a breach of this Agreement nor subject BNSF to any liability or responsibility for added expense to the RCTC. 4. In the event of an unforeseen railroad emergency, and regardless of the requirements of the construction schedule, BNSF reserves the right to reallocate all or a portion of its labor forces assigned to perform the Railroad Work when BNSF believes such reallocation is necessary to provide for the immediate restoration of railroad operations of BNSF or its affiliates or to protect persons or property on or near any BNSF owned property or any related railroad. BNSF will reassign such labor forces to again perform the Railroad Work when, in its sole opinion, such emergency condition no longer exists. BNSF will not be liable for any additional costs or expenses of the Project resulting from any such reallocation of its labor forces. The parties further agree that such reallocation of labor forces by BNSF and any direct or indirect results of such reallocation will not constitute a breach of this Agreement by BNSF. 5. That if any RCTC contractor shall prosecute the Project work contrary to the Plans and Specifications or if any RCTC contractor shall prosecute the Project work in a manner BNSF deems to be hazardous to its property, facilities or the safe and expeditious movement of its freight traffic, or the insurance described in said Exhibit "C-1" shall be canceled during the course of the Project, then BNSF shall have the right to stop the work until the acts or omissions of such RCTC contractor have been fully rectified to the satisfaction of BNSF's Division Engineer, or additional insurance has been delivered to and accepted by BNSF. Such work stoppage shall not give rise to or impose upon BNSF any liability to RCTC, or to any RCTC 5 contractor. The right of BNSF to stop the work is in addition to any other rights BNSF may have which include, but are not limited to, actions for damages or lost profits. In the event that BNSF shall desire to stop work, BNSF agrees to give RCTC immediate notice thereof in writing to the address provided in Section 20 of this Article III. 6. The RCTC shall supervise and inspect the operations of all RCTC contractors to assure compliance with the plans and specifications, the terms of this Agreement and all safety requirements of BNSF. If at any time during construction BNSF determines that proper supervision and inspection is not being performed by . RCTC personnel, BNSF shall have the right to stop construction (within or adjacent to its operating right of way) and to request that the RCTC correct the situation before construction is allowed to proceed. If BNSF believes the situation is not being corrected in an expeditious manner, BNSF shall immediately notify RCTC's Executive Director so that the RCTC can take appropriate corrective action. 7. That RCTC will bear the entire cost and expense incurred in connection with the construction of the Project. 8. That RCTC will reimburse BNSF in full for the actual cost of all work performed by BNSF pursuant to this agreement. 9. That no construction activities with respect to the Project, nor future normal or routine maintenance of the Structure once completed, shall be permitted during the Fourth Quarter of each Calendar Year. Subject to prior notification to BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, Texas, telephone number 817 234 2350, emergency work will be permitted. It is understood that trains cannot be subjected to delay during this time period. 10. That after completion of the construction of the Project as hereinabove described: (a) RCTC will own and, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the Structure; (b) RCTC will, at its sole cost and expense, remove or obliterate graffiti on the Structure as required and; (c) RCTC will keep the gates that secure the pedestrian at grade crossing locked at all times except for emergencies. Prior to opening the gates RCTC shall notify BNSF's NOC in Fort Worth, Texas, telephone number 817 234 2350 for notification of trains en route. 11. That RCTC will furnish BNSF one set of as built plans, at no cost to BNSF, prepared in U.S. Customary Units, as well as one set of computer diskettes, containing as built CAD drawings of the Structure identifying the software used for the CAD drawings. The "as built plans" shall depict all information in BNSF engineering stationing and mile post pluses. The "as built plans" shall also include plan and profile, specifications, and drainage plans. All improvements and facilities shall be shown. 12. Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article III, Section 9, RCTC shall notify BNSF's Division Engineer before entering upon BNSF's right of way for maintenance purposes in order to obtain prior authorization. If work is contracted, RCTC shall require its prime contractor(s) to comply with the obligations in favor of BNSF, set forth in Exhibits "C" and "C-1 ", as may be revised from time to time, and accepts responsibility for compliance by its prime contractor(s). 13. The terms of allocation of liability between BNSF and RCTC, and the liability insurance obligation of RCTC, as set forth in Article 8 and Article 9, of the Shared Use Agreement (San Bernardino Subdivision) between BNSF and RCTC, shall govern all activities and the presence of RCTC and any of its contractors, or their invitees, in connection with the construction or maintenance of the La Sierra Station Pedestrian Overhead. 6 14. That if BNSF shall deem it necessary or desirable, in the future, in the performance of its duty as a common carrier, to raise or lower the grade or change the alignment of its tracks or to lay additional track or tracks or to build other facilities in connection with the operation of its railroad, BNSF shall, at its expense, have full right to make such changes or additions, provided such changes or additions do not change or alter the, Structure herein proposed to be constructed and provided further, however, that should it become necessary or desirable in the future to change, alter, or reconstruct the Structure to accommodate railroad projects the cost of such work, including any cost incidental to alteration of railroad or drainage facilities, shall be divided between BNSF and RCTC in such shares as may be determined between them, subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. 15. That if RCTC shall deem it necessary or desirable, in the future to alter or reconstruct the Structure herein proposed to be constructed, it shall have full right to do so, the cost of which shall be born by the RCTC; provided, however, that such alteration or reconstruction shall not encroach further upon or occupy the surface of BNSF's right of way to a greater extent than is contemplated by the plans and specifications to be approved by BNSF pursuant to Article II, Section 1 hereof, without the prior written consent of BNSF, and the execution of a supplement to this Agreement or the completion of a separate agreement. 16. That the books, papers, records and accounts of the parties hereto, insofar as they relate to the items of expense for labor and material or are in any way connected with the work herein contemplated, shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection and audit by the agents and authorized representatives of the parties hereto for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment. 17. All the covenants and provisions of this agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, except that no party may assign any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. 18. In the event that construction of the Project has not begun for a period of three (3) years from the date of this agreement, this agreement shall become null and void. 19. Any notice provided for or concerning this agreement shall be in writing and be deemed sufficiently given when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company: Riverside County Transportation Commission 7 BNSF's Vice President and Chief Engineer 2600 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth, Texas 76131 BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects 740 East Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408-3571 Telecopy No.: 909 386 4479 BNSF's Director of Structures 4515 Kansas Avenue Kansas City, KS. 66106 Telecopy No.: (913) 551 4099 BNSF's Division Engineer 740 E. Carnegie Drive San Bernardino, CA 92408-3571 Telecopy No.: (909) 386-4070 Executive Director 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 Riverside, CA. 92501 Telephone: 909-787 7141 Telecopy No.: 909 787 7920 20. It is understood that there are no oral agreements between the parties hereto affecting this agreement, and that this agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiation, arrangement, agreement, and understanding, if any, between the parties, and none shall be used to interpret this agreement. This agreement may be amended at any time by the mutual consent of the parties by an instrument in writing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and attested by its duly qualified and authorized officials as of the day and year first above written. WITNESS: WITNESS: "La Sierra Ped OP August 4, 1999 THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY By: M. N. Armstrong Its Asst. Vice President and Interim Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: 8 Eric Haley Its Executive Director NOTE THIS SECTION REMOVED BY D. WILSON BECAUSE PROJECT WAS ALREADY STARTED 10. Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article III, Section 9, the construction of said Project shall not be commenced by RCTC's Contractor until RCTC shall have given not less than thirty (30) days advanced written notice to BNSF's Assistant Director Public Projects, making reference to BNSF's file number 05026420, which notice shall state the time that operations for construction of the Project shall begin. 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement Between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies for the operation of a Construction Freeway Service Patrol on I-215/SR-60 in Riverside County BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to Legal Counsel review, in the amount of $96,000 in State funding for the Construction Freeway Service Patrol on I-215/SR-60 in Riverside County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program operates one of its four beats on I-215/SR-60 with three roving tow trucks during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is constructing a truck climbing lane for southbound traffic on 1-215 from the east junction of SR-60 to University Avenue and on SR-60 from the east junction of SR-60 to Frederick Street. It is Caltrans' desire to implement a construction freeway service patrol during the construction period to assist in transportation system management efforts, provide traffic congestion relief and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of reducing accidents and improving air quality in the construction zone. Furthermore, Caltrans would prefer to use the existing RCTC FSP contractor to not only better coordinate service but also eliminate any duplication of service and/or problems that could arise if there were two different operators. The attached agreement provides for State funding for the construction period estimated to begin in March 2000 and terminating December 31, 2001, in the amount of $88,000, plus an $8,000 contingency, for a total of $96,000. The agreement will cover all costs associated with the additional truck and RCTC's overhead costs. Financial Assessment Project Cost $96,000 Source of Funds {{•�{T'L}w� .i xx$$�� , •�• Included in Fiscal Year Budget / No : •,'C iW,�I{:�.;• t, :�, T, ., k 1(:: Year Included in Program Budget No Year Programmed Approved Allocation N/A Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Yes Financial Impact Not Applicable 08-Riv-215-PM R38.4/41.5 (KP R61.8/66.8) 08-Riv-60-PM R12.1/14.3 (KP R19.5/23.0) In Riverside County 08303 - 453001 District Agreement No. 8-1105 CONSTRUCTION FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL (CFSP) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, entered into on , is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as STATE, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES, a public entity, referred to herein as RC SAFE. RECITALS (1) Under Streets and Highways Code Section 114, STATE and RC SAFE may enter into a cooperative agreement for maintenance of State highways within Riverside County. (2) STATE and RC SAFE have determined that, due to the nature of the construction project, a Construction Freeway Service Patrol (CFSP) is necessary to assist in transportation system management efforts, provide traffic congestion relief, and expedite the removal of freeway impediments, all of which will have the added benefit of reducing accidents and improving air quality in construction zone. (3) STATE and RC SAFE mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the CFSP and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which. the CFSP is to be conducted. 1 SECTION I STATE AGREES: (1) To define or specify, in cooperation with RC SAFE, the State highway segments to be served by the CFSP. The CFSP will be funded under Project EA 08-453001. The proposed project is to improve traffic operations and safety by adding a truck climbing lane for southbound traffic on Interstate 215 from the east junction of State Route 60, (PM R38.4, KP R61.8) to University Avenue (PM 41.5, KP 66.8) and on Route 60 from the east junction of Route 60 (PM R12.1, KP R19.5) to Frederick Street (PM 14.3, KP 23.0). (2) To deposit with RC SAFE for CFSP within twenty, five (25) days of receipt of billing therefore, (which billing will be forwarded 15 days prior to RC SAFE contracting with its FSP Contractor. The amount of $88,000, which figure represent the total obligation for said anticipated CFSP Program costs under this Agreement, and shall not exceed the amount of $96,000. Anticipated costs are shown on attached EXHIBIT "A" which, by this reference, is made a part of this Agreement. SECTION II RC SAFE AGREES: (1) To develop and award, in cooperation with STATE, the CFSP contract for the selected segments of highway in the construction project in Riverside County freeways, using existing RC SAFE Freeway Service Patrol Towing Contractors. The existing towing contractor has been chosen as a result of RC SAFE'S standard contract process for competitive bid process for Freeway Service Patrol. The contract was awarded based on price and qualifications of each contractor. (2) To use competitively bid existing contractor for the necessary communications system and related equipment which may include voice, data, and Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) terminal and affiliated software. (3) To submit CFSP operational contract invoices and receipts of actual expenditures to STATE at the completion of construction and prior to acceptance of the construction project under EA 08-453001. 2 (4) To deposit all STATE funds transferred to RC SAFE, into an interest bearing account whereby the principal and interest earned shall be available for the CFSP. The CFSP fund must be a unique CFSP fund, separate from other RC SAFE funds. (5) At the end of operation of the CFSP, to furnish STATE with a detailed statement of the total direct costs to be borne by STATE. RC SAFE thereafter shall refund to STATE (promptly after completion of RC SAFE's final accounting of CFSP Program costs), any amount of STATE's,funds remaining after actual final costs to be borne by STATE have been deducted, or to bill STATE for any additional amount required to complete STATE's financial obligation pursuant to this Agreement, subject to the limitations of STATE funds as stipulated in said Section I, Article (2). SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: (1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. (2) All obligations of RC SAFE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by RC SAFE. (3) RC SAFE and STATE shall jointly define the scope of the CFSP, as well as the appropriate level of CFSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment required to provide and manage the CFSP. No changes shall be made unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. (4) Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. (5) Neither RC SAFE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, 3 (8) STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless RC SAFE, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. (6) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RC SAFE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RC SAFE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, RC SAFE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, all officers and employees, from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by RC SAFE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to RC SAFE under this Agreement. (7) Each of the contracting parties shall be subject to examination and audit for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the cooperative agreement in accordance with Government Code Section 8546.7. In addition, RC SAFE and STATE may be subject to the examination and audit by representatives of either party. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of the contract including, but not limited to, the costs of administering the contract. The actual costs of the CFSP referred to in this Agreement shall conform and comply with provisions and/or regulations contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 - "Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments" (Federal Acquisitions Regulation 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31, Subpart 31.602). RC SAFE also agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments". Any costs for which payment has been made to RC SAFE that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under OMB Circular A-87, or 49 CFR, Part 18, are subject to repayment by RC SAFE to STATE. (9) This Agreement may be terminated by STATE or RC SAFE at any time by 30 days written notice to the other party. If terminated by STATE, STATE shall reimburse RC SAFE for all mutually agreed upon costs associated with this Agreement 4 for services already performed. If terminated by RC SAFE, RC SAFE shall reimburse STATE for all mutually agreed upon costs associated with this Agreement for services already performed. Unused and uncommitted funds shall be refunded to the appropriate party. 10) This Agreement shall terminate on completion of Project 08- 453001, unless earlier terminated or on December 31, 2001. Upon termination, any unexpended STATE funds, plus accrued interest in those funds, in the possession of RC SAFE, shall be returned to STATE. All equipment purchased with STATE funds shall be returned to STATE. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation RIVERSIDE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES JOSE MEDINA Director of Transportation By: Jack F van Haaster Chairman By: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED S. LISIEWICZ FOR APPROVAL: District Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND PROCEDURE: Eric Haley, Executive Director Attorney, REVIEWED FOR FISCAL Department of Transportation IMPACT: CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: District Budget Manager CERTIFIED AS TO PROCEDURE: Accounting Administrator 5 By: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Steven C. DeBaun Best, Best & Krieger Commission Counsel EXHIBIT "A" Cost Estimates for Construction Freeway Service Patrol (CFSP) Estimated Working Day 4 200 Estimated Required Number of Tow Truck 1 Estimated Hours of Service Per Day � 8 Estimated Cost of Tow Truck Per Hour -› $46.00 Estimated RCSAFE Administering CFSP Cost 5% of Total cost of CFSP Calculation: Estimated CFSP Cost = (200days)(8Hrs per day)($46.00 per hour)(1 Tow truck) = $ 73,600.00 Additional Equipment Cost, i.e. Radios, Vest, Brochure, etc. = $2500.00 Sub Total = ($73600.00)+($2500.00)= $ 76,100.00 5% RCSAFE Administering Cost = (5%)($76100) = $3,680.00 Sub -Total = $73,600.00 + $3,680.00 = $ 79,780.00 Say $80,000.00 Add 10% Contingency Fund = (10%) ($80,000) = $8,000.00 Total = $80,000.00 + $8,000.00 = $88,000.00 Total with 20% Contingency Fund = (20%)($80,000) = $16,000.00 Upper Limit Total = $80,000 + $16,000.00 = $96,000.00 Total with 10% Contingency Fund = $ 88,000.00 Total with 20% Contingency Fund = $96,000.00 * This CFSP will be funded 100% from the Project EA. