Technical Appendix 6 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program

Appendix Contents 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program ...... TA 6-2

2050 Regional Transportation Plan

2050 RTP and SCS Public each with a unique perspective – who are Outreach Program interested in the 2050 RTP and SCS development process. A major goal of this Where will we all live and work in the decades public involvement effort was to reach out to to come? What will be the best way for us to non-traditional, as well as traditional get around? How do we preserve our open audiences, to include them in the spaces? And how do we address these issues transportation planning process. Involvement in a way that helps us to reduce greenhouse from community-based organizations that gas emissions while strengthening our have received environmental justice mini- economy? These are some of the forward- grants enhanced our outreach efforts, while thinking questions asked and addressed as other proactive steps were taken to ensure part of the public involvement and outreach that diverse and underserved populations, as process of the 2050 San Diego Regional well as interested groups or members of the Transportation Plan (RTP): Our Region. Our public, have ample opportunity to understand Future. and provide meaningful input into the development of the 2050 RTP and SCS. The 2050 RTP development process promotes strategic planning, emphasizes public The following detailed documents are involvement, encourages new partnerships, included in Technical Appendix 6: and supports the foundation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to implement . Public Stakeholder Categories better connecting land use and transportation plans. For the first time ever, the RTP includes . Organizations Receiving Grants for a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to Community-Based Outreach create more sustainable communities that . SANDAG 2050 RTP Presentation/Public allow for the growth of the region and its Meetings/Workshops transportation plans while leading to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as set . 2050 RTP Public Involvement Efforts by the California Air Resources Board. It is Regarding Senate Bill 375 Requirements important that public stakeholders in the San Diego region work together to develop this . Public Involvement and Outreach Activities ground-breaking 2050 RTP. The Public to Support Development of 2050 RTP and Involvement Plan (PIP) establishes the its SCS framework for a dynamic and interactive process to support the development of the . SANDAG 2050 RTP and SCS 2050 RTP and SCS. The tables included in this Community-Based Outreach (CBO) technical appendix outline and document that Reports process to date. . 2050 RTP and SCS Outreach and To obtain public input on the development of Notification List the 2050 RTP and SCS, a broad range of . 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan media and communication avenues were used to provide information, solicit participation . SANDAG Public Participation Plan and input, and allow for ongoing feedback and updates. The term, public stakeholders, represents very broad and diverse audiences –

TA 6-2 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program . 2050 RTP: Public Opinion Survey Report

. November 5, 2010, SANDAG Board of Directors Report – Public Input Questionnaire

Table TA 6.1 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Program Public Involvement Program

Public Stakeholder Categories Accessibility Challenged Labor Affordable Housing Advocates Landowners Business Organizations Military Citizens Neighborhood and Community Groups Commercial and Retail Neighborhoods/Residential Commercial Property Interests Private Providers of Transportation Community Planning Groups Professional Planning Organizations Community Services Representatives of Disabled Individuals and Other Interested Parties Commuters Representatives of Public Transportation Employees Employers/Businesses Representatives of Users of Pedestrian Walkways and Bicycle Transportation Facilities Environmental Advocates Representatives of Users of Public Transportation Environmental Groups Sustainability-focused Organizations Freight Shippers, Providers of Freight School Districts and Universities Transportation Services General Public Students and University Student Associations Health Advocacy Organizations Taxpayer Advocates Home Builder Representatives Tourism Homeowner Associations Transit Riders Industry Peers and Associations Transportation Advocates

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-3

Table TA 6.2 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Program Public Involvement Program

Organizations Receiving Grants for Community-Based Outreach Able-Disabled Advocacy Inc. The mission of Able-Disabled Advocacy Inc. is to provide vocational skills training and educational advancement for youth and adults with disabilities and to assist them in finding employment and overcoming barriers to personal and financial self-sufficiency. www.abledisabledadvocacy.org All Congregations Together The mission of All Congregations Together is to provide services that will cause an observable positive change in the health, social, and economic conditions of individuals and families. www.act-sd.org Casa Familiar The mission of Casa Familiar allows the dignity, power, and worth within individuals and families to flourish by enhancing the quality of life through education, advocacy, service programming, housing, and community economic development. www.casafamiliar.org Chula Vista Community Collaborative The mission of the Chula Vista Community Collaborative, a vibrant citywide partnership of engaged stakeholders, is to enhance the well-being of Chula Vista residents by implementing collaborative strategies that maximize resources and services. www.chulavistacc.org El Cajon Collaborative The mission of the El Cajon Collaborative is to build relationships, leverage resources, and promote best practices to enhance the quality of life for children, youth, and families in our community. www.elcajoncollaborative.org Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers The mission of the Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers is to provide a skilled day program to the elderly and anyone over the age of 18 who has mental and/or physical impairments that limit one’s participation in daily living activities. Through a structured plan of care, we assist the individual in maintaining or improving their independence, health, and well-being. www.casa-pacifica.com Linda Vista Collaborative The mission of the Linda Vista Collaborative is to offer a forum for public deliberation among the stakeholders of Linda Vista and promote collaboration among them with the goal of improving the quality of life of all its residents. www.lindavistacollaborative.org San Ysidro Business Association The mission of the San Ysidro Business Association is to promote economic revitalization in a vibrant international community. www.sanysidrobid.org

TA 6-4 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/Public Meetings/Workshops

Date Event Topic Organization Location 2050 Regional Growth Lemon Grove 07/21/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Lemon Grove City Council City Hall Planning Commission 2050 Regional Growth La Mesa Planning 08/05/09 Meeting Forecast Commission La Mesa City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 08/11/09 City Council Meeting Forecast La Mesa City Council La Mesa City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 08/11/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Chula Vista City Council Chula Vista City Hall Planning Commission 2050 Regional Growth San Diego County Planning County Administration 08/14/09 Meeting Forecast Commission Building 2050 Regional Growth 08/19/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Escondido City Council Escondido City Hall 2050 Regional Growth Imperial Beach 08/19/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Imperial Beach City Council City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 08/25/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Vista City Council Vista City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 08/25/09 City Council Meeting Forecast San Marcos City Council San Marcos City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 09/01/09 City Council Meeting Forecast National City, City Council National City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 09/01/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Poway City Council Poway City Hall Planning Commission 2050 Regional Growth City of San Diego, Planning City of San Diego, 09/03/09 Meeting Forecast Commission City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 09/08/09 City Council Meeting Forecast El Cajon City Council El Cajon City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 09/09/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Solana Beach City Council Solana Beach City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 09/15/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 09/15/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Coronado City Council Coronado City Hall San Diego Regional Chamber Working Group 2050 Regional Growth Chamber of Commerce, 09/16/09 Meeting Forecast Housing Working Group Chamber Offices 2050 Regional Growth 09/21/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Del Mar City Council Del Mar City Hall

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-5

Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location Metropolitan Operations 2050 Regional Growth San Diego Community Center II, 9192 Topaz 09/22/09 Industry Community Meeting Forecast Planners Committee Way, Kearny Mesa County Board of Supervisors 2050 Regional Growth County of San Diego, County Administration 09/23/09 Meeting Forecast Board of Supervisors Building San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 10/01/09 Airport Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update (SDCRAA) SDCRAA Offices Building Industry Association (BIA), Affordable Housing Working 2050 Regional Growth Affordable Housing 10/02/09 Group Meeting Forecast Working Group BIA Offices 2050 Regional Growth 10/14/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Santee City Council Santee City Hall 2050 Regional Growth 10/14/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Encinitas City Council Encinitas City Council LEAD San Diego (business, 2050 Regional Growth nonprofit, and other 10/15/09 Business Group Meeting Forecast community leaders) GEN-PROBE Offices Tijuana Subcommittee on 10/16/09 Binational Affairs 2050 RTP Update City of Tijuana SANDAG City Council Committee City of San Diego, Land 10/21/09 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Use & Housing Committee San Diego City Hall Women in Legal and Land Tin Fish Restaurant, 11/05/09 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Use Group (WILL) Liberty Station Urban Area Transit North County Transit 11/10/09 Board Meeting Strategy District (NCTD) NCTD Offices 2050 Regional Growth 11/10/09 City Council Meeting Forecast Oceanside City Council Oceanside City Hall United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) 11/18/09 Government Tour/Meeting 2050 RTP Update Scan Tour SANDAG Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), San Diego Handlery Hotel, 12/03/09 Luncheon Program 2050 RTP Update Chapter San Diego San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, Chamber Committee Land Use & Transportation 12/08/09 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Committee Emerald Plaza San Diego County Transportation Committee Taxpayers Association, 12/17/09 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Transportation Committee 701 B St., San Diego

TA 6-6 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location San Diego Highway Best Western Seven Seas, 01/11/10 Luncheon Program 2050 RTP Update Development Association San Diego 2201 Comstock St., 01/20/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Linda Vista Collaborative San Diego American Institute of Urban Area Transit Architects (AIA) Urban 02/05/10 Monthly Meeting Strategy Design Committee SANDAG Urban Area Transit Council of Design 02/09/10 Monthly Luncheon Strategy Professionals AIA Offices Urban Area Transit Metropolitan Transit 02/18/10 Board of Directors Meeting Strategy System (MTS) MTS Offices 2050 RTP Update & Urban Area Transit Downtown San Diego Downtown San Diego 03/01/10 Monthly Meeting Strategy Transit Partnership Partnership Office Downtown San Diego Downtown San Diego 03/04/10 Transportation Committee 2050 RTP Update Partnership Partnership Office Urban Area Transit City/County Managers Doubletree Hotel, 03/04/10 Monthly Luncheon Strategy Association (CCMA) Del Mar Urban Area Transit Strategy Workshop AIA Urban Design 03/05/10 Monthly Meeting Development Committee SANDAG 2050 RTP Update & California State Urban Area Transit University, 03/06/10 Board Retreat Strategy NCTD San Marcos Urban Area Transit Strategy Workshop Council of Design 03/10/10 Monthly Meeting Development Professionals AIA Offices Poway Community Interest 13325 Civic Center 03/10/10 Group Training 2050 RTP Update City of Poway Drive, Poway 345 5th Ave., 03/10/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Chula Vista Collaborative Chula Vista American Council of 03/10/10 Regular Meeting 2050 RTP Update Engineering Companies SANDAG Offices 2201 Comstock St., 03/17/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Linda Vista Collaborative San Diego 2050 RTP Update, Sustainable Communities Strategy, Urban Area 03/30/10 National City Transit Strategy City Council Council Chambers

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-7

Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location 2050 RTP Update & San Diego Council of Workshop for Urban Design Urban Area Transit Design Professionals/ 04/14/10 and Planning Professionals Strategy SANDAG Caltrans University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Association of Environmental 04/15/10 Workshop 2050 RTP Update Professionals UCSD 2050 RTP Development Casa Familiar and Urban Area Transit Strategy & Urban Area Transit San Ysidro Business San Ysidro Community 04/15/10 Workshop Strategy Association Center 2050 RTP Development & Urban Area Transit City of Escondido – 04/26/10 RTP Public Workshop Strategy SANDAG Mitchell Room 2050 RTP Development & Urban Area Transit Chula Vista – Loma 04/27/10 RTP Public Workshop Strategy SANDAG Verde Recreation Center 2050 RTP Development & Urban Area Transit Carlsbad – Tri-City 04/28/10 RTP Public Workshop Strategy SANDAG Wellness Center Downtown San Diego Transportation Committee Urban Area Transit Partnership. Transportation Downtown San Diego 04/29/10 Meeting Strategy Committee Partnership Office 2050 RTP Development & Urban Area Transit San Diego – Bayside 05/03/10 RTP Public Workshop Strategy SANDAG Community Center 2050 RTP Development El Cajon – Ronald & Urban Area Transit Reagan Community 05/06/10 RTP Public Workshop Strategy SANDAG Center Centre City Development Urban Area Transit Strategy Urban Area Transit American Planning Corporation, Horton 05/25/10 Luncheon Strategy Association Plaza Information Center

Community Planners 9192 Topaz Way, 05/25/10 Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update Committee, Board Meeting San Diego 2050 RTP Development Move San Diego and Urban & Urban Area Transit Land Institute (ULI) Young 05/26/10 Evening Mixer Strategy Planners Caltrans

TA 6-8 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location National Association of Industrial and Office 06/03/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Properties (NAIOP) Del Mar 06/03/10 Meeting/Briefing 2050 RTP Update U.S. Marine Corps Camp Pendleton San Diego Regional Transportation Committee Chamber of Commerce, 06/07/10 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Transportation Committee Emerald Plaza General Plan Update Lecture 06/07/10 Series 2010 2050 RTP Update City of Encinitas Encinitas Public Library San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, RTP Working Working Group/Committee Group/Transportation & 06/08/10 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Land Use Committee SANDAG 1220 Pacific Hwy 06/08/10 Meeting/Briefing 2050 RTP Update U.S. Navy Bldg. 127, San Diego Carmel Valley Community Carmel Valley Public 06/08/10 Planning Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update Planning Board Library Olive Pierce Middle Ramona Transportation School, Performing Arts 06/09/10 Summit 2050 RTP Update Ramona Planning Group Center 06/15/10 City Council Workshop 2050 RTP Update City of Carlsbad Carlsbad City Hall San Diego County 9177 Sky Park Ct., 06/17/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Taxpayers Association San Diego East Region Collaborative 3845 Spring Dr., 06/17/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Network Spring Valley Building Owners and Managers Association 701 B St., San Diego, 06/21/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update (BOMA) San Diego San Ysidro Community 4350 Otay Mesa Rd., 06/21/10 Planning Group Meeting 2050 RTP Update Planning Group San Diego

Convivio Latino, Linda Vista 2202 Comstock St., 06/25/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Community Collaborative San Diego San Diego County Bar Association, Environmental/Land Use San Diego County Bar 06/29/10 Monthly Luncheon 2050 RTP Update Section Association Center

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-9

Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location Mid-City CAN Networking City Heights Wellness 07/13/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Council Center Mira Mesa Community 07/19/10 Planning Group Meeting 2050 RTP Update Planning Group Mira Mesa 07/22/10 Board of Directors Meeting 2050 RTP Update NCTD NCTD Offices I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Encinitas Community & 07/27/10 Meeting Table Caltrans Senior Center Uptown-North Park-Greater Golden Hill Mobility Open 07/28/10 House 2050 RTP Update City of San Diego Balboa Park Club Introduction to Urban San Diego State University 07/29/10 Planning Class 2050 RTP Update (SDSU) SDSU I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information 08/03/10 Meeting Table Caltrans University Towne Centre AIA Urban Design 08/06/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Committee Meeting SANDAG North Park Planning Committee, Public Facilities 2901 North Park Way, 08/11/10 Planning Committee Meeting 2050 RTP Update Subcommittee San Diego I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information City of Carlsbad – 08/17/10 Meetings Table Caltrans Faraday Center I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information Skyline Elementary 08/24/10 Meetings Table Caltrans School – Solana Beach 345 5th Ave., Chula 08/24/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Chula Vista Collaborative Vista I-5 North Coast Public 2050 RTP Information 09/09/10 Meetings Table Caltrans Oceanside High School San Diego Regional Transportation Briefing Economic Development 530 B St., Suite 700, 09/10/10 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Corporation (EDC) San Diego California Center for Sustainable Energy Family 09/12/10 Energy Day and Street Smart 2050 RTP Update CCSE CCSE Offices 2050 RTP Information 09/14/10 RASP Open House Table SDCRAA SDCRAA Offices 2050 RTP Information 09/16/10 Clean Energy Conference Table CCSE CCSE Offices McClellan-Palomar 09/16/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Update SDCRAA Airport, Carlsbad 09/22/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Update SDCRAA Gillespie Field, El Cajon

TA 6-10 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location Citizens Coordinate for 09/23/10 Monthly Breakfast 2050 RTP Update Century 3 (C-3) Holiday Inn on the Bay North County Action San Diego Regional 09/28/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Council (NORCAN) Center, San Marcos 09/30/10 RASP Open House 2050 RTP Update SDCRAA South County EDC South County Regional South County EDC, Education Center, 10/05/10 Board of Directors Meeting 2050 RTP Update Board of Directors National City ITE/Women’s Joint Workshop and Transportation Seminar Courtyard by Marriott – 10/07/10 Luncheon 2050 RTP Update (WTS) Downtown San Diego County Administration 10/12/10 Board of Supervisors 2050 RTP Update San Diego County Building Introduction to Urban 10/13/10 Planning 2050 RTP Update SDSU SDSU

10/13/10 City Planning Process 2050 RTP Update SDSU SDSU 10/14/10 2050 RTP Task Force 2050 RTP Update South County EDC EDC Offices 10/19/10 City Council Meeting 2050 RTP Update City of Lemon Grove Lemon Grove ULI, Move San Diego, Workshop for Planning and American Planning Design Professionals on Transit Supportive Association (APA), C-3, 10/20/10 Transit Supportive Policies Policies et al SANDAG Offices San Ysidro Transportation San Ysidro Community 10/22/10 Improving Transit Workshop 2050 RTP Update Collaborative Service Center Transit Supportive 10/28/10 Board of Directors Meeting Policies MTS, Board of Directors MTS Offices 11/02/10 City Council Meeting 2050 RTP Update Oceanside City Council Oceanside City Hall American Planning 11/03/10 Statewide Conference 2050 RTP Presentation Association La Costa Resort Executive Committee 11/04/10 Meeting 2050 RTP Update MTS, Executive Committee MTS Headquarters Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), 11/10/10 Advisory Committee Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Advisory Committee CCDC National Brownfield 11/17/10 Executive Workshop 2050 RTP Presentation Association City of San Diego 11/18/10 Breakfast Program 2050 RTP Presentation WTS/ITE University Club 11/18/10 Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update MTS, Board of Directors MTS Headquarters Introduction to Urban 11/23/10 Planning Class 2050 RTP Presentation SDSU SDSU South County Action 11/23/10 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Network (SOCAN) Bonita

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-11

Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location Chula Vista Community Seniors Outreach Collaborative (CVCC), 12/01/10 Meeting/SWG Member 2050 RTP Presentation Seniors on Broadway Chula Vista Chula Vista Community School Outreach Collaborative (CVCC), 12/06/10 Meeting/SWG Member 2050 RTP Presentation Charter School Chula Vista 12/09/10 Board Meeting 2050 RTP Update MTS, Board of Directors MTS Headquarters 12/09/10 Student Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation ITE Student Chapter SDSU San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, Land Use & Transportation 402 W. Broadway, 12/13/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Committee Suite 1000 San Ysidro Neighborhood San Ysidro Community 12/14/10 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Partnership Program Service Center Chula Vista Community Nonprofit Outreach Collaborative (CVCC), 12/14/10 Meeting/SWG Member 2050 RTP Presentation Turning the Hearts Center Chula Vista 01/19/11 Service Club Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Poway Rotary Poway 01/19/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation League of Women Voters Cardiff San Diego County San Diego – 01/20/11 Regional Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Volunteer Driver Coalition City Heights American Council of 01/25/11 Industry Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Engineering Companies SANDAG 02/03/11 City Council Workshop 2050 RTP Update City of Chula Vista Chula Vista City Hall Skyline – Paradise Hills 02/08/11 Planning Group Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Planning Group San Diego San Diego – 02/09/11 Service Club Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation La Mesa Optimists Club Mission Valley 02/14/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation League of Women Voters Oceanside San Diego State University 02/15/11 SDSU Urban Planning Class 2050 RTP Presentation (SDSU) SDSU 02/15/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation CALCIMA Mission Valley 02/22/11 City Council Meeting 2050 RTP Update City of Poway Poway City Hall The SD Foundation, 2508 Historic Decatur Measuring Sustainable Move SD, SD Foundation, Rd., Suite 200, 02/24/11 Communities 2050 RTP Presentation SD Housing Federation San Diego San Ysidro Transportation San Ysidro Community 02/25/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Collaborative Service Center 03/01/11 CBO Community Meeting 2050 RTP Update El Cajon Collaborative 750 Main St., El Cajon Skyline Paradise Hills 8285 Skyline Dr., 03/07/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Community Group San Diego

TA 6-12 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location International Right of Way Handlery Hotel, Mission 03/16/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Association (IRWA) Valley, San Diego Chula Vista Library, Southwest Working Group 389 Orange Ave., 03/16/11 CBO Community Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation - CVCC Chula Vista 91911 South County Action 03/22/11 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Update Network (SOCAN) 4375 Bonita Rd., Bonita Bayside Community Convivio Latino, Linda Vista Center, 2202 Comstock 03/25/11 CBO Community Meeting 2050 RTP Update Community Collaborative St., San Diego University Club, 03/29/11 Meeting 2050 RTP Update San Diego Regional EDC San Diego 1011 Anchorage Ln., 03/29/11 Service Club Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Point Loma Optimists Club San Diego Linda Vista Community Bayside Community Collaborative – Senior Center, 2202 Comstock 03/29/11 CBO Community Meeting 2050 RTP Update STEPS St., San Diego, 92111 St. John’s Lutheran Church, 1430 Melody 04/04/11 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation License to Freedom (Arabic) Ln., El Cajon 1870 Cordell Ct., Ste. 04/11/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation East County EDC 202, El Cajon San Diego Highway Best Western, 411 Hotel 04/11/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Development Association Circle South, San Diego East County Career Center 924 E. Main St., 04/12/11 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Youth Program El Cajon, 92021 ASCE Transportation 411 Hotel Circle South, 04/20/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Group San Diego Regional Planning Stakeholders Working SANDAG, 401 B St., 04/26/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update Group (SWG) San Diego, 7th Floor Faith Lutheran Church, 5310 Orange Ave., 04/27/11 Service Club Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Southeast Kiwanis San Diego Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/03/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation (COBRO) San Diego, 7th Floor CPEHN: The Road to Health Sherman Heights – Improving Community Community Center, Wellbeing through 2258 Island Ave., 05/04/11 Community Event 2050 RTP Presentation Transportation San Diego Cities/Counties Transportation Advisory SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/05/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Committee (CTAC) San Diego, 7th Floor San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/12/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation (SANTEC) San Diego, 7th Floor

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-13

Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location Regional Planning Transportation Working SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/12/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Group (TWG) San Diego, 7th Floor 212 W. Park Ave., 05/14/11 Community Event 2050 RTP Presentation San Ysidro Day San Ysidro, 92173 BOMA: Building Owners and Managers Association 05/16/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Update – Govt. Affairs Committee 701 B St., San Diego Social Services Transportation Advisory SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/16/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Council (SSTAC) San Diego, 7th Floor Environmental Mitigation Program Working Group SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/17/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation (EMP) San Diego, 7th Floor San Ysidro Transportation Willow School, 226 05/18/11 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Update Collaborative Willow Rd., San Ysidro Citizens Advisory Committee Unified Port of San Diego, Embarcadero Planning Meeting – Bicycle Plan Citizens Advisory Center, 585 Harbor Ln., 05/18/11 Presentation 2050 RTP Update Committee San Diego Public Health Stakeholders SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/19/11 Stakeholders Group Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Group San Diego, 7th Floor Peninsula Community Point Loma Library, 3701 05/19/11 Planning Board Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Planning Board Voltaire St., San Diego Building Industry Association (BIA) of San Diego County, City-County 9201 Spectrum Center 05/20/11 Monthly Committee Meeting 2050 RTP Update Legislation Committee Blvd., San Diego City Government Committee City of San Diego, Land City Administration 05/25/11 Meeting 2050 RTP Update Use & Housing Committee Building Regional Energy Working SANDAG, 401 B St., 05/26/11 Working Group Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Group (EWG) San Diego, 7th Floor SANDAG Bicycle-Pedestrian SANDAG, 401 B St., 06/01/11 Working Group Meeting 2050 RTP Update Working Group San Diego, 7th Floor Shoreline Preservation SANDAG, 401 B St., 06/02/11 Working Group Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Working Group San Diego, 7th Floor Ramona Community Ramona Community Library, 1275 Main St., 06/02/11 Planning Group Meeting 2050 RTP Update Planning Group Ramona Encinitas Community & Senior Center, 1140 2050 RTP Public Oakcrest Park Dr., 06/07/11 Public Workshop Workshop SANDAG Public Workshop Encinitas The Joe & Vi Jacobs 2050 RTP Public Center, 404 Euclid Ave., 06/08/11 Public Workshop Workshop SANDAG Public Workshop San Diego

TA 6-14 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.3 – SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Presentations/ Public Meetings/Workshops (Continued)

Date Event Topic Organization Location San Diego Regional Emerald Plaza, 402 West Chamber of Commerce, Broadway, Ste. 1000, 06/08/11 Business Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Green Business Alliance San Diego NAIOP: National Association of Industrial & 12275 El Camino Real, 06/09/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Office Properties Suite 200, San Diego Sonrise Community 2050 RTP Public Church, 8805 North 06/09/11 Public Workshop Workshop SANDAG Public Workshop Magnolia Ave., Santee Martin Luther King Jr. 2050 RTP Public Center, 140 East 12th 06/13/11 Public Workshop Workshop SANDAG Public Workshop St., National City Turning the Hearts Chula Vista Community Center, 345 Fifth Ave., 06/14/11 CBO Community Meeting 2050 RTP Update Collaborative Chula Vista San Marcos City Council 2050 RTP Public Chambers, 1 Civic 06/16/11 Public Workshop Workshop SANDAG Public Workshop Center Dr., San Marcos Springfield College,5348 University Ave., Ste. 110, 06/21/11 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation San Diego Refugee Forum San Diego City Government City of San Diego, Land City Administration 06/22/11 Committee Meeting 2050 RTP Update Use & Housing Committee Building Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal San Pasqual Tribal Hall, Transportation Issues 27458 N. Lake Wohlford 06/22/11 Monthly Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation (TWG) Rd., Valley Center South Chula Vista Southwest Civic Library, 389 Orange 06/27/11 Community Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Association Ave., Chula Vista San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, Transportation & Land Use 402 W. Broadway, 06/28/11 Business Meeting 2050 RTP Update Committee Ste. 1000, San Diego San Diego Community 9192 Topaz Way, 06/28/11 Industry Committee Meeting 2050 RTP Update Planners Committee San Diego Booz Allen Hamilton – 2050 RTP & EIR Green Team Environmental 1615 Murray Canyon 07/07/11 Environmental Forum Presentation Forum Rd., Ste. 140, San Diego California Environmental Advocates (CED) – Clean Air Dialogue (CAD) Senator Hotel, 1121 L 07/20/11 Industry Working Group 2050 RTP Presentation Working Group St., Sacramento Oaks North Community Rancho Bernardo Center, 12578 Oaks 07/21/11 Planning Board Meeting 2050 RTP Presentation Community Planning Board North Dr., San Diego Walk San Diego – Visioning 07/22/11 Community Forum 2050 RTP Update San Diego Forum San Diego

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-15

Table TA 6.4 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Efforts regarding SB 375 Requirements Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg, 2008) contains a number of references to guide public participation efforts in developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). This table outlines references in the legislation and how SANDAG is meeting or will meet the requirements. All public outreach and involvement efforts, meetings, and activities are detailed in 2050 RTP Public Involvement Chapter.

SB 375 Requirement Date Outreach Activity/Event Government Code Section 65080. (a) Each transportation planning agency designated under Section 29532 or 29532.1 shall prepare and adopt a regional transportation plan directed at achieving a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system, including, but not limited to, mass transportation, highway, railroad, maritime, bicycle, pedestrian, goods movement, and aviation facilities and services. The plan shall be action-oriented and pragmatic, considering both the short-term and long- term future, and shall present clear, concise policy guidance to local and state officials. The regional transportation plan shall consider factors specified in Section 134 of Title 23 of the United States Code. Each transportation planning agency shall consider and incorporate, as appropriate, the transportation plans of cities, counties, districts, private organizations, and state and federal agencies. (2) A sustainable communities strategy prepared by each metropolitan planning organization as follows: (2Aii) The metropolitan planning organization shall May 2010 Public Workshop providing overview and target- hold at least one public workshop within the setting information region after receipt of the report from the Regional SANDAG Board Policy Meeting, May 14, 2010 Targets Advisory Committee. Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, June 15, 2010 (2E) The metropolitan planning organization shall October 8, 2010 Draft SCS preparation and development presented conduct one informational meeting on the at SANDAG Board of Directors meeting. Minutes sustainable communities strategy and alternative and Board attendance at October 8, 2010 meeting planning strategy, if any. The metropolitan follows matrix. planning organization may conduct only one informational meeting if it is attended by representatives of the county board of supervisors and city council members representing a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of that county. (2F) Each metropolitan planning organization shall December 18, SANDAG Board of Directors adopts agencywide adopt a public participation plan, for development 2009 Public Participation Plan (PPP). Public Participation of the sustainable communities strategy and an Plan guides public outreach and involvement for all alternative planning strategy agency programs, plans, projects.

TA 6-16 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.4 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Efforts regarding SB 375 Requirements (Continued)

SB 375 Requirement Date Outreach Activity/Event (2Fi) Outreach efforts to encourage the active Ongoing – PPP RTP and SCS Public Involvement Plan is an element participation of a broad range of stakeholder adopted of Federal Public Participation Plan. RTP and SCS groups in the planning process, consistent with the December 18, Public Involvement Plan describe specific activities, agency’s adopted Federal Public Participation Plan, 2009; PIP audiences, etc. to secure input on RTP and SCS. including, but not limited to, affordable housing presented Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group advocates, transportation advocates, April 23, 2010. established in September 2009 to serve in an neighborhood and community groups, advisory capacity to both the SANDAG Regional environmental advocates, home builder Planning and Transportation Committees on the representatives, broad-based business development of the 2050 RTP and its components to organizations, landowners, commercial property involve citizens with expertise in subject matter areas interests, and homeowner associations. of regional interest as well as individuals who reflect the demographics of the region, with particular emphasis on communities that are not traditionally involved in the regional planning process. Public outreach and involvement efforts since spring 2009 include noticed public meetings, opt-in monthly e-mail updates and newsletters, media outreach, Web site updates, speakers bureau, and other activities (2Fii) Consultation with congestion management Ongoing SANDAG Board of Directors is forum for these agencies, transportation agencies, and agencies. SANDAG is the Congestion Management transportation commissions. Agency for the San Diego region as well as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission. Caltrans and both transit operators – San Diego Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District – are among the advisory members of the SANDAG Board. (2Fiii) Three workshops throughout the region to Spring 2011 SANDAG held five combined Public provide the public with the information and tools Workshops/Public Hearings on the Draft 2050 RTP necessary to provide a clear understanding of the and SCS. Two additional public hearings were held issues and policy choices. Each workshop, to the as part of regularly scheduled SANDAG meetings. extent practicable, shall include urban simulation The workshops included maps, information, and a computer modeling to create visual computer station with Envision 2050 – a Web-based representations of the SCS and the alternative tool that visually demonstrated the priorities, planning strategy. investments, transportation system, and other key elements and concepts in the 2050 RTP and SCS. (See meeting schedule and locations in Chapter 9.) (2Fiv) Preparation and circulation of a draft SCS 55 days before The draft Sustainable Communities Strategy was and an alternative planning strategy, if one is adoption of final released on April 22, 2011. prepared, not less than 55 days before adoption of 2050 RTP a final regional transportation plan.

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-17

Table TA 6.4 – 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Efforts regarding SB 375 Requirements (Continued)

SB 375 Requirement Date Outreach Activity/Event (2Fv) Two public hearings shall be held. To the Spring/Summer SANDAG held five combined Public maximum extent feasible, the hearings shall be in 2011 Workshops/Public Hearings on the Draft 2050 RTP different parts of the region to maximize the and SCS. Two additional public hearings were held opportunity for participation by members of the as part of regularly scheduled SANDAG meetings. public throughout the region. (See meeting schedule and locations in Chapter 9.)

(2Fvi) A process for enabling members of the Ongoing - Dedicated Web site, e-mail, and toll-free phone public to provide a single request to receive Launched early number established for inquiries and information notices, information, and updates. 2009 requests. Process promoted on post cards, fact sheets, meeting notices, reports, newsletters, e-mail newsletters, and other materials. (2Ji) Prior to starting the public participation Technical process adopted pursuant to subparagraph (F), the methodology metropolitan planning organization shall submit a submitted May 5, description to the state board of the technical 2010 methodology it intends to use to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from its sustainable communities strategy and, if appropriate, its alternative planning strategy. Government Code Section 65584.04 Developing Regional Housing Needs Methodology Ongoing – Regular public meetings with Regional Planning (4c) Public participation and access shall be Launched June Stakeholders Working Group, Regional Housing required in the development of the methodology 2010 at joint Working Group, Regional Planning Technical and in the process of drafting and adoption of the Regional Housing Working Group, Policy Advisory Committees, and allocation of the regional housing needs. Working Group, Board of Directors. Other outreach and Participation by organizations other than local Regional Planning presentations promoted via e-mail, newsletters, and jurisdictions and councils of governments shall be Technical Working on Web site. solicited in a diligent effort to achieve public Group public meeting. participation of all economic segments of the Public input on the draft RHNA methodology and community. The proposed methodology, along allocation was taken at the five combined Public with any relevant underlying data and Workshops/Public Hearings and at the two Public assumptions, and an explanation of how Hearings conducted as part of regularly scheduled information about local government conditions SANDAG meetings. (See meeting schedule and gathered pursuant to subdivision (b) has been used locations in Chapter 9.) to develop the proposed methodology, and how

each of the factors listed in subdivision (d) is incorporated into the methodology, shall be distributed to all cities, counties, any subregions, and members of the public who have made a written request for the proposed methodology. The council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall conduct at least one public hearing to receive oral and written comments on the proposed methodology.

TA 6-18 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy Following is a compilation of activities undertaken since 2009 to guide the development of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SANDAG Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committees (PACs) public meetings, working group public meetings, public outreach and involvement events, presentations, media outreach, newsletters, e-mail outreach, Web postings, and advertising are documented.

SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage February Media coverage: 3 2009 “County first up in road emission test” North County Times, 02/05/09 “San Diego’s foundation for growth” San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/19/09 “Bikeway segment nearly ready” San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/28/09 March 2009 Media coverage: 1 “Demand a better transit plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/08/09 April 2009 Board report on Long-Range Regional 1 Plans and Forecasts: A Workplan to Comply with Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) Media coverage: 7 “Law to elevate ‘smart growth’” North County Times, 04/03/09 “Group tackles public transit” Ramona Sentinel, 04/09/09 “What moves you?” San Diego CityBeat, 04/14/09 “Survey shows 12% rely primarily on mass transit” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/15/09 “Say no to more toll lanes, roads” North County Times, 04/15/09 “Letters to the Editor: Great cities have great transit” North County Times, 04/15/09 “These Days: San Diegans encouraged to live a sustainable lifestyle” KPBS, 04/09

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-19

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage May 2009 Board, TC, and RPC reports to 1 establish Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Media coverage: 1 “Implementing sustainable development in the community” The Daily Transcript, 05/09 June 2009 Begin development of update to 2 agencywide SANDAG Public Participation Plan Board, TC, and RPC reports on 7 Regional Growth Forecast; and 2050 RTP and SCS Work Program and Schedule. Board and RPC reports on Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Draft Report Board reports on Sustainable Region Program Action Plan and Toolkit; and Smart Growth Design Guidelines TC and RPC reports on San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Goals, Policy Objectives, and Project Prioritization Criteria; and Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program Status Report Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Media coverage: 2 “SANDAG seeks volunteers to help plan region’s future” East County Magazine, 06/05/09 “SANDAG seeks volunteers” Del Mar Times, 06/09

TA 6-20 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage July 2009 Board report on 2050 Regional 5 Growth Forecast TC and RPC reports on Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Recommendation TC reports on Draft Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report; and 2050 RTP: Formation of Ad Hoc Technical Working Group to Provide Input on Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria and RTP Performance Measures RPC report on Final Version of the Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentation on 2050 Regional 1 Growth Forecast Media coverage: 4 “State green power plan will cost consumers billions” North County Times, 07/11/09 “Planning ahead for congestion relief” North County Times, 07/13/09 “Short Takes: Regional Edition – Workshop planned on sustainable communities” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/20/09 “Report urges switch to alternative fuels” North County Times, 07/20/09

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-21

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage August Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 3 2009 Presentation on 2050 Regional 8 Growth Forecast September Board reports on Regional Planning 3 2009 Stakeholders Working Group Membership; 2050 RTP: Vision and Goals; and Final Regional Alternative Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Report SWG reports on Overview of 4 SANDAG; 2050 RTP: Work Program and Schedule; Appointment of SWG Members to the Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Ad Hoc Working Group for the 2050 RTP; SANDAG Public Participation Plan Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentation on 2050 Regional 11 Growth Forecast Media coverage: 3 “SANDAG preparing for county’s future growth” The Daily Transcript, 09/23/09 “Visualizing a smart future” The Daily Transcript, 09/24/09 “SANDAG: 1.3M more San Diegans by 2050” Voice of San Diego, 09/25/09

TA 6-22 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage October Board report on Draft SANDAG Public 1 2009 Participation Plan SWG reports on Draft SANDAG Public 3 Participation Plan; 2050 Regional Growth Forecast; and 2050 RTP: Draft Vision and Goals Advertising/notices to promote input 7 on SANDAG Public Participation Plan: Asian Journal; La Prensa (in Spanish); North County Times (all editions); San Diego Daily Transcript; San Diego Union-Tribune (all editions); San Diego Voice & Viewpoint; and Star News Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentations, public meetings, or 3 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Presentation on 2050 Regional 4 Growth Forecast Media coverage: 2 “Underground solution? Pro: Managing traffic and its impact is a regional issue” San Diego Union-Tribune, 10/04/09 “Public hearing set for those who depend on transit” North County Times, 10/20/09

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-23

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage November TC, RPC, PC, and PSC reports on 2 2009 Draft SANDAG Public Participation Plan TC and RPC reports on Initial Input into Urban Core Transit Strategy SWG reports on Draft SANDAG Public 3 Participation Plan to SWG; 2050 RTP: Goals and Proposed Policy Objectives; and Initial inputs into Urban Core Transit Strategy Networks Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentations, public meetings, or 3 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Presentation on 2050 Regional 1 Growth Forecast Media coverage: 1 “San Diego County wrestles over future growth in the backcountry” KPBS, 11/19/09 December Board report on 2050 RTP: Goals and 4 2009 Proposed Policy Objectives TC and RPC reports on Revised SANDAG Public Participation Plan; Urban Core Transit Strategy: Lessons Learned; and SB 375: Current Implementation Efforts SWG reports on Smart Growth 4 Concept Map; SB 375: Current Implementation Efforts; Urban Area Transit Strategy; and 2050 RTP Related Studies

TA 6-24 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage December Board approves SANDAG Public 1 2009 Participation Plan (cont’d) Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentations, public meetings, or 3 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 1 “Tribes, transit, and coordinated planning” North County Times, 12/27/09 January Board report on 2050 Regional 1 2010 Growth Forecast Update SWG reports on Schedule for 2050 RTP 4 Process; Overview of Smart Growth Concept Map; Study Plan for 2050 RTP Environmental Justice Analysis; and 2050 RTP: Draft Public Involvement Plan Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentations, public meetings, or 2 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 3 “Uptown scores on walkability” San Diego News Room, 01/05/10 “Looking at 2010: Kathy Keehan on two wheels” (RTP and Bicycling) Voice of San Diego, 01/19/10 “SANDAG Study: Redevelopment key to San Diego County future” The Daily Transcript, 01/10

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-25

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage February Board and RPC reports on 2050 1 2010 Regional Growth Forecast SWG reports on Urban Area Transit 5 Strategy Update; Draft 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan; Draft Highway Corridor and Connectors Project Evaluation Criteria; Overview of Climate Change Adaptation and the 2050 RTP;and Status of 2030 RTP Projects Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 2 Presentations, public meetings, or 3 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 2 “Regional agency seeks transportation liaisons here” Ramona Sentinel, 02/18/10 “Traffic relief policy? Increase congestion, costs” (Public Participation Plan) North County Times, 02/25/10 March 2010 Board reports on SB 375 5 Implementation: Challenges and Next Steps; and Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program and Bayshore Bikeway: Proposed Programming and Funding TC and RPC reports on Draft 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan TC reports on San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Release Preliminary Findings; and Urban Area Transit Strategy – Initial Transit Concepts

TA 6-26 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage March 2010 SWG reports on RTP 2050 5 (cont’d) Environmental Justice Analysis; SCS Update: SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Target Methodology; Proposed Transit Services Project Evaluation Criteria and Transportation Project Evaluation Criteria Weightings; Update on Public Involvement for the 2050 RTP; and Final 2050 Regional Growth Forecast Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 3 Presentations, public meetings, or 11 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 4 “REGION: Leaders move toward setting vehicle emissions limits” North County Times, 03/12/10 “Transport survey solicits backcountry residents” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/30/10 “MoveSD.org advocates for mass transit and smart growth” San Diego News Room, 03/30/10 “SANDAG to meet with So Cal tribal leaders” The Daily Transcript, 03/10

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-27

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage April 2010 Board reports on Tribal 10 Transportation Issues for the 2050 RTP; Federal Sustainable Communities Initiative; and 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan TC and RPC reports on 2050 RTP Public Outreach Workshops; and Urban Area Transit Strategy TC reports on Urban Area Transit Strategy: Performance Measures and Corridors/Communities for Establishment of Mode Share Goals; 2050 RTP: Evaluation Criteria for Highway Corridors, Transit Services, and Connector Projects; and 2050 RTP: Evaluation Criteria for the Goods Movement Strategy RPC report on RHNA and Housing Element Cycle SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Proposed 3 Plan Performance Measures; Urban Area Transit Strategy: Draft Regional Transit Networks and Revised Performance Measures; and Update on 2050 RTP Environmental Justice Analysis Advertising/ and public notices to 7 promote 2050 RTP workshops: Voice and Viewpoint; La Prensa; Asian Journal; North County Times; Star News; Sign on San Diego (Web ad); and Voice of San Diego (Web ad) Newsletters, E-mail, and SANDAG 3 Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 7 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

TA 6-28 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage April 2010 Media coverage: 11 (cont’d) “Charleston lecture series focuses on incorporating biking into diverse regions” The DigitelCharleston, 04/02/10 “San Diego scene 4.10” Metropolitan Magazine, 04/05/10 “SD tribes gather for transportation summit” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/06/10 “Public workshops on 2050 transportation plan set” North County Times, 04/20/10 “San Diego planners seek public feedback on regional transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/21/10 “Agency seeks feedback, sets series of workshops” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/24/10 “Growth conundrum: SANDAG hosts workshops on transportation planning” KPBS, 04/26/10 “These Days: Aligning S.D. regional transportation plan with greenhouse gas reduction goal” KPBS, 04/26/10 “Workshops detail future transportation plans, ideas” North County Times, 04/27/10 “The relevance of public transit” Voice of San Diego, 04/29/10 “SANDAG working to identify transportation needs through 2050” The Daily Transcript, 04/10

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-29

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage May 2010 Board reports on SB 375 8 Implementation: Greenhouse Gas Target-Setting – Hybrid Scenario Testing; SB 375 Implementation: California Environmental Quality Act; 2050 RTP: Draft Evaluation Criteria; 2050 RTP: Draft Evaluation Criteria for Highway Corridors, Connectors, Transit Services, and Freight Projects; and Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Final Plan TC reports on 2050 RTP: Evaluation Criteria for Highway Corridors, Transit Services, and Connector Projects; Riding to 2050: San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan – Final Draft; and 2050 RTP: Draft Plan Performance Measures SWG reports on 2050 RTP 3 Environmental Justice Analysis; Update on Urban Area Transit Strategy; and Overview of Intelligent Transportation Systems Newsletters and SANDAG Web site 3 Presentations, public meetings, or 5 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 2 “Downtown ‘smart growth’ planning discussed” North County Times, 05/03/10 “San Diego plans for future housing, transportation” KPBS, 05/05/10

TA 6-30 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage June 2010 Board, TC, and RPC reports on 2050 6 RTP: Update on the Urban Area Transit Strategy; and Smart Growth Trip Generation Study and Parking Strategies Board reports on 2050 RTP Overview; 2050 RTP: Development of the Initial Unconstrained Transportation Network; and 2050 RTP: Draft Evaluation Criteria TC report on 2050 RTP: Draft Plan Performance Measures SWG reports on Sustainable 2 Communities Strategy and Target Setting Process; and Development of the Initial 2050 RTP Unconstrained Transportation Network Conduct Public Opinion Survey to 1 secure input from the public on transportation system and infrastructure priorities. Promote Public Input Questionnaire – 1 2 Via Web and print in English and Spanish. Newsletters, E-mail, and SANDAG 7 Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 15 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-31

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage July 2010 Board and RPC reports on 2050 RTP: 8 Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network Board reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Plan Performance Measures; SB 375 Implementation: Draft Greenhouse Gas Targets; 2050 RTP: Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network; SB 375 Implementation: Proposed Final Greenhouse Gas Targets for the San Diego Region; and RHNA Update and Housing Element Cycle RPC reports on Overview of Climate Change Adaptation and the 2050 RTP; and 2050 RTP: Preferred Unconstrained Transportation Network SWG reports on SB 375 2 Implementation: Draft Greenhouse Gas Targets from the CARB; and 2050 RTP: Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network Promote Public Input Questionnaire – 1 2 Via Web and print in English and Spanish Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 6 Facebook Page (launch), and SANDAG Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 6 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

TA 6-32 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

July 2010 Media coverage: 8 (cont’d) “Long-term transportation plan is deeply misguided” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/16/10 “SANDAG wants to ask you a few questions” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/20/10 “CA Air Resources Board to set up cap on carbon emissions for San Diego” KPBS, 07/22/10 “San Diego sets greenhouse gas reduction goals” KPBS, 07/22/10 “MTC adopts aggressive 15 percent target for reducing emissions by 2035” SF.Streetsblog.org, 07/29/10 “SANDAG wants your input to build for future” Del Mar Times, 07/10 “SB 375 may expedite environmental review process, expert says” The Daily Transcript, 07/10 “CARB announces proposed emissions targets for region under SB 375” The Daily Transcript, 07/10

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-33

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage August SANDAG Facebook Page and 2 2010 SANDAG Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 6 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 2 “Town hall to explore local transit issues” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/10/10 “SANDAG survey seeks input on plans for the regional transportation plan system of the future” Baja Times, 08/10 September Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 7 2010 Initial Revenue Constrained Network/ Sustainable Communities Strategy Scenarios Board reports on Grant Proposal for Sustainable Communities Planning Grant and Incentives Program: Regional SB 375 Plus Funding, Pursuant to Prop 84; 2010 Public Opinion Survey Results; and SB 375 Implementation: Proposed Final Greenhouse Gas Targets TC report on 2050 RTP: Draft Proposed Methodology for Conducting the RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination RPC reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Unconstrained Transportation Network and Conceptual Overview of Revenue Constrained Scenarios; and RHNA Update

TA 6-34 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage September SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Initial 2 2010 Revenue Projections, Revenue (cont’d) Constrained Scenarios, and Policy Options to Support the Transit Network; and Public Input on Priorities for the 2050 RTP Promote Public Input Questionnaire – 1 2 Via Web and print in English and Spanish Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 6 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 10 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 3 “State program entices urban growth” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/23/10 “Pollution targets are set – what’s a motorist to do?” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/24/10 “We can have a strong economy and a healthy environment” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/30/10 October Board, TC, and RPC reports on 2050 4 2010 RTP: Sustainable Communities Strategy; and 2050 RTP: Draft Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios TC reports on 2050 RTP: Draft Policy Options to Support the Transit Network; and Draft 2050 RTP Performance Measures: Preliminary Results

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-35

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage October SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Draft 3 2010 Policy Options to Support the Transit (cont’d) Network; 2050 RTP: Sustainable Communities Strategy; and 2050 RTP: Draft Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios Public Hearing on 2050 RTP: Draft 1 1 Proposed Methodology for Conducting the RTP Air Quality Conformity Determination Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 4 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 10 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 3 “SANDAG looks at sustainable community strategy” San Francisco Chronicle, 10/30/10 “State unveils new rules for battling climate change” The Daily Transcript, 10/10 “Construction Agenda: SANDAG Board scheduled to review 2050 Regional Transportation Plan” The Daily Transcript, 10/10

TA 6-36 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage November Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 3 2010 Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios Board reports on 2050 RTP: Public Input Questionnaire; and 2050 RTP: Proposed Methodology for Conducting the Air Quality Conformity Determination SWG reports on Draft 2050 RTP: 3 Revenue Constrained Network Scenarios; 2050 RTP: Environmental Justice Update; and 2050 RTP: Public Involvement Update Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 7 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 9 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP December Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 3 2010 Preferred Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenario Board report on 2050 RTP: Draft Policy Options to Support the Transit Network RPC report on Regional Housing Needs Assessment Determination SWG reports on 2050 RTP: Revenue 3 Constrained Transportation Network; 2050 RTP: Environmental Justice Analysis of Revenue Constrained Transportation Network Scenarios; and 2050 RTP: Public Outreach and Involvement Update Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 7 Facebook Page, and SANDAG Web site Presentations, public meetings, or 7 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-37

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage December Media coverage: 19 2010 “Business can weigh in on our (cont’d) transportation future” San Diego Business Journal, 12/13/10 “What will local transportation look like in 2050?” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/15/10 “Kids get bikes, but will they ride them to school?” KPBS On-Ramp, 12/15/10 “REGION: Scope of I-5 expansion up for vote” North County Times, 12/16/10 “Getting from here to the future on I-5” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/17/10 “Letters: On marine rules, I-5, and more” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/17/10 “Expansion of I-5 takes another step” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/17/10 “SANDAG approves a 40-year transportation plan” KPBS On-Ramp, 12/17/10 “SANDAG names Stocks as new chair” The Daily Transcript, 12/17/10 “Lightner weighs in against I-5 widening” Examiner.com San Diego, 12/18/10 “REGION: More than just I-5 expansion on tap” North County Times, 12/20/10 “More than just I-5 expansion on tap” Trading Markets.com, 12/21/10

TA 6-38 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

December Media coverage (cont’d): 2010 “SANDAG Board endorses 14 lanes (cont’d) for I-5” KPBS Radio, 12/22/10 “SANDAG ready to move forward on transportation plan with new emphasis” The Daily Transcript, 12/23/10 “Lightner urges SANDAG to withhold support of I-5 freeway widening” Carmel Valley News, 12/23/10 “Letters: On stadium cleanup, mass transit, and more” San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/28/10 “SANDAG Board endorses 14 lanes for Interstate 15” KPBS Radio – These Days, 12/28/10 “Would you like for someone to say ‘Screw you guys’?” Voice of San Diego, 12/29/10 “Morning Report: Moving $100B debate” Voice of San Diego, 12/30/10

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-39

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage January Board, TC, and RPC reports on 2050 7 2011 RTP: Review of Anticipated Revenues and Their Allowable Uses; and 2050 RTP: Draft Phasing of Projects, Programs, and Services Board report on 2050 RTP: Public Involvement and Outreach Update; and Regional Housing Needs Assessment Determination TC and RPC reports on Overview of Safe Routes to School and the 2050 RTP Draft White Paper TC report on Progress on Regional Aviation Strategic Plan and Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan BC report on Draft 2050 RTP: Tribal, Binational, and Interregional Components SWG reports on 2050 RTP Status 2 Update; and Community-Based Partners in the 2050 RTP Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 12 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 4 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

TA 6-40 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage January Media coverage: 7 2011 “San Diego’s transportation future” (cont’d) San Diego Union-Tribune, 01/02/11 “Getting Around San Diego: Changes ahead” KPBS Radio, 01/07/11 “I-5: Caltrans is listening” San Diego Union-Tribune, 01/09/11 “REGION: Toll lanes in long-range freeway plans” North County Times, 01/10/11 “With Los Angeles as inspiration, San Diego enviros call for 50/10 plan” L.A. Streets Blog, 01/24/11 “REGION: SANDAG to discuss timing of major transit, freeway projects” North County Times, 01/27/11 “REGION: Expensive rail tunnel probably won’t come soon” North County Times, 01/28/11 February Board report on Draft 2050 RTP and 2 2011 Sustainable Communities Strategy Development TC report on Overview of Intelligent Transportation Systems for the Draft 2050 RTP Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 10 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 9 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-41

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage February Media coverage: 13 2011 “FORUM: Rainstorms revealed best (cont’d) transportation mode” North County Times, 02/01/11 “SANDAG summit to focus on quality of life, transportation plan” San Diego Daily Transcript, 02/01/11 “San Diego’s transportation future: The positives, the negatives” San Diego Daily Transcript, 02/03/11 “SANDAG grapples with shaping the future with dwindling funds” San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/04/11 “Reznik’s New Gig: Transit, sustainability” Voice of San Diego, 02/07/11 “Regional transportation plan: Four more decades of questionable priorities” North County Times, 02/14/11 “Detouring I-5 expansion is a bad idea” San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/19/11 “Transportation is not an end itself; It is a means to an end” Voice of San Diego, 02/23/11 “Talking tomorrow’s transit” Voice of San Diego, 02/23/11 “’Transit-First’ could become the law” KPBS On-Ramp, 02/23/11

TA 6-42 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

February Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “The I-5 Decision: Time for a new (cont’d) direction” San Diego Union-Tribune Commentary, 02/25/11 “Billions proposed for bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly streets” San Diego Union-Tribune, 02/25/11 “San Diego public transportation taking hits” Sandiego.com, 02/28/11 March 2011 Board reports on Transportation and 3 Land Use Modeling: Current Practice and Future Trends; and SANDAG Responses to Letters from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLC and Move San Diego RPC report on New Member Orientation: Overview of Regional Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 10 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 9 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 35 “Avego survey reveals untapped consumer demand for carpooling to address commuting issues” Business Wire, 03/01/11 “Local group wants to get people out of cars, onto their bikes” KPBS, 03/02/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-43

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

March 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Fact Check: The benefits of widening Interstate 5”Voice of San Diego, 03/03/11 “San Diego County sets aside $2.5 billion for bicycles and pedestrians” L.A. Streets Blog, 03/03/11 “Morning Report: $4.5 billion to save a minute” Voice of San Diego, 03/04/11 “Rising fuel costs push transit savings to two-year high” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/04/11 “Mapping bike commuters across the country” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/04/11 “How Los Angeles advocates are rallying for regional funding reform” L.A. Streets Blog, 03/04/11 “A handlebar view of San Diego” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/06/11 “Traffic worsens as economy picks up” Fox News Channel 6, 03/07/11 “San Diego’s worst commute” NBC Channel 7/39, 03/08/11 “This Trolley is No Folly: The San Diego trolley takes you places with ease” Lemon Grove Patch, 03/08/11 “Skyrocketing gas prices turn travelers to transit” KPBS, 03/08/11 “Opinion: Freeway or free way” Del Mar Times, 03/09/11

TA 6-44 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

March 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “High fuel prices drive up trucking costs” KPBS, 03/09/11 “The Lists: 4 most congested roads, 10 worst bottlenecks” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/09/11 “San Diego’s iconic trolleys find new life in Argentina” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/10/11 “Coastal panel backs Kehoe’s ‘transit- first’ bill in 11-1 vote” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/11/11 “Fact Check: How gas prices impact mass transit” Voice of San Diego, 03/11/11 “Kehoe’s transit bill gains Coastal Commission support” San Diego Daily Transcript, 03/12/11 “San Diego bicycles, Riverside County cars” North County Times, 03/14/11 “Escondido: City will showcase convenient ‘rapid’ buses” North County Times, 03/15/11 “Community Leader’s View: Proposal looks to transit options before expanding I-5” La Jolla Light, 03/15/11 “Backers of Bayshore Bikeway seek $2.5M grant” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/15/11 “The Calif. Coastal Commission announces initial support of a bill that could put brakes on I-5 expansion” Del Mar Times, 03/17/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-45

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

March 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Coronado City Council approves bike master plan” Coronado Patch, 03/17/11 “State grant secured for Bayshore Bikeway improvements” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/17/11 “Gas prices driving more to use public transit” KGTV Channel 10, 03/18/11 “Ranking Region’s Traffic Tie-ups: Familiar North County spot tops U-T’s list of worst bottlenecks” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/22/11 “State agency OKs $12M for county transportation projects” San Diego Union-Tribune, 03/24/11 “San Diego proposes $2.58 billion for bikes” Bikeradar.com, 03/24/11 “City Heights’ Express Bus to stay on Interstate” Voice of San Diego, 03/29/11 “REGION: Stopping I-5 expansion not bill’s intention, Kehoe says” North County Times, 03/30/11 “SANDAG’s response to Kehoe bill” North County Times, 03/30/11 “$2.5M grant means improvements for Bayshore Bikeway” Imperial Beach Patch, 03/31/11

TA 6-46 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage April 2011 Board and TC reports on Regional 5 Bicycle Plan: Proposed Initial Implementation Board report on Draft 2050 RTP TC report on Regional Bicycle Plan Implementation; and 2050 RTP: Upcoming Outreach and Adoption Process RPC report on RHNA Allocation Options SWG reports on Planning for the 1 Draft 2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy Public Workshops and Public Hearings Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 16* Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 7 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 43 “Kehoe’s transit-first bill revised, heads to hearing” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/01/11 “EDITORIAL: Humpty Dumpty redux – Our View: Sen. Kehoe appears to play loosely with meaning of certain words” North County Times, 04/01/11 “Caltrans awards $13M for local transit, air quality projects” San Diego Daily Transcript, 04/04/11 “REGION: Cost may determine success of Kehoe bill, observers say business, transportation leaders oppose Senator’s legislation” North County Times, 04/04/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-47

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

April 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “San Diego Explained: The $110B transportation plan” Voice of San Diego, 04/07/11 “Rising gas prices again filling seats on public transit” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/09/11 “REGION: Ridership jumps for local public transit. Gas prices, fares seen as reasons for increase” North County Times, 04/09/11 “Mass transit is now all the rage” North County Times, 04/11/11 “County gas prices up as national demand decreases” KGTV Channel 10, 04/11/11 “Kehoe’s ‘transit-first’ bill clears first Senate hurdle” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/12/11 “REGION: State panel favors bill that could slow I-5 widening” North County Times, 04/12/11 “You’re reproducing so they’re expanding I-5” Voice of San Diego, 04/13/11 “San Diego air is among the filthiest in the country” Voice of San Diego, 04/13/11 “Switching to transit offers best savings in years” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/14/11 “REGION: Massive freeway transit plan nears review” North County Times, 04/14/11

TA 6-48 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

April 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Highway 67 traffic flow could change by adding traffic light” Ramona Patch, 04/14/11 “Letters to the Editor: Mass transit needs more support” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/15/11 “It’s our San Diego and we’re in it together” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/17/11 “A vision of San Diego as a great city of the 21st century” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/17/11 “History of City Plans: Any paradise for the grandkids?” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/17/11 “Spending $110B on Transportation: Five things to know” Voice of San Diego, 04/17/11 “The human factor in carpools” North County Times, 04/18/11 “SANDAG to release regional transportation plan for public comment” San Diego Daily Transcript, 04/20/11 “Sustainability: Expand the trolley system in San Diego” The Daily Aztec, 04/20/11 “$196B transportation plan faces critical vote” KGTV Channel 10, 04/22/11 “REGION: Public reviews start on $196B freeway, transit plan” North County Times, 04/22/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-49

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

April 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “SANDAG approves $196B transportation plan” KGTV Channel 10, 04/22/11 “Major funding earmarked for mass transit” NBC Channel 7/39, 04/22/11 “SANDAG opens $196B transportation plan to public comment” San Diego Daily Transcript, 04/22/11 “Looking at transportation 40 years down the road” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/24/11 “San Diego sets 40-year transport plan” Railway Age Magazine, 04/25/11 “A Post-Earth Day Lesson: Just say no to high gas prices in the grove” Lemon Grove Patch, 04/26/11 “San Diego’s air pollution among worst in nation” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/27/11 “REGION: Lung Association gives region ‘F’ on air quality” North County Times, 04/27/11 “Kehoe removes ‘transit-first’ language from bill” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/27/11 “High gas prices driving many to change the way they get around” KUSI Channel 9, 04/27/11

TA 6-50 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

April 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Encinitas opposes Kehoe bill on highway widening” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/28/11 “VOSD Members Survey: Skeptical of I-5 widening” Voice of San Diego, 04/28/11 “Council majority opposes bill that could delay I-5 widening” Encinitas Patch, 04/28/11 “Commentary: Passage of legislation to stop widening of I-5 will increase traffic congestion” San Diego Daily Transcript, 04/28/11 “Kehoe, SANDAG find common ground on highway expansion bill” San Diego Union-Tribune, 04/30/11 May 2011 Board reports on Regional Housing 4 Needs Assessment for the 2013-2020 Housing Element Cycle; and Draft RHNA 2013-2020 Housing Element Cycle RPC reports on Recommendation on Draft RHNA Methodology and Allocation; and 2050 RTP: Upcoming Outreach and Adoption Process Advertising and public notices to 9 promote 2050 RTP workshops and public hearings: San Diego Union- Tribune; Imperial Valley Press; Orange County Register; Riverside Press- Enterprise; Enlace; El Latino; San Diego Monitor News; Voice and Viewpoint; and Voice of San Diego (Web ad)

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-51

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage May 2011 Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 31 (cont’d) Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, Envision 2050 Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 16 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 35 “REGION: Bill that would affect I-5 softened” North County Times, 05/01/11 “SAN MARCOS: City seeks voice on state legislation” North County Times, 05/02/11 “Give your input on the SANDAG 2050 Regional Bike Plan” San Diego Bike Union, 05/02/11 “Kehoe highway bill’s focus narrowed to just I-5 project” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/03/11 “Kehoe bill moves toward compromise” North County Times, 05/03/11 “Kehoe bill gets transported through committee. But what is it?” KPBS On-Ramp, 05/04/11 “Letters to the Editor: Council’s vote was premature” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/05/11 “New website explores impact of 2050 transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/05/11 “The job of getting you from here to there” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/06/11

TA 6-52 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

May 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Regional transportation plan merits grade of ‘incomplete’” North County Times, 05/06/11 “Pedal power: What have we learned so far?” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/06/11 “SANDAG’s I-5 plan supported by San Marcos” KPBS, 05/06/11 “Regional transit’s 40-year road map” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/07/11 “Kehoe’s ever-changing highway bill gets another airing May 16” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/07/11 “A spirit of compromise on I-5 widening” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/08/11 “SB 375 approaches a crucial phase” PublicCEO.com, 05/09/11 “I-5 Widening: San Diego needs more than piecemeal solution: Voice of San Diego, 05/09/11 “Politicians continue to battle over the future of I-5” KPBS, 05/10/11 “Lung Association backs tough rules on vehicle pollution” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/10/11 “Study says public transit connects, but not always to jobs” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/12/11 “San Diego’s fast bus future” Voice of San Diego, 05/12/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-53

