Final I-15 IRP Phase III Report

Home , Carrizo Gorge Railway, Interstate 15, Interstate 215 (Utah)

Transportation

Housing

Economy

I-15 Interregional

Partnership I-15 Phase III

Final Report Interregional Partnership February 2010

I-15 IRP JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

The primary goal of the I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) Joint Policy Committee is to review and provide policy input on Phase III of the I-15 IRP Project. The two regions seek to collaborate on mutually beneficial housing, transportation, and economic planning to improve the quality of life for the region’s residents through the identification and implementation of short-, medium-, and long-range policy strategies. The committee will meet three times during the duration of Phase III at dates and times to be mutually determined. Staff contacts: Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG (619) 699-1909; [email protected] Kevin Viera, WRCOG (951) 955-8305; [email protected]

MEMBERS Scott Mann (alt.) Councilmember, City of Menifee San Diego Association of Governments WRCOG Executive Committee (SANDAG)

Sam Abed Riverside County Transportation Commission Councilmember, City of Escondido (RCTC) SANDAG Borders Committee Rick Gibbs

Councilmember, City of Murrieta Dave Allan RCTC Commissioner Councilmember, City of La Mesa

SANDAG Borders Committee Ron Roberts

Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula Crystal Crawford RCTC Commissioner Mayor, City of Del Mar

Jeff Stone (alt.) Patricia McCoy (alt.) Supervisor, Riverside County Councilmember, City of Imperial Beach RCTC Commissioner Chair, SANDAG Borders Committee

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Western Riverside Council of Government (WRCOG) Jeff Comerchero Councilmember, City of Temecula Thomas Buckley Chair, RTA Board of Directors Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore

WRCOG Executive Committee Bob Buster

Supervisor, Riverside County Chuck Washington First Vice Chair, RTA Board of Directors Councilmember, City of Temecula

WRCOG Executive Committee

AGENCY EXECUTIVES Scott Farman (alt.) Mayor, City of Wildomar SANDAG Gary L. Gallegos WRCOG Executive Committee WRCOG Rick Bishop RCTC Anne Mayer RTA Larry Rubio

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The I-15 IRP would like to thank Caltrans for its sponsorship of Phase III through a grant to SANDAG, WRCOG, and RCTC. As of April 21, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION – THE INTERSTATE 15 INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP ...... 1-1

BACKGROUND ...... 2-1 Phase I - Developing the Partnership...... 2-1 Policy Structure...... 2-1 Commuter Survey Results ...... 2-2 Issues Identified...... 2-3 Strategies Developed ...... 2-3 Phase II - Implementation...... 2-5 Enhanced Policy Structure ...... 2-5 Accomplishments...... 2-5 Phase III - Strategic Action Plans ...... 2-6 I-15 Joint Policy Committee ...... 2-6 Scope of Work - Deliverables ...... 2-7

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY...... 3-1 Introduction...... 3-1 Tasks ...... 3-2 Key Findings and Issues Identified ...... 3-2 Overview of Industry Cluster Initiative ...... 3-2 Part 1 - The Foundation for the Interregional Economic Development Initiative ...... 3-3 Core Objectives of the Interregional Economic Development Initiative...... 3-4 Part 2 - Industry Clusters: An Interregional Approach to Economic Development ...... 3-5 Alternative and Renewable Power Generation ...... 3-5 Biotechnology and Medical Devices Manufacturing ...... 3-8 Travel, Tourism, Entertainment, and Wineries ...... 3-10 Communication Strategies ...... 3-13 Development of Business Portal...... 3-14 Next Steps ...... 3-14

TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY ...... 4-1 Introduction...... 4-1 Task - Scope of Work ...... 4-1 Existing Project Study Reports...... 4-2

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III i Table of Contents

Goods Movement Data Summary ...... 4-4 Park-and-Ride Facilities...... 4-6 Analysis of Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure Development...... 4-6 Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Overall Funding Strategy...... 4-10 Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 4-13

HOUSING STRATEGY...... 5-1 Introduction...... 5-1 Workforce Housing ...... 5-1 Tasks ...... 5-2 Initiation and Identification of Potential Sites...... 5-2 Site Analysis ...... 5-2 Financial Feasibility, Implementation Strategy, and Request for Proposal Approach ...... 5-5 Final Proposal ...... 5-5 Key Findings...... 5-5 Results ...... 5-9 Next Steps ...... 5-9 Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map ...... 5-9 Tasks ...... 5-10 Key Findings/Issues Identified...... 5-11 Smart Growth Opportunity Areas...... 5-11 Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordination...... 5-12 Results ...... 5-13 Next Steps ...... 5-13

PERFORMANCE MONITORING ...... 6-1 Introduction...... 6-1 Indicators - I-15 IRP Performance Measures ...... 6-1 Economic Development ...... 6-1 Transportation...... 6-2 Average Weekday Peak-Period Traffic at the County Line...... 6-2 Number of Interregional Vanpools...... 6-3 Daily Interregional Transit Ridership ...... 6-3 Peak-Period Vehicle Occupancy at the County Line ...... 6-4 Housing ...... 6-4 Conclusion and Next Steps ...... 6-5

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ...... 7-1

ii I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III List of Tables, Figures, and Attachments

TABLES 1. I-15 IRP Strategies Developed in Phase I...... 2-4 2. Varied Planning Approaches and Agency Responsibilities ...... 4-10 3. Summary of Multimodal Alternatives for the I-15 Corridor ...... 4-11 4. Smart Growth Place Types for Western Riverside and San Diego ...... 5-11 5. Possible Next Steps...... 7-2

FIGURES 1. I-15 IRP Study Area and Corridor...... 1-2 2. Compilation of PSRs on I-15 Corridor for Riverside and San Diego Counties ...... 4-3 3. Evaluation of Candidate Sites Table ...... 5-3 4. Workforce Housing Candidate Sites Map...... 5-4 5. Moderate-Income Restrictions...... 5-7 6. Total Economic and Affordability Gap ...... 5-8 7. I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area Map...... 5-10 8. Peak-Period County Line Traffic ...... 6-2 9. Interregional Vanpools...... 6-3 10. Interregional Transit Ridership...... 6-4 11. Riverside-San Diego Region Housing Affordability Index ...... 6-5

ATTACHMENTS 1. 2008 Park-and-Ride Inventory for San Diego County ...... 7-7 2. 2009 Park-and-Ride Inventory for Southwest Riverside County ...... 7-8 3. Cost Effectiveness Index - Multimodal Alternatives for the I-15 Corridor Table ...... 7-9 4. Workforce Housing Candidate Sites Map...... 7-10 5. Workforce Housing Implementation Strategy Table...... 7-11 6. Checklist of Key Components for Request for Qualifications/Proposals ...... 7-16 7. I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area Map...... 7-19 8. I-15 IRP Economic Development Working Group Membership ...... 7-20 9. I-15 IRP Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group Membership...... 7-23

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III iii List of Tables, Figures, and Attachments

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

iv I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

INTRODUCTION – THE INTERSTATE 15 INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIP

The Interstate 15 Interregional Partnership (I-15 IRP) was formed in 2001 to address the imbalance of jobs and housing that has developed between the San Diego region and Southwest Riverside County in the past decade and the lengthy commute that has resulted. The I-15 IRP is a voluntary compact between local elected officials representing the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and other affected governmental agencies and private sector organizations also participate in the partnership.

The primary goal of the I-15 IRP is to foster collaborative strategies in economic development, transportation, and housing that will improve the quality of life of residents in both counties. The partnership promotes a more sustainable land use pattern, providing appropriate employment closer to where people live and more affordable housing closer to employment in jobs-rich areas throughout the study corridor. By doing so, workers would have more opportunities to live closer to work, reducing the need for long-distance, interregional commuting. Centered on I-15, this two-county commute corridor extends from central San Diego to the cities of Lake Elsinore, Perris, and Hemet as shown in Figure 1.

Phase I of the I-15 IRP was funded by a grant from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The focus of Phase I, based on a three-year work plan, was to: develop a policy structure and mechanism for technical support; explore existing conditions; understand the interregional commuter problem; identify current programs to resolve interregional issues; forecast commute conditions; develop strategies to better balance jobs and housing; and establish an implementation and monitoring process.

Phase II, funded by a grant from Caltrans, sought to strengthen and expand the scope of the interregional institutional arrangement between SANDAG and WRCOG. In the area of economic development, an Economic Development Working Group (EDWG) was established as a structure for pursuing cooperative economic development strategies, and a two-county Employment Cluster Study was completed, which provided recommendations for economic prosperity in both regions. The transportation component focused on a cooperative study undertaken by Caltrans to assist San Diego and Southwest Riverside to better understand the multimodal infrastructure and service needs in the I-15 corridor. The housing component provided a summary of housing and land use programs that could be implemented in the San Diego region and Southwest Riverside. At the end of Phase II, the committee approved a set of next steps for Phase III.

This report documents the results of Phase III of the I-15 IRP. The Background chapter provides an overview of Phases I and II, with particular emphasis on the policy structure, establishing existing conditions, and the development of the key strategies to be addressed in the interregional partnership. The following chapters document the advances made in the implementation of the area strategies, including economic development, transportation, and housing. The Performance Monitoring chapter updates measures for monitoring. The report concludes with recommendations for next steps to continue the I-15 IRP through Phase IV.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 1-1 Introduction – The Interstate 15 Interregional Partnership

Figure 1 I-15 IRP Study Area and Corridor

1-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

BACKGROUND

This chapter provides background information on Phases I and II of the I-15 IRP and then outlines the policy structure and objectives for Phase III.

PHASE I - DEVELOPING THE PARTNERSHIP

The two regions sought to collaborate on mutually beneficial housing, transportation, and economic planning to improve the quality of life for the region’s residents through the identification and implementation of short- and long-range policy strategies. The I-15 IRP developed a three-year work program that culminated in the identification of strategies to better balance jobs and housing in the I-15 corridor communities. Phase I of the I-15 IRP was funded primarily through a grant from the California HCD as part of the state’s Jobs-Housing Balance Grant Program, with matching in-kind services from WRCOG and SANDAG.

Policy Structure

Working through a committee structure of elected officials from both regions, the I-15 IRP identified issues related to jobs-housing balance and traffic congestion along the I-15 corridor, recommended strategies and model approaches to address the issues, and proposed inclusion of its recommendations into existing jurisdictional and agency plans and programs.

Composed of SANDAG's Borders Committee and elected officials from WRCOG and Riverside County member agencies, the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee was set up as the policy advisory forum. The Joint Policy Committee met quarterly to discuss policy issues and consider recommendations from staff and the I-15 IRP Technical Working Group (I-15 IRP TWG).

During Phase I, the I-15 IRP TWG consisted of staff from SANDAG, WRCOG, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), other governmental agencies, and private organizations. Agencies represented on the I-15 IRP TWG included Caltrans, transit agencies, cities, and economic development agencies. The I-15 IRP TWG reviewed and provided comments on staff reports and recommendations and provided recommendations to the Joint Policy Committee for consideration.

The Joint Policy Committee and I-15 IRP TWG played an active role in identifying and evaluating potential interregional strategies. Over a period of more than a year, the I-15 IRP considered potential strategies to better balance housing and jobs within San Diego and Southwest Riverside Counties. In addition, the I-15 IRP evaluated potential transportation strategies to mitigate the long-distance commute that has resulted from the existing imbalance of jobs and housing between the two regions.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 2-1 Background

Commuter Survey Results

The jobs-housing imbalance between the San Diego region and Riverside County has developed in large part because an adequate supply of relatively affordable housing has not been built to match the employment growth in the San Diego region, combined with relatively low-cost and plentiful, single-family housing developments in Southwest Riverside County. The number of commuters on I-15 indicates that this trend has increased in recent years.

To better understand commuter behavior and the motivations behind increased interregional commuting, a telephone survey of 2,010 adults residing in West Riverside County was conducted in 2002. The survey was designed to profile residents and interregional commuters to gain a better understanding of the factors, rationales, and decisions of long-distance commuters that lead them to live so far from where they work. The main findings of the commuter survey which informed the development of the collaborative interregional strategies were:

1. Greater housing availability and lower housing prices in Southwest Riverside County compared to the San Diego region are key factors in the growth of interregional commuting.

2. The ability to own a single-family, detached home is very important to I-15 interregional commuters. Survey results showed that just over 90 percent would prefer owning a single-family, detached home compared to an attached home, such as a townhome or condominium.

3. There is a growing number of interregional commuters, most of whom have moved from the San Diego region. It was estimated that 29,000 residents of Southwest Riverside County commute daily into the San Diego region.

4. I-15 interregional commuters are concentrated in the Temecula/Murrieta area and are traveling to employment destinations throughout the San Diego region. Approximately 60 percent of the estimated 29,000 interregional commuters on the I-15 live in the cities of Temecula or Murrieta or the adjacent, unincorporated area.

5. I-15 interregional commuters are very satisfied living in Riverside County. When comparing the two regions, twice as many I-15 interregional commuters felt Southwest Riverside County is a better place to live than San Diego County than the reverse.

6. A high percentage of interregional commuters drive alone. At the time of the survey, approximately 85 percent of the I-15 interregional commuters regularly drove alone to work, and 13 percent carpooled. This compares to 76 percent and 12 percent for residents of the San Diego region.

7. I-15 peak-period traffic congestion is severe south of State Route 78 (SR-78). SANDAG travel forecasts show conditions worsening north of Escondido, particularly in the northbound direction. The level of Service F is shown in both directions south of the county line.

8. I-15 interregional commuters differ from other residents in several ways. They are more likely to: be employed in high-tech/computers/internet industries; be employed in occupations that require training and education; earn more annual income as a group from their jobs; and have been at their jobs longer.

2-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Background

This information, along with pertinent land use, transportation, and economic data, was used to develop and evaluate strategies to bring housing and jobs into better balance in both regions.

Issues Identified

The I-15 IRP identified the following issues:

Commuting Patterns and Trends: One of the major purposes of the Existing Conditions Report, which was prepared during Phase I, was to define and document the evolving commuting pattern between many employment destinations in San Diego and residential areas in Southwest Riverside County.

Employment Growth Policies in Both Regions: To improve the jobs-housing balance between Southwest Riverside County and the San Diego region, additional employment opportunities need to be provided in West Riverside County.

Housing Growth Policies in Both Regions: Concurrent with providing additional employment opportunities in West Riverside County to improve the jobs-housing balance, the San Diego region needs to provide additional housing opportunities.

Transportation Congestion: One significant byproduct of the increasing number of persons commuting to jobs in the San Diego region from Riverside County is increased congestion along I-15.

Strategies Developed

During Phase I, the I-15 IRP developed, refined, and evaluated various strategies designed to improve the jobs-housing balance between the San Diego and Southwest Riverside regions. The strategies in the I-15 IRP program were developed through a cooperative, multiagency, planning process. Initially, staff identified potential strategies based on a literature search and review of the existing regional transportation plans (RTPs) and other regional planning and policy documents.

These strategies were designed to accomplish two key goals:

reduce the impacts of interregional commuting

reduce the demand for interregional commuting by creating more jobs in housing-rich areas and more housing in jobs-rich areas

The I-15 IRP program identified a total of 21 interregional strategies for short- and long-range implementation. These strategies were organized into four categories: program, housing, economic development, and transportation as shown in Table 1. They were not prioritized, as all play a worthwhile role and are intended to work together to address the interregional commute. Potential strategies that would mitigate the current jobs-housing imbalance generally promote housing construction in the San Diego region and economic development in Southwest Riverside County. These strategies are listed on the following table as ED1, ED2, and H1 through H5.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 2-3 Background

Table 1 I-15 IRP Strategies Developed in Phase I

STRATEGIES BY DESCRIPTION CATEGORY

Program X P1 Support/sponsor legislation that addresses jobs-housing balance X P2 Actively engage in community outreach

Economic Development X ED1 Facilitate greater collaboration between regional economic development entities X ED2 Improve job growth through the promotion of new employment opportunities in the cluster industries that drive the biregional economies

Transportation

Short-Range X ST1 Interregional coordination of vanpool and carpool programs X ST2 Expand park-and-ride lots and improve rideshare information signage X ST3 Joint outreach and marketing for transit, vanpool, and ridesharing programs X ST4 Implement interregional public transit commuter services X ST5 Collaboration among transit providers X ST6 Advocate for employer-subsidized transit passes X ST7 Encourage the adoption of alternative work schedules X ST8 Encourage telework

Long-Range X LT9 Support high-speed rail transit service in the I-15 corridor X LT10 Implement transit shuttle services to interregional transit X LT11 Preserve transportation Rights-of-Way and implement priority measures through the development process X LT12 Implement the I-15 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) system

Housing X H1 Provide a range of housing affordability and housing types in all communities X H2 Support fiscal reform to encourage housing construction X H3 Provide incentives for the construction of moderate-cost family housing near employment centers X H4 Require the construction of moderate-cost family housing in new development near employment centers X H5 Encourage infill development in older residential neighborhoods

Eight short-range transportation strategies were adopted by the Joint Policy Committee in early 2003 and are being implemented by local and regional transportation agencies. The short-range strategies primarily focus on the coordination of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities already being undertaken by SANDAG and RCTC. They include joint rideshare marketing, transit operator collaboration, and additional interregional transit service. In Table 1, the short-range strategies are strategies that are being undertaken now, but also may require ongoing commitment to ensure their successful implementation.

2-4 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Background

The long-range strategies are generally those that will require ongoing implementation, but for which we may not see results for several years. An example of a truly long-range strategy is the high-speed rail project. Development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) also is a long-range project, but is expected to occur in the next 10 to 20 years.

PHASE II - IMPLEMENTATION

In 2004, SANDAG and WRCOG were awarded a Caltrans grant to fund a second phase of the I-15 IRP. The primary objectives of this $240,000 grant award were to strengthen the existing government-to-government relationship between SANDAG and WRCOG; expand the focus of the interregional planning agenda into the area of economic development; and continue to implement the various short- and long-range strategies identified in Phase I. In addition, in conjunction with this Phase II planning effort, Caltrans agreed to prepare the I-15 Cooperative County Line Study, which would analyze existing and forecasted conditions on the I-15 highway corridor between Southwest Riverside County and North San Diego County, and would lay out possible actions to address existing and future congestion problems on this corridor.

Enhanced Policy Structure

Given the objectives of Phase II, the policy and technical structure for implementation were enhanced from Phase I. The policy structure for Phase II included convening the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee, as well as providing regular updates to the WRCOG Executive Council and the SANDAG Borders Committee. At a technical level, several structures were created to support the Phase II work plan: the EDWG was created and staffed by WRCOG to support the pursuit of the economic development strategies; a Project Development Team was formed among key staff from all participating agencies in the partnership to support the actions related to the transportation strategies; and SANDAG utilized its existing Regional Housing Working Group to monitor and provide input for the housing strategies in North San Diego.

Accomplishments

The focus of Phase II was to implement the short-term strategies in all of the strategic areas identified in Phase I and to lay the foundation to implement various long-term strategies.

In the area of economic development, there were two strategic areas in which the I-15 IRP advanced during Phase II. First, was the establishment of the EDWG as a structure for pursuing long-term, cooperative, economic development strategies. Second, was completion of a two-county Employment Cluster Study, which identified key clusters shared by both economies and provided recommendations on how to pursue economic prosperity in both regions.

The transportation component focused on a cooperative study undertaken by Caltrans to assist San Diego and Southwest Riverside to better understand the infrastructure needs for improvements to the I-15 at the county line. The I-15 County Line Study identified potential, multimodal transportation improvements based on traffic projections and known programmed- and measure- funded projects. In addition, progress was made on interregional cooperation on various short-term strategies, including TDM; expanding park-and-ride facilities; and joint outreach and marketing for transit, vanpools, and ridesharing. In addition, longer-term options such as high-speed rail service in

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 2-5 Background the I-15 corridor were discussed. RCTC conducted feasibility studies to evaluate the potential for commuter rail service from Temecula to San Diego, from Riverside to Temecula along Interstate 215 (I-215), and from Corona to Temecula along the I-15 corridor. The study concluded that only commuter rail service from Riverside to Temecula was feasible at this time. The two other commuter lines were determined to be cost prohibitive when the total cost of construction was compared to the potential ridership.

The focus of the housing strategy in Phase II was to provide a summary of housing and land use programs that could be implemented in the San Diego region and Southwest Riverside. SANDAG and WRCOG identified specific opportunities for workforce housing in North San Diego County along the SPRINTER commuter rail line and held discussions with two major employers, Cal State San Marcos and Palomar Pomerado Health, about their workforce housing needs. The two agencies and the city of Temecula also discussed opportunities for transit-oriented development (TOD) along I-15 in Southwest Riverside County and the potential to prepare a map similar to SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map.

In addition to the three focus area strategies, baseline data was established for implementation and performance measures that were developed during Phase I in collaboration with all responsible agencies and approved by the I-15 IRP Policy Committee. As the partnership gains monitoring experience, targets will likely be established to further encourage action toward achieving partnership goals.

At the end of Phase II, the committee identified a set of next steps for Phase III, which were approved by the Joint Policy Committee and the participating agencies.

PHASE III - STRATEGIC ACTION PLANS

For Phase III, WRCOG, RCTC, and SANDAG were awarded two additional Caltrans grants to pursue the activities identified in the next steps from Phase II. The first grant in the amount of $450,000 allowed WRCOG and SANDAG to continue with activities in all three of the focus areas: economic development, transportation, and housing. The second grant in the amount of $125,000 allowed SANDAG and RCTC to improve the vanpool programs that the two agencies administer and look at how vanpool/carpool ridership can be shifted into transit options such as express bus or BRT. As the lead agency, WRCOG oversaw the work on the $450,000 grant coordinating with SANDAG and the other partner agencies. In addition, WRCOG sought additional funding to leverage this grant through a request made to SCAG to support smart growth planning in Southwest Riverside County. The $125,000 transit planning grant was managed by SANDAG in partnership with RCTC. Phase III activities were coordinated through an overall, multiagency work program, which incorporated the objectives of the two grants.