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements between San Bernardino Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Provision of Dispatch Services in the San Bernardino and Indio California Highway Patrol Offices BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Executive Director to execute the agreements between San Bernardino Associated Governments and Riverside County Transportation Commission, subject to Legal Counsel review, for the provision of dispatch services in the San Bernardino and Indio California Highway Patrol offices for the Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Motorist Aid Call Box system has been in operation since April 1990 and currently includes 1,123 call boxes on all freeways and major highways in the county. Approximately 66,800 call are made annually by motorists in Riverside County, and all of the calls are answered by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) at either the Inland Dispatch Center in San Bernardino or the Indio Dispatch Center. The CHP is reimbursed for its services through a formula which takes into account the annual number of calls received by a dispatch center for a particular call box program divided by the number of calls that a dispatch operator can handle in a twelve month period and determines the number of operators needed to staff the center. The number is rounding up to the next whole number and each program is billed accordingly. Besides the salary and benefits costs for the required communication operator positions, each program is also is billed for indirect costs applied to the personnel costs, a proportionate share of the CHP SAFE Coordinator position and related computer equipment costs, translation service costs, and any other telephone system costs associated with the program. The San Bernardino call box program was also implemented around the same time as Riverside County's program. At that time, it was mutually agreed that SANBAG would enter into an agreement with the CHP and bill RCTC for its share of the costs for the Inland Dispatch Center based upon RCTC's number of calls to the total number of call received at the center. It was also agreed that RCTC would contract with the CHP for the Indio Dispatch Center and bill SANBAG for its share of the costs on a similar basis. This arrangement allowed both programs to save money since the fraction of each position was not rounding up to the next whole number and the dispatch center would still be staffed appropriately. Otherwise, RCTC would pay for two positions at Inland (rather than approximately 1.68 positions) and two positions at Indio (rather than 1.9 positions), and SANBAG would be charged for three positions at Inland (versus approximately 2.32 positions) and one position at Indio (versus 0.1 position). In fiscal year 1998-99, it is estimated RCTC will reimburse SANBAG $109,000 for its share of the CHP Inland Dispatch Center and receive approximately $5,500 from SANBAG for services at the CHP Indio Dispatch Center. The estimated costs for FY 1999-2000 is included in the approved RCTC Motorist Aid program budget. Both programs have benefitted from the agreement and wish to continue working cooperatively. The attached agreements formalize the costs sharing arrangement between SANBAG and RCTC for the CHP Dispatch Centers in San Bernardino and Indio. The agreements are to remain in full force and effect until either terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties or by either party giving one hundred eighty days written notice. Financial Assessment Project Cost $120,000 Source of Funds SAFE Fees .,�,T }•:'},',�,',{{'SS;££} F::• :'•3•::o}.ta{•E:£�;.S:.d. .�... v..,:'•}::::•:: •}., $ .. .. �• •Y.i {' . r •,� : ;,.{•' • '•ti 6•:�•,} •�ti. `� •t::,;k;.. <...S;y •v ;y �.3 •.......:.....{•Y.:.:,.;.{.... }.:}...........6..•h..b.-.....:.......{..�. • 1, , 'f' •'{ • • .. �L• v. �� }; ..:..,............ %:.{•Y.{{,'ti }.l. i+ &' • ;}• ; a { •, }:}{..+.•Y.{3:{ }.: Y..H.{4{x{{r,:,w,'.4}.{{44...*.v{.}.{nifitr:. ; }; ��3�: • .' • .i•: Included in Fiscal Year Budget Yes Year Included in Program Budget Yes Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation N/A Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required No Financial Impact Not Applicable AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES IN THE INDIO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this day of 1999, in the State of California by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION referred to herein as "Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (Riverside County SAFE)," a public entity, and SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS referred to herein as "San Bernardino County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (San Bernardino County SAFE)," a public entity. RECITALS WHEREAS, Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE were established pursuant to Section 2551 of the California Streets and Highways Code for the purposes of implementing, maintaining and operating motorist aid systems call boxes on freeways and state highways; and WHEREAS, Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE have entered into agreements (the "CHP Agreements") with the State of California Department of the Highway Patrol (CHP) for service and assistance in accordance with the Joint CHP/Caltrans Guidelines for County SAFE Call Box Systems, which agreements may be extended from time to time by the parties; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE have determined that the cooperative use of dispatch services in the Indio CHP Office will provide for better coordination and cost savings for both agencies; NOW, THEREFORE, Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE, hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. The Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE agree to share the CHP dispatch service costs at the Indio CHP Office as set forth below. 2. The Riverside County SAFE and San Bernardino County SAFE agree to share the CHP service costs incurred under the CHP Agreements as follows: A. The quarterly billing of dispatch services identified in Section 12(a) through (e) shall be shared based on the percentage of calls generated from each of the call box systems operated by the Riverside County and San Bernardino County SAFES during the billing period. The total volume of motorist aid calls generated during the quarter shall be used to determine the percentage of calls applicable to each agency. The quarterly billing for dispatch services shall be divided between the Riverside County and San Bernardino County SAFES based upon the percentage of calls applicable to each during the quarter. B. The capitalized maintenance costs of all CHP communication equipment (with the exception of the computer assisted dispatch system, the payment of which has already been agreed to between the CHP, Riverside County SAFE, and San Bernardino County SAFE) for call box dispatch services currently installed at the Indio CHP Office will be shared equall} by the Riverside County and San Bernardino County SAFE. All costs associated with the purchase and installation of any additional equipment shall be shared as mutually agreed upon by the parties based upon the estimated percentage of each use by each agency. C. All trunk line operations and maintenance costs for those trunk lines currently installed shall be shared equally by the parties. The costs associated with any additional trunk lines shall be shared based upon the percentage of use of additional trunk lines by Riverside and San Bernardino SAFES. D. Each SAFE shall be responsible for the costs of all translation service calls in its respective county. SECTION II FEES AND PAYMENTS 1. The San Bernardino County SAFE shall provide monthly data regarding the call box calls that were made to the Indio CHP Dispatch to Riverside County SAFE on a quarterly basis. 2. The Riverside County SAFE shall timely pay all costs billed by the CHP under the CHP Agreement and then bill the San Bernardino County SAFE on a quarterly basis for San Bernardino County SAFE'S share of all costs billed by the CHP as described in Section I, Item 2. 3. San Bernardino County SAFE shall make payment to the Riverside County SAFE within forty-five (45) days of its receipt and approval of each quarterly billing. SECTION III GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from its effective date until either terminated by mutual agreement between the parties or as provided in Section 3 below or upon the expiration of the CHP Agreements. 2. Neither party shall assign, sublet, or transfer this agreement or any part hereof, without the written consent of the other agency. 3. This agreement may be terminated by either party by giving one hundred eighty (180) days written notice. 4. This agreement may be amended at any time by written agreement of the each agency. 5. No waiver of a breach of any provision of this agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, or of such provision. Failure of either party to enforce any time, or from time - to -time, any provision of this agreement shall not be construed as waiver thereof. The remedies herein reserved shall be cumulative and additional to any other remedies in law or equity. 6. Should any part, term, portion, or provision of this agreement be finally decided to be in conflict with any law of the United States or the State of California, or otherwise be unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions or provisions shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining portions or provisions can be construed in substance to constitute the agreement which the parties intended to enter in the first instance. 7. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations and modifications concerning this agreement shall be of no force or effect unless provided in writing and signed by both parties. 8. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this agreement may be personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following address: Riverside County SAFE 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Tel: (909) 787-7141 Fax: (909) 787-7920 San Bernardino County SAFE 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401-1421 Tel: (909) 884-8276 Fax: (909) 885-4407 Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered, or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. 9. Both parties hereby waive their respective right to trial by jury and agree to accept trial by judge alone of any cause of action, claim, counterclaim or cross -complaint in any action, proceeding and/or hearing brought by either party against the other party on any matter whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, this agreement, the relationship of the parties, or any claim of injury or damage, or the enforcement of any remedy under any law, statute, or regulation, emergency or otherwise, now or hereafter in effect, regardless of whether such action or proceeding concerns any contract or tort or other claim. 10. If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. 11. The individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party warrants that he/she is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of his/her agency and the agency will be bound by the terms and conditions contained herein. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Robert Christman, President Date: Date: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL APPROVAL Eric A. Haley, Executive Director Norman R. King, Executive Director Date: Date: Reviewed for Fiscal Impact: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAFE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SAFE Steven C. DeBaun Best, Best & Krieger Commission Counsel Rex A. Hinesley, Legal Counsel AGREEMENT NO.00-005 BETWEEN SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE PROVISION OF DISPATCH SERVICES IN THE SAN BERNARDINO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICES THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of this 7th day of July 1999, in the State of California by and between SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS referred to herein as "San Bernardino Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (San Bernardino SAFE)," a public entity, and the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION referred to herein as "Riverside Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (Riverside SAFE)," a public entity. RECITALS WHEREAS, San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE were established pursuant to Section 2551 of the California Streets and Highways Code for the purposes of implementing, maintaining and operating motorist aid systems call boxes on freeways and state highways; and WHEREAS, San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE have entered into agreements with the State of California Department of the Highway Patrol (CHP) for service and assistance in accordance with the Joint CHP/Caltrans Guidelines for County SAFE Call Box Systems; and WHEREAS, the San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE have determined that the cooperative use of dispatch services in the San Bernardino Inland CHP Office will provide for better coordination and cost savings for both agencies; NOW, THEREFORE, San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE, hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1 TERM AND CONDITIONS 1. The San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE agree to share the CHP dispatch service costs at the San Bernardino CHP Office. 2. The San Bernardino SAFE and Riverside SAFE agree to split the CHP service costs as follows: 0:1A00005.doc Page 2 of 5 A. The quarterly billing of dispatch services shall be split based on the percentage of calls generated from each of the call box systems operated by the San Bernardino and Riverside SAFEs during the billing period. The total volume of motorist aid calls generated during the quarter shall be used to determine the percentage of calls applicable to each agency. The quarterly billing for dispatch services shall be divided between the San Bernardino and Riverside SAFEs based upon the percentage of calls applicable to each during the quarter. B. The costs of all CHP communication equipment (with the exception of the computer assisted dispatch system, the payment of which has already been agreed to between the CHP, San Bernardino SAFE, and Riverside SAFE) for call box dispatch services currently installed at the San Bernardino CHP Office will be shared equally by the San Bernardino and Riverside SAFE. All costs associated with the purchase and installation of any additional equipment shall be shared as mutually agreed upon by the parties based upon the estimated percentage of each use by each agency. C. All trunk line operations and maintenance costs for those trunk lines currently installed shall be shared equally by the parties. The costs associated with any additional trunk lines shall be shared based upon the percentage of use of additional trunk lines by San Bernardino and Riverside SAFEs. D. Each SAFE shall be responsible for the costs of all translation service calls in its respective county. SECTION II FEES AND PAYMENTS 1. The Riverside SAFE shall provide monthly data regarding the call box calls that were made to the San Bernardino Inland CHP Dispatch to San Bernardino SAFE on a quarterly basis. 2. The San Bernardino SAFE shall pay all costs billed by the CHP and then bill the Riverside SAFE on a quarterly basis for Riverside SAFE's share of all costs billed by the CHP as described in Section I, Item 2. 3. Riverside SAFE shall make payment to the San Bernardino SAFE within ninety (90) days of its receipt and approval of each quarterly billing. SECTION III GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. This agreement shall remain in full force and effect from its effective date until either terminated by mutual agreement between the parties or as provided in Section 3 below. O:\A00005.doc Page 3 of 5 2. Neither party shall assign, sublet, or transfer this agreement or any part hereof, without the written consent of the other agency. 3. This agreement may be terminated by either party by giving one hundred eighty (180) days written notice. 4. This agreement may be amended at any time by written agreement of the each agency. 5. No waiver of a breach of any provision of this agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other breach, or of such provision. Failure of either party to enforce any time, or from time - to time, any provision of this agreement shall not be construed as waiver thereof. The remedies herein reserved shall be cumulative and additional to any other remedies in law or equity. 6. Should any part, term, portion, or provision of this agreement be finally decided to be in conflict with any law of the United States or the State of California, or otherwise be unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, portions or provisions shall be deemed severable and shall not be affected thereby, provided such remaining portions or provisions can be construed in substance to constitute the agreement which the parties intended to enter in the first instance. 7. This agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties relating to the rights herein granted and the obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations and modifications concerning this agreement shall be of no force or effect unless provided in writing and signed by both parties. 8. The parties acknowledge and agree that this agreement was entered into and intended to be performed in whole or substantial part in San Bernardino County, California. The parties agree that the venue for any action or claim brought by any party to this agreement will be the Central District of San Bernardino County. Each party hereby waives any law or rule of court which would allow them to request or demand a change of venue. If any action or claim concerning this agreement is brought by any third party, the parties hereto agree to use their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to the Central District of San Bernardino County. 9. Any notice or notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this agreement may be personally served on the other party by the party giving such notice or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following address: San Bernardino SAFE 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401-1421 Tel: (909) 884-8276 Fax: (909) 885-4407 Riverside SAFE 3560 University Avenue, Suite1O0 Riverside, CA 92501 Tel: (909) 787-7141 Fax: (909) 787-7920 O:1A00005.doc Page 4 of 5 Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered, or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. 10. Both parties hereby waive their respective right to trial by jury and agree to accept trial by judge alone of any cause of action, claim, counterclaim or cross -complaint in any action, proceeding and/or hearing brought by either party against the other party on any matter whatsoever arising out of, or in any way connected with, this agreement, the relationship of the parties, or any claim of injury or damage, or the enforcement of any remedy under any law, statute, or regulation, emergency or otherwise, now or hereafter in effect, regardless of whether such action or proceeding concerns any contract or tort or other claim. 11 If any legal action is instituted to enforce or declare any party's rights hereunder, each party, including the prevailing party, must bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. 