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

May 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “SANDAG releases draft RTP for public review” Fallbrook Bonsall Village News, 05/12/11 “SANDAG wants more bikes on the road” Mount Helix Patch, 05/13/11 “Mass transit won’t take you to work” KPBS On-Ramp, 05/15/11 “State law would limit the expansion of I-5” KPBS On-Ramp, 05/18/11 “Bill backs expansion of I-5, not ‘transit-first’” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/19/11 “More suspense for Kehoe’s I-5 bill” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/23/11 “Reports say streets put pedestrians at risk” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/24/11 “Pedestrian activists confront streets that are ‘Dangerous by Design’” KPBS, 05/25/11 “An engineering approach to safer walking” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/26/11 “Two local bills pass key state Senate test” North County Times, 05/26/11 “Plan to add four lanes to I-5 goes to Senate floor” KPBS, 05/26/11

TA 6-54 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

May 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Compromise boosts I-5, rail expansion” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/31/11 “Kehoe’s I-5 bill moves to Senate floor for vote” San Diego Union-Tribune, 05/31/11 “A movement of ‘citizen cyclists’ is growing in San Diego as bicycling breaks out of the spandex ghetto and goes mainstream” San Diego Magazine, May 2011 June 2011 Board and TC reports on Airport 1 Multimodal Accessibility Plan Draft Report Public Hearing: Draft 2050 RTP, its 6 1 7 Sustainable Communities Strategy, and Draft Environmental Impact Report Advertising and public notices to 9 promote 2050 RTP workshops and public hearings: North County Times; Coast News; Star News; Alpine Sun; East County Gazette; Ramona Sentinel; Asian Journal; Indian Voices; and Voice of San Diego (Web ad) Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 31 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, Envision 2050 Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 17 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-55

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage June 2011 Media coverage: 34 (cont’d) “SANDAG’s transportation plan headed for three weeks of public hearings” The Daily Transcript, 06/01/11 “SANDAG hosts workshops on regional transportation plan” Housing & Community Development, 06/01/11 “Pioneering sustainability plan takes shape in San Diego region” California Planning & Development Report (CP&DR), 06/01/11 “Kehoe’s I-5 expansion bill passes Senate” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/02/11 “Kehoe’s I-5 bill passes state Senate” North County Times, 06/02/11 “Public invited to comment on $196 billion transportation plan” Carmel Valley News, 06/02/11 “Public invited to comment on $196 billion transportation plan” Rancho Santa Fe Review, 06/02/11 “Public comment sought on future transportation plan” The Coast News, 06/03/11 “Planning to Disaster: San Diego and California’s sustainable communities strategy” OpenMarket.org, 06/03/11 “SANDAG plans to widen Highway 67” Ramona Patch, 06/06/11

TA 6-56 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

June 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “SANDAG wants your opinions on regional transportation” KPBS, 06/06/11 “When NIMBY attacks mass transit in San Diego” OB Rag, 06/06/11 “Freeway transit plan hits the road” North County Times, 06/07/11 “Never wait for the bus again” NBC Channel 7/39 News, 06/07/11 “Hearings begin on 4-year transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/08/11 “Agency proposes widening SR 67 sooner from Lakeside to Ramona” Ramona Sentinel, 06/08/11 “Carlsbad promotes bike-friendly lifestyle”’ The Coast News, 06/08/11 “Key foe of I-5 expansion now backs Kehoe’s compromise bill” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/09/11 “REGION: North County open spaces purchased” North County Times, 06/10/11 “SANDAG spends $4 million on 3 parcels of land to mitigate transportation” Fallbrook Bonsall Village News, 06/10/11 “SANDAG public workshops” San Diego Uptown News, 06/10/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-57

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

June 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “SANDAG hosts June hearings on $196 billion transportation plan” San Diego Uptown News, 06/10/11 “Kehoe’s I-5 capitulation a boon for North County commuters, environment” North County Times, 06/12/11 “SANDAG buys, sets aside large chunks of land for preservation” The Daily Transcript, 06/13/11 “San Diego region plans to lower per capita emissions” Houston Tomorrow, 06/13/11 “How gas prices, improved service and fares affect transit ridership” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/14/11 “Del Mar City Council will not ask to include Camino del Mar in transportation plan – at this time” Del Mar Times, 06/14/11 “SANDAG extends comment deadline for 2050 transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/15/11 “Lack of public transit could trap aging boomers” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/15/11 “SANDAG: Does smart growth reduce GHG emissions?” Center for Resource Efficient Communities (CREC), 06/21/11 “San Diego Council asked to back ‘transit first’ in 40-year transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/22/11

TA 6-58 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

June 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “San Diego Council sends transit-first message to SANDAG” San Diego Union-Tribune, 06/27/11 “City Council pushes public transit” San Diego Reader, 06/28/11 “San Diego SCS comment period extended” Climate Plan, June 2011 July 2011 Board, TC, and RPC reports on 2 Proposed Redistribution of Funds from I-5 North Coast Corridor Project in the 2050 RTP Board report on Potential Property Purchase of South Bay Expressway Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 28 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, Envision 2050 Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 4 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 59 “So much for California’s anti-sprawl law” Legal Planet, 07/05/11 “Comment deadline on transportation plan nearing” North County Times, 07/06/11 “Caltrans picks express-lanes-only option for I-5” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/06/11 “Caltrans picks smaller I-5 expansion plan” North County Times, 07/06/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-59

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

July 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “I-5 won’t carry as wide a load” Voice of San Diego, 07/07/11 “Last day to comment on 2050 transportation plan is Friday” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/07/11 “Caltrans chooses expansion plan for Interstate 5” KPBS, 07/07/11 “Caltrans adding carpool lanes through Carlsbad” Carlsbad Patch, 07/07/11 “Officials announce I-5 expansion in North County” KGTV Channel 10 News, 07/07/11 “Caltrans to build carpool lanes on Interstate 5 in North County” KFMB Channel 8 News, 07/07/11 “Caltrans picks lowest impact I-5 expansion plan” Fox 5 San Diego News, 07/07/11 “Caltrans to build carpool lanes on Interstate 5 in North County” 760 KFMB AM Talk Radio, 07/07/11 “SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Transportation Plan” OB Rag, 07/08/11 “Ocean Beach qualifies under SANDAG as a ‘Smart Growth’ community” OB Rag, 07/08/11 “Roundtable: I-5 widening option chosen” KPBS, 07/08/11

TA 6-60 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

July 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Caltrans ‘Locally Preferred Alternative’ identified for I-5 Express Lanes project” Carmel Valley News, 07/08/11 “SANDAG still has time to make meaningful change with its SB 375 plan” Switchboard – Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, 07/08/11 “Caltrans plans a ‘freeway within a freeway’ on I-5. But why?” North County Times, 07/09/11 “Logan Jenkins: Carlsbad tinkers for green elephant; Caltrans hits I-5 fairway” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/10/11 “Adding lanes to I-5 makes no sense” North County Times, 07/11/11 “Caltrans decision damages North County” North County Times, 07/12/11 “Assembly approves bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” Official Wire, 07/12/11 “San Diego may move $800 million from freeways to transit” KPBS, 07/13/11 “Letter to the Editor: Prioritizing transit is a key strategy” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/14/11 “So much for California’s anti-sprawl law, ctd.” Legal Planet, 07/14/11 “A surplus of funds” The San Diego Class I Streetcars Blog, 07/14/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-61

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

July 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Transportation officials to pursue four-lane I-5 expansion” Carmel Valley News, 07/14/11 “Transportation officials to pursue four-lane I-5 expansion” Del Mar Times, 07/14/11 “Transportation officials to pursue four-lane I-5 expansion” Rancho Santa Fe Review, 07/14/11 “Transportation officials to pursue four-lane I-5 expansion” Solana Beach Sun, 07/14/11 “REGION: Plans for $800M irk North County transportation leaders” North County Times, 07/15/11 “Transportation plan gets red light from PCPB” Peninsula Beacon, 07/16/11 “Long list of transit projects in the works” North County Times, 07/19/11 “Letters to the Editor: Caltrans folks should have their heads examined” North County Times, 07/20/11 “SANDAG planning the way to the airport” Examiner.com, 07/20/11 “REGION: Contested $800M in transportation funds up for vote” North County Times, 07/21/11“RB Planning Board Agenda: Regional transportation and officers” Rancho Bernardo Patch, 07/21/11

TA 6-62 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

July 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Ocean beach – Weird scenes inside the gold mine: Planning Board to consider grants for SANDAG millions” OB Rag, 07/21/11 “EDITORIAL: San Diego’s power play” North County Times, 07/22/11 “SANDAG moves $800M from I-5 into transit-oriented projects” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/22/11 “Bulk of $800M headed to city of San Diego project” North County Times, 07/22/11 “Less freeway pays for more transit” KPBS, 07/22/11 “EDITORIAL: SANDAG turns back on North County” North County Times, 07/23/11 “San Diego LRT to get California highway funds” Railway Age, 07/25/11 “Escondido seeks input on future housing” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/26/11 “Transit-first plan challenges SANDAG’s 40-year plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/26/11 “REGION: Highway 78 expansion could include carpool or toll lanes” North County Times, 07/27/11 “Cleveland National Forest Foundation releases mass transit- oriented transportation plan” North County Times, 07/27/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-63

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

July 2011 Media coverage (cont’d): (cont’d) “Anti-sprawl group calls SD transportation plan ‘disastrous’” KPBS On-Ramp, 07/27/11 “EDITORIAL: The wrong fix” North County Times, 07/29/11 “SANDAG set to take over South Bay Expressway” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/29/11 “SANDAG to take over operation of SR 125” KPBS, 07/29/11 “Public agency could take over SR 125 toll road” KGTV Channel 10 News, 07/29/11 “San Diego Association of Govs likely to buy South Bay Expressway” Tollroads News, 07/30/11 “SANDAG Board authorizes purchase of SR 125” The Daily Transcript, 07/30/11 “COMMENTS: Just stick to the tax’s intended purpose” San Diego Union-Tribune, 07/31/11 “Freeway pipeline is often a slow ride” North County Times, 07/31/11 “SANDAG votes to buy South Bay Expressway” Lemon Grove Patch, 07/31/11 “SANDAG votes to buy South Bay Expressway” Mount Helix Patch, 07/31/11

TA 6-64 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage August Board report on SANDAG Interest in 1 2011 Acquiring South Bay Expressway Assets and Discussion of Financing Options and Transportation Analysis for SR 125 Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 19 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, Envision 2050 Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 2 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 47 “Socialization of private, um, highways?” Voice of San Diego, 08/01/11 “Making buses better” Switchboard – Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, 08/01/11 “South Bay Expressway to be leased by SANDAG” San Diego Reader, 08/02/11 “Budget deal could jeopardize high- speed rail, clean-water programs” San Jose Mercury News, 08/02/11 “Construction to begin on 1.8-mile section of Bayshore Bikeway” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/03/11 “Public could soon own troubled California toll road” Land Line Magazine, 08/04/11 “Dan Walters: Jerry Brown has a way out of high-speed rail mess” The Sacramento Bee, 08/05/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-65

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

August Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “Snapshots from the San Diego area (cont’d) bicycling community” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/05/11 “Chula vista bikeway project breaks ground” KGTV Channel 10 News, 08/05/11 (similar stories on Fox 5, CW 6, Univision, and KUSI News) “Bayshore Bikeway gets an extra 1.8 miles” Imperial Beach Patch, 08/06/11 “New bike path project breaks ground in Chula Vista” The Daily Transcript, 08/08/11 “Bayshore Bikeway expands” San Diego Reader, 08/08/11 “Report: Get out of the highway- obsessed Eisenhower era” D.C. Streets Blog, 08/08/11 “Redefining Sustainability” MetropolisMag.com, 08/08/11 “California high-speed rail cost soars” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/09/11 “SANDAG accepting public comments for draft of airport accessibility plan” The Daily Transcript, 08/11/11 “Deadline nears for comment on $1.66B airport mobility plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/11/11 “SANDAG to explore purchase of South Bay Expressway” San Diego City News, 08/12/11

TA 6-66 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

August Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “The 10 cities where everyone should (cont’d) stop driving their cars” Business Insider, 08/12/11 “The environmental impact of your two-wheeled commute” D.C. Streets Blog, 08/12/11 “REGION: Project envisions economic blueprint for North County” North County Times, 08/13/11 “Out of bankruptcy, a steal for taxpayers” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/15/11 “SANDAG continues to discuss housing needs assessment” The Daily Transcript, 08/15/11 “Alliance in the works to back sustainable growth in SD” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/17/11 “Jerry Brown calls for high-speed rail to move forward” The Sacramento Bee: Capitol Alert, 08/17/11 “EPA publishes guide to performance measures for livability” D.C. Streets Blog, 08/17/11 “New data show how transit corridors reduce traffic, increase walking” Switchboard – Natural Resources Defense Council Staff Blog, 08/17/11 “Transit options dwindle as 700,000 Americans live in households without cars or transit” Transportation Nation, 08/18/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-67

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

August Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “Gov. Brown appoints financial (cont’d) expert to bullet train authority” Los Angeles Times, 08/19/11 “The case for high-speed rail” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/21/11 “SANDAG Board to consider how to pay for South Bay Expressway” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/24/11 “SANDAG exploring SR-125 purchase options at Friday public meeting” The Daily Transcript, 08/25/11 “California’s goofy train fixation could bankrupt the country” Human Events, 08/26/11 “Public applauds agency’s plan to buy toll road” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/26/11 “SANDAG considers how to pay for South Bay toll road” KPBS, 08/26/11 “SANDAG considering two options to buy South Bay Expressway” Lemon Grove Patch, 08/26/11 SANDAG considering two options to buy South Bay Expressway” Mount Helix Patch, 08/26/11 “SB 375 draws ire of tea party” California Planning & Development Report, 08/26/11 “News coverage of South Bay Expressway financing options” Fox Channel 5 News and Univision, 08/26/11

TA 6-68 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

August Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “Letters to the Editor: Time to get on (cont’d) track with high-speed rail” San Diego Union-Tribune, 08/28/11 “Agency’s plan for buying toll road wins public, board approval” The Daily Transcript, 08/29/11 “REGION: Car-dominated 56 corridor could see rapid bus line in future” North County Times, 08/31/11 September Board and TC reports on 2050 RTP: 1 2011 Summary of Public Comments and Proposed Changes SWG report on Proposed Changes to 1 the Draft 2050 RTP Newsletters, E-mail, SANDAG 17 Facebook page, SANDAG Web site, Envision 2050 Web site, and Web pages Presentations, public meetings, or 4 workshops on SANDAG 2050 RTP Media coverage: 36 “Long-planned coastal rail trail slowly taking shape” The Coast News, 09/01/11 “San Diego trolley turns 30 amid praise and higher expectations” KPBS, 09/02/11 “San Diego agency is less keen on using bonds to buy toll way” The Bond Buyer, 09/02/11 “SANDAG logs 4,000 comments on its 2050 transportation plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/02/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-69

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

September Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “REGION: 56 corridor bus line (cont’d) considered for region’s ‘wish list’” North County Times, 09/02/11 “Bills to shift bullet train oversight faltering” California Watch, 09/06/11 “SANDAG chooses between toll and tax funding for SBX” Project Finance, 09/06/11 “Cities urged to design streets for all users, not just cars” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/07/11 “A brown bag lunch with a glimpse into the future” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/07/11 “California bullet train funding slashed by House panel” Los Angeles Times, 09/08/11 “Kehoe’s I-5 bill heads to governor” North County Times, 09/09/11 “Kehoe passes legislation on I-5 improvements” San Diego Reader, 09/12/11 “Obama’s jobs bill offers $4 billion for high-speed rail” The Sacramento Bee: Capitol Alert, 09/12/11 “Group to call on politicians to halt climate change” San Diego Reader, 09/13/11

TA 6-70 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

September Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “SB 375 – Informational report on (cont’d) the San Diego Association of Government’s draft sustainable communities strategy” California Air Resources Board, 09/13/11 “Part 1: SANDAG relates to active transportation” Safe Routes to School California, 09/13/11 “Lights restored, SANDAG board to tackle 2050 RTP comments” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/14/11 “Kehoe’s I-5 bill awaits governor’s signature” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/14/11“In the public interest: Americans are driving less. Washington should pay attention” Huffington Post, 09/14/11 “FAA shutdown averted in Senate; Dems agree to give states discretion on bike and pedestrian projects” Transportation Nation, 09/15/11 “Carmel Valley to Solana Beach & Hwy 56 corridor bus line considered for region’s wish list” Ah-Ha! Rancho Santa Fe News, 09/15/11 “’Seal of approval’ created for local ‘smart growth’ projects” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/16/11 “Last-minute deal preserves bike/ped funding. But for how long?” D.C. Streets Blog, 09/16/11

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan TA 6-71

Table TA 6.5 – Public Involvement and Outreach Activities to Support Development of 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (Continued) SANDAG E-mail, Board/ Stakeholder rEgion, Media Policy Working Public Web Pages, Outreach Advisory Group Involvement/ and and Date Activity Committee (SWG) Presentations Advertising Coverage

September Media coverage (cont’d): 2011 “Lawsuits could stall high-speed rail (cont’d) plans” California Watch, 09/19/11 “SANDAG adopts revisions to 40-year transportation plan ahead of October vote” The Daily Transcript, 09/19/11 “Attorney general rips San Diego pollution-reduction plan” San Diego Union-Tribune, 09/21/11 “SANDAG making move on buying South Bay Expressway” Examiner.com, 09/21/11 “Senate amendment saves high speed rail – sort of” Transportation Nation, 09/21/11 “Sacramento is above the law” North County Times, 09/22/11 “Mira Mesa looks into its transit future” San Diego Union Tribune, 09/26/11

SANDAG/RTP stakeholders – 5,000 subscribers; SANDAG merged databases – 23,700 subscribers* 2050 RTP Web pages currently average 800 page views/month TC = Transportation Committee; RPC = Regional Planning Committee; BC = Borders Committee; PSC = Public Safety Committee

TA 6-72 Technical Appendix 6: 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach Program

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 10-11-1A NOVEMBER 19, 2010 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS

OCTOBER 8, 2010

Chair Lori Holt Pfeiler (Escondido) called the meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors to order at 10:02 a.m. The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached.

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS

There were no public comments, communications, or member comments at this time.

REPORTS (2 through 4)

2. 2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY (DISCUSSION)

The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) will be an integral part of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP), demonstrating how the regional development pattern, transportation network, policies, and programs can work together to achieve greenhouse gas emission targets for cars and light trucks. The SCS will be based upon four building blocks that have underpinned transportation planning in the San Diego region for many years: (1) a land use pattern that accommodates the region’s future employment and housing needs, and protects sensitive habitat and other resources; (2) a transportation network of public transit, highways, local streets, bikeways, and walkways; (3) transportation demand management strategies; and (4) transportation system management programs. The Board of Directors was asked to discuss the components for the key elements of the SCS.

Coleen Clementson, Principal Planner, provided the staff report.

Rob Rundle, Principal Planner, described the opportunities that were included in Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) for streamlining the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for certain types of residential/mixed-use and transit priority projects.

Chair Pfeiler noted there were several requests to speak on this item.

Hannah Cohen, representing Sustainable San Diego, encouraged SANDAG to use the resulting plans to derive maximum benefit. She questioned the benefits gained from transportation demand management efforts to alleviate peak period demand. She also noted that the discussion of transportation systems management strategies doesn’t mention transit priority measures. It is their hope that the RTP will create affordable transportation options for all people and encouraged SANDAG to evaluate the impacts on social equity and environmental justice.

Erin Steva, representing the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), encouraged the Board to adopt transportation policies that will most effectively move people by 2050. She stated her opinion that freeway expansion does not provide long-term mobility. She expressed support for more public transportation in the 2050 RTP.

Penni Takade, Executive Director of Move San Diego, asked for a comparison of the SCS against each of the scenarios. They also would like the project lists and the scoring criteria. She asked how regional plans are incorporated into the SCS and RTP. She expressed support for the Transit Emphasis Constrained scenario to meet the needs of the region.

Kathleen Ferrier, representing Walk San Diego, stated that the SCS provides a great opportunity to link land use, improve the jobs-housing balance, and encourage walking and biking. She requested that more funding be provided in the 2050 RTP to expand and promote pedestrian/bicycling activities in the region.

Board discussion ensued.

Action: This item was presented for discussion only.

3. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN DIEGO GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SOURCE (APPROVE)

At its September 10, 2010, meeting, the Executive Committee received a briefing on efforts to develop a regional Geographic Information System (GIS). After discussion, the Executive Committee directed staff to move forward with transferring certain responsibilities for the San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS) Public GIS Data Clearinghouse to SANDAG. The Board of Directors was asked to authorize the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with SanGIS, in substantially the same form as attached to the agenda report.

First Vice Chair Jerome Stocks (Encinitas) introduced this item.

Tim Sutherland, Principal Research Analyst, provided the staff report.

Action: Upon a motion by Second Vice Chair Jack Dale (Santee) and second by Councilmember Carrie Downey (Coronado), the Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with San Diego Geographic Information Source to develop a regional Geographic Information System. Yes – 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent - None .

4. CLOSED SESSION – CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8

Property: Lease for State Route 125 Toll Road SANDAG Negotiators: Gary L. Gallegos, Julie Wiley, Marney Cox Property Owner Negotiators: South Bay Expressway, LP

2 Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment for lease of subject property

Chair Pfeiler convened the meeting into a closed session at 11:08 a.m. The meeting was reconvened into open session at 11:55 a.m.

Julie Wiley, General Counsel, reported the following out of closed session: the Board directed staff to explore the opportunity of purchasing the lease owned by South Bay Expressway on the State Route 125 property.

5. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The next Board Business meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 22, 2010, at 9 a.m.

6. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

DGunn/M/DGU

3 Meeting Adjourned Time: 11:56 a.m. Meeting Start Time: 10:02 a.m. Minimum Time for Attendance Eligibility: 57 minutes or 10:59 a.m.

ATTENDANCE SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OCTOBER 8, 2010

JURISDICTION/ ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING

City of Carlsbad Matt Hall (Member) Yes City of Chula Vista Cheryl Cox (Primary) Yes City of Coronado Carrie Downey (Primary) Yes City of Del Mar Crystal Crawford (Primary) Yes City of El Cajon Mark Lewis (Primary) Yes City of Encinitas Jerome Stocks, 1st Vice Chair (Primary) Yes City of Escondido Lori Holt Pfeiler, Chair (Primary) Yes City of Imperial Beach Jim Janney (Primary) Yes City of La Mesa Art Madrid (Member) Yes City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom (Primary) Yes City of National City Ron Morrison (Member) Yes City of Oceanside Esther Sanchez (1st. Alt.) Yes City of Poway Don Higginson (Primary) Yes City of San Diego – A Jerry Sanders (Primary, Seat A) Yes City of San Diego - B Ben Hueso (Primary, Seat B) Yes City of San Marcos Rebecca Jones (2nd. Alt.) Yes City of Santee Jack Dale (2nd Vice Chair) Yes City of Solana Beach Lesa Heebner (Primary) Yes City of Vista Judy Ritter (Primary) Yes County of San Diego - A Pam Slater-Price (Primary, Seat B) Yes County of San Diego - B Bill Horn (Primary, Seat A) Yes Caltrans Laurie Berman (1st. Alt. Yes MTS Harry Mathis (Member) Yes NCTD Bob Campbell (Primary) Yes Imperial County Wally Leimgruber (Member) No US Dept. of Defense CAPT Keith Hamilton (Member) No SD Unified Port District Scott Peters (Member) Yes SD County Water Authority Mark Muir (Primary) Yes Baja California/Mexico Remedios Gómez-Arnau (Member) No Southern California Tribal Allen Lawson (Member) No Chairmen’s Association Edwin Romero (Member) Yes

4

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy

Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports

CBO Outreach Period: January 2010 to July 2011

Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports

Phase I Reports: January 2010 to September 2010

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010

TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEYS TOTAL WORKSHOPS/FOCUS DISTRIBUTED OUTREACH PRIMARY AUDIENCE CBO GRANT RECIPIENT GROUPS OR COMPLETED STATISTICS DEMOGRAPHICS REGIONS REACHED Low income Balboa Park, Mid- Able-Disabled Advocacy 6 0 160 Disabled City, Mission Bay and Veteran South San Diego regions, and the City of Chula Vista South San Diego residents Southeastern region All Congregations Together 2 100 150 African American of the City of San Distributed community Diego

South San Diego residents Southern region of Casa Familiar 6 270 300 Latino community the City of San Estimated Distribution Spanish language Diego, San Ysidro Latino community Southwest Chula Chula Vista Community Collaborative 7 188 270 Seniors Vista and the City of Distributed Low income families Chula Vista Spanish language Volunteers Nonprofit staff East county residents Downtown El Cajon, El Cajon Collaborative 7 223 603+ Transit riders City of El Cajon, and Completed Seniors East San Diego Includes one Includes online Low income County community event and outreach of 380+ Middle Eastern refugees online outreach Arabic language Nonprofit staff Seniors North, East, and Friends of Adult Day Health Care 4 243 393 Disabled South San Diego Centers Completed Caregivers/family County Spanish language Senior services staff SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010

TOTAL NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER OF SURVEYS TOTAL WORKSHOPS/FOCUS DISTRIBUTED OUTREACH PRIMARY AUDIENCE CBO GRANT RECIPIENT GROUPS OR COMPLETED STATISTICS DEMOGRAPHICS REGIONS REACHED Seniors Linda Vista Linda Vista Collaborative 7 96 112 Latino community neighborhood of the Distributed Vietnamese community City of San Diego Hmong community Filipino community Spanish language Mixteco language Community leaders Nonprofit/agency staff Border community City of San Ysidro San Ysidro Business Association 5 418 1615 San Ysidro businesses Completed San Ysidro residents Includes two College students community outreach Say Ysidro families with events for survey school-age children

SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010

WORKSHOP OR FOCUS GROUP FINDINGS SUBMITTED BY GRANT RECIPIENTS

ABLE-DISABLED ADVOCACY

How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region?  Working lifts on buses for people with mobility limitations, as well as more space inside buses for disabled riders.  More security and shelter at trolley and bus stations.  Install video cameras inside of trolleys and buses for passenger safety.  Add designated lanes on freeways and highways for buses only to reduce transit travel time.  Increase bus routes in low-income neighborhoods.  Connect transit services with major employment and activity centers.

What kind of transportation improvements should be considered?  Buses/vehicles and trolleys designed for riders with disabilities.  Expand trolley services to more areas of San Diego County beyond the south and east regions of the county.  Public transportation should run more frequently especially during rush hours and on nights and weekends.  Improved security on public transit including bus and trolley stations.

What are your community’s highest priorities for a transportation system?  Expand trolley services to more areas of San Diego County.  Improve accessibility on public transit for people with disabilities and senior riders.  Bus and trolley operators need to be more patient and respectful of people with disabilities and senior riders.  Improved security on public transit including bus and trolley stations.  Improved accessibility to transit facilities, such as sidewalks and parking for people with disabilities and senior riders.

What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services?  Reduce the cost to operate the transit system by using more fuel- and maintenance-efficient vehicles.  Fees from carpool lanes and FasTrak lanes.  Balance the transit and reduce unnecessary spending.  Charge a fee to use some roads during congested travel hours.

What feedback would you give the decision makers?  Reduce the cost to operate the transit system by using more fuel- and maintenance-efficient vehicles.  Fees from carpool lanes and FasTrak lanes.  Balance the transit and reduce unnecessary spending.  Charge a fee to use some roads during congested travel hours. Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: Low-income/disabled community members expressed concerns regarding the relationship between the expansion of road, light rail, and other modalities to the cost. Specifically, they were concerned that the cost of public transportation would increase as a result of increases in services and routes.

All Congregations Together (These are direct responses from focus group attendees and survey participants)

How can we improve the San Diego County transportation system?  I work with clients who do not have transportation. We need more buses and tokens for more buses.  I have no complaints.  Buses should run more often.  More trolley stops.  Affordable for college students. Include more routes in North County, such as Del Mar and Caramel Valley.  A ride for handicapped people.  Need buses to pick up people who don’t have transportation.  I’ve been here a month. Out of all the cities I’ve lived in, this is the best.  Transportation for everybody.  Actually, I think they are improving.  Have more buses.  Right now, San Diego is more oriented toward vehicles. We can improve the transportation system by making it more pedestrian friendly;  multi-modal; make the areas more mixed use so that families can walk to all needed destinations.  More bus stops in Spring Valley and El Cajon.  Use cleaner/fuel efficient buses.  It can be more accessible and affordable.  More monorail. Run them through the middle section of already established freeways.  To broaden locations so one can travel via public transportation.  It needs to reach into communities like southeastern and Sherman Heights.  Customer service, pedestrian friendly.  Having viable and affordable transportation.  Being on a regular schedule.  By having transportation available in all areas of San Diego; have better routes that will be available in the community.  Better routes, mandatory customer service training, better equipment.  Increase the number of buses so patrons do not have to wait so long. Easier to get on and off the bus for seniors.  Advertise your services. I had no knowledge of your services and I am a community-minded person.  Rethink the bus route cuts by senior housing. Eliminating these routes makes seniors walk further to the bus stop.  Run more buses down Imperial.  By duplicating ACT’s efforts in providing bus transportation.  Hours more convenient and connecting points more affordable.  Free transportation afforded to all low- and moderate-income seniors.  By having lower transportation costs for seniors.  More buses in service.  Bus stops made accessible to the handicapped.  Adjust the time schedule.  Make sure people get picked up on time at the stop.  Increased advertisement.  Additional buses during school dismissal times. Additional shuttle buses from senior communities. Some sort of rapid transit that runs regularly throughout San Diego.  By being trustworthy.  Even lower fares for transit.  Having more holiday buses and vans.  Add more buses on schedule.  We, as seniors, need weekend transportation.  Reduce fare for round trips.  Longer service (MTS).  Lower rates and better times for buses.  Have more stops.  Improve it for people by helping us get around.  More awnings and seats at bus stops.  Vehicles that can go into smaller vehicles.  People shouldn’t pay for a wheelchair lift to go to the doctor.  Transportation to parks and casinos.  Be consistent in schedule and restore service to routes 4, 11, and 30.  24-hour service.  Public transportation for seniors/disabled.  Smaller vehicles to access the hills and canyons of San Diego.  Run air conditioner longer during hot summer months. Also have a back up in case the air conditioner fails.  More transportation in the Encanto area, especially up and down the hilly areas.  By being more dependable.  Need more buses.  Re-establish canceled routes.  By changing the prices.  Maybe you can get them to come more often.  Be on time.  You can take it back to the way that it used to be around four months ago.  We can improve the transportation by using the seniors.  More bus stop benches on Imperial; put back the 31st Street stop.  By lowering the prices on the bus passes.  Not charge so much money; the bus should have a better schedule.  By allowing all persons with disabilities to utilize your services.  More bus stops.  Frequent services.  More affordable prices; take and use more rider input.  Better security.  More routes, more frequency. In some cities (Chicago for sure), seniors of a certain age ride free.  Make it more convenient.  More accessible transportation for senior citizens and disabled persons.

What kinds of transportation improvements should be considered?  Buses, tokens.  Yearly bus passes.  Making sure that disabled individuals have access and those with bicycles, walkers and scooters.  More trolleys.  Hybrid – environmentally friendly.  To help seniors get around.  To help seniors get back and forth to the doctor.  Possibly monetarily, if feasible.  If it’s near.  Longer buses.  All are valid.  Pedestrian walkways; traffic calming; multi-modal streets; more bike lanes and crosswalks.  The times that the buses run could be improved. Running earlier and later.  Smaller buses with more stops.  Accommodation.  Special system for kids, seniors, and physically challenged.  Trolleys that go north and south, as well as east and west.  Routes, signals, safety (to and from transportation stations).  Community transport.  More consistent.  Those that can’t get by without having more routes available.  Short runs through the city to grocery stores, doctor offices, church services, etc.  Adjust ticket fares for children under middle school age when traveling with grandparents, nannies and parents.  More shuttles to seniors’ doors; more wheelchair transportation.  Available to all seniors and handicapped.  People act senior citizen friendly.  I am pleased you keep your transportation upgraded.  Transportation provided seven days a week including holidays.  Timely.  Have 15-minute buses on the weekends.  Van services to seniors or the handicapped at their residence.  Adjust the drivers.  Buses should run 24 hours.  More rides for seniors.  More buses in the southeastern area.  Bus stops that are closer together; shelters to wait for transit out of the sun, rain, and wind.  Door to door for seniors with wheelchair accessibility.  More vans, flexible hours. Should not have to wait too long for pick up.  More pick-up times for seniors to doctors and social services.  Reduce prices.  Improvements for young people to schools in our area.  I’m not sure.  More security. Don’t wait until the bus gets bombed to fix the problem.  More bus stops and routes.  More ways to get to the airport and the beach. Inland to Del Mar and Solana Beach. Bus thru Del Dios Highway leaving North County Fair in Escondido.  Make it more affordable.  More door-to-door service.  More mobile vehicles available.  Greater green and more use of community resources.  More door-to-door services for seniors and for people who use medical vans, cabs, etc.  Train drivers in better customer service. Conduct periodic checks on buses.  More small buses for adults.  Increase time span.  Schedule time for appointments and come within scheduled time.  More transportation for wheelchairs.  Rapid transit in and around the county.  The bus.  Bus.  If the disabled person isn’t outside waiting maybe you can call the house and see if anything is wrong.  Transportation for wheelchairs seniors.  Later times for the 11-4-3.  More bus routes.  Have longer bus hours.  Whatever is best for the city.  More buses.  Frequent service and service to community such as North Encanto.  Youth transportation program.  Provide entertainment on buses and trolleys.  Bus lines.  All.  Free transportation for senior citizens.

What are the biggest priorities for the transportation system?  To help the community of southeast.  That people get where they are going.  Making sure stops are comfortable and safe.  The trolleys.  I am not working for the transportation system. Sorry, I am not qualified to answer the question.  We need more buses.  Need more buses.  Cleanliness, safety, be on time.  Being on time.  Always being on time.  Space available.  Bike lanes; walking paths/crosswalks; roundabouts; more areas for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles to co-exist.  Being on time! Being accessible!  Rates and community needs.  Availability.  Price and routes.  Affordable and accessible.  Safety, efficiency, quick to access.  Transport fees.  More drivers.  Being available.  Timing, safety equipment, ADA equipment working, and time schedule. Improve and increase the benches to make waiting more comfortable.  Handicap accessible. Good drivers.  Going to doctor appointments.  To assist people in a safe manner of transportation, work special events, church on Sundays, and kids to school.  Moving people more quickly.  Assisting all seniors and handicaps.  Reaching seniors who have no transportation.  Making sure medical transportation is provided to clients in a timely manner.  Advertise more to non-drivers.  Cost.  Careful drivers.  More women should be bus drivers.  Let more seniors know about the program.  Improve the timeliness of the bus.  Serving more areas of San Diego County and in a more timely fashion.  Being on time and being kind.  Medical appointments.  Being on time.  Seniors and disabled need more buses.  Road improvements.  The bus should have more frequent stops.  Getting from one point to another.  Picking up people on time. Having enough seats.  Time.  Electric wheelchair lift to doctor offices.  Safety and reasonable prices.  Safety, courtesy.  Convenience is always the key to service.  By getting to a place faster.  Money.  To get people to and from their destination on time with connecting buses and trolleys.  Transport to more communities.  Cheaper prices.  You should be careful of taking the trolley or bus.  Not on time.  Getting people from one place to another.  Transportation passes.  Getting the public safely to their destinations.  Safety for the people.  Run in more neighborhoods.  Frequent running times.  Being on time.  Accessible and frequent service.  Affordable rates, customer satisfaction.  Disabled and bicycles.  Maintenance, additional routes, safety.  Not convenient.  More accessible transportation and free transportation.  Better transportation for seniors.  Bus stop benches in southeast San Diego.  More senior buses for older people to get to their different doctors.  Run later hours.  Fee reduction.  More buses.  Frequent service to inaccessible areas.  Extended hours.  Convenience of routes.  Vouchers for low income.  More routes, more runs.  Longer time at stops to enable people to get across the street more safely.  Economics.  Growth that is vital to the community running smoothly. Convenience, comfort, and safety within the neighborhood.  Planning and look at results of past strategies.  Have to read more about it. I was not aware it existed.

What is smart growth and how does it affect you?  I work for a community that needs help with the transportation issues.  It’s more of a relaxed setting for people.  Is green, clean and with the future in mind.  Smart growth is monitoring the way the community grows and making sure it has maximum benefits.  Not sure.  To help seniors.  Growing at steady pace, not too fast; need to grow and expand at a moderate rate.  Making it better for everybody in area.  It helps us get to where we need to grow.  Being able to serve the masses.  Smart growth is designing our communities in a way that they experience multi-modal travel which is community friendly.  It increases the ease in which I use my community resources.  I’m part of the community and I can utilize a share.  Convenient for everyone.  Smart growth is like one stop shopping.  Being sensible to the environment and where I live.  Work, home, children, safety – increase of people who have easy access to home, work, etc.  A better community.  Smart growth is education.  Don’t know … community-based transportation.  Community unity means power. Having community transportation to events would be a better outcome.  Urban development partners.  I would like to take the bus to work but it does not stop close to my house.  Is considering the time and convenience.  It seems like it may be environment friendly.  Mass transit increases public transportation.  I’m glad it is available. I want to be involved in the improvement of my community.  My mom is a senior citizen. She needs more reliable van services.

How should we promote alternative commute choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks?  Carpooling.  Television and radio.  Getting the information to the community so that they can make better choices.  More billboard advertising.  Coupons and discounts to encourage use of San Diego public transportation.  Watch more closely and pray.  Radio and television ads. Get word of mouth out there to the public.  Every car could be checked.  Find one way for all to travel in.  Build places that don’t need transportation.  We should have more incentives for employers. Also purchase vehicles that leave small carbon footprints.  Carpool: Have parking lots in communities where people can park and take a carpool van to work.  Cleaner/recycled fuel.  More advertisements.  Monorail all over the city.  Set up ride shares for people in the same group.  Make sure working parents have an affordable way to get to work, and use schools as transportation hubs.  Information to the community.  Carpool.  Don’t know.  More discounts for consistent ridership.  Find cleaner emission systems.  Donation.  Keep using gas alternative buses.  Offer incentives.  Bus, trolley, and reduced rate taxi service.  Have more routes around the county.  More stops.  Make it accommodating, affordable, and safe.  Fliers, mail inserts, commercials.  Bikes, electric cars.  More public transportation.  Carpooling. Van pooling.  Radio, churches.  No car; bus/train isn’t going anywhere.  Car and van pools.  Add more service.  By using a different type of source.  Contact all nonprofit housing offices, Cox cable community service, gospel radio, Voice and Viewpoint, Reader, and The Monitor.  Ride available transportation more.  Tighter restriction on border crossing traffic from Mexico.  By using different type of source.  Hand out fliers.  Make the community more aware of natural gas engines because it will help save the Earth.  By taking the bus more often.  Drive less; be sure to get good gas.  Make more cars with fewer emissions.  Non-gas vehicles.  Internet.  Invest in hybrid technologies.  Trains.  Public service announcements.  Radio.  Carpooling, sharing rides.

What feedback would you give new decision makers?  To keep us informed as an agency.  That change is always good for positive thinking for a better tomorrow.  Make sure you hold public forms so that affected citizens can make their needs and wishes known.  Keep the environment in mind. We need more parks and somewhere suitable for the homeless.  More information to the public.  Get the public’s views. We are the ones who use the services.  Attend the meetings.  Slow and steady wins the race.  To be more productive.  Make smart growth a priority. Develop ways to encourage their companies/cities to be more environmentally friendly. Give more tax breaks to communities and families who make decisions to lessen their emissions.  Ask the community you serve about their needs.  Think about the needs of community and poll the neighborhoods.  To make sure to include different age groups, cultures, and interests in surveys.  Pay attention to jobs in communities where public transportation is needed.  Safety, increase of population increases everything.  A safe community and affordable fees.  Encouragement.  Looking into where people commute more and plan routes there.  To think of more ideas.  To be patient with disabled individuals.  You are doing a great job. Keep up the good work.  Please let San Diego be the lead city in terrorist prevention on its transit system.  I would like to ride the train, but it is very expensive to go long distances like Northern California or Las Vegas. Why can’t we catch the train to Vegas?  Keep an open mind.  Listen to the people you serve to maximize effort and results.  Incorporate everybody in the community even if they don’t need the services.  Keep an open mind.  We don’t need the Compass Card exclusively. Offer paper passes.  Go green.  Listen, listen, listen to the public comments.  Certain neighborhood buses and trolleys stop early.  Get more feedback from seniors.  Listen to what the constituents are saying.  Have better transportation for seniors.  Listen to public input.  Please increase and restore service cuts.  To improve the transit system.  Come down off your high horses and make a decision for the betterment of the people and not all the time for money.  Make sure their decision is what the passengers’ desire.  Be on point.  To improve more things.  Listen to the voice of the community.  To ask God to guide them in service.  Have more committees. We need more representation from each district – all eight districts and the county.  Pay close attention to small print.  Reduce gas vehicles. Make it accessible and usable.  Positive.  Listen to the riders.  Look at everything.

Comments on Senior Transportation Improvements  That is our big priority.  I don’t know too much about senior transportation.  More room for wheelchair accessible trolleys and buses.  None.  Haven’t been here long enough to answer.  Be kind to them.  Having all of them sit in the front.  Live longer.  Americans with Disabilities Act: Ensuring that streets/trolley stops/train stations/bus stops support the modality of the seniors.  Let the churches know and advertise on KURS.  Seniors are able to get out and feel safe about getting out. Public transportation is not senior friendly.  They need reliable transportation and affordable fees or free.  Excellent senior transportation through ACT from Faith Chapel.  Be more patient.  Security. I still see fighting on trolley cars.  More frequency.  Listen to seniors.  Have medics on board in case something happens.  Have more pickup points; affordable to low income; discounts for elderly disabilities.  Need to help out the seniors.  I just know that the seniors should be thought of.  Bus drivers enforcing the senior and disabled seats to be vacated by able-bodied riders.  Ask all young people to get up and let the older people sit down when the buses are full.  I would like to see more publicity; go to more areas; more pick up days a week.  More free transportation for seniors.  Contact information would be helpful.

Additional Comments  There is a need for more transportation and tokens.  More transportation options should be available for residents going on social events.  Your concerns are a good move to motivate new thinking in close-minded people. Good job.  Always keep the air and our elderly and disabled in mind along with the homeless and those less fortunate, and as always God Bless you.  Overall so far, I’m very impressed with the trolley and bus systems. They have been on time for the most part and clean.  Elevated rail extension to Lemon Grove.  Seniors need more help with affordable transportation options.  Widen streets more than two lanes.  I think this is a great thing to do for whomever it may concern.  This information on transportation is wonderful.  We need more wheelchair ramps on curbs.  Keep up the good work.  Need additional transportation for non-emergency situations.  Need young people to have free, safe transportation to all communities.  More bus routes down Imperial besides just route 4.  Smart growth is an absolute must for communities that are experiencing disproportionate rates of lung diseases such as asthma, COPD, lung cancer.  Make San Diego more accessible.  Implement more traffic circles in lieu of stop signs.  More senior services.  Need to correct entry onto 94 Freeway from 47 and A Street at immediate entry of 805.  More access to 24-Hour Fitness located on Imperial Avenue.  Make it a pleasure to spend our money with you.  Extra transportation is always good in this community.  Thank you.  Add shopping center nearby our neighborhood.  Need more transportation for grocery shopping.  Increase more transportation to help us get to more jobs in North County.  No widening of streets.  Make it a pleasure to spend our money with you.  Extra transportation is always good in this community.  I am glad to hear about ACT’s community service transportation.  I think more Blacks should vote and learn about loans and grants. Make sure when Blacks get loans that the interest is the same. All public schools should offer the same subjects and up-to-date books.  A stop light at the 50th and Imperial intersection.  Walkability.  More streets should have “keep clear signs.”  Add signs for school crossings.  Roswell and Market: Build-up of traffic from cars trying to get to the left-hand turn.  Need some traffic lights close to schools for precaution.  Need stop signs in certain areas.

All Congregations Together

Smart Growth Focus Group Notes 6-29-10

What brings you here?  Work  Church  Soul food  Shop  School  Recreation / Social Activities

What would you like to see in your community?  Affordable housing including home ownership, rent to own; 60% ownership, 40% renting.  Jobs exceeding entry level, careers, career building.  Health care facilities including mental health facilities, affordable outpatient services.  Affordable childcare, sliding scale with licensed daycare workers.  Community garden/locally grown produce sold within community/farmers market.  Upscale shopping and dining.  Community library.  Veteran services.  Regular grocery store like Ralphs, Vons, and Albertsons with full services provided.  Close storefronts like Green Cat Liquor Store.  Preserve open areas and create more parks and recreation centers.  More funding for K- 8th grade.  College in community.  Community crime prevention through environmental design, such as use of lighting, fences, garage directions, visibility, alley clean up, gang activity prevention.

CASA FAMILIAR

How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? The biggest answer yet to this question is that community members feel the increase in fees has reduced their access. Changes in what was previously allowed for transfers also have reduced their access. Now they feel transfers are only given at the $5 fare whereas previously they would be able to get one at the single-trip fare. As far as where people would like transportation to go, of 95 answers, 42 would like to go to entertainment venues, 18 would like to go to places and cities outside of the South Bay region, 21 would like border connections, and 14 stated access to schools.

What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Connectivity – people would use more transit if it provided faster transport to the north and east communities of San Diego and if it went to other locations, particularly theme parks and entertainment venues. The reduction in overall connections that can happen from north San Ysidro have really impacted people using the system because they now have to wait much longer for connections to Chula Vista/Eastlake and San Diego. Sunday service has been the most affected. A better complaint system for recovering lost change/fares from the self-ticketing machines would offer a much better way for community members to get their money back. College students should be given a reduced rate.

What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Fare reduction for communities such as San Ysidro that have higher ridership. Other priorities might be consideration of family fares that make it more feasible for families to ride transit, as well as a college student fare.

What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? Focus on providing incentives for higher use communities. Form cross collaborations with school districts and private jitney/shuttle providers that pay for school transportation or that can identify a new fee structure for students. We do not support current kiosk development around the San Ysidro Trolley Station, but we do support building a new multiple-story (four to six stories) transit center that can generate retail rental income, as well as income from private transportation space and ticketing rental.

What feedback would you give the decision makers? Feedback is similar to answer above, which is to focus on incentives for higher use communities and communities that have a higher pedestrian population. We also recommend the development of a new San Ysidro transit center that charges rent to private transportation providers and focuses on increasing pedestrian use at this heavily used station instead of cutting off economic income potential by leaving the trolley in the existing location.

Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: There is a feeling of insecurity when walking in the area, especially at night. Beyer Boulevard improvements and lighting are needed leading to the trolley stop to provide for better security.

Chula Vista Community Collaborative

How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? Make it affordable and simpler to use. Make it faster and easier to get from one place to another. Connect more areas east to west. Create more compact areas that include more options such as recreation, schools, and jobs.

What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Transportation should be affordable for families and for adults, as well as for students. Bus stops should be safer, with more lighting and be more attractive. Create an incentive program for businesses to encourage employees to use transportation. Take into consideration that low-income families need better and more affordable access to transportation.

What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Affordability, accessibility, and safety (at trolley stations). We also need to connect west and east Chula Vista.

What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? None suggested. Community residents feel this should be funded by government funds.

What feedback would you give the decision makers? Further consideration should be made for communities in greater need in our county. All communities are not the same, and transportation services should be targeted to the needs of the residents of a community. It is unreasonable to expect low-income families to use a transportation system that is not affordable or does not provide easier access to and from work/school.

Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: Transportation should be available 24 hours a day. Transportation should be faster – taking a bus/trolley should be faster than driving. Cannot use transportation that families cannot afford. Need discounted bus tickets for students; include adult students in youth discounts. Need more accessible locations to purchase bus passes.

EL CAJON COLLABORATIVE

How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? For all respondents: Lower fares, serving more areas currently without service, and more reliable bus/trolley services were the top three things that would need to change first for people to use public transit more often. These are also the top priorities for the “non-riders” who only travel a few times per year or never (61% of the individuals surveyed).

What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Better pricing on public transit, increased frequency of bus/trolley, and more reliable service.

What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Better pricing on public transit, increased frequency of bus/trolley, and more reliable service.

What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? A majority (68%) of the participants in our outreach said they would like federal grants and gas taxes to be a part of the solution for funding ongoing transportation system upgrades and changes.

What feedback would you give the decision makers?  Cleanliness of public transit and nice drivers were consistently identified as positives about the system.  For the most part, access to bus stops and trolley stations in El Cajon were seen as convenient.  Increased evening and weekend frequency, or increased frequency on specific bus lines consistently arose as a need.  Poway, Escondido, Balboa Park, the airport and beaches were all listed as destinations where people cannot currently get to conveniently, but would like to on public transit.

Ideas for pricing improvements included:  Special fares for families and groups.  Better information about advance passes and discounts (barrier to using transit is “having to fumble around with money at the station”).  Weekend only passes.  Special fares for certain times of the day (during high traffic times, cheaper prices).  Special pricing on passes for travel within certain areas – specifically El Cajon/East Region.  Replacing “day” passes based on date of purchase with “24-hour” passes based on time of purchase.

Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: Please see attached summary of survey results.

El Cajon Collaborative Summary of All Outreach  Engagement of 223 individuals with SANDAG RTP presentations and outreach with surveys in person.  Multiple online outreach efforts to 380+ individuals involved with the El Cajon Collaborative included SANDAG RTP information, events, and requests to participate in RTP Survey developed by SANDAG.  Outreach yielded in-person survey feedback from a diverse population: o 30% White o 13% Latino/Hispanic o 45% Middle Eastern o 1% Black/African American o 11% Other o 68% were between the ages of 25-65, 26% were aged 66+ (18% of which were over age 75), 6% were under age 25  23% of the survey participants use the bus/trolley system at least once per week.  61% of the survey participants use the bus/trolley system a few times per year or never.  For all respondents: Llower fares, serving more areas currently without service, and more reliable bus/trolley services were the top three things that would need to change first for people to use public transit more often. This also was true for the “non-riders” who travel a few times a year or never.  “Non-riders” tended to be younger, 52% were under age 40

The following pages summarize each of our in-person outreach events, with detailed comments that were captured during verbal conversation about what participants like and dislike regarding the transportation system in San Diego. Some key themes of all the feedback include:

 Cleanliness of public transit and nice drivers were consistently identified as positives about the system.  For the most part, access to bus stops and trolley stations in El Cajon were seen as convenient.  Increased evening and weekend frequency, or increased frequency on specific bus lines consistently arose as a need.  Poway, Escondido, Balboa Park, the airport and beaches were all listed as destinations where people can not currently get to conveniently, but would like to on public transit.  Ideas for pricing improvements included: o Special fares for families and groups o Better information about advance passes and discounts (barrier to using transit is “having to fumble around with money at the station”) o Weekend only passes o Special fares for certain times of the day (during high traffic times, cheaper prices) o Special pricing on passes for travel within certain areas – specifically El Cajon/East Region o Replacing “day” passes based on date of purchase with “24-hour” passes based on time of purchase

El Cajon Collaborative Older Adult Outreach Event at Salvation Army

The event went well. We gave a presentation and most attendees were interested in filling out the survey and giving some feedback. Since we were working with older adults, it was a more challenging process to get them to share verbal feedback. Many preferred to have a one-on-one conversation or were more comfortable writing comments on their agendas. We took extra time to make the accommodations needed for the group.

Summarized Verbal Comments from the Salvation Army Event

Positive feedback on the bus and trolley system:  Trolleys have gotten cleaner.  The bus route 834/835 has increased frequency.  The system has nice people who help me get where I need to go.

Feedback regarding what is needed and ideas to consider for the future:  Smaller buses for areas that don’t need a large bus capacity, but still need service.  A trolley from El Cajon to the Wild Animal Park area and Escondido.  Bus service on Hardell Avenue needs accommodation for disabled individuals who cannot walk from Avocado.  More transportation frequency in the evening/weekend times.  Improved road conditions, fewer potholes.  Bigger bus stations (more trolley/transit type stations that are hubs).  Cleaner buses and safer drivers.  Marketing for carpool lanes that includes people who like each other.  Extending the green lights for buses – “rapid buses.”  Quieter buses.

Summarized Survey Feedback from the Salvation Army Event

 How can transportation in San Diego County and especially in East County be improved? The top two responses were “Serve more areas without any bus or trolley service” and “Lower bus or trolley fares” with 9% of the responses each.  How should we pay for transportation system improvements? The top response was “federal grants” with 36% of the responses.  How often do you use public transportation (bus, trolley, train, etc.)? Forty-one percent (41%) of the respondents said “A few times per year.” Thirty percent (30%) said “At least once per week.”  Which locations do you usually use public transportation to get to? The top response was “store” with 28%.  What information do you want leaders to consider when making decisions about the transportation system? 40% stated “traffic congestion” and 31% chose “community health.”  What needs to change first in order for you to utilize public transportation on a regular basis? The top response was “safer bus and trolley stations” with 11% of the total responses.  2% of respondents were under age 25, 2% were 25-40, 30% were 41-65, 19% were 66-75, 26% were 76-85, and 21% (11 respondents) were 85+.  75% of respondents indicated they are “White,” 8% percent indicated “Hispanic,” 2% “Middle Eastern,” 2% “African American,” and 14% indicated “other.”

El Cajon Collaborative Downtown El Cajon Neighborhood Groups

To gather some of our feedback, we outreached and surveyed smaller neighborhood-based groups with close proximity to the El Cajon Trolley Station through the El Cajon Community Development Corporation. By using the smaller groups, we had to do more outreach events, but it provided a more personalized and better opportunity for engagement and discussion regarding the RTP and the transportation planning process.

Summarized Verbal Comments from El Cajon Neighborhood Group Events

Positive feedback on the bus and trolley system from El Cajon neighborhood groups:  Trolleys are convenient and consistent during the weekdays.  Like the 15-minute schedule.  Like the round trip pass price for seniors.  Drivers who check for people who are running or trying to get on a bus/trolley and waiting.  Like the color coding system – helpful when looking at the map.  Like the DC Metro system.  Trolleys are peaceful.  Trolleys are inexpensive relative to gas.  Like air conditioning/heating.  Like announcements for coming trains.  Like the “driver alert buttons.”  Trolleys are helpful during events/games.  Presence of safety officers at El Cajon trolley station is critical and helpful for surrounding community.  Cleanliness of trolleys and stations.  Plenty of open seats on trolleys.  Close proximity to trolley station is advertised by property owners and apartment managers as an attractive feature of the location.  Access to bus stops and trolley stations in El Cajon seen as convenient and easy.

Feedback from El Cajon neighborhood groups regarding what is needed and ideas to consider for the future:  Need more trolley lines.  Need direct service to airport.  Need better information and signs on and off the bus/trolley. Riders want to know when the next bus/trolley is coming when they are at the stop and once they are on the bus/trolley when they will get to their next stop.  More lighting on streets surrounding trolley stations.  More patrols by local law enforcement.  Consider demographic changes in the future – density close to transit is a good idea, but will need multiple language support at stops and stations.  Need better bus schedules so you don’t end up waiting for more than one hour.  Weekend only passes, better information about advance passes and discounts (do not like to fumble around with money at the station or on the bus).  Need to change perceptions of public transit to increase ridership.  Increase ridership so it pays for more lines and frequency.  Need more trolley lines with fewer stops, especially during rush hours – currently standing room only.  Consider an express trolley for East County workers during rush hours (i.e. stops in Santee, El Cajon, La Mesa, and then directly Downtown).  Need route to Poway.  Need 24-hour security guards on trolley platforms and in parking lot. Won’t currently ride at night.  Need shelter on trolley stop for rain and other elements.  Need more business near transit stops.  Regarding freeways: Need express lanes instead of carpool lanes.  Regarding bus system: Bus passes are too expensive due to current 20% increase.  Increase ridership by linking bus system and trolley to tourism (i.e. Hotel Circle to San Diego Zoo and Downtown).  Use tourism to help pay for future infrastructure needs.  Vintage train route from Julian to Ramona to promote tourist ridership? Could also create extra income for other infrastructure projects?  Bus stop closer to Parkway Plaza (the Arnele stop is too far away).  Still a need for Dial-a-Ride, or a similar program.  GPS bus tracking system visible at stops – people waiting would like to know how far away their ride is.  Trolley is too expensive for families/groups going to events together (cheaper to drive).  Time it takes to gets to a destination is a deterrent (easier to drive). Pacific Beach to Spring Valley took one person four hours; she called it an “all-day affair.”  Bus only lanes on freeways.  Trash cans at all bus stops and on all buses. It does not always feel clean.  Hand sanitizer available on buses.  Smaller buses for low-volume routes.

Summarized Survey Feedback from El Cajon Neighborhood Events

 For the question: “How can transportation in San Diego County and especially in East County be improved?” The top two responses were “More reliable bus or trolley service” and “Lower bus or trolley fares” with 9% of the responses each. “Safer stations,” “Better information at stops,” and “More weekend/evening service” also were ranked highly.  For the question: “How should we pay for transportation system improvements?” The top responses were “gas taxes” and “federal grants” with 32% and 30% of the respective responses.  For the question: “How often do you use public transportation (bus, trolley, train, etc.)?” 47% of the respondents said “A few times per year,” 15% said “At least once per week.”  For the question: “Which locations do you usually use public transportation to get to?” The top response was “social events” with 23%, followed closely by “store” and “recreation.”  For the question: “What information do you want leaders to consider when making decisions about the transportation system?” The respondents did not have a clear preference with 36% stating “traffic congestion” and 31% choosing “community health” and “air quality.”  For the question: “What needs to change first in order for you to utilize public transportation on a regular basis?” The top response was “Safer bus and trolley stations” with 17% of the total responses.  14% of the respondents were under age 25, 34% were 25-40, 37% were 41-65, 6% were 66-75, 9% were 76-85, and no one was 85+.  53% of the respondents indicated they are “Hispanic,” 26% percent indicated “White,” 3% “Middle Eastern,” 0% “African American,” and 18% indicated “other.”

El Cajon Collaborative Arabic Speaking Refugee Client Outreach The outreach event with Arabic speaking refugee clients was more challenging because it was larger, but proved to be informative for the attendees and facilitators. One challenge we encountered is that many individuals were interested in “staying involved” but their English skills are not at a high enough level to receive e-mails from SANDAG and follow along on the Web-based materials. To address the language barrier, as time allows, we can provide updates through our partners (in Arabic) and hope to continue valuing their feedback as the RTP progresses.

Summarized Verbal Comments from Arabic-speaking Community Outreach Event:

Positive feedback on the bus and trolley system from Arabic-speaking community event:  Rules of the road are good.  Safe and clean.  The bus comes on time.  Drivers are usually helpful.  Drivers have good clothes/nice uniforms to be identified.  Accessible for people with bikes/disabled/elderly.  Transit station in El Cajon is comfortable and safe. Feedback from Arabic speaking community event regarding what is needed and ideas to consider for the future:  More buses and transportation are needed within El Cajon.  Fees should be lower.  Need information in Arabic and other languages – more translation.  More frequency on the 874, 875 and 816 bus lines.  Less of a delay between buses during the day.  Move the bus stops further from the stoplights (particularly at Main Street and Washington in El Cajon) as intersections are dangerous.  Covered bus stops are needed.  Make it easier to pay for buses/trolley – provide change.  Allow for purchase of 24-hour pass instead of “day” pass based on date.  Better information for visitors and people who speak other languages on the toll roads (one participant had a very bad experience).  Find ways to shorten times between destinations.  Too expensive to travel with a family – provide a family rate?  One mile is too far to walk to a bus stop, provide closer stops.  Hard to use for people who don’t speak English and aren’t familiar with the system.  There is not enough information about where the bus is going and the stops that it will make along the way.  Bus passes for travel within El Cajon only, also El Cajon (only) buses.  Some people felt afraid of the homeless individuals on the buses and did not like to use the bus because of that reason.  More weekend frequency.  Locations the participants were interested in going to: Downtown, hospital, beaches, work places, schools, Los Angeles, parks.  Special fares for certain times of the day – one person recommended “working hours” (6-9 AM and 3-6PM).

Summarized Survey Feedback from the Arabic-speaking Community Outreach Event:  For the question: “How can transportation in San Diego County and especially in East County be improved?” The only two responses that did not receive significant respondents were: “More freeways” and “Other.” All the other categories were ranked about the same.  For the question: “How should we pay for transportation system improvements?” The top responses were “federal grants” and “gas taxes” with 40% and 35% of the respective responses.  For the question: “How often do you use public transportation (bus, trolley, train, etc.)?” 39% of the respondents said “Never” and 21% said “At least once per week.”  For the question: “Which locations do you usually use public transportation to get to?” The top four responses were tied equally with 16% of the responses, they were “religious,” “job,” “public services,” and “school.”  For the question: “What information do you want leaders to consider when making decisions about the transportation system?” The respondents had a slight preference for “community health,” but also ranked “traffic congestion” and “air quality” very highly.  For the question: “What needs to change first in order for you to utilize public transportation on a regular basis?” The top response was “lower fares” with 23% of the total responses.  6% of the respondents were under age 25, 58% were 25-40, 36% were 41-65, and no one was 66+.  Ninety-four percent (94%) of the respondents indicated they are “Middle Eastern,” 5% percent indicated “White,” and 8% indicated “other.” The individuals who indicated “White” and “other” usually answered this question by also circling “Middle Eastern.”

Friends Of Adult Day Health Care Centers

Casa Pacific Forum After the initial presentation about SANDAG and the purpose of the 2050 RTP, some of the participants filled out the survey (translated into Spanish). Most required assistance, and individual oral feedback was initiated through the assistance of the translator, the social worker, and the program coordinator. The oral comments centered on the use of public transit. None of the participants drive, so they are dependent on family members to take them to doctors’ appointments and shopping. They also depend on the transportation provided by Casa Pacific Adult Day Health Care Center. Only five of the 20 who completed the survey ever use public transit. The primary reasons for not using public transit were the lack of accessibility and the impatience or rudeness of the drivers because of their mobility difficulties.

The following are other suggestions for funding mechanisms to bring a world class transportation system to San Diego County:

Tax on users of freeways  Raise fee for license plate. I drive a 2003 Prius so I do not pay my fair share of tax for road maintenance.  User fee for bus and trolley, but they must be affordable and go where needed.  Tax on highways; not on public transit.  Single driver tax ... multiple rider incentives.  Tax large vehicles that commute to San Diego in private permit car – use London model.

Proper use of money  Proper use of money already allocated for transportation.

Tax on consumer sales  Implement a cigarette tax.  Tax on sale of cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food.  Tax the casinos, liquor, and cigarette stores.  Request a percentage of Blockbuster movies.

Tax on developers  Let developers pay for it!