I-15 Joint Policy Committee

At a policy level, the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee was convened. The Joint Policy Committee included three elected officials from the San Diego region and three from the Southwest Riverside County region, designated by the boards of the four participating agencies in the I-15 IRP: SANDAG, WRCOG, RCTC, and RTA.

2-6 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Background

The responsibilities of the committee included reviewing and providing policy-level feedback on all areas of the project, including the Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP), the economic development action plan, Smart Growth Opportunities Area Map, and workforce housing study. The committee met four times to receive reports and provide input to staff on the development of each area of the grant activities and the overall direction of the partnership.

Scope of Work - Deliverables

Economic Development Strategy

Through the I-15 IRP, opportunities exist to improve the economy of both the Riverside and San Diego Counties. Based on information obtained from the cluster analysis in Phase II, it was recommended that cooperative initiatives be undertaken in the following areas:

Provide employment opportunities that would ensure a rising standard of living

Identify ways to develop, shape, and expand traded clusters

Develop and support shared infrastructure investments

Develop workforce training and education programs targeting the labor force requirements of selected traded clusters

The focus of economic development activities in Phase III was to facilitate the development of a collaborative strategic action plan between regional economic entities to encourage greater cooperation between corresponding industry clusters. The Economic Development chapter summarizes efforts made to strengthen the membership in the EDWG to include key organizations from San Diego, as well as Riverside. With the assistance of a consultant, the EDWG developed a strategic action plan through a series of workshops with cluster industries. A Web portal tool was incorporated into the strategic action plan. Business data from Riverside industries gathered in the employment cluster study was added to a regional Web portal for cluster industries to encourage business-to-business communication and collaboration.1

Transportation Strategy

The focus of the transportation component for Phase III was to develop a SIP to improve the transportation system in a 5- to 15-year time horizon.2 The Transportation chapter documents existing plans and studies and developed, preferred, transportation strategies for the county line area, including an overall cost effectiveness evaluation and funding strategy. It details how and when various transportation projects within the county line area could be implemented on an interregional basis to improve the functioning of the system. Other tasks that were incorporated into this overall SIP were an analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure

1 The full Economic Development Strategic Action Plan is Appendix A of this document and is available in electronic format on the I-15 IRP Web site (www.i15irp.org). 2 The full SIP is Appendix B of this document and available in electronic format on the I-15 IRP Web site (www.i15irp.org).

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 2-7 Background development and an evaluation of existing and potential park-and-ride facilities, including an analysis of maintenance issues. An analysis of specific transportation issues related to goods movement also was conducted as a part of the STIP.

An interregional transit, vanpool, and buspool operations analysis was conducted to improve interregional transportation alternatives and increase transit ridership. This was under a separate grant, but the findings were incorporated into the SIP. SANDAG, the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), and the North County Transit District (NCTD) have developed an I-15 BRT Operations Plan that identified a significant transit demand between Riverside and San Diego Counties. This study built upon this work and designed effective alternatives to single-occupant driving patterns by recommending vanpool, buspool, and BRT, or other rideshare options for the interregional fleet. The study also identified how best to serve other commute markets such as military installations or business parks, with vanpools and buspools.3

Housing Strategy

The Phase III Housing Strategy built upon existing programs and other identified sources of funding, giving San Diego and Riverside the opportunity to make substantial progress in facilitating smart growth development along transit corridors in both regions. The goals were to: (a) partner with regional stakeholders and local jurisdictions to develop pilot workforce housing project(s) in North San Diego County and (b) work to develop a preliminary Smart Growth Concept Map for select Southwest Riverside County cities. The Housing Strategy chapter outlines the activities and accomplishments in these two subfocus areas of housing.

One major task of Phase III is to establish a process and financing strategy to develop workforce housing projects in North San Diego County. Earlier phases of the IRP showed that employers are having difficulty recruiting employees because of the lack of affordable housing in North San Diego County. This results in more people moving to Riverside and making the commute south, putting strain on the transportation link between the two counties. In an effort to mitigate issues associated with the jobs/housing imbalance, Phase III sought to develop a partnership among selected agencies/stakeholders outlining an agreement to develop workforce housing project(s) and complete a grant proposal(s) with the stakeholders for funding for a pilot workforce housing project(s).

The second focus area was on tailoring SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map methodology to Riverside County to facilitate the creation of a preliminary Smart Growth Opportunities Area Map for select Riverside cities. The map would identify place types, target land uses, and potential locations along transportation corridors, particularly along I-15. Workshops were held to gather input and identify transit-supportive land uses and development opportunities. A preliminary Smart Growth Opportunities Area Map was created through a partnership between WRCOG and several cities in Southwest Riverside in the I-15 corridor with the technical support from SANDAG staff. This exercise will serve as a foundation for future work planned through SCAG as they prepare to work with local Riverside jurisdictions on the preparation of their Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as required by Senate Bill 375 (SB 375).4

3 This report can be found on the I-15 IRP Web site, www.i15irp.com. 4 The full report on the development of the Smart Growth Opportunities Area Map is Appendix D of this document.

2-8 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Background

Performance Measures and Monitoring

Implementation and performance measures were developed during Phase I in collaboration with all responsible agencies and approved by the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee. The Performance Monitoring chapter provides updated data for selected indicators, based on the baseline data produced for Phase II. This chapter monitors the progress made from Phase II. As the partnership gains monitoring experience, targets will likely be established to further encourage action toward achieving partnership goals.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The Conclusion chapter draws on the findings and recommendations outlined for each subcomponent of the project and outlines next steps for the I-15 IRP, as approved by the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee and the respective agencies who have partnered in this effort.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 2-9

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Regions like Riverside and San Diego face increasing domestic and global competition. While globalization has become increasingly popular, few understand that regionalization is the other side of the coin. Some have observed that it is really regions that are impacted by the forces of globalization and that only regions have the necessary scale and diversity to compete in the global marketplace. Regions have an asset profile more capable of competing globally than do individual counties or cities, which may lack essential infrastructure or a sufficiently large pool of skilled labor.

How “regions” define themselves becomes the basis for identifying their competitive assets. From an economic point of view, Riverside and San Diego are directly related to the greater Los Angeles area as a way to access both domestic and international marketplaces. Currently, San Diego is becoming increasingly dependent on both Riverside and Baja California to supply important parts of its labor pool. These regional relationships should be taken into consideration when the Riverside-San Diego region attempts to define itself. These relationships provide the scale and diversity to compete in an increasingly competitive and global marketplace.

For this reason, one of the strategic areas of the I-15 IRP is developing a cooperative economic development strategy for the San Diego-Riverside region. In Phase I, the following strategies were developed:

Strategy ED1: Facilitate greater collaboration between regional economic development entities

Strategy ED2: Improve job growth through the promotion of new employment opportunities in the cluster industries that drive the biregional economies

During Phase II, a two-county Employment Cluster Study was undertaken to identify the employment clusters of Riverside, and a biregional approach was used to analyze the relationships between the clusters in the two counties. In addition, a working group was formed of economic development organizations in the two counties to serve as the major driver of strategic initiatives.

In Phase III, the I-15 IRP moved forward on the Economic Development component of the project— an industry, cluster-focused approach to interregional economic development.1 This initiative is specifically focused on improving job growth through the promotion of new employment opportunities in industry clusters that complement existing industries or look to foster new industries that can drive economic growth in Riverside and San Diego counties.

1 For more background on the industry cluster approach and its role in economic development, please see the IRP Phase II - Final Report by SANDAG, March 2007 - Appendix A Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-1 Economic Development Strategy

TASKS

The primary tasks for the economic development component of the I-15 IRP consisted of:

Convening a series of workshops to develop strategies for a select two- to three-industry clusters that were identified in the Employment Cluster Study done for Phase II

Selecting a core group of economic development representatives to oversee the selection of the industry clusters

Bringing together stakeholders that represent businesses that are associated with the selected industry clusters

Developing a strategic action plan that will provide the foundation for the further development of the selected industry clusters

Developing an outreach approach to promote the selected industry clusters and allow for future expansion as the initiative expands to other industries

Establishing a Web portal for businesses located in the Southwest Riverside County area

KEY FINDINGS AND ISSUES IDENTIFIED

Overview of Industry Cluster Initiative

Early on, stakeholders from the initiative identified the key outcomes that would determine the strategies to be developed as part of the initiative. To follow are the key outcomes that the stakeholders will be working to accomplish:

Increase the number of high-quality jobs in the region with opportunities for continuing career pathways. Provide job opportunities that will allow people to live closer to their home and reduce the number of long-distance commuters

Expand regional employment opportunities in an effort to reduce commute congestion on I-15

Strengthen regional economic diversity to improve resiliency to economic challenges and downturns

From these shared outcomes, the interregional economic development stakeholders discussed and considered 16 industry clusters and ultimately agreed upon the three below that would be the focus of the initiative:

1. Alternative and renewable power generation.

2. Biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing.

3. Travel, tourism, entertainment, and wineries.

This chapter summarizes the process of planning and developing an interregional economic development initiative for the three industry clusters identified as key economic drivers for the Riverside and San Diego regions. The interregional economic development action plan is the first step in creating a more vibrant, robust, and integrated economic environment.

3-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Economic Development Strategy

This chapter consists of two of the three parts that describe the interregional economic development initiative and what has been developed through this process:

1. A description of the core themes that provided the foundation for the initiative and some of the research and information that helped guide it along the way.

2. The second part of the report introduces the interregional action plan developed for each of the three industry clusters. The interregional action plan for each cluster includes the strategies and ideas that were considered, as well as those that are recommended in the next steps.

3. A final section describes the process for the interregional economic development initiative and is included in the full report (Appendix A).

PART 1 - THE FOUNDATION FOR THE INTERREGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

The current economic environment in Riverside and San Diego Counties has changed substantially over the last 18 months. Despite these substantial changes, the fundamental objectives of the IRP, more specifically the goals of the interregional economic development initiative, remain unchanged. The objectives include a continued and long-range commitment to increasing the number of high-quality jobs in the two regions, retaining jobs that already exist, improving local employment opportunities that reduce commute congestion, and strengthening economic diversity in each region. These goals are consistent with the I-15 IRP’s strategies to develop an economic base that can reduce congestion and job loss and increase collaboration between regional economic development entities.

Employment and productivity are at the heart of this interregional economic development initiative. The strategies that were developed and agreed upon by the stakeholders shared some key outcomes, including:

1. Expanding interregional connectivity through increased communication, collaboration, and additional infrastructure. The importance of greater interregional connectivity can be found in many of the strategies. Examples include strategies focused on improving transportation infrastructure for the travel, tourism, entertainment, and wineries industry cluster and developing stronger relationships between the biotechnology, research-focused, and device manufacturers.

2. Increasing current and future productivity through improved workforce development and education. Each industry cluster identified the importance of improving and expanding the pipeline for a skilled workforce while also providing opportunities to develop the workers already in each industry. A skilled and productive workforce is one of, if not THE most important determinant of success for any industry cluster or individual organization.

3. Creating and collaborating on more effective communications strategies to expand the number of current and potential customers for the greater region. Effective communication strategies are a critical component of any export-oriented organization. The travel, tourism, entertainment, and wineries industry cluster is focused on developing coordinated, complimentary messages that increase the destination appeal of North San Diego and Southwest Riverside.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-3 Economic Development Strategy

Core Objectives of the Interregional Economic Development Initiative

The interregional economic development initiative is built on several core objectives that can be traced back to the common outcomes agreed upon by stakeholders, as well as the research completed by SANDAG in 2007. The SANDAG research made the case for a collaborative economic development initiative based on the promotion and advancement of specific industry clusters. The core themes for the project include:

1. Targeted promotion and advancement of key export-oriented or traded industry clusters can have a significant overall impact upon the economy and the employment picture.

Export-oriented clusters have the ability to tap into larger markets beyond those that serve our local population. These industry clusters not only drive wealth creation in a region, they also often have relatively large multiplier effects on employment. By focusing limited economic development resources on these key clusters, the region can be more effective in assisting regional economic growth and providing stronger employment opportunities.

2. Industry clusters face varying market conditions and require specific strategies to maximize their opportunity for growth.

Every industry faces different challenges and opportunities. The one-size-fits-all approach to economic development is typically not very effective, especially with emerging industries that have very specific needs and requirements. The initiative is focused on understanding and responding to the critical needs and opportunities that can be found by closely examining specific industry clusters.

3. Identify and build upon the resources that are available within the greater region.

4. Focus on strategies and programs that are best developed and implemented interregionally and respect those programs that are best maintained at the local level.

Stakeholders agreed that several aspects of economic development should be evaluated and developed interregionally. Stakeholders were concerned that strategies requiring significant upfront coordination or those that focused on detailing “how” industries and employers should work were less likely to be successful.

5. Support the creation and development of an interregional structure that will improve planning and coordination of economic development strategies and potentially provide additional resources.

3-4 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Economic Development Strategy

The five core themes provide a foundation for the planning that was developed during the interregional economic development initiative. The next section of the report describes the industry clusters and their specific economic development plans.

PART 2 - INDUSTRY CLUSTERS: AN INTERREGIONAL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The role of location has been long overlooked, despite striking evidence that innovation and competitive success in so many fields are geographically concentrated. 2

The three industry clusters at the focus of this initiative share several key characteristics:

1. Each cluster has uniquely positive attributes in either Riverside or San Diego or in the greater region (both Riverside and San Diego Counties).

2. They are export-oriented clusters that currently or potentially have a considerable impact upon the interregional economy.

3. Each cluster has industry leaders that are willing to work collaboratively to develop a stronger infrastructure and environment for industry growth and development.

Alternative and Renewable Power Generation

The alternative and renewable power generation industry cluster includes those firms that are involved in the design, building, and operations of wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal power generation facilities. It also includes those firms engaged in the research, development, and initial operations associated with biomass and biofuels.

Industry Cluster Profile3

In 2005, about 75 percent of regional employment in this cluster was located in San Diego County and 25 percent in Riverside County. Total employment between the two counties was 5,800 persons at this time, with an average wage of $70,600 per year, or 178 percent of the two-county average of wages in all industries. This cluster’s growth is largely attributed to:

A. Legislative requirements such as those found in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) that require increased use of cleaner sources of energy for the state’s overall energy portfolio. More recent opportunities like Assembly Bill 811 (AB 811) and Assembly Bill 1106 (AB 1106) provide more recent examples of legislation that will be the focus of economic development strategies in the near future.

B. Increased volatility in the price of traditional fossil fuels and foreign dependence encourages development of new alternative energy sources.

2 Michael E. Porter, “Clusters and the new economics of competition” Harvard Business Review; Volume 76, Issue 6. Boston; Nov/Dec 1998. http://polaris.umuc.edu/~fbetz/references/Porter.html 3 All data for each of the Industry Cluster Profiles are taken from SANDAG, March 2007, Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development. IRP Phase II - Final Report: Appendix A.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-5 Economic Development Strategy

C. Increased demand from consumers for alternative energy sources that have a reduced impact upon global warming/climate change and our environment in general.

Industry and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders indicated three immediate priorities for this industry cluster:

Legislation, both pending and approved, like AB 811, AB 32, SB 375, and AB 1106, can potentially have a significant impact on the development of this industry. Stakeholders indicated from the outset that a coordinated, interregional effort focused on relevant legislation and discretionary funding opportunities (i.e., grants) could play a valuable role in the advancement and development of this emerging energy industry cluster.

Stakeholders expressed a coordinated communication effort to educate people about the opportunities in alternative and renewable power generation.

As an industry that has changed dramatically over the last two years, there are several questions about the size and make up of employers and employment opportunities connected to alternative and renewable energy generation.

Stakeholders identified numerous strategies that were discussed and considered as part of this initiative. These strategies include:

1. Education and Workforce Development: This strategy should look to address workforce gaps and maximize the use of funding for individuals.

2. Manufacturing: Develop a strategy that identifies ways to increase the number of renewable energy manufacturing employers and jobs in the greater region.

4. Communication and Outreach: Develop a strategy to effectively communicate the benefits associated with a stronger alternative power generation cluster in the greater region.

5. Inventory of Resources: This resource could provide a clear assessment of where gaps may exist.

6. Incentive Program: Develop a package of incentives for businesses to locate into the region.

7. Communicate With Labor/Apprenticeship Providers: Develop training and certification for technicians in manufacturing and installation of alternative energy products.

8. Public/Private Partnership: Consider strategic targets for employment and potential public/private partnerships.

3-6 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Economic Development Strategy

Interregional Strategies for Alternative and Renewable Power Generation

The strategy development group for alternative and renewable power generation developed a plan that focuses on four key components. These components include the creation of a comprehensive interregional assessment for renewable power generation and the development of three industry cluster strategies that would be based on and guided by this assessment.

Comprehensive Interregional Assessment

Riverside and San Diego Counties need to create a combined strategic assessment and plan for alternative and renewable power generation. This plan would detail the alternative and renewable energy resources currently in place, those that need to be developed, and identify resources available.

The most immediate strategies for growing alternative power generation in the greater region should focus on the following three areas:

1. Education and Training: Workforce development remains a key issue for this industry cluster. The challenge is developing and implementing programs that are up-to-date and that change with the industry. The education and workforce planning needs to be based on the industry assessment of what we expect to develop moving forward.

2. Legislative and Grant Opportunities: Legislation and grant funding play a vital role in developing this emerging industry cluster. The stakeholders talked about the importance of actively understanding and advocating for legislation to help grow alternative power generation in the region.

3. Marketing and Branding: This strategy places great emphasis on making the industry and residents aware of the renewable energy resources that exist in San Diego and Riverside and what will be coming online in the near future. The place branding strategy should communicate to both the renewable energy industry and potential customers.

Issues to Overcome

A comprehensive interregional assessment on alternative and renewable power generation will require resources to complete. Once it is completed, a working group will need to evaluate and finalize the assessment results and organize an interregional response around the committee structure focused on legislation and grant opportunities; outreach and branding; and education training and workforce development.

Next Steps

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-7 Economic Development Strategy

energy production. Lastly, the assessment would identify the obstacles for increasing renewable energy production while examining the most cost-effective and sustainable methods for increasing renewable energy production.

2. Identify the resources and individuals that will participate in interregional planning and coordinating for the three focus areas:

a. Legislation and Grant Opportunities: This committee would identify legislation in both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., that could have a positive or negative impact on renewable energy production and organize an interregional response. This group also would be responsible for identifying and responding to grant opportunities that would support the renewable energy industry in Riverside and San Diego.

b. Outreach and Branding: This committee would develop and implement a place branding strategy that would communicate the economic and environmental benefits associated with renewable energy. The communication strategies would focus on both regional and interregional decision makers, as well as residents and potential customers.

c. Education, Training, and Workforce Development: This committee would be composed of renewable energy employers and educators. They would be focused on evaluating current training and educational programs to ensure that employers have a qualified workforce. This group would evaluate current capacity for training and educational programs, as well as provide feedback on the skill sets that should be developed at colleges and through regional training programs.

Biotechnology and Medical Devices Manufacturing

This combined industry cluster includes firms that are engaged in the life sciences with biotechnology research and the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals, as well as those firms manufacturing biomedical products and surgical and medical devices.

Industry Cluster Profile4

In 2005, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals (biotechnology) in the region was located primarily (93 percent) in San Diego County, with the remainder (7 percent) in Riverside County. It is dominated by physical, engineering, and biological research (73 percent). It is complemented by manufacturers of in-vivo diagnostic substances (8 percent) and pharmaceutical preparations (7 percent). The cluster employed 31,800 persons in 2005, with an average wage of $81,000 per year, or 204 percent of the average for the two-county region.

4 All data for each of the Industry Cluster Profiles are taken from SANDAG, March 2007, Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development. IRP Phase II - Final Report: Appendix A.

3-8 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Economic Development Strategy

Total employment in the cluster was 8,600 persons, with an average wage of $54,700 per year, or 138 percent of the two-county average. More recent data show increases in employment in medical devices.

This is a high-wage cluster with relatively large economic multipliers. Economic forecasts for this industry are generally more robust than other advanced manufacturing industries. This cluster includes some of the strongest industries for job growth in manufacturing. Pharmaceuticals, in particular, were noted as a manufacturing industry expected to grow and see significant increases in employment.5

Industry and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders indicated that even in the current labor market of high unemployment, finding and/or recruiting of qualified applicants remains a challenge. There was a strong consensus that biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing remains a critical component in the regional economy and one in which planners and decision makers must remain committed to support.

Stakeholders identified several strategies that should be considered moving forward. In no particular order or priority, the strategies include:

1. Education and Workforce Development: Work with local educational institutions to develop basic and technician-level skills for opportunities in manufacturing of medical devices, primarily in Southwest Riverside, that can support the research and development firms in the region. San Diego is focused on research and development and creating higher skills and more educated applicants within the region.

2. Connecting Clusters and New Technology: Look at the opportunities in renewable energy (e.g., algae, biofuels, etc.) and those associated with nanotechnology as potential drivers of industry cluster growth.

3. Inventory of Resources: Develop an inventory of the employers, education, training resources, and support services that are connected to biotechnology and medical devices. This resource could provide a clear assessment of where gaps may exist. Identifying strategies to ensure the availability of process water as a resource is very important to the continued growth of biotechnology and life sciences research.

4. Legislation and Local Policies That Support Expansion and Growth of Current Firms: This strategy is focused on identifying key legislative and policy issues that both regions can more effectively champion together than individually.

5. Effective Communication and Outreach to Applicants and New Employers: This is an area that will require strong collaboration between the private and public sector for continued growth in this industry cluster. Both regions face challenges in recruiting the right employees for this industry cluster and a regional communication and outreach effort should be developed.

5 Source: July 2009: Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors, Preparing the Workers of Today for the Jobs of Tomorrow.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-9 Economic Development Strategy

Interregional Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Devices Manufacturing

The strategy development group for biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing was focused on developing the connectivity between current biotechnology firms that are largely concentrated in San Diego County and generally focused on research and development with the contract and device manufacturing firms that are well represented in Southwest Riverside County.