12. The individual executing this agreement on behalf of each party warrants that he/she is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of his/her agency and the agency will be bound by the terms and conditions contained herein. IN WITNESS THEREOF, THE AUTHORIZED PARTIES HAVE BELOW SIGNED AND EXECUTED THE AGREEMENT ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE: SAN.BERNARDINO SAFE RIVERSIDE SAFE Robert Christman, President Eric Haley, Executive Director Date: 2 Date: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL Reviewed for Fiscal Impact: Dean Martin Norman R. King, Executive Director Chief Financial Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR SAN BERNARDINO SAFE RIVERSIDE SAFE �litG- Rex A. Hinesley, Le ounsel 0:1A00005.doc Legal Counsel Page 5 of 5 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fund Transfer Agreement Between the State of California Department of Transportation and the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the Operation of a Freeway Service BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the agreement with the State of California Department of Transportation, subject to Legal Counsel review, in the amount of $918,500 in State funding for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program for FY 1999-2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program has been in operation for almost five years and provides roving tow truck service on four beats of SR-91 and I-215/SR-60 during the morning and afternoon commute hours. The FSP program is funded by the State of California (80%) and local SAFE fees (20%). Funds are allocated to participating local agencies through a formula based on population, freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. The attached agreement provides for continued State funding for fiscal year 1999- 2000 in the amount of $918,500. This is an increase of $282,200 over the funding level for FY 1998-99, and will provide funding for the addition of two trucks on FSP beat #25 on 1-15 between SR-91 and SR-60. The Riverside County SAFE must provide matching funds of $229,625. The increased funding levels were included in the Commission's FY 1999-00 budget for the Motorist Assistance Program. Annually, the program provides approximately 18,000 assists to stranded motorists along three segments of SR-91 and one segment of I-215/SR-60. The Commission contracts with two tow truck operators to patrol these routes Monday through Friday during peak commute hours. The program's day to day field supervision is handled by the California Highway Patrol. Financial Assessment Project Cost $229,625 Source of Funds SAFE ti Y }'i} 111: :r,r . �. Included in Fiscal Year Budget Yes Year Included in Program Budget Yes Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation NSA Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required No Financial Impact Not Applicable FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT (Non -Federal) Agreement No.: FSP-6054(013) Location: 08-RIV-0-RCTC Project No.: FSP-6054(013) EA: 08-924402 THIS AGREEMENT, effective on July 1, 1999, is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and the Riverside County Transportation Commission-RCTC, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "ADMINISTERING AGENCY." WHEREAS, Streets and Highways Code (S&HC) Section 2560 et seq. authorizes STATE and administering agencies to develop and implement a Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program on traffic - congested urban freeways throughout the state; and WHEREAS, STATE has distributed available State Highway Account funds to administering agencies participating in the FSP Program in accordance with S&HC Section 2562; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has applied to STATE and has been selected to receive funds from the FSP Program for the purpose of providing Freeway Service Patrols on State Routes 60, 91 & 215, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, proposed PROJECT funding is as follows: Total Cost $ 1,148,125 State Funds $ 918,500 Local Funds $ 229,625 ; and WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with ADMINISTERING AGENCY to delineate the respective responsibilities of the parties relative to prosecution of said PROJECT; and WHEREAS, STATE and ADMINISTERING AGENCY mutually desire to cooperate and jointly participate in the FSP program and desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the FSP program is to be conducted; and WHEREAS, ADMINISTERING AGENCY has approved entering into this Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by ADMINISTERING AGENCY on , a copy of which is attached.. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: For Caltrans Use Only I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance Accounting Officer Date $ Chapter Statutes Item Fiscal Year Program BC Category Fund Source $ 1999 2660-101-0042 99- 2000 20.30.010.600 C 262041 02-042T Non -Fed FSP 6/9/99 2 SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1. To define or specify, in cooperation with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the limits of the State Highway segments to be served by the FSP as well as the nature and amount of the FSP dedicated equipment, if any, that is to be funded under the FSP program. 2. To pay ADMINISTERING AGENCY the STATE's share, in amount not to exceed $918,500 , of eligible participating PROJECT costs. 3. To Deposit with ADMINISTERING AGENCY, upon ADMINISTERING AGENCY's award of a contract for PROJECT services and receipt of an original and two signed copies of an invoice in the proper form, including identification of this Agreement Number and Project Number, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY, the amount of $146,960. This initial deposit represents STATE's share of the estimated costs for the initial two months of PROJECT. Thereafter, to make reimbursements to ADMINISTERING AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit, but not more often than monthly in arrears, upon receipt of an original and two signed copies of invoices in the proper form covering actual allowable costs incurred for the prior sequential month's period of the Progress Payment Invoice. (The initial deposit will be calculated at 16% of the STATE's total share.) 4. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the provisions of this Agreement, STATE will rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of ADMINISTERING AGENCY performed pursuant to the provisions of State and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit, work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. SECTION II ADMINISTERING AGENCY AGREES: 1. To commit and contribute matching funds totaling $ 229,625, from ADMINISTERING AGENCY resources, which shall be an amount not less than 25 percent of the amount provided by STATE from the State Highway Account. 2. The ADMINISTERING AGENCY's detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal which identifies all anticipated direct and indirect PROJECT costs which ADMINISTERING AGENCY may invoice STATE for reimbursement under this Agreement is attached hereto and made an express part of this Agreement. The detailed PROJECT Cost Proposal reflects the provisions and/or regulations of Section III, Article 8, of this Agreement. 3. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation related PROJECT purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. Non -Fed FSP 6/9/99 3 4. STATE funds provided to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement shall not be used for administrative purposes by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 5. To develop, in cooperation with STATE, advertise, award and administer PROJECT contract(s)in accordance with ADMINISTERING AGENCY competitive procurement procedures. 6. Upon award of a contract for PROJECT, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of invoicing for STATE's initial deposit specified in Section I, Article 3. Thereafter, to prepare and submit to STATE an original and two signed copies of progress invoicing for STATE's share of actual expenditures for allowable PROJECT costs. 7. Said invoicing shall evidence the expenditure of ADMINISTERING AGENCY's PROJECT participation in paying not less than 20% of all allowable PROJECT costs and shall contain the information described in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual and shall be mailed to the Department of Transportation, Accounting Service Center, MS 33, Local Programs Accounting Branch, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento CA, 94274-0001. 8. Within 60 days after completion of PROJECT work to be reimbursed under this Agreement, to prepare a final invoice reporting all actual eligible costs expended, including all costs paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY and submit that signed invoice, along with any refund due STATE, to the District Local Assistance Engineer. Backup information submitted with said final invoice shall include all FSP operational contract invoices paid by ADMINISTERING AGENCY to contracted operators included in expenditures billed for to STATE under this Agreement. 9. Any costs for which ADMINISTERING AGENCY receives payment that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable are to be repaid to STATE by ADMINISTERING AGENCY within thirty (30) days of ADMINISTERING AGENCY receiving notice of audit findings. Should ADMINISTERING AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due STATE within (30) days of demand, or within such other period as may be agreed between both parties hereto, STATE reserves the right to withhold future payments due ADMINISTERING AGENCY from any source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller. 10. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its subcontractors shall establish and maintain an accounting system conforming to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to support reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices which segregate and accumulate costs of PROJECT work elements and produce monthly reports which clearly identify reimbursable costs, matching costs, and other expenditures by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 11. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its subcontractors shall maintain all source documents, books and records connected with its performance under this Agreement for a minimum of three years from the date of final payment to ADMINISTERING AGENCY or until audit resolution is achieved and shall make all such supporting information available for inspection and audit by representatives of the STATE. Copies will be made and furnished by ADMINISTERING AGENCY upon request. Non -Fed FSP 6/9/99 4 SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the encumbrance of funds under this Agreement. Funding and reimbursement is available only upon the passage of the State Budget Act containing these STATE funds. The starting date of eligible reimbursable activities shall be July 1, 1999. 2. All obligations of ADMINISTERING AGENCY under the terms of this Agreement are subject to authorization and allocation of resources by ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 3. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and STATE shall jointly define the initial FSP program as well as the appropriate level of FSP funding recommendations and scope of service and equipment required to provide and manage the FSP program. No changes shall be made in these unless mutually agreed to in writing by the parties to this Agreement. 4. Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties not parties to this Agreement or affect the legal liability of either party to the Agreement by imposing any standard of care with respect to the maintenance of State highways different from the standard of care imposed by law. 5. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, ADMINISTERING AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of California, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by ADMINISTERING AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to ADMINISTERING AGENCY under this Agreement. 6. Neither ADMINISTERING AGENCY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless ADMINISTERING AGENCY, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. 7. ADMINISTERING AGENCY will maintain an inventory of all non expendable PROJECT equipment, defined as having a useful life of at least two years and an acquisition cost of $500 or more, paid for with PROJECT funds. At the conclusion of this Agreement, ADMINISTERING AGENCY may either keep such equipment and credit STATE its share of equipment's fair market Non -Fed FSP 6/9/99 5 value or sell such equipment at the best price obtainable at a public or private sale (in accordance with established STATE procedures) and reimburse STATE its proportional share of the sale price. 8. ADMINISTERING AGENCY and its sub -contractors will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to, Office of Management and Budget Circular A-97, Cost Principles for State and Local Governments (49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments). 9. In the event that ADMINISTERING AGENCY fails to operate the PROJECT commenced and reimbursed under this Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or fails to comply with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for PROJECT, or portions thereof, upon written notice to ADMINISTERING AGENCY. 10. This Agreement shall terminate on June 30, 2001; However, the non -expendable equipment, and liability clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCY Department of Transportation By: Chief, Office of Local Programs Project Implementation By: Title: Date: Date: Non -Fed FSP 6/9/99 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contract Award for Freeway Service Patrol Tow Truck Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award a three-year contract to Pepe's Towing Service to provide tow truck service on Beat #25 for the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) was advised by Caltrans Headquarters that additional State funding would be available for FY 1999-2000 for its Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program. With this in mind, Caltrans District 8, CHP, and RCTC staff decided to implement an additional FSP beat on 1-15 beginning August 2, 1999. The following is an account of the process that has occurred to date: • RFP issued on April 2, 1999 and advertised in Press Enterprise on April 7, 1999 • Pre -bid conference held at RCTC office on April 13, 1999 • Proposals due and opened 5:00 p.m., May 7, 1999 • Site visits conducted on five lowest responsive bidders week of May 17 • Recommendation on contract award presented to Budget and Implementation Committee on May 24, 1999 At the May 24 Committee meeting, the item was deferred until June and staff was directed to return with additional information and documentation to substantiate the recommendation. Subsequently, a cost estimate was prepared by CHP staff based upon the proposals submitted from the five lowest bidders. The estimates projected each bidder's estimated costs, revenues, and profit or loss for the three year period. Each bidder was sent a copy of their respective cost estimate and given the opportunity to comment and/or provide additional information. They were also asked to provide additional clarification and information on specific items (e.g., maintenance, miscellaneous, incidental costs) including the specific items covered under each category and the amount per item. Staff pulled the item from the June 28, 1999 Committee meeting to allow more time to complete their analysis. Staff also took the opportunity to survey other FSP programs to determine what criteria they used to evaluate their proposals. Copies of RFP's were received from OCTA, LACMTA, SANBAG and Ca!trans. OCTA's criteria was more definitive with a greater level of specificity and most closely followed the analysis initially performed by staff. Staff used this criteria to evaluate qualitative factors of the five proposals (see Attachment I). A Time and Material Calculation spreadsheet was also developed to assist staff in evaluating the cost reasonableness of the proposals (see Attachment II). Although all of the operators furnished some of this information with their original proposal, each proposer submitted it with varying levels of details and differing descriptions. The spreadsheet standardized the information in order for staff to compare between the proposals and to determine reasonableness of costs. They were also asked to provide resumes of the key personnel responsible for day to day operations. Reference was made to RFP Section 1-10.0, Commission Rights, which states in part, "The Commission may investigate the qualifications of any Proposer under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by a Proposer, and require additional evidence of qualifications." They were given one week to comply and told that failure to provide the attached schedule appropriately signed, and the resumes could result in the Commission viewing their proposal as non -responsive. The requested information was received from Our Boyz Towing, Duran's Towing, and Pepe's Towing. M & D Towing and Mr. T's Towing did not comply with the request for additional information. Staff contacted the two operators to determine if they had received the letter dated July 23, 1999 requesting the additional information and to ask why they had not responded. Mr. T's Towing stated they had received the letter but had decided not to reply. M & D Towing stated they had not received the letter. A copy was faxed to their office and they were asked to reply by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, August 16. The information was received by the specified time and date. A review of the qualitative factors included in Attachment I resulted in Pepe's Towing being ranked the highest of the five proposers. The qualifications and experience of the firm and staff were the two factors that favored Pepe's. Their combined experience with the CHP rotation tow program, other local police departments and with the freeway service patrol itself are invaluable. The safety issues involved with working in a dangerous freeway environment cannot be compared to towing on local streets. There are many times more vehicles driving by at high speeds, drivers have to be on constant alert for oncoming vehicles, and often times must work in areas of little or no shoulder area. The operator must also have the experience of responding to accidents on the freeway. Although cost is a factor, the qualitative factors and safety issues far outweigh any benefit of a low bid. Also, based on information obtained from other FSP programs and operators and our analysis of the cost components (e.g., fuel and materials), it is still our belief that the lowest bid is significantly underestimated and, therefore, brings into question the ability of the firm to sustain operations over a three year contract. If the contractor cannot perform as required, the Commission would have to go out to bid for the services before the end of the contract term. At the minimum, the CHP has indicated it would strain their resources if an operator fails to perform adequately. It would require additional time to monitor the beat, and this could occur at the expense of the other beats. Therefore, based upon the evaluation of all the information submitted by the prospective tow companies, interviews with the tow company owners, review of historical and present statistical information, discussions with other FSP programs in the State, and our experience in the FSP program, it is recommended that the Commission award the contract for FSP Beat #25 to Pepe's Towing. Pepe's Towing is a well -established tow company who has been in business for over 12 years and possess the experience necessary to safely and successfully complete this type of service contract. Pepe's has 4 years of prior FSP experience within Riverside and San Bernardino counties and currently has seven certified FSP drivers. The company has over 10 years in CHP rotation tow experience, four years experience with AAA towing and several years experience towing for City Police and County Sheriff Departments. Pepe's hourly truck cost appears to be in line with the State average and they have adequately estimated fuel costs and mileage estimates that reflect the average miles driven by FSP trucks in Riverside County. They have also allowed for unforeseen expenses during the life of the contract. Upon approval of the recommendation, staff will negotiate a Best and Final Offer (BFO) with Pepe's and the hourly rate will not exceed the $40.00 per truck rate included in their proposal. Total cost for FY 1999-2000 will not exceed $95,205.00 (effective October 25, 1999). The costs for the last two fiscal years is not to exceed $137,827.00 per year. Financial Assessment Project Cost $370,859 Source of Funds State of California and SAFE Fees {'`•::k''.L• 'v{ �..,>.