Oppose any tax  No more taxes.  No new taxes.

Summary Results From Questionnaire – Feedback On Transportation Focus On Seniors And People With Disabilities September 2009 through June 2010

Introduction: The following is a summary of the results of this transportation questionnaire that was completed by 233 individuals. Of those who answered the age question, 71% were age 60 older. The remainder was primarily caregivers of seniors or providers of services for seniors. The survey was administered in North, East, and South San Diego County. Your Transportation Profile

I am under 60 years old.56 I am 60 or over 60 years old. 142 I travel in the following modes: Mode Daily Occasionally Never Private car 120 46 20 Carpool with one other person 25 100 28 Vanpool 22 41 80 Bus 17 50 72 Trolley 8 54 80 Heavy rail (Coaster, Amtrak, Sprinter) 4 29 93 Other (Attached List of Comments)

Daily Occasionally Never I provide transportation in my private car for 9 69 79 a senior adult. How often are you unable to make a trip 8 66 110 because you can’t get transportation? Public Transportation What would need to change in order for you to use public transportation on a regular basis? (Check all that apply) Extend existing bus and trolley routes 111 Increase the frequency of service 104 Provide more express routes 100 Decrease the time needed per trip 109 Provide better signage at bus and trolley stops 52 Provide closer access to bus and trolley stops 100 Increase security at bus and trolley stops 89 Increase security on bus and trolley 80 Improve vehicle cleanliness 63 Improve ride comfort 53 Provide customer friendly drivers/attendants 64 List other ways that would increase your usage of public transit. (See summary list attached)

I am well informed regarding public and private transportation options. Yes 48 Somewhat 88 No 116

Transportation Priorities What improvements to the transportation system are most needed? Improve the safety of the freeways 86 Build more freeway lanes 65 Extend the trolley to North County 103 Improve on and off-ramps from freeways 80 Other suggestions

Environmental Priorities (Reducing greenhouse gas emissions) What improvements are needed to have better air quality? Provide incentives for those who carpool. 118 Provide incentives for those who ride public transit. 114 Promote use of low-gas usage and alternative fuel vehicles 114 Encourage communities to consider the environment when making land use/development decisions 113

How much value do you place on reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Very Important 107 Important 53 Somewhat Important 42 Not Important 7

Funding a World-Class Transportation System Which of the following funding mechanisms would you vote for to bring a world-class transportation system to San Diego County? Sales tax 44 Gasoline tax 66 User fees 55 (such as bus/trolley fares) Special District tax 25 Business tax 34 Land use tax 83 (such as on developers) Other suggestions See attached comments.

Note: This questionnaire was prepared by the Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers.

Linda Vista Collaborative

How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? Transportation throughout the world is defining and shaping the way that communities and its residents interact and connect with each other. Similarly, the community of Linda Vista and its residents would benefit from a transportation system that can provide its diverse population with a more efficient and reliable form of transportation. To a certain extent, a majority of the residents in Linda Vista explained that with the exception of leaving the community to go to work and school, their tendency is to remain in the area.

If the need to commute is presented, a large majority of our residents would prefer to drive their own vehicles to work and other destination points before choosing to ride the transit system because riding the public transportation requires them to allocate additional time to get from one place to another. Also, oftentimes their point of destination may not be directly accessible by bus or trolley. The younger families also expressed that while riding the bus may be beneficial for many reasons that would be an incentive to anyone else, they expressed that economic circumstances lessens the probability to increase the number of people who ride. A more efficient and reliable transportation system in our region would strategically meet the needs of our community residents who choose the option to ride the public transit to their work, to school, to the doctor, or to run errands.

An efficient transportation system would meet the needs of the diverse populations. In the San Diego area, some of these include the youth, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. A transportation system that is able to provide commuters with access to a variety of visited destination points. Many of the residents in Linda Vista who speak English as a second language understand that transportation plays a significant role in improving the quality of life in our community. However, in the past, immigrant communities have been deterred from using the public transit because in the past members of Linda Vista with undocumented status have been deported by Border Patrol officers at transfer stations. They emphasized that connecting communities also will help to increase the opportunities that exist to connect residents to other areas in the region. Transportation can play a potential role in increasing the economic opportunities for the region as a whole. The experiences that people have stay with them. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on making it a pleasant experience for people who ride the bus or trolley. For example, many senior residents in Linda Vista expressed having negative experiences while riding the bus. Some of them voiced the need to support programs that train senior citizens how to safely use the public transit. Due to the region’s current increased population of retired seniors, it would be beneficial to promote courtesy values for senior citizens and people with disabilities. A significant number of seniors who are no longer able to drive expressed the importance of having access to alternative transportation that would allow them to maintain their independence. Efficiency and reliability are significant priorities, in addition to safe and friendly ride experiences. With a more efficient, reliable, and safe transportation, the potential would result in using transportation as an effective method of connecting residents to their doctor appointments, employment, schools, community centers, areas of entertainment, and libraries.

What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Safety was highlighted as one of the priority issues for improvement. Members of the community requested to have bus stops that are well lit, especially in areas where there is a high crime rate or a more isolated area. It also was suggested to print signs and bus schedules in larger font size for senior citizens and people with disabilities who may have a difficult time reading. In addition, it was suggested to provide training opportunities that teach riders how to access public transportation, especially the senior citizens who are not allowed to renew their driver’s license. This is a potential target population that will be more likely to use public transit in order to maintain their independence. Additional recommendations include sufficient time allotted for passengers who are riding the trolley or the bus to get on and off.

Many seniors expressed that diversifying the transportation marketing strategies to include information at community centers, schools, and churches to promote riding public transportation. It also was recommended to link senior groups through transportation as they will be exposed to meeting other residents in San Diego by having days when seniors and youth ride the public transit for free or at a reduced price. The primary recommendation that was requested by the seniors who have a difficult time walking from their residence to the closest bus stop is to provide a shuttle service similar to the MTS that can take seniors closer to their place of residence. Lastly, increase bus routes that are accessible and more direct.

What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? The top three priorities expressed by the residents in Linda Vista included having access to information and resources, improving reliability in our transit system, and enforcing safety measures for riders.

Having access to information and updates about the local bus routes in the community would allow riders to plan accordingly. Some of the youth who shared their experience as transit users mentioned that sometimes bus routes are discontinued with little or no prior knowledge and these changes are often not communicated effectively. It was requested by seniors in our community to provide resources that link public transit users with information that is available for non-Web users and to communities that are non-English speakers. For example, information can be posted or distributed in locations where people congregate (churches, community centers, and grocery stores).

The community members also prioritized having faster and more reliable bus routes as many of the participants who made this suggestion explained having to wait long periods of time for a bus to arrive and as a result having missed their doctor appointments or arriving late to work or school.

Safety was highlighted as a priority issue. It was expressed that some bus conductors have no control over their passengers and they do not enforce the policies that give the seniors and people with disabilities preference to use front row seats on the bus. The issue of safety while riding the bus was emphasized as some of the seniors have been injured while riding the bus and would like to make sure that precautions are implemented to create a pleasant experience so that riders will continue to use public transportation.

What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? There were several funding options supported by Linda Vista senior residents. They liked the idea of providing low-income seniors who qualify with subsidized bus passes. Although the senior bus fares and bus passes are already at a reduced price, there are still seniors who do not have the means to afford a monthly bus pass. The idea presented was that the senior bus passes be funded through the support of local corporations who would sponsor seniors in their community. Another idea was to fund opportunities that allow large groups of seniors throughout the city to ride the bus to events together. This would allow seniors as a group to experience the transit system. In addition, a point system could be developed to allow riders to collect points after every ride. After an individual reached a certain amount of points, they would be eligible to acquire free bus or trolley trips. Another recommendation that was made in order to decrease the number of people who miss the trolley is to locate a fare machine inside the trolley because sometimes people forget to buy their bus ticket or are rushing to avoid missing their ride. Lastly, funding options in the future similar to the community- based grant that funded efforts to engage communities throughout the region. People who are engaged are more likely to contribute to the benefit of transportation and will be more invested in the opportunities being planned in the 2050 RTP.

What feedback would you give the decision makers? The feedback that was expressed by community residents in Linda Vista praised the efforts that were made by SANDAG and its staff members to engage a diverse group of agencies throughout the region.

Bayside Community Center hosted an event on May 3 that gave residents and their families the opportunity to meet SANDAG staff members and to see visual layouts of the components for the 2050 RTP. The workshops were a direct and valuable method to include participating communities and invite them to shape our outreach efforts through the groups and organizations that already participate at Bayside Community Center. For some community groups, it is difficult to plan for the future transportation of this region when there are so many challenges facing the current transportation in place. Especially when working with communities who are struggling to provide for their families economically, it is important to recognize that they want to contribute and feel a part of the San Diego community but they also have an additional economic challenge to face. Nevertheless, it was an important process that generated curiosity about participating in the 2050 RTP.

Lastly, it is important that our region focuses on investing not solely on improving transportation but also on additional components that will increase the number of transit riders. These suggested components include providing information to the areas in our region that may not have formal means of accessing information. It is crucial for decision makers to see the region’s transit as an opportunity to spur our city’s economy and employment opportunities.

Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: Senior Citizens – Seniors recognize the importance of their feedback and encourage SANDAG to continue funding opportunities that allow seniors to get involved. Their main concerns were centered on the issues of safety and accessibility. For the seniors who depend on public transportation and may not have access to the nearest bus stop due to a physical impediment, it was suggested to provide a smaller tram line that is able to drive through the residential neighborhoods. This group also urged the decision makers in the San Diego region to consider that in order to prevent isolation, seniors need to stay active and transportation can play an important solution. It also is important to provide information for seniors in large font, to create educational opportunities about how the transportation system works, and to provide opportunities that expose communities throughout the region to other communities in San Diego on public transit. In addition, due to the amount of time that a person spends while waiting at the bus stop, it was suggested that bus stops be more colorful and showcase the cultural diversity in the community.

Families – More direct bus routes and faster time frames would incentivize residents to use public transportation. Many residents with children have expressed that their teenage children take the public transportation system to go to school. However, families have expressed that when traveling to centers of attraction, they choose to drive their car because it is more economical.

Other families expressed that it is important for them to have access to information in their own language. Oftentimes the fear for the rider is that they may get lost. Some members from the immigrant communities expressed concerns regarding the presence of border patrol officers near the trolley and bus transfer stations where, in the past, deportations have occurred. Amongst the immigrant communities, individuals who work organize carpools as a way of transportation.

San Ysidro Business Association

How can we improve the transportation system in the San Diego region? Provide Bus Rapid Transit from San Ysidro on I-805, I-5 and 905. Provide better bus routes to get people to Imperial Beach, Otay Mesa and East Lake. Make the hours longer for buses so that those who work late in Imperial Beach or Otay Mesa will be able to get home. Provide jitney/street car service in San Ysidro to get people from the west side of I-5 (Las Americas area) to the east side and to Beyer Boulevard.

What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Bus Rapid Transit, Rapid Bus or street cars on routes that go from Camino de la Plaza to Willow Road to Via de San Ysidro; San Ysidro Boulevard from the border to Dairy Mart; and Via de San Ysidro to Beyer Boulevard.

What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Bus Rapid Transit connections from San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa, from San Ysidro to Otay Mesa and Imperial Beach, and from San Ysidro to the beaches. It was expressed that the transit system do no more harm environmentally to San Ysidro and to ameliorate the present conditions brought about by being bisected by two freeways, a trolley and the International border. Such ameliorations would be more and better sidewalks and bike lanes, more streetscape amenities, and buffers to alleviate the air pollution caused from traffic.

What funding options do you support to provide ongoing transportation system/services? San Ysidro is a community that relies on transit for many of the low income and elderly. It is a community that has paid for the convenience of the car drivers to get across the border. As a community, San Ysidro would be most supportive of funding options that increase the use of the car to reflect the actual cost of driving. Such options might include unbundling parking costs, employer-sponsored transit incentives, remote parking, and other options such as flex time and partnerships. But all of these options also will depend on expanding the transit system routes and frequency.

What feedback would you give the decision makers? You must provide transit where it is currently needed before any more density. You must include transit when you add density. Older, and often, poor communities have seen density without any increase in transit or infrastructure. This has made it necessary to own a car in order to get to a job that would take two and a half hours and two buses to reach when it takes 10 minutes in a car. It also keeps poor people poor by reducing their transit options that might get them to better jobs.

Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: The only additional comments mostly concern the GSA Port of Entry project and the community concerns over how more noise and air pollution will result from it.

San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Community-Based Outreach Survey – Southwest Community College Survey Answers

A. How do you go to school most often? ¿Cómo vas a la escuela más seguido? 1. I walk/Camino. 6 2. I ride my bike/Manejo mi bicicleta. 0 3. I take a school bus/Tomo el camión de la escuela. 2 4. I take the trolley/Tomo el “trolley.” 3 5. I take the city bus/Tomo el autobus. 15 6. Someone in my family drives me/Alguien de mi familia me lleva en carro. 20 7. I get a ride from a friend/Un amigo me lleva. 5

B. Where do you go after school? Dónde vas después de la escuela? 1. My home/Mi casa. 42 2. A friend’s house or family member’s house/Casa de un amigo o de un miembro de mi familia. 4 3. Work/Trabajo. 14

C. How do you get there? ¿Cómo llegas ahí? 1. I walk/Camino. 4 2. I ride my bike/Manejo mi bicicleta. 0 3. I take the trolley/Tomo el “trolley.” 2 4. I take the city bus/Tomo el autobús. 15 5. I or someone in my family drives me/Alguien de mi familia me lleva en carro. 29 6. I get a ride from a friend /Un amigo me llevan. 7

D. What types of transportation does your family use most often? Cuáles medios de transporte usa tu familia regularmente? 1. We walk/Caminamos. 2 2. We ride a jitney/Tomamos el “minibus/camioncito.” 0 3. We ride the bus/Tomamos el autobus. 4 4. We ride the trolley/Tomamos el “trolley.” 1 5. We carpool. 1 6. We drive a car/Manejamos un coche. 52

E. How many times per week do you use public transportation such as the trolley, the bus, or a jitney? ¿Cuántas veces por semana usas medios de transporte público como el “trolley”, el autobús o un “minibus/camioncito.”? 1. 0 30 2. 1-3 13 3. 4-7 8 4. More than 7/Más de 7. 4

F. How many times per week do you walk to get where you need to go? ¿Cuántas veces por semana caminas para llegar a los lugares que necesitas ir? 1. 0 22 2. 1-3 26 3. 4-7 4 4. More than 7/Más de 7. 4

G. I would use public transportation more if/Yo usaría más el transporte público si…. 1. I felt it was safe/Yo siento que fuera seguro. 2 2. There were bus stops or trolley stations closer to where I wanted to go/Hubiera más paradas de autobus o estaciones de “trolley”cerca de donde yo quiero ir. 13 3. Transportation was quicker or more reliable/La transportación fuera más rápida y regular. 19 4. If there were more bus stops closer to where I live/Si hubiera más paradas mas cercitas de donde vivo yo. 6 5. If it cost less/Si me costara menos. 22

H. When I use the trolley/bus I usually go to/Cuando uso el “trolley” usualmente me voy a… 1. School/ Escuela 16 2. Work/Trabajo 7 3. Home/Casa 15 4. To get to a Bus Stop/Para llegar a una parada de camión. 5 5. Chula Vista 6. Downtown/El centro de San Diego 9 7. Other /Otro lugar – East County (Orange Line)/Condado Este (la línea anaranjada) 6

I. Where else would you like the bus or trolley to take you/ dónde te gustaría llegar en el trolley y el autobús? Anywhere Home Otay Ranch Work Oceanside Mall DMV Las Americas School Los Angeles Beach Santa Barbara

J. I prefer using :/Marca uno de los siguientes: 1. The bus /Uso más el camión. 29 2. The trolley/Uso más el “trolley.” 25

K. Because: Porque: 1. The trolley is faster/El trolley es más rápido. 23 2. I know all the trolley stops – route easier/Yo conozco las estaciones del “trolley” más, la ruta es mas fácil de navegar. 1 3. The bus goes more places/El autobús va a más lugares. 15 4. A bus stop is closer to my house/Una parada está más cerca de mi casa. 16

L. I would walk more in San Ysidro if/Yo caminaría más en San Ysidro si: 1. It felt safer/Me sintiera más seguro. 16 2. I liked walking more/Me gustara caminar más. 13 3. There were more lights and crosswalks with signals/Hubiera más semáforos y cruces peatonales. 12 4. There were more or better sidewalks/Hubiera más o mejores banquetas. 14 5. I would not walk more/No caminaría más. 4

M. How far is a bus stop or trolley stop from your house? ¿Qué tan lejos está una parada de camiones o “trolley” de tu casa? 1. 1-3 blocks/1-3 cuadras 29 2. 4-6 blocks/4-6 cuadras 10 3. 6-10 blocks/6-10 cuadras 3 4. Farther/Más lejos 14

San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Workshop February 18, 2010 Total Participants 63

Participants are asked the following four questions and respond by arranging themselves into separate groups according to their answers. For question five, the group will divide themselves by going to separate tables that reflect their answer, i.e. “it’s too expensive,” or “takes too long.” Once at tables, the participants also will answer questions to the SANDAG Group Survey.

Part I

1) Question: Your age group/Su grupo de edad: a. 0‐10 Total: 11, Percentage: 17% b. 10‐30 Total: 12, Percentage: 19% c. 30‐50 Total: 12, Percentage: 19% d. 50+ Total: 28, Percentage: 44%

2) Question: You use the trolley/Usted lo usa el trolley: a. Never/Nunca Total: 1, Percentage: 2% b. A few times a year/Unos veces por año Total: 16, Percentage: 25% c. Close to once a week/Casi cada semana Total: 9, Percentage: 14% d. Daily/Diario Total: 19, Percentage: 30%

3) Question: You use the City bus/Usted toma el autobus: a. Never/Nunca Total: 2, Percentage: 3% b. A few times a year/Unas veces cada año Total: 16, Percentage: 25% c. About once a week/Casi cada semana Total: 11, Percentage: 17% d. Daily/Diario Total: 10, Percentage: 16%

4) Question: You use your own car: a. I don’t have a car or my family doesn’t have a car/Yo no tengo, ni mi familia tiene un coche. Total: 23, Percentage: 37% b. A few times a month, when I need to get somewhere I don’t usually go/Unos veces cada mes cuando necesito llegar a un lugar usualmente no voy Total: 3, Percentage: 5% c. About once a week/Casi cada semana Total : 0, Percentage; 0% d. Daily/Diario Total: 27, Percentage: 43%

5) When we use the trolley or bus I usually go to/Cuando usamos el tranvía usualmente nos vamos a… a. School/Escuela - 1 Total: 1, Percentage: 2% b. Work/Trabajo - 3, 2 Total: 5, Percentage: 8% c. Home/Casa - 5, 1 Total: 6, Percentage: 10% d. Chula Vista o National City - 4, 18, 1 Total: 23, Percentage: 37% e. Downtown - 2, 1, 15, 3, 1 Total: 22, Percentage: 35% f. Other /Otro lugar- 8, 3 Total:11, Percentage: 17% g. East County (Orange Line)/Condado Este (la línea anaranjada) - 5 Total: 5, Percentage: 8%

6) If it brought me where I wanted to go I prefer using:/Si lo me llevara donde quisiera ir, yo preferiría usar:/Marca uno de los siguientes: a. The bus/Uso más el camión ‐ 0 Total: 0, Percentage: 0% b. The trolley/Uso más el tranvía ‐ 4, 12, 4 Total: 20, Percentage: 32% c. Both/Un combinación ‐ 8, 11, 3, 5 Total: 27, Percentage: 43%

7) We would walk more in San Ysidro if/Nos caminaríamos más en San Ysidro si: d. We felt safer/Nos sintieramos más seguros. ‐ 8, 15, 1, 3 Total: 27, Percentage: 43% e. We liked walking more/Nos gustara caminar más. ‐ 1, 15, 5 Total: 21, Percentage: 33% f. There were more lights and crosswalks with signals/Hubiera más semáforos y cruces peatonales. ‐ 1, 8, 17, 3 Total: 29, Percentage: 46% g. There were more or better sidewalks/Hubiera más o mejores banquetas. ‐ 2, 8, 4, 3 Total: 17, Percentage: 27% h. We would not walk more/No caminaríamos más. - 0 Total: 0, Percentage: 0%

8) How far is a bus stop or trolley stop from your house? ¿Qué tan lejos está una parada de camiones o tranvía de tu casa? i. 1‐3 blocks/1‐3 cuadras ‐ 4, 8, 13, 3, 5 Total: 33, Percentage: 52% j. 4‐6 blocks/4‐6 cuadras - 4, 1 Total: 5, Percentage: 8% k. 6‐10 blocks/6‐10 cuadras - 1 Total: 1, Percentage: 2% l. Farther/Más lejos - 3 Total: 3, Percentage: 5% a. I do use it/Si, lo uso. - Total: 26, Percentage: 41% b. It’s not safe/No es seguro. - Total: 4, Percentage: 6% c. Too expensive/Sale bastante caro. ‐ Total: 3, Percentage 5% d. Doesn’t take me where I want to go/No me trae donde quiero ir. ‐ Total: 11, Percentage: 17% e. Takes too long/Me gasta demasiado tiempo. ‐ Total: 8, Percentage: 13%

Part II SANDAG‐Sin Limites Group Survey

1) How do your children go to school most often? ¿Cómo van sus hijos a la escuela cada mañana? a. They walk/Caminan. - 1, 4, 1 Total: 6, Percentage: 10% b. I, or another family member, walk with them/Yo o un miembro de mi familia les acompaña. - 2, 8 Total: 10, Percentage: 16% c. They take the school bus/Toman el autobus de la escuela. - 1, 1, 1 Total: 3, Percentage: 5% d. They take the trolley/Toman el tranvía o trolley. - 4, 2 Total: 6, Percentage: 10% e. They take the city bus/Toman el autobus de la cuidad. - 0 Total: 0, Percentage: 0 f. Someone in my family drives them/Alguien de la familia les lleva en carro. - 1, 3, 1, 3, 1 Total: 9, Percentage: 14%

2) What types of transportation does your family use most often? a. We walk/Caminamos. ‐ 12, 4 Total: 16, Percentage: 25% b. We ride a jitney/Tomamos el jitney. - 8 Total: 8, Percentage: 13% c. We ride the bus/Tomamos el colectivo. ‐ 7 Total: 7, Percentage: 11% d. We ride the trolley/Tomamos el Trolley. - 4, 7, 2 Total: 13, Percentage: 21% e. We drive a car/Manejamos un coche. ‐ 3, 4, 1, 4, 3 Total: 5, Percentage: 24%

3) How many times per week do you use public transportation such as the trolley, the bus, or a jitney? ¿Cuántas veces por semana usas el transporte público como el tranvía, el colectivo o un camión pequeño? a. 0 ‐- 4, 3, 3 Total: 10, Percentage: 16% b. 1‐3 -- 7, 1, 4 Total: 12, Percentage: 19% c. 4‐7 -- 3, 12, 1 Total: 16, Percentage: 25% d. More than 7/Más de 7 - 1, 6, 2 Total: 9, Percentage: 14%

4) How many times per week do you walk to get where you need to go? ¿Cuántas veces por semana caminas para llegar a los lugares que necesitas ir? a. 0 -- 2, 3 Total: 5, Percentage: 8% b. 1‐3 -- 2, 4, 7, 3 Total: 16, Percentage: 25% c. 4‐7 -- 4, 13 Total: 17, Percentage: 27% d. More than 7/Más de 7 -- 6, 1, 5 Total: 12, Percentage: 19

San Ysidro Business Association Sin Limites: Results from Breakout Groups

Transit Lines: 1. Coastal Trolley ‐ Imperial Beach to Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, La Jolla (UCSD), Del Mar Fairgrounds 2. East Lake ‐ Otay Mall 3. Parallel the 805 with stops that run east to Otay Ranch, Plaza Bonita, the hospital in National City, and up to Children’s Hospital in Kearny Mesa 4. SWC access 5. Otay border crossing 6. Escondido, takes about 4 transfers and 2.5 hours 7. Grossmont, oh there is one (ah‐ha) 8. Trolley/Bus and Otay 9. Immediately we need a bus there 10. Point Loma (connecter from Old Town down Rosecrans?) 11. Along the 125 12. San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa 13. San Ysidro to North County Inland and Coastal 14. San Ysidro to San Ysidro High School (off 905) 15. San Ysidro to airport 16. San Ysidro to El Cajon 17. San Ysidro to UTC

Shuttle Service (Jitney): 1. Southwest High and Junior High 2. San Ysidro High School 3. Vista Lane 4. Del Sol to Dennery 5. Camino de la Plaza 6. La Mirada 7. DMV 8. Mas horas a la frontera 9. A Palm Ave 10. A Coronado o Iris Trolley stop

Pedestrian Crossings Needed: 1. Over the 905 near the high school 2. Over the 905 near the 805 intersection 3. Via de San Ysidro 4. Dairy Mart 5. Jack in the Box (near the border) 6. Bazar at the Border 7. Pedestrian bridge over from Camino de la Plaza over the 5 8. Separate pedestrians from cars and transit at the border. Need for better Intermodal that would give pedestrians separate walkways, not bisected by buses, trolley or cars. 9. Add another crossing on Camino de la Plaza between Las Americas and San Ysidro Village at K‐Mart. Distance between stop lights at Willow Road and Via National (Achiote) is too far and there is a bus stop at that location. 10. Intersection of I‐5 and Camino de la Plaza. This intersection contains the on‐ramp to Mexico, the off‐ramp from I‐5, and pedestrians and transit at Camiones Way and Camino de la Plaza coming from Mexico and the Border Station parking lot and Bazaar. 11. Intersection at Dairymart and East San Ysidro Boulevard. Time allotted to cross those streets is too short for most pedestrians. 12. Lighting needed on Willow Road pedestrian bridge 13. Sidewalk and bus shelter needed on West Calle Primera from Via de San Ysidro to Willow Road

Green Spines: 1. 5 South 2. Beyer and East Beyer 3. San Ysidro Boulevard 4. “Cut and Cover” over Camino de la Plaza from East San Ysidro Boulevard to Camiones Way 5. Use walls with trees or vines along I‐5 and I‐805 to provide buffers from freeways. Or could place freeways below grade.

Noise Barriers: 1. 805 2. San Ysidro Boulevard near Dairy Mart 3. Use walls with trees or vines along I‐5 and I‐805 to provide buffers from freeways. Or could place freeways below grade. San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Workshop 2 – Environmental Justice Needs

Participants were issued a large piece of paper with freeways, trolleys, main roads and the border. They were then given the opportunity to show where they thought buffers were needed between traffic and people, areas that were especially dangerous for pedestrians because of interactions with traffic, and where infrastructure was needed to make San Ysidro more walkable.

Results:

Safety • The number one priority for both groups was the intermingling of pedestrians, cars, trolleys, buses, jitneys, and taxis at the border. Specifically mentioned were the lack of an area for pick up and drop off of passengers; pedestrians placed too close to the trolley arm; pedestrians crossing against traffic; and egress and ingress to Jack in the Box at Rail Court. • A second dangerous area is along Camino de la Plaza between Las Americas and San Ysidro Village. Specifically, crossing between K-Mart in San Ysidro Village and I-Hop in Las Americas. For pedestrians walking and loaded down with large parcels, the distance between the stop light at Willow and the stop light at Achiote (Via Nacional) is a distance of four long city blocks. So pedestrians will often cross the street at a bus stop.  Intersection of I-5 and Camino de la Plaza. This intersection contains the on-ramp to Mexico, the off-ramp from I-5, and pedestrians and transit at Camiones and Camino de la Plaza coming from Mexico and the Border Station parking lot and Bazaar. In other words, it is a confluence of traffic and pedestrians in great numbers. Pedestrians crossing at the I-5 off-ramp and Camino de la Plaza are often confronted with drivers into Mexico making an illegal right turn on red.  They also run the risk of motorists coming off the I-5, making a right turn on red without looking for pedestrians. Then they have an immediate crossing of the Border Station entrance/exit and no sidewalk. • Another intersection identified by the groups was Dairy Mart and East San Ysidro Boulevard. Here, they noted the time allotted to cross those streets was too short for most pedestrians unless done at a hasty walk. • Lights needed on Willow pedestrian bridge. • Sidewalk and bus shelter needed on West Calle Primera from Via de San Ysidro to Willow Road. This is a project already identified.

Environmental Issues • A top priority for the groups was more and better sidewalks. A list was made of areas that group participants identified as needing repairs or places without sidewalks. This list will be combined with an existing list already compiled by San Ysidro Community Planning Group. • The groups also believed that more trees were needed along the commercial corridors of San Ysidro Boulevard and Camino de la Plaza, and Beyer and East Beyer Boulevard. They also suggested amenities such as benches and trash receptacles. • Buffers needed between the freeways and community. Suggestion was to have walls placed along the freeway or below grade, similar to those north of I-8.  Another idea was to put a cover over I-5 at Camino de la Plaza to create a plaza between the east and west side of San Ysidro. This would have the benefit of negating some of the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and would create a safe space for pedestrian crossing, as well as recovering land for commercial purposes.

Transit Needs Participants viewed a map of the current transit system including freeways, major streets, and mass transit routes. Then participants identified areas where transit is missing or infrequent. These included routes from San Ysidro to work centers, recreation areas, shopping, and other common destinations. Participants were excited about the SANDAG presentation on the various scenarios for the transit network for the 2050 RTP. Projects of particular interest to them were the high speed rail going to San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, Bus Rapid Transit routes, and the rapid bus route to Otay Mesa.

Work Centers • San Ysidro to Kearny Mesa area – no direct, rapid buses to get to Kearny Mesa work centers • No direct routes to Otay Mesa • No direct routes that are serviced at night to Imperial Beach area • No direct routes • No direct routes to other North County areas

Common Destinations • No direct/safe transit routes for San Ysidro High School • San Ysidro to San Diego beach areas • San Ysidro to Airport • San Ysidro to Point Loma • San Ysidro to Coronado • San Ysidro to north and east regions of the county. The trolley was identified as transit to Mission Valley, SDSU, and Santee, but not El Cajon.

Recreation and Shopping • San Ysidro to San Diego beach areas • San Ysidro to Point Loma • San Ysidro to Coronado • Sand Ysidro to UTC • San Ysidro to North County cities, Oceanside, Escondido San Ysidro Business Association June 17th Sin Limites

At our June meeting, we displayed the SANDAG Hybrid map and explained its routes and what the next step is for SANDAG. We then asked participants to break into small groups and evaluate the routes and transit to see what might still be needed, and to also prioritize the routes and transit types they want to see implemented first. The results are as follows:

Group 1  Increase Rapid Bus transit between San Ysidro and Otay Mesa.  If it is necessary to eliminate something due to funding constraints, the community recommends eliminating the trolley to direct the funds to the most necessary services.  Trolley to USD.  Bus in San Ysidro to Las Americas Premium Outlets.  Priorities: o High frequency local buses o Buses during peak commuter hours o Rapid bus o Trolley o High speed train o Coaster o Streetcar

Group 2

 Bus Rapid Transit on these routes: o I‐15 Escondido to National City o I-805 Carmel Valley to San Ysidro o I 5 Oceanside to San Ysidro o San Ysidro to Otay Ranch o San Ysidro to Imperial Beach  Trolley on these routes: o San Ysidro to Otay o San Ysidro to La Jolla  Priorities: o Bus Rapid Transit o Imperial Beach to Otay Ranch connections o Rapid Bus: San Ysidro to Downtown o San Ysidro to Chula Vista

Group 3

 During peak commuter hours, more trolley cars  More community shuttles in San Ysidro o That have insurance o Clean o Secure/safe  High Speed Train o San Ysidro to Los Angeles o Bring back “transfer” points; MTS used to have o Keep prices low o Bus or trolley direct to San Ysidro High School, Otay Mesa, and the factories  Priorities o Transfer o San Ysidro to Los Angeles o Jitney o Cost of Transportation o Bus to San Ysidro High School San Ysidro Business Association SANDAG Community-Based Outreach Survey for School Aged Youth and Families

1) How do your children go to school most often?/¿Cómo van sus hijos a la escuela cada mañana? a. They walk./Caminan. 22% b. I, or another family member, walk with them./Yo o un miembro de mi familia les acompaña. 16% c. They ride their bikes./Manejan sus bicicletas. 0% d. They take the school bus./Toman el autobús de la escuela 12% e. They take the trolley./Toman el tranvía. 1% f. They take the city bus./Toman el autobus de la cuidad. 1% g. Someone in my family drives them./Alguien de la familia les lleva en carro. 46% h. They get a ride from a friend or another adult./Un amigo u otro adulto les llevan. 2%

2) Where do they go after school?/¿Dónde van después de la escuela? a. Our home./Nuestro casa. 60% b. After school program at their school./Una programa después de escuela. 30% c. After school program somewhere else./ Una programa después de las escuela en otro lugar. 1% d. A friend’s house or family member’s house./Casa de un amigo o de un miembro de mi familia. 9%

3) How do they get there?/¿Como llegan ahí? a. They walk./Caminan. 33% b. I, or another family member, walk with them./Yo o un miembro de mi familia les acompaña. 14% c. They ride their bikes./Manejan sus bicicletas. 0% d. They take the school bus./Toman el autobús de la escuela. 21% e. They take the trolley./Toman el tranvía. 1% f. They take the city bus./Toman el autobus de la cuidad. 1% g. Someone in my family drives them./Alguien de la familia les lleva en carro. 28% h. They get a ride from a friend or another adult./Un amigo u otro adulto les llevan. 2%

4) What types of transportation does your family use most often?/¿Cuales formas de transportación la familia usa regularmente? a. We walk./Caminamos. 19% b. We ride a jitney./Tomamos el jitney. 1% c. We ride the bus./Tomamos el autobus. 3% d. We ride the trolley./Tomamos el Trolley. 8% e. We carpool./ Tomamos el colectivo. 8% f. We drive a car./Manejamos un coche. 61%

5) How many times per week do you use public transportation such as the trolley, the bus, or a jitney?/¿Cuántas veces por semana usas el transporte público como el tranvía, el colectivo o un camión pequeño? a. 0 63% b. 1-3 23% c. 4-7 7% d. More than 7/ Más de 7 7%

6) How many times per week do you walk to get where you need to go?/¿Cuántas veces por semana caminas para llegar a los lugares que necesitas ir? a. 0 25% b. 1-3 39% c. 4-7 21% d. More than 7/ Más de 7 15%

7) Our family would use public transportation more if/Nuestro familia usaríamos más el transporte público si…. a. We felt it was safe/Nos sentimos que furea seguro. 28% b. There were bus stops or trolley stations closer to where we wanted to go/Hubiera más paradas de autobús o estaciones de tranvía cerca de donde nosotros queremos ir. 11% c. Transportation was quicker or more reliable/La transportación fuera más rápida y regular. 17% d. If there were more bus stops closer to where we live/Si hubiera mas paradas mas cercitas de donde vivimos nosotros. 12% e. If it cost less/Si nos costara menos. 32%

8) When we use the trolley or bus I usually go to/Cuando usamos el tranvía usualmente nos vamos a… a. School/Escuela 6% b. Work/Trabajo 11% c. Home/Casa 11% d. To get to a bus stop/Para llegar a una parada de camion 2% e. Chula Vista 15% f. Downtown 15% g. Other/Otro lugar 39% h. East County (Orange Line)/ Condado Este (la línea anaranjada) 1%

9) Where else would you like the bus or trolley to take you/Donde quieres llevarle el trolley y el autobus? AMC Theater, Another Country, Autobus, Bakersfield, Beach, Beyer Trolley to San Ysidro Middle School, Border, Bus, Cesar Chavez Parkway, Chuck E. Cheese, Chula Vista, Chula Vista Mall, Closer to Home, Closer to Hospital, Convention Center, Costco, Dentist, Disneyland, DMV, Downtown, El Cajon, Escondido, Farmersville, Farther from San Diego, Fresno, Food 4 Less, Grocery Store, Hollywood, Imperial Beach, Las Vegas, Legoland, Los Angeles, Mexico, Mirada, North, Old Town, Otay, Otay Border, Padres Game, Padres Station, Park, Plaza las Americas, Rancho Bernardo, Relatives/Friends, San Diego, San Diego Zoo, San Ysidro High School, San Ysidro School District, School, Seaward, SeaWorld, Shopping Center, Six Flags, Soak City, Spring Valley, Starbucks, Target, Tijuana/Tijuana River Valley, Town N’ Country, Visalia, Wal-Mart, Wild Animal Park, Work , 7-Eleven

10) We prefer using/Marca uno de los siguientes: a. The bus/Uso más el camión. 44% b. The trolley/Uso más el tranvía. 56%

11) Because/Porque: c. The trolley is faster/El trolley es mas rapido. 46% d. I know all the trolley stops-route easier/Yo conozco las estacionmentos del tranvia mas, la ruta es mas facil navegar. 11% e. The bus goes more places/El autobus se va mas lugares. 18% f. A bus stop is closer to my house/Una parada es mas cercita a mi casa. 25%

12) We would walk more in San Ysidro if/Nos caminaríamos más en San Ysidro si: b. We felt safer/Nos sintieramos más seguros. 38% c. We liked walking more/Nos gustara caminar más. 21% d. There were more lights and crosswalks with signals/Hubiera más semáforos y cruces peatonales. 13% e. There were more or better sidewalks/Hubiera más o mejores banquetas. 16% f. We would not walk more/No caminaríamos más. 12%

13) How far is a bus stop or trolley stop from your house? ¿Qué tan lejos está una parada de camiones o tranvía de tu casa? a.1-3 blocks/1-3 cuadras 65% b. 4-6 blocks/4-6 cuadras 19% c. 6-10 blocks/6-10 cuadras 8% d. Farther/Más lejos 8%

14) What age groups are represented, and how many? Cuales grupos de edades son representados, y cuantos son?

Age Group/Grupo de Edad, How many/Cuantos somos 0-4 10% 5-10 22% 11-21 23% 21-45 32% 45-65 11% 65+ 2%

Thank you! Gracias! SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports Outreach Conducted January 1 to September 30, 2010

PROGRAM MANAGER FEEDBACK ON COMMUNITY BASED OUTREACH MINI-GRANTS

ABLE DISABLED ADVOCACY

Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? The presentations were very beneficial. They provided an overview of how the region would look in relation to jobs, housing, and transportation within the context expansion of public transportation that our community relies upon for mobility. Social and economic mobility are closely related to physical mobility and have a greater impact on persons living with disabilities

Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: The program has been highly successful because it has created a dialogue with stakeholders and an awareness of the planning process, as well as the opportunity for input through the survey instruments. One recommendation is to provide a standard script with the Point Point presentation, as well as an online process for stakeholder comments. We have two versions of the presentation, and we understand that an update is currently available. It would be beneficial if there was an online Web site or Intranet for grantees to share best practices, information, and frequently asked questions.

CASA FAMILIAR

Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? Yes, it introduced the ideas and plans for transportation at a regional level and opened dialogue with the community. As a low-income community, it helped to identify the impacts of fare increases, service reductions, and community access issues. As a border community, the program also identified that there is a strong connection to the border and a community need for access to and from San Ysidro and Otay Mesa, as 21 survey respondents stated they would like service to the border. SANDAG providing the materials for discussion was vital to our outreach efforts, as it would be a great expense for community organizations that have no budget for these types of outreach projects.

Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: Overall, the community is glad to have an opportunity to give input into future planning. However, current economic conditions and higher fees have community members feeling that they just want some relief for access to transportation. CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE

Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? Yes, the community now has an increased awareness of SANDAG and the transportation plan process, and has been empowered to provide input. Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: The concept of seeking input from our community is a great process that can truly engage and empower our community, as well as increase their opportunities for continued civic engagement. The program had a slow start and for a few months we (grantees) were confused and lacked clear directions on the process. We also did not have the survey or handouts until a few months into the process. Over the last few months, things have fallen into place and we feel much more confident about our goals and ability to meet them. Therefore, the fact that we will have an opportunity to work on phase II will greatly increase our effectiveness as we are much more in line with the desired outcomes.

EL CAJON COLLABORATIVE

Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? Yes, it is an important process to be able to participate and share input into planning for regional and countywide transportation models. Many individuals were very interested in the topic, although it was often hard to "project" out 40 to 50 years – particularly for the older population. The grant allowed for engagement of groups not typically involved in transportation planning and from our point of view that provided an important "voice" from our community. It seems some of the best conversations and suggestions came with individuals who are able to use public transit on a regular basis. Many were unsure of how to consider changes for freeways because of the lack of desire for "more cars" and the uncertainty of alternative options.

Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: The grant process feels as though it was slow to develop and unfold, which made our roles on the SWG and other workgroups slightly unclear at the beginning of the process. The roles have since become clearer, but still require a great deal of asking questions to determine how to match our ideas for community input with the SANDAG RTP process. My biggest fear is doing something for the grant that doesn't actually make a difference in the long run; it does feel that could be the case, sometimes. I look forward to working with SANDAG to improve the "connectivity" of the community input role and the overall impact it has on the Regional Transportation Plan.

LINDA VISTA COLLABORATIVE

Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? The community-based grant has been considerably beneficial to the community of Linda Vista because a large majority of the targeted population we reached is members who are left out of the decision-making process. The residents in Linda Vista are also more likely to be isolated from this process in part because many of the residents manage to do their daily activities without having the need to leave the community limits. While this can be an advantage for the older community members who prefer to walk to the local clinic for their doctor appointments or to the local grocery store to buy their weekly food supply, it also limits their ability to venture outside of Linda Vista.

Linda Vista is a very unique region in San Diego due to a diverse population of residents who are landowners, tenants, and people who come from diverse cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds. Without this opportunity, many of the groups who are recent newcomers and have limited access to the English language would not participate. After the workshops that we held in coordination with the valuable support from SANDAG, we received exciting feedback from community members who felt acknowledged and included in the decision-making process that is taking place in the San Diego region.

Through this grant, Linda Vista residents were not only given the opportunity to take part in an educational opportunity to get to know their region but also to engage in the future of public transportation systems in our region that they recognize will impact the future of their children. More importantly, this process is supported by the mission that we practice at Bayside and through the Linda Vista Collaborative. Always with the goal that residents will become empowered through educational opportunities and step up to leadership roles which will enhance the quality of life in their communities. In the process of engaging residents from Linda Vista, I requested the support of community leaders who have the language skills and the trust to more effectively reach out to their groups. For example, the Latino organization hosted a successful community meeting and for the first time, its members were engaged in a dialogue about their patterns of travel. Many members from this group prefer to drive their cars, even when some of these members run the risk of losing their cars because they do not have a driver's license. While riding the bus would seem to solve their dilemma in the past, members from this group have experienced deportation arrest and as a result of these negative experiences would prefer to drive to work and find other more subtle means of transportation.

Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall community-based grant program experience thus far with recommendations and suggestions: As the Project Manager for the Linda Vista Collaborative 2050 RTP Community-Based Outreach Mini-Grant, the opportunity to participate as a coordinator and as part of the SWG meetings was a positive learning experience. At the same time, the community of Linda Vista and its residents were engaged through the educational and outreach components of the 2050 RTP. For many residents in Linda Vista, this project widened the perspective about how each of the resident members is connected to the larger San Diego region, and thus gave them an opportunity to connect to the decision-makers through the presentations and events about the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

The senior citizens who participated were encouraged to know that their involvement will be supporting a more encompassing future for transportation systems that will affect future generations. In some instances, this group described a strong desire to see improvements addressing the safety of public transportation.

The communities of Linda Vista have economic, cultural, and educational differences, and this community has been excited by the idea that the progress of Linda Vista is being shaped through opportunities like transportation that can help generate future economic opportunities for our community.

The open structure that was provided by the grant itself was beneficial as it allowed the community members who participated to shape the work in a style that would be more effective for the individual groups that we contacted throughout our period of outreach. In the second stage of the work that is currently taking place, it will be interesting for the participating agencies to compare the different outcomes of our meetings with each of the organization’s project managers.

My recommendation is to compile the final reports and activities in a way that can be presented to the entire SWG group in order to share the results compiled by each community.

SAN YSIDRO BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

Based on feedback, overall was the community-based grant program beneficial to your community? How? I believe the CBO grant was very beneficial to the San Ysidro community as it gave us an opportunity to weigh in on the 2050 RTP. San Ysidro is an underserved, environmental justice community situated at the border and is often overlooked and heavily impacted by transit because of its location. Having this grant allowed us to hold workshops to explain and discuss the transit plans for the future and to take surveys addressing the transit needs of the San Ysidro community. Many of the very low income and our elderly do not have cars and are totally reliant on the transit system. Limited transit choices mean limited access for them. For low income, job opportunities are limited to those they can find within a shorter distance. For the elderly, a long ride on the bus can be difficult. During our public workshops, we had the opportunity to address environmental justice issues and what the community sees as priorities; what areas that transit currently does not reach or is extremely time consuming to use; and comments on what is good and what needs to be addressed in the 2050 RTP. Because of this grant, outreach was made to residents and business owners. Without it, it is doubtful that public officials would be aware of the San Ysidro community.

Community Based Outreach (CBO) Reports

Phase II Reports: October 2010 to July 2011

ABLE-DISABLED ADVOCACY

Community Based Mini-Grant Program

STATUS REPORT FORM

FINAL STATUS REPORT FOR PHASE II, COMPLETED SURVEYS AND ADDITIONAL COMPILED COMMUNITY INPUT TO ACCOMPANY REPORT Submitting Agency: Able-Disabled Advocacy Project Manager: Elaine Cooluris Contract number: 5001277 Period of Work: 10/1/10 to Date Submitted: 06/15/11 SECTION 1: OUTREACH INFORMATION

Community Materials/Resources Community Group Target No. of Used (Documentation Group Description Date Location Audience Attendees Attached) Casa Rafael Residential 10/25/2010 1855 Low- 150 Projector, laptop, Step-up rehabilitation Thibido income handouts, and facility Road, and/or refreshments Vista persons living with disabilities El Cerrito Glen Low-income 3/17/2011 5480 Low- 15 Projector and laptop Meeting residents of University income City Heights Avenue Blind Sight-impaired 3/19/2011 1805 Upas Persons 27 Verbal presentation Community and blind Street living with Center members of disabilities the Blind Community Center Park Crest Low-income 3/31/2011 4531 Low- 15 Projector and laptop Resident residents of Logan income Council Mid-City Avenue

Homeless Homeless 4/13/2011 521 Grape Low- 15 Projector, laptop, Veterans veterans Street income refreshments, and food Reintegration and/or Program persons living with disabilities A-DA Work Program 4/13/2011 4283 El Low- 34 Projector, laptop, Readiness participants Cajon Blvd income handouts, Group seeking and/or refreshments, and food employment persons living with disabilities Blind Center Sight-impaired 5/23/2011 5922 El Persons 15 Verbal presentation of San Diego – and blind Cajon Blvd living with South Bay program disabilities participants from the South Bay region Blind Center Sight-impaired 6/1/2011 5922 El Persons 15 Verbal presentation of San Diego – and blind Cajon Blvd living with East County program disabilities participants from the East County region Blind Center Sight-impaired 6/2/2011 5922 El Persons 15 Verbal presentation of San Diego – and blind Cajon Blvd living with Central program disabilities participants from the Central region National Members of 6/16/2011 2775 Persons 150 Projector and laptop Alliance on NAMI Carlsbad living with Mental Illness Blvd., disabilities (NAMI) Carlsbad Blind Center Sight-impaired 6/21/2011 1385 Persons 15 Verbal presentation of San Diego – and blind Bonaire living with North County program Road, disabilities participants Vista from the North County region Blind Center Sight-impaired 6/23/2011 1385 Persons 10 Verbal presentation of San Diego – and blind Bonaire living with North County program Road, disabilities participants Vista from the North County region

SECTION 2: FEEDBACK SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS Please answer the following questions based on the most common concerns from OVERALL community input. How can we improve the San Diego County transportation system? 1) Expand hours of operation and service on weekends; 2) Improve audible systems for the blind; 3) Implement rapid transit between inner-city/low-income areas to outlying areas of the county, as well as areas with high concentrations of minimum wage employment such as service sectors and manufacturing; 4) Expand eligibility for disabled passes including but not limited to veterans with less than 50% disability and persons living with mental illnesses other than those already included; 5) Improve safety; and 6) Increase affordability for very low-income households. What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? 1) Expand hours of operation and service on weekends; 2) Improve audible systems for the blind; 3) Implement rapid transit between inner-city/low-income areas to outlying areas of the county, as well as areas with high concentrations of minimum wage employment such as service sectors and manufacturing; 4) Expand eligibility for disabled passes including but not limited to veterans with less than 50% disability and persons living with mental illnesses other than those already included; 5) Improve safety; and 6) Increase affordability for very low-income households. What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? 1) Expand hours of operation and service on weekends; 2) Improve audible systems for the blind; 3) Implement rapid transit between inner-city/low-income areas to outlying areas of the county, as well as areas with high concentrations of minimum wage employment such as service sectors and manufacturing; 4) Expand eligibility for disabled passes including but not limited to veterans with less than 50% disability and persons living with mental illnesses other than those already included; 5) Improve safety; and 6) Increase affordability for very low-income households. STATUS REPORT FORM

What options do you support to provide ongoing funding for transportation systems/services? Increase the $18 S/D/M fares modestly (no more than $5) to allow for a rate reduction for very low-income households and include transfers. Purchase electric vehicles to reduce operating costs. Seek competitive proposals to outsource support services, such as maintenance and other services, where possible. What feedback would you give the decision makers? While the rates for the S/D/M Compass Card pass are very low, many groups are excluded. This impacts overall transportation revenue and the economic health of our region because excluded groups will have reduced access to transportation, employment and services. In addition, improve accessibility for persons living with disabilities including but not limited to audible systems and access ramps to buses and trolleys. Consider not increasing frequency of trips in favor of expanding hours and days of operation. Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: NA

SECTION 3: PROGRAM MANAGER FEEDBACK

Based on feedback, overall, was the program beneficial to your community? Low-income communities and communities defined as persons living with disabilities felt the program was beneficial, but were skeptical regarding the efficacy of their input. Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall Mini-Grant Program experience with recommendations and suggestions: The grant program accomplished the goal of affirmative outreach and public input, but the actual staff time allocation probably exceeded the amount of the awards. In addition, the presentations were very technical on one hand and not specific enough on the other. Route changes should have been highlighted and made specific to the areas where the presentations were conducted. SANDAG provided superior support and excellent service. ALL CONGREGATIONS TOGETHER

Community Based Mini-Grant Program

STATUS REPORT FORM

FINAL STATUS REPORT FOR PHASE II, COMPLETED SURVEYS AND ADDITIONAL COMPILED COMMUNITY INPUT TO ACCOMPANY REPORT Submitting Agency: All Congregations Together Project Manager: Rolland Slade Contract number: 5001278 Period of Work: 10/1/10 to 6/30/11 Date Submitted: 07/08/11 SECTION 1: OUTREACH INFORMATION Materials/ Community Resources Used Community Group Target No. of (Documentation Group Description Date Location Audience Attendees Attached) Juneteenth African 6/18/2011 Jacobs African 100+ Distributed 2050 Community American & 2 p.m. Amphitheater American RTP fact sheets and Celebration African Nation Adults material related to Immigrant the Envision 2050 Community website in order to Representatives: provide further Description of feedback on the population: plan. Collected Southeastern surveys of some of San Diego, low- the participants; was income resident not able to obtain members. Many sign in names for all of the African attendees of the Nation event who received Immigrant information. residents speak very little English. Both African American and African Nation Immigrant populations have a built in social network through local Southeastern San Diego organizations that include: Jacobs Center, Coalition of Neighborhood Council, Southeastern Economic Development Corporation, neighborhood planning community groups, local community colleges and continuing education campuses, and local faith-based member congregations Gompers Youth and Wednesday, Gompers Youth 16 Provided youth with Mentoring Young Adult June 22, Charter an overview of the Group Community 2011 School 2050 RTP, along Representatives: 12:45 p.m. with a fact sheet. Many of these Showed them the youth and SANDAG 2050 RTP young adults video that have a built-in summarizes the social network regional through local transportation plan. Southeastern San Diego organizations that include: Jacobs Center, local community colleges and continuing education campuses, and local faith-based member congregations CNC Youth and Wednesday, CNC Youth Youth 15 Provided youth with Young Adult June 22, Center an overview of the Community 2011 2050 RTP, along Representatives: 10:30 a.m. with a fact sheet. Many of these Showed them the youth and SANDAG 2050 RTP young adults video that have a built-in summarizes the social network regional through local transportation plan. Southeastern San Diego organizations that include: Jacobs Center, local community colleges and continuing education campuses, and local faith-based member congregations George Senior Citizen 6/27/2011 George Senior and 10 Provided seniors Stevens Senior and Disabled 1 to 2 p.m. Stevens Disabled with an overview of Center Resident Senior Center the 2050 RTP, along Members: A (Funds are with a fact sheet. large number of available to Showed them the individuals in host this SANDAG 2050 RTP this group use event.) video that public transit summarizes the and others are regional able to drive. transportation plan. Southeastern San Diego organizations include, George Steven's Fourth District Senior Resource Center, St. Stevens Retirement Center, and seniors from local faith-based member congregations. Center of African 7/1/2011 Tubman African 15 Provided community Neighborhood American & Chavez American leaders with Councils African Nation Center Adults information on the Immigrant 2050 RTP, fact sheet Community and feedback forms. Representatives: A lively discussion Description of regarding the plan population: was held, and Southeastern strong promotion of San Diego, low- a lay-leaders income resident feedback forum was members. Many encouraged. of the African Nation Immigrant residents speak very little English.

SECTION 2: FEEDBACK SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS Please answer the following questions based on the most common concerns from OVERALL community input. How can we improve the San Diego County transportation system? Increase bus routes, especially in low resident, high business areas; create opportunities for bus transfers without an added cost or expense; create better lighting at bus and trolley stops; inner city areas still have residents who use the public transportation system, so eliminating/bypassing/cutting down public transportation in these areas could be devastating; and create opportunities to minimize traffic congestion. What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Increased bus routes and stops; shorter travel times to different areas; increased times of public transportation operation – not always available for those working evening and overnight shifts; 24-hour transportation availability; and cost-savings in transportation services. What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Southeastern San Diego is an area that is easily overlooked because of its perceived danger. However, it is still a highly dense area with residents requiring public transportation. This area should not be overlooked for high speed rail, express freeway lanes, and in creating opportunities for bus routes and stops. What options do you support to provide ongoing funding for transportation systems/services? Ride sharing or van pool services for employees of larger employers, especially for those working second and overnight shifts. What feedback would you give the decision makers? The community feels unheard, and that their needs are largely ignored. However, members of this community rely on public transportation and on regular bus routes. They create their budgets based on fares and their needs; their children also rely on public transportation to get to school and home. It is important to really listen to the feedback and incorporate it into planning and prioritizing transportation needs. Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: None

CASA FAMILIAR

Community Based Mini-Grant Program

STATUS REPORT FORM

Activities Completed During Invoice Period: Submitting Agency: Casa Familiar Project Manager: Susana Levy Contract number: 5001319 Period of Work: 1/1/11 to Date Submitted: 6/30/11 OUTREACH INFORMATION Materials/ Resources Used Community Community Group Target No. of (Documentation Group Description Date Location Audience Attendees Attached) Casa de Padres Parents and 1/26/2011 Casa Ages 25+ 20 Handouts grandparents of school- Familiar/ aged children REC 10 a.m. San Ysidro Youth Youth leaders program 4/6/2011 Villa Nueva. Ages 13+ 9 Handouts participants and Casa 3604 Beyer Azteca participants. Blvd., San Young leaders focus on Ysidro teenage leadership 5 p.m. development. Casa Azteca works in collaboration with SDSU freshmen from the South Bay. Club 50 Older adults: San Ysidro 4/8/2011 Villa Nueva Ages 50+ 20 Handouts residents who gather at 1 p.m. Villa Nueva.

Dia de Community event with 5/14/2011 212 W Park Ages 0 to 120 Booth, signs, and San Ysidro participation from a Ave, San 90 handouts Celebration variety of agencies and Ysidro San Ysidro residents 10 a.m. SDPRC Women’s group of San 6/24/2011 212 W Park Ages 21 to 60 PowerPoint Ysidro residents of all Ave, San 90 presentation and ages who are interested Ysidro handouts in health issues. 9 a.m. Senior Class Group of senior women 6/29/2011 Villa Nueva. Ages 50+ 7 PowerPoint who attend computer 3604 Beyer presentation, class. Blvd., San hands outs, and Ysidro SANDAG Web site 11 a.m. Sin Limites San Ysidro low-income 6/30/2011 212 W Park Ages 13+ 38 PowerPoint resident members. Ave, San presentation Families, individuals, Ysidro seniors and youth who 5 p.m. participate in community workshops. CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE

Community Based Mini-Grant Program

STATUS REPORT FORM

Activities Completed During Invoice Period: Submitting Agency: Chula Vista Community Project Manager: Margarita Holguin Collaborative Contract number: Period of Work: 12-21-10 to 6-30-11 Date Submitted: 06/30/11 5001280 SECTION 1: OUTREACH INFORMATION Materials/ Resources Used Community Community Group Target No. of (Documentation Group Description Date Location Audience Attendees Attached) Iglesia de Church members in 5/17/2011 345 Anita Spanish- 18 SANDAG 2050 RTP Guadalupe target community Ave., speaking bookmarks, fliers, Chula community handouts, pencils, Vista residents and input/feedback forms New ESL class – School 5/18/2011 915 4th Spanish- 19 SANDAG 2050 RTP Directions parents and community Ave., speaking bookmarks, fliers, Family members Chula and/or low- handouts, pencils, Resource Vista income and input/feedback Center community forms residents CVCC Agencies that serve 6/14/2011 345 5th Community 52 SANDAG 2050 RTP Partners Chula Vista and South Ave., partners bookmarks, fliers, Meeting Bay Chula that serve handouts, pencils, Vista Spanish- and input/feedback speaking forms and/or /low- income community residents Southwest Community activists and 6/27/2011 389 Residents of 10 SANDAG 2050 RTP Civic advocates Orange target bookmarks, fliers, Association Ave., community handouts, pencils, Chula and input/feedback Vista forms

INPUT-TO-DATE REPORT FORM Identified Community Larger Activities held in 2010-11: Groups: Inglesia de Guadalupe ESL Parents & Community members CVCC Partners Meeting Southwest Civic Association SECTION 2: FEEDBACK SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS Please answer the following questions based on the most common concerns from OVERALL community input. How can we improve the San Diego County transportation system? The system needs to be more affordable and provide more safety for users – people do not currently feel safe riding public transportation. What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? More direct routes that avoid transfers and faster routes out of the South Bay. What are your community’s highest priorities for a transportation system? Affordability and safety. STATUS REPORT FORM What options do you support to provide ongoing funding for transportation systems/services? Government funding.

What feedback would you give the decision makers? Need to consider the needs of underserved populations and ensure transportation addresses the needs of disconnected populations. Need to provide safe and affordable routes to public transportation. Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members:

EL CAJON COLLABORATIVE

FRIENDS OF ADULT DAY HEALTH CARE CENTERS

Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers 4506 Nebo Drive, La Mesa, CA 91941 Project Manager – Lois Knowlton

Comments Received on the Draft 2050 RTP April 26, 2011 through July 6, 2011

Introduction: The following feedback was gathered at several locations at several meetings, including the SANDAG public forum in San Marcos and SWG public hearing. All the feedback was summarized and presented to an East County and Poway group of seniors, and the following five items were rated as the most important.

1. The emphasis on integrating land use, housing, transportation planning to create communities that are more sustainable, walkable, transit oriented, and compact is a valuable component of the plan.

2. Cost of fares for public transportation needs to be reduced – especially for lower-income populations.

3. Improve bus schedules for greater frequency and reduce wait time at bus and trolley stops and travel time.

4. Draft plan needs to adopt more strategies to reduce air pollution because of the adverse health effects – especially in lower-income communities.

5. Draft plan needs to change the timeline to implement improvements in public transportation before freeway upgrades.

NORTH COUNTY

 More focus outside of the urban core of San Diego – need more transit for seniors in North County.  Rural areas like Ramona are underserved in this plan. Few people in this area are within 30 minutes of a full- service hospital.  Access to bus stops needs to be closer to North County residences – especially for homebound individuals or individuals with cognitive deficits who live in private homes or group homes in less populated areas.  Cultural sensitivity training should be included in the transit portions of the plan for the staff – drivers, security guards, etc.  Include multilingual oral presentations to individuals in the community about transit resources.  Need for greater security at transit stops and on public transportation – often repeated.  Include curb-to-curb service in the plan.

EAST COUNTY

 Accessing hospital and doctors’ services is a problem. The plan should include transporting doctors to homebound seniors.  Toll roads are a problem. Because of the expense they are underutilized, e.g. from East County to Chula Vista.  Visually and mobility impaired individuals indicated that the plan needed to include more improvements in trolley and bus stops, e.g. closer connections between trolley and bus stops and Compass Card machine closer to entrance to the trolley. Planned improvements in the loading platforms were applauded.

SOUTH COUNTY

 Comments and concerns in the South County forum were the same as North and East with the exception of the support of the plan for connecting with the Rodriguez Airport via Otay Mesa.