Issues to Overcome

Overall connectivity between San Diego and Riverside Counties in the biotechnology industry is relatively low. Riverside County employers are primarily focused on contract manufacturing and the medical devices industry, while San Diego employers are more focused on research and development in the biotechnology industry. Employers and industry leaders from the two counties have indicated different challenges as they relate to economic and workforce development, and there is little to no agreement on what the interregional strategies should be moving forward. In general, San Diego biotechnology firms showed little interest in developing interregional strategies focused on cluster-specific economic development.

Next Steps

1. Develop and expand public and private partnerships between biotechnology and medical devices employers and interregional educators to provide industry-specific training and educational opportunities. This strategy would look to develop and implement new approaches for educating and training interregional residents for the employment opportunities in biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing by working with interregional employers to develop programs that are relevant to the skills that are needed today by employers.

2. Create and support opportunities to connect the research and development firms in San Diego (biotechnology) to the production and manufacturing employers (medical devices manufacturing) in Riverside. This strategy requires interregional employers in biotechnology and medical devices to become more aware of the partnership opportunities that exist between employers. In general, employer awareness of partnership opportunities does not currently extend beyond county borders.

Travel, Tourism, Entertainment, and Wineries

This combined industry cluster includes those firms that are focused on serving tourists in the region, including transportation and lodging services, as well as firms that provide recreation, leisure, and entertainment services.

3-10 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Economic Development Strategy

Industry Cluster Profile6

In 2005, travel and hospitality in the region saw nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of employment located in San Diego County. Primarily, hotels and motels represent the cluster (both with and without casinos; 89 percent of employment). The cluster also includes travel agencies and other travel arrangement services (6 percent). The cluster employed 49,000 persons in 2005, with an average wage of $25,000 per year, or 63 percent of the two-county average.

For the same year, entertainment and recreation had about two-thirds (68 percent) of employment located in San Diego County and the remainder (32 percent) in Riverside County. The largest industries are casinos (39 percent of employment), golf courses and country clubs (16 percent), amusement and theme parks (10 percent), and zoos and botanical gardens (4 percent). Total employment in entertainment and recreation was 51,800 in 2005, with an average wage of $27,500 per year, or 69 percent of the two-county average.

Wineries and grape vineyards also are grouped in this cluster. The average wage of wineries and grape vineyards is $17,800 per year, or about one-half of the county average in Riverside.

According to the 2005 data, this combined industry cluster employs more than 100,000 people and based on preliminary analysis, it was more than 110,000 in 2008. The two counties also have several unique and world-class resources related to tourism, entertainment, and wineries.

This is generally a low-wage industry with relatively low economic multipliers. While this industry has some career pathways, they tend to be somewhat limited in terms of overall opportunities.

Industry and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders indicated they were concerned with the low, relative wages in the industry and the ability to recruit more educated applicants. Several stakeholders also indicated that the two counties could become more appealing to potential visitors if they could communicate the strengths of each county and bundle the unique attributes as a single destination. There also was additional input that the two regions (Southwest Riverside and North San Diego along the I-15) should focus on incorporating the opportunities associated with outdoor recreation and the open spaces that define the region.

Stakeholders identified several strategies that should be considered for moving forward. The following strategies are not in any particular order or priority, and the strategies include:

1. Workforce and Education Development: Create a coordinated, biregional approach to understanding what employers are looking for, what skills and certificates are needed, and what career pathways should be communicated to workers.

2. Transition to Higher Paying Opportunities: Evaluate programs that move entry-level hospitality workers into higher paying, more sustainable jobs while developing greater skills and abilities.

6 All data for each of the Industry Cluster Profiles are taken from SANDAG, March 2007, Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development. IRP Phase II - Final Report: Appendix A

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-11 Economic Development Strategy

3. Entrepreneurial Strategies and Self-Employment: Develop a strategy that identifies ways of increasing the number of tourism, wineries, and entertainment employers and jobs in the greater region.

4. Communication and Outreach: Develop strategies to market the region and bundle the activities together that will draw tourists to Riverside and San Diego.

5. Inventory of Resources: Develop an inventory of the employers, education, training resources, and support services that are connected to tourism, wineries, and entertainment.

6. Use of Waste Products for Biomass Energy Production: Explore opportunities for biomass energy to be developed at interregional wineries.

7. University Partnerships for Industry Research and Job Training: Identify and determine universities’ willingness to take an active role in industry research (viticulture), as well as identify higher-level training programs.

8. Transportation Assessment: Evaluate the transportation infrastructure needed to connect tourists to all the attractions (particularly in Riverside) and identify opportunities for funding and developing needed transportation infrastructure.

Interregional Strategies for Travel, Tourism, Entertainment, and Wineries

The strategy development group for travel, tourism, entertainment, and wineries proposed three key components that would drive the interregional response to economic development for this industry cluster. The group was supportive of most, if not all, of the strategies identified earlier, but felt the following three were the most relevant for the initiative:

1. Coordinate Consistent Communication and Outreach That Strengthens Destination Appeal: This strategy would look to build upon the work that has already been done and identify opportunities to consistently brand the greater region and/or develop complimentary messaging.

2. Entrepreneurial Strategies and Self-Employment: This strategy is focused on training and developing entrepreneurs and individuals looking for self-employment within this industry. The focus from this item would be on providing traditional entrepreneurial training and education to individuals who want to focus on new businesses within this industry cluster.

3. Transportation Improvements: Transportation infrastructure is an important component to developing better opportunities for visitors who are coming to the two regions. Developing and/or expanding the use of airports, bike paths, and improved public transportation options would serve residents and visitors while reinforcing the outdoor and recreational appeal of the region.

Issues to Overcome

3-12 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Economic Development Strategy

There remains also a generally competitive environment between regional organizations and employers in the tourism industry, as funding for message development and communications is typically tied to specific cities and counties and creates competition between neighboring counties.

Next Steps

1. Develop an interregional online portal that highlights the destination appeal of the tourism opportunities in Southwest Riverside and Northeast San Diego. This online portal would connect and reinforce the key messages that have been developed in branding both regions while also communicating the variety of entertainment activities that exist at regional wineries, casinos, outdoor recreational activities, and natural open spaces. This online portal not only would serve as a way to communicate with potential visitors, but also provide a valuable resource for industry employers who are looking to collaborate other leisure and recreational partners looking to serve the tourist industry.

2. Examine potential partnerships between regional universities and wineries to develop a research institution in viticulture. This potential partnership could follow a model like the one between Mondavi and University of California at Davis. There also should be consideration given to potential partnerships at regional colleges and universities to evaluate expanding entrepreneurial training and education for the travel, tourism, entertainment, and wineries industry cluster.

3. Develop an interregional transportation strategic plan for the tourism and visitor industry. This plan would evaluate cost-effective strategies to expand transportation options for visitors who are coming to Southwest Riverside and Northeast San Diego. The plan would examine interregional walking and bike paths, access to public transportation, as well as access to airports in or near the focus area of the study. Ultimately, the study would be used to begin developing the infrastructure improvements that will increase visitors’ ability to move around interregionally.

Communication Strategies

Along with the recommendations and next steps from each of the industry clusters, communication strategies were being developed for the initiative.

A marketing and communications strategy has been developed for targeted audiences, stakeholders, and key influencers that need to be engaged to bring the economic development strategies to fruition. The two-pronged approach includes:

1. Broad-based communication strategies to inform the community about the initiatives.

2. Individual outreach tools for each of the three identified industry clusters.

To date, items that have been developed include the following:

Redesign of the I-15 Web site to include the economic development strategies

Process to drive traffic to the Web site and engage target audiences with the strategies

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 3-13 Economic Development Strategy

Press release to announce the project and garner input from an online survey

Templates for developing an outreach plan for each industry cluster, including target audience identification, goals/objectives, outreach tools needed, and return on investment metrics

Ultimately, the recommendations for the industry cluster communication strategies are based on the belief that messaging should be targeted and segmented to the appropriate audiences. Any outreach tools designed (virtual and/or written) should be clearly focused with the central consideration of to whom we are talking.

Development of Business Portal

Another area that the I-15 IRP has been working on is the establishment of a business portal for the Southwest Riverside County area. This was included as part of the stakeholder group’s work, but they were informed of this additional effort by staff. Working with the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) of Southwest California and the Connectory.com™ Network located in El Cajon, a business-to-business Web portal is being established. The Connectory.com™ focuses on primary industry/technology companies and their suppliers of goods and services. It combines the unparalleled speed and navigation capability of the Internet with a high-quality company database that focuses on company capabilities and capacities at every level of the supply chain.

The goal for the I-15 IRP is to create a site that businesses and the government can access to locate businesses located in the southwest area of Riverside County that can supply companies from San Diego and around the world with goods and services. A number of businesses in San Diego have benefited from similar portals to attract business opportunities.

The Web portal will consist of a Home Page that will link to a Search page, Stakeholders page, Links page, and a Success Story page. The Search page will allow users to search for businesses based on the zip codes for Southwest Riverside County. The stakeholders are those defined by the Southwest Riverside County area. The San Diego East County EDC, which oversees Connectory.com™, will manage the pages internally and update the stakeholder data on a quarterly basis as new ones are added to the site.

Next Steps

Identify funding sources (federal, state, and local) for continued updating of database and expansion of Web site product options and opportunities. One potential funding source could be the development of the Regional Economic District for the Southwest Riverside and North San Diego Counties.

3-14 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

Despite the downturn in the economy, interregional commuting continues to be a major source of congestion in the I-15 corridor. Indeed, in a recent commuter survey conducted by WRCOG, the number of Riverside residents commuting to San Diego to work has increased from 29,000 to 37,000.1 Riverside and San Diego need to collaborate on interregional strategies for increasing the performance of the overall transportation system.

In Phase II, a County Line Cooperative Study was conducted by Caltrans Districts 8 and 11 to assist San Diego and Riverside to better understand the infrastructure needs for improvements to the I-15 corridor at the county line. The study demonstrated that without improvements, congested conditions would begin to occur some time between the years 2010 and 2015. As large, capacity-improving projects typically require longer lead time and a larger amount of time, money, and staff resources, it was recommended that short-term tactics also be considered such as operational, Intelligent Transportation System, and certain types of transit projects.

The I-15 IRP Transportation Strategies developed in Phase I addressed in Phase III were:

STRATEGY ST1: Interregional coordination of vanpool and carpool programs

STRATEGY ST5: Collaboration among transit providers

STRATEGY LT11: Preserve transportation Rights-of-Way and implement priority measures through the development process

STRATEGY LT12: Implement the I-15 HOV/Managed Lanes System

TASKS - SCOPE OF WORK

Building upon the County Line Cooperative Study, the transportation emphasis for Phase III activities focused on the development of a SIP for short-term improvements. The SIP consisted of the following required deliverables:

Compile and document existing Project Study Reports (PSRs) in the study corridor

Inclusion of goods movement data summary

Analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure development

Cost effectiveness analysis and overall funding strategy

1 “The Choices We Make: Commuting, Housing, and Employment: Final Report,” conducted for WRCOG by True North Research, August 11, 2008 (dated collected in 2007). PDF available from WRCOG Web site (www.wrcog.gov) and I-15 IRP Web site (www.i15irp.org).

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-1 Transportation Strategy

In addition, the transportation report includes an overview of extensive work planned for the I-15 and State Route 91 (SR-91) corridors, an inventory of park-and-ride lot facilities serving the I-15 corridor, and an overview of SB 375 (Steinberg), the state legislation requiring the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and also highlights the varied planning and agency responsibilities between RCTC and SANDAG.

In partnership with WRCOG and SANDAG, RCTC served as the lead agency for the transportation component of Phase III activities. To assist with the work effort, RCTC retained the consulting firm Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). The full report is available in Appendix B. Following is an overview of the transportation report.

EXISTING PROJECT STUDY REPORTS

This task compiled and documented existing PSRs in the study corridor (Figure 2). The seven PSRs assembled in the report span from Lake Elsinore in Riverside County down to State Route 52 (SR-52) on the northern border of the city of San Diego. The PSRs reviewed consisted of the following:

Riverside County

PSR for I-15 between State Route 79 (SR-79) to north of the I-15/I-215 junction, April 2002

PSR for interchange improvements on I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road, September 2002

PSR for the I-15/SR-79 South interchange, February 2004

PSR to modify existing interchange at I-15/State Route 74 (SR-74) junction, January 2005

PSR to widen roadbeds and HOV lanes on I-15 between the I-15/I-215 split and Riverside county line, October 2007

San Diego County

North I-15 Corridor PSR between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, September 1998

I-15 Final Project Report between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003

Focusing on only PSRs highlights a potential shortcoming in the project analysis. For example, RCTC has launched a comprehensive effort to widen 43.5 miles of the I-15 from the San Bernardino County line all the way to the confluence of the I-15/I-215 interchange. The overall effort will include new toll lanes between State Route 60 and SR-74 and additional lane widening throughout the entire length of the facility. Along with the I-15 Improvement Project, RCTC is pursuing improvements to SR-91, which also includes an additional, general purpose lane, new toll lanes, improved access to the freeway, and a significant upgrade to the SR-91/I-15 interchange. The planned SR-91/I-15 improvements are so significant that it will include major investments on approximately six miles of the I-15 from the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in Norco all the way to the Cajalco interchange in Corona. Both of these projects have entered into the environmental analysis stage. An environmental document is expected to be approved for SR-91 in

4-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Transportation Strategy

2011 and in 2012 for the I-15 project. Construction on the SR-91 project will begin in 2011; construction on the I-15 project is scheduled for 2015. In both projects there is a large toll component, which has added a level of information that far surpasses what is available in a PSR. For example, traffic modeling has been completed to a much higher level on these projects as part of traffic and revenue analyses. Also, improvements on the I-15 have been made due to legislation approved in 2008 (Assembly Bill 1954 Jeffries) authorizing RCTC to develop a high occupancy toll (HOT) facility. Furthermore, SB X4 (Cogdill), which was approved in 2009 as part of a state budget amendment, creates a pilot program for design-build, public/private partnerships. In Riverside County, the I-15 is a potential candidate for this pilot program.

Figure 2 Compilation of PSRs on I-15 Corridor for Riverside and San Diego Counties

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-3 Transportation Strategy

Other Project-Related Analysis

Because PSRs provide a limited snapshot of projects planned for the I-15 corridor, the following Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and RTPs also were reviewed for the adjacent counties and metropolitan areas:

Orange County Transportation Authority 2006 LRTP

San Bernardino Associated Governments 2005 I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study RTP

SCAG 2008 RTP

SANDAG 2030 RTP (adopted in 2007)

Conclusions - PSRs

There is a lack of planned improvement, or gap, in the middle of the corridor between the I-15/I-215 interchange in Riverside County south to Escondido in San Diego County

If traffic increases at the rate projected in the PSRs, this area would see a continued reduction in level of service performance

PSRs are an incomplete source of information regarding project planning that has been well underway on projects along the I-15 in Riverside County

GOODS MOVEMENT DATA SUMMARY

The Goods Movement Data Summary task analyzed the importance of goods movement in planning for future transportation enhancements in the I-15 corridor. The Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan , which was part of a regional framework for goods movement initiatives, was used as a key resource for this work. This seven-county study looked at goods movement on Southern California’s regional infrastructure network through San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura, and Imperial Counties.

Riverside County’s freight corridors mostly run in an east/west orientation, while San Diego’s major corridors run more north/south. This creates two completely different outlooks when trying to compare freight movements in the study area. Riverside County has two major rail lines, expected to more than double in volume by 2035; however, the rail lines are not located in the I-15 corridor. Traffic on San Diego’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line also is expected to double by 2030, showing strong growth in the rail industry. In addition to BNSF, there are two shortline freight railroads in San Diego County; however, their annual haul is minimal. I-15 is a significant truck freight corridor. The daily average truck count on the I-15 corridor is 11,060 in San Diego County and 11,960 in Riverside County.

4-4 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Transportation Strategy

Riverside County - Rail Volume

Riverside County has three rail mainlines owned by BNSF and Union Pacific (UP). These include the BNSF Transcon, the UP Los Angeles Subdivision (UP LA Sub), and the UP El Paso Line. The BNSF Transcon is the artery linking the Los Angeles basin to all Midwestern, Southwestern, and Eastern markets on the BNSF rail system. UP LA Sub connects to the UP Sunset Corridor at Colton in the Los Angeles basin. The UP El Paso Line is part of the UP Sunset Corridor, which extends to El Paso. This route is designated as the primary, intermodal line between the Los Angeles basin and Eastern markets traversing through Riverside County. Freight traffic is projected to double in Riverside County by 2035. Rail freight passing through Riverside County is substantial and has implications on traffic congestion and safety issues at at-grade railroad crossings. Riverside County recently published the RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects in 2008 identifying key issues with goods movement and the critical need for additional funding to grade separate crossings. The movement of goods by rail in Riverside County is mostly in the east-west direction and does not overlap with goods movement along the I-15 corridor, and therefore, at-grade crossings are less of an issue for this corridor.

Riverside County - Truck Volume

Riverside County is a key freight corridor in Southern California. According to the 2006 goods movement study conducted by Cambridge Systematics2, in 2003 104 million tons of goods were shipped through Riverside County with 35 percent (36 million tons) shipped via truck and 65 percent (68 million tons) handled by rail passing through Riverside County. The percentage of trucks on I-15 through the county varies from 5.6 percent to 11.5 percent, with a general lowering of the number of trucks toward the San Diego County border. According to estimates using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Freight Analysis Framework data (2002 FAF2), approximately 19 percent of Riverside County’s Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) travels on the I-15 corridor.

San Diego County - Rail Volume

BNSF is the major carrier in San Diego County, and its mainline extends from the border with Orange County down the coast to National City. BNSF trains operate on the Los Angeles-San Diego- San Luis Obispo corridor parallel to the I-5 freeway. This 62-mile mainline is the only viable rail link between San Diego and the rest of the nation, with freight volumes exceeding 30,000 carloads annually. By 2030, the volume is estimated to be more than 60,000 carloads per year.3

The San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad (SDIV) is a shortline operator on the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway track in the United States. The SDIV has been owned and operated by RailAmerica (now Fortress Holdings) since 2000. At one time, the SDIV operated on two rail lines, but today operates on only one (the San Diego to El Cajon Line), which interchanges with the BNSF railway operations in San Diego. On this 15-mile long route, over 7,000 railcars were transported in 2007.4 This line is operated by the Carrizo Gorge Railway (CZRY), which is the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway’s operator in Mexico and Imperial Valley. The CZRY estimates between 5,000 and 6,000 railcars traveled into Mexico on the SDIV line in 2008.5

2 Critical Goods Movement Issues for Riverside County, RCTC, September 2006 3 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Intermodal Improvements Fact Sheet, March 2009 4 Rail America, www.railamerica.com/shippingservices/railservices/SDIY.aspx 5 Carrizo Gorge Railway Phone Interview with Maria Martinez, Head of U.S. Rail Traffic, May 22, 2009

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-5 Transportation Strategy

San Diego County - Truck Volume

San Diego County truck routes tend to be more north/south in orientation and are centered in the downtown San Diego area. The percentage of trucks on I-15 through San Diego County varies from 3.59 percent to 13.20 percent, with a general lowering of the number of trucks toward the Mexico border. According to estimates using FHWA’s 2002 FAF2 data, approximately 14 percent of San Diego County’s AADTT travels on the I-15 corridor.

Conclusions - Goods Movement Data Analysis

Due to the economic slump in California, and nationwide, truck volumes and rail traffic are on the short-term decline and may continue to slide for another year or more indicating ongoing economic fluctuations dictating future freight traffic. However, as the state and national economy regain their health, an eventual increase in demand for goods will ensue, leading to an increase in truck and rail traffic in the region. Riverside and San Diego Counties will be impacted by this long-term trend of goods movement-related traffic. It is recommended that future freight movement estimates be carried out periodically to address potential changes to freight demand as a result of changes in economic conditions.

PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES

RCTC provides funding to support park-and-ride facilities in Western Riverside County through a provision in Measure A, the county’s half-cent sales tax measure. These facilities are leased by RCTC and used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commute. RCTC’s commitment to the lease approach enables the agency to assess park-and-ride needs and facilities and establish locations quickly. Currently, RCTC leases spaces from five locations in Menifee and Temecula, providing over 270 park-and-ride spaces.

Caltrans District 11’s Planning Division oversees numerous park-and-ride facilities throughout San Diego County. Many of these facilities are located near transit centers providing a vital link to the commuting public. The Planning Division has established formal agreements with a number of cities, the county, and various private organizations to create the 67 active park-and-ride facilities. Of the 67 facilities, 33 are owned by the State of California, and 34 are owned by either a city, the county, or private organizations.

In partnership with RCTC’s Commuter Assistance Program, WRCOG developed Attachments 1 and 2, the 2008 Park-and-Ride Inventory for San Diego County and the 2009 Park-and-Ride Inventory for Southwest Riverside County.

ANALYSIS OF TRANSIT PRIORITY TREATMENTS AND TRANSIT LANE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

The Analysis of Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure focused on potential transit improvements, including the review and refinement of future BRT and/or commuter express transit plans in the I-15 and I-215 corridors. The review incorporated the results from WRCOG’s TOD Study and the Interregional Transit, Buspool, and Vanpool Study, which was conducted by SANDAG.

4-6 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Transportation Strategy

Additionally, the work was coordinated with the smart growth land use planning efforts underway in the I-15 and I-215 corridors, which looks to coordinate land use and transit planning. The analysis also included the development of preliminary phasing options for express bus and BRT services given existing and proposed infrastructure.