•Y.,>. �•. £•<{ 4.,, $ $:: •..::•:§:.:::� %4;i :1 �{' ,i,, • .i r. ¢ . :. n : v:.•.•::: •:F v�••. f. •F. ... ; }: :. y}F •, 3{{}I S i { T.;j�.�{}': •.-4d::4:Y.•}:•,•$:{:�:•: v }:v:. „ :' ..:}+;.'•}:•:f••::'•}.;.' •}:- .... • • Y f : •::{• .•:.n }.•.:.•.::•...:::.. }...:...:...L•.34:.4:.: '{ .Y:'•:•' 1FI•}1 C }yy +i •.,�.Sy`�V�,F..r. }F:r.::..•$]D':. •}. • $ iC! �. } ~$: .. Included in Fiscal Year Budget Yes ... Year Included in Program Budget Yes Year Programmed 99-00 Approved Allocation Yes Year of Allocation 99-00 Budget Adjustment Required No Financial Impact Not Applicable 66/LI/8 :2If 66/I/L moi uo►lemi dHj traag (Z) •auti of sueid inq luawout aql .io3 alenbapeuI (I) V/N V/N V/N V/N V/N angmasia palap►suoo lou sloloe3 luenap.I Iatug • oN saA sail sail sail suotlonllsui dd2i ghm aouepl000e ui ssaualaidwoa . asuodsaN jo ssaualaidutop W 78 I W 78 I LEI W I W W .I, W 78 I (3 7st i • Imp' ddd) palonb DIe wood go►gm uo siseg . poop poop poor) suo►lsan6 poop elep lloddns jo XaenbapV . poop poop poop poop •n poop •n snip laglo glim ssauan► padwoo a8 aoud jelol jo ssauaigeuoseall . aNid'S' 1s03 V/N V/N V/N V/N V/N suo►lenouu! ietnpaowd 10 leoiugoal palsanns 3o Xlil►ln • poop poop poop poop poop ainpatios pasodold jo ssauaigeuoseaN • saA soA saA sail saA au►ipeap laaCold ati laaw of 41!gV 1►e,4 poop poop lted poop mid *tom Jo Xputoads a8 4.Ieia `oi2o-i • 1--1 Iled poop pooh obi poop ueid >pomp Xltienb'Imam) a8 sluawannba13o fluipueimpun • upld K1OM umou�iun poop (I) poor) pooh luawliwwoo 1oge13o CoenbapV Elted poop poop poop poop uotleztuaato laafold jo o►nol poop poop poop poop poop luawanionui 3o ianai s�iauuoslad X3N lied luaiiaox3 poop pooh pooh n Ia�euey� loafom Xpuino► nd `3juls 3o suopuog►iend uopuz!uuno laafold pup 2uti3elS auop loN pooh n pooD •n mop lox poop •n saoualajal luaiio /Cq luawssassV •s.IX Ei •sIX ZI •sIX 8.E •s1X t sow pi IBC i (uot endo ui -saX # -a-!) uu9 jo kiliigels a8101.10 8 (Z) obi saA auobi sail sail (Qd Iaglo 28 dH3) saioua2u o►ignd glim aouatladx3 obi sail oN sail sail ameu Ieitwts 3o vom 2uutuo31ad ui aouauadxa Ieoiutioai wail atilJo suoileagiienb a ag s�ica as s‘upana sa %qv ziIog anp &DI yip° lad e►Ialt..0 uopenien3 SZ# wag lolled aotnla5 Xemaald klunop apislamu Name of Operator Tow Trucks* Labor(Driver) Salary Payroll Taxes Workers Compensation Labor subt Office personnel Office Equipment Other Office Expenses Time and Materials Calculation Per Hour Calculation Fdr One Truck Overhead subtotal Cellular Phones �- aalos Fuel(2) Materials(tires, filters, oil) Uniforms Operating subtotal Insurance ,Equipment 'MlscAncidentals(1) Total Cost per Hour per Truck • Loan a ments 1. Describe whats included under miscellaneous/incidentals. If the total amounts to more than ten percent (10%) of the per hour cost, provide on a separate sheet an itemized breakdown with the related cost. 2. Provide assumed cost per gallon on this line Cost should also include gasoline for motorists. I certify that the above information is true and correct Signature Date RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Advance of Local Transportation Funds to SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve SunLine Transit Agency's request for a $585,000 advance from Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to be repaid by reducing their next two (2) FY 2000 LTF payments. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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 funds, SunLine has not yet received the $585,000 of operating funds for FY 1999 included in the grant. The delay has affected transit operators throughout the country. 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 shortfall. They propose to repay the loan by deducting it from their next two (2) payments of FY 2000 Local Transportation Funds (LTF). unLi�e TRANSIT AGENCY July 23, 1999 Mr. Eric Haley, Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave. Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Eric: 4/7/ yS MEMBERS: Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Indio Palm Springs Palm Desert Coachella Cathedral City Indian Wells Riverside County La Quinta A Public Agency 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, iichard Cromwell III General Manager William A. Maier Chief Financial Officer 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Evaluation Results PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & 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. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 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. 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. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION & SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS EVALUATION OF COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 1999 SCR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION & SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS EVALUATION OF COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 1999 SCR 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 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 I II Employee Transportation Coordinator Survey Survey Instrument III Cross Tabulations IV SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 10th and 27th 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 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 of the program. These ratings are similar to those reported in the 1994/1995 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 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800 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 (ROTC) 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 (ROTC) 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 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 1 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 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800 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, buspoo12, 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). SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 PARTICIPATION 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (202) 785-4800 % OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY PARTICIPATION' SAN B ERNARDINO --- IN -C O U N TY 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. 3 "Evaluation of Riverside County Transportation Commission's Commuter Assistance Program — Final Report," Applied Management & Planning Group, March 30, 1995. 10 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 11 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 12 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. Employer 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 13 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 00% 00% 40% 30% 30% 10% 0% IN CID E N C E OF RIDESHARING BY W E E KI 1 % 1 % 3 % 10% 73% 91% ONCE PER ONCE PER T W ICE PER 3 TIMES PER I TIM ES PER 0• TIM ES PER W E E K W EEK WEEK WEEK W EEK W EEK 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. 70% 50% 00% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% IN CID E N C E OF S+ DAYS PER WEEK RIDESHARING BY Y E A RI 1994 1990 1990 1997 1999 ! 1999 14 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 % 4 0 % 3 0 % 2 0 % 1 0 % 0% 48% WHY COMMUTERS START RIDESHARING I 28% SAVE MONEY LESS $TRESS 1 4 % CONGESTION FRIENDS LEVEL COW ORR ERE S% \ LOST OTN ER OTHER MODE 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. CONVENIENT WHY PEOPLE CONTINUE TO RIDESHAREI ENJOY LESS EXPENSIVE RIDESHARING 15 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 6 0 % 4 6 % 4 0 % 36% 3 0 % 26% 2 0 % 16% 1 0 % 6 % 0% 4 6 % j.. SCHEDULE W H Y RIDESHARING REDUCED?' 1 6 % j j 1 3 % 9% i, �j LOST POOL TOO CHANCE INCONVENIENT 27% jjjj j PEOPLE CUT DAYS O THE R 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. 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 16 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 17 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. P R IM A R Y REASON TO STOP RIDESNARING { 6 % 40% 2 6 % 2 0 % 2 6 % 2 0 % 1 6 % 1 011 6 % 0% 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 1 0 % 00% S 0 % 1 0 % 0 0 % 2 0 % 1 0 % 0% 8 0 % CAUCASIAN 2 2 % ETHN IC IT Y I 1 1 % N If V A N IC A F R IC A N AMERICAN 4 % 3 % A S IA N OTHER 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 19 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine. CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 $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. • f % •0% 2 f % 2 0 % 2 6 % 2 0 % 1 f % 1 0 % 6 % 0 % j., $20 0 0 I% 0 2 2 % 6 2 0 - 6 6 0. 0 0 0 IN COM E) { 2 % 2 2 % 6 6 1 - 6 7 6 0 0 0 6 26 0 0• 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 IO N TO C O N TIN U E RIDESHARING 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. 20 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 W H Y D ID N 'T YOU RENEW CLUB/TEAM RIDE? I NO LONGER RIDESHARE 7% DON'T LIKE PROGRAMS 9% OTHER 1 6 % HASN'T EXPIRED 2 9 % D ID N 'T KNOW I HAD TO RENEW 9 % 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. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 1 0 % 5% 0% i WHY DIDN'T YOU SIGN UP FOR CLUB/TEAM RIDE? I 1 41% TOO MUCH HASSLE 18% 16% 10% DON'TLIKE UN A W ARE OF SCHEDULE DISCOUNTPROGRAMS PROBLEM PROGRAM S 8 -% 7% NO LONGER OTHER RID ESH AR E 21 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 22 SCR • Strategic Consufting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 day program 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 I NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE \ 1 0 % SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE 2 4 % DON'T KNOW 2 % EFFECTIVE 2 4 % 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. 23 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington. DC • (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 DON'T EMPLOYEES CONTINUE TO RIDESHARE71 DON'T LIKE RIDESHARINO 7 % CHANGED RESIDENCE 1 0 % CHANGED E M PLO Y M ENT 1 LOCATION 1 7 % TOO INCONVENIENT 6 6 % 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. 25 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 (PMio), 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. 26 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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: Trip end VMT Factor Factor (g/trip) (g/mile) ROG 4.98 0.55 Nox 2.05 1.02 PMio 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. 28 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 • SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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 30 SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 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. SCR • Strategic Consulting & Research • Irvine, CA • (949) 752-5900 • Washington, DC • (202) 785-4800 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Executive Committee Naty Kopenhaver, Director of Administrative Services THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approve Resolution No. 99-010, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Its Personnel Rules and Regulations EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve Resolution No. 99-010, Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Its Personnel Rules and Regulations, to add disclosure requirements for employees of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Executive Director, to avoid perception of conflict of interest, has recognized that the need to expand the Personnel Rules and Regulations for employees of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to declare to their respective supervisor if a relative is employed or associated with consultants or vendors that the Commission has the possibility to contract with. Therefore, it is proposed that a language to disclose such interests be included in the Personnel Rules. The following is proposed by Legal Counsel: "An employee of the Commission, who is aware that a relative of the employee works for or on behalf of an individual, a business or other entity that does business with the Commission, shall disclose such relationship to the employee's immediate supervisor. For the purposes of this policy, relative shall include any relative by blood or marriage, or anyone residing in the employee's household." The Executive Committee is meeting prior to the Commission meeting on September 8tn. If there are any changes to the recommendation, the item will be pulled from Consent Calendar. nk Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 99-010 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING ITS PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the Commission has previously adopted Personnel Rules and Regulations establishing terms and conditions of employment with the Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Commission wishes to avoid perception of conflict of interest by its employees by addition additional disclosure requirements to Section 9.3 of its Personnel Rules and Regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: Section 1: The following paragraph shall be added as a second paragraph to Section 9.3, Conflicting Activity of Rule 9, Outside Activities, of the previously adopted personnel rules and regulations of the Commission: "An employee of the Commission, who is aware that a relative of the employee works for or on behalf of an individual, a business or other entity that does business with the Commission, shall disclose such relationship to the employee's immediate supervisor. For the purposes of this policy, relative shall include any relative by blood or marriage, or anyone residing in the employee's household." Section 2: This resolution shall take place immediately upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8`h day of September, 1999. Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Call Box Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the SAFE Board receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending June 30, 1999. There were a total of 16,137 calls during the quarter; 9,354 to Inland CHP and 6,783 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents an increase of 2,385 calls or 17.3% in call box activity over the quarter ending March 31, 1999. The average calls per day were 177 for the current quarter versus 153 for the previous quarter. In comparing the quarter ending June, 1999 to June, 1998 call volumes, there has been a decrease of 3,164 calls (-16.4%) from last year to this year. Unfortunately, all call box programs throughout the state have been experiencing a similar decrease in usage which may be attributed to less older vehicles on the highway due to strict insurance requirements. Attachments Call Box calls to CHP for ALL TIME - 655,536 (.,,in.may.90) 4.*(seseiesese RCTC 2nd QTR '98 2nd QTR '99 Difference Indio 2nd QTR '98 2nd QTR '99 Difference se*e,ese.v Nesese.sfy ef*.e4e »» »»»»»» WW» Call Boxes 551 551 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services 0 Calls to CHP 7,998 6,783 -1,215 Calls/Box 14.5 12.3 Page: 1 -2.2 •D o mums a•!sion!, .41661. iappri • •u Data Source: AT&T Wireless Average Call Lengths 2nd Quarter Apr May Jun 3:35 3:31 3:31 3:43 *The amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one Average Call Lengths 2nd Quarter 3:50 Apr May Jun 3:49 3:44 3:57 month without an additional charge from the cellular vendor 1,124 Call boxes l 118,020 Minutes 1 ,1 23 Call boxes 1117,915 Minutes Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 118,020 minutes Cellular time used 83,734 71 % 4111111 Remaining 34,286 29% Cell Time used 71 29% Remaining cell time Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 117,915 minutes Cellular time used 74,902 64% 411110 Remaining 43,013 36% Cell Time used 64% 36% Remaining cell time a Call Length Number of calls Percent Call Length Number of calls Percent 0 to 1 min 3,815 20% 0 to 1 min 3,189 20% 1 to 3 min 6,162 32% 1 to 3 min 4,938 31% 3 to 5 min 4,460 23% 3 to 5 min 3,405 21% 5 to 7 min 2,496 13% 5 to 7 min 2,149 13% 7 to 9 min 1,196 6% 7to9min 1,156 7% over 9 min 1,172 6% over 9 min 1,300 8% Total 19,301 calls 100% Total 16,137 calls 100% Calls Expected*® 33,720 Actual Too Many 5,734 Calls Expected*® 33,690 Actual Too Many 6,274 *Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance every 3 days (10 times/month) 666 l aap ano pu z Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 2 Data Source: AT&T Wireless X09 / 51100 a610.19Ay 25 20 15 10 -- 5 0 O 0 PCP CO �A 1998 ❑ 1999 2nd QTR '99 Call Calls to Avg Highway Boxes CH Calls/Box RV-010 398 5,335 13.4 ;RV 0 11709 RV-1 RV-2 unassg TOTALS: Q .2' la 24 193�1 Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services 5 5 0 9 9 4'8 2� i5 w9 RV-015 205 4,006 19.5 RV-031 5 39 7.8 RV-033 2 21 10.5 RV-060 75 1,058 14.1 RV-062 20 271 13.6 RV-071 0 0 0.0 RV-074 30 362 12.1 RV-078 7 12 1.7 RV-079 30 213 7.1 RV-086 11 43 3.9 RV-091 160 2,603 16.3 RV-095 7 17 2.4 RV-111 13 158 12.2 RV-177 26 77 3.0 RV-215 94 1,672 17.8 RV-243 14 86 6.1 RV-371 12 62 5.2 RV-86S 14 102 7.3 unassigned 0 0 0.0 TOTALS 1,123 16,137 14.4 Page: 3 lop apisaaAN Acont 6i H Aq soRs!lois xo8 666 l aap pno pu z Data Source: AT&T Wireless Calls to CHP Park N Ride Average Calls / Day TIME of day 1 Opm - 11 pm 1 1 pm - 12am 2nd QTR 7 1999 564 519 2nd QTR 9 1999 13 3 12am - lam 441 3 1999 6.2 5.7 4.8 lam - 2am 365 1 2am - 3am 5 242 0 4.0 3 3am - 4am 4am - 5am 5am - 6am 0 200 170 185 2 3 3 2nd Quarter i. ;I 2.0 n 2.7 2.2 1.9 i 2nd QTR'99 TOTAL 2,686 28 29.4 6am - 7am 339 3 3.7 7am - 8am 625 477 6 5.2 8am - 9am 599 6 9am - 1 Dam 668 7 8 6.6 8�9 7.3 10am - 1 1 am d 710 7 13 1 1 am - 12pm Q 769 10 7.8 <{ 8.4 12pm - 1 pm ";02 881 1 15 11,2 9.7 1 pm - 2pm `1 079 956 12 TOTAL I288 5,399 78 73 1 69 10.5 59.2 f::: I 2pm - 3pm 1 982 10 3pm - 4pm 1,028 16 4pm - 5pm 2' 1,179 18 5pm - 6pm 1, 442 1,149 `.4 26 10.8 11.3 12.9 15 8' 12.6 6pm - 7pm ,354' 1,085 20 24 148 11.9 7pm - 8pm 199 1,052 2 13 8pm - 9pm 1,046 863 14 9pm - l Opm 877 714 21 TOTAL 13 8,052 T2 142 11.5 9.5 7.8 1€#'7►.5 88.2 _.. RCTC TOTAL 93t1 16,137 275 243 211.6 176.8 RCTC TOTAL iao j.o klowwns apisJanii JnoH Aq dHD o4. s 666 l a04-an0 pu z Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 4 Data Source: AT&T Wireless 300 250 200 150 - 100 - 50 - 0- Jul Previous Performance 98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Preventive Percent of PM Maintenance System Cycle Visits Visited Jul-98 183 16% Aug-98 202 18% Sep-98 302 27% Oct-98 77 7% Nov-98 279 25% Dec-98 83 7% Total 1,126 100% PM visits needed to be on schedule 187 / Month (17%) AVG Number of Active Call Boxes 1,123 PM visits in the last 6 months 187 / Month (17%) 00\0 O Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Performance Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 Most Recent PM Cycle Preventive Maintenance Visits Percent of System Visited Jan-99 212 Feb-99 75 Mar-99 273 24% 19% 7% Apr-99 94 8% May-99 234 21 % Jun-99 213 19% Total 1,101 98% PM visits needed to be on schedule 187 / Month (17%) PM visits in the last 6 months 183 / Month (16%) AVG Number of Active Call Boxes 1,126 cb oI aDuauaIuiaW 9n4u9naad apisaaniA 666 L aap ano pu z Page: 5 Data Source: Comarco Wireless THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY A "lost call" occurs when a call box caller hangs up or "redials" before reaching a CHP operator. Note: "redialing", or pressing the call button a second time, disconnects the caller and reconnects them at the end of the queue (calls are answered by CHP in the order they are received.) 