FEEDBACK RELATED TO SENIORS IN ALL AREAS OF THE COUNTY

 More specialized attention needed for the developmentally disabled population and the mentally ill.  Need for more funding to provide transit that is affordable for non-driving population.  Draft plan includes improvements to trains, buses, vans, and trolleys, making them more handicapped accessible and user friendly; however, it is hoped that a high priority on these improvements can be made sooner than later.  Affirm the initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases because health on the frail elderly is negatively impacted – especially in respiratory conditions.  More efforts to decrease ride time, waiting time at stops, and frequency of stops.  Cultural sensitivity training should be included in the transit portions of the plan for the staff – drivers, security guards, etc.  Include multilingual oral presentations to individuals in the community about transit resources.  Need for greater security at transit stops and on public transportation – often repeated.  Include curb-to-curb service in the plan.  Car and vanpools are encouraged in the plan. Incentives for employers also should be included.  Criticism of the buses for not keeping to their schedules. This should be part of the transit portion of the RTP. LINDA VISTA COLLABORATIVE

Community Based Mini-Grant Program

STATUS REPORT FORM

FINAL STATUS REPORT FOR PHASE II, COMPLETED SURVEYS AND ADDITIONAL COMPILED COMMUNITY INPUT TO ACCOMPANY REPORT Submitting Agency: Linda Vista Collaborative Project Manager: Adriana Gallardo (Bayside, fiscal agent) Contract number: 5001279 Period of Work: 10/1/10 to 6/30/11 Date Submitted: 07/20/2011 SECTION 1: OUTREACH INFORMATION Materials/ Community Resources Used Community Group Target No. of (Documentation Group Description Date Location Audience Attendees Attached) Convivio Latino Latino 8-Mar Bayside #5 Video and fact Steering sheet Committee

UPAC Vietnamese and 16-Mar Aero Drive #17 Fact sheet Hmong

Familia Indigena Mixtec and 24-Mar Bayside #12 Presentation and Unida Latino families maps

Convivio Latino Latino 25-Mar Bayside #17 Poster and maps

Senior Group Senior citizens 29-Mar Bayside #22 PowerPoint and maps

Linda Vista Community 20-Apr Bayside #11 PowerPoint and Collaborative leaders maps

Kearny High Youth 16-May Bayside/ #5 SANDAG Web site School and Mark Computer and Web tools Twain High Lab School Kearny High Youth 18-May Bayside/ #4 Fact sheets School and Mark Computer Twain High Lab School Kearny High Youth 19-May Bayside/ #9 PowerPoint and School and Mark Computer maps Twain High Lab School Linda Vista Community 25-May Bayside #4 PowerPoint and Collaborative leaders maps

Multi-cultural Mixtec, Hmong, 25-May Bayside #3 Maps, PowerPoint, Steering Latino, and and Web tools Committee Vietnamese community leaders Vietnamese Vietnamese 1-Jun Bayside #24 Maps Advisory Board senior citizens

Community Hmong, Mixtec, 3-Jun Bayside #36 Workshops Workshop RTP Latino, and Public Comment Vietnamese Period Latino Convivio Women 22-Jun Bayside #5 Maps and presentation of updates

Convivio Latino Latino 24-Jun Bayside #31 Maps and presentation of updates

Community Based Mini-Grant Program Larger Activities held in 2010-11:

Linda Vista Collaborative June 3, 2011, Bayside Community Center Public Comment Outreach Event was hosted in partnership with Latino, Mixtec, Hmong, and Vietnamese organizations. This event also was hosted with the support of youth volunteers from Kearny High School and Montgomery Middle School. Mixtec population

Latino population

Vietnamese population

Hmong population

Senior citizens SECTION 2: FEEDBACK SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM COMMUNITY GROUPS Please answer the following questions based on the most common concerns from OVERALL community input. How can we improve the San Diego County transportation system? We can improve the San Diego transportation system by ensuring that the RTP 2050 promotes a transit network system that is more comfortable, more effective, and more reliable for the region. The improvements to create a more effective transit system should focus on the growing senior citizen population and people with disabilities who rely on transit system. It is important to ensure that announcements and signs are created to meet the needs of these two groups. The desired improvements to create a more comfortable transit system are to provide a safe and accessible ride for all passengers. Lastly, it is important to integrate quality of life issues such as walkability, health, and education. It also is important to ensure that lines of the new transit networks connect to job centers and development plans to attract local business investments near trolley and main bus transit centers. All the above will help promote the use of public transit instead of driving of cars. What kind of transportation improvements should be considered? Transportation improvements to be considered:  Design and prioritize walkable areas throughout the city  Ensure that bus and trolley stops are well lit  Create incentives for businesses to invest in the future transit projects  Increasing the availability and affordability of bicycle lockers at transit stop centers  Providing subsidized transit fares for senior citizens and youth who are low income  Creating training opportunities for residents to learn about the transit routes and connections to recreation areas  Create connecting transit lines that will connect residents to job centers What are your community's highest priorities for a transportation system? Linda Vista residents recommended a more walkable community. Although our community in many ways is centrally located, and connected to areas such as Old Town Transit and Fashion Valley, residents are still not able to access the recreational parks and beach areas west of Morena Boulevard. There’s a missed opportunity to enhance the connections to these areas from Linda Vista as a potential opportunity for businesses to invest in this part of the community. Making this area more walkable also will help the current business locations in this part of the community. Linda Vista is home to a large senior citizen resident population who have requested, based on their feedback, public transit opportunities that will create social opportunities throughout the city. Although San Diego has existing programs for seniors to ride the bus and trolley, many of our residents have prioritized these opportunities as a necessity to keep seniors from isolation. In addition to these recommendations, residents also suggested providing fare machines located inside the trolley to give passengers the option to pay for their ride when they are inside the trolley. In addition, most San Diego City School buses have been discontinued and as a result the youth will be relying on public transit. We encourage SANDAG to work in partnership with city schools, PTA boards, and their local district representatives to ensure that bus stops provide safe waiting locations and areas that are well lit. What options do you support to provide ongoing funding for transportation systems/services? We strongly encourage SANDAG to continue funding opportunities that allow communities of concern to be engaged in the decision-making processes from the beginning, such as the outreach for the 2050 RTP. We also support the continuation of using a similar model to create a diverse and inclusive stakeholders working group for the upcoming RCP updates. It is important that SANDAG continues to build and foster its collaboration with community-based partnerships in order to have access to residents who fall into the categories of communities of concern. In addition, San Diego has become the home of a growing population of residents who speak English as a second language. Many of the people in this group who live in Linda Vista are faced with language and economic circumstances that limit their mobility. We encourage funding opportunities that provide training on how to ride the buses and trolley lines to these community residents through the partnerships with community-based organizations. What feedback would you give the decision makers? The Linda Vista community is an excellent example or profile of a community, which is not only ethnically diverse but also a community whose residents come from a mix of income levels and professions. Therefore, in the process of engaging our community groups in the 2050 RTP process, it was important to address pressing issues that exist today in order to effectively convey the future of our region and the 2050 RTP. Our effectiveness in reaching the different groups of people in Linda Vista required us to use different models of outreach strategies. One of these was to recruit youth volunteers who helped create an interactive workshop that was held on June 3. The students helped to create five stations. Each station had a theme that was linked to the main transit propositions that were conveyed in the 2050 RTP. This encouraged the participation of community residents who were excited to learn about the greater San Diego region with the provided maps of the region and also encouraged an inviting space to capture public comments. It’s important to show that events like these can be very effective as a model and may be recreated in other parts of the region which also have diverse communities like Linda Vista. In the overall process, our community residents’ significant contribution to Chapter 4 on social equity and environmental justice of the 2050 RTP gave them a sense of ownership in the outreach process. In addition, the residents’ participation allowed them to gain a greater understanding of the future vision for the region through the 2050 RTP and how transportation will shape their neighborhood’s quality of life. Please provide additional suggestions and comments from community members: The community members in Linda Vista saw a need to create programs that subsidize transit fare for groups of senior citizens and youth who are low income. The need to create more walkable communities was repeated as a necessity that cannot be separated from the improvements and vision proposed in the 2050 RTP. We suggest that in order to promote public transit, planners in San Diego learn from the models offered in some European communities where developers intentionally limit parking structures and prioritize a culture of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other forms of alternative transportation. SECTION 3: PROGRAM MANAGER FEEDBACK

Based on feedback, overall, was the program beneficial to your community? Our organization recruited community leaders from the Hmong, Mixtec, Latino, and Vietnamese grassroots organizations that have a strong presence in Linda Vista. It was through this connection that we received support from the community residents as we conducted workshops and presentations throughout the last two years. The 2050 RTP mini-grant was significantly beneficial in the following ways: The outreach process provided knowledge to the communities who are amongst the “hardest to reach.” The 2050 RTP outreach engaged groups in Linda Vista that are part of the communities of concern. Their involvement was the initiation of an important dialogue about our community and its future. One of the long-term results was the initiation of a local forum that is in the process of being created with the support from Linda Vista Collaborative and the staff of Lori Zapf. Please provide a brief evaluation of the overall Mini-Grant Program experience with recommendations and suggestions: On behalf of the Linda Vista Collaborative, we commend SANDAG for creating an opportunity to engage communities of concern through the Mini-Grant Program. Our outreach process has been an exciting learning opportunity. We also commend SANDAG staff members for providing their direct support through information, resources, and presentations that were imparted in our community. The Mini-Grant Program offers a model that conveys the importance of partnering with community-based organizations. For our organization, the 2050 RTP was relevant to our own process of advocacy due to the populations we serve. Lastly, the Linda Vista Collaborative strongly encourages SANDAG staff to continue to work with the already participating organizations that took part in this process for upcoming updates on the RCP and extending the invitation to additional community-based organizations to participate in the decision process of future projects.

San Ysidro San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce Business Association

San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce and Business Association Joint Executive Summary SANDAG 2050 RTP

Introduction

The draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan is a well-defined strategy that begins to layout additional public transit choices for consumers. However, the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce and Business Association have found the plan lacking in matching actual and future needs of South San Diego, as a whole, and San Ysidro, in particular, with corresponding projects. San Ysidro is a community of concern, a low income minority (LIM) community, a low engagement community, community of low vehicle-to- resident ratio and a community historically impacted by past transportation projects – I-5, I-805, I-905 and the trolley system. Additionally, San Ysidro is negatively impacted by high volume traffic from the border – most notably in local street impacts and air quality. The RTP does not address how it will mitigate these impacts.

Found Flaws throughout 2050 RTP

1. Lack of Environmental Impact Mitigation

• How will GHG/C02 emissions be reduced in San Ysidro? At the San Ysidro Land Port of Entry (SYLPOE)?

• Per "Healthy Borders" joint project Casa Familiar/SDSU air quality conditions at SYLPOE two to four times worse than in other San Ysidro areas, and ten times worse than Imperial Beach.

• Reference is made to proposed actions to implement the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), specifically:

3. Refine indicators that are used to monitor progress toward the implementation of the RTP so they include additional measures that address sustainability, greenhouse gas reductions and public health considerations (Ref. RTP 3-76)

• Natural Habitats (Ref. RTP 3-41). We see no specific funds/projects included – Dairy Ponds & adjacent Tijuana valley marsh lands? (Ref. RTP Fig. 3-18 & 3-20) Reference is made to the very significant hardscape improvements made along I-5 at Sweetwater river crossing

• Bicycles. The only actual project that can be discerned impacting San Ysidro is Project #3 (Ref. RTP 6-47), yet more information is needed.

• Inconsistency in project funding needs to be clarified: $419 M (Ref. RTP 3-63); yet total is $3.4 Billion (Ref. RTP 5-11).

663 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA 92173 T 619.428.1281 / 619.428.5200 – F 619.428.5400 email: [email protected] San Ysidro San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce Business Association

2. Insufficient Address of Border Traffic

While RTP says: • Planning… traditionally… considered… bounded by SD County, however SD... has increasingly close ties to neighboring counties and Mexico ... This challenges us to think of our region as extending beyond our borders ... " (Ref RTP 6-53) • Stated Policy Objective (Mobility): Provide transportation choices to better connect the SD region with Mexico...(Ref RTP 2-4) • Last several years saw a steady increase in interregional and international commuting, as more people chose to live in Riverside County and Baja California (Ref RTP 6-53) • San Ysidro POE handled about 60 million individual crossings in 2009. That's about 7 per cent more travelers than at Los Angeles International Airport (Ref RTP 6-60) • Long-term forecasts ... suggest· that cross border vehicle traffic will increase by more than 40% between 2008 and 2050 (Ref. RTP 6-59). AND The trolley is the most used form of transportation to about 40% of the 25,000 pedestrian crossers ...The Blue Line Trolley at San Ysidro ITC maintains the Trolley system's highest volume of users(Ref RTP 6-61) • Overall (RTP) should provide fast, convenient, and effective transportation options for all people (Ref RTP 2-3) • Per Inter Regional Community Model, Tijuana 3.1% projected growth rate is far higher any other sub-region (Ref RTP 6-57) • Purpose of Regional Growth Forecast account for individuals who work in the region but live outside its boundaries (Ref Appendix RGF, pg. 8) • "Home Price Attractiveness Ratio" for Tijuana/N. Baja 5.12 (Ref. Appendix RGF, pg. 39); this far higher than anywhere in San Diego, e.g. "South Suburban" @ 1.17

However, the RTP somehow concludes:

• 2050 RGF and SCS (Sustainable Communities Strategy) estimate the interregional commuting will be minimal, driven only by the proximity of neighboring regions to some job centers, and personal choices. It is estimated than an additional 15,000 households will have residents' commute into the region for work. Nearly half of these households will be located in Baja Mexico ... " (Ref RTP 3-37)

Our Comment:

Per the RTP, an estimated 60 million persons (and persons in vehicles) cross the border annually (2009). Stated differently, 60 million annual border crossers yield 30,000,000 million unduplicated persons or 82,192 northbound crossers daily 365 days per year, a significant percentage of which can be assumed to be commuters going to work. Other data reportedly from US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) records (in 2010) denote an average daily northbound count of 60,000 commuters entering the US daily to go to work in San Diego.

The RTP estimates a 40% growth rate in Mexico commuters over the next 39 years, yet projects only an estimated 7,500 (additional) individuals as commuters. This is a glaring inconsistency; and does not reflect that the number of crossborder commuters will substantially increase on in the future, given high Baja growth rates juxtaposed with high SD housing costs. This is further contrary to what is needed infrastructure, considering that

663 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA 92173 T 619.428.1281 / 619.428.5200 – F 619.428.5400 email: [email protected] San Ysidro San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce Business Association

major project investments are under way at the Mexican border – specifically, a remodel at Otay Mesa, Otay Mesa II, the Cross-border Passenger Terminal to Rodriquez International Airport, the $700 million reconfiguration of San Ysidro and Tijuana's planned "Plaza Bicentenario" Intermodal Transportation Center at the SYLPOE.

The GSA Traffic Study (part of the 2010 EIS "San Ysidro Land Port of Entry) finds this problematical situation will only worsen (out to year 2030) with traffic snarls at LOS "F" conditions at multiple intersections fully one-mile from the POE into the SY community.

3. Lack of Public Transit to Job and Educational Centers

• Regional Arterial System – “RA” (and local streets) categories:

RTP says: • 2050 RTP outlines projects for transit, rail and bus services, express or managed lanes, highways, local streets, bicycling, and walking ... result will be an integrated, multimodal transportation system by mid-century (Ref RTP 1-2)

• Focuses on priority corridors (Ref RTP 6-3)

• Re funding, the sales tax extension ordinance identified specific amounts of money ... mitigation activities required for major highway, transit regional arterial, and local street and road improvements identified in the Plan (Ref RTP 5-3)

• RTP local streets and roads capital and rehabilitation budget totals $16.871 B

• City of San Diego has submitted only nine Regional Arterials projects. Only one (Palm Avenue @ 1-805) has any bearing on San Ysidro. (Ref RTP Appendix A-28 – A- 34)

Our Comment: • This is an opportunity, yet a conundrum. City of San Diego is initiating entity in determining "Regional Arterial" designation and subsequent forwarding to SANDAG for inclusion for RTP funding. City determines "how" sales tax funds are expended for "local" streets. SY needs to advocate before CSD- additional streets designated Regional Arterials – also to secure funding within "local street" category. Additionally, this RTP does not offer San Ysidro Residents or pedestrian border crossers any better access to health centers, tourist opportunities or higher education facilities. The first improvement to access to job centers is a 2035 bus rapid transit route from San Ysidro to Otay Mesa, yet still does not run west to Imperial Beach.

4. Lack of Social Equity and Environmental Justice

San Ysidro faces impacts of 60 million (annual) border crossers (Ref. RTP6-60). San Ysidro is a blighted/low income community already divided by two freeways & trolley tracks, yet the only projects identified for San Ysidro are:

663 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA 92173 T 619.428.1281 / 619.428.5200 – F 619.428.5400 email: [email protected] San Ysidro San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce Business Association

TRANSIT: • #640 BRT 1-5: SY to Downtown & Kearny Mesa, year 2020 $86 M (Reportedly by SANDAG staff: runs to year 2040 when replaced by Express Trolley #540) • #638 Rapid Bus: SY to Otay Mesa via SR 905, year 2035 $84 M • #540 Express Trolley: SY to UTC via Downtown, year 2040 $821 M • SY Intermodal Transportation Center: year unspec. $52 M (Ref. RTP 6-29 & 63) HIGHWAYS: 1-805:

POE to SR 905; year 2018 $595 M for SR 54 and south to SR 905 + Otay Mesa (Ref. RTP 6/14/6-15)

RECAP:

SY (to SR 905) direct share equates to 2.5% of combined capital transit & highway expenditures!

RTP goes on to say:

• Achieving social equity in the development of a comprehensive transportation system is a major regional goal. It requires making investments ...regardless of age, race, color, national origin, income, or physical disabilities (Ref. RTP 1-4)

• Without proper planning and development, transportation systems can degrade the quality of life in communities. The construction of roads, freeways, and rail-transit systems has sometimes placed burdens on many lower income and minority communities. At times, new transportation projects have physically divided communities resulting in long-lasting social and economic costs. (Ref. RTP 1-4)

• Overall the Plan is designed to allocate investments and distribute projects widely, to ensure that both benefits and burdens are equitably distributed among all populatiosn (Ref. RTP 2-9) ... ; AND these efforts ensured that low income and minority communities will share in the benefits of the transportation investments without bearing a disproportionate burden from the system (Ref. RTP 4-2)

• Proposed Action- Transit: Maximize opportunities for supporting transit in redevelopment areas (Ref. RTP 6-67)

• Proposed Action- Social Equity: Develop a scope of work for a study on how to measure 'cumulative disadvantage' in the distribution of infrastructure investments. (Ref. RTP 4-63)

Our Comment

San Ysidro meets all the social equity conditions so well articulated in the RTP. San Ysidro is a "poster child" that calls out for social equity remediation, divided by two

663 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA 92173 T 619.428.1281 / 619.428.5200 – F 619.428.5400 email: [email protected] San Ysidro San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce Business Association

freeways and the trolley tracks. Yet, investments in the form of tangible transportation infrastructure projects are miniscule, especially considering the enormous impact of border crossers on local streets and the fact the San Ysidro records the highest transit ridership counts in the Region. We see no balance of site performance with proposed site investment.

The RTP further states:

The aim of these investments is to significantly increase the attractiveness of public transit, walking, and bicycling in areas that are planned for more compact and mixed- use development. Investments in our local streets and roads ... are an integral part of the overall transportation network (Ref. RTP 3-63)

Our Comment:

The community of San Ysidro is on record as highly supportive of Smart Growth Development; and San Ysidro is identified as "Town Center" in SANDAG's Smart Growth map (2004). With the Update to the San Ysidro Community Plan underway, one likely consequence will be setting out the planning context for "pilot village"/Smart Growth projects to follow. We are missing a great opportunity to proactively plan by the current iteration of the RTP.

Further opportunities:

Rail Freight – While the need for investments to create an alternative goods movement corridor has been identified (San Diego - San Ysidro - Tijuana-Tecate-Carrizo Gorge- Imperial County), we see no specific project (Ref. RTP 6-39)

Financial Incentives – Consider financial incentives for "peak" transit use. There are multiple references for vehicles (Ref. RTP 1-4/3-3/7-10/8-5). Why not create a financial incentive for mass transit use during peak hours?

Conclusion

We hope to have the opportunity to work with SANDAG and the support of our elected representatives toward filling some of the voids currently existing in the 2050 RTP. Until then, we find the 2050 RTP lacking in 1) Environmental Impact Mitigation, 2) Sufficient Address of Border Traffic, 3) Public Transit to Job and Educational Centers and 4) Social Equity and Environmental Justice. We look forward to resolution of these matters.

663 E. San Ysidro Blvd., San Ysidro, CA 92173 T 619.428.1281 / 619.428.5200 – F 619.428.5400 email: [email protected] 2050 RTP and SCS Public Outreach and Notification List

SANDAG maintains an extensive opt-in stakeholders list that includes affordable housing advocates, transportation advocates, neighborhood and community groups, environmental advocates, builder representatives, broad-based business organizations, landowners, commercial property interests, and homeowner associations. The stakeholders list also includes representatives from agencies responsible for land use, natural resources, conservation, and historic preservation. Regular communications with these stakeholders is conducted via newsletter, invitations, and e-mail with updates and information on the 2050 RTP development process, meeting notices, decision-making points, and how to get involved. The list below includes organizations and agencies that are on the notification list.

‐ AARP – American Association of Retired Persons ‐ Brown Field International Business Park, LLC ‐ Able-Disabled Advocacy ‐ Building Industry Association of San Diego ‐ Access Achiever ‐ Building Owners and Managers Association of ‐ Access to Independence of San Diego San Diego (BOMASD) ‐ Access to Work ‐ Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 (C3) ‐ Accretive Group of Companies ‐ Cali Bamboo ‐ Active Network ‐ California Center for Sustainable Energy ‐ Ad Hoc Freight Stakeholders Working Group ‐ California Coastal Coalition (SANDAG) ‐ California Coastal Commission ‐ Adams Avenue Business Association ‐ California Department of Fish and Game ‐ AECOM ‐ California Department of Housing and ‐ Air Pollution Control District Community Development ‐ Air Resources Board ‐ California Department of Transportation ‐ All Congregations Together (ACT) ‐ California Department of Transportation – ‐ Alliance for Habitat Conservation Aeronautics Division ‐ Alpha Project ‐ California Highway Patrol ‐ Alpine Mountain Empire Chamber of ‐ California Native Plant Society of San Diego Commerce (CNPSSD) ‐ Alta Planning ‐ California Nevada Cement Association ‐ Alzheimer’s and Aging Research Center ‐ California Planning & Development Report ‐ Amalgamated Transit Union – Local 1309 ‐ California Senior Legislature ‐ American Heart Association ‐ California Sustainability Alliance ‐ American Institute of Architects ‐ California Trucking Association ‐ American Institute of Architects of San Diego, ‐ California Public Interest Research Group Urban Design Committee (CALPIRG) ‐ American Lung Association ‐ Cal-Prop Investments & Management ‐ Apartment Consultants Inc. ‐ Caltrans ‐ Architects HGW ‐ Campaign for Affordable Housing ‐ ARS ‐ Capital Growth Properties Inc. ‐ Asian Business Association of San Diego ‐ Cardiff-by-the-Sea Chamber of Commerce ‐ ASLA ‐ Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce ‐ Asset Management Group ‐ Carlsbad Planning Commission ‐ Association of Environmental Professionals ‐ Carlsbad Village Association ‐ Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments ‐ Carmel Mountain Ranch Community Committee ‐ Automobile Club of Southern California ‐ Carmel Valley Community Planning Board ‐ Azalea Park Neighborhood Association ‐ Carmel Valley NOW! ‐ Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association ‐ Casa Familiar ‐ Barratt American ‐ Castle Breckenridge Management Inc. ‐ Barrio Logan College Institute ‐ Catalyst Network ‐ Barrio Logan Project Area Committee ‐ CB Richard Ellis ‐ Bayside Community Center ‐ CDC Commercial Real Estate ‐ Bayview Community Development Corporation ‐ Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and ‐ Benton Consulting Group Health Promotion ‐ Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group (SANDAG) ‐ Center for Supportive Housing ‐ Biocom ‐ Center on Policy Initiatives ‐ Black Mountain Ranch Community Planning ‐ Centre City Advisory Committee Group ‐ Centre City Development Corporation ‐ Bonita Business and Professional Association ‐ Century 21 Horizon ‐ Bonsall Chamber of Commerce ‐ Cherokee Point Neighborhood Association ‐ Bonsall Community Sponsor Group ‐ Chicano Federation ‐ Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce ‐ Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce ‐ BP Global Fuels Technology ‐ Chula Vista Community Collaborative ‐ BRIDGE Housing Corporation – Southern ‐ Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight California Committee ‐ Bronze Triangle CDC ‐ Citizen Advisory Committee for Fresno RTP/SCS ‐ Brookfield San Diego Holdings ‐ Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 ‐ Brown & Winters ‐ City Heights Area Planning Committee ‐ City Heights Business Association ‐ Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board ‐ City Heights Community Development ‐ Descanso Community Planning Group Corporation ‐ DJO Global Inc. ‐ City of Carlsbad ‐ Dole ‐ City of Carlsbad, Environmental Manager ‐ Downtown San Diego Partnership ‐ City of Carlsbad, Transportation Department ‐ D.R. Horton ‐ City of Chula Vista ‐ Dye & Associates ‐ City of Coronado ‐ Eagle Aggregates ‐ City of Del Mar ‐ East County Economic Development Council ‐ City of El Cajon ‐ Eastern Area Communities Planning Committee ‐ City of Encinitas ‐ Eco-Stream ‐ City of Escondido ‐ ECP Commercial ‐ City of Escondido Recycling Program ‐ El Cajon Boulevard ‐ City of Imperial Beach ‐ El Cajon Business Improvement Association ‐ City of La Mesa ‐ El Cajon Community Collaborative ‐ City of Lemon Grove ‐ El Cajon Community Development Corporation ‐ City of National City ‐ Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning ‐ City of Oceanside Group ‐ City of Poway ‐ Encinitas Chamber of Commerce ‐ City of San Diego ‐ Endangered Habitats League ‐ City of San Diego, City Attorney Office ‐ Energy Working Group (SANDAG) ‐ City of San Diego, Community Planning ‐ Enviromine Inc. ‐ City of San Diego, Disabled Services Advisory ‐ Environmental Health Coalition Council ‐ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ‐ City of San Marcos ‐ Envision Committee ‐ City of Santee ‐ Equinox Center ‐ City of Solana Beach ‐ Escondido Chamber of Commerce ‐ City of Vista ‐ ESET LLC ‐ City/County Reinvestment Task Force ‐ Evanco Realty Advisors Inc. ‐ CityMark Development ‐ Fairmont Park Neighborhood Association ‐ City Place Planning ‐ Fallbrook Chamber of Commerce ‐ Clairemont Community Planning Group ‐ Federal Highway Administration ‐ Clairemont Mesa Planning Committee ‐ Federal Transit Administration ‐ Clairemont Town Council ‐ FedEx ‐ Clark Construction Group of California LP ‐ Fehr & Peers ‐ Cleantech ‐ Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of San ‐ Cloud 9 Super Shuttle Diego ‐ Coalition of Neighborhood Councils ‐ Five Star Tours & Charter Bus Company ‐ Coast Law Group LLP ‐ Flood Church ‐ College Area Community Planning Board ‐ Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers ‐ Colliers International ‐ Friends of Rose Canyon ‐ Commercial Facilities Inc. ‐ Friends of San Diego River Mouth ‐ Community Associations Institute, San Diego ‐ Friends of Tecolote Canyon Chapter ‐ Gaslamp Quarter Association ‐ Community Catalysts of California ‐ Gateway Property Management ‐ Community HousingWorks ‐ Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLP ‐ ConAm Management Corp. ‐ Generation 3 Development ‐ CONNECT ‐ Gen-Probe Inc. ‐ Conservation Strategy Group ‐ Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce ‐ Corky McMillin ‐ Granite Construction ‐ Cornerstone Property Management ‐ Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional ‐ Coronado Chamber of Commerce Transportation Council ‐ Corporation for Supportive Housing ‐ Greater Clairemont Chamber of Commerce ‐ Cosoy ‐ Greater Golden Hill Community Development ‐ County of San Diego Corporation ‐ County of San Diego, Aging and Independence ‐ Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Advisory Council ‐ Greater San Diego Business Association Gay and ‐ County of San Diego, Department of Public Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Works ‐ Grossmont Community College ‐ Covey Commercial ‐ Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College ‐ CPHS District ‐ CrossborderBusiness ‐ Hallmark Communities ‐ CSU San Marcos, College of Arts & Sciences ‐ Harborside ‐ CSU San Marcos, College of Business ‐ HDR Inc. Administration ‐ HechtSolberg ‐ Cubic Corp. ‐ Helix Water District ‐ Cubic Transportation Systems ‐ HMC Architects ‐ Customer Service Advantage Inc. ‐ HNTB ‐ C.W. Clark Inc. ‐ Housing and Urban Development ‐ Cymer Inc. ‐ Housing Development Partners of San Diego ‐ D11 Environmental Engineering ‐ Howes Weiler & Associates ‐ DC & E Planning ‐ HREC Investment Advisors ‐ Deaf Community Services ‐ Hutchens PR ‐ Del Mar Chamber of Commerce ‐ IBI Group ‐ ICLEI USA – Local Governments for ‐ Merit Property Management Inc. Sustainability ‐ Mid-City Rotary Club ‐ I Love a Clean San Diego ‐ Midway Community Planning Advisory ‐ Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce Committee (North) ‐ Imperial County Transportation Commission ‐ MIG Inc. ‐ Independent Energy Solutions ‐ Mingei International Museum ‐ Industrial Environmental Association of San ‐ Mira Mesa Chamber of Commerce Diego ‐ Miramar Ranch North Planning Committee ‐ Inland Pacific Commercial Properties ‐ Mission Beach Town Council ‐ International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ‐ Mission Hills Town Council – Local 465 ‐ Mission Valley Unified Planning Organization ‐ International Rescue Committee (IRC), San ‐ Move San Diego Diego ‐ NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development ‐ International Union of Operating Engineers Local Association, San Diego Chapter 12 ‐ National City Chamber of Commerce ‐ Investco ‐ National University ‐ Investment Property Management Group Inc. ‐ National University System Institute for Policy ‐ Irving Hughes Research ‐ Island Staffing ‐ Natural Energy USA Inc. ‐ J. Whalen and Associates ‐ Natural Resources Defense Council ‐ Jack in the Box Inc. ‐ Nature Conservancy, San Diego Office ‐ Jacobs Family Foundation ‐ Navajo Community Planners Inc. ‐ JHD Planning ‐ NEPA ‐ Julian Chamber of Commerce ‐ New School of Architecture and Design ‐ Justice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB) ‐ Normal Heights Community Planning Group ‐ Juvenile Diabetes Association of San Diego ‐ North Bay Redevelopment PAC ‐ Kearny Mesa Planning Group ‐ North County Transit District ‐ Ken-Tal Planning Committee ‐ North Park Community Association ‐ Kensington-Talmadge Business Association ‐ North Park Main Street ‐ Kern Council of Governments ‐ North Park Planning Committee ‐ Kimley Horn Associates ‐ Ocean Beach Community Development ‐ KM Realty Inc. Corporation ‐ Konar Associates ‐ Ocean Beach Town Council ‐ KP Public Affairs ‐ Oceanside Chamber of Commerce ‐ KTVA ‐ Oceanside Economic Development Council ‐ Jamul Dulzura Planning Group ‐ Oceanside Planning Commission ‐ Jaynes Corp. of California ‐ Office of Assemblyman Martin Garrick ‐ Jones Lang LaSalle ‐ Office of Assemblywoman Diane L. Harkey ‐ Justice Overcoming Boundaries ‐ Office of Senator Christine Kehoe ‐ Kimley Horn Associates ‐ Office of Tom Ford ‐ KOA Corp. ‐ Old Town Community Planning Committee ‐ Laborers International Union ‐ Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce ‐ La Jolla Community Planning Association ‐ Olson Co. ‐ La Jolla Golden Triangle Rotary Club ‐ On the Go: Transportation Solutions for Older ‐ La Jolla Shores Association Adults ‐ La Jolla Town Council ‐ Opper & Varco LLP, The Environmental Law ‐ La Jolla Village Community Council Group ‐ Lakeside Chamber of Commerce ‐ Orange County Council of Governments ‐ La Maestra Community Health Centers ‐ Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce ‐ La Mesa Chamber of Commerce ‐ Otay Mesa Planning Group ‐ La Playa Heritage ‐ Otay Mesa Nestor Community Planning Group ‐ Larimer Design ‐ Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee ‐ La Salle Solutions LLC ‐ Pacific Beach Town Council ‐ Latham & Watkins LLP ‐ Pacific Coast Commercial ‐ Latitude 33 Planning & Engineering ‐ Palomar Airport Advisory Committee ‐ Law Office of Cary Lowe ‐ Palomar Community College ‐ League of Conservation Voters, San Diego ‐ Pardee Homes ‐ Leap Wireless International Inc. ‐ Parsons Brinckerhoff ‐ Ledford Enterprises Inc. ‐ Peninsula Community Planning Board ‐ Lee and Associates Inc. ‐ Peninsula Town Council ‐ Linda Vista Community Collaborative ‐ Penn State University ‐ Linda Vista Community Planning Committee ‐ Placemakers ‐ Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers ‐ Point Loma Association ‐ Little Italy Association ‐ Port of San Diego ‐ Little Italy Residents Association ‐ Port of San Diego, NSAD ‐ Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) for ‐ Poway Chamber of Commerce San Diego County ‐ Prescott Companies ‐ Lounsbery Ferguson Altona and Peak ‐ PriceSmart Inc. ‐ LSA Associates Inc. ‐ Professional HOA Consultants Inc. ‐ Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP ‐ Project Design Consultants ‐ MAAC Project ‐ Psomas Engineering ‐ Meissner Jacquet Investment Management ‐ QUALCOMM Inc. Services ‐ Radelow Gittins Real Property Management Inc. ‐ Melroy Property Management ‐ Rail America ‐ Ramona Chamber of Commerce ‐ San Diego Regional Economic Development ‐ Ramona Community Planning Group Council ‐ Rancho San Diego-Jamul Chamber of ‐ San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership Commerce ‐ San Diego River Coalition ‐ Rancho Santa Fe Association ‐ San Diego River Conservancy ‐ R.A. Snyder Properties Inc. ‐ San Diego Senior Games Association ‐ R.B. Community Planning ‐ San Diego State University Center for Regional ‐ RBF Consulting Inc. Sustainability ‐ Recon ‐ San Diego Urban Economic Corporation ‐ Red Barn Co. ‐ San Diego Urban League ‐ Regional Housing Working Group (SANDAG) ‐ San Diego Workforce Partnership ‐ Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group ‐ San Diego World Trade Center (SANDAG) ‐ San Diego Youth and Community Services ‐ Regional Task Force on the Homeless ‐ San Dieguito River Park ‐ ResMed Inc. ‐ San Marcos Chamber of Commerce ‐ RREEF Management ‐ San Marcos Health Care ‐ Sabre Springs Planning Group ‐ SANTAC (SANDAG) ‐ Sacramento Area Council of Governments ‐ Santee Chamber of Commerce ‐ SAIC ‐ San Ysidro Business Association ‐ San Diego American Planning Association ‐ San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce ‐ San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, ‐ San Ysidro Community Planning Group AFL-CIO ‐ Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Group ‐ San Diego Association of Realtors ‐ San Diego County Democratic Party (SDCDP) ‐ San Diego Audubon Society ‐ San Diego State University (SDSU) ‐ San Diego Business Improvement District (BID) ‐ SDSU Associated Students Council ‐ SDSU, City Planning ‐ San Diego Canyonlands ‐ SDSU, College of Engineering ‐ San Diego Capital Collaborative ‐ SDSU Extension ‐ San Diego Chamber of Commerce Infrastructure ‐ SDSU, School of Arts & Letters Committee ‐ Sempra Energy ‐ San Diego Charter Co. ‐ Sempra Utilities ‐ San Diego City College Associated Students ‐ Senior Community Centers ‐ San Diego City/County Managers Association ‐ SenTek Consulting ‐ San Diego Coastal Chamber of Commerce ‐ Sentre Partners Inc. ‐ San Diego Coastkeeper ‐ SeQual Technologies Inc. ‐ San Diego Community College District ‐ Serra Mesa Planning Group ‐ San Diego Community Housing Corporation ‐ Servi-Tek LLC ‐ San Diego Convention Center Corporation ‐ Shapouin & Associates ‐ San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau ‐ Shea Homes ‐ San Diego Council of Design Professionals ‐ Shell ‐ San Diego County Apartment Association ‐ Sherman Heights Community Center ‐ San Diego County Archaeological Society ‐ SHS Planning ‐ San Diego County Bicycle Coalition ‐ Sierra Club of California ‐ San Diego County Farm Bureau ‐ Sierra Club of San Diego ‐ San Diego County Health and Human Services ‐ Silverwood Energy Inc. Agency ‐ Site Geo Engineering ‐ San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of ‐ Skinit Inc. Commerce ‐ Skyline-Paradise Hills Planning Committee ‐ San Diego County Regional Airport Authority ‐ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council ‐ San Diego County Taxpayers Association (SANDAG) ‐ San Diego County Water Authority ‐ SOFAR ‐ San Diego Countywide Alliance of Tenants ‐ Sohagi Law Group, PLC ‐ San Diego Data Processing Corporation/DPC ‐ Solana Beach Chamber of Commerce Brownheld ‐ Solar Turbines ‐ San Diego Downtown Partnership ‐ South Bay Community Services ‐ San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce ‐ South Bay Expressway ‐ San Diego Fair Housing Council ‐ Southeastern Economic Development ‐ San Diego Foundation Corporation ‐ San Diego Habitat for Humanity ‐ Southeastern San Diego Planning Group ‐ San Diego Housing Commission ‐ Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s ‐ San Diego Housing Federation Association ‐ San Diego Integrated Regional Water ‐ Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association Management Plan ‐ Southwestern Community College ‐ San Diego Interfaith Housing Foundation ‐ Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center ‐ San Diego Local Initiatives Support Corporation ‐ Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce ‐ San Diego Mesa College ‐ Spring Valley Youth and Family Coalition ‐ San Diego Metropolitan Transit System ‐ Spurlock Poirier ‐ San Diego Miramar College ‐ Stanislaus Council of Governments ‐ San Diego North Economic Development ‐ Star Pal Council ‐ State Farm Insurance ‐ San Diego Organizing Project ‐ St. Vincent de Paul Villages ‐ San Diego Redevelopment Agency ‐ Stella Solar ‐ San Diego Regional Center ‐ Sudberry Properties ‐ San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce ‐ Sunrise Property Management ‐ Surfrider Foundation ‐ Yellow Cab of San Diego ‐ Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP) ‐ Sustainable Environment Advocates ‐ Sustainable San Diego ‐ Sustainable SDSU ‐ Sweetwater Authority ‐ Sweetwater Union High School District ‐ TEC Inc. ‐ TeleworkResearchNetwork.com ‐ TEOA ‐ Teralta West Neighborhood Alliance ‐ Texas A & M University ‐ Therapeutics Inc. ‐ Tierrasanta Community Council ‐ Tierrasanta Village of San Diego ‐ Torrey Hills Technologies LLC ‐ Torrey Pines Community Planning Board ‐ Torrey Pines Property Management Inc. ‐ Townspeople ‐ Transcore ‐ Transit Alliance for a Better North County ‐ Transportation Corridor Agency ‐ Trilar Management Group ‐ UCSD – University of California at San Diego ‐ UCSD, Communications Department ‐ UCSD – ESP ‐ UCSD Extension ‐ UCSD Green Campus Program ‐ UCSD Student Liaison ‐ UCSD Student Sustainability Collective ‐ UCSD Sustainability Solutions Institute ‐ UCSD Systemwide Sustainability ‐ UCSD, Transportation Services ‐ UCSD, Urban Studies & Planning Department ‐ Union of Pan Asian Communities ‐ United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California ‐ United States Department of Defense ‐ United States Department of Homeland Security ‐ United States Marine Corps ‐ United States Navy ‐ University City Community Association ‐ University City Community Planning Group ‐ University Heights Community Association ‐ University of Redlands ‐ Uptown Planners ‐ Urban Housing Partners Inc. ‐ Urban Land Institute – San Diego/Tijuana Chapter ‐ URS Corporation ‐ U.S. Green Building Council ‐ U.S. Green Chamber ‐ USD (University of San Diego), College of Arts & Sciences ‐ USD School of Business Administration ‐ USD Sustainability Program ‐ Valley Center Chamber of Commerce ‐ Valley Center Parks and Recreation ‐ Vista Chamber of Commerce ‐ Voit Companies ‐ VRPA Technologies ‐ Wakeland Housing & Development Corp. ‐ Walk San Diego ‐ Watco Companies ‐ Websense Inc. ‐ Winzler and Kelly ‐ Women in Transportation Seminar ‐ Workforce Partnership ‐ World Resources Simulation Center (GENI/WRSC) ‐ Worldtrans ‐ Xnergy

2050 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Plan

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-190

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 2.0 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan ...... 3 3.0 Public Involvement Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ...... 6 4.0 Public Involvement Process ...... 7 5.0 Public Involvement Plan Assessment ...... 10

Appendix A Proposed 2050 RTP Public Outreach Activities ...... 12 Appendix B Media List...... 13 Appendix C Stakeholders List ...... 15

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SANDAG is the first major Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the State of California to develop a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) under new state mandates outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 375 and Assembly Bill 32. How the San Diego region complies with these new mandates, identifies how to meet a greenhouse gas reduction target, and creates more sustainable communities will set the stage for other California regions. The 2050 RTP development process promotes strategic planning, emphasizes public involvement, encourages new partnerships, and supports the foundation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP): better connecting land use and transportation plans. It is important that stakeholders in the San Diego region work together to develop this ground-breaking 2050 RTP. This Public Involvement Plan (PIP) will establish the framework for a dynamic and interactive process to develop the 2050 RTP.

To obtain public input in the development of the 2050 RTP, SANDAG is implementing a comprehensive public outreach and involvement program. A major goal of this effort is to coordinate with the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group, community-based organizations that have received Environmental Justice grants, and to involve non-traditional, as well as traditional audiences, to raise their awareness of the transportation planning process under way and the broad goals to better connect transportation and land use planning. Early public involvement and comment about key components of the RTP is important to SANDAG as part of developing transportation public policies and establishing priorities to meet the travel needs of residents now and into the future.

This 2050 RTP PIP is an element of the agencywide Public Participation Plan (www.sandag.org/ppp) that was adopted by the SANDAG Board December 18, 2009, following a six-month development, input, and review process. The Public Participation Plan was developed in accordance with guidelines established by Federal Highway Administration for metropolitan transportation planning (23 CFR 450.316). It addresses Title VI, related nondiscrimination requirements, and reflects the principles of social equity and environmental justice. Included in the PPP are procedures, strategies, and outcomes associated with the ten requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316. The PPP also fulfills various state and federal public involvement requirements.

The 2050 RTP PIP also follows guidelines established in the California Transportation Commission’s 2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines, specifically Chapter 4 – RTP Consultation and Coordination.

Developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan

The 2050 RTP will rely upon the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and other planning efforts as the foundation for integrating land uses, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regional smart growth framework. The RTP focuses both on the movement of people and goods, including marine terminals, air cargo facilities, freight rail, and land ports of entry that link our region with Mexico. In accordance with state and federal guidelines, the 2050 RTP is scheduled for adoption by the Board of Directors in July 2011.

With each RTP update, SANDAG starts the planning process by establishing a framework of goals, policy objectives, and performance measures to guide the development of the Plan. This is a key

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 1 first step, as it is the policy foundation for the RTP and identifies the “big picture” of what we hope to achieve. The Board of Directors discussed the 2050 RTP vision, goals, and policy objectives to help reach the 2050 RTP goals in fall 2009.

The 2050 RTP goals are structured into two overarching themes: Quality of Travel & Livability, and Sustainability. Quality of Travel & Livability relates to how the transportation system functions from the individual customer perspective (Mobility, Reliability, and System Preservation & Safety), while Sustainability relates to making progress simultaneously in each of the Three “Es” (Social Equity, Healthy Environment, and Prosperous Economy) from a regional perspective.

SANDAG is the first major MPO that is preparing an RTP that will comply with provisions of SB 375. A new regional growth forecast and the results of other studies currently under way—including the Climate Action Strategy, Regional Energy Strategy Update, Regional Bicycle Plan, Urban Area Transit Strategy, Comprehensive Freight Gateway Forecast, airport multimodal planning, high-speed rail planning, and corridor and subregional studies—will be incorporated into the development of the 2050 RTP. Other major tasks include updates to the project evaluation criteria and plan performance measures, economic analysis of investment strategies, and new revenue projections and cost estimates for transportation projects and services.

SB 375: Sustainable Communities Strategy

Per SB 375, the 2050 RTP will incorporate new legislative requirements. The SCS will be a new element of the RTP, and will be designed to show how regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets, to be established by the California Air Resources Board, will be achieved through development patterns, infrastructure investments, and transportation measures or policies that are determined to be feasible. Additionally, the SCS must be consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and must address protection of sensitive resource areas. If the SCS does not meet regional GHG reduction targets, an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) must be developed to demonstrate how the targets could be achieved.

The adopted Smart Growth Concept Map will inform the development of the SCS. The Smart Growth Concept Map contains nearly 200 locations within the region that can support smart growth land uses and transportation investments. These locations were identified by transportation and planning staff from all jurisdictions and adopted by the SANDAG Board in 2006 (updated in 2008). These existing, planned, or potential smart growth locations are based on seven smart growth place types: the Metropolitan Center, Urban Centers, Town Centers, Community Centers, Rural Villages, Mixed Use Transit Corridors, and Special Use Centers, reflecting the notion that smart growth is not a “one-size-fits-all” endeavor. Additionally, tactics from the Climate Action Strategy will provide options for additional measures that could reduce GHG emissions.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2050 RTP will require analysis beyond what has been included in previous RTP EIRs. The RTP environmental analysis will include GHG emissions baseline measurements and projections, as well as potential mitigation measures that could reduce those emissions. The EIR also will include analysis of the additional elements required by SB 375, such as the SCS.

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 2 A New Regional Growth Forecast

Similar to past RTPs, the 2050 RTP will be based on a new regional growth forecast that includes existing and planned land uses, and potential redevelopment and infill areas from local general plans. However, most general plans have horizon years much earlier than 2050. As a result, SANDAG has received assistance from local jurisdictions to prepare local land use scenarios that will be applied beyond the local general plan horizon year out to the year 2050. This forecast will be SANDAG’s first estimate of population, housing, land use, and economic growth to the end of the TransNet program in 2048.

Urban Area Transit Strategy

SANDAG is developing an Urban Area Transit Strategy to evaluate possible regional transit strategies that significantly increase the attractiveness and use of transit in the urban area and maximize peak period alternative mode share (including transit, carpool, vanpool, bicycle, and walk trips) in the region. Three transit network alternatives will be developed and tested in conjunction with the rest of the transportation system. Public input will be secured at SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings as well as at the Stakeholders Working Group and other public workshops. One of these networks (or an alternative, combination, or variation) will be incorporated into the 2050 RTP as the regional transit network. Additionally, the study will include short-term action plans and implementation strategies.

2.0 2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan

The Public Involvement Plan will support the development of the 2050 RTP. The PIP also will create opportunities for stakeholders to provide input on the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. The strategies and tactics outlined in the plan will guide outreach efforts to build awareness of the regional transportation planning process and identify opportunities to shape the future of the region. The plan also describes SANDAG efforts to secure input on developing project priorities, project selection criteria, transportation networks, funding alternatives, meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets, and other elements of the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. These efforts will coordinate with regular interaction with the Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group and recipients of community-based outreach grants. The PIP also will guide efforts to secure input from individuals, organizations, agencies, and other stakeholders in the development of the 2050 RTP.

This public involvement plan is intended to be a “living” document. Because of the fluid nature of the public involvement process, this plan may be adjusted to respond to issues and circumstances that arise throughout the process and will also be updated at major milestones in the planning and development process.

Environmental Justice

Consistent with the guidelines discussed above, the Public Involvement Plan will comply with SANDAG Policy 25, Federal Title VI legislation, the Americans with Disabilities Act (as defined in Title 49, Part 37, of the United States Code), Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice,

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 3 Executive Order 13166 on Limited English Proficiency, and other relevant regulations to ensure social equity, environmental justice, non-discrimination and accessibility.

To ensure meaningful access to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons, SANDAG certifies compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) “Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Persons.” The policy guidance includes a “Safe Harbor” provision where the USDOT considers the written translation of vital documents in languages other than English (for eligible LEP language groups consisting of 5 percent or more of the population) to be strong evidence of compliance with the recipient’s obligations under Title VI. Based on the Census 2000 data, Spanish is the only language in the San Diego Region that meets or exceeds the 5 percent LEP trigger. However, SANDAG will print materials (or provide translation services or bilingual representatives) in any other languages deemed appropriate by SANDAG.

While involvement from community-based organizations that have received environmental justice mini-grants will enhance outreach efforts, other proactive steps will be taken to ensure diverse audiences are given the opportunity to provide input into the development of the 2050 RTP and its Sustainable Communities Strategy. These audiences include, but are not limited to, minority groups, non-English speakers, lower income households, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and transit riders.

To reach these audiences, organizations and media outlets representing these communities will be approached to provide 2050 RTP information, solicit participation and input, and provide a means for communicating back with members of these communities. Participation will be encouraged via presentations to these organizations, involvement in events sponsored by these organizations or targeted at these audiences, publishing articles in organizational newsletters, and publishing notices and articles in ethnic media outlets. SANDAG has identified a number of local organizations that work with or represent underserved populations in the project area. These activities also will be coordinated in collaboration with the community-based organizations that have received SANDAG environmental justice grants.

SANDAG will work with these groups to identify opportunities to communicate with or solicit input from their constituents to meet their transportation needs. A proposed list of stakeholders is included as Appendix C.

Public Stakeholder Categories

There are a number of groups — each with a unique perspective — that will be interested in the 2050 RTP development process. Outreach to these groups will be achieved by soliciting input through current channels at SANDAG, the Stakeholders Working Group, and other opt-in electronic outreach. The proposed list of stakeholders is included as Appendix C. These include organizations and individuals representing the following interests:

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 4 Accessibility Challenged Affordable Housing Advocates Business Organizations Citizens Commercial & Retail Commercial Property Interests Community Planning Groups Community Services Commuters Employers/Businesses Environmental Advocates Environmental Groups Freight Shippers, Providers of Freight Transportation Services General Public Health advocacy organizations Home Builder Representatives Homeowner Associations Industry Peers & Associations Labor Landowner Military Neighborhood and Community Groups Neighborhoods/Residential Professional Planning Organizations Private Providers of Transportation Representatives of Public Transportation Employees Representatives of Users of Pedestrian Walkways And Bicycle Transportation Facilities, Representatives of The Disabled, And Other Interested Parties Representatives of Users of Public Transportation Sustainability-focused organizations Local universities Students; University Student Associations Taxpayer Advocates Tourism Transit Riders Transportation Advocates

Government to Government Consultation and Coordination

Native American Consultation The SANDAG Public Participation Plan details Native American Consultation activities as coordinating with the SANDAG Borders Committee, the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Working Group), the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, Reservation Transportation Authority, and other intertribal associations. SANDAG will coordinate with the Tribal Governments to provide input on the 2050 RTP to coordinate transportation and land use planning with tribal nations in

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 5 San Diego County. A Regional Tribal Summit is scheduled for April 9, 2010, where SANDAG and Tribal representatives will discuss regional issues, including the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

Coordination with Mexico SANDAG will coordinate transportation planning activities with Mexico through the SANDAG Board and Transportation Committees as well as through the Borders Committee, the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO), and other efforts. SANDAG will engage these groups and conduct other outreach efforts to include joint U.S.-Mexico planning efforts in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan.

Coordination with California Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Regional Transportation Planning Authorities Collaborate with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and Regional Transportation Planning Authorities (RTPAs) on the GHG target setting process and other SB 375 efforts.

3.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

Goals • Raise awareness of the 2050 RTP as the region’s updated blueprint for a transportation system that enhances our quality of life and meets our mobility needs for the future • Stimulate dialogue about the transportation challenges facing the San Diego region • Provide opportunities for the public to provide input into the 2050 RTP and the Sustainable Communities Strategy, required by state climate change legislation • Develop and incorporate into the plan realistic solutions that address the diverse mobility needs of the region’s residents, visitors, and business people • Build public support for transportation improvements outlined in the 2050 RTP

Objectives • Gain input from a broad range of individuals, organizations, agencies and local governments throughout the 2050 RTP development and decision-making process • Provide timely and accessible public information about the proposed policies and plans contained in the 2050 RTP to a broad range of regional stakeholders • Make public information accessible in a variety of formats and languages, use easy-to- understand language and concepts, and use a variety of media including innovative visualization techniques • Hold public workshops and meetings that foster meaningful dialogue and result in effective and inclusive decision-making • Consider public input at decision-making milestones for the 2050 RTP • Meet or exceed local, state, and federal guidelines and requirements for public involvement in the RTP planning process

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 6 Strategies The following strategies will be implemented to achieve the goals and objectives discussed above.

• Establish a clear project identity to convey information about the 2050 RTP, the SCS, and other RTP elements.

• Develop materials on the RTP and other components using easily understood language and terms.

• Develop a “marketing campaign” to build awareness and secure input from the public.

• Involve public stakeholders in the process on a regular basis to foster understanding and agreement on issues related to the development of the 2050 RTP.

• Use a variety of communication methods to reach audiences including presentations, one- on-one/small group meetings, public workshops, written materials, online, social media, and news media communication.

• Provide the public with up-to-date information about the 2050 RTP on a regular basis through presentations, the Web site and online communications, written materials and news updates.

• Provide information and notices on the 2050 RTP, public workshops, and other events to SANDAG Board and Committee members to share with their constituents and stakeholders.

• Document and address public comments received during the public involvement process.

• Provide information to the public about the 2050 RTP development process and promote opportunities for input and comments.

• Provide information to decision-makers regarding comments received throughout the public involvement process.

• Utilize traditional and new media to convey project information to a broad audience.

• Assess the effectiveness of the Public Involvement Plan at the conclusion of key phases (i.e., following workshops or release of draft documents) to evaluate how the strategies and tactics worked and what enhancements could be made for future phases.

4.0 Public Involvement Process

Implementing the strategies listed above will involve a number of coordinated tactics executed in conjunction with key 2050 RTP development milestones. These tactics will involve presentations at SANDAG Board, Policy Advisory Committee, and Stakeholder Working Group meetings, as well as with other SANDAG working groups including Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee,

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 7 Regional Planning Technical Working Group, San Diego Region Conformity Working Group, Bicycle- Pedestrian Working Groups, and other appropriate internal and external committees. This process also will include written and online communications, and media relations. The public involvement process will follow key dates/milestones listed in Appendix A that have been identified by SANDAG and are included in the California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. Other tactics and methods are listed below.

Early Public Involvement

Early public involvement activities provide the opportunity to introduce the public to the 2050 RTP, its components, and its development process; gain initial feedback about how the public would like to be involved; and to prepare successful outreach strategies for the development of the 2050 RTP. Public involvement tactics during this period include:

• Prepare informational materials to help educate the public about the 2050 RTP Informational materials to support the 2050 RTP include a project Web site (www.sandag.org/2050rtp), fact sheet, and multimedia presentation. These materials will provide information about the RTP and its components, the development process, and information and/or referrals about how to get involved in the process. These materials will be written in easy-to-understand terms with limited jargon. Materials will be updated as needed throughout the process. The Web site will provide an opportunity for residents to learn about the 2050 RTP online and the ability to register for future e-mail updates. It also will provide access to project materials and documents, including fact sheets, news releases, project documents, and outreach efforts.

• Secure input and feedback at Stakeholders Working Group The Working Group provides a forum for the exchange of information throughout the development of the 2050 RTP. The SWG will be updated regularly on public involvement outreach and activities. One of its principal tasks is to advise SANDAG on the design and implementation of the Public Involvement Plan. The Working Group members are partners in the outreach process.

Public Involvement during 2050 RTP Development

A number of efforts will be implemented during this period to expand communication about the project:

• Promote input opportunities as they come before SANDAG Board, Policy Advisory Committees, Technical and Stakeholder Working Groups The SANDAG Web site includes a calendar that lists dates and times for upcoming meetings. When meetings include opportunities for input into the process or decision-making, they will also be publicized in the following ways:

- Inclusion in agenda highlights an input opportunity for the 2050 RTP

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 8 - Promotion through rEgion when meetings focus on input and decision opportunities - Promotion of key milestones via opt-in e-mail notification

• Distribute information to local and regional media To promote awareness among the media and foster accurate news coverage, press releases and agenda information will be distributed to local and regional media outlets. Reporters will be kept updated on the development and key milestones of the 2050 RTP. See Media List in Appendix B.

• Provide news updates for rEgion and other newsletters Numerous organizations in the region publish newsletters to keep their constituencies informed about issues of interest. Regular news updates about the 2050 RTP will be provided for publication in these organizational newsletters. Examples of newsletters to target are rEgion (SANDAG’s electronic newsletter) and publications of chambers of commerce, homeowners associations, community groups, and others.

• Conduct Public Workshops SANDAG will conduct Public Workshops at key milestones during the development of the 2050 RTP to solicit input on the draft and final 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, the Urban Area Transit Strategy, the draft and final Environmental Impact Report, and other components. (See Appendix A)

• Implement Social Media and other Web-based communications Use the new SANDAG Facebook page, and other social media and Web-based communications to build awareness about the 2050 RTP, promote outreach events, provide information, secure input, and facilitate dialogue..

• Speakers Bureau program To keep the local community and larger regional interests informed about the project throughout the process, the 2050 RTP and other plan elements will be promoted through SANDAG Speakers Bureau. These presentations will serve to share information about the project and the planning and development process.

• Participate in community events To reach a wider audience, project information will be provided and community input sought through participation in community events and festivals. These events may be sponsored by community groups, or could be targeted toward a specific audience, i.e., minority groups. A portable informational booth will be taken to various festivals, street fairs, etc., to share information about the project and to seek feedback from members of the public through comment cards, surveys and other means.

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 9 • Continue regular news updates SANDAG will continue to provide news updates for rEgion and other relevant Web- based and mailed publications to report newsworthy information.

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 10 • Update Informational Materials All project informational materials will be updated to reflect any updated or changed information that occurs during the preparation of the 2050 RTP. This will include updates to the project fact sheet, Frequently Asked Questions, Web site, multimedia presentation and any other materials that provide project information.

Community-Based Outreach

To help ensure diverse and direct input into the 2050 RTP and key related components from residents throughout the San Diego region, SANDAG is partnering with community-based organizations in critical communities of concern, providing resources to those community groups. The primary goal of the Community-Based Outreach Mini-Grant program is to engage and encourage diverse, inclusive, and active public participation from stakeholders in specific communities who traditionally may not have been involved in regional public policy planning processes (e.g., low income, seniors, minorities, persons with disabilities, and other identified populations). Through a competitive bid process, SANDAG awarded grant funding to eight community-based organizations to conduct this outreach in coordination with other agency public involvement activities being undertaken to help prepare the RTP, the update of the SANDAG Public Participation Plan, and other key regional initiatives.

In addition to the activities described above, each organization receiving a grant also appointed one representative to serve as a community-based network member of the new Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group (SWG). The community-based organizations working on this outreach and involvement effort are:

Able-Disabled Advocacy All Congregations Together Casa Familiar El Cajon Community Collaborative Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers Linda Vista Collaborative San Ysidro Business Association

5.0 Public Involvement Plan Assessment

To assess the effectiveness of the public involvement efforts, SANDAG will assess the effectiveness of the Public Involvement Plan at key milestones in the project development process. These reports will help SANDAG to evaluate public involvement strategies and tactics and make adjustments along the way, and will inform future public involvement outreach phases of the 2050 RTP.

These reports will include:

• A summary of all outreach efforts and input received • A qualitative assessment of how effective the efforts to obtain input were, i.e., audiences reached, did audience provide required input needed for 2050 RTP and Sustainable Communities Strategy, and how will/is input incorporated into 2050 RTP development

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 11 • A quantitative assessment of the public involvement plan including the number meetings/presentations/events participated in, Web site hits, approximate number of people reached, number of comments received, and number of media contacts along with the resulting media coverage • The Public Involvement Plan will be revised and strategies/tactics adjusted based on assessments at key milestones

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 12 Appendix A 2050 RTP Public Outreach Activities Proposed Methods and Purpose

These presentations and workshops are in addition to regularly scheduled SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings. Activities in bold text satisfy SB 375 mandates.

Date Outreach Method Purpose March 2010 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness for initial steps working groups, stakeholders, to set GHG emission reduction interested parties targets April 2010 Public Workshop providing SB 375 post-Regional Target overview and target-setting Advisory Committee info (one at Board Policy and workshop one at SWG) April and May 2010 Workshops to secure input and Build awareness and secure provide information on input on initial RTP elements development of 2050 RTP, Urban Area Transit Strategy, Environmental Impact Report, and other elements. July or September 2010 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness and secure working groups, stakeholders, input on Sustainable interested parties Community Strategy development October 2010 Draft SCS review at SANDAG SB 375 requires meeting Board meeting with members of city council, board of supervisors joint SCS meeting.

March – early April 2011 Public workshops on draft SB 375 three public RTP/SCS workshops on SCS requirement met, and two more for other SANDAG subregions. SANDAG to hold minimum of five subregional workshops. March – early April 2011 Presentations and outreach to Build awareness and secure working groups, stakeholders, input on continued interested parties development of RTP and SCS. Late April 2011 Public hearings on draft Follow up to workshops to RTP/SCS in at least two further refine RTP/SCS and different areas of region meet SB 375 requirements. Ongoing 2009 -- 2011 Presentations and outreach to SANDAG Speakers Bureau working groups, stakeholders, interested parties

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 13 Appendix B 2050 Regional Transportation Plan Media List

San Diego County Media Outlets Alpine Sun KSDS FM American Chinese Times KSON FM Asia KURS AM Asian Journal KUSI TV Beach & Bay Press KUSS FM BIA Builder Magazine KWST AM/KMXX FM/KSEH FM Biz San Diego KXO AM/FM Borrego Sun KYXY FM Business Action La Jolla Light Carlsbad Business Journal La Jolla Village News Carlsbad Sun La Prensa San Diego Carmel Valley Leader La Sonrisa Latina Carmel Valley News Light Connection Chinese News Mira Mesa/Scripps Ranch Sentinel Clairemont Community News Mission Times Courier Coast News Mission Valley News and Views Coastal Sun Neighbors Convisions Norht County Magazine Coronado Eagle & Journal North County Times Coronado Lifestyle North County Voice Coronado Magazine North Park News Corridor News Oceanside Magazine CTN County Television Network Peninsula Beacon Fox 5 News / KSWB Philippine Mabuhay News Daily Transcript, The Philippines Today Del Mar Times Poway News Chieftain Del Mar Village Voice Presidio Sentinel Diamond Gateway Signature Ramona Home Journal Diario San Diego Ramona Sentinel East County Californian Rancho Bernardo News Journal East County Gazette Rancho Bernardo Sun East County Herald News Rancho Magazine East County News Rancho Santa Fe News El Latino Rancho Santa Fe Record El Semanario Deportivo Rancho Santa Fe Review Encinitas First Rental Owner Enlace S. D. California Examiner Fact Magazine San Diego Business Journal Filipino Press San Diego City Beat Gay + Lesbian Times San Diego Commerce Good News, Etc. San Diego Downtown News Greater Golden Hill News San Diego Family Magazine Heartland News San Diego Home/Garden & Lifestyles Hi Sierran San Diego Jewish Journal Hispanos Unidos San Diego Lawyer

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 14 Imperial Beach Eagle & Times San Diego Magazine Indian Voices San Diego Metro Weekly Informant San Diego Metropolitan Julian Journal San Diego Metropolitan Uptown Examiner Julian News San Diego Monitor News KBNT TV Channel 17 San Diego Newsline KBZT FM San Diego Reader KCBQ AM San Diego Seniors KCEO AM San Diego Union-Tribune KCR AM San Diego Voice & Viewpoint KECR AM San Diego's Learning Channel KECY TV Channel 9 San Marcos / Vista News KFMB AM San Marcos Sun KFMB FM San Vicente Valley News KFMB TV Sentinel Magazine KFSD AM Solana Beach Sun KGB FM Star News KGFN FM Tieng Viet San Diego KGTV Channel 10 Tierra Times KHTS FM Today's Local News KICO AM Tribal TANF newsletter KIFM FM Uptown-Marquee KIOZ FM Valley Roadrunner KKSM AM Views KLNV FM Village News KLQV FM Vista Sun KLSD AM Voice of San Diego KMYI FM We Chinese In America KNSD TV (NBC 7/39) We Chinese In America Weekend KOGO AM XDTV 13 Korea Times XEPE AM KOXM TV XETV 6 The CW KPBS FM XHRM FM KPBS TV - S.D.S.U. XHTZ FM KPRI FM XLNC FM KPRZ AM XLTN FM KQVO FM XPRS AM KROP AM / KSIQ FM XPRS FM KSCF FM XSUR KSDO AM - Hi Favor XTRA FM San Diego Living

Orange and Riverside County Media Outlets

Los Angeles Times – zoned editions Orange County Business Journal Orange County Register Riverside Press Enterprise The Californian

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 15 Appendix C Initial Stakeholder List This list will be regularly updated. Contact [email protected] with any stakeholder additions.