As illustrated in Table 2, Riverside and San Diego Counties are very different in some critical ways that will make integrating and sustaining intercounty transit service a challenge. First and foremost is the difference in planning responsibilities between the two counties. In San Diego County, the focus is led by SANDAG, which is a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), a council of governments (COG), a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA), and is also responsible for LRTP. The focus in San Diego County on the I-15 has been on the managed lanes concept with transit as a core component of future plans from Escondido to the south. In San Diego, expanded BRT operations will soon be a reality in the I-15 corridor, and bus on shoulder plans are being discussed. To a degree, making improvements to the I-15 freeway infrastructure in North San Diego County has been to improve transit operations. Transit works well on the southern portion of I-15 in San Diego County for many reasons:

A relatively dense spine of communities with many commuters headed from Escondido and points south to downtown San Diego

A well-established, eight-mile HOT lane stretch on the I-15 utilized by buses, especially during peak hours

A dedicated funding source in TransNet with transit as an important focus

A willingness, as evidenced by the passage of TransNet, to improve transit and look at options such as bus on shoulder

In short, SANDAG has partly focused on transit in the I-15 corridor because transit has been a successful, well used mode. As an example, the farebox recovery ratio on the MTS’s commuter services is approximately 46 percent. In comparison, in Riverside County, the regional transit provider for Western Riverside has a low farebox recovery ratio (less than 17 percent for blended rural/urban service) making it more difficult to establish new and expanded transit services such as intracounty BRT service.

RCTC is the RTPA for Riverside County; in addition, RCTC has transit oversight responsibility, however, it does not plan or operate transit services. There are seven public bus operators in Riverside County with each operator having a separate planning authority and governing board. For Western Riverside, RTA (a joint powers authority) has responsibility for transit planning and operation; RTA’s service area includes the I-15 corridor. Compared to the County of San Diego, Riverside County has a relatively low land use density with a more spread out pattern of development which is not easily served by transit.

In 1988 and again in 2002, more than two-thirds of Riverside County residents approved a half-cent sales tax initiative called Measure A to fund transportation projects. The Measure A Expenditure Plan is primarily a freeway/highway funding mechanism with some dedicated funding for transit and the Metrolink commuter rail system. As a result, the focus on the I-15 corridor in Riverside County has been centered on freeway improvements, including improving interchanges and constructing/expanding HOV lanes (which, when built, can be utilized by transit buses). RCTC also has plans to implement the use of HOT lanes on the I-15 and SR-91. Without a large amount of

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-7 Transportation Strategy dedicated funding for transit, it is difficult to increase services and gain transit mode share while meeting the state-mandated farebox recovery ratio. These issues, dedicated funding for transit and low land use density, are fundamental differences between the two counties in the provision of transit services. In addition, as illustrated under the Smart Growth section of this report, SANDAG and RCTC have different planning responsibilities related to reducing GHG.

Smart Growth - SB 375 (Steinberg) - California State Legislation

SB 375 is California state legislation that became law effective January 1, 2009. It requires the reduction of GHG emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce vehicle miles traveled. SB 375’s goal is to reduce GHGs by improving the connection between land use and transportation planning, resulting in more walkable, compact communities served by good, reliable transit, thus reducing the need to drive. SB 375 requires “California’s Air Resources Board … to develop regional reduction targets for GHG emissions, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. Under SB 375, California’s 18 MPOs have been tasked with creating … SCS[s]. The MPOs are required to develop the SCS through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035.”6 The SCS is a required, new element of the RTP.

SB 375 - Riverside County

SCAG is the nation’s largest MPO, representing six counties (Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura) and is responsible for a variety of planning and policy initiatives, including SB 375. Unique to the SCAG region, SB 375 affords the opportunity for a COG along with the county transportation commission, to develop a subregional SCS for incorporation into the regional SCS. In Riverside County, there are two COGs: the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), which serves the eastern portion of the county, and WRCOG serving the western portion of Riverside County.

To assist the COGs in defining their role in the SB 375 process, SCAG identified the following three variations/options of involvement for subregionals to consider:

1. Full Delegation. For Riverside County, this option would require that CVAG and WRCOG, in collaboration with RCTC, complete a comprehensive analysis of planned and programmed transit and planning projects throughout the two subregions. The jurisdictions would then be required to review and refine growth patterns to recommend areas for densification and identify future transportation projects and policies required to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The COGs and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) would be required to hold a series of scenario planning workshops together with a number of public hearings. In addition to the development of the SCS, the subregions also would be responsible for delegation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

2. Partial Delegation. This would require CVAG, WRCOG, and RCTC to undertake the aforementioned planning and transit review and recommendation without accepting delegation of the RHNA.

6 SCAG’s SB 375 Regional Implementation Plan. www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/index.htm

4-8 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Transportation Strategy

3. Collaborative Planning Process. This planning process provides a flexible range of options in developing a SCS. Specifically, SCAG would oversee the process relying heavily on input from the subregions, local jurisdictions, and CTC to identify planned and new transit projects, transportation plans, and policies that will reduce GHG emissions, provide assistance with workshops and outreach programs, review and refine local data, and provide input into the development of additional regional policies to reduce GHG emissions.

SB 375 - San Diego County

In the San Diego region, SANDAG is undertaking implementation of SB 375 and preparation of the SCS. Although the SCS is a new requirement, its origin lies in the regional planning processes already underway at SANDAG and other MPOs/COGs in the state, which set forth plans for future growth that integrate the transportation, land use, housing, environmental, and economic needs of each region. The SCS also is a continuation of the state’s Regional Blueprint Planning Program that has been funded with state grants using federal transportation planning funds since the program was initiated in 2005. The development of SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Smart Growth Concept Map were partially funded from those grants and will assist the region in its preparation of a SCS for the 2050 RTP.

SANDAG is the first major MPO in the state that is subject to SB 375. A SCS will be prepared as part of the region’s next RTP (2050 RTP), which is scheduled to be adopted in July 2011. The RHNA for the next housing element cycle is required to be consistent with the SCS and also will be adopted by July 2011. Another major component of this work is the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (Series 12), which will be used in the development of the RTP, SCS, and RHNA. (Reports about the relationship of SANDAG’s Overall Work Program (OWP) to SB 375, the RTP schedule, and the Series 12 growth forecast have been prepared and can be found on SANDAG’s Web site.7)

7 www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=360&fuseaction=projects.detail

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-9 Transportation Strategy

Table 2 Varied Planning Approaches and Agency Responsibilities

SANDAG RCTC

MPO, RTPA, and RTPA LRTP Responsibility High density - many commuters traveling to Low density - more spread out pattern of downtown San Diego development SB 375 - 1st major MPO subject to SB 375/SCS will SB 375 be part of RTP process WRCOG and CVAG: selected “collaborative” process TransNet - $14 billion/40 years (transit, highway, Measure A - $4.6 billion/30 years local roads, etc.) $390 million available in Western Riverside County for commuter assistance, rail, bus and specialized transit services Managed lane concept with transit as a core HOV/HOT lanes (transit enhancement) component (BRT, bus on shoulder)

Conclusions - Analysis of Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure Development

From a transit operator perspective, the two transit systems (RTA in Riverside County and MTS8 in San Diego County) have different operating costs, different metrics for measuring service, vastly different service areas, and serve different population densities. For example, San Diego County’s density along the I-15 corridor makes it an ideal candidate for BRT and express bus service, while Riverside County’s lower densities and dispersed activity centers make BRT and express bus service more difficult. It is understandable that Riverside County might view expanding vanpools as a key component for the solution to intracounty travel, while San Diego County views BRT and express bus as the critical component. Each county’s perspective is logical and reasonable. The challenge will be to find the middle ground that makes sense financially, operationally, institutionally, and politically.

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND OVERALL FUNDING STRATEGY

To complete the Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Overall Funding Strategy task, a series of multimodal alternatives were developed. As illustrated in Table 3, each alternative was subsequently reviewed in terms of cost effectiveness and funding potential. A No Build alternative was developed to identify those projects which are currently slated for implementation and to represent the baseline against which the other alternatives would be compared. The alternatives represent a range of costs and implementation timeframes, with low-cost, relatively easily implemented projects grouped in the Transportation System Management (TSM)/TDM alternative, with the more cost intensive and complex projects grouped under the Express Bus and BRT alternatives.

8 Note that in addition to MTS, NCTD also is a transit operator in San Diego County. MTS, however, has taken the lead in terms of interregional transit.

4-10 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Transportation Strategy

Table 3 Summary of Multimodal Alternatives for the I-15 Corridor

PROJECT COST ALTERNATIVES COMPARED TO HIGHWAY PROJECTS TRANSIT PROJECTS EFFECTIVENESS Highway Projects - I-15 widening and Vanpool Program No Build - Significant expense HOV/HOT lanes from (Riverside/San Diego) Planned/Funded serving high demand. San Bernardino Projects and county line to RTA’s Route 217 Programs Transit Projects - Murrieta (Riverside) (Riverside) Perform well given cost, but involve relatively I-15 widening and Escondido Rapid Bus small ridership or usage HOV/HOT lanes to (San Diego) numbers. Centre City Parkway (San Diego) Escondido to Downtown San Diego via SR-94 I-15 widening and (San Diego) HOV/HOT lanes to county line (San Diego) Low cost, easy to Park-and-ride lots Buspool Program TSM/TDM implement. Projects (Riverside/San Diego) (Riverside/San Diego) perform well in terms of effectiveness. Bus on shoulder Transit Route Expansion - (San Diego) 206/208 (Riverside) and 810 (San Diego) Significant cost yielding HOV lanes from New Route - Riverside to Express Bus significant mobility and Murrieta to county downtown San Diego environmental benefits. line (Riverside) (Riverside/San Diego)

Most expensive option HOV/HOT lanes plus BRT Expanded Into BRT of the three “build widening from Riverside County alternatives.” BRT Murrieta to county (Riverside/San Diego) provides for higher line (Riverside) usage and mobility compared to Express Bus alternative.

Following is an explanation of the multimodal alternatives:

No Build Alternative

This alternative consists of those projects which are currently in the RTPs for the two counties on the I-15 corridor. In terms of highway projects, it includes the completion of the I-15 widening and HOV/HOT lanes in Riverside County as far south as Murrieta and in San Diego County as far north as the Riverside county line.

Transit improvements include the continued operation of the vanpool programs by both counties and continued operation of the new RTA 217 route from Temecula to Escondido. In San Diego County, MTS would initiate BRT service on I-15 from Escondido south.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-11 Transportation Strategy

TSM/TDM Alternative

The TSM/TDM alternative consists of relatively low-cost and easily implementable improvements which enhance TSM and TDM. These types of projects typically involve measures which make better use of existing transportation resources by improving utilization or enhancing the performance. The investment required is usually small, and these projects do not involve major new construction. As a result, they are generally easy to implement and can be put into service in the short-term time frame. In terms of highway improvements, this alternative includes an expanded park-and-ride program in both counties (800 spaces) and bus on shoulder improvements on I-15 in San Diego County between Escondido and the county line. The transit projects under consideration include a buspool program as identified in the interregional transit study (13 buses to replace about 25–30 vanpools), transit route expansion (RTA routes 206/208 based on the successful performance of Route 217 and MTS Route 810—two buses and two stops) between the counties, and an expanded customer information program that includes improvements to the 511 programs that would allow cross-linking between counties. This would allow users in one county to access information in the other county with a single access to 511.

Express Bus Alternative

This alternative focuses on express bus linkages between the two counties requiring the completion of HOV lanes on I-15 to close the gap between the county line and Murrieta. These services would include new linkages between Riverside County and downtown San Diego (eight buses and seven new stops).

BRT Alternative

The BRT alternative involves extending the widening of I-15 to include four general purpose lanes plus two HOV/HOT lanes in each direction to close the existing gap between Escondido and Murrieta. This would provide a continuous HOV/HOT system along the I-15 corridor. BRT services from San Diego County would be extended and expanded to include Riverside County (eight buses and two new stations). This would provide direct service without transfers linking Murrieta and Temecula with the I-15 corridor stations in San Diego County, as well as downtown San Diego and the University City/University of California San Diego area.

Project Costs and Evaluation of Multimodal Alternatives

The capital and operating costs of each of the projects included in the multimodal alternatives are identified on Attachment 3 to this report. The cost information for the highway projects consist of the projects identified in the PSRs on the I-15 corridor, as well as the current projects in the RTPs. In some cases where the information was not available, WSA prepared estimates. For example, the cost of closing the HOV/HOT lane gap from Murrieta to the San Diego County line was estimated by determining the per mile cost of the two similar projects in Riverside and San Diego Counties located both north and south of the gap. The average per mile cost of these projects was about $40 million. The cost of the transit projects was drawn from the San Diego/Riverside Interregional Transit, Vanpool, and Buspool Study and the I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Operations Plan Detailed Analysis report prepared by SANDAG.

4-12 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Transportation Strategy

The results for each of the multimodal options are discussed below:

No Build

The No Build option involves significant expense for the highway projects which are currently in the RTP. However, these projects serve significant demand and because they include HOV/HOT lanes, they provide true, multimodal mobility benefits. The transit projects in the No Build option, including the vanpool program and the express bus improvements perform well, but involve relatively small ridership or usage numbers.

TSM/TDM Alternative

The projects included in the TSM/TDM are, by definition, low cost. Given the small investments involved, these measures perform well in terms of usage and cost effectiveness. However, because the amount of usage is relatively small, the gains in mobility, environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies also are small, and there are no long-term elements that would support positive, transit-oriented, land use development.

Express Bus Alternative

This alternative performs well overall, but does involve significant costs. However, having completed HOV lanes linking the two counties with an integrated express bus program would yield significant mobility and environmental benefits.

BRT Alternative

Of the three build alternatives, the BRT option involves the greatest costs. It also involves somewhat higher usage and mobility enhancement as compared with the Express Bus alternative. The fact that it involves the construction of dedicated BRT stations reflecting a long-term commitment to transit means that it is more likely to stimulate transit-supportive development along the I-15 corridor.

CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

There are certain challenges and constraints to the implementation of any of the multimodal alternatives identified. These include:

Funding

The most significant obstacle to implementing any of the alternatives is funding. The current economic crisis has stressed the available funding mechanisms to the extent where all existing federal, state, and county revenues are in serious jeopardy. The ability to fund the projects in the No Build alternative is in itself a major challenge for the counties. Projects which require major new funds are not likely to be implemented in the near or intermediate term. Transit operating funds are particularly difficult to come by, so major, new, transit services will be difficult to implement within the corridor. Phasing and incremental development of projects is probably the only way to implement larger projects.

Land Use and Economic Characteristics

Along the southern portion of the I-15 study corridor (from Escondido south to downtown San Diego), there are marked differences in the densities and the mix of land uses. In San Diego County, most of the I-15 corridor from Escondido south is heavily developed with a mix of residential, commercial retail, and employment sites. While the densities are below that typically considered necessary to sustain rail transit, they are sufficient to support express bus or

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 4-13 Transportation Strategy

BRT type services. In Riverside County, the land uses are generally less dense and in some places interspersed with agricultural uses. While there are significant retail developments, there are fewer employment centers compared to San Diego County. Residential development in Riverside County provides a lower-cost housing resource for many who find jobs in San Diego County. The densities and mix of uses along I-15 in Southwest Riverside County are not clearly sufficient to sustain a significant investment in bus transit, although there is clearly a need to provide an alternative to auto travel.

Institutional Barriers

There are various issues related to the provision of truly integrated transit services between the two counties. The two transit operators, MTS and RTA, have different cost structures and work rules making shared operation of services very difficult. If one agency or the other operates the services, then a cost-sharing agreement is necessary. There also are differing philosophies regarding the acceptability of various transportation improvements. For example, the bus on shoulder lanes that have been successfully implemented in San Diego County are not considered as an option in Riverside County due to the extensive improvements planned on I-15 and SR-91.

Transportation Needs and Priorities

Both counties have pressing transportation infrastructure needs of their own which do not involve interregional concerns. This makes it difficult to place a high priority on interregional projects which may provide benefit to the adjacent county without potential for reimbursement.

The suggested next steps for consideration are:

Initiate bus on shoulder assessment and analysis for the I-15 corridor in San Diego County

Implement, if warranted and feasible, bus on shoulder operation in San Diego County

Develop an agreement, in principle, for operating plans, including vanpools and buspools and other planning studies (e.g., TOD and other managed growth planning)

Monitor ridership and demand for current RTA and MTS services

Consider phasing of a demonstration express bus line from Temecula to downtown San Diego

Develop operating plans for capacity enhancement freeway projects

Implement expanded intercounty services

Construct additional HOV lanes

Continue to aggressively plan and build park-and-ride lots

As resources become available and ridership warrants, continue to expand operations and connections to the regional system and the local communities

4-14 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

HOUSING STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

During Phase I of the I-15 IRP, a Commuter Survey was conducted to gain a better understanding of the factors and motivations behind increased I-15 interregional commuting, particularly for residents of Southwest Riverside County who commute daily into the San Diego region for Employment. The survey found that many of these commuters were very satisfied with living in Southwest Riverside County and had accepted commuting as a “way of life,” particularly if it meant they could afford a single-family, detached home. The survey indicated that many existing I-15 commuters were largely unlikely to want to change residences to be closer to their place of employment, even if it meant a shorter commute time. Thus, these results suggested that I-15 IRP strategies should focus not only on existing commuters, but also on those who may consider moving to Southwest Riverside County in the future with similar views on home ownership and a willingness to commute.

As a result, the Phase III Housing Strategy contains two components that focus on both existing and potential future I-15 commuters based on the following strategy identified at the end of Phase II:

Housing Strategy H3: Provide incentives for the construction of moderate-cost family housing near employment centers

Actions:

SANDAG will pursue implementation of a pilot workforce housing project(s) in North San Diego County

WRCOG/SANDAG will continue to collaborate on smart growth development near transit applicable to both regions

The Workforce Housing Project sought to encourage construction of moderate-cost family housing near employment centers in North San Diego County in order to provide more housing choices for those who might otherwise make the move to Southwest Riverside County. The Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map project identified areas where higher-density residential and employment development could be located in major activity centers and integrated with transit service to provide existing southbound I-15 commuters and future residents of the area with more housing, employment, and transportation choices.

WORKFORCE HOUSING

A key goal of Phase III of the I-15 IRP Housing Strategy was to develop a proposal for a workforce housing project that will help reduce the strain on the interregional transportation system by providing more affordable housing opportunities for employees who work in the San Diego region, particularly those who work in the North County area. The project goals were to:

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-1 Housing Strategy

1. Identify potential sites for moderate-income/workforce housing projects in North San Diego County in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas along the SPRINTER line targeting households with income levels between 80 to 120 percent Area Median Income (AMI).

2. Foster the involvement of one or more large regional employers toward a proposal for a workforce housing project at one or more of the identified sites.

3. Identify specific development and financing components for a successful project.

4. Generate needed support from regional and local partners to facilitate a successful project.

5. Advance the project as much as possible toward achieving the actual construction of a workforce housing project.

6. Build a foundation for a workforce housing project that could be emulated elsewhere along the SPRINTER line and in other areas of the region.

Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) was hired in May 2009 to provide consultant assistance for the I-15 IRP Workforce Housing Project.

Tasks

The tasks for the Workforce Housing Project are described below. Appendix C (available at www.i15irp.com) includes background information regarding site selection, developer interviews, project descriptions, financial feasibility tables, and sample Requests for Proposals (RFPs).

Initiation and Identification of Potential Sites

An e-mail questionnaire was developed and forwarded to the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, the County of San Diego planning and redevelopment officials, California State University San Marcos, the NCTD, and Palomar Pomerado Health regarding potential sites for workforce housing (Appendix C)

An independent review of available land for sale using third-party data sources was conducted

Based on the responses to the questionnaire, ten sites were initially identified (Appendix C)—two in San Marcos, four in Vista, three in Escondido, and one in the unincorporated area of the county. From the ten sites, five were chosen for further evaluation based on ownership, zoning, site readiness, and whether replacement parking was needed. These included three in Vista, one in Escondido, and one in the county unincorporated area.

Site Analysis

Further study/analysis of the five sites was conducted as described below:

1. Site Analysis: An evaluation matrix (Figure 3) of the five candidate sites (Figure 4) selected during Task 1 was created, which included:

a. Ownership, size (square feet [SF]), existing uses, surrounding uses, land use and zoning

b. Whether the site is located in a Redevelopment Project Area and/or Smart Growth Opportunity Area on the Smart Growth Concept Map

5-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Housing Strategy

Figure 3 Evaluation of Candidate Sites Table

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-3 Housing Strategy

Figure 41 Workforce Housing Candidate Sites Map

c. City policies and/or inclusionary requirements

d. Potential local support and/or opposition to moderate/workforce housing development

2. Stakeholder Interviews: Three developers were interviewed regarding approaches to development of workforce housing and opportunities to partner with public agencies and/or institutional employers.

3. Project Description(s): Project descriptions were prepared for possible development scenarios for the five candidate sites that were consistent with site conditions and land use/zoning, including a range of land uses, densities, parking solutions, etc.

4. Preferred Site/Development: SANDAG staff provided direction regarding the preferred site and the preferred development scenarios.

1 The full Figure 4 Workforce Housing Candidate Sites Map can be found in Attachment 4 to this report.

5-4 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Housing Strategy

Financial Feasibility, Implementation Strategy, and Request for Proposal (RFP) Approach

Following review and input from SANDAG staff, three alternative development scenarios for workforce housing projects at two sites identified in the City of Vista during Task 2 were prepared. The three are broadly representative of near-term development opportunities within the City of Vista and include the following components:

1. Financial Feasibility: Financial pro formas to test the viability of the development economics for each development scenario (three for each of the two sites). Each financial pro forma includes estimates of development costs, sales prices for households making between 80 to 120 percent of AMI, developer return, and supportable land value. The consultant used order-of-magnitude industry standards and their own experience with other developments to estimate these costs.

The relative financial feasibility of each development scenario was determined based on a comparison of the supportable land value derived from the pro forma analyses and the potential acquisition costs determined during Task 1.

2. Implementation Strategy: Methods of implementation appropriate for the preferred alternative were researched, and a menu of potential funding sources and/or mechanisms available to help implement the workforce housing project was developed that identifies specific methods or programs, provides a brief definition, and assesses the potential use and funding magnitude of each approach.