311°D }sot }o 4ua3.rad 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% O 4 R 6 ; Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Au • -98 Se•-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 A • r-99 May-99 Jun-99 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 8% 7% 7% 6% 9% 5% 7% 6% 7% 6% 8% The length of time (in minutes) a motorist waited before hanging up or "redialing" CHP. On hold Apr-99 May-99 Jun-99 AVG Chart 31 % irlp� !�� AN AP rl PWAAA, � •`'-'» 45% 13% o �.,; 1 1 /o «4 .. ..i, ••4e • 4 -'•��.�. 5 sec 5% 3% 3% 4% "NNW � � OWN &CPU 10 sec 10% 10% 9% 10% 15 sec 4% 6% 6% 5% 4 20 Sec ° 4/0 °3%4%►�1 5/0 3 30 Sec 7% 9% 8% 8% 40 Sec 7% 10% 6% 8% 50 Sec 5% 6% 4% 5% 60 Sec 5% 5% 5% 5%*%�! 70 Sec 1 % 2% 3% 2% ''' •1 v,�,r�+. :.;. !.:.:11 90 Sec 3% 4% 6% 4% 110 Sec 5% 4% 4% 4% 130 Sec 5% 5% 4% 5% 130+ Sec 38% 31 % 39% 36% Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 6 aD isoi apisaaAN 666 L as P ion° pu z Data Source: CHP ACD THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY CHP considers a call to be "delayed" if the call is not answered within 10 seconds. A call must be answered for it to be a delayed call, otherwise it is a lost call. Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 7 Jul-97 77% 55 Aug-97 79% 60 Sep-97 76% 50 Oct-97 75% 44 Nov-97 76% 43 Dec-97 78% 51 Jan-98 76% 38 Feb-98 76% 48 Mar-98 77% 47 Apr-98 77% 42 May-98 77% 42 Jun-98 77% 44 Jul-98 79% 54 Aug-98 84% 78 Sep-98 82% 72 Oct-98 83% 66 Nov-98 80% 56 Dec-98 84% 77 Jan-99 79% 62 Feb-99 79% 62 Mar-99 80% 60 Apr-99 80% 65 May-99 80% 56 Jun-99 84% 83 666 l JaiJon° pu Z Data Source: CHP ACD CalSAFE California Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies CALL BOX ACTIVITY REPORT June 1999 Riverside MCC CVRS Ventura Santa Barbara can 1 123 14% 1 279 16% 521 6% 330 4% 6 230 17% 14 467 3996 4 323 12% 1723 596 990 3% 29 889 15% 21 659 11% 10 557 5% 5 007 3% -tenoviataniti •B VittL 5.5 26.6 4.6 24.0 3.4 16.9 3.3 20.3 3.0 15.2 Counties developing call box programs Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 8 Data Source: Cellular tapes RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Reports BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) for the Quarter Ending June 30, 1999. Attachments Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and changes in Fund balances- General, Special Revenue and Capital Project Funds Budget Variance explanations For the year ending June 30, 1999 REVENUES Federal, State, Local and other Government Revenues Funding for the improvements to the San Jacinto Branch Line has been re -budgeted to FY2000, when the project is currently scheduled to be completed. In addition Pedley surveillance system for $775,000 will be carried forward to FY2000, as well as STP/CMAQ reimbursement for Pedley station platform extension for $300,000. The construction contract for the 91 sound wall has just been awarded, revenue of $300,000 expected in FY99 will materialize in FY2000. EXPENDITURES Salaries & Benefits The allocation of salaries between Administration and Programs are based on budgetary estimates. Total salary/benefit expenditures are consistent with total budget for salaries. Office Lease Our costs for operations and maintenance paid annually to the landlord, above the amount provided in the lease agreement, was $7,000.00 higher than anticipated. Hiphwav Engineering. Awaiting Van Buren invoice from City of Riverside of approximately $750,000. Hiphwav ROW Route 74 appraisal slower than anticipated of approximately $300,000. Awaiting Phase II Temporary Easement invoices. Special Studies CETAP Environmental Study for $200,000 budgeted for FY99 should materialize in FY2000. Regional Arterial Remaining Regional Arterial projects to be carried over to FY2000. Proiect Maintenance/Operations The project maintenance budget was understated by $174,000, while the project operations budget was overstated by $174,000. The total operation and maintenance expenditures are consistent with total budget. Proiect Towing. Actual expenditures included holidays and overtime which were not originally budgeted. Note: There will be additional accrued expenditures that will be processed as part of year-end closing and the annual audit. 00'095'£th'85 8L'265'06L'1 1/9'181.'0Oh'£ 62118'L95'L 00'115'781'1 98'1.0'7£5'1J 78'259'08'LZ 9Z'lZh'h06'l ££'L58'LZL'8 06'£L0'601. 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L5'£99'2L ££'OS£'9£ 047'800'L6£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 (09'982) 00'0 00'0 00'562'L6£ 8£'627'97£'55 8L'265'06L'L h9'L9L'00h'£ 62118'L95'1.00115'h8L'L 91'8LL'7£5'lt he'259'76L'L2 1£'902'909'1 90'5£9'L98'5 (sasn)saouno5 Buloueuli Aa410 S3210110N3dX3 1V101 Ae11n0 lellde� uotingl.i1s10 wano6Jalu1 S133r0Hd/SWV1190Hd 1V101 00'LLS'h8L'L 00'0 00'0 00'0 0011.5'h8L'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 suolinciplo10 V1S h8'h00'6L9 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 h8'700'6L9 00'0 Wool loafoJd LL'Ll5'828 00'0 00'0 00'0 UO'0 00'0 00'0 25'516'08£ 61'209'L7h suotleuad0 loaf0a41 Z8'L6£'SOL 00'0 61'1,81 00'0 00'0 00'0 L1'709'Z 0h'065'1.1£ 90'229'06£ aoueualuleW loaloJd 00'970'928'5 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'96£'06L'l 00'05L'ZLl'l 00'0 00'006'298'2 itsueunuolluodsueJl lepadS 0£'052'L2£'L2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'298'09L'L 0£'88£'99L'02 00'0 00'0 speos $ slaaJlS 2L'Z£t'L86'2 00'0 00'0 69'626'78L 00'0 £7'202'961.'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 1elJalJ2 leuotfas 06'277'99L1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 06'2hh'99L'L 00'0 00'0 a0uelstsstl Jalnuwo3 00'05L'SLO'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'05L'SLO% uolingtJluo3 1e10e3 V11113S 52'00'02 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 52'00'02 00'0 00'0 MOH lied 08'Oh5'£22'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OS'Oh5'£22'£ 00'0 00'0 uollonulsuo3 Iles 09'256'1£2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OL'L£9'£OL 00'0 OL'lZ£'82l 6upeaul6u3 Iles 50'21.2'96 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'69h'S 56'800'0L £6'££6'02 sawnls ,floods 00'86eL97 86'h90'681, 00'0 27'LL9'952 00'0 09'168'8 00',22'£L 00'0 00'0 MOH sAem491N 56'L7L'h8L'h Oh'58£'689 22'££6'02£'£ OL'L5h'91,5 00'0 /2'060'062 (L9'97070 00'0 £0'L2 uollonAlsuo3 Aen46lN 68'91£'601,'L Oh'2hl'Zl6 L2'857'99 8h'998'L 00'0 £7'h89'91. 1.£'761.'lll 00'0 00'0 6utdaeul6u3 Aen46114 hf'2£f'LZ£'L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 62'067'2L 50'2h8'h52'L 00'0 00'0 s40afoad leuaua9 58'L7h'68£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 56'07'69 8L'LL8'L5 ZL'9L0'292 (le6al sepnlox3) s03lAJaS ;old Lh121'6£2 00'0 96'809'9L 00'0 00'0 7h'191, 90'f79'691, 08'L52'f 1,2'057'67 s00tnuOS le6al leJeue2 62'L8L'Z80'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Sh'h88'9h£ 291S5'£OL ZZ'LSe6Z9 sit;auag 2 sepele5 S103f0Hd/SNtlH90Hd 2£11ZL'1,95'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'000'6 8£'I55'SZt 76'9L5'92h'2 NOIIVHISININOV 1V101 £5'£85'72L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 08'5£Z'L7 £L'L7£'f89 sasuadx3 utupe leJauag L9'91£'922 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 11'6LS'£t 05'6£L'212 aseal a31;i0 86719'16L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'000'6 77'786'£Z 7S'999'8S1 (le6al sapnl0x3) 5331AJaS loud 86'001,'68 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 88'£S£'7 OL'L7L'78 s80tnuaS left, leuauag ZZ'ZS1'6ZL 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 51'96£'Zh L0'hS0'L89 sltiauag $ satuele5 N011VH1S1N1WOV S3191110N3dX3 Zr 2e 0L8'06 L8'SZ7'£LZ 81.1816'lLS'L 8S'555'862 29'152'L75'2 6L'922'598'02 £2'861'689'75 88'599'15e1, L6'8Z6'ZL8'9 S311113638 1V101 6£'980'0£9'9 00'0 62'216'SW 00'0 00'61.0'£2h'2 8L'2L6'6217'1. 00'055 ZO'L89'6h9'L 0£'576'08£ senuanas ua410 06'£ll'LLO'f Lh'9h6'201 90'6,6'952 85'555'862 29'2£2'721 62'920'LL5 89'2LeL06 L2'2£9'26 62'966'912 awo0ul lsaJalul ££'£1.0'81.£'S Oh'6Lh'OLL £8'950'6 00'0 00'0 (12'112'2) 92'£65'h08'£ 59'9h£'6 8£'808'92£'L wan09 uapo $ 18301 elelS pai 00'6LL'9hh'S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'6LL'Shh'S senuaneH eel sales ua410 OS'828'96£'0L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £h'975'026'91. L0'292'9/6'6', 00'0 00'000'005'l V aanseaW senuanaH xel saleS S30N3A3H 1V101 H3dtld N01130H1SN00 N011311H1SN00 301011SISSV A1N000 A111003 3AVS/dSi ONnA 9NIN18W00 1V10113WW00 A1N003 9V113 11SNVH1 NH31SV3 NH31S3M 1VH3N39 A119103 NH31S3M NH31S3M 31V1S 66/81/80 66/0£/90=6utpu3 potaad uoi NA Nil naN1 0NnA A8 sivni0tl 66/81/80 87716 uolsslwuo3 uollelJodsueJl Aluno3 aplsJanls uotldposa0 s81'h08'26£'96 98'SL2'8£1'2 W 855'299'99 56'9hh'h0£'8 h6'£1£'L9£'f LL'09£'20£'h1 Oh'£20'LlIC R hL'L8h'90h'2 88'2.££'h00'h `SS 2E9'279'56 S W 27'1'559'9 L8'0£L'91L'6£ 69'LheL98'6 Z£'£LS'109'Z 12'Llh'698 ZL ££'LL0'119 OZ 2l'£7Z'60'2 hZ'99Z'658'£ £9'LL6'6hL (16'991'LL5'1) (£971S'£f0'7) ChL'00£'£9S'1) 29'0,eZ9L 96'276'Zfhal L0'210'9LS'S (8£'SSL'ZS) 79'110S71 67'699'878'U 00'0 L1'60f'Sh1'2 EO'S86'£62 00'0 00'0 97'869'LZL'££ 96'9E0'10'1 66/91/80 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'60E'Shl'2 00'0 L6'178'L68'2 Z£'££S'60£'12 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £0'586'£6Z 00'0 L6'Lh8'L68'L 8Z'L8h'1£9'2Z 00'0 00'0 00'0 96'£56'12E'1 1V101 b3dVd NOI1311b1SN03 NO113nb1SN03 33NV1SISSV A1NnO3 A1NnO3 ONIN18W03 1V1383WW03 A1Nn03 OVA3 lISNVbl Nb31SV3 Minn A1NnO3 Nb31S3M Nb31S3M 31V1S 66/91/80 66/0E/90 :9ulpu3 popad uoi Nib HIV nu' aNnA A8 sun13V 87b10 uolssluuo3 uolleyAodsueAL A4uno3 aptsAanlb 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'SL0'65L 00'EL0'651 31VS/dSA 00'0 00'0 00'0 aNn4 1VN3N30 6661 '0£ 3Nnf 33NV1V8 ONnA 8661 '1 Alnf 33NV1V8 aNnd sasn eupueuld uay10 puV saAnllpuadx3(Aapun)Aan0 saoAnos 6uloueul; Jayl0 puV sanuanab ;o(Aoualol;aa)ssaox3 sasn sa3Anos 6uloueuli Aayl0 lelol slso3 aouenssl aolnuas Aga° 1n0 spa;sueAl 6ulleAad0 ul sAa;sueAl 6ulleAad0 uolldl asaa Description Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS For Period Ending: 06/30/99 08/18/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues Measure A 68,500,001.00 70,396,828.50 (1,896,827.50) 102.76 Other Sates Tax Revenues 5,448,179.00 5,448,179.00 0.00 100.00 Fed State Local & other Govern 6,969,920.00 5,318,013.33 1,651,906.67 76.29 Interest Income 3,060,565.00 3,017,113.90 43,451.10 98.58 Other Revenues 6,642,989.00 6,630,086.39 12,902.61 99.80 TOTAL REVENUES 90,621,654.00 90,810,221.12 (188,567.12) 100.20 EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Benefits 606,214.00 729,452.22 (123,238.22) 120.32 General Legal Services 92,500.00 89,100.98 3,399.02 96.32 Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 865,020.00 791,672.98 73,347.02 91.52 Office Lease 220,000.00 226,318.61 (6,318.61) 102.87 General Admin Expenses 716,960.00 724,583.53 (7,623.53) 101.06 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 2,500,694.00 2,561,128.32 (60,434.32) 102.41 PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Benefits 1,311,656.00 1,082,187.29 229,468.71 82.50 General Legal Services 232,500.00 239,121.47 (6,621.47) 102.84 Prof Services (Excludes Legal) 678,650.00 389,447.85 289,202.15 57.38 General Projects 1,693,900.00 1,327,332.34 366,567.66 78.35 Highway Engineering 1,877,738.00 1,109,345.89 768,392.11 59.07 Highway Construction 5,048,000.00 4,784,747.95 263,252.05 94.78 Highways ROW 758,188.00 467,798.00 290,390.00 61.69 Special Studies 265,000.00 96,412.05 168,587.95 36.38 Rail Engineering 266,539.00 231,952.80 34,586.20 87.02 Rail Construction 3,506,300.00 3,223,540.80 282,759.20 91.93 Rail ROW 22,352.00 20,490.25 1,861.75 91.67 SCRRA Capital Contribution 1,150,000.00 1,075,750.00 74,250.00 93.54 Commuter Assistance 1,378,920.00 1,166,442.90 212,477.10 84.59 Regional Arterial 10,068,505.00 2,981,132.12 7,087,372.88 29.60 Streets & Roads 26,579,715.00 27,327,250.30 (747,535.30) 102.81 Special Transportion\Transit 5,915,461.00 5,826,046.00 89,415.00 98.48 Project Maintenance 550,094.00 705,397.82 (155,303.82) 128.23 Project operations 1,129,787.00 828,517.71 301,269.29 73.33 Project Towing 657,800.00 679,004.84 (21,204.84) 103.22 STA Distributions 2,186,116.00 1,784,511.00 401,605.00 81.62 TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS 65,277,221.00 55,346,429.38 9,930,791.62 84.78 Intergovern Distribution 397,295.00 397,008.40 286.60 99.92 Capital Outlay 158,221.00 109,013.90 49,207.10 68.89 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 68,333,431.00 58,413,580.00 9,919,851.00 85.48 Other Financing Sources(Uses) QTRA4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Louie Martin, Bechtel Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending July 31, 1999. Attachments: £;O L abed % I.16 t'ea ;i' %6'9L %L'LL %0'O6 ................ %£'4S %00 %0'0 ................ %9`9 %9'S %916 %9'66 198'�0'1'S� L69'40L'S$ LLa's�a'9$ Z9 L'SLS$ 099'L9L' L$ S9L'9 LE'4$ ......................... .................. L£e$99'8$ LE9'9S9'9$ 0$ ................... 94S`S9£$ 99S`LS$ S£6'Z L£$ OZO'Z9$ ova 0P L'L$ 9S4'46£$ 9 L4'46$ L6£'£4£$ 0L9` 3 OL9'Z L$ ILO 1.80 LL9`L9 L$ L80`98tS L90'S£ L$ %Arlo. %4'L9 %9'69 %0'00 L %UM 9'0,0„',00L %0'00 L %WOOL %0'00 L %root %0'00 L %L"86 %S'96 %0'00l giVszes$ £L L'B19'S$ L6Z'StL$ 000'00£'Z$ E90'96L'4$ ....................... 606`8S6'945 606'EE6'S L$ ................... 00042ns 000'L£S$ 000`809'9$ 006'909'9$ L911888 000'OZ£$ LS L'Z9$ :09`9Zd 9$ 409'9ZL'9$ ...........:. 094'££98 0001.4C8 000'L£S$ 00619818 006'909'9$ .......................... L9L'L88$ 000'SZ£$ LS L `Z9$ .9181 '1V11C1iens (9106 '9006020 110.11nu3/616u3 /1eu1w11aid S103P021d 91Z-I 40.14-I,;01.0b (9466'EE66'94960N) 6uwdeospuelllempunog (S£S6021) domed )I001A /mod 'PMg uaang ueA (Z£96 '9496 ' L996'&96'LZ96'L££6 ' L0 L60U) uonoru;suoo pue ut3pap pempunog S103r021d 16 31f1021 LLL 3 nos 11110.11819 LS96' 1S96-6496'£4L6'S£96 (9£96'L£S6`0£S6'9396'£ZS617£Z6'LZZ6 '6 LZ6O21) S103r021d LLL 31f1021 ......................................... 6L nno ittolans seuel Lurn L N ;uaLuu611eeN (1,966ON) M02Uua1nu3/6uueeupu3 8103r021d 6L 31f1021 1L 31f1021 l\i11t19f1S' (9960966 Le£6021) M021Na1nu3/6uuaau16u3 S103P021d 4L 31f1021 09 31f10211V1019fiS (U96'066021) uonomnsuo0 ;ol apla ,u, *Jed (9£L6011) u61sa01euwd ;ol apla A fed S103r021d 09 31f1021 31VO Ol S1NIN11NA100 31V0 Ol 666L 'LE NI1r N011V0011V 31V0 Ol N011V0011V 1SNI` OV 31V0-01 S321f1110N3dX3 030N3 NINON -H1f1V 1SNIVOV S1N3NI111NW00 03ZINOH1f1V SMInl10N3dX3 % 210d MI(1110N3dX3 C131110/0100 %-rdani0VM1N00 NOISSINIW00 NOI1dINOS30 103f021d 31f1021 AEI 1210d321Japans 91031'021d-111121/AVMHOIH Of.. 321f1snw 01021 £;o Z a6ed %e343 %0176 %Z'66 %0.0 %6"OL %6'0L %9'LS % l'06 %Z'66 2O'►`265`9C$ 9iS'$i'i'69 S££'66S'L$ 18 VOSS' 1$ i8i'Bti`SS : mfr'6b L'£$ 0$ L8l'££0' 1$ £9l'$KJ'i$ 069`£LZ$ £Z6'ZL£' L$ BSS'Li9 Z6£`01st 0 0 9Z9'9$ Z£0'Z$ %S'68 %TOO L 8S8`E1041ii!S 009fri0"016 000'69£'8$ 009'9179' 14 00$`SLi'SS` OOZ`SL 1'£$ 00b`00iS 000`0013 ......................... 899`951eis 99S'9Sb'Lg LL8`IBS 1.$i (' 000'b0£$ LL8'£9£' l$ 20t'PL&"8 , <ri Z0V686bi9 ZOS'OS£'6$ 009'9179' 3 OOZ`SLi`'L'S OOZ'SL 1'£$ .................... 900`:®Oi$ 000'00 3 000`.009`i$ 000'009'1.$ LLS`££L`iS 000'0S£$ LL9'£8£'1$ ST#101 'Ifd2t 2t31i1WWfl0'1 aoism ('LS66'£966'91796%1796'9£86'0Z66'000008) S1SoO 1u1e1/1/SIS09 dO/b3V 911S/uoneis (99661799071796'££86'Z£86' l£L6'OZtP6 08) 6uuaau16u3/salpn}S 111f21213111 W W00 012t'N7.?I21dd lV 04;00S. (£186) (S166-1066) 6996 (Z171.6-0tL6 ON) WV21J021d '1N30N1/3012FN NIFfid '50115 � NV'Id Wl121J021d �h1101t3FIS Apn}s Jopwo0 41n0S/LIVoN 9301A2139 Mrld WV21J021d "13DOM ivic 18#15 (0066 oa) *A2139 1WOW ILLSN00 V 103f021d 3JMIH02131NI ivioi8(1S (9N66'9Z660):1) 6uldeospue-101 ewnA (9Zt76021) (38Sd) u6lsaa leUl j 01 ewnA 411tRI0021d 71021dW1 3ONVH02131N1 31Va Oi S1NW11V0100 31V0 Ol 6661. ' 6£ AMC NOI1V0011V 31V0 01 N011V0011V 1SNIVOV 31Va-Ol S321nlION3dX3 030N3 H1NOW 'H1nV 1SNIVJV S1N3W111NN00 03ZILIOH1nV SM1n110N3dX3 % 210d 32111110N3dX3 03111WW00 % 1V21n10V211N00 NOISSIWW00 NOIld12:10S30 103r08d 31f1021 AB 1210d32113J0f18 S103f021d AVMHJIH «V. 32111S`d3W 01021 £ )o £ aBed 66/lea /o to snIWS •sia6pnq yea/( leosg of pomp.' you pue peiwoofpafad Joj aae semen II`d sweiBo.id luewenoidwl eBueyoiawl puleBe ueoi aLON %CVO %£'99 %£'99 %£'99 964'94 %L9L %ZZ;3 %£Z9 c$, 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 849`s9C.114$ b ME ZLZ'Sb9' l$ SL£'176£'b$ £99'Zb LS4'0L9'l$ LLb'966'£$ OZS'Ll•ei$ OZS'L l£' l$ L90'6£ L'Z$ LZ0'460'S$ 00917Z£' l$ 6 1.4'9£6' l$ tL9'ZYZ`S$ £Z9'Z lZ'S$ 0000094$ 000'009' l$ 0$ 0 9t9'90t'LL;f L90'6£ L'Z$ LZO'460'S$ OOS'bZ£' l$ 6147'9£6' 13 tzsti "S# £Z9'Z LZ'S$ ........................... 000'009'l$ s;<wdwl peon pue shells pool 2 on ewnA 03210N d0 A113 swewanomdwl pecu +g spoils Idol V11133W31 d0 A113 sluewanadwl pea 8 slaalls pool O1NI3Vf NVS d0 A113 sluawanadwl pea slaal}s leool SI21213d d0 A113 VN01103 AO A113 "PO1018110 anuoruls a6eulew uuois (t) '8 saBueyoaalul ulooull 8 aldeW 'LAPS VN02103 d0 A113 NV013AV1 NOANV31VLOI8AS (ZZ176021) sluewenadwl pb uo/;ue3 peoallea 3)IV1 NOANV3 d0 A113 'IMMO03nOaddV 1N3W11WWOO 3ONV1V9 S3ONVnOV 6661'LE ANrif 1NMAIIIV 100 NOIldINOS30 1SNIVOV 31V0-0l ONIONVIS1110 NV01 .V. 32lnSV3W Q3ON3 NINON 03n02IddV 103f0ad 3ONV1V9 NV01 % ONI0NV1SIM 1V101 MOd MInlION3dX3 133f021d AS 1210d32113oans S133f021d SaV021'8 S1331l1S 1V301/AVMHOIH ..V.. 31inSV3W 31321 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION I DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Y2K Status Report BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.. Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At their October 14, 1998 meeting, the Commission adopted a policy to address the potential of problems occurring relating to the manner in which computer hardware and software handle the century information. In the past, when memory was limited, programers used only the last two digits of the year to indicate the date of a transaction. The two digit year shortcut will fail to correctly identify the date after the turn of the century. This failure could result in any number of problems occurring that could adversely impact the ability of RCTC correctly process information. The Commission adopted a plan to address the potential problem that included the following general activities: 1. Inventory and Assessment of impacted hardware, software, and outside agencies doing business with RCTC. 2. Renovation Phase 3. Validation and Testing Phase 4. Training/instruction of RCTC Staff on how to avoid future problems related to Y2K. The adopted Compliance Schedule is as follows: Compliance Activity Target Completion Date Complete inventory and assessment of systems Identify compliant/non-compliant systems Renovate or replace non -compliant systems Complete test of all systems Certify systems as compliant Monitor systems By November 1998 By December 1998 By March 1999 By June 1999 By August 1999 Through December 1999 To date, the following activities have been completed: 1. All RCTC hardware systems have been inventoried and tested for Y2K compliance. Non -compliant systems have been made compliant by either updating the system, updating the bios or adding a program that will correct the century designation to the full four digits on boot -up. 2. Software in use by RCTC Staff has been reviewed. Non -compliant software packages have been updated to a version that is Y2K compliant or are scheduled to be deleted from the RCTC LAN servers and workstations prior to October 15, 1999. 3. Staff has determined that all mission critical software is now Y2K compliant. 4. A list of all outside vendors/agencies, that RCTC deals with, was prepared and letters were sent out to each of them in January to confirm that they will be Y2K compliant prior to January 1, 2000 so that they will not impact our operations. Second notices were sent in March to vendors/agencies that had not responded to the first letter of inquiry. A third and final notice was mailed on the 18th of August. RCTC has received responses from all critical vendors/agencies and is now reasonably satisfied that RCTC will not be prevented from performing its functions after the turn of the century as a result of an outside vendor/agency. 