AARP San Diego California Sustainability Alliance Able-Disabled Advocacy California Trucking Association Access Achiever CALPIRG Access to Independence of San Diego Cal-Prop Investments & Management Adams Avenue Business Association Caltrans AIA San Diego, Urban Design Committee Campaign for Affordable Housing Air Pollution Control District Capital Growth Properties Inc. Air Resources Board Cardiff-By-The-Sea Chamber of Commerce All Congregations Together Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce Alliance for Habitat Conservation Carmel Mountain Ranch Community Committee Alpha Project Carmel Valley Community Planning Board Alpine and Mountain Empire Chamber of Commerce Carmel Valley NOW! Alta Planning Casa Familiar Alzheimers and Aging Research Center Cassidy Turley BRE Commercial American Association of Planners Catalyst Network American Institute of Architects CB Richard Ellis Inc. American Lung Association of San Diego CDC Commercial Real Estate Apartment Consultants Inc. Center for Supportive Housing Asian Business Association of San Diego Center on Policy Initiatives Asset Management Group Centre City Advisory Committee Association of Environmental Professionals Centre City Development Corporation Automobile Club of Southern California Century 21 Horizon Azalea Park Neighborhood Association Cherokee Point Neighborhood Association Bankers Hill/Park West Community Association Chicano Federation Barratt American Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Barrio Logan College Institue Chula Vista Community Collaborative Barrio Logan Project Area Committee Chula Vista Growth Management Oversight Committee Bayside Community Center Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 Bayview CDC City Heights Business Association BIA San Diego City Heights Community Development Corporation Biocom City Heights PAC Black Mountain Ranch Community Planning Group City of San Diego Disabled Services Advisory Council Bonita Business and Professional Association City/County Reinvestment Task Force Bonsall Chamber of Commerce CityMark Development Bonsall Community Sponsor Group Clairemont Town Council Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce Coalition of Neighborhood Councils BRIDGE Housing Corporation - Southern California College Area Community Planning Board Bronze Triangle CDC Colliers International Brookfield San Diego Holdings Commercial Facilities Inc. Building Owners and Managers Association Community Associations Institute, San Diego Chapter California Center for Sustainable Energy Community Catalysts of California California Coastal Coalition Community HousingWorks California Department of Housing and Community COMPACT Development ConAm California Department of Transportation Corky McMillin California Native Plant Society San Diego (CNPSSD) Cornerstone Property Management California Nevada Cement Association Coronado Chamber of Commerce

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 16 Corporation for Supportive Housing Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee County of San Diego Department of Public Works Greater San Diego Business Association Gay and County of San Diego Health and Human Services Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Agency Green Campus Program - UCSD Covey Commercial Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College District CrossBorderBusiness Hallmark Communities Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. Harborside CW Clark HNTB Deaf Community Services Housing Development Partners of San Diego Del Mar Chamber of Commerce I Love A Clean San Diego Del Mar Mesa Community Planning Board IBI Group Department of Homeland Security ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA Dimex Freight International Energy Agency Dole Imperial Beach Chamber of Commerce Downtown San Diego Partnership Imperial County DR Horton Industrial Environmental Association of San Diego Eagle Aggregates Inland Pacific Commercial Properties East County Action Network International Rescue Committee, San Diego East County Economic Development Corporation International Union Of Operating Engineers Local 12 Eastern Area Communities Planning Committee Investment Property Management Group Inc. ECP Commercial Irving Hughes El Cajon Business Improvement Association It's How We Live El Cajon Community Collaborative J. Whalen and Associates El Cajon Community Development Corporation Jacobs Family Foundation Elder Housing Complexes JHD Planning Encanto Neighborhoods Community Planning Group Jones Lang LaSalle Encinitas Chamber of Commerce Julian Chamber of Commerce Endagered Habitats League Justice Overcoming Boundaries Environmental Health Coalition Juvenile Diabetes Association of San Diego Environmental Protection Agency Kearny Mesa Planning Group Equinox Center Kensington-Talmadge Business Association Escondido Chamber of Commerce Ken-Tal Planning Committee Environmental Science and Policy - UCSD KM Realty Inc. Evanco Reality Advisors Inc. La Jolla Community Planning Association Fairmont Park Neighborhood Association La Jolla Golden Triangle Rotary Club Fallbrook Chamber of Commerce La Jolla Shores Association Family Health Centers of San Diego La Jolla Town Council Fedex La Jolla Traffic and Transportation Board Federal Highway Administration La Jolla Village Community Council Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce of San Diego La Maestra Community Health Centers Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers La Mesa Chamber of Commerce Friends of Rose Canyon Laborers International Union Friends of Tecolote Canyon Lakeside Chamber of Commerce Friends of the San Diego River Mouth Local Agency Formation Commission Federal Transit Administration League of Conservation Voters, San Diego Gaslamp Quarter Association League of Women Voters Gateway Property Management Ledford Enterprises, Inc. Golden Hill Community Development Corporation Lee and Associates Inc. Golden Triangle Chamber of Commerce Lemon Grove Chamber of Commerce Greater Clairemont Chamber of Commerce Linda Vista Collaborative Greater Clairemont Mesa Chamber of Commerce Linda Vista Community Planning Committee Greater Golden Hill CDC Little Italy Association

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 17 Little Italy Residents Association Rancho San Diego – Jamul Chamber of Commerce MAAC Project Rancho Santa Fe Association Meissner Jacquet Investment Management Services Rapid Tranfer Xpress Melroy Property Management RBF Consulting, Inc. Metropolitan Transit System Regional Task Force on the Homeless Mid-City Community Action Network Sabre Springs Planning Group Mid-City Rotary Club San Diego American Planning Association Midway Community Planning Advisory Committee San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL- (North) CIO Mira Mesa Chamber of Commerce San Diego Apartment Association Miramar Ranch North Planning Committee San Diego Archaeological Society Mission Beach Town Council San Diego Association of Realtors Mission Hills Town Council San Diego Audubon Society Mission Valley Unified Planning Organization San Diego Bicycle Coalition Move San Diego San Diego Business Improvement District Council NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development San Diego Canyonlands Association - San Diego San Diego Capital Collaborative National City Chamber of Commerce San Diego City College Associated Students National University System Institute for Policy Research San Diego Coastal Chamber of Commerce Navajo Community Planners, Inc. San Diego Coastkeeper NCTD San Diego Community Housing Corporation Neighborhood House Association San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau North Bay Redevelopment PAC San Diego Convention Center Corporation North County Transit District San Diego Council of Design Professionals North Park Community Association San Diego County Aging and Independence Advisory North Park Main Street Council North Park Planning Committee San Diego County Archaeological Society Ocean Beach CDC San Diego County Bicycle Coalition Ocean Beach Town Council San Diego County Farm Bureau Oceanside Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Oceanside Planning Commission San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Old Town Community Planning Committee San Diego County Taxpayers Association Old Town San Diego Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Water Authority Otay Mesa Chamber of Commerce San Diego Countywide Alliance of Tenants Otay Mesa Nestor Community Planning Group San Diego Downtown Partnership Otay Mesa Planning Group San Diego East County Chamber of Commerce Pacific Beach Community Planning Committee San Diego Fair Housing Council Pacific Beach Town Council San Diego Foundation Pacific Coast Commercial San Diego Habitat for Humanity Peninsula Chamber of Commerce San Diego Housing Commission Peninsula Community Planning Board San Diego Housing Federation Penn State University San Diego Interfaith Housing Foundation Point Loma Association San Diego Jewish Chamber of Commerce Port of San Diego San Diego Local Initiatives Support Corporation Poway Chamber of Commerce San Diego North Chamber of Commerce Prescott Companies San Diego North Convention and Visitors Bureau Professional HOA Consultants, Inc. San Diego North Economic Development Council Psomas Engineering San Diego Organizing Project Radelow Gittins Real Property Management Inc. San Diego Redevelopment Agency Rail America San Diego Regional Center Ramona Chamber of Commerce San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce Rancho Bernardo Planning Community San Diego Regional Economic Development

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 18 Corporation Surfrider Foundation San Diego Regional Sustainability Partnership Sustainable SDSU San Diego River Coalition Teamsters Union San Diego River Conservancy Teralta West Neighborhood Alliance San Diego River Park Foundation The Accretive Group of Companies San Diego Senior Games Association The CSA Edge San Diego Sierra Club The Nature Conservancy, San Diego Office San Diego State University Center for Regional The Olson Co. Sustainability Tierrasanta Community Council San Diego Unified Port District Torrey Hills Community Planning Board San Diego Urban Economic Corporation Torrey Pines Community Planning Board San Diego Urban League Torrey Pines Property Management Inc. San Diego Workforce Partnership Transcore San Diego World Trade Center Transit Alliance for a Better North County (TABNC) San Diego Youth and Community Services Transportation Corridor Agency San Dieguito River Park Trilar Management Group San Marcos Chamber of Commerce U.S. Green Building Council San Ysidro Business Association UCSD Associated Students San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce UCSD Sustainability Solutions Institute San Ysidro Community Planning Group UCSD Systemwide Sustainability Santee Chamber of Commerce UCSD Urban Studies and Planning Department Scripps Health UCSD, Transportation Services Scripps Miramar Ranch Planning Group ULI San Diego/Tijuana Chapter SDSU Associated Students Union of Pan Asian Communities SDSU City Planning Department University City Community Association Sempra Utilities University City Community Planning Group Senior Community Centers University City Planning Group Serra Mesa Planning Group University Heights Community Association Shea Homes Uptown Planners Sherman Heights Community Center Urban League Skyline-Paradise Hills Planning Committee URS Corporation Social Services Transportation Advisory Council US Dept. of Defense Save Our Forest and Ranchlands USD Sustainability Program Solana Beach Chamber of Commerce Valley Center Chamber of Commerce Solar Turbines Valley Center Community Planning Group South Bay Community Services Veteran Affairs San Diego Healthcare System South County Economic Development Council Vista Chamber of Commerce Southeastern San Diego Planning Group Voit Companies Southern California Housing Development Corporation Wakeland Housing & Development Corp. Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association Walk San Diego Spectrum Management Watco Companies Spring Valley Chamber of Commerce Winzler and Kelly Spring Valley Youth and Family Coalition Women in Transportation Seminar St. Vincent de Paul Worldtrans State Farm Insurance Student Sustainability Collective - UCSD Sunrise Property Management

2050 RTP Public Involvement Plan April 23, 2010 19

SANDAG PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN

FINAL

DECEMBER 18, 2009

401 B Street, Suite 800 • San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 699-1900

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life. CHAIR FIRST VICE CHAIR SECOND VICE CHAIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler Hon. Jerome Stocks Hon. Jack Dale Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY OF SANTEE Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ann Kulchin, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. John Minto, Councilmember

CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY OF SOLANA BEACH Hon. Cheryl Cox, Mayor Hon. Lesa Heebner, Councilmember (A) Hon. Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Castaneda, Councilmember (A) Hon. Mike Nichols, Mayor

CITY OF CORONADO CITY OF VISTA Hon. Carrie Downey, Councilmember Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Al Ovrom, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Michael Woiwode, Councilmember (A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember

CITY OF DEL MAR COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Hon. Crystal Crawford, Mayor Hon. Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman (A) Hon. Carl Hilliard, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bill Horn, Chair Pro Tem (A) Hon. Richard Earnest, Deputy Mayor Hon. Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman (A) Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor CITY OF EL CAJON (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Jillian Hanson-Cox, Councilmember IMPERIAL COUNTY (Advisory Member) CITY OF ENCINITAS Hon. Wally Leimgruber, District 5 Supervisor Hon. Jerome Stocks, Councilmember (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Teresa Barth, Councilmember (A) Hon. Dan Dalager, Deputy Mayor CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Advisory Member) CITY OF ESCONDIDO Randell H. Iwasaki, Director Hon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Laurie Berman, District 11 Director (A) Hon. Sam Abed, Councilmember METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH (Advisory Member) Hon. Jim Janney, Mayor Harry Mathis, Chairman (A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Ron Roberts (A) Hon. Jim King, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ernest Ewin

CITY OF LA MESA NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Mark Arapostathis, Councilmember Hon. Bob Campbell, Chairman (A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerome Stocks, Planning Committee Chair (A) Hon. Dave Roberts, Monitoring Committee Chair CITY OF LEMON GROVE Hon. Mary Teresa Sessom, Mayor U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Mayor Pro Tem (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Jerry Selby, Councilmember CAPT Keith Hamilton, USN, CEC, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command CITY OF NATIONAL CITY (A) CAPT James W. Wink, USN, CEC Hon. Ron Morrison, Mayor Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rosalie Zarate, Councilmember SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT (Advisory Member) CITY OF OCEANSIDE Scott Peters, Commissioner Hon. Jim Wood, Mayor (A) Stephen Padilla, Commissioner (A) Hon. Jerry Kern, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jack Feller, Councilmember SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) CITY OF POWAY Mark Muir, Director Hon. Don Higginson, Mayor (A) Howard Williams, Director (A) Hon. Jim Cunningham, Councilmember (A) Gary Croucher, Director

(A) Hon. Carl Kruse, Councilmember SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRIBAL CHAIRMEN’S ASSOCIATION CITY OF SAN DIEGO (Advisory Member) Hon. Jerry Sanders, Mayor Chairman Robert Smith (Pala), SCTCA Chair (A) Hon. Anthony Young, Councilmember (A) Chairman Allen Lawson (San Pasqual) (A) Hon. Sherri Lightner, Councilmember Hon. Ben Hueso, Council President MEXICO (A) Hon. Marti Emerald, Councilmember (Advisory Member) (A) Hon. Todd Gloria, Councilmember Hon. Remedios Gómez-Arnau Cónsul General of Mexico CITY OF SAN MARCOS Hon. Martha E. Rosas, Hon. Jim Desmond, Mayor Deputy Cónsul General of Mexico (A) Hon. Hal Martin, Vice Mayor (A) Hon. Rebecca Jones, Councilmember As of December 1, 2009

SANDAG Public Participation Plan ii

Table of Contents

SECTIONS Introduction ...... 1 Getting Involved in Regional Decision-Making...... 2 Overall Public Participation Process...... 3 Project Development and Program Planning ...... 6 Capital Project Design and Construction ...... 8 Transit Fare Changes ...... 9 Native American Consultation...... 10 SANDAG Mandates and Designations...... 11 Overall Authority...... 11 Operational Functions ...... 13

APPENDICES A FHWA Guidelines for Metropolitan Transportation Planning (23 CFR 450.316) B How the Plan Was Developed C Response to Comments D SANDAG Public Participation Policy (Board Policy No. 025) E Glossary of Terms F SANDAG Committees and Working Groups

s SANDAG Public Participation Plan iii

INTRODUCTION

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG, the San Diego Association of Governments. This public agency serves as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers and builds public transportation, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

SANDAG is governed by a Board of Directors composed of mayors, councilmembers, and county supervisors from each of the region's 19 local governments (with two representatives each from the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego). Voting is based on membership and the population of each jurisdiction, providing for a more accountable and equitable representation of the region’s residents. Supplementing these voting members are advisory representatives from Imperial County, Caltrans, Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, the U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, and Mexico.

SANDAG Board and Policy Advisory Committee meetings provide the public forums and decision points for significant regional issues such as growth, transportation, environmental management, housing, open space, air quality, energy, fiscal management, economic development, and public safety. SANDAG Directors establish policies, adopt plans, allocate transportation funds, and develop programs for regional issues. Citizens, as well as representatives from community, civic, environmental, education, business, other special interest groups, and other agencies, are involved in the planning and approval process by participating in committees, as well as by attending workshops and public hearings.

The SANDAG agencywide Public Participation Plan (PPP) provides an overview of the process for communicating with and obtaining input from the public concerning agency programs, projects, and program funding. The guidelines and principles outlined in the plan guide the agency’s public outreach and involvement efforts for regional transportation projects; transit service and fare changes; smart growth, environmental, and other planning efforts; growth forecasts; the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP); Regional Comprehensive Plan; Overall Work Program (OWP); tribal consultation; and other mandated or Board initiatives. A description of how the PPP was developed can be found in Appendix B.

The PPP reflects the SANDAG commitment to public participation and involvement to include all residents and stakeholders in the regional planning process. The PPP was developed in accordance with guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for metropolitan transportation planning (23 CFR 450.316) (see Appendix A), addresses Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, related nondiscrimination requirements, and reflects the principles of social equity and environmental justice. Included in the PPP are procedures, strategies, and outcomes associated with the ten requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316.

The agencywide PPP provides the foundation for the development of specific public outreach plans prepared for transit construction projects, environmental documents, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the transit fare ordinance, and other projects. The PPP is meant to inform the public and other stakeholders about the overall SANDAG public participation process and how they can receive information from SANDAG and how they can provide input into regional planning, policy, and decision-making efforts. It sets forth how SANDAG will commit to an open process that provides opportunities for input throughout the decision-making continuum. The PPP also fulfills various other state and federal public involvement requirements.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 1

GETTING INVOLVED IN REGIONAL DECISION-MAKING

SANDAG is committed to a public participation program that includes opportunities for interaction with the public and Board of Directors, other elected officials, local planning and public works directors, business, community, and education leaders, and other key stakeholders. Public workshops, meetings, and other outreach efforts provide forums for input and feedback on SANDAG policy, program, project, and funding decisions.

Contact our Public Information Office The Public Information Office is open 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. You can reach the Public Information Officer by phone at (619) 699-1950, by e-mail at [email protected], or by visiting the SANDAG Public Information Office, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101.

Get on our Contact Lists SANDAG maintains e-mail and U.S. Postal Service mailing lists so we can provide information to those who request it. Contact SANDAG at [email protected] or (619) 699-1950 and let us know when you want to hear from us.

Visit www.SANDAG.org The comprehensive SANDAG Web site is your resource for regional information, project updates, meeting schedules and agendas, and reports and other publications. SANDAG periodically posts surveys and promotes opportunities for online input.

View our Calendar Visit www.sandag.org/calendar for a comprehensive monthly calendar of all Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committee meetings, working group meetings, ad hoc meetings, public workshops, and more. These meetings are open to the public and agendas are typically posted seven days in advance of the meeting.

Sign up to Receive rEgion To subscribe to rEgion, the SANDAG free monthly electronic newsletter, go to www.sandag.org and enter a valid e-mail address in the box at the bottom left corner of the page. Each month you will receive information to keep you updated on what’s happening in the San Diego region with regard to growth, transportation planning and construction, environmental management, housing, open space, energy, criminal justice, binational topics, and more. To read the latest edition of rEgion visit www.sandag.org/region.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 2

OVERALL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS

The SANDAG PPP establishes a process for obtaining input from and providing information to the public concerning agency policies, programs, projects, and program funding in order to ensure the public is informed and has the opportunity to provide SANDAG with input so plans can reflect the public’s vision. SANDAG will review and update this plan as needed. Various federal and state laws and regulations require that an agency such as SANDAG conduct public participation programs to ensure that the public is involved and that community concerns are addressed. For example, planning of public transit capital projects, development of short-range transit service policies and plans, and fare policy and structure changes to public transportation require public participation. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also have public information components that require an agency such as SANDAG to conduct public participation programs to ensure that the public is involved and that community concerns are addressed. A significant component of the SANDAG mission is a strong commitment to public participation and involvement to include all residents and stakeholders in the regional planning process. The public participation process, development of plans, and outreach activities are coordinated through the SANDAG Communications Division.

Part of the purpose of the PPP is to respond to requirements set forth in guidelines established by FHWA for Metropolitan Planning Organizations such as SANDAG. Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 450.316 states:

The Metropolitan Planning Organization shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process. (see Appendix A)

The PPP also is consistent with the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 132360.1 established with the passage of Assembly Bill 361, which reads as follows:

The agency (SANDAG) shall engage in a public collaborative planning process; recommendations from that process shall be made available and considered for integration into the Regional Comprehensive Plan. A procedure to carry out this process including a method of addressing and responding to recommendations from the public shall be adopted.

Ensuring the meaningful involvement of low-income, minority, disabled, senior, and other traditionally underrepresented communities is a key component of the PPP. Activities covered in the PPP are consistent with federal and state environmental justice laws, regulations, and requirements, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and related nondiscrimination requirements, and they reflect the principles of social equity and environmental justice. Social equity means ensuring that all people are treated fairly and are given equal opportunity to participate in the planning and decision- making process, with an emphasis on ensuring that traditionally disadvantaged groups are not left behind. Environmental justice means ensuring that plans, policies, and actions do not disproportionately affect low- income and minority communities.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 3

The overall public participation process follows these guidelines and principles:

1. The PPP is designed to inform and involve the region’s residents in the decision-making process on issues such as growth, transportation, TransNet projects, environmental management, housing, open space, air quality, energy, fiscal management, economic development, and public safety. 2. The PPP seeks to involve all citizens, including, but not limited to, low-income households, Hispanic, African American, Asian, Native American, senior, and other communities, persons with disabilities, as well as community-based and civic organizations, youth, young adults, and college students, public agencies, business groups and associations, environmental organizations, educational institutions and other stakeholders in the decision-making process. 3. SANDAG seeks to involve audiences outlined in the 23 CFR Section 450.316: citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties. These efforts also are designed to reach affordable housing advocates, transportation advocates, neighborhood and community groups, environmental advocates, home builder representatives, broad-based business organizations, landowners, commercial property interests, and homeowner associations. SANDAG endeavors to reach specific audiences through targeted notifications (e.g., the SANDAG Speakers Bureau, presentations, newsletters, press releases, public service announcements,), and broadens this outreach through consultation with recognized community, business, social service, and other organizations, and through existing SANDAG committee structures (e.g., Social Services Transportation Advisory Council and Stakeholders Working Group). 4. SANDAG Board of Directors and Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings provide the public input forum and decision point for significant regional issues. SANDAG Directors typically hold one or two board meetings each month: a Board Policy meeting the second Friday of each month and a Board Business meeting the fourth Friday of each month. PAC meetings also are held on Fridays. Meetings held at SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. During these meetings, Directors solicit public input, adopt plans, allocate transportation funds, approve transit construction plans, approve transit fare changes, approve the Regional Growth Forecast, implement smart growth initiatives, consider energy and habitat plans, and establish policies and develop programs that are used by local governments, as well as other public and private organizations. The PACs are named as follows: Executive Committee, Regional Planning Committee, Transportation Committee, Borders Committee, Public Safety Committee. 5. For planning, project, funding, transit fare, and policy decisions, public input shall be documented, issues or concerns addressed, and resolution of issues and/or changes made reflected in final reports, plans, or other documents. The final reports or documents are subject to approval by a vote at a public SANDAG Board or Policy Advisory Committee meeting. 6. SANDAG proactively seeks and promotes public participation in SANDAG public workshops, meetings, and hearings, as well as participation and attendance at committees, working groups, and task forces. SANDAG follows local, state, and federal guidelines for posting public meeting and hearing notices. Depending upon the specific project, SANDAG endeavors to hold meetings at times that can attract as many participants as possible and at locations in communities throughout the region. SANDAG endeavors to hold these meetings in locations that are accessible by public transit. These meetings are held in buildings, rooms, or locations that are

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 4

accessible to persons with disabilities. A list of SANDAG committees and working groups active in 2009 is provided in Appendix F. These meetings all provide opportunity for public comment. 7. SANDAG uses its Web site to provide the public with useful and timely information, including: meeting schedules and agendas; plans and environmental documents; reports and other publications; demographic profiles and data downloads; and interactive database and mapping applications. SANDAG maintains and updates a Public Involvement Web site with information for the public, reporters, and other stakeholders on the public participation program. The Web site is at www.sandag.org/ppp. 8. SANDAG seeks to provide information in a variety of media, including social media, visual simulations of projects, Web-based videos or photo displays, interactive displays at kiosks in targeted public locations, and other visualization techniques to secure feedback on transportation plans and projects. 9. SANDAG informs the public in a timely manner about regional issues, actions, and pending decisions through a number of efforts. As needed or required, SANDAG provides adequate notice by publicizing in newspapers of general circulation for publication of legal notices. Other publication and distribution efforts to residents, agencies, and city/county governments may include e-mail notification, notices on the SANDAG Web site, publication in rEgion (a SANDAG monthly electronic newsletter), and select distribution via mail. 10. SANDAG regularly informs local print and broadcast media about SANDAG decisions, events, research, and other issues. SANDAG regularly distributes press releases to community, minority, local and regional print, as well as Web-based publications. SANDAG also distributes information to local and Spanish radio and television stations. A compilation of news coverage on SANDAG programs and projects is posted on the SANDAG home page weekly. 11. As appropriate and depending on the specific project, SANDAG translates into Spanish and other languages, publications, announcements, and Web content. In addition, numerous staff members are bilingual Spanish-English speakers and participate in public outreach and conduct presentations in Spanish. Translators are hired as needed to provide services in Spanish and other languages as appropriate. SANDAG conducts periodic public opinion surveys as part of the outreach and citizen participation component of the SANDAG OWP. These surveys are designed to include the San Diego region’s residents in the regional planning process and to keep SANDAG officials aware of issues that are of concern to the people who live here. 12. SANDAG periodically reviews the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the agencywide PPP and any other planning, program, or project-specific public participation plans to ensure the goals of the outreach and involvement are met. Quantitative and qualitative assessment is considered to determine results of outreach effectiveness. SANDAG will revise the overall outreach process as needed based on these reviews. 13. SANDAG coordinates and consults with other federal, state, local, and nonprofit agencies in developing regional transportation plans and transportation improvement programs, including ensuring coordination of metropolitan planning activities with planning for nonemergency transportation services and social service transportation.

SANDAG Board Policy No. 025, which is SANDAG’s Public Participation Policy, is included as Appendix D to this PPP. The guidelines and principles in this PPP are intended to be consistent with the mandates in Board Policy No. 025. In the event of a conflict between the language in this PPP and Board Policy No. 025, however, the requirements in Board Policy No. 025 shall supersede the provisions in this PPP.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 5

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM PLANNING

SANDAG will follow the guidelines outlined in the Overall Public Participation Process as well as the guidelines below when conducting public outreach and involvement for planning, environmental, and preliminary engineering activities.

Current SANDAG planning projects underway that are incorporated under this PPP are outlined below. If needed, individual public participation programs with specified strategies and activities to secure public input and involvement will be developed and included in the final plan or report related to the subject matters below.

2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)

Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)

Sustainable Communities Strategy

Coordinated Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) for San Diego County

Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) update

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit project

South Bay Bus Rapid Transit project

SuperLoop Transit project

TransNet Early Action Program implementation

SANDAG Overall Work Program

Other studies, projects, and initiatives (i.e., corridor studies, grant-funded programs)

Public Participation Process

1. SANDAG will follow current federal and state regulations regarding public involvement processes and procedures. SANDAG will develop participation programs in consultation with all interested parties and will describe and secure feedback on procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes.

2. SANDAG will develop public participation programs tailored to meet specific project needs, which address the unique challenges presented by each project. SANDAG will follow best practices in developing these plans such as incorporating the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum of Public Participation: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate, Empower. This includes addressing needs and conducting outreach with stakeholders listed in the Overall Public Participation Process.

3. The tailored, strategic, and tactical public participation programs will set objectives, identify people and audiences to be reached, develop public involvement strategy, and define specific outreach techniques. This will be developed in consultation with interested stakeholders.

4. SANDAG will maintain and enhance opportunities to promote plans and projects and secure input on those plans and projects through the SANDAG Web site, e-mail newsletters and notification, and other Web-based activities.

5. SANDAG will promote plans and projects at Board of Directors meetings and meetings of the SANDAG Policy Advisory Committees: Executive, Transportation, Regional Planning, Borders, and Public Safety.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 6

6. SANDAG will promote other opportunities for public participation and involvement at the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues; Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee; Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group; Regional Planning Technical Working Group; Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee; Bicycle/Pedestrian Working Group; Regional Energy Working Group; Regional Housing Working Group; Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities, San Diego Region Conformity Working Group, and any other appropriate working groups.

7. SANDAG will ensure that opportunities for public participation and comment are provided at key milestones during the development of the draft RTP, RTIP, project criteria, network alternatives, funding alternatives, environmental documents, planning studies, and other project and policy efforts so that public comment and responses are provided and considered prior to any final SANDAG action or approval.

8. The PPP will be developed so that critical community concerns and technical issues are identified and potential options to address those concerns are provided. These issues include but are not limited to engineering, environmental, economic, social, and financial analyses that respond effectively to community needs and preferences and satisfy local, state, and federal environmental clearance requirements.

9. For planning, project, funding, transit fare, and policy decisions, public input shall be documented, issues or concerns addressed, and resolution of issues and/or changes made reflected in final reports, plans, or other documents. The final reports or documents are subject to approval by a vote at a public SANDAG Board or Policy Advisory Committee meeting.

10. To facilitate community participation, lists of individuals, agencies, and organizations will be developed for distribution of agency materials. SANDAG will promote opt-in opportunities for Web-based participation. These lists will include persons who have indicated an interest in transportation planning projects during previous public information efforts and/or focused on the specific project. Project information would be distributed to the persons on this list in conjunction with public meetings and workshops to solicit comments and recommendations.

11. Environmental documents will be prepared in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, as appropriate, and in coordination and consultation with various federal, state, and local agencies and with elected officials, community leaders, organizations, and other individuals from the neighborhoods and communities potentially affected by the proposed action. Coordination and public participation will be achieved through a variety of means, such as formal public hearings and meetings, circulation of draft documents, mailings, focus group meetings, workshops, and individual/group contacts.

12. When developing the RTP and the RTIP, SANDAG will consult with agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within the metropolitan planning area – the San Diego region – that are affected by transportation. These planning activities include state and local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, transit projects, border crossings, airport and seaport operations, or freight movements.

13. Formal scoping meetings, public hearings, and/or other meetings during the comment period and environmental document certification will be held in accordance with the requisite environmental document. As required, meetings will be announced in the Federal Register, local publications, and on the SANDAG Web site. Persons and organizations on the project mailing list also will be notified. SANDAG will endeavor to hold public meetings in locations

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 7

accessible by public transit. These meetings will be held in buildings, rooms, or locations that are accessible to persons with disabilities.

14. SANDAG will prepare and distribute appropriate notices and communications to comply with CEQA and NEPA requirements.

15. A targeted public participation program will be developed to inform the community of factors related to a planning project. The information program may include briefings for the news media, informational meetings, presentations to include community and professional associations and educational institutions, community-based organizations, business groups and associations, environmental organizations, and other public forums.

16. Consistent with SANDAG Board policy, a project working or stakeholders working group may be organized to review and comment on a plan or project. This group may consist of various elected officials/staff, community and neighborhood organizations, business organizations, property owners, and other stakeholders and interested parties. This group would be formed to provide comment and guidance regarding planning, technical issues, review study alternatives and evaluation results, and provide community input regarding the plan or alternatives. This iterative process would allow for identified issues and concerns to receive follow-up responses. Meeting summaries of project working group activities will be produced. Meeting notices, agendas, and/or other information will be posted to the SANDAG Web site.

CAPITAL PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

SANDAG will follow the guidelines outlined in the Overall Public Participation Process and Project Development and Program Planning as well as the guidelines below. For all capital improvement projects with significant community impacts, SANDAG will provide opportunities for members of the public to provide input and express concerns. SANDAG also will implement a program designed to inform the public of progress, as well as safety and community impacts in the event of construction.

Public Participation Process

1. SANDAG will hold publicly noticed meetings at key stages of project development and implementation in the area(s) being impacted. The location of the meetings will depend upon the geographic location of the project. Meetings concerning projects exclusively within the NCTD service area will be held in North County locations. Meetings concerning projects exclusively within the MTS service area will be held in the MTS service area. If appropriate, additional meetings may be held at SANDAG offices. Meetings concerning all other projects will be held at SANDAG offices or other locations specified in SANDAG agendas. SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD offices are accessible by public transit. SANDAG will endeavor to hold off-site public meetings at locations accessible by public transit.

2. SANDAG will solicit input from representatives of interest groups of the local population, such as community groups, planning groups, business groups and associations, environmental organizations, neighborhood associations, and senior and disabled riders. These stakeholders will be consulted during the design and construction of capital projects. This includes addressing needs and conducting outreach with stakeholders listed in the Overall Public Participation Process.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 8

3. SANDAG will work to advise the public regarding actual and perceived disruption during construction of capital projects by distributing educational and public information materials and by using other traditional community relations tools.

4. SANDAG will endeavor to meet citizen concerns as they arise and attempt to resolve those concerns.

5. For all projects requiring environmental review under CEQA and NEPA, such as major capital improvement projects, SANDAG will provide opportunities for members of the public to provide input and comply with all related legal requirements. (see Appendix D: SANDAG Board Policy No. 025)

TRANSIT FARE CHANGES

With the approval of Senate Bill 1703 (Peace 2002), the planning and programming functions of MTS and NCTD were consolidated under SANDAG. As part of these functions SANDAG assumed the responsibility for developing a Regional Fare Policy, including setting fares for transit services in the region through a Regional Comprehensive Fare Ordinance. A number of public participation activities are implemented to support the Regional Fare Policy, which is contained in Board Policy No. 029, Regional Fare Policy and Comprehensive Fare Ordinance.

Public Participation Process

1. SANDAG seeks to inform and involve public transit riders, stakeholders, and the general public about proposed changes in transit fares. This includes addressing needs and conducting outreach with stakeholders listed in the Overall Public Participation Process. Public information and involvement programs for service changes would fall under adopted policies of MTS and NCTD.

2. A public hearing(s) will be held by SANDAG for fare changes. The public hearings will be held at the SANDAG offices during a regularly scheduled meeting of the SANDAG Transportation Committee and/or Board of Directors and/or in the general geographic area of the affected public, as determined by the SANDAG Transportation Committee or Board of Directors. Public meetings will be held at a time and location that is accessible by users of public transit. When appropriate, meetings at which the public can provide comments will be held during evening hours and in different areas of San Diego County. Public hearings for fare changes affecting North County residents will be held by SANDAG in the North County area. Public meetings held at SANDAG during Board of Directors or Policy Advisory Committee meetings are Web cast live. The Web cast link is available at www.sandag.org.

3. A record of public input received at public hearings, meetings, workshops, or open houses will be provided to the Transportation Committee or Board of Directors prior to adoption of proposed amendments to the Regional Comprehensive Fare Ordinance for the purpose of adjusting fare prices.

4. Take One, Rider Alerts, or other public notices in both English and Spanish will be posted on all public transit vehicles within the affected area and will include a description of the proposed fare change, the date, time, intent and location of the public hearing, and the deadline for written, e-mail, and phone comments from the public. The notices also will be posted to the SANDAG and transit agency Web site(s).

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 9

5. Print notice of public hearings will be provided prior to the public hearing meeting date in newspapers of general circulation in the affected area(s), including appropriate minority and community publications. This notice also will be posted to the SANDAG Web site.

6. Additional public outreach will be performed through media notification, Web postings, and e-mail newsletters.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION

Through the SANDAG Borders Committee, the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues (Working Group), the Southern California Tribal Chairman’s Association, Reservation Transportation Authority, and other intertribal associations, SANDAG will conduct public participation and involvement activities to coordinate transportation and land use planning with tribal nations in San Diego County.

Public Participation Process

1. SANDAG will engage in consultation with tribal governments prior to making decisions, taking actions, or implementing programs that may impact their communities.

2. SANDAG will coordinate with the Working Group. The Working Group serves as a forum for regional tribal governments to discuss and coordinate transportation issues of mutual concern with various public planning agencies in the region, including SANDAG, Caltrans, the County of San Diego, and the transit operators.

3. The Working Group will monitor and provide input on the implementation of the strategies and planning activities. This includes providing input on PPPs.

4. The Working Group consists of representatives from each of the federally recognized tribal governments and California tribes in the San Diego region, as well as advisory members from the staff of SANDAG, Caltrans, the County of San Diego, Reservation Transportation Authority, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the transit agencies.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 10

SANDAG MANDATES AND DESIGNATIONS

The Board of Directors carries out a variety of responsibilities which are either mandated by federal or state law or regulation or delegated to SANDAG through local agreement.

Overall Authority

San Diego Regional Consolidated Agency (State)

With Senate Bill (SB) 1703 (Chapter 743, Statutes of 2002), SANDAG was designated as the San Diego Regional Consolidated Agency. SB 1703 went into effect on January 1, 2003, and is meant to strengthen how regional public policy decisions are made. The law mandates membership in the consolidated agency from the area’s 18 cities and county government. It consolidated transit planning, programming, project development, and construction into SANDAG, leaving responsibilities for day-to-day operations with the existing transit operators. Assembly Bill 361 (Chapter 508, Statutes of 2003) added to SANDAG responsibilities by mandating preparation of a RCP.

Regional Transportation Planning and Fund Allocation Agency (State)

Adopt RTP (long-range plan) and RTIP (five-year programming of state and federal transportation funds). Allocate Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds (¼ cent sales tax for transit support).

Metropolitan Planning Organization (Federal)

Allocate federal transportation revenues and meet comprehensive planning requirements of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in order to be eligible for funds.

San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (State and Voter Approval)

Administer ½ cent transaction and use tax, TransNet, with revenues to be used for transportation purposes.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 11

Co-lead Agency for Air Quality Planning (Federal and State)

Carry out air quality planning mandates in cooperation with the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Determine conformity of transportation plans and programs (RTP and RTIP) with air quality plan.

Integrated Waste Management Task Force (State and Local)

Recommend actions to member agencies regarding the major elements of the state-mandated Integrated Waste Management Plan.

Housing (State)

Determine each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need and establish performance criteria for self-certification of housing elements.

Areawide Clearinghouse (Federal and State)

Review projects with regional impacts under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Manage and Administer the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (Local)

Undertaken on behalf of North County cities.

Otay Mesa East Toll Facility Act (State)

Authorizes SANDAG to establish highway toll projects to facilitate the movement of goods and people along the State Route 11 corridor in the County of San Diego or at the Otay Mesa East Port of Entry.

Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan (State)

Designated as the agency responsible for preparing and adopting an Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan for the San Diego region.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 12

Quality of Life (State) SANDAG is authorized by statute to place a ballot measure before the voters and use revenues from the tax to provide for implementation of the RCP, water quality improvement, beach sand replenishment projects, and various other projects and purposes.

Other (Local) Regional Criminal Justice Clearinghouse, Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS), Regional Census Data Center, Regional Information System development and maintenance, local planning activities pursuant to agreements with Navy, Caltrans, State Office of Planning and Research, San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), APCD, San Diego County Water Authority, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, cities and the County, and others; SourcePoint/Service Bureau.

Operational

San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (State and Voter Approval) Construct TransNet sales tax highway and public transit projects.

Freeway Service Patrol Administration (State and Local) Provide service for stranded motorists on various highways.

Regional Transportation Demand Management Program Administration (Local) Provide and administer regional program (iCommute) consisting of carpool, vanpool, and transit programs, bike locker program, employer outreach, and other projects.

Interstate 15 Congestion Pricing and Transit Development Program (State) Implement FasTrak® program to allow single occupant vehicles in Interstate 15 Express Lanes for a fee. Fees support additional bus rapid transit services in corridor.

State Route 125 Toll Collection (State) Authorized to continue the collection of tolls on State Route 125 after a period of up to 35 years of operation by the private sector.

Regional Beach Sand Replenishment Program (Local) Administer the regional program in coordination with federal, state, and local agencies.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan 13 Appendix A

Excerpt from Federal Register/Vol. 72 No. 30

Title 23: Highways; Part 450—Planning Assistance And Standards 450.316 Interested parties, participation, and consultation

(a) The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) shall develop and use a documented participation plan that defines a process for providing citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, providers of freight transportation services, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, and other interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the metropolitan transportation planning process.

(1) The participation plan shall be developed by the MPO in consultation with all interested parties and shall, at a minimum, describe explicit procedures, strategies, and desired outcomes for:

(i) Providing adequate public notice of public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including but not limited to a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed metropolitan transportation plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP);

(ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes;

(iii) Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs;

(iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web;

(v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times;

(vi) Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input received during the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP;

(vii) Seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services;

(viii) Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the version that was made available for public comment by the MPO and raises new material issues which interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts;

SANDAG Public Participation Plan A-1 (ix) Coordinating with the statewide transportation planning public involvement and consultation processes under subpart B of this part; and

(x) Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process.

(2) When significant written and oral comments are received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan and TIP (including the financial plans) as a result of the participation process in this section or the interagency consultation process required under the EPA transportation conformity regulations (40 CFR part 93), a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of comments shall be made as part of the final metropolitan transportation plan and TIP.

(3) A minimum public comment period of 45 calendar days shall be provided before the initial or revised participation plan is adopted by the MPO. Copies of the approved participation plan shall be provided to the FHWA and the FTA for informational purposes and shall be posted on the World Wide Web, to the maximum extent practicable.

(b) In developing metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs, the MPO should consult with agencies and officials responsible for other planning activities within the MPA that are affected by transportation (including State and local planned growth, economic development, environmental protection, airport operations, or freight movements) or coordinate its planning process (to the maximum extent practicable) with such planning activities. In addition, metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs shall be developed with due consideration of other related planning activities within the metropolitan area, and the process shall provide for the design and delivery of transportation services within the area that are provided by:

(1) Recipients of assistance under title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53;

(2) Governmental agencies and non-profit organizations (including representatives of the agencies and organizations) that receive Federal assistance from a source other than the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide non-emergency transportation services; and

(3) Recipients of assistance under 23 U.S.C. 204.

(c) When the MPA includes Indian Tribal lands, the MPO shall appropriately involve the Indian Tribal government(s) in the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.

(d) When the MPA includes Federal public lands, the MPO shall appropriately involve the Federal land management agencies in the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP.

(e) MPOs shall, to the extent practicable, develop a documented process(es) that outlines roles, responsibilities, and key decision points for consulting with other governments and agencies, as defined in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, which may be included in the agreement(s) developed under §450.314.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan A-2 Appendix B

HOW THE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED

The PPP guides SANDAG public outreach efforts for transit, highway, smart growth, environmental, planning, growth forecasts, binational planning and coordination, the Regional Transportation Plan, Regional Transportation Improvement Program, Tribal Consultation, and other initiatives. It was developed in accordance with guidelines established by FHWA for metropolitan transportation planning (23 CFR 450.316), and addresses Title VI, related nondiscrimination requirements, and reflects the principles of social equity and environmental justice. Included in the PPP are procedures, strategies, and outcomes associated with the ten requirements listed in 23 CFR 450.316. The plan also fulfills various state and federal public involvement requirements. The PPP reflects the SANDAG commitment to public participation and involvement to include all residents and stakeholders in the regional planning process.

Initial Outreach Survey

To start the update process for the PPP, in June 2009 SANDAG launched initial outreach with a survey in English and Spanish that asked residents, stakeholders, agencies, and other interested parties on how they wished to receive information or provide input on regional projects. The survey was distributed at SANDAG Board and Committee meetings, promoted in rEgion (the SANDAG monthly electronic newsletter) in June, July, August, September, and October, circulated to SANDAG e-mail lists, promoted on the SANDAG Web site as a public notice, home page “featured project,” and news item, and circulated at diverse community events. SANDAG distributed a press release and public notices to promote the survey. More than 1100 participants responded to the initial survey. Key feedback included recommendations to provide information on the SANDAG Web site; provide information via e-mail newsletters; implement e-mail and online options for providing feedback; and consider conducting some public meetings, workshops, and/or open houses during the workday. A breakdown of the outreach survey questions and answers is available at the end of this Appendix.

Outreach Timeline

The updated draft SANDAG Public Participation Plan (PPP) was released by the SANDAG Board of Directors for a 45-day public review and comment period on October 9, 2009. The deadline for comments via mail, e- mail, fax, or phone was November 30, 2009, at 4 p.m. Presentations also were made to the following working groups and committees:

Tribal Transportation Working Group – 9/8/2009 Board of Directors – 10/9/2009 Stakeholders Working Group – 9/16/2009, 10/20/2009, 11/18/2009 Public Safety Committee – 9/18/2009, 10/16/2009, 11/13/2009 Regional Planning Committee – 10/2/2009, 11/6/2009, 12/4/2009

B-1 Transportation Committee – 9/18/2009, 10/16/2009, 11/6/2009 Borders Committee – 9/25/2009, 10/23/2009, 11/20/2009 Board of Directors – 12/18/2009

Presentations were made to the SANDAG Transportation, Regional Planning, Borders, and Public Safety Committees and to the SANDAG Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) in September, October, and November to secure additional input. The SWG is composed of diverse individuals from throughout the region who are interested in providing input into regional initiatives such as the Regional Transportation Plan, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Regional Comprehensive Plan.

SANDAG staff also requested input on the PPP from the Tribal Transportation Working Group at its September 8, 2009 meeting hosted by the Viejas Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. Tribal representatives provided comments to staff regarding their interest in utilizing the Working Group and the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association as the principal mechanisms for consultation. In addition, tribal representatives added that this does not replace SANDAG’s direct communication with each tribal nation; it is, however, the best policy mechanism for collaborative planning efforts. These comments were incorporated into the PPP.

Public Notices and Outreach

In an effort to receive robust input on the draft PPP, notices were posted in the Asian Journal, La Prensa (in Spanish), North County Times (all editions), San Diego Daily Transcript, The San Diego Union-Tribune (all editions), San Diego Voice & Viewpoint, and Star News. Public service advertisements aired on 22 local radio stations during morning and evening drive-time radio from November 2 through 13, with a call to action for residents to tell SANDAG how they want to be involved in regional projects. The media list and radio stations for public service advertising are listed below.

ƒ Newspaper Advertising (October 16 – 22) − Asian Journal − La Prensa (in Spanish) − North County Times (all editions) − The San Diego Reader − San Diego Daily Transcript − San Diego Union-Tribune (all editions) − San Diego Voice & Viewpoint − Star News

ƒ Radio Advertising (November 2 – 13) − KBZT - 94.9 FM Alternative − KCBQ - 1170 AM Talk − KCEO - 1000 AM Business News

B-2 − KFMB - 760 AM Adult Contemporary − KFMB - 100.7 FM Adult Contemporary − KFSD - 1450 AM Big Band − KIFM - 98.1 FM Lite Jazz − KPRI - 102.1 FM Adult Album Alternate − KPRZ - 1210 AM Christian − KSCF - 103.7 FM Adult Contemporary − KSON - 97.3 FM Country − KSOQ - 92.1 FM Country − KYXY - 96.5 FM Adult Contemporary − XGLX - 91.7 FM Spanish − XHIT - 95.3 FM Spanish − XHRM - 92.5 FM Top 40 − XHTZ - 90.3 FM Urban − XLTN - 104.5 FM Spanish − XMOR - 98.9 FM Hip Hop − XOCL - 99.3 FM Spanish − XSPN - 800 AM Sports Talk − XTRA - 91.1 FM Alternative Rock

ƒ Press Release Distribution List

Asia Media Mercury News Asian Journal Navy Dispatch Associated Press NBC 7/39 Peninsula Beacon News North County Times BIA Builder Magazine Oceanside Magazine Cal Regions Pomerado Newspaper Group Chinese News Poway Corridor News City Beat Presidio Sentinel Clairemont Community News Prime News CNS City Ramona Sentinel Coast News Rancho Bernardo News Journal CW 6 Riverside Press Enterprise Daily Journal San Diego AP Del Mar Times San Diego Business Journal Diario San Diego San Diego California Examiner Downtown News San Diego Channel East County Californian San Diego Community Newspaper Group

B-3 El Latino San Diego Daily Transcript Fox 5 News San Diego Metropolitan Magazine Hispanos Unidos San Diego Monitor News KBNT - Univision San Diego News San Diego Reader KFMB San Diego Sun KGTV San Diego Union-Tribune KOGO Radio San Diego Voice and Viewpoint KPBS San Diego Uptown News KUSI Star News La Jolla Village News Voice of San Diego La Opinion XEWT Televisa La Prensa XHAS Telemundo 33 News La Opinion XHTY Uniradio Los Angeles Times ZETA

Media coverage included a news article that appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune on October 26, 2009, and a story on KPBS radio on October 26, 2009.

Announcements also were distributed to the following groups to secure input and promote further distribution to other interested parties. Working groups, committees, and interested stakeholders include:

City Managers Planning Directors City of San Diego and County of San Diego Community Planning Groups Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities iCommute (formerly RideLink) Employer Database Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Working Group Regional Energy Working Group Regional Housing Task Force Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Regional Planning Technical Working Group San Diego Region Conformity Working Group Tribal Working Group

B-4 SANDAG also promoted the public comment period and solicited additional input through the SANDAG Web site, e-mail distribution, and through the rEgion newsletter. Through these outreach efforts, more than 5,000 interested stakeholders were reached.

B-5

Initial Outreach Survey Results

B-6

B-7

B-8

B-9

B-10

B-11

B-12

B-13

B-14

B-15

B-16

B-17

B-18

B-19 Appendix C -- 2009 SANDAG Public Participation Plan (PPP)

Comments and Responses

No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

Comments on Draft 2009 SANDAG PPP

1 10/20/09 Guy Preuss Stakeholders Media outreach needs improvement to reach wider SANDAG uses a variety of communications Outreach: Working Group audience; do not rely solely on Internet for methods to reach different audiences. Please Notification Meeting dissemination of information since it doesn’t reach see “Guidelines and Principles” beginning on the audience we think it does. page 5.

2 10/20/09 Guy Preuss Stakeholders Overuse of acronyms in PPP; general public doesn’t Glossary of Terms to be included in final Level of Detail Working Group know what they mean; provide more explanations Public Participation Plan. Meeting

3 10/26/2009 Phone Bill Chatham It's pretty late if you are going to close comments Deadline for comments was November 30, Outreach: by November 1 to be advertising in the paper 2009. Notification today. One of the problems with getting information to you is not knowing that you are soliciting it.

4 10/26/2009 E-mail Annette Halderman General comment against the Merriam Comments forwarded to County of Not applicable development by Deer Springs Road San Diego.

5 10/26/2009 Phone Jim General comment against the development of a Comments forwarded to City of San Diego. Not applicable new park at Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway

6 10/26/2009 Phone N/A General comment against the Merriam Comments forwarded to County of Not applicable development by Deer Springs Road San Diego.

7 10/26/2009 E-mail Howard Post Extend MTS bus hours until 2 a.m. Comments forwarded to the Metropolitan Not applicable Transit System (MTS).

8 10/26/2009 E-mail Howard Post General comment against the I-15 Express Lanes Comments forwarded to SANDAG Project Not applicable Project Manager.

9 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz It is my belief that the Draft Plan does not come The SANDAG Public Participation Plan was General close to fulfilling the requirements of the federal crafted in compliance with the requirements law which requires this plan to be developed and of 23 CFR Section 450.316, which is part of used by all MPO’s (23 CFR Section 450.316). the Public Participation Plan. See Appendix A.

10 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz The first step this plan should take is to set goals The SANDAG Public Participation Plan sets Level of Detail and objectives for public involvement. overall guidelines for all of SANDAG’s public outreach efforts. More specific goals and objectives are developed at the project level. See revised page 1 and page 6, Item #12.

C-1 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

11 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz But on review of the guiding principles, there is not The SANDAG Public Participation Plan’s Level of Detail a single mention of the disabled community or how General Guidelines and Principles are the efforts can be made to ensure their meaningful foundation of all outreach processes and involvement. include audiences to which SANDAG targets outreach efforts. Persons with disabilities are specifically cited here, and in several other places in the plan. Please see page 5, Item #2.

12 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz The SWG meetings are currently being held at Caltrans requires guests to sign-in at the front Other Caltrans where a member of the public is required entrance to its building for security reasons. to sign in to gain admittance to the meeting. (cites Guests may sign-in using only their initials, Brown and Bagley Act requirements). first name, or the Caltrans guest pass number if they do not want to give their full name. SANDAG does not receive any information from the Caltrans sign-in sheet. The Caltrans office was chosen as the location for Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) meetings because of its proximity to public transit and its free public parking.

13 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz Goal 1: Amend the mission statement of SANDAG SANDAG is not revising its mission statement Other to reflect its strong commitment to public at this time. participation and involvement.

14 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz Goal 2: To change SANDAG’s position from ‘we are The Guidelines and Principles section of the General required to take public input’ to ‘we value your SANDAG Public Participation Plan addresses input.’ This can be done by creating programs SANDAG’s commitment to public within SANDAG to encourage staff to always have involvement. Please see page 5. a ‘we value your input’ approach.

15 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz Goal 3: Have a Public Participation Plan that reflects The SANDAG Public Participation Plan General SANDAG’s strong commitment to democracy. promotes all opportunities for public involvement.

16 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz The guidelines must be fleshed out with explicit The SANDAG Public Participation Plan Level of Detail strategies that will allow the public to participate. provides the foundation for development of specific public outreach plans. Please see revised page 1.

17 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz SANDAG could have a page on their website, a SANDAG maintains and is enhancing a public Level of Detail Public Participation Page. involvement page that highlights public participation opportunities.

18 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz However, staff will still have to deal with the lack Web-based outreach is just one Level of Detail of internet access in our low-income and minority communications method employed by communities. This can be helped by creating the SANDAG. Communications strategies are explicit strategy that SANDAG will create a Fact tailored to meet the needs of specific Sheet which mirrors to a great extent the Public audiences. Participation web page.

C-2 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

19 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz The federal law also requires that the PPP offer The SANDAG Public Participation Plan sets Level of Detail explicit desired outcomes to the process. The draft overall guidelines for all of SANDAG’s public does not speak to that issue in any substantive way. outreach efforts. More specific goals and objectives are developed at the project level. See revised page 1 and page 6, item #12.

20 10/26/2009 E-mail/Letter Theresa Quiroz There is so much more specific detail that could – The SANDAG Public Participation Plan Level of Detail and must – be added to this draft. provides the foundation for development of specific public outreach plans. See revised page 1.

21 10/26/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair Public comments on environmental documents, SANDAG follows state and federal Level of Detail plans or ordinances are rarely addressed in any environmental guidelines for projects. Please comprehensive manner. Quality of in put is low. see pages 4, 8, and 9. Response to public comment is barely adequate and certainly does not encourage ongoing participation.

22 10/26/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair The public has no idea if there are regional and Evaluation criteria are developed as part of Level of Detail subregional goals for various aspects of life in our the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Public region or whether there are data measurements input is solicited during the development of against these goals, or a process in place to make all elements of the RTP. adjustments if we are off track. Provide better representation of regional and subregional goals and whether or not there are data measurements against these goals, or processes in place to make adjustments if we are off track.

23 10/26/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair Analysis of environmental documents is haphazard SANDAG follows state and federal Level of Detail and there are inadequate standards against which environmental guidelines for projects. Please to measure quality and progress. see pages 4, 8, and 9.

24 10/27/2009 E-mail Nadine Scott Not enough meetings in Coastal North County or Subregional workshops are held in North Outreach: Location Oceanside, the largest city in North County County for various planning projects.

25 11/2/2009 E-mail Nadine Scott Comment regarding involvement of local Yes. See sandag.org/ppp. Outreach: individuals and groups, per page 15, paragraph 2: Notification are we developing or soliciting lists for interested persons/groups

26 11/2/2009 E-mail Nadine Scott Not enough meetings in Coastal North County, Subregional workshops are held in North Outreach: Location particularly Oceanside County for various planning projects.

27 11/2/2009 Survey Linda Vista Under the section titled: Capital Project Design and Comment noted. Outreach: Collaborative Construction #4, it is crucial that participants who Notification have been recruited to provide community input are provided with updates continuously.

28 11/2/2009 Survey Linda Vista The tactics that would be most effective to Please see revised page 5, item #2 and page Outreach: Collaborative promote public participation are through the 9, item #15. Collaboration model of collaborating with community organizations that have an entry into community groups that may otherwise not be as open to participate directly with a government

C-3 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

organization. Community based organizations, for instance, have established trust and connection with the members of their communities. Therefore, they serve as effective intermediaries and can more easily identify which are the most significant obstacles that prevent community groups from participating. For example, Bayside Community Center has identified that if we provide food and childcare services then our community members are able to participate. Another tactic is to provide capacity building for participants as many of them are not necessarily aware of the initiatives centered around transportation. It is also important that these capacity building opportunities train members to become actively involved in the process of decision making.

29 11/2/2009 Survey Linda Vista Identify how many different cultural groups are Please see revised page 5, item #2 and Outreach: Collaborative represented and outreach to the groups that are page 9, item #15. Diversification missing. Identify what other methods of communication are working to get people to participate and replicate these efforts. Identify how effective is working with community based organizations as intermediaries to reach out to groups who have not been involved in the past. Identify the diverse methods of communication and technology being used by the participants. Identify what groups are not being represented and how they can be incorporated into the process of participation. It is crucial to incorporate advocacy work as a component of the PPP as many of the community based organizations currently receiving grants through SANDAG may have more opportunity to help community leaders to contribute and participate in the decision making process.

30 11/17/2009 E-mail Brian Gregory/UCSD Overall, it is a comprehensive document that Please see revised page 8, item # 7. Outreach: provides a good framework to engage the public in Notification SANDAG’s planning and capital improvement processes. As you know, one of the most important aspects of a successful public participation plan is to engage the public early in the process, where comments can be received and appropriately addressed. On occasions when the public is solicited for input, it is too late in the process to affect change. In the PPP there is a reference to “key milestones” or “key stages of project development and implementation” and while we recognize the challenge in finding language that fits every project, perhaps it could be clearly noted that the public outreach effort will commence early in the process.

C-4 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

31 11/17/2009 E-mail Brian Gregory/UCSD Another comment is in regards to representatives Comment noted. Outreach: on working groups or advisory committees. The Diversification selection of those participants is a critical part of public participation and it is important to select members that are able and willing to share information with their constituency. The representatives should engage their community/institution/organization in a dialogue and communicate these perspectives with SANDAG staff.

32 11/17/2009 E-mail Brian Gregory/UCSD Lastly, the description of public outreach for Project The outreach efforts that are part of Capital Level of Detail Development and Program Planning (pages 12–14) Project Design and Construction build upon seems to be broader and more inclusive than what the efforts conducted as part of Project is listed for Capital Project Design and Construction development and Program Planning. Please (pages 14-15). Is that the intent? Is it assumed that see revised page 9. the public was already engaged during the planning process? Perhaps that could be clarified.

33 11/19/2009 E-mail Donna McGinty Enough silly decisions are made in Oceanside to Comment noted. General make me realize you will be doing the Public an injustice by limiting their opportunity to speak on anything. YOU represent the Public and we certainly have the Democratic right to protect our rights to participate in person, by letter by email or by phone. Oceanside City Council majority would take our rights to speak or participate in discussion and decision making if they could. It would expedite their time at the Council Meetings. They were elected or appointed TO LISTEN TO OUR VIEWS. Please enter my comments in the public SANDAG record on this issue.

34 11/19/2009 E-mail [email protected] I believe that the public interest is best served Comment noted. General when and if The Public Participation Plan should include input on transportation policy, priorities, and project selection. Coordinated signal lights in cities, more freeway lanes, more selective use of small Visa busses, construction before the need has been determined by supposed authorities (wider bridges, over and underpasses, fewer promises and more action and more public input at least annually, names of those who are responsible for expenditure of all public funds to detailed small projects as well as major projects. It is time for SANDAG to be more accountable to all involved parties.

C-5 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

35 11/19/2009 E-mail Jeanne Sisson SANDAG has sand-bagged taxpayers of San Diego The SANDAG Public Participation Plan is an General County into voting billions for transportation umbrella document with guidelines for public upgrades with the understanding most of the participation on general categories of funds would go to highway, road and street SANDAG projects and programs. All SANDAG improvements. SANDAG seems to have little projects and programs have opportunities for intention of honoring these promises (OK, if they public involvement. See revised page 1, page weren't 'promises', it was 'understood' the public 5, item #5, and page 8, items #7, 8, and 9. wanted surface roads given priority and most of the funds).

Now comes a 'Public Participation Plan' that limits discussion on any SANDAG programs other than the few SANDAG chooses for public comment. BULL FEATHERS! True Public Participation includes the public be involved in every aspect of transportation policy, project selection and project priorities. The San Diego Association of Governments has been run like a private fiefdom long enough. Give us complete, unrestricted Public Participation now.

36 11/20/2009 E-mail Mike Preston I believe it would be a mistake and un-American to The SANDAG Public Participation Plan is an General limit public participation and discussion to only umbrella document with guidelines for public targeted plans and projects and not allow public participation on general categories of testimony on how and what projects are selected. I SANDAG projects and programs. All SANDAG don't think SANDAG should fear an open and frank projects and programs have opportunities for discussion of the entire traffic congestion relief public involvement. See revised page 1, page plan. I thought that an important part of the 2004 5, item #5, and page 8, items #7, 8, and 9. bond was periodic public input and adjustments based on that input. Please reconsider this ill- advised limit on public comment.

37 11/20/2009 E-mail George Crissman The Public Participation Plan does not state or Public participation is part of the early stages Level of Detail contemplate public participation in the project of transportation planning. Strategic and selection process or the setting of transportation tactical outreach plans are developed for priorities. The processes of project selection and individual projects and programs, but general prioritizing represent "key decision points" and outreach guidelines that call for early must be open to public comment to satisfy 23 CFR involvement are covered in the SANDAG 450.316. Please amend the Public Participation Plan Public Participation Plan. See revised page 1, to specifically include full public access to and page 5, item #5, and page 8, items #7, 8, participation in the project selection and and 9. prioritizing process. Full public access to the decision process must include the requirement of active and diligent efforts on the part of SANDAG and partners to fully inform the public of all available transportation modes and methods.