3. RFP Approach: An approach to the developer selection process was developed, which includes a checklist of the key components and submittal requirements of a developer solicitation document such as an RFP.

Final Proposal

SANDAG will create a Final Proposal for a workforce housing project at the preferred site identified in Task 2 based on review and input from stakeholders involved in the project.

Key Findings

Development Sites and Mixed-Use Development Prototypes

The consultant undertook financial feasibility analyses for potential development of mixed-income, mixed-use development in downtown Vista near the Vista Village SPRINTER station, analyzing a one-block development site and a three-block site as follows:

Block 1: Block bounded by Orange Street, North Santa Fe Avenue, Washington Street, and Indiana Avenue.

Blocks 1, 2, and 3: Block 2 is directly south of Block 1, bounded by Washington Street, North Santa Fe Avenue, Vista Village Drive, and Indiana Avenue. Block 3 is directly east of Block 2, bounded by Washington Street, Indiana Avenue, Vista Village Drive, and Michigan Avenue

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-5 Housing Strategy

Portions of all three blocks are owned by the City of Vista or its redevelopment agency, the Community Development Commission (CDC), with the balance owned by private parties. Current uses include residential and commercial improvements, public facilities, and vacant land. The city has targeted the Santa Fe Avenue corridor and Vista Village areas for higher-density, mixed-use development through a specific plan that allows up to 40 dwelling units per acre.

For each development site, the consultant tested three development scenarios at low, medium, and high densities. Detailed project descriptions are presented in Appendix C.2 The development prototypes range from 20 to 40 units per acre, and 10,000 to 25,000 SF of leasable commercial space per block. Residential uses range from townhomes over private garages to stacked flat condominiums over commercial uses. Parking is assumed to be provided as follows:

Low-Density Scenario: surface parking (or, in the case of Block 2, at-grade, encapsulated parking)

Medium-Density Scenario: at-grade encapsulated podium parking (one level of structured parking, at-grade, and enclosed with residential or other uses above)

High-Density Scenario: two levels of structured parking, one at-grade, and one below-grade

Economic Feasibility of Market-Rate Housing

Financial pro formas (included in Appendix C) were prepared to determine the residual land value for each development prototype assuming all residential units at market-rate sales prices. Residual land value is defined as the maximum land payment that a private developer could afford to pay for a specified development opportunity based on a comparison of market value of the project upon completion and total development costs inclusive of an industry standard developer return requirement (developer profit). Out of the six scenarios, only Block 1–Low-Density Scenario supports a positive land value, approximately $25 per SF land. In other words, the total market value of the project minus the project development costs would result in a land value of approximately $25 per SF making the Low-Density Scenario for Block 1 financially feasible. (Note that actual land assembly costs for Block 1 may be significantly higher than $25 per SF because of the value of existing improvements.)

All of the other prototypes/sites yield negative land values, ranging from $3 to $38 per SF land. In other words, these scenarios are not economically feasible, even if all of the residential units were sold at market-rate prices. Developers cannot afford to make a land payment under these scenarios, and would in fact require financial assistance to close the financing gap. The principal reasons for this economic gap are as follows:

The Medium-Density and High-Density Scenarios (and Block 2–Low-Density Scenario) include structured or subterranean parking, which is significantly more expensive than surface parking. This factor is exacerbated by the parking needed to support the scale of commercial uses that the city is seeking in this location

2 Appendix C is available on the I-15 IRP Web site at www.i15irp.com.

5-6 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Housing Strategy

The more intensive scenarios incorporate stacked flat units over commercial and parking uses. This construction type is more expensive than nonstacked units (e.g., townhomes). Stacked, flat configuration also includes a typical 15 percent building inefficiency factor for circulation and common areas

Current market prices are depressed as a result of the national recession and local housing market downturn

Impact of Moderate-Income Restrictions

All six prototypes also were tested (Appendix C) with 25 percent of the units restricted to moderate- income sales prices. City staff indicated a preference for mixed-income, rather than 100 percent affordable, housing developments in the Vista Village/Santa Fe Avenue areas. Moderate income is defined as 80 percent to 120 percent of AMI, or approximately $66,101 to $89,900 for a four-person household (HCD, 2009). Since the Vista CDC would most likely implement the proposed development through an agreement with a private developer, the consultant determined the calculation of moderate income price restrictions based on California redevelopment law standards. The following presents a comparison of market-rate price assumptions and moderate-income restrictions:

Figure 5 Moderate-Income Restrictions

Estimated Moderate Income Difference Unit Type Market Price Restriction (Affordability Gap)

One Bedroom Flat $260,000 $227,000 ($33,000) Two Bedroom Flat $303,000 $252,000 ($51,000) Two Bedroom Townhome $338,000 $275,000 ($63,000) Three Bedroom Townhome $396,000 $303,000 ($93,000)

As shown above, prices affordable to moderate income households are currently $33,000 to $93,000 lower than estimated market prices. This affordability gap is relatively small, compared to just a few years ago, when market prices were substantially higher. On the one hand, depressed market prices result in more affordable housing opportunities. On the other hand, depressed market prices make medium- and higher-density housing less economically feasible, as discussed above. Therefore, in order to implement any of the mixed-income development scenarios, it is necessary to close the total financing gap, i.e., the combination of both the economic gap and affordability gap. These figures range as follows:

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-7 Housing Strategy

Figure 6 Total Economic and Affordability Gap

Blocks 1, 2, and 3 Total Financing Gap (1) Block 1 Combined

Low Density ($1,002,000) (2) ($11,920,000) Per Total Unit ($18,000) (2) ($79,000)

Medium Density ($4,478,000) ($17,702,000) Per Total Unit ($64,000) ($96,000)

High Density ($9,136,000) ($22,873,000) Per Total Unit ($82,000) ($82,000)

(1) Assuming 25% of total units restricted as moderate-income. (2) Represents affordability gap only.

Implementation Strategy - Potential Funding Mechanisms

A number of funding mechanisms could be used to bridge the economic and financial gaps identified in the section above. These include redevelopment tax increment revenues, density bonuses, inclusionary housing, reductions in permit/fee charges, reductions in development and parking standards, the TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program, state funds, and the contribution of land or funding from a large employer or institution. These funding mechanisms are described in more detail in Attachment 5.

Developer Interviews

Three developers were interviewed to determine interest in and feasibility of building new workforce housing in North County. The interviews covered the following topics: Market Potential and Achievable Density; Perspective on the RFP Process, Thoughts on a Demonstration Project; and Willingness of Employer Participation.

A summary of the interviews is included in Appendix C; some key observations are listed below:

1. Developers can build 20–30 units per acre with tuck under (nonpodium) parking.

2. The best place to develop is in a redevelopment project area with a master Environmental Impact Report and tax increment funds. (The sites analyzed in this study are both in a redevelopment area.)

3. Jurisdictions need to be proactive to get things done.

4. A mixture of low- and high-density housing and mixed uses will be key development products in the future.

5-8 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Housing Strategy

5. Redevelopment agencies and local jurisdictions can provide free land and/or subsidies.

6. SANDAG and Vista (or other jurisdictions) should meet with developers before drafting an RFP.

7. Local jurisdictions can help lower costs by changing regulations

Request for Qualifications/Proposals

A checklist of key components for a Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQs/Ps) is included in Attachment 6. This checklist could be used to develop an RFQ/P for a workforce housing project in Vista or another jurisdiction. Sample RFPs from four jurisdictions are included in Appendix C as examples.

Results

As a result of the Workforce Housing Project, the region is more informed about the financial feasibility of building workforce/moderate income housing for those whose incomes are between 80 to 120 percent of AMI, the types of home construction that could provide workforce housing opportunities, and the financial and regulatory mechanisms that could be used to make these types of homes financially feasible.

Next Steps

SANDAG will present the results of this project to the Regional Housing Working Group, the Regional Planning Technical Working Group, and the SPRINTER Smart Growth Working Group. We also will continue to work with the City of Vista and other jurisdictions on implementation of one or more workforce housing projects within a Smart Growth Opportunity Area(s) using an RFP that will be developed in partnership with the City of Vista and/or other local jurisdictions.

WESTERN RIVERSIDE SMART GROWTH OPPORTUNITY AREA MAP

The Phase III Housing Strategy also called for development of a “Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map” for selected western Riverside cities, using the SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map for the San Diego region as a template. Like the Smart Growth Concept Map, this project sought to identify areas where higher-density residential and employment development could be located as major activity centers and integrated with transit service. This chapter focuses on key findings and issues identified during Phase III.3

This smart growth planning effort focused on three pilot cities in Southwest Riverside: Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula. Development of the map included both land use and transit planning components focused on identifying smart growth opportunities centered on the I-15 and I-215 freeway corridors (Figure 7).4

3 More detailed information on the project, including copies of all products produced, is available in the I-15 IRP Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map Final Report, which is included as Appendix D of this report. www.i15irp.com 4 Please see Attachment 7 to this report for the full I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area Map.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-9 Housing Strategy

Figure 7 I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area Map

The map was developed in conjunction with transportation and transit network planning completed for the Phase III Transportation Strategy, including components of the Transportation SIP developed by RCTC and consultant firm, WSA.

Future work expanding the map to include additional jurisdictions will be funded by the SCAG Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project program following the end of Phase III and is anticipated to serve as the foundation for developing a subregional SCS for the next update of the SCAG RTP, as required by Senate Bill 375 (2008).

Tasks

The work plan for this phase included:

Identification of smart growth place type categories applicable to the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore

Identification of smart growth opportunity areas exemplifying characteristics of the smart growth place type categories

Creation of GIS base maps and shape files illustrating smart growth opportunity areas

Quantitative analysis of existing/planned capacity for residential and employment density and transit service

Qualitative description of local planning efforts and progress toward meeting smart growth place type intensities

5-10 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Housing Strategy

To facilitate this process, SANDAG and WRCOG engaged community development, planning, and public works department staff from each of the jurisdictions, as well as representatives from the other I-15 IRP regional partner agencies, to form the Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group. This group met regularly throughout Phase III to guide development of the map.

The Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map is intended to be used as a long-term planning and coordination tool as local jurisdictions update their General and/or Specific Plans and as local and regional transportation and transit planning efforts advance. The map is a planning document with unconstrained financial considerations. As development and progress moves forward for each smart growth area, further coordination between local and regional agencies will be needed to evaluate financial conditions and to determine the most effective transit services within the broader regional context.

Key Findings/Issues Identified

Smart Growth Opportunity Areas

The working group identified six categories of smart growth place types for the map: Regional Center, Town Center, Community Center, Mixed-Use Transit Corridor, Special Use Center, and Employment Center. Each smart growth place type is associated with certain general land use type and intensity characteristics, housing and employment density targets, and transit service thresholds (for more information, see Appendix D5, page 16, Table 3).

A key finding of this identification process was that the group identified with many of the smart growth place types developed for the Smart Growth Concept Map for the San Diego region, as shown in Table 4, which lists the place type categories for both the West Riverside and San Diego regions.

Table 4 Smart Growth Place Types for Western Riverside and San Diego

WESTERN RIVERSIDE SAN DIEGO

------Metropolitan Center Regional Center Urban Center Town Center Town Center Community Center Community Center Rural Village6 Rural Village Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Mixed-Use Transit Corridor Special Use Center Special Use Center Employment Center ------

5 Appendix D can be found at the I-15 IRP Web site at www.i15irp.com. 6 The working group also identified a seventh place type, Rural Village, which will be further defined in partnership with the County of Riverside as part of the Expanded Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map and Transit Development Plan.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-11 Housing Strategy

In tailoring place type categories to the context of the three communities, the group also recognized some differences between the two regions. For example, group members felt that the West Riverside region was not likely to develop an area as intense as the Metropolitan Center (characterized by downtown San Diego). The group identified with characteristics of the Urban Center, but felt that the term Regional Center was more appropriate. The group also identified a new place type, the Employment Center, as one drawing from throughout the region and dominated by nonresidential land uses, but ideally well connected to major arterial corridors and transit routes.

After defining smart growth place types applicable to the study area, each jurisdiction identified local places that currently exemplify the characteristics of the place types, or could in the future if local plans are updated and regional transit service designations are met. Collectively, 13 smart growth opportunity areas were identified, including 3 Regional Centers, 3 Town Centers, 4 Special Use Centers, 1 Community Center, and 2 Employment Centers. (Note: Two Mixed-Use Transit Corridors were designated as portions of one Regional Center.)

Working group members prepared a “site description” for each smart growth opportunity area consisting of both land use information prepared by the planning staffs of local jurisdictions and a transit service description based on RTA transit service plans. Transit service designations were used to distinguish between existing and planned services, as well as those that are not included in current plans, but could be implemented contingent upon certain conditions.

Through this process, the working group identified regional transit services in the West Riverside region in various stages of planning, design, and construction. Likewise, local transit routes are flexible and subject to change as often as every three to six months through the short-range transit planning process. To reflect this variability, all of the maps produced for this phase of work depicted transit service as either corridors or overlays. Areas where regional transit services such as BRT could be prioritized were shown as “Future Transit Corridors.” These priority corridors are the I-15 and I-215. Areas where investments in high-frequency, local, transit service could be prioritized to complement the regional transit network were shown as a “Transit Priority Area” overlay (see Appendix D, page 24, Figure 7).

Land Use and Transportation Planning Coordination

A key issue identified throughout this process was the gap between planning horizons for the land use and transportation plans that informed the development of the smart growth place types and the smart growth opportunity areas. Land use information such as projected growth, land use intensity, and residential and employment density was determined from both the current WRCOG growth forecast, which extends from the present to 2035, and from each jurisdiction’s current General and/or Specific Plans, whose horizon years vary. Transportation information, such as local transit routes was based on RTA’s Comprehensive Operational Analysis, whose planning period extends from the present to 2018. Information on long-term plans for future regional transit facilities was limited, and the current SCAG RTP does not identify specific transit infrastructure to be built over the longer-term horizon of the plan.

5-12 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Housing Strategy

These differing horizon years prompted discussion on how best to coordinate information for the ongoing update of the growth forecast being facilitated by WRCOG and points to the importance of continuing development of a longer-term transit planning mechanism to complement the land use growth forecast. Gathering and updating this data could be a focus of the next phase of work funded by SCAG.

Results

This planning effort ultimately produced:

Six smart growth place type categories applicable to the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore, each including general land use type and intensity characteristics, housing and employment density targets, and transit service thresholds

Identification of at least two smart growth opportunity areas per city corresponding to these place types

A “site description” for each smart growth opportunity area describing:

General land use characteristics and progress toward meeting these density targets through development of plans or other local efforts

Description of existing, planned, and possible future transit services in the area

A series of maps, including:

Subregional maps for each of the cities illustrating these areas

A regional scale map showing all identified West Riverside smart growth opportunity areas along with existing transportation and transit infrastructure, habitat and Regional Conservation Act areas, parks, and Native American tribal lands

An interregional map showing the smart growth opportunity areas and transportation/transit infrastructure in West Riverside and North San Diego Counties

In addition to these products, this effort enhanced collaboration among the existing I-15 IRP agencies and engaged new local and regional partners. The West Riverside jurisdictions and transportation agencies demonstrated commitment to the smart growth planning process and for driving the ground-up approach to developing these concepts at the local level.

Next Steps

During the course of planning for this effort, SCAG, as the MPO that receives subregional input from WRCOG, agreed to provide additional funding through its Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project grant program to expand work to additional geographic areas in West Riverside County (see Appendix D, page 15, Figure 3). Final boundaries will be determined by WRCOG and its partner agencies. The initial work funded by the I-15 IRP provides a basis for the expanded project, which will develop an expanded Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map and Transit Development Plan for a larger subregional study area. It is anticipated that this work could be used as a model for SCAG and its subregions to develop the SCS for the next update of the SCAG RTP, as required by SB 375 (2008). It is anticipated that WRCOG and RCTC will lead this next phase of work.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 5-13 Housing Strategy

SB 375 is a California state law that requires the reduction of GHG emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce vehicle miles traveled. The goal of the legislation is to reduce GHG emissions by improving the connection between land use and transportation planning, resulting in more walkable, compact communities served by high-quality transit, thus offering more transportation choices and reducing the need to drive. The law requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets and tasks each of California’s 18 MPOs with creating a SCS, a new element of the RTP. Each SCS is required to demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035. For additional detail on how the next phase of work connects to SCAG efforts related to SB 375 implementation, see Appendix D, page 12).

As a starting point, the Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map can initially inform updates of the SCAG RTP and other subregional plans, particularly to help prioritize transportation infrastructure investments and deployment of transit services to support smart growth development consistent with the SCAG Compass Blueprint 2 Percent Strategy and other regional goals. The RTP development process, in turn, can help to identify needed refinements to the map, creating an iterative process where transportation and land use planning adjust to each other over time. Ultimately, the map provides a means for connecting local, subregional, and regional decision-making processes, enabling policymakers and agencies to collaborate on investment decisions that will help the region to achieve land use, transportation, and quality of life goals.

5-14 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

INTRODUCTION

The Phase I I-15 IRP included a monitoring plan designed to measure progress toward achievement of key goals. The plan called for the production of a baseline monitoring report, followed by periodic updates. This chapter serves as an update between Phase II and Phase III.

The I-15 IRP performance indicators are organized into the three main strategy areas: economic development, housing, and transportation. Updated data for selected indicators are presented. As the partnership gains monitoring experience, targets will likely be established to further encourage action toward achieving partnership goals.

It is important that the data be updated regularly and be easily accessible and understandable. Recommended changes are noted in the discussion below.

The baseline results from Phase II suggested:

The majority of cluster employment in Riverside County is concentrated in low-wage jobs

The San Diego region continues to experience a serious housing affordability problem

Peak-period traffic into the San Diego region from Riverside County has increased significantly over the last five years, but the growth in traffic is slowing

Vanpool use from Riverside County into the San Diego region is increasing, but interregional transit and carpools are underutilized

INDICATORS - I-15 IRP PERFORMANCE MEASURES

This chapter provides an overview of how the San Diego-Riverside region is performing with regard to economic development, housing, and transportation. In Phase II, staff recommended that the original list of indicators identified in Phase I be streamlined to no more than three indicators per issue area. The focus is on indicators that form part of a broader, ongoing process and that are more easily associated with specific, measurable initiatives. Those for which data are not available on an annual basis have been excluded from this chapter.

Economic Development

Economic development performance is measured by the following indicators:

High-Wage Cluster Employment in Southwest Riverside County

Average Wage in Southwest Riverside County

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 6-1 Performance Monitoring

As of 2005, only 25 percent (4,354 employees out of a total of 17,187 employees) of cluster employment in Southwest Riverside County is considered to be in high-wage jobs. High-wage jobs are defined as those paying over the average for all cluster employment, $33,625 annually.

The average cluster wage in Southwest Riverside County in 2005 was $35,200. This wage is slightly higher than the average cluster wage for Riverside County as a whole ($33,625).

Transportation

Transportation performance is measured by the following indicators:

Average Weekday Peak-Period Traffic at the county line

Number of Interregional Vanpools

Daily Interregional Transit Ridership

Peak-Period Vehicle Occupancy at the county line

Average Weekday Peak-Period Traffic at the County Line

Peak-period traffic into the San Diego region from Riverside County has leveled off over the last several years, as indicated in Figure 8. The actual growth in traffic on a year-to-year basis peaked in 2005 and, in 2008, actually has begun to decrease. The current volume of 17,517 is for weekday, southbound traffic during the morning peak period from 5 until 8 a.m. This could be attributed in large part to the skyrocketing gas prices that began in 2007, coupled with the economic crisis, which began in 2008. In addition, if taken together with Figure 9 indicates that some commuters may be shifting to vanpools.

Figure 8 Peak-Period County Line Traffic

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000

Traffic Volume 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: Caltrans

6-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Performance Monitoring

Number of Interregional Vanpools

The number of SANDAG-sponsored vanpools operating from Riverside County to employment destinations within the San Diego region continues to increase. It rose dramatically between 2003 and 2007, increasing by 152 percent, as shown in Figure 9. While the usage of vanpools has continued to grow since then, the growth has slowed down. Vanpools increased by 11 percent between 2007 and 2009. This number of vanpools equates to approximately 1,900 individuals. Currently, the San Diego Regional Vanpool Program offers a $400, continual, monthly subsidy for qualifying vanpools. The figures presented here reflect only SANDAG-sponsored vanpools and do not include any private vanpool programs currently operating from Riverside County.

Figure 9 Interregional Vanpools

300

250

200

150

100

50 Number of Vanpools of Number

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: SANDAG

Daily Interregional Transit Ridership

Beginning in September of 2004, RTA began operating commuter bus service from Murrieta/Temecula in Riverside County to the Oceanside Transit Center. Seven trips are operated each way in the morning and evening peak periods. In June 2006, average daily ridership was 82 passengers. Figure 10 shows that in 2008, it has climbed to 120 passengers demonstrating the popularity of this bus line for commuters.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 6-3 Performance Monitoring

Figure 10 Interregional Transit Ridership

140 120 100 80 60

Ridership 40

Average Weekday 20 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source: Riverside Transit Agency

Peak-Period Vehicle Occupancy at the County Line

Periodically, SANDAG in collaboration with Caltrans, conducts vehicle occupancy counts and records vehicle classification information at strategically identified points along the region’s roadways. Prior to 2006, the last study was conducted in 2000. However, the 2006 study was the first to record vehicle occupancy at the Riverside county line. Based on the results of this effort, it is estimated that there is an average of 1.16 persons per vehicle traveling into the San Diego region from Riverside County during the morning peak period, in contrast to 1.22 persons during the morning off-peak period.

Housing

The Housing Affordability Index published by the California Association of Realtors is a reliable indicator of housing affordability (Figure 11). The index compares local median home prices (including mortgage payments, interest rates, taxes, and insurance) with local household incomes to determine overall affordability. These figures, therefore, reflect not only the increase in home prices, but the relative flatness of household incomes.