5. RCTC Staff in conjunction with Jaguar Computer systems performed a test of the RCTC network and workstations on August 6, 1999. The test procedure was as follows: • Fully backup the system to tape • Verify tape for completeness • Disconnect the RCTC LAN system from the County Cornet System ► Advance server clocks and workstation clocks to 30 minutes prior to the turn of the century. ► RCTC Staff was on hand to test the functionality of the various software packages • After the test was complete, all clocks were restored to the correct time and the RCTC network was restored using the backup tape The test confirmed that all software that is not Y2K compliant should be removed prior to the turn of the century. In particular, old versions of Lotus that have not been upgraded because of the RCTC Staff decision to move spreadsheet work to EXCEL, need to be deleted as soon as RCTC Staff has the time to convert the information to EXCEL. RCTC currently has scheduled all noncompliant software, including LOTUS, to be purged prior to October 15, 1999. Fundware (RCTC's accounting package) performed well in all tests with the exception that the program would not roll over if active when the clocks roll over to January 1, 1999. Since no one is expected to be working at midnight on December 31 °t, this will not be a problem. Fundware worked as expected after the program was shut down and brought up after the clocks were set forward to the new century. The last finding was with the DOCTRAC program. This is a custom data base built with FOXPRO that controls access to the RCTC document retrieval system. This program failed to produce reports that spanned the century date. This problem is currently being resolved with the programmer. It is important to note that this problem with the report generation did not prevent the use of the system after the turn of the century. Furthermore, this program does not calculate any information based on the date information. Compliance Status: All RCTC hardware (including servers and workstations) and all RCTC software that is required to be operational after the turn of the century is now certified as being compliant. RCTC Staff will continue the Y2K effort in the following areas: 1. Convert any old data files such as spreadsheets over to EXCEL 2. Complete changes to DOCTRAC reporting function. 3. Delete all old versions of programs from both the RCTC server and RCTC workstations by October 15, 1999. Contingency Plan: 1. RCTC Staff will obtain a full backup of the system on the last working day of this century. This tape will be taken off -site for safety. 2. RCTC Staff will print out a hard copy of the Fundware accounting system records so that the accounting department will have the information to work manually with any of the accounts, if required. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside County Integrated Plan - "Listening" and "Visioning" Phase PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive the information resulting from the outreach efforts to date and, if available, provide the "very draft" vision statement at the meeting. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As the Commissioners are probably 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, 1999, 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 17t, 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 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. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY REPORT August 6, 1999 DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 2 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 DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 3 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 between 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 4 THE DIRECTION OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY THINGS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON RIGHT OR WRONG TRACK Key Findings: 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 PAGE 5 EXPECTATIONS ON FUTURE QUALITY OF LIFE EV 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 6 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 7 ISSUES FACING RIVERSIDE COUNTY Key Findings: or In an open-ended question, voters say the most important issues facing Riverside County are the rate of growth, crime, violence and gangs, schools and education, traffic congestion, police issues and jobs. Other issues ranged from children's issues to pollution to economic growth. 'Taxes 7% Jobs Economomyi 14% MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FACING RIVERSIDE COUNTY Traffic Congestion Accessible Health Care) 0% Sprawl 11% Rau Relations; 7% 'Public Schools f 20% Don't!I Know' 2% Crime 22% DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 8 nth more limited response options, two issues dominate as the issues which should be the top priority for the 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 government 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 PAGE 9 SERIOUSNESS OF DIFFERENT PROBLEMS ok % % 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 1indicating 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. or 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 10 1:4r 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. Er 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-temi 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. 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 concem 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 92 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 13 TRAFFIC AND GROWTH ATTITUDES TOWARD GROWTH IN RIVERSIDE Continue Growth 22% (Plan for Growth 65% Key Findings: Stop 1Growth' 11% or 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 Neighborhood Driving 17% RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 14 WORST TYPE OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION Shopping, Etel ux (Commuting 1 42% Combination 5% Eir Traffic concerns revolve largely around commuting, although some are concerned about traffic driving to shopping centers and recreational areas in Riverside County. Fewer people are concerned 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. DECISION RESEARCH 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 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% Riverside County Transportation Commission 3% 24% 35% 20% NOTE: Leaders and organizations ranked by collapsed score of "Excellent" plus "Good". Good Fair Excellent Poor Key Findings: gr 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 17 RATING QUALITY OF LIFE IN RIVERSIDE Organization Excellent Good Fair Poor Fire protection " 22% 60% 11 % 3% Retail shopping facilities 15% 55% 22% 7% Overall quality of life 13% 57% 26% 3% Emergency medical care 16% 53% 17% 6% Police and sheriff protection 14% 48% 25% 13% Public libraries 9% 49% 26% 10% Parks and recreational opportunities 9% 48% 29% 10% Overall county services 3% 50% 35% 7% Freeway Maintenance 7% 47% 27% 18% Protection of open space and wilderness 7% 42% 31 % 13% Entertainment and cultural opportunities 10% 38% 33% 17% Public schools 8% 36% 30% 16% Public transit 4% 31% 30% 19% Job opportunities 5% 29% 34% 20% Road Maintenance 4% 30% 35% 30% Planning for growth 4% 29% 37% 21% Activities and opportunities for youth 5% 26% 36% 23% Air Quality 4% 25% 31 % 39% Access to child care 2% 23% 23% 13% NOTE: Organizations ranked by collapsed score of "Excellent" plus "Good". DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 18 Er 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. Er 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. re 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. ErAt 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 19 KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont.) 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. 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 21 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. 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 23 THE PLANNING PROCESS Favor Key Findings POSITION ON PLANNING PROCESS Lean Favor Undecided Lean Oppose Oppose igi' There is overwhelming support for Riverside Count undertaking a comprehensive master planning process. izw. 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 Eir 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 DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 24 AGREEMENT STATEMENTS % Rio Rio 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 90/0 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. Er There is a consensus that Riverside needs a long range plan, and that time to plan for the future is now. Voters agree that with planning, the problems of Los Angeles and Orange Counties can be avoided. Even when the price tag of planning is noted, two-thirds say it is worth spending millions of dollars to plan for the future. Despite this general support for planning, the voters say there is no need for expensive planning programs to tell Riverside residents what they already know. 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 26 GENERAL ATTITUDES Key Findings: er 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 27 TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Key Findings: HP 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 IYni !rum Eir Riverside's voters indicate they would support extending the special half -cent sales tax for transportation in all counties for another twenty years. 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 29 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR WILDLIFE AND OPEN SPACE 70x/ sox sox 30% 20% 10% 0% No Don't Know Key Findings: gi Taws for Endangered Species Trash Fee for Open Space w'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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 30 WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE TAXES -INITIAL VERSUS INFORMED Yes No Dont Know I � Initlal N Informed tar Support for open space acquisition increases substantially when voters are told that it would enhance property values and provide permanent protection and recreational opportunities. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 31 AGREEMENT STATEMENTS Rio % % 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% Yithout 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. car 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 will maintain air and water quality, and that sensitive areas need to be preserved so they are not lost forever. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 32 'sir' As is the case for open space, voters are closely dividea on their willingness to spend tax money to protect endangered species. POSITION ON MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN oPPoss rx sir 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 hom sheep and birds such as the Least Bells Vireo, but not the Coastal Sage or the Quino Checkered Spot Butterfly. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 33 90% 60% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% $4 AMOUNT WILLING OR UNWILLING TO PAY FOR PRESERVATION $15 $26 $36 $60 $65 63% I�+�Wllling do Unwilling 14% $143 Er 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 lal County Residents', 13% New Homeowners 11% Don't Know 4% Rejeeti 1 W hole Idea 5% Combi- nation 21i Someone Bee 2Y. !California Residents 34% !Federal Govt 29% Eir Not surprisingly, voters say that the federal government or all Californians, not new homeowners or Riverside County residents, should pay the cost of protecting species endangered by new developments. far 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 government should protect natural habitat if it means restricting property rights. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 35 Prevent ,Overdevelopment 22% Don't Know 12% HOW BEST TO SPEND TAX DOLLARS Prevent Los Angelixadon 45% Preserve Open Space 14% Protect • Endangered! Species 7% tar 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. 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/Anglos 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 37 KEY CROSS -TABULATED FINDINGS (cont) The responsibility of government 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. 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: ✓At 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. 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. ✓While 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. 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 49 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 conceming 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 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. JAlthough 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: DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY SURVEY REPORT PAGE 43 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 govemment, 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 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 concemed 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. Women .65°and older underfi5 4 100640 aridibldeniV i1Vfi Republicans erribtra'andindepencr te5 Dct&,3 V"years„ Home.?�Vi�t'TerS'= Cl�lre�a°�nder 18 -1aiv M dle ncome ?S: Ua ca orated area° Notanplod' EfinF : 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, then: 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 planking 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 concems. 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 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 fife. 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 govemment mandate but by mainstream planners, business people, govemment 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 that 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 concems, 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 concems 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 concerns. .♦ 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. 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. Riverside County Integrated Plan A Sommary of the First Round of Community Workshops June/July 1999 Prepanrl hy: Moore Iacofano Goksman, Inc. 169 North Marengo Avenue Pasadena, California 91101 626/744-9872 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 Gurupa) 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 Countystaff 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 R(IP _ $„mmary 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. 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 to 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 overview 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 RCQ' - Stnmm27 is Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 families 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 marry would like to have buffer zones — but residents in certain areas feel particularly impacted by industry and freight. These include 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 RC1P - Summary lII Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 RCP - Summary 1R Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 concem 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 crime, 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 closed 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 next 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 RCP - Summary 1¢ Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MEG, Inc. Riverside County Integrated Plan Synopsis of Key Community Workshop Issues July,1999 Community Area Synopsis of Issues General Plan Conservation & Habitat Temecula ■ Support infill development ■ Balance preservation and growth • Concern with job • development ■ Concern with development in surrounding County unincorporated areas - outside City's control ■ Support incentive -based rather than regulatory approach ■ Concern with species and boundaries ■ Look at "lessons learned" from others Transportation ■ Need for public transportation options and a viable public transportation system ■ The freeway presents a barrier ■ Concern with impact of transportation on habitats Riverside Jurupa ■ Support incentives for mfill 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 housing affordability and less density ■ Beautification needed ■ Improved inter - jurisdictional coordination ■ 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 ■ Need for public transportation options, including bike 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 Page 7 of 63 RCP - Summary 12 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Community Area Synopsis of Issues General Plan Conservation & Habitat Moreno Valley . ■ 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 ■ 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 ■ Concem with SCAG models and impact on area ■ North/south connections to San Bemardino 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 S of 63 RCIP - Snm 127 lII Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Community Area Synopsis of Issues General Plan Conservation & Habitat Transportation 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 ■ 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 access ■ Improve maintenance ■ Need to plan ahead and preserve transportation corridors ■ Provide arress to jobs Lake Elsinore ■ 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 hazards needed ■ Need clean industry Page 9 of 63 RCP - Snmmmy la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 ■ 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 ■ Community is neglected in public transportation access ■ Concern with land use - transportation connections ■ Dial -a -ride is needed in many areas ■ Rail extensions are needed ■ Concern with roadway conditions ■ Highway 74 improvements needed ■ Questions on Measure A uses MEG, Inc. Community Area Synopsis of Issues General Plan Conservation & Habitat Perris ■ Address loss of agricultural land ■ Buffers and transition areas needed ■ Provide for adequate lot sizes ■ Create varied styles and types of housing ■ Increase density but increase amount of open space also ■ Need jobs in rural areas and jobs -housing balance ■ Support habitat conservation in general but: ■ Provide clear explanation on why habitat areas are needed ■ Preserve waterways and riverbeds ■ Willing to commit resources to preserve open space and rural areas ■ Need to create habitat with freeway/arterial construction Transportation ■ Need to improve east - west corridor access ■ Improve dial -a -ride for the elderly ■ Increase Metrolink service ■ Improve road maintenance ■ Question if Measure A implemented (specifically Highway 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 ■ 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 Page 10 of 63 RCP - Summary 1st Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Community Area Synopsis of Issues General Plan Conservation & Habitat Transportation Sun City ■ 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 • • 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 ■ 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 ■ Open space and habitat preservation Page 11 of 63 R(IP _ Summaty 1¢ Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 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 RCIP - Summary 14 Round Community Workshops NIIG, Inc. June/July 1999 ♦ 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 - specifirnlly 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 utilize 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 populated. Page 13 of 63 RCIP - Summary la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 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 `Winners" 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... " ♦ Hying (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 Rai) - Summary ltt Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. "Why is this place important to you?" ♦ One of the last of its kind in Southern C nlifornia ♦ Beauty Page 15 of 63 RCIP - Summary lII Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. 