38 11/20/2009 E-mail George Crissman The Plan should provide for a variety of techniques The Public Participation Plan includes many for the public to submit commentary (public, methods aimed at securing a high level of facsimile, internet email, unbiased professional public involvement in the planning process. surveys, etc.) to assist with the selection process. The plan serves as the foundation for the development of more specific public outreach plans tailored to individual projects, programs and planning efforts. Please see

C-6 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

revised page 1 and page 5, item #5, page 8, items #7, 8, and 9.

39 11/20/2009 E-mail George Crissman The plan should require SANDAG and partners See response for question #38. must make an active and diligent effort to obtain the greatest amount of public comment on the planning and prioritization process.

40 11/20/2009 E-mail George Crissman The expressed desires of the public at large must be See revised page 1, page 5, item #5, and General given preferential consideration in the decision- page 8, items #7, 8, and 9. making process.

41 11/20/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair The plan is long winded. Repetitive. That is not The SANDAG Public Participation Plan sets Level of Detail good. It does call for periodic Board review of its overall guidelines for all of SANDAG’s public efficacy. That is good. How are you going to outreach efforts. More specific goals and measure that? I found nothing that discusses goals, objectives are developed at the project level. measurement, evaluation and feedback. Some See revised page 1 and page 5, item #12. numbers might be nice. How many of this? What percentage of that?

42 11/20/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair I wrote earlier. There are still two components of SANDAG always subjects its environmental Level of Detail public input that I think need attention: comments to quality assurance and quality control. SANDAG is only responsible for Quality of CEQA/NEPA reports. It is one thing to certifying or adopting CEQA documents; get them. It is another to insure the quality of data NEPA documents are the responsibility of the collection and analysis. I do not see anything in the federal lead agency. The projects SANDAG plan that attempts to capture public comment on works on are those that are part of its study inadequacies and determine whether some Regional Transportation Plan or Overall Work form of Quality Assurance program is needed. Program.

A QA program would use statistical tools to attempt to increase report quality.

Simple evidence of quality: decline in the number of report iterations before certification--assuming, of course, agencies just don't abrogate their responsibility to read critically.

Further evidence: reports are received and read by qualified people. In many cases we have biologists writing about project/construction alternatives and the reports are read by planners. Nobody in the loop has any real training or experience!

Reports frequently fail to consider alternatives, such as the use of passive, natural systems to obtain higher levels of flood control or water quality vs. engineered solutions relying on steel, concrete and energy; or the affect of conservation on demand, and therefore, the need for capital intensive projects.

C-7 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

It seems that many projects are driven by funding sources. The Feds or the State appropriates $ for steel/concrete/energy intensive projects but nothing for conservation efforts. So, your projects all look the same--just as they have since the 1950's.

43 11/20/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair Feedback level 1. While public comments are often SANDAG reflects changes, including those General published, it is frequently very difficult to resulting from public comment, by outlining determine whether anything in a final report or comments received and revisions made as approval has changed as a result. Draft documents well as using strike out/replacement are often revised and released with no strike annotation in reports. out/replacement annotation.

44 11/20/2009 E-mail Peter H. St. Clair Feedback level 2. It would be beneficial to SANDAG aggregates public comments into General aggregate public comment. Into what categories categories and makes revisions based on or specific concerns do they fall, if any? What is input. done to address repetitive (but not redundant) criticism?

45 11/21/2009 E-mail James L. Johnson As a property owner and tax payer in San Diego Comment noted. See revised page 1, page 5, General County, I wish to express my desires regarding the item #5, and page 8, items #7, 8, and 9. Public Participation Plan. The Public Participation Plan should include input on transportation policy, priorities and project selection processes. At no phase should Public Participation be excluded or limited from any of your processes or proceeding whenever they involve the use of Tax Payer Monies be they in the form of bonds, federal, state, or local grants. Federal Law requires public participation and I personally will support any legal actions if my ability to present input is restricted in any form.

46 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Consider simply listing the mandates, and including The mandates section has been moved to the Other Caltrans the description narratives as an appendix. The bulk end of the plan. of the PPP should be on the public participation process.

47 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Page 2: RCP not previously defined - revise to RCP is now defined on first reference. Other Caltrans "Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP)."

48 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Page 2: May be worth mentioning that the Comment noted. Other Caltrans (TransNet) program was approved by voters in 1987 and re-approved in November 2004, extending the program to 2048.

C-8 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

49 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Page 5: As currently written, the principles and Reference to best practices and IAP2 Other Caltrans guidelines range from "Inform" to "Involve" in the Spectrum of Public Participation added to IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum - principles with page 6. "Collaborate" to "Empower" levels of public impact are strongly recommended. A current example of collaboration with citizens is the RTP Stakeholder Working Group (SWG). For the overall principles (pgs. 11-12), collaboration is only hinted at on #4.

50 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Page 6: At the October SWG meeting, Nico Calavita SANDAG conducts outreach efforts tailored Outreach: Caltrans commented on the lack of youth participation to non-English speaking audiences. Please see Diversification (high school age and younger) in planning activities page 6, item #11. The plan has been revised and Margarita Holguin commented on the need to to include youth as an audience. Please see outreach to non-English speaking communities; page 5, item #2. consider adding a mention of "youth" and "non- English speaking".

51 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Page 11: Since the word is in quotation marks, The quotation marks have been removed. Other Caltrans consider defining consultation in this context.

52 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Appendix A: Do the PPP guidelines address this Please see Appendix D, SANDAG Public Outreach: Caltrans explicitly - how many days/weeks in advance will Participation Policy (Board Policy No. 025). Notification the public be notified of meetings, workshops and other opportunities to participate?

53 11/23/2009 E-mail Connery Cepesda/ Appendix A: The bulk of the guidelines "provide See revised page 1, page 5, item #5, and page Level of Detail Caltrans opportunities for members of the public to provide 8, items #7, 8, and 9. input and express concerns", but little mention of the level of consideration SANDAG will give to the collected comments - consider elaborating on the "explicit consideration and response" in the principles.

54 11/25/2009 E-mail Christina Burke/ Before receiving feedback, have a preface to the Comment noted Outreach: Notification El Cajon Community survey, etc. that states what transportation Development currently exists, so that feedback may come from Corporation an educated answer.

55 11/25/2009 E-mail Christina Burke/ Is it possible to use a system like reverse 911 to let SANDAG endeavors to use multiple efforts to Outreach: Notification El Cajon Community people know there is something important to reach the public such as direct mail, Development comment on that affects their region and future newspaper advertising, outreach to affected Corporation (especially for non-internet users). communities, and collaborating with local agencies and organizations to promote regional initiatives.

56 11/25/2009 E-mail Christina Burke/ For internet users, I recommend having an E-Alert. Comment noted. SANDAG does send e-mail Outreach: Notification El Cajon Community This is where one can sign up with San Diego via e- announcements to those who have signed up Development mail to be alerted when something important is to receive meeting notices and other Corporation going on. The title of the subject line will always information. An enhanced sign-up option to say E-Alert: plus a topic to notify San Diegans what be posted at www.sandag.org/ppp in early is going on without them having to check the 2010. SANDAG website consistently. (The El Cajon Police Department uses this to tell people about crime

C-9 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

trends in their area. Visit: elcajonneighbors.org to take a look).

57 11/25/2009 E-mail Christina Burke/ Be creative in how you gather information: Give a SANDAG will use social media as appropriate. Level of detail El Cajon Community space for people to blog about transportation. See page 6, item #8. Development People are often more interested in blogging with Corporation one another about their opinions than filling out a survey. 58 11/30/2009 E-mail Nancy Taylor After reviewing the SANDAG Public Participation Comment noted. General Plan online, I must say that as a resident of San Diego I truly appreciate the effort SANDAG makes to apprise community members of issues and future plans involving SANDAG that affect our county. The outreach effort that SANDAG makes has always struck me as far-reaching and comprehensive, and the Public Participation Plan continues that effort. I periodically check the SANDAG Web site to keep current with transportation developments, and so frequently there are opportunities for citizen input and involvement. In the past I served on the Complete Count Committee and have attended public workshops offered by SANDAG. I appreciate these opportunities to get involved with my city and county. Thank you!

59 11/30/2009 E-mail Michael Morris Jr. I have reviewed SANDAG’s Public Participation Plan Comment noted. General Transportation (PPP) and overall it looks and reads well and it Planner, appears to meet almost all of the applicable MPO FHWA CA Division PPP requirements per 23 CFR Section 450.316.

60 11/30/2009 E-mail Michael Morris Jr. Add additional language to demonstrate explicit See revised page 1, page 5, item #5, and Level of Detail Transportation consideration and response to public input received page 8, items #7, 8, and 9. Planner, during the development of the metropolitan FHWA CA Division transportation plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

61 11/30/2009 E-mail Michael Morris Jr. I may have overlooked it within the document, yet, RCP is now defined on first reference. Other Transportation on Page 7, what does RCP mean? Planner, FHWA CA Division

62 11/30/2009 E-mail Elyse Lowe, Our greatest concern is the lack of policies related SANDAG participates in the FHWA Other Executive Director, to transparency of public review process. SANDAG Transportation Model Improvement Program Move San Diego does not make their transportation models - http://tmip.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearingho developed with public funds - available to either use/docs/tmip/peer_review/sandag/. The the public or qualified experts so as to insure either SANDAG modeling framework and transparency or independent review for accuracy or assumptions were reviewed by FHWA and improvement. Under the Freedom of Information expert modelers from around the country. Act, SANDAG uses language described in the The review panel included experts from the exceptions to preclude allowing models to be University of Texas, Atlanta, Seattle, and reviewed by qualifying them as “software.” In the Sacramento. Other information on the spirit of supporting a well educated public in the SANDAG modeling framework is at participation process, please allow the public to be www.sandag.org/demographics in the 2030

C-10 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

as technically informed as possible when discussing Regional Growth Forecast Update: Process billions of dollars of regional transportation and Model Documentation publication. In investments. addition, SANDAG regularly responds to requests for its transportation models consistent with the California Public Records Act, (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.).

63 11/30/2009 E-mail Elyse Lowe, CIP Progress Reports. SANDAG will implement a SANDAG provides quarterly update reports General Executive Director, program designed to inform the public of progress, on transportation progress to the SANDAG Move San Diego including posting Project-to-date timelines status Board. These reports are distributed as part and budget billings on a quarterly basis. of the Board Agenda, posted on the SANDAG Web site, summarized in Board Actions, and posted in the rEgion newsletter. There is a “Transportation Progress Report” page on the SANDAG Web site at www.sandag.org/progress. The quarterly reports include information on approved budget, funded budget, cost to complete, schedule, and status for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. Also, the TransNet Dashboard is posted at www.KeepSanDiegoMoving.com and provides a database of information on project budget, tracking expenditures against budget schedule, status, and other updates on the TransNet Early Action Program projects. The TransNet Dashboard is updated monthly. TransNet Dashboard information added to Progress Web page.

64 11/30/2009 E-mail Elyse Lowe, Lack of Performance Measures in the PPP. Move See revised page 1, page 5, item #5, and General Executive Director, San Diego found no policy stating how often page 8, items #7, 8, and 9. Move San Diego procedures and strategies would be reviewed nor against what measures. The PPP contains no specific desired outcomes against which the agency can be measured. For instance, there are no goals for what percentage of individuals or groups to get on the record, nor goals for how many comments should be received. There are no goals related to timeliness of the process or projects. Therefore there are currently no measures against which to review the effectiveness of the PPP.

65 11/30/2009 E-mail Elyse Lowe, Improved Website Search Results. While SANDAG SANDAG conducted search engine Executive Director, provides excellent access to many documents, we enhancements and improvements in August Move San Diego find the SANDAG website search engine to be 2009. SANDAG will accept additional extremely poor. We urge SANDAG to improve the keywords for inclusion in the search engine search engine and displayed results on the web program. site.

66 11/30/2009 E-mail Cary Lowe My primary recommendation regarding the Public Comment noted. Additionally, Glossary of General Participation Plan is that greater emphasis should Terms to be included in final Public be placed on making informational materials more Participation Plan.

C-11 No. Date From Name/Agency Comment Response Category

"friendly" and accessible to the general public. This means describing programs and policies in plain language, and avoiding "plannerese" or professional jargon. Most of the public, including people interested enough to follow SANDAG issues, are not trained in urban planning and related areas. If the goal is to maximize their ability to give meaningful input, it is necessary that they have meaningful information in a form that can be plainly understood.

67 11/30/2009 E-mail Cary Lowe I also recommend maximizing the extent to which SANDAG does intend to maximize Level of Detail public comments and questions can be submitted opportunities for on-line communications. on-line. Especially for elderly and disabled people, people who are uncomfortable with preparing formal comments, and people who are simply too busy to attend meetings or even write letters, e- mail communication is an excellent alternative.

68 11/30/2009 E-mail Cary Lowe Finally, I recommend improving participation SANDAG tailors outreach efforts to individual Level of Detail opportunities by holding as many informational audiences. These efforts include meetings in diverse community locations. determination of appropriate meeting locations.

C-12 Summary of Comments from the October 20, 2009, Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Meeting Agenda Item #6: Draft SANDAG Public Participation Plan (Anne Steinberger)

Anne Steinberger, SANDAG provided an update of the Public Participation Plan, outreach, and the review period for feedback on the plan.

Cary Lowe: I think it’s a nice comprehensive list, but I would like to see more emphasis on the channels where that participation can occur. For most people I think it’s burdensome to come to public meetings for hours, wait through presentations, and then wait to be speaker number 95 out of 270. There should be more emphasis on either mail or other simpler means of providing input. People can always write letters and presumably they will be read, but probably electronic communications is the means that most people would find most convenient, and I’m sure that you will accept that kind of input, but I encourage a section here somewhere that says “we can take input through any of the following channels,” and particularly emphasize those that are simplest for most people to use.

Ken Mitchell: Having conducted a lot of public participation plans for the navy, what does SANDAG consider a good return from the public? When you finish, when do you feel that you did a really job on the input that you got back?

Ms. Steinberger: Unfortunately we haven’t quite touched everyone yet, and so the few thousands that we hear from, for us, is a good number. But we are able to do in the way of expanding our outreach is this is the third stakeholders working group since the year 2000. This is our third time at awarding community-based organizations grants to do the additional outreach. So while some of the general advertising, we could technically say everyone, should have heard about this, we know that’s not possible. I think that since the year 2000, by adding the stakeholders working group, and adding the community-based outreach component, as well as opportunities for people to participate via the web, and communicate with us about how they want to be involved, that we have expanded into the thousands, and we would consider it successful if we got into the ten thousands, but I think we really have expanded our core base, and we’ve also found that our numbers of “awareness of SANDAG” have increased from in the teens to in the 70s and 80s with some of our public participation surveys. So we have various measures that we use and that is why it is important to measure this and report it back to the public, to our board, and the stakeholders so they know the results.

Gary Knight: Not to be so specific, but you’ve mentioned televisions, and I know myself watching the Padres game there’s a way to vote on who’s the best player through the television and there are mediums out there now to expand your reach to the hundreds of thousands. It gives you instantaneous [feedback] and they report, also there’s some electronic signal gets noted and I get little thing in the mail saying would you like to go to Valley View and get your free whatever…not only do you get input but you can write back to presidents and the senate…so you now you can sit through an hour-long presentation and vote on your best aspect of this.

C-13

Nico Calavita: How can we create a process so that younger people can participate? What I am really suggesting is that SANDAG could try to have school districts participate in this process. To have means by which some students could learn from it and be leaders.

Dennis Wahl: I’ve also been involved in a lot of public participation and the one thing that I thought…I used to count how many meetings we’d do and how many people we’d talk to…but over time I learned I thought there was more success if we incorporated some of the ideas and concepts in projects. So I’m not sure exactly how you could measure this, but you could write up a section that talked about how you incorporated what you heard because over time I realized you really expand the idea pool…so something like that I think might help measure how effective the outreach program is.

Andrea Skorepa: I think that one of the ways that we can reach you people is if we expand not just to web pages but Facebook and YouTube and all the things that they use... I think it’s important to understand and recognize that to reach different populations you have to be culturally relevant to those populations. We deal with a high percentage of Latinos but they’re very different than the Latinos that you find in Barrio [Logan] and have to be treated in a different way. Maybe if the stakeholders group and public participation providers could share those things that way things that we have found to work with our Mexican-American population in San Ysidro might work up there. We have a very involved community and we would happy to share that with you.

Lois Knowlton (Of Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers): I’m representing those older than 65 in health care facilities, and very few have cars so most of their transportation is public transit or family members. My experience with this population is there are not very many of them that are using the web and getting information that way. So I think the one-on-one, the group meetings that they’re a part of is more effective. I went to the Mira Mesa Street Fair and there was a display for Direct Access and they have people lined up – ethnic minorities and older people concerned about this and to get participation and interest you almost have to be in those kind of venues to get the word out and have hard copies of things that they’re going to take home to read and publicize meetings for transit for 2050. I think a lot of people are going to say “that doesn’t affect me, I’m not going to be around that long,” but it does affect because those plans are the direction it’s going in…I think we should piggyback on other meetings and get on their agenda and be able to bring in that participation in that way. It may be a typical meeting, but it might be a senior yoga experience and try to get that message out.

C-14 November 18, 2009, Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group Meeting Agenda Item #6: Update and Input on Draft SANDAG Public Participation Plan (PPP) (Anne Steinberger, SANDAG)

The draft SANDAG agency-wide PPP was released on October 9, 2009, for a 45-day public review and comment period. This plan establishes a process for communicating with and obtaining input from the public concerning agency programs, projects, and program funding. Anne Steinberger (SANDAG) provided an update on outreach efforts and solicited additional input from the SWG on the plan.

Ms. Steinberger reminded the SWG that the review period is coming to a close, and to please provide input during this time.

Elyse Lowe (City of San Diego) asked for clarification on the deadline for the public review period. Ms. Steinberger clarified that the deadline is November 30, one week from Monday. Ms. Lowe inquired about the method that SANDAG will use for the part of the PPP that mentions “periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the policies and procedures to ensure an open participation process.” Ms. Steinberger responded that as individual programs are implemented; for example, the Mid-Coast Public Involvement Plan, staff will assess if it is getting the level of input that is desired through the scoping period and environmental review. Ms. Lowe asked for clarification on “getting the input that you want.” Ms. Steinberger replied that, for instance, having a meeting where no one shows up is not getting the desired amount of participation. Staff will review level of input and response rate to that input. Staff has received suggestions to utilize the internet and put more information on the website, especially in terms of making the information accessible. Another work assignment for the SWG is to help with the outreach for the RTP and the SCS, and staff will get input by the SWG on affective outreach measures to reach a broad cross-section of the community and how those measures can be achieved.

Ms. Lowe commented on the desire for Move San Diego to participate in the fullest and utilize its technical capacity, and stated that she would like to have SANDAG’s transportation model available for technical review. All technical information on data and modeling should be available to the public or upon request to ensure a fully transparent process. SANDAG should publish all changes to its model parameters. She noted that she has heard that SANDAG has one of the best models in the state, but she has not seen an independent review to support that statement. Ms. Lowe will also submit this comment in writing. Ms. Lowe then explained that Move San Diego is a non-profit organization that advocates for sustainable transportation and land use.

David Krogh (South County) commended staff for the tremendous outreach that has already been accomplished. He suggested reaching out to members of travel-oriented organizations such as AAA and insurance companies to create a mass information distribution channel with no cost to SANDAG.

Amy Gunderson (Casa Familiar) commented that the community-based outreach model will be successful and that it would be great to have it exist in a continuous manner that does not revolve around one project, and that the members of the SWG (and community-based organizations represented in the SWG) continue to act as a liaison to the community. The community groups know best practices when it comes to interacting with their respective communities. Ms. Gunderson mentioned that Casa Familiar has already begun outreach in the [San Ysidro] community, and that it has been a successful venture to distribute information and to

C-15 know their concerns about public transit. It has been an education opportunity to talk about the things that SANDAG is already doing.

Stephen Russell (City of San Diego) (could not understand recording)

Eddie Price (City of San Diego) explained that the value of SANDAG is missing from the community, even when people see the logo. It’s a challenge to create the value along transit corridors and deep urban areas so they become part of the process too. Outreach through media will not be effective until the value has been created. Even if outreach is conducted to different cultures, the message needs to be brought home.

Andrea Skorepa (City of San Diego) suggested Dario San Diego for newspaper advertising as it is available in all markets and more legitimate locations. Ms. Skorepa supported Mr. Price’s sentiments, and added that outreach needs to be done in a way that people can realize the direct benefit of their participation. The information needs to address their concerns in a concrete manner. Ms. Skorepa noted that the PPP as it is looks like every other public participation plan she has seen. Ms. Steinberger agreed with Ms. Skorepa and added that it will be helpful to discuss some of these specifics as they move forward with the RTP. For example, when the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) was first launched in 2004, the advertisements in the paper said “How does our region grow?” It didn’t mention the RCP directly. The SWG will help develop messages that resonate with the public when talking about 2050. Ms. Skorepa commented that jobs need to be mentioned in the sustainable piece – which areas will be producing workers. It needs to be upfront.

Jerome Stocks (Chair) suggested the San Diego Reader. Ms. Steinberger will check to make sure it is on the media list.

Margarette Morgan (North County Inland) inquired about development concerns with the SCS. Chair Stocks said this will be addressed at further discussions.

Mr. Price suggested that communities need to hear more about what transportation already exists in their area and where it goes, in order to address what is needed. It will help with younger people especially to discuss transportation to employment centers and career options. Transportation corridors need to be defined.

Robert Leonard (North County Inland) wanted clarification on the role of the public. If a response is needed, it should be clear as to what is being asked, at a level they can understand.

Elaine Cooluris (Able-Disabled Advocacy) commented that the last SWG that worked on the 2030 RTP and the Smart Growth Concept Map took employment into account, which could be a resource and starting point.

Sandor Shapery (City of San Diego) added that he has been on a number of boards that have set up PPPs by law where the staff has no interest, but that SANDAG has an effective constant feedback system loop which is impressive. The SWG is part of that feedback loop. The feedback adjusts the system which adjusts outreach in this loop. He is satisfied with the outcome of this system.

Grover Diemert (Linda Vista Collaborative) said when he involved with the 2030 RTP he noticed that the immigrant population in Linda Vista, a major user of public transportation, needed to have specifics in order to generate responses. Questions where they can respond “yes, no, or maybe” work best.

C-16 C-17 C-18 C-19 C-20 C-21 C-22 C-23 C-24 C-25 C-26 C-27 C-28 C-29 C-30 C-31 C-32 C-33 C-34 C-35 C-36 C-37 C-38 C-39 C-40 C-41 C-42 C-43 C-44 C-45 C-46 Appendix D

SANDAG Public Participation Policy No. 025

The policy is posted at: http://www.sandag.org/organization/about/pubs/policy_025.pdf. You also can request a copy by calling (619) 699-1950 or e-mailing [email protected].

SANDAG Public Participation Plan D-1 Appendix E Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

Transportation, like many other fields, has numerous uses of "jargon.” These language short-cuts ease communication among professionals in the field, but can be confusing to everyone else. Here is an abridged list of commonly used transportation terms, abbreviations, and acronyms:

ADA...... Americans with Disabilities Act: Federal civil rights legislation for disabled persons that was passed in 1990; requires public transportation systems to be more fully accessible, including the provision of paratransit service.

APCD...... Air Pollution Control District: The APCD is a government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within San Diego County. The County Board of Supervisors sits as the Air Pollution Control Board. The mission of the APCD is to protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution, achieve and maintain air quality standards, foster community involvement, and develop and implement cost-effective programs meeting state and federal mandates, considering environmental and economic impacts.

Caltrans...... California Department of Transportation: The state agency responsible for the design, construction, operation, and main- tenance of the state highway system. The State system includes interstate freeways and state highways. Caltrans and SANDAG cooperate in highway planning and in preparing the funding priorities of the state highway system. Final funding priorities for the region are adopted by SANDAG in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). Caltrans is administered through 12 geographic districts. For Southern California, District 11 (D11) administers San Diego and Imperial Counties, D7 administers Los Angeles County, D8 administers Riverside County, and D12 administers Orange County.

CARB ...... California Air Resources Board: The state agency responsible for adopting state air quality standards, establishing emission standards for new cars sold in the state, and overseeing activities of regional and local air pollution control agencies.

CEQA ...... California Environmental Quality Act

SANDAG Public Participation Plan E-1 COG...... Council of Governments: A voluntary organization of local governments that strives for comprehensive, regional planning. SANDAG is the COG in the San Diego region.

DOT...... Department of Transportation: At the federal level, the cabinet agency, headed by the Secretary of Transportation, that is responsible for highways, transit, aviation, and ports. The DOT includes Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and others. The state DOT is Caltrans.

EAP...... Early Action Program: A subset of TransNet projects which the SANDAG Board has selected to begin work on before 2008 by accessing future dollars now.

EIR ...... Environmental Impact Report: A detailed statement prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) describing and analyzing the significant environmental effects of a project and discussing ways to mitigate or avoid the effects. The term EIR may mean either a draft or a final EIR depending on the context.

EMP...... Environmental Mitigation Program: Provides funding for the mitigation of local and regional transportation projects and additional funding for activities that help implement the region’s habitat preservation plans Environmental Justice ...... The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws and policies.

EPA...... See U.S. EPA.

FHWA...... Federal Highway Administration: Federal agency responsible for the administration of federal highway funds and issuing policy and procedures for implementation of federal legislative directives. FHWA is a component of the federal DOT.

Fiscal Year...... The 12-month period established for budgeting purposes. In California, the commonly accepted fiscal year for governmental purposes starts July 1 and continues to the following June 30.

FTA ...... Federal Transit Administration: Federal agency responsible for the administration of federal transit funds. Formerly known as the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), FTA is a component of the federal DOT.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan E-2 MPO ...... Metropolitan Planning Organization: A federally-designated agency that is responsible for regional transportation planning in each metropolitan area. SANDAG is the MPO for the San Diego region.

MTS...... San Diego Metropolitan Transit System: The agency created by the California legislature to operate transit facilities in the southwestern portion of the region.

NEPA ...... National Environmental Policy Act

NCTD...... North San Diego County Transit Development Board: The agency created by the California legislature to operate transit facilities in the northwestern portion of the region.

RCP...... Regional Comprehensive Plan: A plan that serves as a foundation for integrating land uses, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regional smart growth framework. The RCP is the regional vision to prepare for change and meet our future needs. The RCP was adopted by SANDAG in July 2004.

RTIP ...... Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP): A three to seven-year listing of major highway and transit projects including project costs, funding sources, and development schedules. Compiled from priority lists submitted by local jurisdictions and transportation agencies.

RTP ...... Regional Transportation Plan: A minimum 20-year plan that is required by state and federal law to guide the development of the region's transportation system.

RTPA...... Regional Transportation Planning Agency: A state-designated agency responsible for preparing the RTP and the RTIP and administering state transportation funds. SANDAG is the San Diego region's RTPA.

SAFETEA-LU...... Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: Federal legislation signed into law on August 10, 2005 authorizing $244.1 billion for Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 5-year period 2005-2009.

SANDAG ...... San Diego Association of Governments: The regional Council of Governments for the San Diego region. SANDAG is responsible for long-range transportation planning and programming under both federal and state law.

STIP ...... State Transportation Improvement Program: A multi-year program of major transportation projects to be funded by the state. The CTC adopts the STIP every two years based on projects proposed in RTIPs and from Caltrans.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan E-3 TDA ...... Transportation Development Act: TDA funds are generated from a tax of one-quarter of one percent on all retail sales in each county and are used for transit, specialized transit for disabled persons, and bicycle and pedestrian purposes.

TCRP...... Transportation Congestion Relief Program

TEA-21...... Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century: Federal legislation enacted in 1998, authorizing the preparation and funding of a surface transportation program. Like the previous ISTEA legislation, TEA-21 emphasizes diversity and balance of modes as well as the preservation of existing systems before construction of new facilities.

TransNet ...... A half-cent local sales tax approved by San Diego region voters in 1987. Administered by SANDAG, this 20-year program to improve the region's transportation system is expected to generate $2.7 billion (in 1995 dollars). The funds are to be divided equally among three major transportation categories: highways, pubic transit, and local streets. TransNet EXTENSION...... The TransNet sales tax approved in 1987 expires in 2008. In November 2004, over 67 percent of voters countywide approved an extension of the TransNet program to 2048. This 40-year extension will generate more than $14 billion for transportation improvements, and includes an innovative $850 environmental mitigation program.

U.S. DOT ...... United States Department of Transportation: The federal cabinet-level agency with responsibility for highways, mass transit, aviation and ports; headed by the secretary of transportation. The DOT includes the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, among other agencies.

U.S. EPA ...... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: The federal agency charged with setting policy and guidelines, and carrying out legal mandates for the protection of national interests in environmental resources.

SANDAG Public Participation Plan E-4 Appendix F

Board of Directors

Transportation Committee ELECTED OFFICIALS

Bayshore Bikeway Working Group

Bicycle-Pedestrian Working Group San Diego Region Conformity Working Group STANDING Cities/County Transportation Advisory Committee San Diego Regional Traffic Engineers Council Regional Transit Planning Working Group Social Services Transportation Advisory Council

Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project Working Group Regional Planning Stakeholders Working Group AD HOC

Bold = new working group

F-1 Bold = new working group new working Bold =

AD HOC STANDING ELECTED OFFICIALS Working Group Preservation Shoreline Shoreline Regional Planning Working Group Smart Growth Urban Smart GrowthUrban Design Guidelines Working Group Technical Ad Hoc Regional Housing Working Group Regional PlanningCommittee Board ofDirectors Working Group Smart Growth SPRINTER F-2 Regional Energy Working Group Regional Planning Planning Regional Working Group Stakeholders Mitigation Program Working Group Environmental Environmental AD HOC STANDING ELECTED OFFICIALS Binational Regional Committee on Opportunities Board ofDirectors Borders Committee F-3 Tribal TransportationIssues Interregional Partnership Joint Policy Committee Interagency Technical Working Group on Working Group I-15 I-15 STANDING ELECTED OFFICIALS Enterprise Core WorkingGroup Crime Analysis WorkingGroup Public SafetyCommittee Technical Working Group Technical Working Management CommitteeManagement Business Working Group Board ofDirectors Chiefs’/Sheriff’s ARJIS F-4

Table of Contents i 1 4 5 3 . 29 . 12 . . . . . 3 . . . . . 32 ...... 27 ...... 10 ...... i ...... iii ...... iv ...... lans ...... lans...... 18 ...... 34 ...... 13 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ...... 21 eduction Strategies ...... 24 ONTENTS C OF

Question 11 Question ...... 24 15 Question ...... 30 16 Question ...... 30 17 Question ...... 30 Question 13 Question ...... 27 14 Question ...... 27 Question 2 Question ...... 10 Question 7 Question ...... 19 Question 18 Question ...... 32 Question 9 Question ...... 22 10 Question ...... 23 19 Question ...... 35 Question 3 Question ...... 12 Question 4 Question ...... 14 5 Question ...... 15 6 Question ...... 18 8 Question ...... 20 ABLE Would Paying for Parking Alter Your Commute Behavior? ...... Behavior? Commute Would Paying for Parking Alter Your ...... 30 Primary Mode of Transportation ...... of Transportation . Mode . Primary ...... 27 ...... for Parking?. . Pay ...... Willingness to Reduce DrivingReduce to Willingness ...... 32 WillingnessDrivingReduce to by Various Methods . . . Support for GHG Reduction Policies ...... Policies . Reduction . . GHG . Support for ...... 22 Support GHG R for Fee-Based Quality of Life in Region ...... RegionQuality of Life in ...... Methodology Overview ...... Overview. . Methodology ...... 1 ...... Report. . Organization of ...... 2 ...... Acknowledgements ...... 2 ...... Disclaimer...... North. . True . About ...... Planning & Priorities Transportation ...... 4 ...... VMT & EmissionsPrograms to Reduce ...... 4 ...... Behavior. . Typical Travel ...... Behavior Change Personal ...... 5 Motivation for SurveyMotivation for ...... Rating of Transportation SystemRating of Transportation ...... 12 . . Priority Transportation Areas...... Specific Transportation Improvements ...... Transportation Improvements . Specific 17 Top Factors when Developing Transportation Polices/P ...... GHGs and Climate Change?.. . about you Informed . Are 20 Requirements?.Aware of GHG Reduction Typical Travel Behavior ...... Personal Behavior Change ...... SANDAG Just the Facts ...... 4 Conclusions...... 7 Quality of Life in Region...... List of Tables...... List of Figures...... Introduction...... 1 Transportation Priorities & Planning ...... T Table of Contents...... Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions ...... 20 Table of Contents ii 44 . 44 . 41 . 44 . . 40 . . . . . 45 ...... 38 ...... 36 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Question 21 Question ...... 38 22 Question ...... 39 Question 20 Question ...... 36 Effectiveness ofIncentivesto Reduce Driving. . .. . WillingnessTelecommute to Flex or Schedule...... Sample & Weighting& Sample ...... 41 ...... Sampling. . to . . due . of Error . . Margin ...... 42 ...... Collection. . Data ...... Processing Data . . Rounding ...... Questionnaire DevelopmentQuestionnaire ...... 41 ...... Pre-Test.. Programming & ...... 41 ...... Languages . . . . SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines...... Background & Demographics ...... Methodology ...... 41 List of Tables iii ...... or Somewhat Likely) ...... 35 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ternative Transportation by Age. Modes . . 37 VMT & EmissionsVMTby How About Informed Freeway Improvements Improvements Freeway by Planning Area e of Alternative Transportation Modes by e of Alternative Transportation e of Alternative Transportation Modes by e of Alternative Transportation Modes cing VMT & Emissions by Planning Area ...... by Planning Area . & Emissions . . cing VMT . 24 ABLES T OF

(Showing % High Priority)(Showing ...... 18 Emission of Greenhouse Gas Change Greenhouse Gases, Climate & Awareness LawReduction ...... 23 Mode (Among All Respondents, Showing % Very Somewhat Likely)or Showing % Very Respondents, ...... 36 Somewhat Likely)or Showing % Very ...... 36 Primary Transportation Mode ...... ModePrimary Transportation ...... 37 Planning AreaPlanning ...... 37 IST SANDAG L Table 1for Transit & Priorities Spending Table 4 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce DrivingTransportation by Primary Table 5 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce Driving(Among by PlanningAll Area Table 2 Reducing of Methods Support for Table 3Redu of Methods Support for Table 6 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce Driving by Age (Among All Respondents, Table 7 Effectiveness of Incentives on Us Table 8 Effectiveness of Incentives on Us Table 9 of Al on Use Incentives of Effectiveness Table 10 Demographics of Sample ...... 40 List of Figures iv 0 ...... Mode...... Mode...... 25 me ...... me. . . . . 28 ...... 29 atus...... atus...... 28 ons ...... 23 stem ...... 12 Law ...... 22 ate Changeate ...... 20 g ...... 35 ...... 32 ...... 30 T & Emissions...... T & Emissions...... 24 by Planning Area ...... by Planning Area...... 14 System by Planning Area Planning by System ...... 13 provements ...... 18 rking by Planning Area & AgePlanning Area rking by ...... 31 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, hs by Planning Area & AgePlanning Area hs by ...... 33 & PartyEthnicity hs by ...... 34 System by Age & Gender ...... Gender . Age & . System by 17 s, Climate Change by Planning Area & s, Climate Change by Household Income ange, Awareness of Greenhouse Gas Day Parking by Hsld Income and Years in Six Months by Household Income & Top Income & Household Months by Six Diego Region, HomeDiego Region, Ownership & Status IGURES F OF

Ethnicity ...... 10 Status Ownership & Home Mode ...... 17 Age...... Age...... 21 San Diego ...... San Diego ...... 31 ...... Priorities. . . Spending ...... 34 & Party ...... & Party ...... 21 ...... Primary Transportation Mode ...... 22 Ch Climate Gases, Greenhouse About Emission Reduction Law & Primary Transportation Income ...... 26 ...... Status. . & Employment ...... 33 IST SANDAG L Figure 1Figure 2 . . . . . AreasPlanning . . Survey Universe and ...... 2 . . . . of Life. . Quality ...... 1 Figure 14 Top Spendingfor Priority Transportation Primary Transportation System by Figure 4Figure 5 ...... & Age.. Income . Household . . . of Life by Quality ...... 11 Figure 6Districtial Area & Supervisor Planning of Life by Quality ...... 11 Ratingthe San Diego Region Transportation Sy Figure 15 Spendingfor PrioritiesFreeway Transit & Im Figure 3 in San Years by of Life Quality Figure 7Figure 8 Ratingthe San Diego Region Transportation Figure 9 Funding Priorities for TransportationSystem ...... 14 Figure 10 Funding Priorities for TransportationSystem Systemfor Transportation Priority Spending Top Figure ...... 11 15 . . . . Top Spending. . for . Priority TransportationArea . . Planning . System by . . Figure 16 12 Spending Top for Priority Transportation Employment Status System by Figure ...... 13 16 Top Spendingfor Priority Transportation Figure 16 ImportanceFactors of toConsider WhenDeveloping Transportation PlansFigure...... 17 19 How Informed About Greenhouse Gases,Clim Figure 18 How Informed About Greenhouse Gase Figure 19 How Informed About Greenhouse Gase Figure 36 WillingMonths to Reduce Driving in Next Six Figure 41 Likelihood of TakingActionsto Reduce Drivin Figure 21 Aware of Greenhouse Gas Emission ReductionAge & Law by PlanningArea, Figure 23 Support for Funding Programs to Reduce VM Figure 24 Support for Funding Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions by How Informed Figure 25 Support forFundingPrograms Reduceto VMT & EmissionsPlanning by AreaFigure. . . . 26 25 Support for Funding Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions by Household Figure 29 Primary Transportationby Household Mode Inco Figure 30 & Genderby Age Primary Transportation Mode ...... Figure ...... 29 31 Primary Transportationby Planning Area Mode Figure . 32 Amount Paid for Parking at Work/School.Figure . . . 33 WouldAlone Drive With $10 Per Day ParkingFigure...... 34 30 WouldPa Not Drive Alone With Per Day $10 Figure 35 Would Not Drive Alone WithPer $10 Figure 37 WillingMont to Reduce Driving in Next Six Figure 38 WillingMonths to ReducePrimary Driving in Next Six Transportation by Mode Figure 40 Willing to Reduce Driving in Next Figure 20 Aware of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Figure 22Methods Support for Reducing of& Emissi VMT Figure 27 ...... Primary Transportation Mode...... Figure 27 28 Primary Transportationby Employment Mode St Figure 39 WillingMont to Reduce Driving in Next Six List of Figures v ...... Hour Traffic...... Hour Traffic...... 39 e Day Per Week Per Day e ...... 38 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ternative Transportation Modes Transportation ternative ...... 36 Household Income ...... Income . Household ...... 38 ...... Income . Household ...... 39 SANDAG Figure 42 EffectivenessIncentives ofon Use of Al Figure 43 WillingnessWork toFrom Home at Least On Figure 44 WillingnessWork to FromWeek Home& by PlanningDay Per at Least One Area Figure 46 Willing Alter Work to Rush Avoid Schedule to Hour Planning Traffic by Area & Figure 45 Willing Alter Work to Rush Avoid Schedule to Figure 47 . . . Planning Areas . . . Universe and Survey ...... Figure ...... 42 48of Error Margin Maximum ...... 43 Introduction 1 ...... and a prosperous econ- prosperous and a keep SANDAG aware of aware and SANDAG keep as well as the rEgion monthlywell as the rEgion as le and goods in the San Diego in the San goods le and nts, transportation measures ighted results, which are repre- which are results, ighted tegic decisions when developing dentified in Figure 1 on the next dentified in 1 on the Figure ems, infrastructure needs, needs, ems, infrastructure and pub- theme focuses on how the transporta- focuses on how theme Howresidents rate variousdo aspects of 1 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, area planning the statistical mar- to balance tions the SANDAG will provide of Direc- Board obtaining reliable parameter estimatesobtaining the for reliable parameter of theof transportation system do residents think planning area level. To adjust for the oversam- ed to vote were selected using stratified random y, a healthy environment, healthy a y, onIn page 41). brief, a total of 1,200 people who , meanwhile, addresses link the between the transporta- A full descriptionmethodologytheof for this study is used and what actionsare they willing to take in the interest of The primary purpose of the survey described in this report described survey the of primary purpose The tterns, infrastructure investme ented in this report are the we are ented in this report enhancing the movement of peop of movement the enhancing Methodology ion needed to make sound, stra ion needed to make sound, within the six planning areas i weightedaccording to voter population estimates prior to analyses Quality ofQuality Travel & Livability ating land uses, transportation syst transportation ating land uses, 2050 RTP2050workshops, includesan online survey, public presentations and newsletter and other publications. other and newsletter 1. the for Plan Participation Public the report, in this described survey reliable statistically to the addition In NTRODUCTION the 2050 RTP. the region’s transportation system? What aspects What GHG reduction strategies and the priority for future improvements/investments? should be support, residents would programs GHGs? Answers to these and related ques reducing tors and staff with the informat SANDAG TheonRTPComprehensive 2050 the Regionalother will rely (RCP)Plan planning and efforts as the for integr foundation tion system functions from thecustomer’s perspective interms of mobility, reliability, system and safety. Sustainabilitypreservation, equit social ensure to need the and tion system omy. lic investmentwithinstrategiessmartregional growth a network.also outline The Plan will how new legislative requirements related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be pa through development achieved as well as alternative strategies. and policies, METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW MOTIVATION FOR SURVEY MOTIVATION FOR SURVEY I In 2009, SANDAG began the process of developing the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), on sustaining which focuses and the issues that matter to people who live in the region. (see in this report later included reside in the San Diego region and are register sampling. To accommodate SANDAG’s interest in was to engage the public in the process of developing the 2050 RTP of developing process in the was to engage the public region as a whole, as well as region. The 2050 RTP goals are structured into two overarching themes: Quality of Travel & Liva- bility and Sustainability. The page, the study employed oversample by a strategic the study employed page, gins of error associated with estimates at the at the gins of error associated with estimates pling, the raw data were then The results pres and presentation. sentative at the region-wide level, as well as within the six planning areas. Introduction 2 Conclusions on page 45) and ...... lts from the survey by from the survey lts et the needs of readers who of readers et the needs Just the Facts ader, the questionnaire used for SANDAG who participatedSANDAG who in the the methodology employed for col- the QuestionnaireToplines & are interested in the details of the results. of details in the interested are True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, discussion of the resu discussion t improved the overall quality of the research pre- overall quality of the research t improved the REAS This report is designed to me A as well as those who as those as well ), as well as a description of a description well as ), as And, for the truly ambitious re True North thanks the staff at the back of this report (see back of the LANNING P AND

NIVERSE Table of Contents U URVEY 1 S IGURE topic area (see are for you. They provide a summary of the most important factual findings ofsurvey the in bul- let-point format and a discussiontheir of implications. thisreader, sectioninterested For the is question-by-question a more detailed followed by and analyzing the data. lecting the interviews is contained at which is Appendix A, in results is contained the study for set of crosstabulations and a complete bound separately. prefer a summary of the findings summary of the a prefer For those who seek an overview of the findings, the sections titled design of this study. Their expertise and insigh Their expertise of this study. design sented here. SANDAG ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ORGANIZATION OF REPORT F Introduction 3 ...... research firm that is dedicated to firm that is research True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ng of the values, opinions, priorities and con- North Research,Inc. and not those necessarily designing and implementingdesigning and scientificsurveys, formancemanagement, organizational develop- sions in this report are those are this report sions in of those the authors areresponsibility the authors. of the search studies for public agencies, including more than 250 True North is a full-service survey a full-service is True North The statementsconclu and (Dr. Timothy McLarney (Dr. Sarles) at True and Richard Timothy McLarney of AnySANDAG. errors and omissions providing public agencies with a clear understandi agencies providing public Through customers. residents and cerns of their as expert interpretation of the True findings, as well interviews, one-on-one and focus groups North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategicdecisions in a variety of per evaluation, policy areas—such as planning, ment, establishing fiscal priorities, and developing effective public information campaigns. Dur- and Mr. (President) (PrincipalSarles McLarney Dr. careers, Researcher) haveing their designed and conducted over 500 survey re studiescouncils for of government,municipalities and districts. special SANDAG ABOUT TRUE NORTH TRUE NORTH ABOUT DISCLAIMER Just the Facts 4 ...... ed in the body of this ed in the rity for future funding, fol- 36% stated they feel some- 36% stated , 86% of residents indicated the quality of life in the San ed the highest priority to removing independently True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, gether and cause congestion (86% high or d that they feelwell-informed about the rela- tothe sectiontitles us lley and bus more service lley and bus routes so they can ductions from cars and trucks, whereas 36% whereas trucks, ductions from cars and ansportation in the San ansportation system Diego region, findings from the survey. For the reader’s the reader’s conve- the survey. For from findings priority for future improvements andinvestments, ality of life in the region is fair, whereas than less 4% used ate change, and an additional highest ould be a high or medium prio ould be a high nts felt should carry the most weight when policymakers are their assessment of the region’s freeways (63% excellent or vanpools and buses (69%). lic transit system, with one-third (33%) of respondents rating shared positive assessments of assessments positive shared Sprinter train services (76%). services train Sprinter VMT & EMISSIONS ACTS projects tested, respondents assign respondents tested, projects F THE

residents were most positive in were residents good), followed by local and roads streets (44%) and the transportation system overall (42%). tionship betweenGHGs andclim that major roads sh streets and what informed about the relationship. Approximately 13% indicated that they feel slightly informed, whereas 9% confessed to being not at all informed about the relationship between and GHGs. climate change re to GHG emission pertaining requirements the most frequently mentioned area was public transit services (36%), followed by major streets and roads (31%), and major freeways and highways (29%). and 1% were unsure. of the new requirements aware were not that they confided assessment of the region’s pub the region’s of assessment Diego region, with 39% rating it as excellent 45% and Approximatelyas good. 12% of qu that the indicated respondents the region. in life of the quality to describe poor or very poor excellentit as or good. to in freeways where lanes merge bottlenecks medium priority), followed by expanding Tro (79%),areas adding lanes to existing freeways (69%),adding and lanes to existing freeways that are dedicated for carpools, lowed closely by major lowed freeways and highways (81%), and public transit services including the bus, Trolley, Coaster and developing transportation policies and plans are reducing traffic congestion (74% extremely or very important), ensuring that the transportation system supports the needs of the local economyimprovingand (73%), transportation the safety of the (64%).system UST SANDAG • Forty-onepercent (41%) of respondents indicate PROGRAMS TO REDUCE • asked to rate of the tr various aspects When TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES & PLANNING PRIORITIES & PLANNING TRANSPORTATION •majority of residents The vast report. Thus,if you wouldlike to learn more about a particular finding, simply turn to the appro- section. priate report LIFE IN REGION QUALITY OF • were somewhat less positive in their dents resi tested, compared to the other aspects When J The following is an outline of the main factual nience, we have organized the findings according the findings organized have we nience, • asked to select the single When • that 63% stated were aware of the new legislative surveyed, they Among all residents •Among eight specific eight •Among • transportation areas three broadly defined Rating • The threefactors that responde Just the Facts 5 2 pay for parking pay for , they are willing not ...... carpooling with a sin- pay less pay less than $50 per workers and students workers and realistically link at least once per week, opposed expanding the ability of solo driv- of solo the ability expanding opposed True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, expandingthe ability of drivers solo to pay for parking, most (8%) affic flow (88%),followed expanding by pro- Approximately 6% of for reducing GHGs emissionsfrom cars and definitely ce the number of vehicles freeways. on vehicles of number ce the the next six months. Approximately 45% indi- money to improve the transportation system, and 19% the transportation money to improve have to pay for parking at their worktheir parkingforhaveto pay or school at site. dicated that they already trip already they that dicated commute to work or school were more invaried their pri- blic transit as their primary mode, including the bus, Trol- not g to make this change, whereas 2% indicated that it depended this change, whereasit make 2% indicated that g to sed to answer the question. to answer the sed ated that they were very likely to take this action in the upcoming opposed converting existing general purpose lanes to carpool lanes. to carpool lanes purpose general existing opposed converting ers to pay a fee to use carpool lanes and using the lanes and using use carpool pay a fee to to ers definitely mary mode of transportation,ofmary mode followedcarpooling by witha single passenger (13%), and car- pooling with two or more passengers (5%). gle (23%) or multiple passengers (14%), whereas 10% reported primarily using some form of public transit. do they or school reported that ing, including establishingparkingurban fees incommercial and (30% centers support), (24%),taxincreasing or establishingmilesa newfee on the gas driven per vehicle (21%). mary modeof transportation. than Less (48%) half reported that they primarily drive alone when travelinginthe San Diego region, more third reported than one reported using some form of pu ley, Coaster or Sprinter. month.Overall, just 3% of those whodrive solowhen commutingtoworkschool$50 or pay per monthor morefor parking at theirwork site or school. to the amount that they drive during reduce cated that they were not willin that they were not cated otheron1% factors refu and trucks, residents of the San Diego region were most supportive of making road improve- road making of supportive most were region Diego San the of residents trucks, tr and improve bottlenecks reduce ments that grams that encourage telecommutingand flexible work hours (87%), making improvements to the transitattractsit system so that moreriders and (84%), concentrating newhousing near existingemployment well-served and areas that centers by transit are (82%). (or pay less than $200 per month) indicated that having to pay $10parking per day for would compel them to adopt an alternative method of commutingtoschool.or work and an additional 38% st six months. a fee to use carpool lanes and using the money to improve the transportation system (56%), converting existing general purpose lanes to lanes carpool (63%) and building new carpool lanes (70%) to carpooling and redu encourage 2. (27%) quarter one more than that noting worth Its also SANDAG PERSONAL BEHAVIOR CHANGE • Approximately that, indicated residents half (51%) of San Diego • Nearly nine out of ten respondents (88%)who primarily drive when solo commuting to work • Two-thirds (68%) of those who commute to work or school reported driving solo as their pri- TYPICAL TRAVEL BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR TYPICAL TRAVEL • driv- reduce strategies to fee-based supported of respondents less than one-third Overall, • Among the 11% who reported that they pay do • with presented strategies 10 different When • not do who those comparison, By • Nearly(47%) halfof respondents whodrive solo to work/school and do • More than 40% of respondents in • of were somewhat less supportive Respondents Just the Facts 6 work from would ...... changelikely most to would alter their work avel for commuting in commuting for avel e, and telecommuting at telecommuting and e, True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, very likely to do so in the upcoming very six that it would make them use an alternative 23% stated that they are23% stated start to very likely often than they do now. Other top-ranked and having a transit pass paid for by one’s and having a transit pass paid for oyer allowed them to telecommute, whereas them to telecommute, oyer allowed currently follow a flexible work schedule to ey would ey normally driv that at once per week least ey walkth for a thattrip they least once per week. per least once schedule to avoid rush hour traffic if their employer allowedit. Just 16% were not willing to flex theirwork schedule to avoid rush hour8%whereas traffic,orwere unsure unwilling to the question. answer effective changes effective changes included cash incentives to carpool or vanpool (56%), guaranteed rides home in emergency situations (53%), being matched in a carpool with neighbors going to the same destination (53%), havingportion a of the cost of participating in a carpool/van- pool paid for by one’s employer/school (52%), were21%not willing workto from home, and 9% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question. alternative mode of tr of an alternative mode using of frequency a respondents’ increase the future—with57% of respondents indicating method of commuting at least somewhat more employer/school (50%). empl per week if their home at least one day normally drive, and 28% stated they were very likely to start taking this action in the period of interest. and traffic, hour rush during commuting avoid doing so during the next six months. the next six doing so during behavior or were in the currently engaging are months—including increasinguse their of public transit, joining a carpool or vanpool, riding a bike at least week once per for a trip th •was the transit stations major from school or to work shuttles Free • stated that they (78%) of workers surveyed than three-quarters More • More than two-thirds (70%)of those currentlyworking indicated that they SANDAG • A similar percentage (18%) reported that they • (18%) reported percent Eighteen • The remaining methods tested had less than one-third of respondents indicating that they Conclusions 7 prior- ...... at should be priorities for the ey relate to 2050 the ey relate and the RTP lic transit system, with just one- lic transit system, with just investments. Whereas subsequent Whereas investments. overall and within specific aspects ng improvements to all aspects to all aspects of ng improvements positive in their assessment of the assessment positive in their ked residents to prioritize among a residents ked em (36%), followed by major streets improvements the most common improvements nts were somewhat less positive nts were somewhat less positive in freeways and highways (29%). Natu- freeways and highways (29%). transit and major streets/roads. transit and True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, udies for government agencies throughout the throughout agencies government for udies and note how the collective results of the study ed to conveyingto ed the detailed results of the survey, in this section ortation plans, strategies and plans, strategies ortation , thisdesigned to provide SANDAG was study statistically, with a reli- at motivated the at motivated the research. sidents’ opinions and behaviors as th and behaviors opinions sidents’ third (33%) of respondents rating it as excellent or good. of the system. Residents were most were most Residents system. of the region’s freeways (63% excellent or good), followed by local streets and theandroads (44%) transportation (42%). system overall When compared to the other aspects tested, reside pub assessment of the region’s their One of the primary goals of the 2050 RTP is to identify transportation- related projects and improvements th Although the overwhelming majority (84%) of San Diego residents rated the quality of life in San Diego as excellent or good, their assessment of the region’s transportation system was mixed—clearing indicating that see room for improvement residents region’s future given funding limitations and other constraints. To assist SANDAG in this effort, the survey as list of potential transportation improvements, as well as identify the fac- torsshouldthat be given top considerationwhenpolicymakers are plans. and policies transportation developing in maki see value Although residents to select the single highest transportation system, when asked the major and lastly and roads (31%), with North area, planning by substantially varied percentages these rally, City, South County and North County West showing a stronger prefer- ence for prioritizing improvements to the public transitsystem, East County and North County East prioritizing major freeway/highway a balanced ning area expressing Central plan and the improvements, interest in improvements to public ity for future investments and transit syst response was the public Introduction ONCLUSIONS SANDAG What areas of the trans- portationdo resi- system be should think dents the priorityfuture for improvements/funding? State. How do residents rate the transportation sys- tem in the San Diego region? able able of re understanding sections of this report are devot trees’ the through forest ‘see the to we attempt the key answer questions th The following conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the collectivefirm’sexperience conducting similar st C in the noted As need to prioritize need to future transp Conclusions 8 encour- project that positively ce GHG emissions GHG ce ...... that California established new established that California rongly favored those that improve existing employment centers and centers existing employment iority toremoving bottlenecks in oving the safety of the transporta- safety of oving the and cause congestionand(86% cause high or measures and policies, and alter- policies, and and measures much less supportive of fee-based of supportive much less on policies and plans are reducing are policies and plans on r regions to redu and bus routes so they can service can routes so they bus and ld carry the most weight when poli- policymakers as to the factors they as to the factors policymakers ograms that would be effective effective in ograms that would be provements that reduce bottlenecks that reduce provements ansportation The plans and policies. e of a personal vehicle. Among the Among personal vehicle. of a e llowed by expanding programs that for the aforementioned projects and aforementioned for the True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, ace insurvey the to test every the use of a personal vehicle by making it vehicle by of a personal the use projects that could be considered as part of the RTP, part of as considered be could that projects discourage specific In an effortIn an to reduce the harmfulof effects greenhouse gases (GHGs)on the environment and curb climate change, in 2009 the California Legisla- Sus- to prepare a is required 375, SANDAG Per SB SB 375. ture passed tainable Communitiestheas part ofRTP 2050 which Strategy (SCS) will demonstrate how the region will achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning, infra- transportation structure investments, native strategies. Most San Diego residents (77%) feel at least somewhat informed about the relationship between GHGs and climate change, and nearly two- aware being reported (63%) thirds for San Diego and othe requirements from cars and trucks. and pr As for the various projects reducing GHGs, San Diego residents st the efficiencyof the existing transportation systemor In terms of In terms where lanes freeways merge together Trolley expanding priority), medium freeways to existing (69%), lanes (79%), adding more areas adding and lanes to existing freeways for carpools, vanpools and that are dedicated buses (69%). not sp there was Of course, tion system. respondentsassigned the highest pr may be considered2050theof RTP,respondents were as part so also to guidance to provide some asked tr developing when should consider transportati developing are cymakers traffic congestion, ensuringthat the transportation system supports the needs of the local economy, and impr three factors that residents feel shou residents factors that three age individuals to reduce their us individuals to reduce age were Diego residents programs, San that strategies most popularim were making road and improve traffic flow (88%), fo encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours (87%), making improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders (84%), near housing new concentrating and areas that are well-served by transit (82%). to their clear support In contrast SANDAG Do residents feel informed aboutthe need to reduce GHG emis- and which strate-sions, gies do they support? Conclusions 9 realisti- approach to ...... avior in the interest of unpopular free shuttles to work or school work free shuttles to ies and programs is one thing. A as carpooling, takingtransit, trip st effective at motivating them to ted increasing the gas tax (24%) or the increasing ted The vast majority of workers also fees inurban and commercial cen- month. If a modest fee of $10 per ex schedule in order to avoid rush order to avoid schedule in ex ough establishing parking fees in less than one-third of respondents emergency situations (53%), being 52%), and having a transit pass paid 52%), and having a transit pass heless appears to hold considerableheless appears employer, they would telecommute at they would telecommute employer, Diego residents indicated that, indicated that, residents Diego True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, nters was nters was a somewhat change one’s travel beh change one’s travel is quite another. is quite Thus, in additionto measuring San personally 3 , they are willing to reduce the amount that they drive during the reducing VMT day were charged for parking, nearly half (47%) of those who primarily drive solo stated that it would compel them to adopt an alternative method of commuting to work or school. potential for increasing the use of alternative modes among commuters. Just 11% of commuters currently pay for parking at their school or work site, and most pay less than $50 per cally next six months through such methods linking, riding a bicycle, and other means—with triplinking and walking toappearing be the mostof accessible methods trip reduction. identify which types of to were asked students and When workers changes or incentives would be the mo use an alternative mode for commuting, (50%). for by one’s employer/school their that, if allowed by indicated hour traffic. Finally, it should be noted that alth urban and commercial ce reducing GHG emissions, it nevert from major transit stations the was highest ranked, with 57% of respon- dents indicatingwouldit that make them alternativean use method of commuting at least somewhat more often than they do now. Other top- vanpool or carpool to incentives cash included changes effective ranked home in rides (56%), guaranteed matched in a carpool with neighbors goingsame to the destination (53%), having a portion of the cost of participating in a carpool/vanpool ( paid for by one’s employer/school fl and/or adopt a per week least once Diego residents’ supportDiego residents’ various for policies and programs, the survey also identified willingness residents’ their to change travelas behavior, well as the conditions that may be required to facilitate these changes. Approximately half (51%) of San willingness to General support for GHG reduction polic more expensive to operate. Overall, to operate. more expensive (30%) supported establishing parking ters, and less than one-quarter suppor than one-quarter less ters, and vehicle (21%). per miles driven on fee new a establishing 3. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). SANDAG What incentives/disin- centives would best to residents motivate reduce their driving? Quality of Life in Region 10 Othe r 39.5 32.1 Mi x e d / 4 Asian 42.9 34.1 Ame r ic a n THNICITY ...... Af 47.8 Black Ame r ic a n / & E Ethnicity (QD3) Ethnicity and 45% as good. Approxi- 33.3 33.0 44.4 Lat ino / TATUS Hispanic ts’ general perceptions of the perceptions ts’ general S 42.8 45.4 / White Cauc asian EGION . Prepared by True North Research for SAN- WNERSHIP O True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 36.7 46.3 family For the interested Figures reader, 3-5 show how assessments of the quality of life in the sub- demographic by key region varied to their respective groups. When compared owners, home residents, new counterparts, Caucasians, those whose annual family income is between $150,000 and $199,999, seniors, residents of North City, and those in the third Supervisorial District of quality the rate to likely most the were excellent. as region Diego San the in life R OME , H lly, respondents were asked to rate to rate were asked lly, respondents the overall rating it as excellent 32.4 42.0 IN EGION

excellent, good, fair, or very poor. poor R 38.6 41.4 46.4 Home Ownership Status (QD1) Status Ownership Home Excellent IEGO D IFE AN 38.7 45.6 S 0.6 IN

L Refused Not sure / 37.7 43.0 EARS re Prioritiesre Study,Final Survey Report Y OF 0.9 BY

IFE IFE Very poor Very 33.0 50.3 2.6 Poor L L OF OF Years in San Diego Region (Q1) Region Diego San in Years

Howwould you rate the of qualityDiego overall life in the San region? Would you Fair 45.0 39.5 12.2 Good 45.2 Ex c e lle nt Good Lessthan 5 5 to 9 1 0 to 14 15or more O w n Re nt Liv e w ith UALITY UALITY Regional Infrastructu 0

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

100 % Respondents % DAG, February 2007. 3 Q 2 Q UALITY 4. See IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Question 2 issay excellent,poor it fair, good,verypoor? or Q Thefirst substantive section of responden addressed the survey quality of quality of in the San Diego life Specifica region. quality of life in the region using scalea of of residents shared positive assessments of residents of shared positive assessments the majority vast the below, 2 Figure in As shown quality of life in the San Diego region, with 39% mately12% of respondents indicated that the quality ofthe life in region is fair, whereas less lity of the qua life in to describe poor thevery poor or region.than 4% used It is worth noting that resultssimilarthesethe to2007 are very results foundvoters.of survey in SANDAG’s Quality of Life in Region 11 48.5 40.4 48.5 39.3 32.4 52.2 42.1 36.4 Age ...... 35.3 47.6 41.8 46.5 S upervisorialDistrict 44.5 38.5 48.1 35.6 35.3 43.4 1829 to 30 to 3 9 4 0 to 49 50 to 6 4 65or o lder First Sec ond Third Fourth Fifth 45.3 33.6 ISTRICT True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 49.1 41.6 more D $200K or $200K Ea s t 48.1 36.1 N County GE 59.4 37.1 $ 199 K $1 50K to & A UPERVISORIAL 48.7 West 41.9 48.6 41.4 & S $149K $1 00 to K NCOME REA I 47.1 34.3 A East CountyEast County N $9 9K 49.2 38.6 $75 to K Planning Area OUSEHOLD LANNING 44.8 33.5 House hold Income(QD4) County P H $74K 48.5 34.3 $5 0K to BY BY

IFE IFE L L 43.8 46.3 $4 9K 42.4 33.0 OF OF $25K to $25K

UALITY UALITY 41.3 33.7 Good $25K 32.0 44.0 Central City North S outh Good Exc ellent Less than Ex c e lle nt 5 Q 4 Q 0 0