Between 1995 and 2005, housing affordability decreased significantly in San Diego. In 2005, only 9 percent of households could afford a median-priced home, as compared to 38 percent in 1995. Affordability also decreased significantly in the Riverside/San Bernardino region (from 51 percent in 1995 to 18 percent in 2005), though home prices in that area continued to be lower than the San Diego region.

With the economic crisis and the housing bubble burst in 2007, the affordability index rose for both San Diego and Riverside. Affordability in Riverside increased much more quickly than in San Diego as the prices of housing stock plummeted. The Riverside index went from 18 percent in 2006 to 65 percent in 2009, while San Diego rose from an unsustainable 9 percent to 43 percent in the same period. The national average is 50 percent.

6-4 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Performance Monitoring

Future monitoring should compare home prices and commuting costs to better reflect how the cost of transportation affects the actual cost of living in Riverside while working in the San Diego region.

Figure 11 Riverside-San Diego Region Housing Affordability Index

70 60 50

40 San Diego 30 Riverside 20

That Can Afford a a Afford Can That 10 Median-Priced Home Median-Priced Percent of Households 0 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: California Association of Realtors

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

The updated data in this chapter demonstrate that collaboration is crucial in the areas of economic development and housing. Continued interregional collaboration on transportation strategies, in particular, will likely yield positive results based on recent data. Further investments in interregional transit, vanpools, and the promotion of carpooling have the potential to positively impact the interregional commute.

In Phase III of the I-15 IRP, the partnership efforts continued to implement the following strategies outlined in Phase I:

ED1: Facilitate greater economic development agency collaboration

ED2: Improve job growth through employment cluster job production

T4: Implement interregional transit services

T13: Coordinate highway facility planning along the I-15 corridor

T14: Expand interregional bus service to include BRT services

H1: Provide a range of housing

In the future, SANDAG and Riverside planning agencies, including WRCOG, RCTC, and RTA, will continue to pursue the strategies identified in Phase I. Emphasis will be placed on the strategies pursued in Phase III, building on progress made.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 6-5 Performance Monitoring

Staff will continue to collect performance indicator data and present the results at future I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee meetings. Most indicators will be monitored through each agency’s programmatic performance monitoring process.

6-6 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

CONCLUSION

Significant advances have been made during Phase III of the I-15 IRP that address issues of mutual concern between San Diego and Southwest Riverside Counties. Phase III focused on developing strategic action plans in all three areas, as well as tangible activities on the ground. The hallmark of the I-15 IRP is to address these issues in a comprehensive way and to simultaneously make progress on long-term strategies while pursuing short-term, strategic tactics.

SANDAG, WRCOG, RCTC, and RTA have made institutional commitments to maintain an interregional planning structure to pursue collaborative goals through various mechanisms.

First, all partner agencies have incorporated the interregional partnership into their OWPs to ensure that resources, however limited, are dedicated to the continuation of the partnership. The elected officials from both regions agree that the Joint Policy Committee should remain in place and convene at least twice a year to receive reports on advances made on the IRP strategies. This will ensure that progress is made within existing programs and projects, as well as provide the policy structure should specific initiatives receive funding.

Second, agency staff will continue to coordinate efforts in existing programs that are relevant to the objectives of the I-15 IRP program. It will be important to continue to meet periodically at a staff level to clarify areas in which SANDAG and agencies in Southwest Riverside can collaborate on mutually beneficial programs already underway.

Third, SANDAG and WRCOG will continue to pursue additional funding through grant applications to support various aspects of the I-15 IRP, including developing an interregional transit service plan, economic development coordination, and promotion of smart growth and workforce housing initiatives.

Finally, SANDAG is committed to providing ongoing performance monitoring through its existing program with data that has been identified relevant to IRP strategies. Staff will report to the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee periodically on the status of those indicators.

NEXT STEPS

Through the established I-15 IRP policy and technical structure, the interregional partnership will continue to pursue strategies in economic development, transportation, and housing. Table 5 summarizes the next steps for consideration by the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee at its March 9, 2010, meeting.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-1 Conclusion and Next Steps Table 5 Possible Next Steps*

STRATEGY ACTION Overall Coordination X SANDAG and WRCOG will convene the I-15 IRP Joint Policy Committee at least once per year to review Maintain an interregional planning structure to collaborative work efforts within existing programs and receive updates on performance monitoring pursue collaborative goals X SANDAG and WRCOG will convene executive staff from I-15 IRP agencies twice a year, or as needed, to review coordination efforts in all three strategic areas X SANDAG will continue to monitor selected performance measures as identified in Phase I through its regular performance monitoring process, bringing updates to the Joint Policy Committee once a year or as requested X WRCOG and SANDAG will continue to pursue additional funding to support I-15 IRP activities Economic Development X WRCOG and SANDAG will support cooperative economic development initiatives between Riverside and Facilitate greater collaboration between regional San Diego regions, such as the creation of an economic development district which covers Southwest Riverside economic development entities and North San Diego Counties X WRCOG/SANDAG will identify potential funding opportunities for updating the Employment Cluster Study in light of changes to the local economies and monitor the development of existing and new industry clusters in both regions that can strengthen the bioregional economy Transportation X SANDAG and RCTC will convene transportation staff from participating agencies, as needed, to review Interregional coordination of vanpool and carpool ongoing, coordinated efforts and refine actions, including the identification and pursuit of funding programs opportunities for interregional transit, vanpool, and buspool services X Agencies will continue to plan, lease, and/or build park-and-ride lots, as needed X Partner agencies (SANDAG, MTS, NCTD, RCTC, and RTA) will continue to coordinate transit service on the I-15 Collaborate among transit providers corridor X SANDAG/RCTC will continue to coordinate and monitor rail planning efforts in the I-15 corridor, including Support high-speed rail transit service in the I-15 preservation of Right-of-Way corridor X Partner agencies (Caltrans, RCTC, RTA, and SANDAG) will work to implement the recommendations of the SIP Preserve transportation Rights-of-Way and implement priority measures through the Caltrans development process X SANDAG and RCTC will incorporate interregional transportation projects into their respective RTPs, as deemed appropriate X SANDAG/RCTC will continue to implement the HOV/Managed Lanes Systems with the goal of closing the gap Implement the I-15 HOV/Managed Lanes System at the county line Housing X SANDAG will collaborate with local jurisdictions on the implementation of pilot workforce housing project(s) Provide incentives for the construction of in North San Diego County, sharing the information with other cities and regions moderate-cost family housing near employment centers X WRCOG/RTA/SANDAG will continue to collaborate on smart growth development near transit applicable to both regions *following acceptance of Phase III report by SANDAG, and WRCOG, RCTC, and RTA

7-2 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Conclusion and Next Steps

Economic Development

WRCOG will take the lead in facilitating a greater collaboration between regional economic development entities. First, WRCOG and SANDAG will continue to support an open dialogue between Riverside and San Diego entities to investigate collaborative regional economic development strategies. Second, WRCOG and SANDAG will pursue funding opportunities for updating the Employment Cluster Study in light of changes to the local economies and monitor the development of existing and new industry clusters in both regions that can strengthen the biregional economy.

Transportation

SANDAG and RCTC will coordinate ongoing efforts and refine actions in the areas of transit, rail, and infrastructure improvements. First, the transit operators will continue to coordinate transit service on the I-15 corridor, refining the I-15 BRT program for inclusion in SANDAG’s 2050 RTP. Second, the two agencies will continue to coordinate and monitor rail planning efforts in the I-15 corridor. Third, the two agencies, in collaboration with Caltrans, will work to preserve transportation Rights-of-Way and implement priority measures through the Caltrans development process. The two agencies will pursue the recommended actions outlined in the SIP, further developing selected short- and long-term transportation projects on an interregional basis. SANDAG and RCTC will incorporate interregional transportation projects into their respective RTPs, as deemed appropriate. Finally, the two agencies will continue to implement the HOV/Managed Lanes System with the goal of closing the gap at the county line.

Housing

In the area of housing strategies, SANDAG will continue to explore ways to create moderate-cost family housing near employment centers. First, SANDAG will collaborate with local jurisdictions on the implementation of workforce housing project(s) in northern San Diego County. Second, SANDAG will share the information developed through the Workforce Housing Project with local jurisdictions to encourage the development of workforce housing along the SPRINTER line and in other smart growth areas throughout the region. WRCOG, RTA, and SANDAG will continue to collaborate on smart growth development near transit applicable to both regions. SANDAG and WRCOG will continue to develop linkages between the two regions for smart growth development.

The initial motivation for the development of an interregional partnership between San Diego and Southwest Riverside was to address the congestion on the I-15 caused by commuters from Southwest Riverside going to jobs in San Diego. Today, the I-15 IRP is a forum for coordinated interregional planning in which the two regions collaborate on major projects affecting both in an effort to find more sustainable solutions to housing, transportation, and economic development that will benefit the quality of life in both Riverside and San Diego in what can be considered a broader region.

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-3 Conclusion and Next Steps

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

7-4 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2008 Park-and-Ride Inventory for San Diego County

2. 2009 Park-and-Ride Inventory for Southwest Riverside County

3. Cost Effectiveness Index - Multimodal Alternatives for the I-15 Corridor Table

4. Workforce Housing Candidate Sites Map

5. Workforce Housing Implementation Strategy Table

6. Checklist of Key Components for Request for Qualifications/Proposals

7. I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area Map

8. I-15 IRP Economic Development Working Group Membership

9. I-15 IRP Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group Membership

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-5 Attachments

7-6 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

Attachment 1

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-7 Attachments

Attachment 2

7-8 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

Attachment 3

COST EFFECTIVENESS INDEX - MULTIMODAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE I-15 CORRIDOR

Highway Projects Transit Projects Annualized Annualized Cost/Daily Annual Cost Cost/Daily Annual Cost Alternative Project Usage1 per Vehicle 2 Project Usage1 per Rider2 No Build I-15 widening and $228 $6.81 Continued Vanpool $2.4 $6.00 HOV/HOT lanes - 111,500 Program 1600 San Bernardino County (Riverside/San Diego) Line and Murrieta (Riverside) Continued RTA Route $0.1 $1.68 217 (Riverside) 200 I-15 Widening and $40 $1.05 HOV/HOT Lanes to Centre 125,400 Escondido Rapid Bus $0.2 $2.54 City Parkway (San Diego) (San Diego) 250

I-15 Widening and $112 $3.35 Escondido Rapid Bus $5.9 $3.82 HOV/HOT Lanes to County 111,540 (San Diego) 6200 Line (Riverside) Escondido Rapid Bus (San Diego) TSM/TDM Park-and-Ride $1.5 $7.81 Bus Pool Program $0.2 $2.50 (Riverside/San Diego) 600 (Riverside/San Diego) 250

Bus on Shoulder $0.4 $1.04 Transit Route $0.5 $4.20 (San Diego) 1200 Expansion 480

Expanded 511 $0.1 NA Programs With NA Cross-Link Between Counties. (Riverside/San Diego) Express HOV Lanes From Murrieta $16 $1.25 New Route Riverside $1.6 $4.50 Bus to County Line (Riverside) 40,000 to Downtown 1440 San Diego (Riverside/San Diego) BRT HOV/HOT Lanes Plus $48 $1.82 BRT Expanded Into $2.0 $3.40 Widening From Murrieta 82,500 Riverside County 2400 to County Line (Riverside) (Riverside/San Diego) 1. Costs are in millions of $, usage represents average daily traffic using the new facilities during the initial start up, NA = not applicable 2. Costs are in millions of $, usage represents average daily transit riders using the new facilities during the initial start up, NA = not applicable

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-9 Attachments

Attachment 4

7-10 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

Attachment 5

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-11 Attachments

7-12 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-13 Attachments

7-14 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-15 Attachments

Attachment 6

7-16 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-17 Attachments

7-18 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

Attachment 7

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-19 Attachments

Attachment 8 I-15 IRP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP

MEMBERSHIP

The primary goal of the I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) Economic Development Working Group is to bring together regional economic development agencies, chambers, and other stakeholders to develop a joint strategic action plan for selected employment cluster industries in San Diego and Riverside to strengthen interregional connections and be more competitive on a global scale. Staff contacts: Jane Clough-Riquelme, SANDAG (619) 699-1909; [email protected] Kevin Viera, WRCOG (951) 955-8305; [email protected]

RIVERSIDE MEMBERS James Duggan The Truax Group Aaron Adams

City of Temecula Peggy Evans

Temecula Winegrowers Association Kimberly Adams

Temecula CVB Imran Farooq

Green Valley Initiative Cathy Barrozo

City of Lake Elsinore Kevin Fleming

Inland Empire, Centers of Excellence Rikki Bauer

MET/BET Felicia Flournoy

Riverside County EDA Anthony Capone

Nimbus Water Systems Scott Garrett

The Garrett Group Ken Carlisle

Abbott Dr. Tim Gerrity

ACT - Allicance for Commercialization of Justin Carlson Technology City of Lake Elsinore

Les Hamasaki Bruce Coleman Green Valley Initiative City of Murrieta

Jesse Hodges Kim Joseph Cousins Anthony Realty Group Lake Elsinore School Board

Carol Leighty Jamil Dada Temecula Valley Unified School District Riverside County WIB

Suzanne Lingold Christine Damko CSUSM, Temecula City of Temecula

Laurie McLaughlin Richard E. Dozier Mt. San Jacinto College County of Riverside

Maria Muldrow

Riverside EDA

7-20 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

Sarah Munday Valerie Church Riverside County EDA SRS Engineering Corporation

Morris Myers Adam Englund EDC Southwest California Euphlotea.org

Rex Oliver Chuck Flachs Murrieta Chamber of Commerce San Diego Workforce Partnership

Pat Ramos Steve Fulgham Riverside County WIB Ambassador Energy, Inc.

Sherri Sawyer Joe Gabaldon Mt San Jacinto College Cox - External Affairs

Dr. Stan Scheer Debra Gernes Murrieta Unified School District Southwest Health Care System

Connie Speck Phil Jordan Abbott San Diego, Center of Excellence

Alice Sullivan Stephanie Jungersen Temecula Valley Chamber San Diego North EDC

Harry Truax Gary Knight The Truax Group San Diego North EDC

Kevin Viera Christina Luhn WRCOG San Diego REDC

Juergen Woehl Tom MacCalla International Rectifier National University

Gloria Wolnick Cami Mattson City of Temecula San Diego North Convention & Visitors Bureau

Linda Wunderlich Gary Moss The Valley Business Journal San Diego Workforce Partnership

Paul O'Neal SAN DIEGO MEMBERS Vista Chamber, North County

Carolyn Akire Doug Poffinbarger SANDAG PE Consulting

Jacque Caesar Cathy Scavone National University CSUSM

Eric Cantrell Kelly Smith Priority Solar Ambassador Energy, Inc.

Don Christiansen Linda Strand Borrego Solar Independent Energy Solutions

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III 7-21 Attachments

Jori Tulkki AGENCY EXECUTIVES Gen-Probe SANDAG Gary L. Gallegos

WRCOG Rick Bishop Julie Wright RCTC Anne Mayer Wright Communications

AGENCY STAFF

WRCOG Kevin Viera

SANDAG Carolyn Alkire Monika Clark Marney Cox

As of April 21, 2010

7-22 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III Attachments

Attachment 9 I-15 IRP WESTERN RIVERSIDE SMART GROWTH MAP WORKING GROUP

MEMBERSHIP The purpose of the Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group is to provide input and direction on the development of a working methodology for the creation of a Smart Growth Opportunities Area Map for Southwest Riverside. SANDAG staff provided technical support in the development of the map. The membership included various cities in Southwest Riverside, including Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula, as well as the Riverside and San Diego Counties. MEMBERS San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) City of Lake Elsinore Carolina Gregor Justin Carlson SANDAG Senior Regional Planner Associate Planner

Midori Wong Matt Harris SANDAG Assistant Regional Planner Senior Planner

Western Riverside Council of Government Tom Weiner (WRCOG) Acting Director of Community Development Punarvasu Pillalamarri City of Murrieta Councilmember, City of Temecula WRCOG Staff Analyst II Cynthia Kinser

Deputy Director of Planning Kevin Viera

WRCOG Program Manager Mary Lanier

Director of Planning Riverside County Transportation Commission

(RCTC) Greg Smith Associate Planner Claudia Chase Property Administrator (ret.) Susan Vombaur Traffic Engineer Tanya Love Goods Movement Manager City of Temecula Robert Yates Katie Innes Multimodal Services Director Assistant Planner

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Bob Johnson Assistant City Manager Lorelle Moe-Luna RTA Senior Planner Patrick Richardson City Planner Mark Stanley RTA Director of Planning Dale West Associate Planner AGENCY EXECUTIVES

SANDAG Gary L. Gallegos Dan York WRCOG Rick Bishop City Engineer RCTC Anne Mayer

RTA Larry Rubio

As of April 21, 2010

7-23 I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase III

PHASE III – FINAL DRAFT REPORT

APPENDIX A

I-15 Interregional Partnership – Phase II: Economic Development St t Appendix A – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

INTRODUCTION

The I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) is a voluntary compact between local elected officials representing the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Caltrans and other agencies. The primary goal of this compact is to address the job/ housing imbalance in the region and ultimately improve the quality of life for the region’s residents by collaborating to develop strategies in economic development, transportation and housing that will reduce the impacts of interregional commuting, create more jobs in housing rich areas and create more housing in job-rich areas.

To date, the I-15 IRP has completed a number of research and planning initiatives, including detailed research on existing conditions that focused on interregional commute behavior, housing and employment patterns as well as the development of long range strategies related to economic development, transportation and housing1.

In May 2009, IRP moved forward on the next component of the I-15 Interregional Partnership-- an industry cluster focused approach to interregional economic development2. This initiative is specifically focused on improving job growth through the promotion of new employment opportunities in industry clusters that drive economic growth in Riverside and San Diego counties.

Overview of Industry Cluster Initiative

Increase the number of high quality jobs in the region with opportunities for continuing career pathways. Provide job opportunities that will allow people to live closer to their home and reduce the number of long distance commuters. Expand regional employment opportunities in an effort to reduce commute congestion on the I-15. Strengthen regional economic diversity to improve resiliency to economic challenges and downturns.

1 See I-15 Interregional Partnership Final Report 2004, I-15 IRP Phase II Final Report 2007 and The Choices We Make: Commuting, Housing & Employment Final Report 2008. 2 For more background on the industry cluster approach and its role in economic development, please see the IRP Phase II – Final Report by SANDAG, March 2007 - Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development.

A-2 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

From these shared outcomes, the interregional economic development stakeholders discussed and considered sixteen industry clusters and ultimately agreed upon the three below that would be the focus of the initiative:

1. Alternative and renewable power generation;

2. Biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing;

3. Travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries.

By focusing on, and developing opportunities for, these three industry clusters, the two regions in Riverside and San Diego counties will be able to improve their overall employment and economic outlook into the future. Much of the foundation for the initiative’s industry cluster approach to interregional economic development can be found in the research completed during Phase II of the I-15 IRP by SANDAG3, which evaluated the interregional economic clusters with the greatest opportunity to drive economic development in the two regions.

This report is devoted to planning and developing an interregional economic development initiative for the three industry clusters identified as key economic drivers for the Riverside and San Diego Region. The interregional economic development action plan is the first step in creating a more vibrant, robust and integrated economic environment. At stake is not only the economic vitality of the region, but ultimately, the quality of life that the greater region will be able to offer both residents and the business community.

This report consists of three parts that describe the interregional economic development initiative and what has been developed through this process:

1. The report begins with a description of the core themes that provided the foundation for the initiative and some of the research and information that helped guide it along the way. It also includes a discussion on the creation of an interregional economic development district.

2. The second part of the report introduces the interregional action plan developed for each of the three industry clusters. The interregional action plan for each cluster includes the strategies and ideas that were considered as well as those that are recommended in the next steps.

3. The third and final section of the report describes the process for the interregional economic development initiative-- from forming the stakeholder group to developing findings and recommendations and planning with stakeholders implement the initiative’s recommendations.

PART 1 – THE FOUNDATION FOR THE INTERREGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

The current economic environment in Riverside and San Diego counties has changed substantially over the last 18 months, as it has all over the United States and throughout the world. Unemployment has increased dramatically, industry increasingly faces reduced aggregate demand

3 SANDAG, March 2007, Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development. IRP Phase II – Final Report: Appendix A.

A-3 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report and the overall economic outlook has changed from a focus on growth to one of recovery. Despite these dramatic changes, the fundamental objectives of the IRP-- and more specifically the goals of the interregional economic development initiative -- remain unchanged. The objectives include a continued and long-range commitment to increasing the number of high-quality jobs in the two regions while retaining the jobs that already exist. The initiative is also focused on improving employment opportunities that reduce commute congestion and strengthening economic diversity in each region. These goals are consistent with the I-15 IRP’s long term mission to develop an economic base that can reduce congestion, job loss and dependence on one or a few major industries.

Our prosperity and our competitiveness, in the long run, depend on jobs and productivity: how many people are in work and how productive they are when they are in work. 4

1. Expanding interregional connectivity through increased communication, collaboration and additional infrastructure. The importance of greater interregional connectivity can be found in many of the strategies. Examples included strategies focused on improving transportation infrastructure for the travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries industry cluster and developing stronger relationships between the biotechnology research- focused employers in San Diego County and the device manufacturers in Riverside County. Increased connectivity will increase revenue into the industry clusters and ultimately, increase employment.

2. Increasing current and future productivity through improved workforce development and education. Each industry cluster identified the importance of improving and expanding the pipeline for a skilled workforce-- while also providing opportunities to develop the workers already in each industry. For alternative power generation, the focus was on understanding the changing needs of employers while developing foundational skills that can be used throughout the industry. A skilled and productive workforce is one of, if not THE most important determinant of success for any industry cluster or individual organization.