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 infill —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 ble 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 RCIP - Summary 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 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 citizens 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 ♦ Any 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 RCIP - Srnnmaty la Round Community 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 I 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. Infill 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 `Winners" 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 RCP - Saun.nary 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION: "When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... " ♦ Hiking ♦ Camping ♦ Gardening (2) ♦ Breathing clean 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 civili7ntion, when I ride the trail or camp. ♦ I keep working to add to it Page 19 of 63 RCIP _ $„mmary ltt Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Workshop Summary JURUPA 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 lie 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 include 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 clean 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 lie 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 RC1P — Summary 12 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 Page 21 of 63 RCIP - Summary 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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/comers 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, especially 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 ♦ Hills, 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 1h acre parcels" Environment ♦ Historically 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 RCZP - S„mmary 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 gain ♦ 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-date 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 L.A. 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 `manners" and "Losers" Winners ♦ None Mentioned Losers ♦ Only two bridges for street use from Western Riverside (Jurupa 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 - $mrnmaty 12 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 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 ♦ Hying (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 clean ♦ 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 RCIP - Summary 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 'Why is this place important to you?" ♦ It is a family area. It is clean and feels lle your in the mountains ♦ My children can grow up seeing rivers as they should be, not surrounded by concrete ♦ There are no lighted tennis courts for people that are only able to practice at night. No 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 RCM - Summary 1# Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MEG, Inc. 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-Murrieta 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 concem 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 close 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 RC1P - Snmm ty 1= Round Community Workshops MIG, Iuc. June/July 1999 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 space between 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 RCP - Summary la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 ♦ I 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 able? 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 ROP - Summary 1st Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. ♦ Canoeing ♦ Kayaking ♦ Diking (2) ♦ Fishing ♦ Bird watching (2) ♦ Spending time with my registered quarter horses. I used to enjoy the blue sky and clean water before it became polluted I used 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 Hills ♦ Potrero ♦ Vail Lake ♦ San Timoteo Creek ♦ Badlands ♦ Mystic Lake ♦ The mining open space area about 4000 acres could co -exist 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 RaP - S,,.nn,my 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. ♦ 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 RCIP - Summary 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 RaP - Summary 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Transportation and Access Issues Regional Linkages ♦ The north -south connection with San Bemardino 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 concem ♦ 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, especially for special events such as the fireworks ♦ Bike and Pedestrian train connections are important - equestrian trails, too Page 32 of 63 RCI' - $timmaty 1st Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion Special Places in Riterside Cowry That Neel To Be Maintained Anza Valley Moreno Valley 4000 Acres of "Cycle Park" Open Space San Jacinto (2) Unincorporated Northern Hills of Moreno Valley Golf Courses Davis Road San Jacinto Wildlife Area (Hills 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 circle 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 circle 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 oppomuuties Page 33 of 63 RCM _ Snmm2ty 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. ♦ 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 "Winners" and "Losers" Winners ♦ None mentioned Losers ♦ The 60/215/91 interchange (additional mention) RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION: "When I spend time outdoors, I enjoy doing... " ♦ Horseback riding (2) ♦ Bicycling ♦ Hiking (3) ♦ Multi -use trails ♦ Open space ♦ Yardwork ♦ Gardening ♦ Enjoying the wildlife and natural settings I can find Page 34 of 63 RCIP - Summary 1a Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. "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 RCS - Summary ist Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 I-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 Palm 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 be 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 RaP _ $„mmaty la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 tum 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 is Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. WHAT RESIDENTS VALUE .. . 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 ... " ♦ 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 "Winners" 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 RIP - Snmmaty lII Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Workshop Summary B EAUMONT 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 RaP - Simunary 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. 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 RCIP _ S„m n2ty 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 Carryon. 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 Carryon ♦ Have you considered monorails? Page 41 of 63 ROP - Siwnrriny 14 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. 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 `Winners" 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 cleaned 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... " ♦ Bicycle riding ♦ Looking at things which do not remind me of urbanization ♦ Walking the trail in Glen Avon Page 42 of 63 RCIP - Summary 1¢ Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. ♦ 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 Park in 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 RCS' - Summary is Round Communay Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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. Page 44 of 63 RCIP - Summary lII Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, Inc. 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 a 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 many streets and highways are poor - specifically: Residents are concerned that Bundy Carryon 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 4lanes 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 Rail Page 45 of 63 RCIP - S Irrimacy 1st Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion Special Places In Rit erside Cohn* 71aat Need T o Be Maintained 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 concem over the low priority that the county gives its parks ♦ We need a policy for maintaining 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 RCI' - Son+m,ry 1st Round C,ommunixy Workshops MIG, Inc. June/July 1999 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 R(P _ Summary 12 Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. "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 RaP - Summary in Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 ♦ 1- igher 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 councils should be involved in this planning. Page 49 of 63 RCIP - Snmmaty la Round Comity Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 0) ♦ Need other transportation options like shuttles and T.R.I.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. Caltrans 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 4t' 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 RCII' - Summary 1a Round Community Workshops NIIG, Inc. June/July 1999 ♦ Need Metrorail extension to Perris from Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Discussion Special Places In Rizers de Cohnty That Ned To Be Maintainai 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 stnlie 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 re21i7nd first ♦ Measure A has not been implemented. It included rail into Perris and improvements on Highway 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 RaP _ SMTIMMy 1s Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. RESPONSES TO INTERACTIVE EXERCISE, "If you could change one thing in Riverside County, it would be ... " ♦ Transportation for the elderly in areas lilie 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 4lanes 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 (Perris 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 RCIP - Summary 1a Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. "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 RCIP - Summary la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 RCIP - Summary la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 RCQ' - Summary 1R Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 RC IP - Summary la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 NIIG, 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 Idyllwild ♦ 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 ♦ Concem 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 RCIP - Snmmaty 1= Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 c6ra ♦ Study resources collaboratively with University of California at Riverside ♦ It was su_ ested 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 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^) ♦ 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 History Museum * ♦ Idyllwid and our hills * ♦ The new reservoir (3) * Page 58 of 63 RCP - Summary lII Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. ♦ Sight from driving from Lamb's canyon RESPONSE TO THE INTERACTIVE EXERCISE QUESTION: Transportations "Dinners" and "Losers" Winners ♦ Retirement areas provide own transportation ♦ Road to Idyllwild is o.k. ♦ Traffic lights on Florida providealmost 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, hiking, 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, titling 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 RCIP - $iimmaty la Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 - Summary 1A Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 Ni1G, Inc. 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 calling 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 - especially Newport 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 RCP - Summary 1¢ Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 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 Spacial Places in Rizeside Cororty Tlazt Need To Be Maintaiizal Lake Matthews Santa Rosa Plateau Hills behind the west side of Sun City Mystic Lake North Peak Warm Springs Creek Ortega Highway 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 ♦ Larger 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 — Summary 1st Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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) ♦ Open space ♦ Rural life style ♦ Wild animals (No more cows, though! ♦ Potential to accommodate growth by planning. (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 RCIP - Summary 1s Round Community Workshops June/July 1999 MIG, Inc. 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 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 concern 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. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT August 18, 1999 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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 PAGE 8 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSANTS 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 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. 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 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 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." DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT PAGE 13 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 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]." 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. 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 concerns 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. 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 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 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-momwas 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 21 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 concemed 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 fo 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. 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 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. 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 one secretary 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 ,of open space in these desert communities, made little sense to the participants. 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 APPENDIX 1 SCREENER 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT APPENDIX 2 FOCUS GROUP OUTLINE 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 B. 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? 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 do 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 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 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-term 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. DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT APPENDIX 3 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: AUGUST 2, 1999 CORONA/NORCO/RIVERSIDE (6:00 PM) NAME Tammy Linda Daniel Kelly John Stephanie Helen Martha Gary GENDER AGE CITY PARTY ID F 29 Corona Republican F 39 Riverside Republican M 62 Corona Independent F 30 Riverside Independent M 36 Riverside Republican F 37 Rubideaux Democrat F 60 Corona Democrat F 57 Norco Democrat M 40 Riverside Democrat LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: AUGUST 2, 1999 MORENO VALLEY/PERRIS (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 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 DECISION RESEARCH RIVERSIDE COUNTY FOCUS GROUP REPORT LIST OF PARTICIPANTS: AUGUST 1 1999 PALM SPRINGS (7:00 PM): NAME GENDER Allison F Mary F Rob M Luis M Marilyn F Nilda F PJ M Lisa F Joan F Al M Olga F Migdalia F Janet F June F Elizabeth F AGE 49 50 33 52 58 35 33 30 56 35 39 34 61 34 50 CITY Palm Springs Palm Springs Palm Springs Palm Springs Indian Wells Cathedral City Rancho Mirage Palm Desert Rancho Mirage Cathedral City Cathedral City Palm Springs Indian Wells Palm Springs 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 TEMECULA/MURRIETA/HEMET (7:00 PM) NAME GENDER Gary M Pat M Jan F Dianna F Lori F Jim M Laura F Gina F Jim M Dawn F Susie F Leticia F Guz M AGE CITY PARTY ID 42 Murrieta Republican 49 Hemet Democrat 40 Temecula Republican 35 Murrieta Republican 36 Murrieta Republican 41 Temecula Democrat 36 Wildomar Democrat 30 Temecula Republican 43 Temecula Independent 34 Elsinore Republican 42 Murrieta Democrat 30 Hemet Democrat 39 Temecula Democrat RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee W. Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Legislative Update From July 16th until August 16th, the State Legislature was adjourned for Summer Recess. Riverside County Transportation Commission Chairman Jack van Haaster, Executive Director Eric Haley, and Legislative Affairs Director David Shepherd provided testimony on the following bills: SCA 3 (Burton) The bill to allow for a state transportation sales tax collected locally. AB 1012 (Torlakson) The project delivery bill which contains the Riverside County Transportation Commission/San Bernardino Associated Governments (RCTC/SANBAG) generated State Highway Account loan concept. AB 1571 (Villaraigosa and Brulte) This bill would create a state grant program for reduction of diesel emmissions. RCTC has a "Support with Amendments" position. The amendment being sought would require both the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Mobile Source Reduction Review Committee to jointly develop a program for use of the funds allocated to the South Coast Air Basin. Staff will provide the Commission an oral report of the outcomes of the above mentioned hearings of these and other legislative proposals currently moving through the process. Federal Legislative Update While the House activity was monopolized with efforts to pass a Republican tax cut proposal, the Senate remained inactive relative to the Transportation Appropriations legislation before adjourning for Summer Recess from August 7th until September 8th. The language mandating a nationwide 12.5% cap on transit allocations to states remains in the Senate Appropriations legislation and is the reason for delay in the bill's passage. AUG-13-99 17:11 FROMF- T-222 P.03/04 F-268 Smith SC Kempton Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Hunter Date: August 13,1999 Subject: Legislative Report and Update We are now heading into the final stretch of the 1999 Legislative Session. We will be in a dead run from now until September 10th to move or defeat bills of interest to RCTC/SANBAG. Our next report will reflect final actions Transportation Finance Proposals • Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (Burton) The; Burton Working Group continued negotiations with the environmental community yesterday at their regularly scheduled meeting. Bill Craven, representing the Sierra Club, put forth four points they would like to have included in SCA 3 or its companion measure, AB 1155. I have attached those points for :your review. Most folks are comfortable with some level of increased participation and review process. However, there does not seem to be support for the Article 19 amendment regarding water quality, the set -aside of money for enhancements or the linkage of transportation plans to "smart growth". There will no doubt be many more discussions on environmental issues as SCA 3 moves along. Further, SCA 3 will be amended to expand the definition of environmental mitigation. Some counties have expressed concern that as currently drafted, SCA 3 prohibited them from mitigating the cumulative impact of transportation projects to be included in their expenditure plans. The new language states that funds can be used for environmental mitigation "as deemed necessary by the countywide, agency administering the transportation expenditure plan, that are related to transportation project impacts." SCA 3 will be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on Monday, August 16t. 980 Ninrh Street, Suite 1560 . Sacramenro, CA 95814 Telephone (916) 446-5508 . FAX (916) 446-1499 AUG-13-99 17:11 FROM- T-222 P.04/04 F-268 _SC I PROCESS (for AB1155) "The county expenditure plan development process shall include consultation with the cities, counties, transit operators. congestion management agencies, interested community, environmental, and other non- governmental groups, the applicable Council or Association of Governments, metropolitan planning organization, and