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

10 0 100 % Respondents % % Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Transportation Priorities & Planning 12 Re fused Not sure Ve ry poo r Poor Fair Good Excellent ...... & 6.3 6.7 nsideration when policy- nsideration when ovided the most positive 17.0 26.3 15.1 26.9 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 4.5 5.5 17.3 33.3 38.8 The first question in this series asked resi- The first question YSTEM 6 below, residents were most positive in their in positive most were 6 below, residents S rt, the survey asked residents to rate varioustort, the residents survey asked tion system overall were most positive in the overall were most positive tion system unty West assigned the highest ratings to the ioritizeamong a list of potential transportation RIORITIES should be given top co top given be should region’s transportation system varied consider- ssessment of the region’s public transit system, ssessment of the region’s 2%). When compared to the other aspects 2%). When compared to the other tested, dents of South County pr dents P RANSPORTATION 1.8 7.2 49.1 13.5 27.7 T Fre eways Local stre ets, roads Publictransit system EGION ortation policies and plans. R IEGO Q3 Rating the transportation syste in S m an Die go County . . . D AN S 7.8 6.0 5.6 34.1 13.5 32.3 system THE

Howwould you rate: _____ theSan in Diego region?Would excellent, is you say it Ove transportation rall ATING 0

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

6 R 100 espondents R % RANSPORTATION LANNING IGURE P ably by planning area. Ratings of the transporta of Ratings by planning area. ably while resi roads, condition of local streets and ratingsto the public Figure transit 7). system (see SANDAG The following figure displays how ratings of the Central planning area, whereas ratings positiveys were mostof freewa among residentsof the North City planning area. Residentsof North Co F RATING OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SYSTEM RATING OF TRANSPORTATION One of the primary ofgoals the 2050 RTP is to identify transportation-related projects and improvements thatbe priorities shouldregion’s for the future given funding limitations and otherconstraints. this SANDAGin To assist effo T aspects of the region’s transportation system, pr improvements, well as as identify the factors that good, fair, poor, or very poor? Question 3 dents to various rate aspects of the region’s transportation system using a scale of excellent, Figure As in shown poor. very or poor, fair, good, and roads local streets by excellent or good), followed (63% freeways of the region’s assessment overall (4 (44%) and the transportation system a in their positive less somewhat were residents with one-third (33%) of respondentsexcellent rating it as or good. makers are developing transp developing are makers Transportation Priorities & Planning 13 31 46 57 32 33 ...... 56 49 REA A 39 priority for funding, whereas be a high, medium, or low pri- medium, be a high, ng areas that are comparatively ng areas and roads should be a high or high should be a and roads train services (76%). 32 LANNING P 41 BY

Public transit system 65 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 40 YSTEM S East wereEast improvementslikely the most to rate ent that could be identified in the RTP, respon- in be identified that could ent ty. Residents of the Central planning area were area planning Residents of the Central ty. quite balanced in their responses to Question 4 to responses their in quite balanced Having identified how residents rate various reminded that not all of the projects can be high can be projects reminded that not all of the 43 Planning Area Planning on 3, Question 4 was designed to provide SANDAG provide to designed 4 was Question 3, on and roads, and major freeways and highways. The highways. and major freeways and roads, and 52 67 Coaster and Sprinter Local streets, roads streets, Local 45 RANSPORTATION indicated that major streets T oject shown in Figure 8 should sidentsprioritize would potential improvementsin three broad ee Figure 9). Residents in planni 9). Residents ee Figure 23 49 EGION Freeways R 71 42 IEGO D AN 42 S 26 THE

57 Central City North South County County East West N County N County East Overall trans system trans Overall 49 ATING 0

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 7 R

% Respondents Who Said Said Who Respondents % Good or ent Excell IGURE As one might expect, the priority assigned to each of the three transportationfunding areas var- (s planning area somewhat by ied well-served by transit (i.e., Central, North City, South County and North County West) were the public improvements tomost likely to rate being a high transit as County North and West County North in residents high priori a as highways to major freeways and also the mostpriority a high likely to assign to major streetand road projects. aspects of the transportation system in Questi in system transportation the of aspects with a reliable measure of how re how measure of with a reliable major streets services, public transit areas: format of the question was straightforward:informing after respondents that thereis not project or improvem every fund to enough money pr each whether asked were dents ority forority future funding—orSANDAG shouldif not moneyspend on at all. To the project they were encourage respondents to prioritize, Overall, residents in the San Diego region were the San residents in Overall, priorities. 8). Approximately(see Figure 86% medium priority for closely by majorfunding, followed freeways and highways (81%) and public transit services includingbus, Trolley, the SANDAG PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION AREAS PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION F Transportation Priorities & Planning 14 47 35 33 Medium priority Medium priority High Not sure / sure Not Refused not Should spend resources Low priority ...... 47 33 45 3.5 15.0 42.1 38.5 REA A 38 44 LANNING 34 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, P BY

priority transportation priority andprojects improve- Major freeways, highways freeways, Major tion projects, please indicate whether you think it whether you think please indicate tion projects, 41 st/next) one: _____. Should this project be a high, Planning Area YSTEM YSTEM S S 1.8 41 11.8 43.8 42.1 45 34 Major streets, roads streets, Major RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION Q4 Funding priority for improving . . . . . improving for priority Funding Q4 43 T T 43 FOR FOR

6.1 16.5 34.4 41.2 32 RIORITIES RIORITIES P P 51 The San Diego Association of Governments is in the process of developinga Central City North South County County East N County West N County East Public services transit streets, Major roadsfreeway Major highway s, s Public t ransit se rv ic e s 46 UNDING UNDING 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

60 50 40 30 20 10 100

9 F 8 F

% Respondents % High Priority High

% Respondents Who Said Said Who Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F should be a high a priority, medium priority, or a low for priority funding. If you feel that no money should be spent on a particular just project, say so. Pleasein keep mind that not all of the highbeprojects can priorities. Here is the (fir F ments for the region. Because there is not enough money to fund every project, we must set pri- orities. As I read the following list of transporta mediumpriority,low or or shouldnobe money on spent this project? Question 4 Regional Transportation Plan which will identify Transportation Priorities & Planning 15

...... o identified a single area single identified a o a host of demographic traits, 35.8 followed by major followed by major streets and In did a respondent cases where services primary mode of transportation, Public transit priority area forfuture funding, the priority. Theresponses this to question True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 0.2 highest funding. Naturally, some respondents rated Refused YSTEM S ored intoareFigure thoseored 10, as of individuals highest to rate each of the three funding areas indepen- funding areas each of the three to rate sponses of individuals wh sponses of individuals 30.7 roads 4.0 Not s ure Major streets, streets, Major RANSPORTATION on improvement areas varied by T ployment status, age, gender, age, ployment status, being among their top priorities. their top priorities. among being FOR

RIORITY 29.3 P highways Ma jo r freew ays, PENDING You indicated that several projects should be high/medium priorities, including: S OP in terms of their priority status forfuture 10 T 10 IGURE indeed identify two indeed identify or more tied in areas as being terms status, Question priority of asked 5 their was the of these areas which to indicate them including by planning area, em SANDAG For the interested reader, Figures 11-14 on the following pages display how the priority rankings transportati three the to assigned F The format of Question 4 allowed respondents dently more than funding area one as . Which of these would you say should be the highest priority? highest the be should say you would these of Which items>. priority high

True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 31 YSTEM YSTEM Major freeways, highways freeways, Major Major freeways, highways freeways, Major S S 30 22 Planning Area Planning 32 34 Employment Status (Q12) Status Employment 38 45 45 RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION T T 25 26 Major streets, roads streets, Major Major streets, roads streets, Major FOR FOR

34 28 46 42 RIORITY RIORITY P P 22 34 39 29 PENDING PENDING Central City North County South County East West County N East County N S S F u l l- ti me P a rt-ti me S t ud e n t H o me - ma k e r R e t ir e d B e tw e e nj o bs Public transit services transit Public Public transit services transit Public 37 39 OP OP 0 0

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 12 T 12 11 T 11

espondents R % espondents R % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Transportation Priorities & Planning 17

24 28 OME 33 31 & H & 43 41 ODE M specific transpor- 27 33 ...... 27 33 34 46 RANSPORTATION d streets & d streets roads), Question 6 ENDER 33 33 T 34 34 & G GE 33 RIMARY 33 Whereas Questions 4 and 5 were P A BY BY

True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 24 32 22 32 YSTEM YSTEM sign to potential investments in three broadly S S ed, as well as the priority ratings assigned to as well as the priority ed, 55 36 Major freeways, highways freeways, Major Ma jor fre e wa y s, highw ay s rity thatrespondents assign to eight 11 23 36 Age Ge nde r RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION 66 32 Public transit Other modealt Own Ren t Live with family lic transit,lic freeways/highways, an T T ON IMPROVEMENTS FOR FOR

32 32 32 Major streetsroad s , Major stre ets, roads 34 24 Vanp ool RIORITY RIORITY 34 44 P P Primary Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Home Ownership Status (QD1) 33 22 PENDING PENDING S S 33 32 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65 older or Male Fe male Public services transit OP OP Public transit services TATUS Drive alone / Carpool 35 45 S

0 0 14 T 14 13 T 13

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

% Respondents % % Respondents % WNERSHIP IGURE IGURE SANDAG SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATI O F F tation improvement projects. The projects test projects The projects. tation improvement on the next page. 15 in Figure presented each, are designed to gauge the priority that residents as that residents priority the to gauge designed prio the a similar format to measure used defined transportation areas transportation areas (pub defined Transportation Priorities & Planning 18 3.3 6.3 3.8 7.0 East 6.4 The

6.0 3.8 4.8 N County N County Not sure Not 10.2 IGH 15 .0 24.1 % H West 23.4 22.4 24 .9 25.7 23.1 N County N County 26.7 HOWING East Should not spe nd nd $ not spe Should County 32.2 ...... (S (86% high (86% or medium REA 33 .6 A Planning Area Planning South 38.2 38.9 County 35 .7 Lo w priority 38 .6 % Respondents 46.9 LANNING P BY 59.4

Medium priority Medium 47.1 Central City North 35 .6 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 31.0 30.5 29.5 27.2 er and cause congestion ctors shown in Figure 16 on the next page, 19.2 iority, a medium priority, or a low priority for this project be a high, medium or low priority, ritization of transportation projects and plans NSPORTATION POLICES/PLANS MPROVEMENTS ng lanes to existing freeways that are dedicated freeways that to existing ng lanes dents assignedthe highest priority toremoving High pr ior ity I 59.4 52.6 56.5 56.2 62.4 63.8 70.2 1 shows how the percentage who assigned each who 1 how the percentage assigned shows MPROVEMENTS Overall 0 102030405060708090100 I REEWAY REEWAY & F & & F & RANSIT RANSIT T T FOR

FOR

Adding lanes to existing freeways existing to lanes Adding Increasing the frequency the bus of service Increasing RIORITIES P RIORITIES P As I read the following list of transitspecific and freeway improvements, please PENDING priority varied by planning area. priority varied high PENDING ) R emo ving b o ttlene cks in freew ay w s here lanes me rge to ge th er 15 S 15 Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can services more areas more services can they so routes bus and Trolley Expanding Ad ding lanes to freew ays de dicated for carpo o ls, van po o ls, b use s dist freight goods, commercial improve to system trans Improving 1 S

xadn ihsee xrs u evc nfewys ao te tsmajor stree freeway service on s, bus express high-spe ed Expanding Increasing th e frequ ency o f Tro lley, Coaster and Sp rinter train serv ice s 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Q6h Q6d Q6e Q6f Q6a Q6b Q6g Q6c ABLE RIORITY IGURE Removing bottlenecks in freeways where lanes merge together merge where lanes in freeways bottlenecks Removing Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can services more areas more services they can so routes bus and Trolley Expanding Adding lanes existing to freeways service bus of the frequency Increasing buses vanpools, carpools, for dedicated freeways to lanes Adding 47.1Increasing the frequency Trolleyof Coaster and , Sprinter train servicesExpandinghigh-speed express bus service freeway on major s, streetsImproving trans system to improve commercial goods, freight dist 58.5 30.5 29.5 27.2 44.4 28.1 27.5 19.2 29.4 53.8 25.3 36.3 19.8 31.1 44.1 34.7 30.2 31.0 15.8 41.9 25.5 35.6 27.9 23.4 40.5 21.3 39.9 17.9 40.1 30.3 33.2 33.8 17.1 26.7 37.1 30.5 22.1 35.8 23.8 30.3 38.3 24.4 23.2 36.7 25.0 41.6 21.3 44.8 respondents were asked whether the factor should an extremely should the factor respondents be were asked whether important, very important, somewhat important, or not an important consideration when policymakers are developing transportation policies plans. and final question in this series approached the prio the approached question in this series final fa For each of the perspective. from a different SANDAG TOP FACTORS WHEN DEVELOPING TRA P T Among the eight specific projects tested, respon projects tested, specific eight Among the bottlenecks in freeways where lanes merge togeth lanes in freeways where bottlenecks or should no money be spent on this project? this on spent be money no should or F Question 6 whetherindicate you should think it be a high pr funding. Here is the (first/next)one: _____. Should priority), followedby expanding Trolley and bus routesthey so can service more areas (79%), (69%), addi lanes to existing freeways and adding for carpools, vanpools and buses (69%). Table project a Transportation Priorities & Planning 19 4.8 3.6 7.0 8.5 9.6 13.2 Not sure Not 14 .0 20.6 22.5 27 .4 very important Not important Not 34.4 29 .6 31.8 30.3 ...... LANS at least P Smwt important Smwt 44.4 46.1 40.7 % Respondents s are reducing traffic conges- 33 .8 34 .2 32.1 e transportation system (64%). It 37.9 Ve ry i mpo rt an t RANSPORTATION T 29.6 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 26 .4 22.8 22 .4 22.0 21 .1 16 .9 nt factor whennt factor developing transportationpol- Extremely important Extremely EVELOPING Should this be an extremely important, very 0 102030405060708090100 D HEN W ONSIDER transportation policies and plan transportation and improving the safety of th C Reducing traffic congestion traffic Reducing Reducing the costs of travel of costs the Reducing TO

ACTORS F OF

Improving the safety of the transportation system transportation the of safety the Improving M aking travel times more consistent and p red ictab le As IreadAs the followingto tellme I wantfactors, you list how of important each fac- MPORTANCE Reducing neg ative impact that transp ortatio n has on environment Ensuring that transportation system supports needs of local economy of local needs supports system transportation that Ensuring 16 I 16

nraigaalblt o l rnprainmds uha rni,bc cling bicy transit, as such modes, transportation alt of availability Increasing 7 7 7 7 7 7 Q7a Q7d Q7e Q7c Q7g Q7f Q7b IGURE is worth noting, however, that all of the eight factors tested were rated as by a majority of respondents surveyed. of respondents a majority by SANDAG tion (74% extremely or important), very ensuring that the transportation system supports the needs of the local economy (73%), As shown in Figure 16, the three factors that respondents felt should carry the most weight factors that respondents the three 16, As shown in Figure are developing policymakers when important, somewhat important, or not an importa F Question 7 shouldbetor when policymakers developing are transportation policies and plansfor the San Diego region.Here is the (first/next) one: _____. icies and plans? Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 20 certainly some dif- The first question first The ...... ded on questions ded several every subgroup category felt at theApproximately relationship. Figuresand 18 19 on the next page dis- self-described play how respondents’ level of knowledge about the relation- ship between GHGs and climate change house- by planning area, age, varied hold income,affiliation. and partisan were Although there house- subgroups (e.g., across ferences holds earning at least $75,000 year per weremore likely to reportwell- being informedon thistopic when compared to their less affluent counterparts), it is noteworthy that at least 60% of respon- dents in informed about the least somewhat and climate GHGs between relationship change. VMT & VMT HANGE True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, C infrastructure investments, transportation mea- assist SANDAG in developing policies and strat- and policies developing in assist SANDAG LIMATE region, the survey inclu survey the region, how informed they feel about greenhouse gases feel about greenhouse how informed they whereas 9% confessed to being not at all informed being to whereas 9% confessed , C Well greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the environment and environment (GHGs) on the gases greenhouse 41.3 AND CLIMATE CHANGE? AND CLIMATE informed ASES EDUCE G R REENHOUSE n climate change and GHGs. G TO 0.8

BOUT Refused A Not sure / 8.9 NFORMED I Now for a differentaHow topic.doNow for informed you about feel greenhouse gases and Not at all Not all at informed 35.7 OW Smwt info rme d 13.3 17 H 17 S light ly info rme d ROGRAMS MISSIONS IGURE the topic of climate change and GHG emission reduction strategies. change and GHG strategies. emission reduction of climate the topic SANDAG egies in by residents egies will be supported that the F sures and policies, and alternative strategies. To strategies. alternative and sures and policies, ARE YOU INFORMED ABOUT GHGS ARE YOU INFORMED curb climate change, in 2009 the California Legislature SB 375.passed SB 375, Per SANDAG is required prepare a Sustainable to Communities Strategy (SCS)theas part ofRTP 2050 which will demonstrate how the region will achieve GHG emission reduction targets through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning, In an effort toreduce the harmful effects of P in thisto series simply asked respondents rate 13% indicated that they feel slightly informed, and their relationship to climate change. As shown in Figure 17 below, 41% of respondents indi- thatwell-informed theycated feel relationshipthe aboutclimatebetween GHGs change, and and about informed somewhat they feel stated an additional 36% betwee relationship the about Question 8 their relationshipclimateto change? Would you say you feelwell-informed, somewhatinformed, slightly informed, or not at all informed? E Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 21

37.6 43.0 38.0 34.8 ARTY 39.6 43.8 GE & P Party 30.8 49.0 & A ...... NCOME REA I 39.2 39.1 A 39.1 38.5 Democrat Republican Othe / DTS r 25.1 44.3 OUSEHOLD LANNING H P ucks, whereas 36%confided that 38.8 44.0 mo re $200K or $200K BY BY

To help inform respondents about 32.3 36.1 18 to 29 to 18 39 to 30 49to 40 64 to 50 older or 65 HANGE HANGE 40.3 47.7 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, C C $199K $1 50 K to ey were aware ey were aware of the new legislative require- East Question 10, Question 9 asked respondents 34.7 41.3 aware that California recently passed a law that N County and 1% were and 1% were unsure (see Figure 20). Figure 21 LIMATE LIMATE , C , C 35.7 44.2 $149K $100K to $100K ASES ASES We s t 40.7 38.7 G G 36.0 48.9 $9 9K $75K to $75K reductions fromtr cars and 35.4 45.0 East CountyEast County N REENHOUSE REENHOUSE Ho use ho ld Inc ome(QD 4) G G 37.7 40.1 $74K Plan ning Area Age $50K to $50K 37.8 32.4 County BOUT BOUT A A 33.5 35.0 $4 9K $25K to $25K 35.9 44.5 NFORMED NFORMED I I OW OW Well 31.2 36.2 $25K Smw t 32.2 Well 40.0 Smwt Central City North South informed Less than informed informed informed 19 H 19 18 H 18 0 0

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

10 0 100 % Respondents % % Respondents % IGURE IGURE they they were not aware of the new requirements by planning area, age, of varied awareness the GHG reduction requirements shows how reported transportation. of mode primary and SANDAG AWARE OF GHG REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS? F F SB 375 and provide the necessary context for necessary the and provide 375 SB whether—prior to taking the survey—they were trucks. and cars from emissions gas greenhouse reduce to regions and other Diego San requires th Among surveyed, 63% stated that all residents to GHG emission ments pertaining Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 22

mode 73. 9 Ot her alt

59 .6 Public transit RIMARY 56.3 Vanpool Carpo ol / & P & ...... GE Dr iv e alon e 66.4 king road improvementsking road , A REA older 69.8 A 63.4 Ye s, awa re 70.7 LANNING P BY 59. 2

Having made all respondents aware of the True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, AW AW aware that California passeda law new that L L 62 .8 would support or oppose various policies or emissions in the San Diego region, Question 10 most supportive of ma 1.0 49.5 18 to 2918 to 39 30 to 49 to 40 64 50 to or 6 5 EDUCTION EDUCTION No t sure R R Ea st 64.5 N County . The programs tested, The programs tested, as well as the levels of public support . MISSION MISSION E E We s t 60.9 Figure 22 on the next page. N County AS AS G G more riders (84%), and concentrating new housing near existing East 64. 3 County 35.6 Not aware Planning AreaPlanning Age (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary 58. 1 South Co unty REENHOUSE REENHOUSE G G ODE OF OF

City 66.5 M Prior to taking this survey, were you taking this survey, Prior to WARE WARE 62.0 Ce n tra l Nort h 0 21 A 21 20 A 20

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

100 Gas Emission Reduction Law Reduction Emission Gas % Respondents Awa re of Greenhouse of re Awa Respondents % RANSPORTATION IGURE IGURE new legislative requirements for reducing GHG for reducing new legislative requirements they by asking respondents whether followed-up GHGs to reduce programs designed are shown for each program, in Overall, residents of the San Diego region were SANDAG SUPPORT FOR GHG REDUCTION POLICIES T F F Question 9 requires San Diego and other regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow (88%), followed by expanding programs that telecommutingencourage and flexible work (87%), hours making improvements to the transit system so that it attracts employment centers and areas that are well-served by transit (82%). At the other end of the spec- Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 23

, ASES G Law (Q9) Law irements, and irements, 30.6 31.1 Proba bly s upport 30 .0 REENHOUSE 28.9 Gas Emission Reduction Reduction Emission Gas Awareness of Greenhouse 35 .8 G 38.7 32.7 ...... 31.5 BOUT A 28 .6 at allaware Yes, Not aware 24.8 % R esp o ndent s Slightly, Not Not Slightly, G reduction requ AW NFORMED L I 57.3 56 .0 54.2 43.936.733.1 41.1 44.3 39.0 45.9 36.8 33.1 38.8 41.7 37.0 32.4 26.2 31.8 29.7 51.7 Greenhouse Gases, Very, Very, How Informed About About Informed How (Q8) Change Climate OW 45.5 45 .0 43 .2 Somewhat 38 .5 De f inite l y suppo r t H 34 .4 30.9 BY

True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, EDUCTION mber of vehicles on freeways. However, it However, vehicles on freeways. mber of R 0 102030405060708090100 2 and 3 display for support how each of the improvetransportation the system (56%), con- MISSIONS ool lanes (63%)building and carpool new lanes MISSIONS st/next) one: _____. Would you support or oppose informed a respondent felt about the relationship about felt a respondent informed MISSION E AS VMT & E G VMT & E , their prior awareness of GH of their prior awareness , EDUCING EDUCING R REENHOUSE R OF

G OF

OF

ETHODS ETHODS M Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling encourage to lanes new carpool Build M WARENESS FOR

FOR

There are a variety of ways to reduce greenhousegas emissions from cars and & A Exp and programs that enco urag e carpo oling and va npo oling Conve rt existing general purpose freeway lanes to freeway lanes carpool lanes purpose general existing Conve rt UPPORT UPPORT HANGE Expanding the abilityExpanding for solo drivers to pay to a fee use carpool lanes C Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders more attracts it so that system transit the to improvements Make areas transit w ell-served centers, employment near housing Concentrate Expa nd programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible w hours ork flexible and telecommuting that encourage programs Expa nd 22 S 22 2 S Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow traffic bottlenecks and improve that reduce Make road improvements

Encouraging adoption of alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrid, electric cars electric hybrid, as such vehicles fuel alternative of adoption Encouraging Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling or walking encourage that projects complete and programs Expand 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f Q10 b Q10 d Q10 e Q10 a Q10 j Q10 c Q10 i Q10 h Q10 g Q10 LIMATE ABLE IGURE Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow improve traffic and bottlenecks reduce that improvements road Make riders more hours work flexible and attracts telecommuting it that that encourage so programs Expand system transit the to improvements Make carselectric hybrid, as such vehicles fuel alternative of adoption Encouraging 57.2 vanpoolingand carpooling that encourage programs Expand bicycling walking or that encourage projects complete and 58.9 programs 55.1Expand areas 53.2 transit well-served centers, employment near housing Concentrate 57.7 46.3 46.2 51.0 46.6 55.1 40.4 56.9 58.6 51.7 47.3 62.0 45.8 49.9 51.9 52.4 39.3 43.3 47.1 43.4 Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling encourage to lanes carpool new Build lanes carpool to lanes freeway purpose general existing Convert lanes carpool to use pay fee to a drivers solo the ability for Expanding SANDAG T C this approach? F trucks. As I read the following list of options, please indicate whether you would support or oppose each policy or program. Here is the (fir Question 10 verting existing general purpose lanes to carp the nu reduce and carpooling encourage (70%) to of majority clear by a were supported that rategies these latter st recognized should be even For the interested reader, Tables those surveyed. planning area. trum, respondents were somewhatofpay abilityless drivers to solo supportive the expanding of to use carpoola fee lanes and using the money to programs tested in Question 10 varied by in Question 10 varied how programs tested by between GHGs and climate change climate GHGs and between Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 24 East N County N County West N County N County Definitely support Not sure/ Not Refused Definitely oppose Probably oppose Probably support ...... the use of a personal of the use tested in Question 10, ers, and less than one- than ers, and less e-third of respondents The programs and poli- Planning Area Planning REA South County East County A 62.8 12.1 13.4 10.3 discourage gallon of gas of gallon LANNING P Increasing the per paid tax MISSIONS BY

True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 55.0 58.2 55.743.032.7 57.2 35.8 36.0 57.9 37.1 29.8 60.0 25.1 26.2 30.3 23.4 33.7 31.5 43.7 45.4 51.9 36.5 42.4 39.9 39.4 37.3 46.5 33.9 36.1 41.6 59.465.3 54.5 51.3 50.2 53.9 52.5 49.4 61.4 51.0 59.7 54.7 52.9 45.5 47.9 33.2 49.0 47.2 Central City North policies that discourage the policies that discourage the use of a personal d as neutral changes or positive incentives or establishing a new fee on miles driven per a new fee on miles driven or establishing ission reduction policies e. Overall, less than on less Overall, e. ban and commercial cent commercial and ban VMT & E MISSIONS 9.8 46.5 20.7 20.2 EDUCE DUCTION STRATEGIES DUCTION STRATEGIES R individuals to of their use reduce a personal vehicle. In VMT & E TO

Establishing parking fees in fees parking Establishing urban and commercial areas commercial and urban EDUCING ROGRAMS R encourage P OF

9.2 11.3 61.2 16.1 Q11 Support for funding programs to reduce VMT and emissions . . . . . reduce to emissions and VMT funding programs for Q11 Support UNDING ETHODS F M Establishing fee based on fee based Establishing the number of miles driven of miles number the FOR

FOR

0 In order to encourage people to drive less and provide funding for the programs I

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

100 % Respondents % UPPORT UPPORT 23 S 23 3 S ABLE IGURE Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and improve traffic flow improve traffic and bottlenecks reduce that improvements road Make Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling encourage to lanes carpool new Build lanes carpool to lanes freeway purpose general existing Convert Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling walking or that encourage projects complete and programs Expand areas transit well-served centers, employment near housing Concentrate 50.6 47.7 46.3 37.3 37.7 46.8 Expand programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours work flexible and telecommuting that encourage programs Expand lanes carpool to use pay fee a to drivers solo for ability the Expanding Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts more riders more attracts that it system so transit the to improvements Make cars electric hybrid, as such vehicles fuel alternative of adoption Encouraging vanpooling and carpooling that encourage programs Expand 53.3 55.2 51.7 47.2 55.6 44.7 SANDAG F SUPPORT FOR FEE-BASED GHG RE SUPPORT FOR T justdescribed that would helpreduce greenhouse gas emissions, would you supportor oppose: _____? Question 11 vehicle (21%). Figures 24-26 on the following pages display how support for each of the policies relevant respondent-and by household-level characteristics.varied 11 in Question tested quarter supported increasing the gas tax (24%) increasing the gas tax quarter supported In contrast to their clear support for the GHG em the clear support for In contrast to their vehicle through policies that make it more costly to use a personal vehicle—including establish- urban and in parking fees establishing vehicle, miles traveled per of number the on ing a fee commercial areas, and increasingthegasoline. tax paid on San Diego residents were much less supportive of in ur fees (30%) supported establishing parking designed facilitateand/or to vehicle by making it more expensive to operat cies tested in Question 10 can be characterize 10 can be cies tested in Question additiontothesepolicymakers ‘carrots’, to also have the ability Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 25

40 19 39 REENHOUSE 34 30 G 14 RANSPORTATION BOUT T 34 A 45 REA ...... 27 33 A RIMARY Pub lic tran s it O t he r alt mo d e 34 NFORMED & P I 20 20 AW LANNING OW 30 L P H Vanpool BY 23

BY

16 Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary EDUCTION 23 22 R MISSIONS 27 MISSIONS 16 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 17 MISSION E VMT & E 19 VMT & E VMT & 22 Planning Area Planning Increasing gas tax gas Increasing AS 25 G 30 EDUCE 20 EDUCE R 21 Increasing gas tax gas Increasing R TO TO

26 REENHOUSE Parking feesParking 33 G 26 Yes, aware Not aware Drive alone C arpool / 20 OF Emission Reduction Law (Q9) Law Reduction Emission Parking fees Parking

Awareness of Greenhouse Gas Greenhouse of Awareness ROGRAMS 28 ROGRAMS P P 20 13 all 28 WARENESS UNDING UNDING 17 F F , A 30 FOR FOR

35 27 HANGE Central City North South County County East West County N East County N C Fee based on miles driven miles on based Fee Fee based on miles driven miles on based Fee 31 30 UPPORT UPPORT GaseChange Climate s, (Q8) 21 Very some , what S lightly not , at How Informed About Greenhouse About Informed How 5 0

LIMATE

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Defi ni tely Support tely ni Defi

25 S 25 24 S 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

, C

Definitely Support Definitely

% Respondents Who Who Respondents % or Probably

% Respondents Who Who Respondents % or Probably ODE ASES IGURE IGURE G SANDAG F M F Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions 26 29 27 21 20 NCOME I ...... 39 19 OUSEHOLD H 36 BY

36 20 MISSIONS True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 27 29 VMT& E 22 Household Income (QD4) Income Household EDUCE 21 R Increasing gas tax gas Increasing TO 30

20 Parking feesParking ROGRAMS 17 P 26 19 UNDING F FOR

21 35 Fee based on miles driv en Fee on based miles UPPORT 25 Less than $25K than Less $49K to $25K $74K to $50K $99K to $75K $149K to $100K $199K to $150K more or $200K

5 0

26 S 26 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

Definitely Support Definitely

% Respondents Who Who Respondents % or Probably IGURE SANDAG F Typical Travel Behavior 27

0 68.1 ...... Work or school commute or Work No n-wo rk orsc ho ol 47.6 on. For employed respondents e most often when traveling e most often to work or True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 04050607 % Respondents The first questions in this series were The first questions e form of transportation they use most often traveling in the San Diego region. The answers traveling in The the San Diego region. r respondents, the question r respondents, simply asked what EHAVIOR ortation priorities and policies can be shaped by can be shaped priorities and policies ortation 23.3 B 13.8 12.6 ODE 6.8 M ts’ primary mode of transportati of mode primary ts’ 5.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.4 ined below in Figure 27. below in Figure ined 1.2 1.1 0.8 RAVEL 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0 10203 Bike T Trolley RANSPORTATION Coaster Sprinter Walk/Run Bus (local) Bus T Drive alo ne Other mode Other What formof transportation do you usemost oftenwhen traveling intheSan What form of transportation do you us RIMARY Motorcycle/Scooter Carpool passenger) (1 Bus (premium express) (premium Bus Ca rpo ol (2+ p a sseng e rs) 27 P 27 YPICAL IGURE SANDAG F PRIMARY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION OF TRANSPORTATION PRIMARY MODE T Naturally, an individual’s opinions about transp the type of transportationthe type primarily they whether they use, commuteworkto or school, and of questions a number Accordingly, included the survey travel behavior. their aspects of other in this sec- the results of which are presented behavior, travel to profile respondents’ designed tion. Question 14 Diego region? designed to identify responden designed th that they report asked the survey and students, othe all For school. or work to commuting when form of transportation they use most often when to are questions both comb Question 13 school in the San Diego region? Typical Travel Behavior 28 6 11 21 16 63 29 0 2 ...... 23 11 drive alone when travel- drive alone when 9 87 37 more varied in their primary in their varied more 5 52 52 3 23 2 69 4 59 6 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, TATUS 35 2 NCOME S Other alt mode Other alt I 29 rted that they primarily they rted that imarilyusing some formtransit.public of 6 63 Other alt mode alt Other 22 Household Income (QD4) Income Household 3 24 OUSEHOLD Employment StatusEmployment (Q12) MPLOYMENT H E 5 47 Public transit BY BY

28 public transit as their primary mode, including bus, the Trol- 65 Public trans it 9 commute to work or school were school or to work commute ODE ODE M M 6 18 14 67 34 Carpool / Vanpool Carpool 50 3 Carpool / Vanpool Carpool RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION 5 33 T T 17 22 Full- time Full- time Part- Student maker Home- Retired jobs Between Driv e al one 75 19 RIMARY RIMARY Driv e alone 57 Less $25K than to $49K $25K to $74K $50K to $99K $75K $149K to $100K to $199K $150K more or $200K 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100

0

epn ents Respond % 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 29 P 29 28 P 28

100 % Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F By comparison, those By comparison, who do not ley, Coaster or Sprinter. As shown in the figure, two-thirds (68%) of those who commute to work or school reported driv- transportation,ofmode primaryas their ing solo followed by carpoolingsinglepassenger with a and(13%), carpooling withmore twoor passengers Approximately (5%). workers 6% of stu-and form of some using reported dents mode of transportation. Less than half (48%) repo ing in the Diego region, San than morecarpoolingone third (23%) singlewith reported mul- or a 10% reported pr whereas (14%), tiple passengers Figures 28-31 show how primary mode of transportation varied by employment status, house- area. and planning gender, age, income, hold Typical Travel Behavior 29 3 3 10 4 31 Female 35 57 58 Ge nd e r 5 6 3 ...... 6 21 68 26 65 1 6 that they primarily drive solo 1 42 9 51 27 63 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 8 Other alt mode Other alt REA to work or school pay $50 or more per month 16 A ked ked a series of questions about the parking that 2 most (8%) pay less than $50 per month. Overall, ENDER 71 Planning Area Planning Other alt mode alt Other hool. The first two questions simply asked whether 10 & G 28 55 GE LANNING A P 8 61 Public transit BY BY Age

23 Pu blic transit 65 4 ODE ODE have to pay for have totheir workschool parking orAmong at site. the M M 4 3 not 24 10 Workers and Workers and students who reported 68 27 Carpool / Vanpool Carpool 60 Carpool /Carpool Vanpool 7 RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION 4 18 T T 10 22 Central North City S outh County East County N County We st N County East 29 Drive alone 18to 29 to 30 39 40 to 49 to 50 64 65 older or Male 54 Drive alone RIMARY RIMARY 57 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

31 P 31 30 P 30 100

100 % Respondents % % Respondents % IGURE IGURE Nearly nine out of ten respondents (88%) who primarily drive solo when commuting to work or do that they school reported when commuting to work or school were next as is available at their place of employment or sc they pay for parkingtheiratwork/school site and—if yes—how much they pay per month. The answers toboth questions are combined in Figure32 on the nextpage. 11% who that reported they pay for parking, do just 3% of those who drive solo when commuting commuting when solo drive who those of 3% just for parking at their work site or school. SANDAG PAY FOR PARKING? F F Typical Travel Behavior 30 Respon- pay forparking not ...... answer the question. the question. answer 3.2 0. 7 4. 8 $25 Refused $25~$49 Less than Less Respondents who reside in reside who Respondents the under those County, South age of 30, those whose house- than $25,000 less hold earns who residents per year, and have lived in the San Diego years were five less than region to report that the most likely theywould no longerdrive solocommuting when if they day to park $10 per to pay had at their school or work site (see Figures 34 & 35). $100+ 1.4 $100+ $50~$99 1.1 $50~$99 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 1.0 42.8 ctors, and 3% refused to refused 3% and ctors, drive alone Depends / / Depends S o me time s ted that having to pay $10 per day for parking ted that having to pay $10 per Yes wo , uld still 11.3 ARKING Pay for Pay R YOUR COMMUTE BEHAVIOR? R YOUR COMMUTE BEHAVIOR? parking P CHOOL AY your site? /S D ER ORK W AT

$10 P $10 ITH 87.7 2.8 park ing W Refused ARKING P Do not pay for for pay Do not LONE FOR

A 6.9 AID RIVE P Depends D How muchmonth do youfor parking? pay per Do you pay forDo you pay at parking Would you still drive alone to if you had to pay a fee for parking, OULD MOUNT 47.4 alone 33 W 33 32 A 32 Would not drive IGURE IGURE SANDAG F Question 16 ALTE WOULD PAYING FOR PARKING F Question 15 would compel them to adoptan alternative method of commuting to work or school. Just 43% of respondents indicatedthey that wouldto still drive solo work underthese conditions, whereas 7% indicated on that it would depend additional fa such $10 as per day? dents who primarilydrive solowhen commuting to work or school who do less (or currently thanper month)$200pay werenextasked whether still they would drivesolo when commutinga fee for parking,ifday. Strikingly, such they had to pay as $10 per nearlyhalf (47%) of respondents who fit this profile indica Question 17 Typical Travel Behavior 31 48.8 47.5 IEGO D AN S 35.7 42.3 IN

EARS GE ...... Y 47.1 43.3 & A AND

Years inS an Diego Re gio n(Q1) REA A 49.3 63.5 NCOME Le ss than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 o mo r re I SLD LANNING H P mo re 63.3 41.2 18 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 6 5 o o r lde r $200K or $200K BY BY

True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, East ARKING ARKING 44.4 46.7 $199K $1 5 0K to N County P P AY AY D D ER ER West 39.7 26.6 $1 4 9K $100K to $100K $10 $10 P $10 $10 P $99K 41.6 47.8 ITH ITH $75K to $75K East CountyEast County N W W House hold Inc ome (QD4) Planning AreaPlanning Age LONE LONE $74K 57.3 42.6 $5 0K to County A A RIVE RIVE D D 50.4 $49K 47.3 $25K to $25K OT OT N N OULD OULD $2 5K 55.1 80.9 Central City North South Less than 0 0

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

35 W 35 34 W 34 100 10 0

Alone if Parking Were $10 Per Day Per $10 Were Parking if Alone ln i akn ee$0Pr Day Per $10 Were Parking if Alone

% Respondents That Would Not Drive Not Would That Respondents % % R espondents That Would Not Drive Not Would That espondents R % IGURE IGURE SANDAG F F Personal Behavior Change 32 ...... avel behavior, as avel behavior, well as Overall, approximatelyhalf (51%) of San Diego residents realistically, indicated that, willingthey are to reduce drive they that amount the months. six next the during Approximately 45% indi- cated that they were not willingto make this change, that it whereas 2% indicated other factors on depended to answer and 1% refused 36). (Figure the question ntive section of the survey was HANGE True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, are willingthe in next sixmonths to reduce C 51.2 ount they drive can be difficult for many peo- can be drive ount they ining trips,riding a bicycle,othermethods? or ortation. Of course, forgeneral support policies gness to change their tr to change their gness ially when respondents that certain understand Ye s, w illingt o re duce driving people have very demanding schedules and and people have very demanding schedules life- Past research has shown that measuring expected measuring shown that Past research has ONTHS uring respondents’ support for various programs, personally inter- travel behavior in the one’s change M IX S EXT N 1.1 IN

Refused her. Accordingly, the final substa rsonalthrough vehicle methods suchtakingas carpooling,tran- , whereas others are not. In the case of changingof, whereasdriving one’s not.In the case others are EHAVIOR RIVING D 2.2 B Depends EDUCE R TO

We recognize that peopledemanding have very schedules and lifestyles. Making ILLING 36 W 36 45.4 ERSONAL IGURE Not w to illing reduce driving SANDAG F WILLINGNESS TO REDUCE DRIVING policies and initiativesare that designedimprove to the region’stransportation system and transp of modes the use of alternative encourage and programs is one thing. A willingness to P Up to this point, the survey focusedon meas behavior changecan be a difficult task—espec the am to reduce changes that making and styles, changestheto reduce amount theybe can drive people,for many difficult and impossible for others. For these next fewquestions, please give us your honestopinions. Realistically, in the six monthsnext are you willing to reduce the amountdriveyouthat a personal vehicle through such methodsas carpooling, taking transit, comb Question 18 behaviors are socially desirablebehaviors behavior, the concern was that some respondents would report that are willingthey to reduce their driving in the future because they know “they should”, when in reality they are not willing to In an effortmakechange. this toavoid potential this source of measurement respondentserror, were first instructed that we recognize that that to indicate Having thus made it acceptable for a respondent for others. ple—and impossible theywilling are not to reduce the amount that they drive, participantswereasked to give ustheir honest opinions about whether—realistically—they the amount thattheydrive a pe methods. other or a bicycle, riding trips, combining sit, est of reducing VMT is quite VMT is quite anot est of reducing devoted to identifying San Diego residents’ willin the conditions that may be required to facilitate these changes. Personal Behavior Change 33

34.7 jobs 56.1 MPLOYMENT & E 49.0 42.6 Retired Between ODE M e affiliated with third with e affiliated ...... Age 53.5 61.5 GE maker & A 56.0 REA RANSPORTATION 71.7 A T 66.6 18 to 29 to 18 39 to 30 49 to 40 64 to 50 older or 65 RIMARY LANNING 59.4 P P True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, BY BY

East 45.6 o currently primarily use alternative modes of modes alternative use primarily o currently N County ONTHS ONTHS 47.4 Full- timeFull- time Part- Student Home- M M We s t IX IX 52.0 S S EXT EXT 76.4 mo d e Other alt N N 45 .6 IN IN

East CountyEast County N 72.6 Public transit RIVING RIVING Planning Area Planning 55.2 D D County EDUCE EDUCE 55.9 Vanpool R R 48.4 TO TO

Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary (Q12) Status Employment 45.4 ILLING ILLING 62.1 Central City North South Driv e alone Carpool / 0 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

38 W 38 37 W 37 10 0

100

Personal Vehicle in Next 6 Months 6 Next in Vehicle Personal Personal Vehicl e in Next 6 Months 6 Next in e Vehicl Personal

% Respondents Willing to Reduce Driving Reduce to Willing Respondents % % R espondents Willing to Red uce Driving uce Red to Willing espondents R % IGURE IGURE TATUS SANDAG F S F transportation (not includingpublic who ar Asians, those stu transit),dents, thoseparties, whosehouseholds less than earn $25,000 and per year, individualswhoindicated that improvementsregion’s to the public transitshould systembe the priority top for future Figuresfunding 37-40). (see When compared to respective their counterparts,willingness a to reducethe amount they drive in the upcoming among was greatest six month period those wholive in the Centralplanning wh 30, individuals of age under the those area, Personal Behavior Change 34 40.0 hig hw ays Free w ay s , RIORITIES 62.5 P 49.7 roads PENDING Major streets, Major S 36.8 Respondents who ...... OP at least once per week, once at least 62.8 & T Trans it services ek they walk for a trip that ARTY 57.2 NCOME De moc rat Re public an Ot he r / DTS I mo re & P 32.8 $2 00K or OUSEHOLD THNICITY 49.9 Other Mix ed / 42.1 $19 9K H E True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, of reducing their driving. specific methodsreducing of $150K to $150K BY BY likely, or notor likely to takeaction this likely, during

they already trip link of Figure 41, respondents were asked simply ONTHS ONTHS 53.9 As ia n $1 49 K 73.4 American M M IX IX S S ING BY VARIOUS METHODS EXT EXT 50.1 N N ported that at least once per we that at least once per ported 60.7 / Blac k IN IN

tions were perceived to be considerably easier to take than oth- easier be considerably perceived to tions were Af AmericAf an Ethnic it y (QD3) Party Hou seho ld Inc ome (QD4) Top S pe nding Priority (Q 5) 53.0 RIVING RIVING D D 68.8 Latino / Hispanic EDUCE EDUCE 58.1 R R $2 5K to $4 9K $50 to K $ 74K $ 75 to K $9 9K $10 0K to TO TO

Whit e 44.6 ILLING ILLING Caucasian / 62.6 $25K Less than 0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

0

100

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

roal eh le ex 6 oths Mont 6 xt Ne n i e cl hi Ve l ersona P W 40 39 W 39

100 eroa V ic i ex 6Months M 6 xt Ne in e cl hi Ve rsonal Pe

% Respondents Willing to Reduce Driving Reduce to Willing Respondents % % Respondents Willing to Reduce Driving Reduce to Willing Respondents % IGURE IGURE SANDAG WILLINGNESS TO REDUCE DRIV F F indicatedQuestion in 18 that they would be willing to reduce theirdriving (orwere unsure) were to use would be next asked to report how likely they For each of the methods shown on the left side whether,somewhatrealistically, they are very likely, As shown in the figure, some ac As shown in the figure, thesix months. next indicated that More than 40% of respondents ers. and an additional 38% that stated they werevery likely to take this action in the upcoming six Eighteen percent (18%) re months. likelyvery tothey were start28% stated and takingdrive, this normally they action in the period Personal Behavior Change 35

3.5 LL 9.8 A 6.5 10.8

Not sur e mode 17 .5 Other alt alt Other 27 .5 11.8 32 .5 MONG 5 41.4 23.5 (A Public transit Does not apply not Does ODE 39.8 M 39 .7 ...... Not lik e ly 37.6 16 .6 26.5 19 .9 Vanpool Carpool / 19 .9 9.3 Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Transportation Primary Somewhat likely Somewhat RANSPORTATION 23.0 19 .1 17.1 8.4 T Drive alone 28.3 23 .1 Very likely 16 .9 RIMARY 40.2 26.9 23.5 29.9 39.9 40.6 Overall 15.9 17.3 17.3 P True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, BY % Respondents Who Are Willing to Reduce Driving in Next 6 Next 6 Months in to Reduce AreDriving Who Willing Respondents %

ging in the behaviorgingthe in or were to do very likely rticular strategy in the upcoming six month 18.1 17 .7 at they currently follow a flexible work sched- 9.5 11.9 8.9 8.2 Alre ady do it week for a trip they would normally drive, and and 23% stated that they are very likely to startto likely very that are they stated and 23% RIVING ining methods less than tested had one-third of 0 102030405060708090100 RIVING D ) D respondents and reflect the percentage that expected to adopt expected to that the percentage reflect and respondents EDUCE IKELY ortation, planning area, and respondent age. and respondent area, ortation, planning all EDUCE R L R TO

TO

OMEWHAT CTIONS S CTIONS A Increase your use of public transit public of use your Increase OR A

Work from home home Work least at from once perweek AKING ERY entages are based on AKING Jo in a ca rp oova l or npo olfo your r c ommut e T T OF % V

A t le a st o nc e pe r w e e k , li nk se v e ra l t rip s t o ge t he r OF

As I read the followingways that people can reduce theamount that they drive, HOWING , S IKELIHOOD IKELIHOOD A do pt fl e xib le w ork s che d ul e t o av o id dr iv i ng d ur ing rush ho ur t ra ffi c the method in the upcoming six month period. The percentages do not include those who are already are who those include not do The percentages period. month six the upcoming in method the engaging in the behavior. 41 L 41 Ride bike at least 1x per week for a trip you would normally make by car by make normally would you trip a for week per 1x least at bike Ride 4 L

5.perc these Note that

At least once per week, walk for a trip that you normally by make would At that car least walk once week, per a normally trip you for 19 19 19 19 19 19 19d Q1 9e Q1 9g Q1 9a Q1 9b Q1 9c Q1 9f Q1 ESPONDENTS ABLE IGURE At least once per week, link several trips together trips several link week, per once least At make by car would younormally that trip a for walk week, per once least At transit public of your use Increase commuteyour for or vanpool carpool a Join 26.3make by car normally you would trip a for week per 1x least at bike Ride traffic hour rush driving avoid during to work schedule flexible Adopt week per once least at home from Work 23.1 18.8 17.7 30.4 17.1 15.6 33.6 17.8 18.0 34.5 33.7 19.8 32.9 23.9 21.2 19.4 15.6 13.8 17.6 18.8 11.7 21.9 29.4 15.2 39.1 18.2 24.8 36.0 12.0 SANDAG T R F pleasethis tellme somewhatare very likely, to take you whether,realistically, likely,or not likely action in the next six months. If it doesn't apply to you or you are already doing it, please say so. Question 19 doing so during the next six months. The rema The months. six next the so during doing of interest. A similar percentage (18%) reported th (18%) reported A similar percentage of interest. ule to avoid commuting during rush hour traffic, enga are currently that they indicating respondents a car- joining transit, public of use their increasing months—including six upcoming the in so pool or vanpool, riding a bike at least once per show of respondents who percentage how the once per week. Tables 4-6 telecommuting at least to indicated a pa that they would be likely adopt of transp mode primary by varied period Personal Behavior Change 36

ERY East , N County N County 15.0 15.3 15.2 16.0 % V 16.0 18.7 18.3 19 .3 20 .6 23.1 Not sureNot / Refused West N County County N HOWING ESPONDENTS , S 27.5 26.7 R 30.5 31.5 30.5 30 .8 LL 34.4 35 .0 A Does not apply not Does

...... Age 38.0 No ODES 46.5 MONG Planning Area Planning ESPONDENTS M South County County East 21.4 Individual’s travel behavior travel Individual’s R 20 .9 (A 14 .7 22 .8 LL 23.7 23.9 A

REA 21 .7 19.5 A 17 .2 S ome w ha t mo re o fte n MONG % Resp ondents W ho Employ ed or S in choo l ke transit, or ride a bike to work or 12.4 18 to 29 18 to 39 30 to 40to 4964 50 to older 65 or (A RANSPORTATION 35 .6 35 .3 LANNING 34.8 GE 30.4 28.8 T 28 .5 P Central North City 25.4 True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, A 24 .7 23.5 BY 16 .9 BY

26.926.3 43.1 40.8 27.4 24.8 27.1 29.4 23.3 26.0 16.8 12.3 19.8 29.7 24.3 23.4 17.9 6.3 17.7 28.0 11.9 24.0 17.4 7.5 21.2 34.2 18.7 23.0 19.3 12.6 13.8 19.3 9.1 17.5 16.4 5.7 Mu c h mo re o f t e n Overall 0 102030405060708090100 One of the goals of this survey was to gauge One of the goals of this survey was the re asked if this change would make them more re asked if this change would make 31.3 31.3 30.1 31.8 23.0 20.7 20.4 Overall RIVING RIVING LTERNATIVE D D A OF

des when commuting to work or school. when commuting des TO REDUCE DRIVING EDUCE EDUCE SE R R U TO TO

ON

) orschool more often. Accordingly, for each of the items shown on CTIONS CTIONS IKELY A L A NCENTIVES in somethese of conditions (and/or the introduction of certain incen- I OF AKING AKING

T T OMEWHAT OF OF )

S changes OR Realistically, would you carpool, vanpool,ta Your emp loyer offered a cash offered to emp incentive carpool loyer Your or vanpool

IKELY Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles park to locations safe provided school or employer Your L ERY FFECTIVENESS You r e m plo y er o r sc ho o lo ffe re d re se rv e d pa rk in g s pa ce sfo r c arp o o ls IKELIHOOD IKELIHOOD Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations transit major from shuttles free provided school or employer Your % V Your employer or school paid for entire transit pass in exchange parking pass for employer transit school entire Your or paid for You beYou could matched carpool w go in to neighbors same ith ing destination 42 E 42 Your emp loyer pro vided $ 60 / mo to give up parking at place of emp loy ment 6 L 5 L Your employer in parking exchange pass schoolfor transit paid or of portion for Your Your employer or school offered guaranteed rides home for emergency situations home for rides guaranteed school offered employer or Your OMEWHAT Your employer or school paid for portion of cost for you p articipating in a a in vanpool p cost you of for articipating portion school paid for employer or Your

S 2iQ0 2aQ0 2cQ0 2jQ0 2dQ20h Q20d Q20g Q20j Q20f Q20c Q20b Q20a Q20e Q20i ABLE ABLE IGURE HOWING At least once per week, link several trips together trips several link week, per once least car At by make would normally you that trip a for walk week, per once least At transit public of your use Increase Join a carpool or vanpool for your commute your for or vanpool carpool a Join Ride bike at least 1x per week for a trip you would normally makeby carnormally you would trip a for week per 1x atleast bike Ride traffic hour avoiddriving rush to during work schedule flexible Adopt week per once atleast home from Work 18.8 32.0 22.9 20.9 15.8 5.6 At least once per week, link several trips together trips several link week, per once least At At least once per week, walk for a trip that you normally would make by car would you normally that trip a for walk week, once per least At transit public of your use Increase commute your for or vanpool carpool a Join 37.7 make by car normally you would trip a for week per 1x at least bike Ride traffic hour rush driving avoid during to work schedule flexible Adopt make by car would you normally that trip a for walk week, once per least At 37.7 26.3 15.2 21.4 22.3 26.3 15.2 21.4 32.8 19.1 14.1 16.2 26.1 21.8 23.1 15.9 21.9 21.3 13.6 27.2 10.5 23.1 17.7 14.6 15.8 27.2 15.2 19.4 15.2 14.6 18.8 12.6 27.1 18.2 22.9 14.8 17.4 18.2 22.7 18.3 20.6 T SANDAG F EFFECTIVENESS OF INCENTIVES OR S T is shaped by is shaped a variety of factors and conditions. extent to which tives) wouldthe increase likelihood take that vanpool, an individual would choose to carpool, transit, or ride a biketo work the left of Figure 42, workers and students we mo alternative these of one likely to use Question 20 school more often if: _____? Personal Behavior Change 37 East mode N County N County Other alt REA A West

N County N County Public Public transit GE LANNING RIMARY P A P Age ...... BY BY BY

Vanpool Carpool / / Carpool e incentive would make Planning Area Planning South South ODES ODES ODES County County East M M M Primary Transportation Mode (Q13,Q14) Mode Primary Transportation Drive alone Drive 18 to 2918 to 30 to 39 49 40 to 64 50 to older 65 or 40.729.3 36.3 25.0 49.0 33.2 69.9 44.7 36.4 57.7 57.0 54.3 58.7 78.8 64.4 55.7 51.9 64.2 80.3 52.4 50.0 47.0 48.5 83.5 57.3 44.8 42.7 47.0 66.1 38.7 Ov erall Central North City RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION RANSPORTATION True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 57.0 72.8 62.940.729.3 53.8 61.2 44.6 44.9 34.4 28.2 38.2 44.6 27.5 25.8 20.1 31.6 19.8 52.5 58.2 60.9 52.9 44.7 31.9 50.0 69.7 59.9 47.1 33.2 21.2 55.7 71.0 59.4 59.0 41.1 31.4 44.8 61.3 48.0 45.1 31.8 21.6 Ov erall T T T 57.0 68.0 54.340.729.3 59.1 50.7 41.7 49.1 34.5 21.7 51.6 53.0 60.2 37.2 31.9 23.8 35.3 28.0 45.3 30.3 52.5 62.1 48.3 59.2 43.2 50.9 55.6 55.7 65.6 52.0 58.2 50.6 51.2 58.1 44.8 51.1 43.8 50.6 35.1 41.1 48.4 50.0 65.2 45.0 55.5 40.1 45.0 51.7 who indicated that th indicated that who Ov erall vanpool (56%), guaranteed rides home in emer- home rides guaranteed (56%), vanpool major transit stations was the most compelling the most was stations major transit pass paid for (50%). employer/school by one’s LTERNATIVE LTERNATIVE LTERNATIVE A A A OF OF OF

SE SE SE U U U travel more often when commuting to work or school varied by varied school or work to commuting when often more travel ON ON ON

NCENTIVES NCENTIVES NCENTIVES I I I OF OF OF

ODE M FFECTIVENESS FFECTIVENESS FFECTIVENESS 9 E 8 E 7 E 7 ABLE ABLE ABLE RANSPORTATION Your employer or school provided safe locations to parkbicycles Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool carpool to cash incentive a offered employer Your situationsemergency for home rides guaranteed offered or school employer Your destination same to with going in neighbors carpool matched be could You vanpool ayou participating in for cost portion of for paid or school employer Your parking in for exchange 53.2pass entire transit for paid or school employer Your parking in for exchange pass transit portion of for paid or school employer Your 52.3 employment of at upplace give parking to / mo provided $60 employer Your carpools for spaces parking reserved offered or school employer 68.6Your 46.4 65.0 60.2 62.5 61.2 53.7 56.0 57.8 39.2 44.2 35.4 23.4 31.3 22.8 23.2 Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations transit major from shuttles free provided school or employer Your Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles park to locations safe provided school or employer Your Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool carpool to incentive cash a offered employer Your situationsemergency for home rides guaranteed offered or school employer Your destination same to going with neighbors in carpool matched be could You 53.2 carpools for spaces parking reserved offered 62.1 or school employer Your 49.0 60.6 46.8 49.0 54.7 Your employer or school paid for portion of cost for you participating in a vanpool a in you participating for cost of portion for paid or school employer Your parking for in exchange pass transit entire for paid or school employer Your parking for in exchange pass transit of portion for paid or school employer Your 52.3 employment of at place up give parking to / mo provided $60 employer Your 46.4 60.6 63.4 50.9 40.8 57.6 50.7 44.1 38.2 47.1 53.8 39.9 46.9 Your employer or school provided safe locations to park bicycles park to locations safe provided school or employer Your Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool or carpool to incentive cash a offered employer Your You could be matched in carpool with neighbors going to same destination52.550.856.567.642.2 same to going neighbors with carpool in matched be could situationsemergency for home rides guaranteed offered or school employer Your vanpool a in You participating you for cost of portion for paid school or employer Your 53.2 paid employer orYour entire for school transit in exchange pass parkingfor 52.3 paid employer orYour portion for school transit in of exchange pass parking for employer providedYour give /to up mo parking $60 at place employment of 50.4 carpools for spaces parking reserved offered or school employer Your 49.5 46.4 55.5 54.7 42.3 82.9 76.8 46.5 48.7 52.1 81.7 60.2 Your employer or school provided free shuttles from major transit stations transit major from shuttles free provided school or employer Your SANDAG T The following tables display how the percentage display how following tables The T gency situations (53%), being matched in a carpool with neighbors going to the same destination having(53%), a portionthe of cost of participating in a carpool/vanpool paid for by one’s transit a and having (52%), employer/school T T change, with 57% of respondents indicating that it would make them use an alternative method of commuting at least somewhat more often than they do now.Other top-ranked effective included cash changes to carpool incentives or mode of them use an alternative their current primary method of transportation, planning area, and age. Overall, free shuttles towork orschool from Personal Behavior Change 38

mo re 62 .3 $200K or $200K OUSEHOLD 76.2 $199K $150K to $150K & H REA 78 .6 $149K $100K to $100K A ...... $99K 71.3 $75K to$75K The final two substantive LANNING P 69.9 BY Household Income (QD4) IncomeHousehold

66 .8 $74K $50K to $50K Yes,to willing EEK EEK work from home from work W W ER ER $49K 68.0 $25K to $25K P P True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, AY AY D D $25K 63 .8 NE NE Le ss than O O 3.2 EAST EAST East 66.1 N C ount y L L Re fused E OR FLEX SCHEDULE SCHEDULE E OR FLEX AT AT

West 62.8 OME OME 6.0 N County work from at home per week least one day if their employer H H No t s ure ROM ROM Ea st 70 .0 County would F F ORK ORK Planning Area Planning W W 63.8 County 21.0 TO TO

Not wto illing 77 .5 work from home from work Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed employer your if week per day one least at home from work you Would ILLINGNESS ILLINGNESS 67.1 Ce nt ral North City Sout h 0 44 W 44 43 W 43

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

100 to Work From Home One Day Per Week Per Day One Home From Work to mlydRsodnsWlling Wil Respondents Employed % IGURE IGURE NCOME you to telecommute? Question 21 allowed themto telecommute, whereas 21%were not willingto workfrom and home, 9% were unsure or unwilling to answer the question.Although most subgroups an expressed interest in telecommuting, it was slightly higher among residents of North City those and whose house- holdsbetween $100,000 earn and $199,999 annually(see Figure 44). SANDAG I F F WILLINGNESSTELECOMMUT TO questions of the survey respondents’ of the survey measured questions interest in telecommuting and flexing their work schedule, respectively. As shown in43, Figure more than two-thirds (70%) ofcurrently those working indicated thatthey Personal Behavior Change 39

mo re 70 .7 $200K or $200K OUSEHOLD 69.9 $199K $150K to $150K & H REA A 82 .4 $149K $100K to$100K ...... $99K 82.2 LANNING $75K to $75K P BY d rush hour traffic. More than

d alter their d alter schedule work to 77.7 $74K 73.1 $50K to $50K rush hour alte w r ork RAFFIC RAFFIC Yes, willing to willing Yes, T T schedule toavoid oid rushtraffic houremployer if your $49K 82 .8 $25K to $25K OUR OUR True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, H H rth County, but did not bare a consistent rela- consistent a bare not did but County, rth $25K USH USH 75.9 Le s s than R R 1.8 Refused VOID VOID Ea st A A N County N TO TO

4.8 West 82 .6 8 2. 3 Not s ure N County ing one’s to avoi work schedule ing one’s surveyed stated that they woul that they stated surveyed CHEDULE CHEDULE S S Eas t 83.3 County ORK ORK 15.8 W W Planning AreaPlanning (QD4) Income Household schedule alter w ork 77 .3 County No t w to illing LTER LTER A A TO TO

73 .0 Wouldyour you work alter scheduleto av ILLING ILLING 74.6 Central City North South 0 46 W 46 45 W 45

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

100 oAtrWr Schedule Work Alter to % Employed Respondents Willing Respondents Employed % IGURE IGURE NCOME SANDAG I avoid rush hour trafficif their employer allowed it. Just 16% not were willing to flex their work schedule to avoid rush hour traffic, whereas 8% were unsure unwillingor to answer the question shownAs 45).(Figurein Figure 46, interestin following a flexschedule of regardless was high No and in East category and was highest subgroup allowed it? F Question 22 tionship to household income. F three-quarters (78%) of workers Interest was even greater for flex for greater was even Interest Background & Demographics 40 on page 41), the on ...... of the sampling methodol- sampling the of and background information and background True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, EMOGRAPHICS Table 10 presents demographic presents demographic Table 10 that was collected duringthe survey interview or available on Because file. the registered voter ogy, data collection procedures, weighting and protocols fol- inlowed Methodology this study(see demographics shown in the table are representative of regis- of representative are the table shown in demographics San Diego tered voters in the region. & D & 6.2 4.1 1.2 1.9 4.5 9.6 6.5 7.4 1.5 5.0 4.5 2.6 6.4 7.5 0.4 6.7 8.7 9.1 18.5 18.7 17.3 22.5 23.0 15.1 47.3 52.7 35.4 27.9 11.4 65.6 18.3 15.8 18.3 27.9 59.0 16.5 27.8 73.2 11.3 11.0 18.6 36.7 17.6 17.7 15.4 13.3 11.4 41.4 11.1 24.7 18.2 28.4 17.9 11.3 12.8 75.1 1,200 AMPLE S OF