3. Creating and collaborating on more effective communications strategies to expand the number of current and potential customers for the greater region. Effective communication strategies are a critical component of any export-oriented organization. The travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries industry cluster is focused on developing coordinated, complimentary messages that increase the destination appeal of North

San Diego and Southwest Riverside. Increasing the destination appeal can be accomplished by bundling the recreation and leisure opportunities that exist at regional wineries, casinos and natural outdoor recreational destinations along with more traditional tourist destinations.

4 UK Commission for Employment and Skills, The 2009 Report, Ambition 2020: World Class Skills and Jobs for the UK, page 38.

A-4 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Core Objectives of the Interregional Economic Development Initiative

The interregional economic development initiative is built on several core objectives that can be traced back to the common outcomes agreed upon by stakeholders as well as the research completed by SANDAG in 2007. The SANDAG research made the case for a collaborative economic development initiative based on the promotion and advancement of specific industry clusters. The core themes for the project include:

1. Targeted promotion and advancement of key export-oriented or traded industry clusters can have a significant overall impact upon the economy and the employment picture.

Export oriented clusters have the ability to tap into larger markets beyond those that serve our local population. These industry clusters not only drive wealth creation in a region-- they also often have relatively large multiplier effects on employment. By focusing limited economic development resources on these key clusters, we believe we will be more effective in assisting regional economic growth and providing stronger employment opportunities.

2. Industry clusters face varying market conditions and require specific strategies to maximize their opportunity for growth.

3. Identify and build upon the resources that are available within the greater region.

Riverside and San Diego have a rich and diverse tapestry of organizations and institutions that lead and support different aspects of economic development. One of the key objectives of this initiative has been to identify and work directly with as many of these organizations as possible. Through this process, we have identified best practices and resources that can be built upon-- rather than re-creating new programs and processes from scratch.

4. Focus on strategies and programs that are best developed and implemented interregionally and respect those programs that are best maintained at the local level.

Stakeholders agreed that several aspects of economic development should be evaluated and developed interregionally. However, there was also the recognition that not all aspects of industry-specific economic development should be regionalized-- those components that can be done better locally should not be a part of this interregional initiative. Stakeholders were also concerned that strategies requiring significant upfront coordination or focused on detailing “how” industries and employers should work were less likely to be successful. It is important to note that this initiative is committed to increasing the numbers of customers, the amount of revenue and the overall profitability of industries within the greater region but not determining how those customers, revenues and profits get split between Riverside and San Diego counties.

A-5 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

5. Support the creation and development of an interregional structure that will improve planning and coordination of economic development strategies and potentially provide additional resources.

Through the process of this initiative, key economic development stakeholders in San Diego and Riverside have begun to explore the creation of an interregional economic development district. This district would include members from Northern San Diego County and Southwest Riverside County. Economic development managers from both counties are currently working with San Diego North County Economic Development Council and the Economic Development Council of Southwest California to evaluate the creation of this district. Ultimately, this organization will be most effective if it has active participation from industry leaders and businesses, educators and academics, non-profits that are involved in economic development and appropriate representation from the public sector.

PART 2 – INDUSTRY CLUSTERS: AN INTERREGIONAL APPROACH TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

This role of location has been long overlooked, despite striking evidence that innovation and competitive success in so many fields are geographically concentrated. 5

The three industry clusters at the focus of this initiative share several key characteristics:

1. Each cluster has uniquely positive attributes in either Riverside or San Diego or in the greater region (both Riverside and San Diego counties).

2. They are export-oriented clusters that currently or potentially have a considerable impact upon the interregional economy.

3. Each cluster has industry leaders that are willing to work collaboratively to develop a stronger infrastructure and environment for industry growth and development.

Alternative and Renewable Power Generation

The alternative and renewable power generation industry cluster includes those firms that are involved in the design, building and operations of wind, solar, hydroelectric and geothermal power generation facilities. It also includes those firms engaged in the research, development and initial operations associated with biomass and biofuels.

5 Michael E. Porter, “Clusters and the new economics of competition” Harvard Business Review; Volume 76, Issue 6. Boston; Nov/Dec 1998. http://polaris.umuc.edu/~fbetz/references/Porter.html

A-6 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Industry Cluster Profile6

This cluster has grown considerably since 2005 and will continue to grow in the foreseeable future. President Obama and the new administration have repeatedly identified clean energy as one of the key sectors to drive economic recovery and our national employment outlook. This cluster’s growth is largely attributed to:

A. Legislative requirements such as those found in AB 32 that require increased use of cleaner sources of energy for the State’s overall energy portfolio. More recent opportunities like AB 811 and AB 1106 provide more recent examples of legislation that will be the focus of economic development strategies in the near future.

B. Increased volatility in the price of traditional fossil fuels and foreign dependence encourages development of new alternative energy sources.

C. Increased demand from consumers for alternative energy sources that have a reduced impact upon global warming/ climate change and our environment in general.

Alternative and renewable power generation is still a relatively small cluster with anywhere from 7,000 to 15,000 employees between the two counties. It has also been argued that the industry will not grow without continued legislative subsidies and regulatory requirements. Based on a current assessment of firms in related North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, there is a limited number of manufacturing firms in this cluster within the two counties. Most firms are focused on designing, building or operating facilities-- but not on manufacturing the photo voltaic cells, wind turbines and other types of energy producing devices associated with a growing segment of this cluster. Fuels from algae and other forms of biological materials also provide another opportunity for the region.

Renewable and alternative energies are one of the key components of the clean and green technologies that are a focus of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. These industries that play an important role in environmental sustainability are seeing more federal grant opportunities for their continued development in our economy. Further, an increasing number of grants are providing preference to broader regional approaches that coordinate efforts among a diverse group of stakeholders.

A-7 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Industry and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders indicated three immediate priorities for this industry cluster:

Legislation, both pending and approved, like AB 811, SB 375 and AB 1106 can potentially have a significant impact on the development of this industry. Energy and energy generation is a highly regulated industry. There are both great opportunities and potential dangers in state and federal legislation that impacts the energy industry. Stakeholders indicated from the outset that a coordinated interregional effort focused on relevant legislation and discretionary funding opportunities (i.e., grants) could play a valuable role in the advancement and development of this emerging energy industry cluster. The need for a coordinated communication effort that educates decision makers and consumers about the opportunities in alternative and renewable power generation was expressed by stakeholders. The communication effort should educate decision makers and planners on the opportunities within this industry and provide consumers with greater confidence in purchasing and investing in renewable energy technology. As an industry that has changed dramatically over the last two years, there are several questions about the size and make up of employers and employment opportunities connected to alternative and renewable energy generation.

Stakeholders identified numerous strategies that were discussed and considered as part of this initiative. These strategies include:

1. Education and Workforce Development: Create a coordinated interregional approach to understand what employers are looking for, what skills and certificates (i.e., North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners, NABCEP) are needed and the career pathways that should be communicated to workers. This strategy could also look to address workforce gaps and maximize the use of funding for individuals that are looking to be re-trained and educated after being laid off from other industries.

2. Manufacturing: Develop a strategy that identifies ways to increase the number of renewable energy manufacturing employers and jobs in the greater region.

3. Engaging Current Employers and Growing New Ones: Develop a strategy that looks to communicate and understand the needs of current employers and develop resources to support the growth of new businesses. This strategy could also look to retain and develop the “green brain trust” that may leave the region given the current and potential future economic downturns.

4. Communication and Outreach: Develop a strategy to effectively communicate with decision makers and the general public about the benefits associated with a stronger alternative power generation cluster in the greater region. This could also include communicating with current alternative energy employers that could be motivated to relocate in the greater region.

5. Inventory of Resources: Develop an inventory of the employers, education and training resources as well as the support services connected to alternative power generation. This resource could provide a clear assessment of where gaps may exist.

6. Incentive Program: Develop a package of incentives for businesses to locate into the region.

A-8 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

7. Communicate with Labor/ Apprenticeship Providers: Develop training and certification for technicians in manufacturing and installation of alternative energy products. This could be a part of the education and workforce development strategy.

8. Public/ Private Partnership: Consider strategic targets for employment and potential public/ private partnerships.

Interregional Strategies for Alternative and Renewable Power Generation

Comprehensive Interregional Assessment

Riverside and San Diego counties need to create a combined strategic assessment and plan for alternative and renewable power generation. This plan would detail the alternative and renewable energy resources currently in place, those that need to be developed to produce the legislative mandates coming out of Sacramento (33% by 2020) and identify resources available to meet the mandate in the most cost-effective manner. The Green Valley Initiative’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) could serve as the foundation for a more specific assessment developed for the greater region.

After there is agreement on the interregional assessment, the most immediate strategies for growing alternative power generation in the greater region should focus on the following three areas:

1. Legislative and Grant Opportunities: Legislation and grant funding play a vital role in developing this emerging industry cluster. The group talked about the importance of actively understanding and advocating for legislation to help grow alternative power generation in the region. AB 811 was specifically identified as an opportunity to spur demand for alternative power generation. This legislation could be implemented at the city, sub-regional or county level for both San Diego and Riverside or as part of a larger, statewide implementation.

2. Outreach and Branding: This strategy component will intertwine the renewable energy assessment with a place branding strategy. The place branding strategy should communicate to both the renewable energy industry and potential customers (1) the resources that already exist in the greater region and (2) what will exist as we follow the plans of the regional assessment. This strategy places great emphasis on making the industry and residents aware of the renewable energy resources that exist in San Diego and Riverside and what will be coming online in the near future.

3. Education and Training: Workforce development remains a key issue for this industry cluster-- developing both a foundational understanding of sustainability and renewable energy as well as developing occupational specific skills. The challenge is developing and implementing programs that are up-to-date and change with the industry. The education and workforce planning needs to be based on the industry assessment of what we expect to develop moving forward.

A-9 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Issues to Overcome:

Resources within the Region:

1. Green Valley Initiative

2. California Center for Sustainable Energy

3. Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego, School of Law

4. California high speed rail proposals and other related transportation initiatives.

Next Steps:

1. Develop a comprehensive interregional assessment for renewable and alternative power generation. The interregional assessment would include a technical evaluation of the current and expected renewable energy facilities and their capacity to produce power within Riverside and San Diego. The assessment would also develop a strategic plan for increasing renewable energy capacity to meet the long-term statewide legislative mandates for clean energy production. Lastly, the assessment would identify the obstacles for increasing renewable energy production while examining the most cost-effective and sustainable methods for increasing renewable energy production.

2. Identify the resources and individuals that will participate in interregional planning and coordinating for the three focus areas:

a. Legislation and Grant Opportunities – This committee would identify legislation both in Sacramento and Washington DC that could have a positive or negative impact on renewable energy production and organize an interregional response. This group would also be responsible for identifying and responding to grant opportunities that would support the renewable energy industry in Riverside and San Diego.

b. Outreach and Branding – This committee would develop and implement a place branding strategy that would communicate the economic and environmental benefits associated with renewable energy. The communication strategies would focus on both regional and interregional decision makers as well as residents and potential customers.

c. Education, Training and Workforce Development – This committee would be comprised of renewable energy employers and educators. They would be focused on evaluating current training and educational programs to ensure that employers

A-10 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

have a qualified workforce. This group would evaluate current capacity for training and educational programs, as well as provide feedback on the skill sets that should be developed at colleges and through regional training programs.

Biotechnology and Medical Devices Manufacturing

This combined industry cluster includes firms that are engaged in the life sciences, with biotechnology research and the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals as well as those firms manufacturing biomedical products and surgical and medical devices.

Industry Cluster Profile7

In 2005, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals (biotechnology) in the region was located primarily (93%) in San Diego County, with the remainder (7%) in Riverside County. It is dominated by physical, engineering and biological research (73%). It is complemented by manufacturers of in-vivo diagnostic substances (8%) and pharmaceutical preparations (7%). The cluster employed 31,800 persons in 2005, with an average wage of $81,000 per year, or 204 percent of the average for the two-county region.

In 2005, surgical and medical instruments and supplies (medical devices) had two-thirds of employment located in San Diego County. The largest industry is surgical and medical instrument manufacturing (53%), followed by surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing (18%) and ophthalmic goods manufacturing and optical instrument and lens manufacturing (16%). Total employment in the cluster was 8,600 persons, with an average wage of $54,700 per year, or 138 percent of the two-county average. More recent data show increases in employment in medical devices.

This is a high-wage cluster with relatively large economic multipliers. Economic forecasts for this industry are generally more robust than other advanced manufacturing industries-- as the demand for biotechnology and medical devices is largely driven by the healthcare industry rather than other more cyclical components of the macro-economy that are currently seeing diminished expectations. Even with the uncertainty associated with a national or state-wide healthcare system, the overall demand for healthcare products is not expected to decline any time in the near future.

This cluster includes some of the strongest industries for job growth in manufacturing. Pharmaceuticals, in particular, were noted as a manufacturing industry expected to grow and see significant increases in employment8. The State of California has several regions with a concentration of firms and employees in biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing including San Diego and Orange County.

7 All data for each of the Industry Cluster Profiles are taken from SANDAG, March 2007, Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development. IRP Phase II – Final Report: Appendix A. 8 Source: July 2009: Executive Office of the President Council of Economic Advisors, Preparing the Workers of today for the Jobs of Tomorrow.

A-11 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Regions and states all over the globe have actively recruited biotechnology firms to relocate into their boundaries in the hopes of benefiting from high-wage employment and the additional employment generated from this industry. However, these recruitment strategies have shown mixed results and may not provide the return on investment that was expected. Outsourcing and off shoring in other biotechnology hubs have demonstrated that many of the manufacturing and technician positions may not remain in the cluster as firms move towards production. Healthcare reform could also impact the profitability of this industry, particularly as it relates to pharmaceuticals.

Industry and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders indicated that even in the current labor market, finding and/ or recruiting qualified applicants remain a challenge. Employers also face a constant churn in the skills and abilities required given changing innovations in technology and as new responsibilities are moved to new locations. There was a strong consensus that biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing remains a critical component in the regional economy and one in which planners and decision makers must remain committed to support.

Stakeholders identified several strategies that should be considered moving forward. In no particular order or priority, the strategies include:

1. Education and Workforce Development: Develop basic and technician level skills for opportunities in manufacturing of medical devices, primarily in Southwest Riverside. While San Diego has some manufacturing technicians, more of the work in San Diego is focused on research and development and creating higher skills and more educated applicants within the region.

3. Inventory of Resources: Develop an inventory of the employers, education and training resources and support services that are connected to biotechnology and medical devices, particularly as it relates to commercialization of current research and development. This resource could provide a clear assessment of where gaps may exist.

4. Legislation and Local Policies that Support Expansion and Growth of Current Firms: Support collaborative efforts to stop the growth and adoption of linkage fees and other local taxes that limit the growth of biotechnology, particularly in San Diego. Availability of process water is very important to continued growth of biotechnology and life sciences research. This strategy is focused on identifying key legislative and policy issues that both regions can more effectively champion together than individually.

5. Effective Communication and Outreach to Applicants and New Employers: Both regions have challenges recruiting the right employees and both regions (particularly San Diego) face challenges in providing a business environment that is conducive for growth and expansion or attracting new businesses. Some of these problems stem from the perception

A-12 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

related to the business and housing environment and others the perceived quality of life (Southwest Riverside). As the greater region improves its destination appeal, it should provide additional ability to recruit qualified applicants and new employers.

Interregional Strategies for Biotechnology and Medical Devices Manufacturing

The strategy development group for biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing was focused on developing the connectivity between current biotechnology firms that are largely concentrated in San Diego County and generally focused on research and development, with the contract and device manufacturing firms that are well-represented in Southwest Riverside County.

Issues to Overcome:

Overall connectivity between San Diego and Riverside counties in the biotechnology industry is relatively low. Riverside County employers are primarily focused on contract manufacturing and the medical devices industry, while San Diego employers are more focused on research and development in the biotechnology industry. Employers and industry leaders from the two counties have indicated different challenges as they relate to economic and workforce development and there is little to no agreement on what the interregional strategies should be moving forward. In general, San Diego biotechnology firms showed little interest in developing interregional strategies focused on cluster-specific economic development.

Resources within the Region:

1. Biocom

2. Nanobiometrics

3. California Healthcare Institute

4. Office of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, California State University of San Bernardino.

Next Steps:

A-13 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

and medical devices to become more aware of the partnership opportunities that exist between employers. In general, employer awareness of partnership opportunities does not currently extend beyond county borders.

Travel, Tourism, Entertainment and Wineries

This combined industry cluster includes those firms that are focused on serving tourists in the region, including transportation and lodging services as well as firms that provide recreation, leisure and entertainment services, such as casinos and other entertainment activities that could assist in drawing tourists to the greater region. This combined cluster also includes wineries and those firms that support the creation and development of wine in the greater region.

Industry Cluster Profile9

In 2005, travel and hospitality in the region saw nearly two-thirds (63%) of employment located in San Diego County. The cluster is represented primarily by hotels and motels (both with and without casinos; 89% of employment). The cluster also includes travel agencies and other travel arrangement services (6%). The cluster employed 49,000 persons in 2005, with an average wage of $25,000 per year, or 63 percent of the two-county average.

In 2005, entertainment and recreation had about two-thirds (68%) of employment located in San Diego County and the remainder (32%) in Riverside County. The largest industries are casinos (39% of employment), golf courses and country clubs (16%), amusement and theme parks (10%) and zoos and botanical gardens (4%). Total employment in entertainment and recreation was 51,800 in 2005, with an average wage of $27,500 per year, or 69 percent of the two-county average.

Wineries and grape vineyards are also grouped in this cluster, although a substantial amount of grapes are sold for purposes other than wine-making. The average wage of wineries and grape vineyards is $17,800 per year, or about one-half of the county average in Riverside.

According to the 2005 data, this combined industry cluster employs more than 100,000 people and based on preliminary analysis, it was more than 110,000 in 2008. The two counties also have several unique and world class resources related to tourism, entertainment and wineries.

This is generally a low-wage industry with relatively low economic multipliers. While this industry has some career pathways, they tend to be somewhat limited in terms of overall opportunities. Employees in this cluster are less likely to impact current commute behavior.

The current economic downturn has increased the opportunity for increased travel and tourism among residents that would drive rather than fly to Riverside and San Diego. Ultimately, travel and tourism are typically hurt when discretionary spending is down-- which is not expected to improve within the state or the nation anytime soon. The overall economic environment will impact the total potential growth in the two counties for this industry cluster.

9 All data for each of the Industry Cluster Profiles are taken from SANDAG, March 2007, Riverside and San Diego Counties: Cluster Analysis and Opportunities for Cooperative Economic Development. IRP Phase II – Final Report: Appendix A

A-14 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Industry and Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholders indicated they were concerned with the low relative wages in the industry and the ability to recruit more educated applicants. Several stakeholders also indicated that the two counties could become more appealing to potential visitors if they could communicate the strengths of each county and bundle the unique attributes as a single destination.

There was also additional input that the two regions (Southwest Riverside and North San Diego along the I-15) should focus on incorporating the opportunities associated with outdoor recreation and the open spaces that define the region.

Stakeholders identified several strategies that should be considered moving forward. In no particular order or priority, the strategies include:

1. Workforce and Education Development: Create a coordinated bi-regional approach to understanding what employers are looking for, what skills and certificates are needed and what career pathways should be communicated to workers. This strategy should also look at what skills can be developed in this cluster and used in long-term skill development.

2. Transition to Higher Paying Opportunities: Evaluate programs that move entry-level hospitality workers into higher paying, more sustainable jobs while developing greater skills and abilities.

3. Entrepreneurial Strategies and Self-Employment: Develop a strategy that identifies ways of increasing the number of tourism, wineries and entertainment employers and jobs in the greater region.

4. Communication and Outreach: Develop strategies to market the region and bundle the activities together that will draw tourists to Riverside and San Diego. This strategy should also incorporate new technology and social networking mediums.

5. Inventory of Resources: Develop an inventory of the employers, education and training resources and support services that are connected to tourism, wineries and entertainment. This resource could provide a clear assessment of where gaps may exist and how to best move forward. This inventory should also include an assessment of the transportation infrastructure that may need to be developed or expanded to better serve tourists.

6. Use of Waste Products for Biomass Energy Production: Explore opportunities for biomass energy to be developed at interregional wineries.

7. University Partnerships for Industry Research and Job Training: Identify and determine universities’ willingness to take an active role in industry research (viticulture) as well as identify higher level training programs.

A-15 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Interregional Strategies for Travel, Tourism, Entertainment and Wineries

The strategy development group for travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries proposed three key components that would drive the interregional response to economic development for this industry cluster. The group was supportive of most, if not all, of the strategies identified earlier but felt the following three were the most relevant for the initiative:

1. Coordinate Consistent Communication and Outreach that Strengthens Destination Appeal: Temecula Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB) and San Diego North CVB have already done considerable work developing brand strategies for their respective regions. This strategy would look to build upon the work that has already been done and identify opportunities to consistently brand the greater region and/ or develop complimentary messaging. The messaging would seek to reinforce the strengths of each respective region but ultimately, increase the destination appeal of the greater region.

2. Entrepreneurial Strategies and Self Employment: This strategy is focused on training and developing entrepreneurs and individuals looking for self-employment within this industry. This strategy does have an education and training component, but it is in the context of regional entrepreneurs within travel, tourism and wineries. The focus from this item would be on providing traditional entrepreneurial training and education to individuals who want to focus on new businesses within this industry cluster.

3. Transportation Improvements: Transportation infrastructure is an important component to developing better opportunities for visitors who are coming to the two regions. This interregional strategy would evaluate and develop interregional transportation infrastructure that would allow tourists to more easily travel within the greater region. Bike paths and improved public transportation options within the region would serve residents and visitors, while reinforcing the outdoor and recreational appeal of the greater region. Developing and/or expanding the use of airports within the region would also bring a larger numbers of visitors within closer proximity to the many destinations in Southwest Riverside and Northern San Diego County.