air quality management district or air pollution control district. A draft county expenditure plan must be prepared and made available for public comment no later than May 1.2000. Development of the draft plan shall include public involvement activities and at least one public hearing. Subsequent to the release of the draft plan, there shall be no less than three public hearings scheduled at times and places that arc most likely to allow the public to attend. A final twenty year countywide expenditure plan must be prepared and made available to the public no later than August 1, 2000. Both the draft countywide expenditure plan and the final countywide expenditure plan presented to the voters shall include and publicize (by methods including but not limited to newspaper inserts, mailings and the internat.) the following: (1) total estimated cost of the plan and cacti project; (2) location of proposed projects graphically represented on maps; (3) breakdown of all expenditure plan costs by percentage for each of the following project categories: (A) roadway - expansion/widening & interchanges (13) public transit - expansion (C) roadway - repair, maintenance & operations (D) public transit - repair. maintenance & operations (E) bicycle & pedestrian facilities (F) growth managcmentlenviromnental mitigation (G) planning & research (1) other" Amend article XIX as follows: SEC. 2. Revenues from fees and taxes imposed by the State uponvehicles or their use or operation, over and above the costs ofeolleetion and any refunds authorized by law, shall be used for thefollowing purposes: (a) The stale administration and enforcement of laws regulatingthe use. operation, or registration of vehicles used upon the publicstreets and highways of this State, including the enforcement of traffic and vehicle laws by state agencies and the mitigation of the environmental effects of motor vehicle operation (DELETE "due to air and sound emissions") ADD: "on air. noise and water quality." TO BE DEVELOPED Enhancements set aside Linkage to smart growth L1-13-99 17:11 FROik- T-222 P.02/04 F-268 • Assembly Bill 1155 (Torlakson/Burton) As stated above, AB 1155 is the companion measure to SCA 3. AB 1155 will be amended in the next day or so to set the election date for SCA 3 as November 2000 and also to set the schedule for the adoption of expenditure plans by counties. The new language requires counties to release their draft expenditure plans by May 1, 2000 for public review and comment and to adopt a final plan by July 1, 2000. AB 1155 will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on Tuesday, August 17t. • Senate Bill 315 (Burton) SB 315, which would place $8 billion in bonds for transportation on the November 2002 ballot, is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will be heard on Wednesday, August 25th. Senator Burton has stated that he will amend SB 315 next week to include "pay as you go" language to be considered when SB 315 goes to conference committee. "Pay as you go" is being pushed by Assembly Republicans and refers to using some portion of the sales tax on gasoline as a dedicated funding source for transportation. Negotiations on "pay as you go" are ongoing. The Burton Working Group was scheduled to discuss SB 315 at yesterday's meeting but the item was continued until next week's meeting due the extended discussion on SCA 3. AB 283 (Longville) — County Resolution of Necessity Bill Assembly Bill 283 introduced by Assemblyman John Longville, on behalf of SANBAG, will allow Caltrans to use the County's condemnation process and resolution of necessity. AB 283 will speed up the process and help with project delivery. We amended the bill to include an urgency clause, which will make the change in law effective immediately upon signature by Governor Davis. AB 283 is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee and will be heard the second week of August. AB 1012 -- Project Delivery Streamlining Bill Assembly Bill 1012, which will streamline transportation project delivery and set up a process to allow short term "loans" (originally an RCTC idea), passed out of the Assembly on a bi-partisan vote and will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on August 17. AB 1012 was amended this week to reflect on -going negotiations with the Department of Transportation. One of the new amendments is a "use it or lose it" provision in reference to specific federal transportation funds. 2 AUG- 2-9'9 MON 1 7: 1 5 CLIFF MA.D I SON GOUT P.02/03 CLIFF MADISON 047177 GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC. .254-A Maryland Ave.. N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-9395 Facsimile (202) 543-4297 TO; Dave Shepherd - Paul Blackwelder FROM: Cliff Madison DATE: August 2, 1999 SUBJECT: July 1999 Federal Affairs Report During the month of July, generally, we were awaiting Senate action on the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill. This measure has been held up due to a provision inserted into the bill by the Chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Dick Shelby, which would place a cap on the amount of transit funds that any one state could receive in any fiscal year at 12.5 per cent. Only New York and California are effected by this provision. As this provision would cost California transit operators over $100 million in FY 2000, Senators Boxer and Feinstein have threatened to offer over 200 amendments to the bill, thus stalling any Senate `action on the bill. To date, Senator Shelby has not expressed any interest in removing the offending provision from the bill. In all probability, no action will take place in the Senate until after the August recess (August 7 - September 8). If the past is prologue, the Senate may not take any separate action on the FY 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill. Last year, for example, most FY 99 appropriations bills were not subjected to floor action in the Senate. Instead, the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees would meet with their counterpart on the House side and work out an agregment among themselves, and then that particular bill was attached to a much larger omnibus bill, which was then adopted by the full Senate. On July 13, Tuesday, I discussed the possible Senate Transportation Appropriations bill schedule with the staff of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. On Thursday, July 15, I attended a luncheon for Senator Ted Stevens the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and discussed the Senate schedule with his chief of staff, Mitch Rose. -2- On Friday, July 23, I met with Cheryl Smith, the minority staff of the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, to discuss the possible Senate schedule. On Wednesday, July 28, I met with Bill Richard, chief of staff of Congressman Jim Oberstar (the senior Democrat on•the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) to discuss transportation issues. On August 7, the Congress is recess which will continue until very busy, as the Federal fiscal 30, and most appropriations bills new fiscal year (FY 2000). • scheduled to begin their August September A. September will be year ends at midnight September have not been finalized for the T e e T e - d 1is00 NOS I cr w T =,L T NOW 616—Z —Ofl RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 38 (Washington) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 57- 20 on 5/13/99. Referred to Assembly Committee on Education 6/23/99. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Caltrans and local authorities to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as mixed flow. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 71 (Cunneen) Would permit inherently low- emission vehicles (ILEV) to travel in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the ILEV. Passed Assembly Floor 79-0 on 5/27/99. On 7/13/99 passed Senate Transportation Committee 10-1. Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 74 (Strom -Martin) Amended to just Require State Intercity Freight Rail Study. Passed Assembly Floor 52-27 on 6/4/99. On 7/8/99 passed Senate Transportation Committee 11-1. Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. CHANGE FROM OPPOSE TO WATCH OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 WATCH SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 AB 102 (Wildman and Hertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -top of the State Highway Account. Passed the Assembly Floor 43- 31 on 6/3/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. CHANGE FROM SEEK AMENDMENT TO OPPOSE SANBAG 3/3/99-SEEK AMENDMENT RCTC 3/10/99-SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 6/2/99- OPPOSE RCTC 6/9/99-OPPOSE AB 276 (Longville) Would redirect a portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the Public Transportation Account Passed the Assembly Floor on Revenue, Tax and Transportation 14-2 on 5/10/99. Held in Assembly Appropriations Committee, suspense file. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (Longville) Would allow a resolution of necessity to be approved by a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Commission. Passed the Assembly Floor 76- 0 on 4/20/99. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee 11-0 on 6/21 /99. Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. No hearing date yet. SPONSOR - ADOPTED AS PART OF THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SANBAG 1/6/99 RCTC 1/13/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 308 (Longville) Would require a review and analysis of the Public Transportation Account expenditures and a review of the account's needs Passed the Assembly Floor 48- 31 on 6/2/99. On 6/12/99 passed Senate Transportation Committee 11-1. Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 521( McClintock) Would redirect that portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the State Highway Account. Set for hearing on 4/19/99 in the Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 872 (Alquist) Would allow reimbursement of local funds used to advance STIP programmed projects. Passed the Assembly Floor 78- 0 on 6/1/99. On 7/6/99 passed Senate Transportation Committee 10-0. Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 923 (Hertzberg) Would increase the fines for Rail Right of Way violations. Passed the Assembly Floor 63- 13 on 5/26/99. On 7/2/99 passed Senate Transportation Committee 10-0. Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. No hearing date set. SUPPORT SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 6/2/99 AB 1012 (Torlakson) A comprehensive transportation reform package intended to enhance Caltrans' operating environment; includes the RCTC/SANBAG generated "loan" concept. Passed Assembly Floor 73-7 on 6/2/99. Referred to Senate Transportation Committee on 7/12/99. Likely to be heard 8/17/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 1425(Runner) Provides Statutory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA21 Funds Flow Directly to Regions. Passed the Assembly Floor 50- 23 on 5/27/99. On 7/6 passed the Senate Transportation Committee 7-2. Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1475 (Soto) Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Passed the Assembly Floor 50- 25 on 6/2/99. On 7/12 passed Senate Transportation Committee 8-3. Referred to Senate Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Floor 78- 0 on 5/26/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee & Environmental Quality Committee. Likely to be heard 8/ 17/99. SEEK AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 AB 1612 (Florez) Would Allocate $300 Million of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Passed the Assembly Floor 60- 20 on 6/2/99. Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. On 7/7/99 hearing was postponed by Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED OPPOSE SANBAG 6/2/99 RCTC 5/12/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of future HOV lanes. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee 33-1 on 6/22/99. In Assembly Transportation Committee, no hearing date yet. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 17 (Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Hearing in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on 5/27/99, postponed. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 ROTC 3/10/99 SB 63 (Solis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busway from 3 plus to 2 plus. Passed Senate Floor 40-0 on 5/10/99. On 7/8 passed Assembly Floor 74- 2. Signed into law by Governor on 7/23/99. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 65 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to work transportation projects Senate Transportation Committee 9-0 on 3/16/99. Passed Senate Health & Human Services Committee 6-2 on 3/22/99. Placed on Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 98 (Alarcon) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Senate Floor 28-7 on 4/15/99. Passed Assembly Floor 56- 21 on 6/1/99. Signed into law by the governor on 6/8/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Passed the Senate Floor 24-12 on 6/1/99. Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 13-4 on 6/29/99. Natural Resources & Wildlife Committee 11-0 on 7/13/99.Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 481(Baca) Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an Inland Port. Passed Senate Floor 30-4 on 5/24/99. Passed Assembly Consumer Protection, Governmental Efficiency & Economic Development Committee 7-0 on 6/29/99. Referred to Senate Appropriations. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 928 (Burton) Authorizes Federal Grant Revenue Anticipation Notes-(Garvee Bonds) Passed Senate Floor 32-3 on 6/2/99. On 7/13/99 passed Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. NO POSITION SUPPORT SANBAG RCTC SB 1043 (Murray) Requires the California High Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature for Approval. Passed Senate Floor on 28-9 on 5/27/99. On 7/8 passed Assembly Floor 78- 0. On 7/28/99 vetoed by Governor. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/12/99 SB 1277 (Hayden) Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands Under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee 5-3 on 5/13/99. Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 7-4 on 6/ 10/99. Referred to the Senate Floor. OPPOSE NO POSITION RCTC 5/12/99 SANBAG 6/2/99 Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SCA 3 (Burton) Would allow state ballot measure Passed Senate floor SUPPORT RCTC 5/12/99 for local transportation sales taxes. 27-9 on 7/12/99. SANBAG 6/2/99 Passed Senate Transportation Committee 8-0 on 5/24/99. Passed Senate Constitutional Amendments Committee 4-1 on 6/9/99. Passed Senate Appropriations Committee 7-2 on 6/24/99. Passed Senate Floor 27-9 on 7/12/99 to Assembly Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet - likely set for 8/ 16/99. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan for SunLine Transit Agency STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the request from SunLine Transit Agency to: 1) amend their FY 1999-2000 Short Range Transit Plan to purchase two additional SuperBuses from OCTA; and, 2) increase their Local Transportation Fund (LTF) allocation. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At their August 4, 1999 Board meeting, Dick Cromwell, SunLine's General Manager received approval to purchase two (2) additional SuperBuses from the Orange County Transportation Authority for use in its SunLink service. The buses cost $50,000 each, plus they will need $20,000 for painting, logos, etc., and approximately $80,000 to refurbish the passenger compartments with restroom and other amenities to match the other buses in the fleet. The total cost to purchase, repaint, and refurbish the vehicles is $200,000 and funds are currently available in a bus replacement project, so no additional funding will be required. SunLine will also seek a grant to replace the diesel engines with CNG. SunLine has also informed Commission staff that the estimated beginning fund balance was overstated in their Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), which resulted in the Commission allocating less LTF funds to SunLine than needed to operate for the year. The SRTP indicated a beginning balance of $602,000, whereas SunLine staff estimates only $34,397 will be carried over to fiscal year 1999-2000. Therefore, SunLine will require an additional LTF allocation of $567,603. It is understood at the time the allocations are made that the fund balance estimates are preliminary and adjustments may be necessary. The revised allocation schedule reflects the correct carryover amount of $34,397 (versus $602,000) and adjusted LTF allocation to SunLine of $8,099,603. This agenda item was not reviewed by the Budget and Implementation Committee. Financial Assessment Project Cost $567,603 Source of Funds Local Transportation Funds _r }yS, :•:ii:2 i i •$}4i:. i+k: vv::v}::.,;; : • .. e::',:•2. �'}:}3..}., suX: .. } tt �i k .'S}fx r: ••4vhv::vex...�'•. r .:k..;. .. .vGv •} :v.}•'vf. .. .:.. .}`... �.. xy • �i:. . ..S {C :CitX¢i: Year Included in Fiscal Year Budget .: Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: September 8, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Donation of Surplus Rail to Orange Empire Railway Museum STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the donation of surplus 62 '/2 pound rail to the Orange Empire Railway Museum for use in the museum's Grizzly Flats narrow gauge railroad display. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Last year the Orange Empire Railway Museum (GERM) upgraded the railroad tracks on RCTC property between the museum site and downtown Perris, replacing very old 62 '/2 pound rail with much more durable 115 pound rail. The removed rail has been stored on museum property. Attached is a letter from OERM president Tom Jacobson seeking donation of this rail in order to complete an historic display at the museum. Staff believes that the scrap value of this material is minimal, and that its historic value is best demonstrated as the museum proposes. f Financial Impact Not Applicable (Except for some minimal scrap value) 047319 ORANGE EMPIRE RAILWAY MUSEUM THOMAS N.JACOBSON PRESIDENT INCORPORATED 1956 POST OFFICE BOX 548 - PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92572-0548 - (909) 943-3020 A NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL CORPORATION August 10, 1999 Eric Haley Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Stored 62 1/2 Pound Rail Dear Eric: The purpose of this letter is to seek the donation of the track material removed during last year's project 7-11. We propose to use the old rail as part of a historic demonstration associated with the Grizzly Flats display. As you are aware, during 1998 we engaged in a project of replacing the existing 621/2 pound rail that was in place between 76 and 11th Streets in Perris with 115 pound rail, relay ties, and a completely new sub -base. Pursuant to the direction we received from your staff, we have stored, for your benefit, and held the 621/2 pound rail, many pieces of which date back to 1887. We have been engaged in a project to display the 3 foot narrow gage equipment in the context of a southwest desert environment. Because of the generous donations and guidance of former Disney animator, Ward Kimball and his wife Betty, we have erected the Grizzly Flats Engine House and we are presently completing a replica of an 1880 wooden turntable. An appropriate weight track to lead to the turntable and the other portions of the Grizzly Flats display is the 621/2 pound rail removed during the project 7-11. We have in our possession approximately 'A mile of track from project 7-11, and we would like to use the track as part of the educational process of the Grizzly Flats display. We believe this will contribute to the authenticity of the educational display. We thank you in advance for your consideration. Any questions you have concerning this proposal maybe addressed to me at (909) 884-2171 or Peter Gagnon at (714) 446-4692. 714, Thomas N. Jacobson President TNJ: al 0:10ERM\RC TC1Haley-002. doc