EMOGRAPHICS 10 D ACKGROUND Fifth Not on file Not First Second Third Fourth 30 to 39 30 to 49 40 to 64 50 to older 65 or Male Female Democrat Republican DTS / Other 29 18 to Refused Less than $25K thanLess $49K to $25K $74K to $50K $99K to $75K $149K to $100K $199K to $150K more or $200K Mixed / Other Mixed / Refused Asian American Asian Caucasian / White / Caucasian / Hispanic Latino Af American Black / Live with family Live family Single Apartment Condo home Mobile Refused Rent Own Retired Between jobs Refused Homemaker Full- timeFull- time Part- Student Central City North County South WestN County East N County 5 than Less 9 5 to 14 10 to East County East more 15 or Refused Supervisorial District Supervisorial Ge nder Party Age Household Income (QD4) Income Household Ethnicity (QD3) Ethnicity Home Type (QD2) Type Home Home Ownership Status (QD1) Status Ownership Home Employment Status (Q12) Status Employment Total Respondents Total Area Planning (Q1) Region San Diego in Years ABLE SANDAG B T Methodology 41 Question- ew to ensure that ...... of the questions in the of the questions een planning areas, the een interviewers when conduct- position-order effects, word- effects, position-order us were identified as the uni- the as identified were us a stratified and clustered random items in a set order can lead to a ed during the intervi True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, alerts the interviewer certain to types of cts, and priming. Some covered the topics of interest and avoided the topics of interest and the covered ly selected into clusters based on their respec- into clusters based ly selected dialing into random homesin the San Diego the interview. The integrity ofthe questionnaire but also within and betw s were asked in a random order for each respon- ego region. The sample was developed in several sample was developed The ego region. s then stratified by gender, age, and partisanship and age, by gender, stratified s then ding on the preference of the respondent. the preference ding on Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI the questionnaire fielding the survey, to Prior ic measurementic error,including ed about their mode of commut- of or attendingtheir mode school were asked about based on theirbased registration stat terviewing) programmed to assist terviewing) programmed to The survey was administered to The survey was administered individual items. Because items. Because individual asking the The finalThe survey was professionally translatedSpanish, and interviews into on page 45) identifies the patterns us patterns the 45) identifies on page ETHODOLOGY a subset of respondents. For example, only For example, to a subset of respondents. only were also presented questions Several employed who were respondents systematic position bias in responses, the item bias in systematic position responses, dent. ing to work or school (Question 14). The questionnaireincludedwith this report (see Toplinesnaire & appropriate questions. the received each respondent (Computer Assisted Telephone In Telephone Assisted (Computer ing the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, ran- items, and question domizes the appropriate keypunchingmistakes should they occurduring True North and by internally by was pre-tested region prior to formally beginning the survey. oped, each representing a particular combina- particular a each representing oped, of clusters was devel number appropriate and the tion of these variables. Voters were then random sample of 1,200 registered voters in the San Di stages. First, all individuals who verse. Because of theobjectives research that motivated thisstudyand an interest in making reli- able estimates of opinions not only region-wide, Central, North City, South on ZIP code: into six subregions based divided universe was then County, East County, North CountyWest, and NorthFigure County 47).(see East Within each of wa of voters universe the areas, planning these profiles. tive SANDAG SAMPLE & WEIGHTING LANGUAGES PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE M The following sectionsoutline the methodology usedin the study, as as well the motivation for using certain techniques. with SANDAG staff to develop a questionnaire that a questionnaire staff to develop with SANDAG systemat sources of many possible ing effects, response-category effects, scaling effe scaling effects, response-category ing effects, multiple included survey were conducted in English and Spanish, depen in English and Spanish, were conducted Methodology 42

...... e level as well as within the a particular question and what True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, liable parameter estimates for the region as a By usingprobability-based the sampling ling, the raw data were weightedrawthe according ling, to population (e.g., South County) were provided County) were South population (e.g., at would receive relatively few interviews if they e final sample of San Diego was representative e final sample to analysis. The results presented in this report The results presented to analysis. 1,352,071votersregion in the had been inter- REAS A the survey of 1,200 voters for LANNING E TO SAMPLING P AND

NIVERSE U URVEY 47 S 47 IGURE SANDAG MARGIN OF ERROR DU To accommodate SANDAG’s interest in obtaining re whole, as well as within the six planning areas, the study employed a strategic oversample by whole, as well as within the six planning areas, the plan- at error associated with estimates of margins statistical the to balance planning area ning In area level. other words, planning areas th on voter proportionately based were distributed additionalinterviews. for adjust To the oversamp population of voters by planning area prior the at the region-wid representative which are results, are the weighted six planning areas. F would have found if all of been the estimated viewed. design noted above, True North ensured that th noted above, True North ensured design region voters. Because not all voters participated in the survey, however, the results have what is knownas a statistical marginsampling.due to of error The marginthe differ- of error refers to in what was found ence between Methodology 43 2 ⁄ α t ...... ˆ p voters aware of the law ± 2.83% ± Regio n-Wide Al l R e sp o n d e nt s for a 95% confidence interval). 95% confidence for a N ˆ p 1 – True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, – for estimating the margin of error, in this 1 n () tual percentage of all of tual percentage ˆ ------p when the answers are evenly split such that ters who are aware of the California greenhouse California the aware of are ters who ted they were aware of the California greenhouse of the California aware ted they were a desired confidence level, and the distribution of and the distribution confidence level, a desired – greenhouse gas emissions gas aware of the California greenhouse N for questions answered by all 1,200 respondents. all 1,200 for questions answered by Nn ------⎛⎞ ⎝⎠ margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of margin maximum The study. this in error of margin t ± ˆ p 1 – Sample Size (Number of Respondents) of (Number Size Sample n maximum th (1.96 of freedom degrees RROR Area E ± 6. 93% OF

Wi t hin Planning ARGIN M n AXIMUM 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% ˆ

p

14% 12% 10%

48 M 48 Margin of Erro of Margin r IGURE SANDAG F For example, in estimating the percentage of vo percentage the in estimating example, For gas emissions reduction law (Question 9), the margin of error can be calculated if one knows the sample, of the the size population, size of the where is the proportionvoters ofindica who responses to the question. The appropriate equation The appropriate to the question. responses below: is shown case, emissions reductiongas law (0.63 for 63%,example), in this is the populationvot-allof size ers (1,352,071), is thesample size that received the question (1,200),and for the t-distribution wi point is the upper Solving the equation using these values reveals a marginthat This means a of error of ± 2.73%. reveals values equationthese the usingSolving 63%with of respondents werethey indicating we can be 95% confident that the ac law, reduction Figure 48 the of provides a plot is between60% and 66%. 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response (i.e., = 0.5). For this sur- ± 2.83% is error of margin maximum the vey, error for a dichotomouserror for a percentage result occurs Methodology 44 ...... income, or planning area. income, Fig- rtain questions varied by demo- varied by rtain questions 0. It is standard practice not to call during True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, are rounded up to the nearest num- are rounded up to the nearest whole needed, to arrive at numbers that include a to arrive at numbers that include needed, ekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on week- ekday evenings (5:30PM sample size decreases, the reader should use should the reader decreases, sample size en comparing tables and pie charts for a given a tables and pie charts for en comparing e maximum margin of error for results within a for questions asked of all respondents. Because for questions asked of all respondents. rizing open-ended and preparing rizing open-ended responses, fre- are down to the nearest whole number. are rounded terviews averaged 16 minutes in length. 16 terviews averaged age of the respondent, household household respondent, the of age tables show how responses to ce show how responses tables The primary method of data collection for this study was telephone Data processing consisted of checking theof data for errorsorinconsis- consisted processing Data Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher in 0.5 or end that Numbers graphic characteristics such as characteristics such graphic ure 48 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for percentagea estimate will grow as the numberof individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. For example, as shown in the figure, th specific planningarea is approximately ± 6.93% the margin of error grows exponentially as the cautionwhen interpreting generalizing and for results subgroups. small ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower or lower whereas numbers that end in 0.4 ber, question. These same rounding rules are also applied, when are also applied, rules rounding same These decimal place in constructingfigures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place wh ends (10AM to 5PM) between June June 8 and June 15, 201 between ends (10AM to 5PM) theweekdays day on because most working adultsare unavailable and thus calling duringthose hours wouldbias the sample. Telephone in interviewing. Interviewswere conducted during we SANDAG ROUNDING DATA PROCESSING DATA COLLECTION DATA COLLECTION Within this report, figures and and figures report, this Within tencies, coding catego coding responses, tencies, and recoding quency analyses and crosstabulations. and crosstabulations. analyses quency Questionnaire & Toplines 45

0 Page 1 SANDAG SANDAG une 201 une J ...... Final Toplines Toplines Final 2050 RTP Survey Survey 2050 RTP 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 4% 9% 9% 0% 75% 75% 39% 45% 12% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, OPLINES or is somehow theor is associated with somehow survey, & T &

For statistical purposes, this survey must only be completed by this be by only completed must this survey For statistical purposes, This is a survey about important issues in your community—your answers will be answers will community—your important issues your in about a survey This is complete. to minutes 12 about take should survey The call can so I time a better know let me can you time, is nota convenient If now How would you rate the overall quality of life in the San Diego region? Would you sayWould it region? you the San quality of life in Diego the overall rate you would How is excellent,good, fair, or poor poor? very How long have How lived you in the San Diego region? 3 Fair 3 Poor Poor 4 Very sure 5 Not 98 Refused 99 1 Less than 1 year 2 1 to 2 years 3 3 to 4 years 4 5 to 9 years 5 Refused to 14 years 10 99 6 15 years or longer Excellent 1 Good 2 Q2 I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about life in the San Diego region.the about in San Diego life questions a few askingto begin by you I’d like Q1 Section 2: General Perception of Region Region of Perception General 2: Section If needed: anonymous. If needed: If needed: back? participate to ask they if or person listed the to speak to need you why asks person the If instead, explain: particular individual. elected official they are an says the person If closely not those of the opinions measure to is designed thatthis survey explain politely interview. the terminate and time, their for them thank study, the with associated Section 1: Introduction to Section Study 1: Introduction is _____ and callingbehalfHi, name anon of TNR, my I’m independent public opinion County San Diego in about issues important We’re survey a conducting company. research a for ask I won’t and anything I’m not selling opinions. your get to like and would we donation. True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

UESTIONNAIRE SANDAG Q Questionnaire & Toplines

46

Refused Refused Refused Refused

Page 2

June 2010 sure Not Not sure sure Not

......

Very Poor Poor Very

resources resources

spend spend

Should not not Should

Poor Poor

Low Priority Priority Low

Fair Fair

Priority Priority

Medium Medium

Good Good

High Priority Priority High Excellent Excellent True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 8% 34% 32% 14% 6% 6% 14% 6% 32% 1% 34% 8% 4% 17% 1% 33% 0% 39% 5% 2% 15% 7% 17% 27% 6% 26% 41% 34% 16% 16% 34% 41% 6% 2% 0% 15% 42% 39% 3% 1% 0% 42% 44% 12% 12% 44% 42% 2% 0% 0% 13% 49% 28% 7% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2% 7% 28% 49% 13% projects, please indicate whether you think you indicate whether please projects, Improving transit services, public including train and Sprinter and Coaster Trolley, bus, services Randomize Randomize Read A first, then randomize B-D. B-D. randomize then Read A first, Herethe (first/next) is this priority,one: Should medium project or be _____. ahigh, low project? this spent on be no money or should The San Diego Association of Governments is in the process of developing a Regional a Regional developing of process the in is Governments of Association Diego San The andprojects transportation priority identify will which Plan Transportation every to fund money enough there is not Because region. the for improvements priorities. set must we project, transportation of list the following read As I feel priority If you for funding. a low or priority, a medium priority, high bea it should in mind keep so. Please say just project, a particular on be spent should no money that priorities. high can be projects the of all not that How would How you rate: the _____ in Wouldregion?Diego San sayyou itexcellent, is good, fair, poor, or poor? very B roads and local streets major Improving B Freeways B Freeways A C highways and freeways major Improving A system transportation overall The C Local streets androads D system transit public The

Q4

Section 3: Transportation Priorities & Planning & Planning Priorities Transportation 3: Section County. Diego in San system transportation the about questions a few you ask me let Next, Q3 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines

47 Refused Refused Page 3

June 2010

......

resources resources

spend spend Should not not Should

3% 3% 0%

30% 30% 34% 34% 33% 33%

Low Priority Priority Low

Priority Priority

Medium Medium High Priority Priority High True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 47% 32% 15% 15% 32% 47% 4% 2% 0% 59% 27% 10% 10% 27% 59% 3% 0% 0% 30% 39% 22% 22% 39% 30% 6% 3% 0% 26% 39% 27% 6% 2% 0% 31% 38% 23% 23% 38% 31% 7% 1% 0% 19% 47% 25% 25% 47% 19% 4% 5% 0% 31% 36% 23% 23% 36% 31% 5% 5% 0% 36% 34% 24% 24% 34% 36% 6% 0% 0%

k Q5. Otherwise, skip to Q6. s a Improving transit services, public and Coaster and Trolley, bus, including services train Sprinter Expanding Trolley and bus routesthey so can areas more services Removing bottlenecks in freeways where freeways in Removing bottlenecks congestion and cause together lanes merge Increasing the frequency of Trolley, Coaster Coaster of Trolley, frequency the Increasing train services and Sprinter service on expresshigh-speed Expanding bus streets and major freeways Randomize Randomize Adding lanestoexisting freeways thatare buses carpools,and dedicated for vanpools As I read the following list of specific transit and freeway improvements, please indicate indicate please improvements, freeway transitand of specific list the following As I read priority, priority, should bethink it a high amedium whether you priority ora for low funding. Herethe (first/next) is this priority,one: Should medium project or be _____. ahigh, low project? this spent on be no money or should You indicated that several projects should be high/medium priorities, including: behigh/medium that several projects indicated should You thehighest priority? be should say you these would of Which . 1 items> items Q4. tied below in Only Q5 show in for the top response which Improving the transportation system so that system thetransportation Improving commercial of for better distribution allows it freight and goods If more than one item in Q4 = 1, ask Q5. If no items in Q4 = 1 but more than one item = 2,than more 1 but = Q4 in items If no Q5. 1,ask = Q4 item in one than more If 98 Not sure sure Not 98 3 Refused Improvingmajor freeways andhighways 99 1 2 roads local and streets major Improving F E Adding lanes to existing freeways B service of bus Increasingthe frequency A C G H D

Q6 Q5 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines

48 Refused Refused Page 4

June 2010 Not sure sure Not

......

important important Not Not

9% 9% 1% 0% 1% 0%

Important Important 63% 36% 41% 41% 36% 13%

Somewhat Somewhat

Important Important

Very Very

important important Extremely Extremely True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 26% 46% 23% 23% 46% 26% 4% 1% 0% 22% 34% 30% 13% 13% 30% 34% 22% 1% 0% 22% 32% 30% 14% 14% 30% 32% 22% 2% 0% 23% 41% 27% 27% 41% 23% 7% 2% 0% 17% 38% 34% 34% 38% 17% 9% 2% 0% 21% 34% 32% 10% 10% 32% 34% 21% 3% 0% 30% 44% 21% 21% 44% 30% 5% 0% 0% Now Now for a How informed topic. dodifferent feelyou gasesgreenhouse about and their feel somewhat well-informed, you say Would you change? to climate relationship all informed? at orinformed, informed, slightly not thatCaliforniaathat passed law aware new this survey, you were taking to Prior requires San to reduceDiego and other regions gas cars greenhouse emissions from and trucks? Making sure the transportation system system transportation the sure Making supports the needs localof our economy Reducing the negative impact that travel and and travel that impact negative the Reducing environment the on has transportation Randomize Randomize Increasing the availability of alternative ways Increasingthe of alternativeavailability ways for people to travel, such as by transit or bicycling Improving the safety of the transportation transportation of the the safety Improving system Making travel times more consistent and consistent more times travel Making predictable As I read the following list of factors, I want you to tell me how important each factor important how tell me I to want you of factors, list following the As I read and plans policies be are should for thepolicymakers when transportation developing region. San Diego Herethe (first/next) is thisextremely important,one: Should be an very _____. when developing factor important, an important not important, somewhat or and plans? policies transportation 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 Refused 99 1 Well informed informed informed Well 1 informed Somewhat 2 Slightly 3 sure Not 98 4 Refused Not at all informed 99 F E B A Reducing traffic congestion congestion traffic A Reducing C G Reducingthe costs of travel D Q9 Section 4: Programs to Reduce VMT & Emissions & Emissions VMT Reduce to 4: Programs Section Q8

Q7 True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines

49

Refused Refused Refused Refused Page 5

June 2010

No Opinion Opinion No If they sure Not

......

Oppose Oppose oppose oppose

Strongly Strongly Definitely Definitely

Oppose Oppose oppose oppose

Somewhat Somewhat Probably Probably

Support Support support support

Somewhat Somewhat Probably Probably

Support Support support support

Strongly Strongly Definitely Definitely 9% 9% 61% 16% 11% 2% 0% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 10% 20% 21% 46% 46% 21% 20% 10% 2% 1% 10% 13% 12% 63% 63% 12% 13% 10% 1% 0% 54% 30% 30% 54% 8% 6% 1% 0% 34% 29% 29% 34% 16% 19% 2% 0% 56% 31% 31% 56% 5% 4% 3% 0% 43% 39% 39% 43% 8% 6% 4% 1% 31% 57% 6% 5% 1% 0% 52% 29% 7% 10% 2% 2% 10% 7% 29% 0% 52% 39% 31% 31% 39% 15% 14% 1% 0% 31% 25% 25% 31% 15% 27% 2% 0% 46% 36% 36% 46% 9% 8% 2% 0% 33% 45% 11% 8% 2% 0% Would that be strongly (support/oppose) or (support/oppose) that be strongly Would Would that be definitely (support/oppose) or probably Get answer, then ask: then answer, Get Make improvements to the transit system so system transit the to improvements Make riders more attracts it that Convert existing general purpose freeway lanes to carpool lanes encourage to of vehicles number the and reduce carpooling on freeways Randomize Randomize Randomize Randomize Establishing parking fees in urban and in urban parking fees Establishing areas commercial Expand programs that encourage Expand programs that encourage telecommutingand flexible hours work When new housing is developed, housing new When concentrate it near existing employment centers and transit by arethat well-served areas reduce that improvements road Make traffic flow and bottlenecks improve Encouraging the adoption of alternative fuel fuel alternative of adoption the Encouraging cars electric and as hybrid such vehicles Build new carpool lanes to encourage encourage to lanes carpool new Build of vehicles number the and reduce carpooling on freeways In order to encourage people to drive less and provide funding for the programs I just I just theprograms less for provide funding to drive and people encourage to In order support or help you would greenhouse reduce emissions, gas that described would oppose: _____? (support/oppose)? somewhat There are a variety of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. cars and trucks. tofrom reduce greenhouse are a variety of gas emissions There ways orwould support you of options, please indicate whether Asthe following list I read program. or each policy oppose Here is the (first/next) one: Would_____. you support or oppose this approach? say support or oppose, ask: (support/oppose)? Expanding the ability for to drivers solo pay a the and dedicate lanes, carpool fee to use transportation the to improving money system Establishing a new fee based on the number number the on based fee new a Establishing a more The driven. is a vehicle of miles pay. they thewould more drives, person Expand programs that encourage Expandcarpooling encourage programs that and vanpooling Expand programs and that complete projects walking encourage or bicycling I J E F B B A C Increasing the tax paid per gallon of gas A C G H D

Q11

Q10 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 50 Page 6 June 2010 ...... Skip to Q14 Skip to Q14 Q13 Ask Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Ask Q13 Q13 Ask Q13 Ask Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q14 Q13 Ask 8% 8% 2% 0% 7% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 7% 7% 6% 41% 41% 11% 25% 48% 23% 14% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, When you ride with other people, do you you do people, other ride with you When Do you most often drive by yourself or with other peopleor yourself drive with most by often Do you Do you Do you themostride often local or bus, a premium express bus If with other people,If ask: with

Carpool/drive with TWO or more other more or Carpool/drive TWO with people What form of transportation do you use most often when traveling in the San Diego San Diego the in traveling when often most use you do transportation of form What region? theyIf saydrive, etc. car, ask: vehicle? the in typically rideone withother person, orat with leasttwo other people? If they say ask: bus, service? Whichof the following best describes youremployment status? Would you say you are in-between you are or retired, homemaker, a a student, part-time, full-time, employed now? jobs right 99 Refused 99 3 (local) Vanpool 4 Bus 5 Trolley 7 6 Coaster express service) (premium Bus 8 Scooter Sprinter 9 Motorcycle/Moped/Motorized 10 Bike 11 mode Walk/Run 12 Other 13 6 In-between jobs jobs Retired 5 In-between 6 Refused 99 (auto/truck/van/SUV) alone Drive 1 2 Carpool/drive with ONE other person 1 Employed full-time full-time part-time Employed 1 Employed 2 Student 3 Homemaker 4 Q13 Section 5: Typical Travel Behavior Travel Behavior Section 5: Typical Q12 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 51

Page 7

June 2010 ...... Ask Q16 Q16 Ask Skip to Q17 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Ask Q15 Q15 Ask Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 Skip to Q18 7% 29% 11% 11% 43% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% 2% 1% 3% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 11% 11% 88% 13% 13% 68% 68% Base work/school on answer to Q12. to answer on Base work/school True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, If says unsure, ask them to to estimate. them ask says If unsure, site? When you ride with other people, do you you do people, other ride with you When Do you most often drive by yourself or with other peopleor yourself drivewith most by often Do you Do you Do you themostride often local or bus, a premium express bus If with other people, other If ask: with

Carpool/drive with TWO or more otheror more Carpool/drive TWO with people Do you pay forparking at your parking? for per month pay do you much How What form of transportation do you use most often when traveling to work or school in in school or to work traveling when often most use you do transportation of form What region? the San Diego theyIf saydrive, etc. car, ask: vehicle? the in typically rideone withother person, orat with leasttwo other people? If they say ask: bus, service? Less than $25 $25 to $49 $50 to $99 or more $100 Not/ Refused sure

99 Refused 99 Yes 1 No 2 Depends 98 Refused 99 3 2 (local) Vanpool Carpool/drive with ONE other person 4 Bus 5 Trolley 7 6 Coaster express service) (premium Bus 8 Scooter Sprinter 9 Motorcycle/Moped/Motorized 10 Bike 11 mode Walk/Run 12 Other 13 1 Drive alone (auto/truck/van/SUV) (auto/truck/van/SUV) alone Drive 1 Q16 Q15 Q14 True North Research, © 2010 Inc. SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines

52 Refused Refused

Page 8 June 2010 sure Not

......

Already do it it do Already apply apply

Ask Q19 Q19 Ask Skip to Q20 Q19 Ask Q19 Ask Doesn’t Doesn’t

7% 7% 3%

43% 43% 47%

Not likely likely Not likely likely

2% 2% 1%

51% 51% 45% Somewhat Very likely likely Very True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 16% 23% 23% 11% 16% 40% 10% 1% 0% 19% 27% 17% 27% 9% 1% 0% 17% 17% 17% 40% 8% 0% 0% 7% 12% 0% 40% 3% 38% 0% 20% 10% 28% 23% 18% 1% 0% 1% 12% 41% 0% 20% 8% 17% 0% 18% 32% 0% 17% 9% 23% if you hadto pay a fee forparking, suchas Ask Q17Q15 if =2 OR(Q16 < $200).

Randomize Would stillyou drive alone to day? per $10 At least onceperAt least link trips week, several to the and shopping going as such together, make normally would office,that you post separately Ride a bike at least once per week for a trip a trip for per week once at a least bike Ride car by make normally would that you At least once per walkweek, afor trip that you normally would make by car this action in the next six months. If it doesn’t apply to you or you are already doing it, doing already are or you to you apply doesn’t it If months. six next the in action this please say so. Realistically, in the next six are months you willing the amount that drive to reduce you trips, combining transit, taking as carpooling, methods such through vehicle a personal methods? or other ridinga bicycle, please drive, they that amount the can reduce that people ways As read the following I take to or not likely likely, likely, somewhat are realistically, very you tell me whether, Adopt a flexible work schedule so you can so you schedule a work flexible Adopt avoidtraffic driving hour rush during 1 Yes 1 No 2 Depends 98 Refused 99 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 Refused 99 F week once per at least home Work from E B commute a carpool for your or Join vanpool A transit of public use your Increase C G D

Q19 Q18 Section 6: Personal Behavior Change Change Behavior 6: Personal Section We recognize that people have very demanding schedules and lifestyles. Making changes to others. For for difficultpeople,impossible and can be many drive they for the amount reduce these next questions, few pleasegive your us honest opinions. Q17 True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines

53 Refused Refused Page 9

June 2010 Not sure sure Not

......

Apply Apply Doesn’t Doesn’t

3% 3% 6% 6%

70% 70% 21%

No No

more often often more

Somewhat Somewhat

often often Much more more Much True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, 35% 21% 27% 16% 16% 27% 21% 35% 1% 0% 36% 21% 28% 15% 15% 28% 21% 36% 1% 0% 25% 19% 35% 19% 19% 35% 19% 25% 1% 0% 18% 31% 15% 35% 1% 0% 25% 22% 34% 19% 19% 34% 22% 25% 0% 0% 24% 17% 38% 21% 21% 38% 17% 24% 0% 0% 28% 24% 31% 15% 15% 31% 24% 28% 1% 0% 29% 24% 30% 16% 16% 30% 24% 29% 1% 0% 17% 12% 46% 23% 23% 46% 12% 17% 1% 0% 30% 23% 31% 15% 15% 31% 23% 30% 1% 0% Would that be much moreoften or somewhat more Ask Q21 if Q12 = (1,2). = (1,2). Q12 if Q21 Ask If yes, ask: Ask Q20 if Q12 = (1,2,3). Otherwise, skip to instruction preceding Q21. preceding to instruction skip Otherwise, = (1,2,3). Q12 Q20 if Ask Your employerYour offered a cash incentive to carpool or vanpool Your employer or school provided free provided or employer school Your transit or major to work school from shuttles stations Your employer provided you with a cash a cash with you provided employer Your incentive of $60 per to give up month parking at placeyour of employment paid employer or the total cost Your school exchangeyou for transit in pass of your location their at parking up giving Randomize, but always ask B before C. If B = C. If B before B ask always but Randomize, and C 1 for record automatically then 1, it. ask don’t Your employer or school paid for a portion of of a paid portion for or employer school Your givingexchange pass for you in transit your up parking at their location Your employer or school offered reserved reserved offered or employer school Your parking spaces for carpools Your employer or school paid for a portion of of a paid portion for or employer school Your the cost foryou participating ina vanpool You could be matched in a carpool or carpoola be in matched could You to the same going neighbors vanpool with destination Your employer or school provided safe provided or school employer Your locations to park bicycles Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed you to you allowed employer if your per week one day at least home work from Would you telecommute? Realistically, you would carpool, vanpool, transit, or take ridea to work or bike school moreoften if: _____? often? Your employer or school offered guaranteed offered guaranteed employer or Your school situations emergency rides home for 99 Refused Refused 99 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 I J F E B A C G H D Q21

Q20 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 54 Page 10 June 2010 ...... ? Read list if Read list ? 2% 2% 3% 2% 7% 7% 5% 5% 2% 1% 1% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 1% 6% 73% 73% 11% 11% 64% 64% 27% 78% 78% 16% 59% 59% 16% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Ask Q22 if Q12 = (1,2). = (1,2). Q12 if Q22 Ask

Asian—Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, orotherAsian Filipino Live with family, friends and don’t pay rent What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to closest or feel a part of consider yourself do you group ethnic What hesitates. respondent Do you own orrent your currentresidence? Whichofthe following best describes your current home? Would you alter your work scheduleto avoid rush hourtraffic if your employerallowed it? 6 Pacific Islander 5 heritage Pacific 6 Mixed 7 Other 98 Refused 99 Apartment 2 1 home Condominium Single family detachedhome 3 Mobile 4 Refused 99 Caucasian/White 1 Latino/Hispanic 2 African-American/Black 3 4 Native Alaskan or Indian American 1 Own 1 Rent 2 3 Refused 99 1 Yes 1 No sure 2 Not 98 Refused 99 D3 D2 D1 Section 7: Background & Demographics & Demographics 7: Background Section for questions background a few just have I participation. your for so much you Thank statistical purposes. Q22 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 55 Page 11 June 2010 ...... 5% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5% 5% 5% 2% 35% 35% 37% 22% 18% 16% 18% 28% 19% 47% 47% 53% 13% 13% 11% 11% 18% 18% 15% 13% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, statisticalread goingto some I am reasons.

65 or older older 65 or Not Coded 18 to 29 to 29 18 to 39 30 to 49 40 to 64 50 Party File Age on Voter Gender I have just one morefor question for you your describes that best category the reach I when me stop Please categories. income income. total household 5 99 1 Democrat 1 Republican 2 Other 3 DTS 4 1 2 3 4 1 Male 1 Female 2 sure 6 Not $150,000 to less than $200,000 98 7 Refused more or $200,000 99 1 Less than $25,000 than Less 1 2 $50,000 than to less $25,000 3 $75,000 than to less $50,000 4 $100,000 than to less $75,000 5 $100,000 to less than $150,000 S3 S2 Post-Interview & Sample Items Sample & Post-Interview S1 Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks very much for participating. participating. for much very Thanks you! for have I that questions the of all are Those D4 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 56 Page 12 June 2010 ...... 2% 2% 5% 5% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 69% 69% 31% 47% 53% 65% 35% 17% 17% 11% 13% 15% 14% 49% 49% 23% 10% 10% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Homeowner on Voter File on Voter Homeowner Mail by Likely to Vote Voter 2010 November Likely Household Party Type Party Household Registration Date Date Registration 2 No No 2 0 Other) + Mixed + Rep (Dem Yes 1 No 2 Yes 1 No 2 Yes 1 1 Single Dem Dem Single 1 Rep Dual 2 Rep Single 3 Other Dual 4 Other Single 5 Other Dual 6 & Dem 8 7 Dem & Rep 9 Rep & Other 1 2010 to 2005 2 1990 2004 to 2001 3 Before 2000 to 1997 5 4 1996 to 1990 S8 S7 S6 S5 S4 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG Questionnaire & Toplines 57 Page 13 June 2010 ...... 13% 13% 17% 23% 23% 18% 19% 18% 18% 28% 11% 18% 11% True North Research, Inc. © 2010 True North Research, Supervisorial District District Supervisorial Planning Area Area Planning 6 N County East First 1 Second 2 Third 3 Fourth 4 Fifth 5 2 North City Central 1 County North 2 West County South 3 County East 4 N 5 S10 S9 True True North Research, © 2010 Inc.

SANDAG 2050 RTP Survey SANDAG

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 10-11-2 NOVEMBER 5, 2010 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

2050 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN: PUBLIC INPUT QUESTIONNAIRE File Number 3100200

Background

To obtain public input in the development of the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (2050 RTP), SANDAG is implementing a comprehensive public outreach and involvement program (www.sandag.org/2050RTP, Public Involvement Plan). A major goal of this effort is to involve nontraditional as well as traditional audiences, to raise their awareness of the transportation planning process underway and the broad goals to better connect transportation and land use planning. Public involvement and comment about key components of the RTP is important to SANDAG as part of developing transportation public policies and establishing priorities to meet the travel needs of residents now and into the future.

The Public Involvement Plan (PIP) supports the development of the 2050 RTP. The PIP also provides opportunities for stakeholders to give input on the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, a component of the 2050 RTP. The strategies and tactics outlined in the PIP are guiding outreach efforts to build awareness of the regional transportation planning process and identify opportunities to shape the future of the region. This 2050 RTP PIP is an element of the agencywide Public Participation Plan (www.sandag.org/ppp) that was adopted by the SANDAG Board of Directors on December 18, 2009, following a six-month development, input, and review process.

Introduction

To support the development of the 2050 RTP and to secure input on priorities from the public, SANDAG developed a public input questionnaire that could be distributed via e-mail and in printed format. The questionnaire was provided in English and Spanish and was available online and in print from June to September 2010.

Information about the questionnaire and printed copies were distributed at community meetings and to other stakeholders interested in providing input to the 2050 RTP. The online questionnaire was posted on the SANDAG Web site. Information about answering the questionnaire was posted on the SANDAG Web site, distributed in the rEgion and RTP e-mail newsletters, provided at RTP workshops, and disseminated through community-based outreach. Announcements about the questionnaire also were featured in local and regional newspapers. The public input questionnaire had the same questions as the RTP public opinion phone survey with slight modifications made so the questionnaire could be converted to the online and printed format (Attachment 1).

Methodology

More than 2,600 people (2,617) provided responses to the questionnaire. Only one response per computer was allowed.

The public input questionnaire was not designed to be representative of everyone’s opinions, but rather to serve as a forum for public involvement. While the questionnaire had the same questions as the statistically valid RTP telephone public opinion survey, the sampling process for the two surveys was quite different, and therefore, the results have differences. The RTP telephone public opinion survey was designed to be representative of the region’s population. While the telephone survey respondents were randomly sampled, contacted by phone, and asked to participate, anyone could choose to participate in the public input questionnaire. People who seek to complete a questionnaire (known as self selection) typically have stronger opinions than the public as a whole. Randomly sampling the population (as was done for the telephone public opinion survey), on the other hand, is a scientifically valid way to ensure that the survey results truly represent the majority of the San Diego region’s residents’ views. Therefore, it was expected that some of the results would differ between the two surveys.

In addition, the different data collection methods (telephone interview for the random sample versus the online/paper public input questionnaire) can affect the responses. For example, in the random telephone sample, “not sure or I don’t know” was not given to the participants as an option but rather recorded if that was their response, while the online/paper version had it listed as a valid response to choose. Questions also could be clarified with a telephone interviewer but not with the online/paper version. Slight differences in question wording could account for differences between the two results as well.

Summary of Results

Overall, the public input sample (compared to the random telephone sample) includes a greater percentage of individuals concerned with improving and focusing on public transit. Specifically:

• Sixteen percent of the public input sample rated public transit as “excellent” or “good,” compared to 32 percent of the random telephone sample (Question 3).

• The majority of the public input sample (70%) said that improving the transit system should be the highest priority, followed by improving major streets and local roads (17%) and improving major freeways and highways (13%). The random telephone sample was more balanced, with 36 percent rating public transit as the highest priority, 31 percent rating major streets and roads highest, and 29 percent rating major freeways and highways as highest (Questions 4 and 5 combined).

• The top three priorities for the public input sample related to expanding transit in some way and did not include reducing bottlenecks or expanding freeway lanes, as it did for the random telephone sample (Question 6). The top three public input responses were:

o Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can service more areas (87%) o Increasing the frequency of Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER train services (77%) o Increasing the frequency of bus service (74%)

• The most important factor for policymakers to consider according to the public input sample was increasing the availability of transit or biking for residents (83%). This was the factor cited least frequently by the random telephone sample (54%) (Question 7). The top three factors for the public input sample were:

2 o Increasing the availability of alternative ways for people to travel, such as by transit or bicycling (83%) o Making sure the transportation system supports the needs of our local economy (78%) o Reducing the negative impact that travel and transportation has on the environment (75%)

• The public input sample also seemed a bit more aware of legislation related to greenhouse gas emission reduction (76% compared to 63% in the random telephone sample) and expressed more support for possible funding strategies (Question 9).

• The top three supported policies or programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks were (Question 10):

o Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts new riders (93%) o Expand programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible work hours (93%) o Expand programs and complete projects that encourage walking or bicycling (90%)

• There was more support for the fee- and tax-based initiatives. Twice as many of the public input sample said they would support higher gas taxes and drivers paying more for driving more miles, compared to the telephone sample (50% versus 23% and 43% versus 20%, respectively). Additionally, 44 percent supported establishing parking fees versus 30 percent in the random telephone sample (Question 11).

• The public input sample also was more likely to say they would realistically reduce the amount of time spent in their personal vehicle in the next six months, compared to the telephone sample (73% versus 51%). However, for both groups, the top three methods to accomplish this included linking trips, walking more, and using transit more (Question 17).

• While the percentages are not directly comparable due to the different survey/questionnaire modes (“doesn’t apply” and “not sure” were apparent options in the online/paper version), the results of both the random telephone survey and the public input questionnaire point to the same incentives that would encourage workers and students to use an alternative commute at least somewhat more often (Question 19).

o Providing free shuttles between work/school and major transit centers, having a guaranteed ride home, and being matched in a carpool or vanpool with neighbors all would be effective incentives.

Demographics

• Similar to the random telephone sample, the majority of respondents lived in the San Diego region 15 years or longer.

• A larger proportion of the public input sample was employed and was more likely to report they worked full time compared to the random telephone sample. Similarly, the random telephone sample has a larger proportion of retired persons.

• The public input sample tended to have higher household incomes. Approximately a third (34%) had a household income higher than $100,000 versus 23 percent in the random telephone sample.

3 • A larger proportion of the public input sample identified as White (70% versus 59%), compared to the random telephone sample.

• Most of the respondents in the public input sample reported living in ZIP codes located in central and coastal communities (Attachment 2). The telephone survey, on the other hand, represented residents across the region and provided statistically reliable results for the six subareas and the region as a whole (Attachment 3).

Following is a question-by-question comparison of the results of the public input questionnaire and public opinion survey responses. There are some differences between question numbers because of how the questions were asked in the telephone survey.

Question-by-Question Comparison (Please note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.) Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents) Total = 2,617 Total = 1,200

Q. 1 How long have you lived in the San Diego region? Less than 1 year 3% Less than 1 year 1% 1 to 2 years 5% 1 to 2 years 1% 3 to 4 years 7% 3 to 4 years 4% 5 to 9 years 11% 5 to 9 years 9% 10 to 14 years 14% 10 to 14 years 9% 15 years or longer 61% 15 years or longer 75%

Q. 2 How would you rate the quality of life in the region? Percentage who said “excellent” or “good” 84% 84%

Q. 3 How would you rate the following transportation system components in the San Diego region? Percentage who said “excellent” or “good” Overall system 31% Overall system 42% Freeways 57% Freeways 62% Streets & roads 38% Streets & roads 44% Public transit 16% Public transit 32%

Q.4 Please indicate whether the following transportation projects should be a high, medium, or low priority for funding, or if no funding should be spent. Percentage who said “high” or “medium” priority Improving public transit 89% Improving public transit 75% services services Improving major streets and 80% Improving major streets and 86% roads roads Improving major freeways 57% Improving major freeways 81% and highways and highways

4 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents)

Q.5 You indicated that more than one project should be high priority, please select which project should be the highest priority. (Please note: Question wording is slightly different between the two surveys.) Improving public transit 52% Improving public transit 34% services services Improving major streets and 26% Improving major streets and 30% roads roads Improving major freeways 22% Improving major freeways 33% and highways and highways

Q.6 Please indicate whether the following transit & freeway improvements should be high, medium, or low priority for funding, or if no funding should be spent. Percentage who said “high” or “medium” priority (rank in parentheses) Expanding trolley & bus 87% (1) Expanding trolley & bus 79% (2) routes routes Increasing frequency of 77% (2) Increasing frequency of 69% (5) Trolley and train service Trolley and train service Increase frequency of bus 74% (3) Increase frequency of bus 67% (6) service service Expand express bus service 73% (4) Expand express bus service 66% (7/8) Remove bottlenecks 69% (5) Remove bottlenecks 86% (1) More carpool lanes 49% (6) More carpool lanes 69% (4) Better goods movement 44% (7) Better goods movement 66% (7/8) More freeway lanes 38% (8) More freeway lanes 70% (3)

Q. 7 How important should the following factors be when policymakers are developing transportation policies & plans for the San Diego region? Percentage who said “extremely” or “very important” (rank in parentheses) Increase availability of 83% (1) Increase availability of 54% (6) alternative modes, such as alternative modes, such as transit or bicycling transit or bicycling Supports local economy 78% (2) Supports local economy 72% (2) Reduces negative impact on 75% (3) Reduces negative impact on 56% (4) environment environment Reduces traffic congestion 66% (4) Reduces traffic congestion 74% (1) Make travel times 65% (5) Make travel times predictable 55% (5) predictable Improve safety of system 59% (6) Improve safety of system 64% (3)

Q. 8 How informed do you feel about greenhouse gases & their relationship to climate change? Percentage who said “well” or “somewhat” informed 86% 77%

5 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents)

Q. 9 Are you aware that California passed a new law that requires San Diego and other regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? Percentage who said “yes” 76% 63%

Q. 10 Would you support or oppose the following approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars & trucks? Percentage who said “definitely” or “probably” support Expand telecommuting & 93% (1/2) Expand telecommuting & flex 87% (2) flex hours hours Improve public transit 93% (1/2) Improve public transit 84% (3) Expand programs to 90% (3) Expand programs to 78% (7) encourage walking/biking encourage walking Expand programs to 88% (4/5) Expand programs to 82% (4/5) encourage car/van pool encourage car/van pool Develop new housing near 88% (4/5) Develop new housing near 82% (4/5) employment centers employment centers Encourage alternative fuel 85% (6) Encourage alternative fuel 81% (6) vehicles vehicles Make road improvements 80% (7) Make road improvements to 88% (1) to reduce bottlenecks reduce bottlenecks Convert lanes to carpool 57% (8/9) Convert lanes to carpool only 63% (9) only Build new carpool lanes 57% (9/9) Build new carpool lanes 70% (8) Expand solo drivers paying 51% (10) Expand solo drivers paying 56% (10) fee for carpool lane fee for carpool lane

Q. 11 In order to encourage people to drive less & provide funding for programs in the previous question, would you support or oppose the following possible funding sources? Percentage who said “strongly” or “somewhat” support More miles, more pay 44% More miles, more pay 20% Parking fees 44% Parking fees 30% Tax paid on gas increase 50% Tax paid on gas increase 23%

Q. 12 Employment Status Employed full time 60% Employed full time 41% Employed part time 9% Employed part time 11% Student and employed 7% Student and employed 7% Student and not employed 4% Student and not employed Homemaker 4% Homemaker 6% Retired 11% Retired 25% In between jobs 5% In between jobs 8% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 2%

6 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents)

Q.13 Which form of transportation do you use most often when traveling in the San Diego region (only asked to retired, homemakers, and those in-between jobs). Drive alone 48% Drive alone 48% Carpool (with one other) 24% Carpool (with one other) 23% Carpool (with 2+) 8% Carpool (with 2+) 14% Public transit 7% Public transit 9% Motorcycle or scooter 1% Motorcycle or scooter 0% Bicycle 4% Bicycle 1% Walk 4% Walk 1% Other 5% Other 2%

Q.14 Which form of transportation do you use most often when traveling to work or school in the San Diego region (only asked to those employed and students) Drive alone 65% Drive alone 68% Carpool (with one other) 7% Carpool (with one other) 13% Carpool (with 2+) 2% Carpool (with 2+) 5% Public transit 11% Public transit 6% Motorcycle or scooter 1% Motorcycle or scooter 0% Bicycle 4% Bicycle 1% Walk 3% Walk 3% Other 7% Other 2%

Q. 15 Do you pay for parking at work or school? Percentage who said “yes” 17% 11%

Q. 16 Would you still drive alone to work or school if you had to pay a fee for parking, such as $10 a day?

Yes 29% Questions 16 and 17 on the telephone survey No 25% were asked differently and are not Depends 46% comparable.

Q. 17/18 Realistically, in the next six months are you willing to reduce the amount that you drive a personal vehicle through such methods as carpooling, taking transit, combining trips, riding a bicycle, walking, or other methods? Percentage who said “yes” 73% 51%

7 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents)

Q. 18/19 In the next six months, realistically, are you likely or unlikely to use the following methods to reduce the amount that you drive? Percentage who said “very likely” or “somewhat likely” Link trips 68% (1) Link trips 50% (1) Walk more 59% (2) Walk more 48% (2) Increase use of public transit 46% (3) Increase use of public transit 39% (3) Adopt flex work schedule 44% (4) Adopt flex work schedule 32% (6) Ride a bike more 40% (5) Ride a bike more 34% (5) Telecommute 38% (6) Telecommute 25% (7) Join a car or vanpool 24% (7) Join a car or vanpool 36% (4)

Q. 19/20 Realistically, would you carpool, vanpool, take transit, or ride a bike to work or school more often if the following conditions existed (only asked to those employed and students) ? Percentage who said “much more often” or “somewhat more often” Your employer (or school)… Your employer (or school)… Provided free shuttle from 60% (1) Provided free shuttle from 57% (1) major transit major transit Guaranteed a ride home in 51% (2) Guaranteed a ride home in 53% (3/4) case of emergency case of emergency Matched you with other 49% (3) Matched you with other 53% (3/4) riders riders Offered a cash incentive to 48% (4/5) Offered a cash incentive to 56% (2) car or vanpool car or vanpool Paid total cost of transit pass 48% (4/5) Paid total cost of transit pass 50% (6) Offered a cash incentive of 45% (6) Offered a cash incentive of 44% (8) $60 give up parking $60 give up parking Paid portion of transit pass 44% (7) Paid portion of transit pass 47% (7) Paid portion of vanpool cost 39% (8/9) Paid portion of vanpool cost 52% (5) Provided safe bike parking 39% (8/9) Provided safe bike parking 29% (10) Offered reserved spaces for 32% (10) Offered reserved spaces for 41% (9) carpool carpool

Q. 20/21 Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed you to telecommute? Yes 84% Yes 70% No 10% No 21% Not sure 6% Not sure 6% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 3%

Q. 21/22 Would you alter your work schedule to avoid rush hour traffic if your employer allowed it? Yes 84% Yes 78% No 9% No 16% Not sure 7% Not sure 5% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 2%

8 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents)

Q. 22 How did you first hear about this survey SANDAG Web site 14% SANDAG e-mail 12% Community event 12% SANDAG presentation 8% School 8% Friend/Co-worker 7% Newspaper 6% Facebook 5% Member agency Web site 5% Consulate 4% BOMA 2% Twitter <1% Other 16%

Demographic Questions Do you own or rent at your current residence? Own 66% Own 64% Rent 32% Rent 27% Other 2% Other 7% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 2%

Housing Type Single family detached 60% Single family detached 73% Single family attached 9% Single family attached 22% Apartment or condo 29% Apartment or condo Mobile home 2% Mobile home 3% Other 1% Other 0% Cannot quantify refusal Refused 2% Question 23 (ZIP Code) is not included in these tables. Please see Attachment 2.

Do you consider yourself? White/Caucasian 70% White/Caucasian 59% Hispanic 16% Hispanic 16% Black or African American 2% Black or African American 4% American Indian or Alaskan <1% American Indian or Alaskan 1% Native Native Asian 4% Asian 6% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander <1% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1% Mixed Heritage 4% Mixed Heritage 5% Other 3% Other 3% Cannot quantify refusals Refused 4%

9 Public Input Questionnaire Random Telephone Survey (Statistically valid survey of region residents)

What is the total annual income of all people living in your household? Less than $25,000 10% Less than $25,000 11% $25,000 to $49,999 13% $25,000 to $49,999 18% $50,000 to $74,999 14% $50,000 to $74,999 18% $75,000 to $99,999 15% $75,000 to $99,999 15% $100,000 to $149,999 18% $100,000 to $149,999 13% $150,000 to $199,999 8% $150,000 to $199,999 5% $200,000 or more 7% $200,000 or more 5% Refused 15% Not sure/Refused 15%

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachments: 1. Public Input Questionnaire 2. Public Input Respondents by San Diego County Subregion (map), Public Input Respondents by ZIP code (map), and Public Input Questionnaire ZIP Code Distribution (table) 3. Planning Areas for Representative Telephone Public Opinion Survey (map)

Key Staff Contacts: Kristen Rohanna, (619) 699-6918, [email protected] Anne Steinberger, (619) 699-1937, [email protected]

10 Attachment 1

SANDAG needs your input in planning the region's transportation future. Your answers will help policymakers determine priorities. Thank you for participating in the survey.

1. How long have you lived in the San Diego region?

Less than 1 year 5 to 9 years 1 to 2 years 10 to 14 years 3 to 4 years 15 years or longer

2. How would you rate the overall quality of life in the San Diego region?

Excellent Poor Good Very Poor Fair Don’t Know

3. How would you rate the following transportation system components in the San Diego region? Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor Not Sure

The overall transportation system

Freeways

Local streets and roads

The public transit system

continued on reverse 1 11 SANDAG is in the process of developing an RTP which will identify priority transportation projects. We need your input in this process.

4. Please indicate whether the following transportation projects should be a high, medium, or low priority for funding. Or, you can indicate if no funding should be spent on a project. Please keep in mind that not all projects can be high priorities.

No Funding High Medium Low Should Not Priority Priority Priority Be Spent Sure Improving public transit services including bus, Trolley, COASTER

(train), and SPRINTER (train)

Improving major streets and local roads

Improving major freeways and highways

5. If you indicated that MORE THAN ONE of the above projects should be high priority, please select which project should be the highest priority.

Improving public transit services (including bus, Trolley, COASTER (train), and SPRINTER (train) Improving major streets and local roads Improving major freeways and highways

6. Please indicate whether the following transit and freeway improvements should be a high, medium, or low priority for funding. Or, you can indicate if no funding should be spent on a project. Please keep in mind that not all improvements can be high priorities. No Funding High Medium Low Should Not Priority Priority Priority Be Spent Sure Increasing the frequency of Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER train services

Increasing the frequency of bus service

Expanding high-speed express bus service on freeways and major streets Expanding Trolley and bus routes so they can service more areas

Adding lanes to existing freeways

Adding lanes to existing freeways that are dedicated for carpools, vanpools, and buses Improving the transportation system so that it allows for better distribution of commercial goods and freight Removing bottlenecks in freeways where lanes merge together and cause congestion

2 12 7. How important should the following factors be when policymakers are developing transportation policies and plans for the San Diego region?

Not Extremely Very Somewhat Important Not Important Important Important At All Sure

Reducing traffic congestion

Increasing the availability of alternative ways for

people to travel, such as by transit or bicycling Reducing the negative impact that travel and

transportation have on the environment Making sure the transportation system supports the

needs of our local economy

Improving the safety of the transportation system

Making travel times more consistent and predictable

8. How informed do you feel about greenhouse gases and their relationship to climate change?

Well informed Not at all informed Somewhat informed Not sure Slightly informed

9. Are you aware that California passed a new law that requires San Diego and other regions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks?

Yes No Not sure

continued on reverse 3 13

There are a variety of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. The next two questions ask for input regarding these policies or programs.

10. Would you support or oppose the following approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks? Definitely Probably Probably Definitely Not Support Support Oppose Oppose Sure

Expand programs that encourage carpooling and vanpooling

Expand programs that encourage telecommuting and flexible

work hours

Expand programs and complete projects that encourage

walking or bicycling

Make improvements to the transit system so that it attracts

more riders

When housing is developed, concentrate it near existing

employment centers and areas that are well-served by transit

Make road improvements that reduce bottlenecks and

improve traffic flow Expand the ability for solo drivers to pay a fee to use carpool

lanes, and dedicate the money to improving the transportation

system Convert existing general purpose freeway lanes to carpool lanes to encourage carpooling and reduce the number of vehicles on freeways Build new carpool lanes to encourage carpooling and reduce

the number of vehicles on freeways

Encourage the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles such as

hybrid and electric cars

11. In order to encourage people to drive less and provide funding for the programs in the previous question, would you support or oppose the following possible funding sources? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly No Support Support Oppose Oppose Opinion Establishing a new fee based on the number of miles a vehicle is driven – the more a person drives the more they would pay

Establishing parking fees in urban and commercial areas

Increasing the tax paid per gallon of gas

4 14 12. Which of the following best describes your employment status?

Employed full-time Homemaker (please skip to question 14) (please go to question 13) Employed part-time Retired (please skip to question 14) (please go to question 13) Student and employed full- or part-time In between jobs (please skip to question 14) (please go to question 13) Student and not employed

(please skip to question 14)

13. What form of transportation do you use MOST OFTEN when traveling in the San Diego region?

Drive alone (auto/truck/van/SUV) (please skip to question 17) Carpool with ONE other person (please skip to question 17) Carpool with TWO OR MORE other people (please skip to question 17) Public transit (bus, Trolley, COASTER, or SPRINTER (please skip to question 17) Motorcycle or scooter (please skip to question 17) Bicycle (please skip to question 17) Walk (please skip to question 17) Other (please describe then skip to question 17)

14. What form of transportation do you use MOST OFTEN when traveling to work or school in the San Diego region?

Drive alone (auto/truck/van/SUV) (please go to question 15) Carpool with ONE other person (please skip to question 17) Carpool with TWO OR MORE other people (please skip to question 17) Public transit (bus, Trolley, COASTER, or SPRINTER (please skip to question 17) Motorcycle or scooter (please skip to question 17) Bicycle (please skip to question 17) Walk (please skip to question 17) Other (please describe then skip to question 17)

15. Do you pay for parking at work or school?

No (please go to question 16) Yes (please fill out amount below and then skip to question 17) If yes, how much do you pay per MONTH: $

16. Would you still drive alone to work or school if you had to pay a fee for parking, such as $10 per day?

Yes No Depends

continued on reverse 5 15

We recognize that people have very demanding schedules and lifestyles. Making changes to reduce the amount they drive can be difficult for many people and impossible for others. For the next few questions, please indicate whether you can realistically make changes to your travel behavior.

17. Realistically, in the next six months are you willing to reduce the amount that you drive a personal vehicle through such methods as carpooling, taking transit, combining trips (i.e., visiting grocery store and bank on same trip instead of separate trips), riding a bicycle, walking, or other methods?

Yes (please go to question 18) No (please skip to question 19 if you are a student or are employed – all others skip to question 22) Don’t Know (please go to question 18)

18. In the next six months, realistically, are you likely or unlikely to use the following methods to reduce the amount that you drive?

Doesn’t Very Somewhat Not Apply I Don’t Already Likely Likely Likely To Me Know Do It

Increase your use of public transit

Join a carpool or vanpool for your commute

Ride a bike at least once per week for a trip that you

would normally make by car

At least once per week, link several trips together – such as going shopping and to post office – that you would normally make separately

At least once per week, walk for a trip that you

normally would make by car

Work from home at least once per week

Adopt a flexible work schedule so you can avoid

driving during rush hour traffic

6 16 19. Realistically, would you carpool, vanpool, take transit, or ride a bike to work or school more often if the following conditions existed? Employer Much Somewhat Doesn’t School/ More More Apply I Don’t Already Often Often No To Me Know Does It

Your employer provided you with a cash incentive of $60

per month to give up parking at your place of employment

Your employer or school paid for a portion of your transit pass in exchange for your giving up parking at their location Your employer or school paid the total cost of your transit pass in exchange for your giving up parking at their location

Your employer offered a cash incentive to carpool or

vanpool

Your employer or school offered reserved parking spaces

for carpools

Your employer or school paid for a portion of the cost for

you participating in a vanpool

Your employer or school offered guaranteed rides home

for emergency situations

Your employer or school provided free shuttles to work or

school from major transit stations

Your employer or school provided safe locations to park

bicycles

You could be matched in a carpool or vanpool with

neighbors going to the same destination

20. Would you work from home at least one day per week if your employer allowed you to telecommute?

Yes Not sure No I am not employed

21. Would you alter your work schedule to avoid rush-hour traffic if your employer allowed it?

Yes Not sure No I am not employed

continued on reverse 7 17 We only have a few more questions to ask. We would like to learn more about your background.

22. How did you first hear about this survey?

SANDAG Web site School SANDAG presentation Facebook An e-mail from SANDAG Twitter Community event Newspaper

Other (please describe) ______

23. What is your home ZIP Code?

24. Do you own or rent at your current residence?

Own Rent Other (please describe)

25. Which of the following best describes your current home?

Single-family detached home Mobile home Single-family attached home Other (please describe):

Apartment or condominium

26. Do you consider yourself … ?

White/Caucasian Asian Hispanic Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Mixed Heritage American Indian or Alaskan Native Other (please specify):

27. What is the total annual income of all the people living in your household?

Less than $25,000 $100,000 to $149,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $200,000 or more $75,000 to $99,999 Decline to state

28. Do you have any other comments regarding transportation in the San Diego region?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY!

8 18 Aª A¦ !"a$ Attachment 2

Orange County Riverside County

!"a$ Aª North County West A¨ 24.5% North County East 1.4% !"^$ A¨ A© Aª A© !"a$ A© Aª !"^$ A© Imperial County ?t North City ?z East County Aª 27.6% !"^$ !"a$ 9.0% %&s( ?h !"_$ A× Aù !"_$ ?j Central AÀ 27.2% Public Input Respondents AÀ by San Diego County Subregion A§ ?j A× AÀ !"_$ South County 0 5 10 15 Miles 10.3% AÀ KM !"^$ %&s( 0 5 10 15 20 ¯

19 Aª A¦ !"a$

Orange County Riverside County

!"a$ Aª A¨

Camp Pendleton !"^$ A¨ Vista

Oceanside A© San Marcos Escondido Aª Carlsbad A© !"a$ A© Aª Encinitas !"^$ A© Imperial Solana Beach Poway County of San Diego County Public Input Respondents Del Mar ?t by ZIP code Percent of Total Responses ?z Aª !"^$ !"a$ No Responses %&s( ?h Santee San !"_$ 0.04% - 0.5% Diego A× El 0.6% - 1% Aù !"_$ La Cajon Mesa ?j AÀLemon 1.1% - 2.5% Grove

2.6% - 5% National City Coronado AÀ 5.1% - 9.2% A§ ?j A× AÀ !"_$ Chula 0 5 10 15 Vista Miles AÀ KM Imperial !"^$ %&s( 0 5 10 15 20 ¯ Beach

20 Public Input Questionnaire ZIP Code Distribution Home ZIP CODE Number Percent Home ZIP CODE Number Percent Did not provide 280 11% 92025 Escondido S 18 1% Outside County 56 2% 92026 Escondido N 15 1% 91901 Alpine 9 0% 92027 Escondido E 13 0% 91902 Bonita 12 0% 92028 Fallbrook 12 0% 91905 Boulevard 2 0% 92029 Escondido W 7 0% 91906 Campo 3 0% 92036 Julian 3 0% 91910 Chula Vista N 70 3% 92037 La Jolla 33 1% 91911 Chula Vista S 65 2% 92040 Lakeside 11 0% 91913 Chula Vista - Eastlake 19 1% 92054 Oceanside S 25 1% 91914 Chula Vista NE 5 0% 92055 Camp Pendleton 0 0% 91915 Chula Vista SE 14 1% 92056 Oceanside E 20 1% 91916 Descanso 2 0% 92057 Oceanside N 20 1% 91917 Dulzura 0 0% 92058 Oceanside (Central) 2 0% 91931 Guatay 0 0% 92059 Pala 4 0% 91932 Imperial Beach 9 0% 92060 Palomar Mountain 0 0% 91934 Jacumba 0 0% 92061 Pauma Valley 2 0% 91935 Jamul 4 0% 92064 Poway 28 1% 91941 La Mesa, Mount Helix 32 1% 92065 Ramona 18 1% 91942 La Mesa, Grossmont 18 1% 92066 Ranchita 0 0% 91945 Lemon Grove 9 0% 92067 Rancho Santa Fe 3 0% 91948 Mount Laguna 1 0% 92069 San Marcos N 18 1% 91950 National City 17 1% 92070 Santa Ysabel 2 0% 91962 Pine Valley 0 0% 92071 Santee 20 1% 91963 Potrero 2 0% 92075 Solana Beach 210 8% 91977 Spring Valley 8 0% 92078 San Marcos S 9 0% 91978 Rancho San Diego 2 0% 92081 Vista S 13 0% 91980 Tecate 1 0% 92082 Valley Center 10 0% 92003 Bonsall 1 0% 92083 Vista W 7 0% 92004 Borrego Springs 2 0% 92084 Vista E 9 0% 92007 Cardiff 15 1% 92086 Warner Springs 0 0% 92008 Carlsbad NW 22 1% 92091 Rancho Santa Fe 2 0% 92009 Carlsbad SE 24 1% 92093 UCSD 0 0% 92010 Carlsbad NE 7 0% 92096 CSUSM 0 0% 92011 Carlsbad SW 20 1% 92101 Downtown 68 3% 92014 Del Mar 86 3% 92102 Golden Hill 45 2% 92019 El Cajon 17 1% 92103 Hillcrest, Mission Hills 106 4% 92020 El Cajon 31 1% 92104 North Park 109 4% 92021 El Cajon 13 0% 92105 City Heights 40 2% 92024 Encinitas 80 3% 92106 Point Loma 18 1%

21 Public Input Questionnaire ZIP Code Distribution Home ZIP CODE Number Percent 92107 Ocean Beach 33 1% 92108 Mission Valley 18 1% 92109 Pacific Beach, Mission Beach 58 2% 92110 Morena 12 0% 92111 Linda Vista 34 1% 92113 Logan Heights 11 0% 92114 Encanto 20 1% 92115 College 40 2% 92116 Kensington, Normal Heights 90 3% 92117 Clairemont 39 1% 92118 Coronado 19 1% 92119 San Carlos 20 1% 92120 Allied Gardens, Del Cerro 20 1% 92121 Sorrento Valley 5 0% 92122 University City 64 2% 92123 Serra Mesa 18 1% 92124 Tierrasanta 21 1% 92126 Mira Mesa 29 1% 92127 Rancho Bernardo W 18 1% 92128 Rancho Bernardo E 21 1% 92129 Penasquitos 32 1% 92130 Carmel Valley 55 2% 92131 Scripps Ranch 21 1% 92134 Balboa Hospital 0 0% 92135 North Island 0 0% 92136 32nd Street Naval Base 0 0% 92139 Paradise Hills 9 0% 92140 MCRD 0 0% 92145 Miramar 0 0% 92154 Nestor 29 1% 92155 US Naval Amphibious Base 0 0% 92161 VA Hospital 0 0% 92173 San Ysidro 0 0% 92182 SDSU 0 0% 92259 Ocotillo 0 0% 92536 Aguanga 0 0% 92672 San Clemente 2 0% Total Respondents 2,617 100%

22 Attachment 3

Planning Areas for Representative Telephone Public Opinion Survey – 200 respondents from each area and weighted by population.

23