Issues to Overcome:

Industry cluster stakeholders agreed on the importance of increasing the destination appeal for tourism interregionally, but there was less agreement on how these key messages could be connected and implemented to strengthen the appeal beyond current communication strategies. There also remains a generally competitive environment between regional organizations and employers in the tourism industry, as funding for message development and communications is typically tied to specific cities and counties and creates competition between neighboring counties.

Resources within the Region:

1. Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau

2. San Diego North Convention and Visitors Bureau

3. Temecula Valley Winegrowers Association

A-16 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

4. California State University, San Marcos

5. Mount San Jacinto College, Hospitality & Restaurant Management Program.

Next Steps:

1. Develop an interregional online portal that highlights the destination appeal of the tourism opportunities in Southwest Riverside and Northeast San Diego. This online portal would connect and reinforce the key messages that have been developed in branding both regions while also communicating the variety of entertainment activities that exist at regional wineries, casinos, outdoor recreational activities and natural open spaces. This online portal would not only serve as a way to communicate with potential visitors but also provide a valuable resource for industry employers who are looking to collaborate other leisure and recreational partners looking to serve the tourist industry.

2. Examine potential partnerships between regional universities and wineries to develop a research institution in viticulture. This potential partnership could follow a model like the one between Mondavi and University of California at Davis. There should also be consideration given to potential partnerships at regional colleges and universities to evaluate expanding entrepreneurial training and education for the travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries industry cluster.

PART 3 – THE INTERREGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Periods of transition and change are often the hardest time to commit to strategic planning. However, it is these periods where strategic planning may be most important. The economic downturn became most apparent at the end of 2008. Since then, both San Diego and Riverside counties have suffered from double digit unemployment, diminished consumer and investor confidence and significant declines in the budgets of many agencies and organizations actively engaged in local and regional economic development.

This section of the report describes the process used to develop the findings for the interregional economic development initiative.

Roles in the Initiative

There were three general roles that individuals could have in their participation in the interregional initiative:

A-17 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Initiative advisors were responsible for guiding the initiative. The advisors included representatives from WRCOG and SANDAG, as well as key members from San Diego and Riverside economic planning and development agencies. Stakeholders included members of the economic development community of San Diego and Riverside counties, as well as industry leaders and employers of the three industry clusters that were the focus of this initiative-- alternative power generation, biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing and travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries. Potential stakeholders were initially identified by the initiative advisors and contacted through the executive interview process. The economic development consultant team included the three consulting firms-- BW Research Partnership, Full Capacity Marketing and True North Research.

Stakeholder Input

Stakeholder input and expertise played a central role in every step of the interregional economic development initiative process. Although stakeholder input was gathered informally throughout the process, there were three data collection activities where input from stakeholders was actively sought and acted upon:

1. Initial Executive Interviews with Advisors and Stakeholders: One of the first responsibilities of the project manager was to communicate with advisors and potential stakeholders. This was done through one-on-one interviews, both in-person and over the phone. The interviews provided an important opportunity to get individual feedback on the challenges, outcomes and industry clusters that should be considered for the focus of the initiative.

2. Three Interregional Stakeholder Workshops: Stakeholder workshops were organized and implemented in June, July and October of 2009. All stakeholders were invited to participate in each meeting, with each meeting having a specific objective. The June meeting was focused on finding agreement on the common outcomes for the initiative and finalizing the industry clusters that would be the focus of the initiative. The July meeting was focused on identifying the strategies to meet the outcomes for each cluster. The final October meeting was committed to getting feedback and agreeing upon the strategies identified and refined by each of the industry cluster strategy development groups.

3. Industry Cluster Strategy Development Groups: After the strategies were identified in the June meeting, stakeholders were invited to participate in one of three industry cluster strategy development groups. Each strategy development group was associated with one of the industry clusters:

a. Alternative Power Generation

b. Biotechnology and Medical Devices Manufacturing

c. Travel, Tourism, Entertainment and Wineries.

Each industry cluster working group met at least once to discuss the activities and programs that became the focus of the specific economic development strategies for each cluster.

A-18 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

Economic Development Initiative Process

This phase of the interregional economic development initiative was organized around three workshops. The three workshops brought together regional planners, economic development specialists and industry leaders and employers from Riverside and San Diego counties, with particular focus on those agencies and employers situated along the I-15 corridor.

Workshop 1: Identify the Industry Clusters and Agree Upon Initiative Outcomes

The initial stakeholder’s meeting in June 2009 focused on coming to an agreement on the common outcomes for the initiative and identifying which industry clusters should be the focus of the economic development strategies.

The goal of the initial workshop was to get the stakeholders together and have them agree on the objectives and the direction for the initiative. By having stakeholders agree upon the common outcomes relatively early in the process, it provided an important foundation and reminder when discussing and searching for consensus on strategies and the eventual creation of the regional action plan.

Initiative Outcomes

Initiative advisors worked with the consultant team to develop a list of potential common outcomes in which stakeholders could respond (the list was sent to stakeholders a week before the actual in- person workshop). Stakeholders discussed the initial list of common outcomes and narrowed and revised the list down to three common outcomes:

Outcome 1: Increase the number of high quality jobs in the region with opportunities for continuing career pathways. This outcome is focused on the expansion of jobs in those industries that will generate additional employment-- but also provide high quality employment opportunities for regional job seekers.

Outcome 2: Increase regional employment opportunities that reduce commute congestion on the I-15. This outcome is focused on the development of employment opportunities closer to where residents live-- ultimately reducing the rate of growth in the number of commuters that contribute to the congestion on the I-15.

Outcome 3: Increase regional economic diversity to improve resiliency to economic challenges and downturns. This outcome is focused on developing a stronger set of industry clusters that are not dependent on a single economic driver.

Industry Clusters

Again, initiative advisors worked with the consultant team to develop a list of potential common outcomes in which stakeholders could respond (the list was sent to stakeholders a week before the actual in-person workshop). The consultant team also developed an initial SWOT (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, Target) assessment of each industry cluster, based largely on the industry cluster research completed by SANDAG in 2005. Stakeholders gave substantial consideration to five self-defined industry clusters;

A-19 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report

1. Alternative power generation;

2. Biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing;

3. Communications (including telecommunications and related manufacturing);

4. Logistics and the related import and export of goods;

5. Travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries.

After a lengthy discussion, stakeholders agreed to focus on alternative power generation, biotechnology and medical devices manufacturing and travel, tourism, entertainment and wineries. There was also a recommendation that the group continue to consider opportunities for economic development associated with logistics and communications in the future or as an additional phase of the economic development initiative.

Workshop 2: Identify Economic Development Strategies for Each Industry Cluster

The second stakeholders meeting in July 2009 was focused on identifying strategies that would meet the outcomes agreed upon at the initial workshop. This phase of the initiative was focused on identifying all the possible strategies available to the initiative and then identifying individuals willing to participate in working groups to begin to develop the identified strategies.

The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) document for each industry cluster was developed as a result of the feedback from stakeholders in the executive interviews, additional feedback from project advisors as well as best practices found in other regions. This revised SWOT document also included some initial strategies specific to each industry cluster that could help meet the common outcomes agreed upon at the initial workshop.

At the second workshop, stakeholders gave feedback on the identified strategies and suggested additional strategies for consideration. Individuals willing to participate in the industry cluster strategy development groups were also identified at this workshop.

Unlike previous stages, a unified consensus was not required for each strategy to move forward. Instead, a willingness to participate in the development of the strategy from a group of stakeholders was all that was needed for a strategy to move forward. By the end of the process, feedback from stakeholders and advisors would identify which strategies should be the focus of the economic development initiative.

For a full listing of the recommendations, strategies, programs and supporting research that was considered and developed for each industry cluster, please see Appendix 1.

Workshop 3: Identify Economic Development Strategies for Each Industry Cluster along with Communications Tools

The final phase of the initiative was focused on creating and finding agreement around an interregional action plan and its corresponding communication strategies. The final stakeholder meeting in October 2009 introduced key components of the action plan to stakeholders and

A-20 Appendix A – I-15 Phase III Final Report gathered feedback on the information needed to finalize the document and move forward on its recommendations and next steps.

Communication Strategies

Along with the recommendations and next steps from each of the industry clusters, communication strategies were being developed for the initiative.

A marketing and communications strategy has been developed for targeted audiences, stakeholders and key influencers that need to be engaged to bring the economic development strategies to fruition. The two-pronged approach includes:

1. Broad-based communication strategies to inform the community about the initiatives; and

2. Individual outreach tools for each of the three identified industry clusters.

To date, items that have been developed include the following:

Re-design of the I-15 website to include the economic development strategies. Process to drive traffic to the website and engage target audiences with the strategies. Press release to announce the project and garner input from an online survey. Templates for developing an outreach plan for each industry cluster, including target audience identification, goals/ objectives, outreach tools needed and Return on Investment (ROI) metrics.

Ultimately, the recommendations for the industry cluster communication strategies are based on the belief that messaging should be targeted and segmented to the appropriate audiences. Any outreach tools designed (virtual and/or written) should have a clearly focused call to action with the central consideration of who we are talking to, how we want to engage the target and/or what behaviors we want to change.

A-21

PHASE III – FINAL DRAFT REPORT

APPENDIX B

Strategic Implementation Plan Final Report

Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 4 Purpose...... 4 TASK 1: SUMMARY OF PROJECT STUDY REPORTS IN THE I-15 CORRIDOR...... 7 Project Study Reports ...... 7 Other Project Related Analysis ...... 10 TASK 2: GOODS MOVEMENT DATA SUMMARY ...... 12 Riverside County...... 12 San Diego County ...... 14 Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation ...... 15 TASK 3: TRANSIT PRIORITY TREATMENTS AND TRANSIT LANE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ..15 Smart Growth Legislation ……………………………………………………………………………………………….15 Existing Public Transportation...... 17 Summary of Transportation Strategies and Improvements ...... 19 Summary of Transit Related Findings ...... 24 Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation ...... 26 TASK 4: COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY...... 28 Challenges and Constraints to Implementation...... 31 Conclusions...... 31 REFERENCES...... 34 Task 1 – PSR Summary...... 34 Task 2 – Goods Movement ...... 34 Task 3 -Transit ...... 34 Task 4 – Cost Effectiveness...... 35

Tables Table 1: Summary of PSRs for I-15 Corridor ...... 9 Table 2: Total Through Freight Train Movements per Peak Day by Line Segment in Riverside County...... 12 Table 3: Riverside County I-15 AADT and Truck Count...... 13 Table 4: San Diego County I-15 AADT and Truck Count...... 14 Table 5: Average I-15 Daily Traffic on Border between Riverside County and San Diego County Assuming No Improvements to Current Infrastructure...... 17 Table 6: Varied Planning Approaches and Agency Responsibilities…………………………………………...28

B-2 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Table 7: Summary Evaluation of Alternatives ...... 29 Table 8: Summary of Implementation Recommendations ...... 33

Figures Figure 1: I-15 IRP Phase III Study Area...... 5 Figure 2: I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area...... 6 Figure 3. Map of PSRs...... 8 Figure 4: Existing Transit Routes in the Study Area...... 19 Figure 5: Conceptual Implementation Expansion Options ...... 23

B-3 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Introduction

Purpose The primary goal of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Interregional Partnership (IRP) is to address the jobs/housing imbalance that has developed between southwest Riverside County and San Diego County. The I-15 IRP was established to foster collaborative strategies in economic development, transportation, and housing that will improve the quality of life of residents in both counties. The partnership promotes a more sustainable land use pattern providing appropriate employment closer to where people live and more affordable housing closer to employment in jobs-rich areas throughout the study corridor. By doing so, workers would have more opportunities to live closer to work, reducing the need for long distance interregional commuting. Centered on I-15, this two county commute corridor extends from central San Diego to the cities of Lake Elsinore, Perris, and Hemet as shown in Figure 1.

Transportation is one of the three elements included in the IRP. The transportation component of the IRP develops a Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) that will concentrate on short term strategies (5, 10 and 15 year horizon) for the I-15 corridor. The IRP Phase III consists of the following tasks:

1. Task 1: Compile and document existing Project Study Reports in the study corridor 2. Task 2: Goods movement data summary 3. Task 3: Analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure development 4. Task 4: Cost-effectiveness analysis and overall funding strategy

This final task of the IRP Phase III is the SIP which, summarizes the analyses conducted in the prior tasks and prioritizes the proposed strategies and projects, presenting an action plan for the implementation of short term projects. Whenever possible, the SIP will also incorporate the results of the Interregional, Transit, Buspool and Vanpool and the Cost Effectiveness Studies.

Figure 1 shows the study area for the I-15 IRP Phase III effort and Figure 2 shows the I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area.

B-4 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Figure 1: I-15 IRP Phase III Study

Source: IRP Phase II Report

B-5 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Figure 2: I-15 IRP Phase III Smart Growth and Transportation Priority Area

Source: SANDAG, 2009

B-6 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Summary of Project Study Reports in the I-15 Corridor

Project Study Reports This task compiled and documented existing Project Study Reports (PSRs) in the study corridor (Figure 3). The seven PSRs assembled in the report span from Lake Elsinore in Riverside County down to State Route 52 (SR-52) on the northern border of the city of San Diego. The PSRs reviewed for this study are listed as follows:

Riverside County PSR for I-15 between State Route 79 (SR-79) to north of the I-15/Interstate 215 (I-215) Junction, April 2002 PSR for interchange improvements on I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road, September 2002 PSR for the I-15/SR-79 South interchange, February 2004 PSR to modify existing interchange at I-15/State Route 74 (SR-74) junction, January 2005 PSR to widen roadbeds and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-15, between the 15/215 split and Riverside County line, October 2007

San Diego County North I-15 Corridor PSR, between SR-52 and State Route 78 (SR-78), San Diego County, September 1998 I-15 Final Project Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003

However, as the Task 1 report detailed, there is a lack of planned improvement, or gap, in the middle of the corridor, as the PSR segments reported do not include the section situated between the 15/215 interchange in Riverside County south to Escondido in San Diego County, which is the area on either side of the border between the two counties. Data from the PSRs were reviewed including: average weekday peak period traffic, number of interregional vanpools, daily interregional transit ridership and peak period vehicle occupancy at the county line. The following has been identified as a result of reviewing the PSRs:

• If traffic increases at the rate projected in the PSRs, this area would see a continued reduction in level of service performance; and • PSRs are an incomplete source of information regarding project planning that has been well underway on projects along the I-15 in Riverside County.

Significantly, if traffic increases at the rate projected in many of the collected PSRs, this border area would see a continual reduction in the Level of Service (LOS) performance.

Table 1 summarizes PSRs conducted for the I-15 Corridor.

B-7 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Figure 3. Map of PSRs

B-8 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Table 1. Summary of PSRs for I-15 Corridor

Project Study Report Issue Date Study Purpose Impetus Sponsors Alternatives Analysis Outstanding Issues/Status Funding/Costs Recommendations

Riverside County I-15 between State Route 79 (SR- Apr-02 Evaluates the feasibility of It is projected that capacity and RCTC and the cities 1. No-Build, The proposed projects are consistent with Due to differences with RTP and FTP Statewide Transportation None 79) to north of the I-15/Interstate constructing a new interchange on I- operation deficiencies will occur at of Murrieta and 2. Construct a braided partial cloverleaf interchange on I-15 between SR-79 and the statewide, regional, and local planning goals, with projects, revisions are required before Improvement Program 215 (I-215) Junction 15 between the current SR-79 the SR-79 interchange due to Temecula I-15/I-215 junction, costing $63 million, and no hazardous materials in the vicinity of the the Project Report can be approved. (STIP) interchange and the I-15/I-215 accelerated growth and development 3. Construct a modified braided diamond interchange on I-15 between SR-79 and project. Off-peak lane closures and detours would Junction in the surrounding communities the I-15/I-215 junction, costing $65 million. be expected and ramp closures would be necessary during construction Interchange Improvements on I-15 Sep-02 analyze alternatives to improve the 2002 design had close proximity City of Lake 1. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative The report analyzed the then current (2002) System and regional planning must still $19 Million Alternative 9 alleviates existing congestion while at Railroad Canyon Road capacity and operations of I-15 and signalized intersections at the ramps, Elsinore, Caltrans 2. Alternative 2: Widen and Reconstruct a Diamond Interchange conditions, 2005 projections, and 2025 take place, including further also accommodating forecasted volumes. Railroad Canyon Road Interchange in which create recurrent congestion 3. Alternative 3B: Hook Ramps to Grape Street (City Center Site) projections. Segment analysis, intersection environmental studies, a transportation the city of Lake Elsinore and reduction of circulation and 4. Alternative 9: Hook Ramps to Summerhill Drive and Casino Road and analysis, ramp analysis, meter queuing analysis management plan, and right-of-way safety. Future traffic demand at the Southbound Loop Exit Ramp was completed for all alternatives. acquisition. interchange is not expected to be 5. Alternative 10: Hook Ramps to Summerhill Drive and Casino Road adequately handled by existing layout.

I-15/SR-79 South Interchange Feb-04 Interim interchange improvements Caltrans District 8 1. Modified PSR Alternative 2: Southbound Loop Off-Ramp Directly to SR-79, Direct The modified Alternative 2 was chosen based off Final resolution required to select $8 million to $25 million, Modified Alternative 2: Eliminate the current were constructed in 1998, and are Southbound On-Ramp from SR-79; Eliminate Existing Southbound Ramps its satisfactory LOS in the year 2025 and will alternative. funded by the city of southbound I-15 off-ramp and replace it with a not expected to meet future capacity 2. Southbound I-15 to Eastbound SR-79 Loop with Southbound I-15 Hook Off-Ramp provide access to the adjacent commercial Temecula. southbound loop off-ramp with a southbound needs for 2025. to Old Town, and Southbound Hook On-Ramp development area. hook on-ramp connecting to the proposed 3. Single Point interchange Under I-15 extension of Front Street. It was chosen based 4.Split Southbound Off-Ramps and Southbound Hook On-Ramp off its satisfactory LOS in the year 2025 and will 5. Southbound Loop Off-Ramp with Southbound Hook On-Ramp provide access to the adjacent commercial 6. Direct Connector Ramp from Southbound I-15 to Eastbound SR-79 development area.

Modify Existing Interchange at I- Jan-05 Investigate operational improvement Addresses projected capacity and City of Lake 1. No-Build Proposed alignments meet the system and Awaiting alternative selection resolution $22-$24 Million Lake Elsinore has indicated its preference for 15/State Route 74 (SR-74) Junction at the junction of I-15 and SR-74 in operational deficiencies at the Elsinore 2. Type L-9 Partial Cloverleaf IC – priced at $24 million regional planning goals. Both alternatives require Alternative 3 (Type L-9 Partial Cloverleaf IC) the city of Lake Elsinore junction due to projected growth and 3. Type L-8 (Modified) Cloverleaf IC – priced at $22 million the acquisition of right-of-way (ROW). The most because of its compatibility with the city’s land development in the area. The significant difference between the operational use plans for the area. However Alternative 2 existing I-15/SR-74 IC configuration characteristics of both alternatives is that (Type L-8 (Modified) Cloverleaf IC) is is expected to be operating at LOS F merge/diverge areas are expected to operate recommended to be used as a basis for by 2030 traffic levels at all points more efficiently in Alternative 2, while ramp street programming and the final determination of the along the interchange intersections in Alternative 3 are expected to preferred alternative. operate more efficiently.

Widen Roadbeds and High Oct-07 Capacity and operational These improvements are intended to RCTC in 1. No-Build scenario The study documents traffic data for 2006, and Proposed amendment to the RTP: The Build alternative has a The final recommendation is for the HOV lane Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes on improvements on I-15 from the I-15/I- ease projected capacity and cooperation with 2. The construction of one mixed-flow and one HOV lane in each direction in the projected 2035 operating conditions as well as 1. SR-74 to San Bernardino/Riverside proposed project cost of assessment to be used for program funding and I-15, Between I-15/I-215 Split and 215 Junction in Murrieta to the operational deficiencies, and at the Caltrans District 8 study area. accident data from 2003-2006. County Line, add 2 HOV/HOT lanes and $912 million, and is divided scheduling of this project. Riverside County Riverside/San Bernardino County Line current rate of population and 1 MF lane each direction, 2008, to 2019 across four phases - Including paving the median to development growth, the existing 2. I-215 to SR-74, add 1 lane in each extending from 2008 to widen I-15 from six mixed-flow (MF) infrastructure is expected to reach direction, start 2007, end 2019 2018. lanes to eight mixed-flow lanes and LOS F in the near future. two HOV lanes.

San Diego County North I-15 Corridor, Between State Sep-98 Compares various highway Travelers could be subjected to 15 to SANDAG, Caltrans The highway improvements being considered were: Under Construction Funding will not likely be The final recommendation from this report is that Route 52 (SR-52) and State Route improvements for I-15 from 0.5 km 30 minute delays in their commute, 1. HOV Lanes (2+2 Buffer) available for the entire further analysis be carried forth for all feasible 78 (SR-78), San Diego County south of the SR-163 to SR-78, a and overall travel demand was 2. HOV Lane (1+1 RTP Buffer) corridor at once, so the alternatives, with the Metropolitan Transit corridor length of 20 miles expected to grow 20 to 80 percent 3. Managed Lanes (2+1) critical Middle (SR-56 to Development Board (MTDB) and Caltrans along the corridor over the next 20 4. Managed Lanes (3+1). Centre City Parkway), continuing to study a broad range of transit years would be Stage One for improvements. construction I-15 Final Project Report, Between Feb-03 Identifies improvements in the I-15 Expands goals from 1998 PSR to SANDAG, Caltrans Details the population and employment growth North and middle segments under SANDAG and Caltrans Recommendation for approval of the Four SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego corridor from 1.5 miles south of SR- enhancing goods movement and expected for the I-15 corridor, as well as construction continue to pursue funding Managed Lanes Alternative and proceeding to County 163 to 0.3 miles north of SR-78, incorporating Smart Growth completes traffic analysis, accident analysis, and for the North and South the design phase for the Middle Segment is approximately 21.1 miles, in order to strategies into the decision process. weaving analysis for the No Build and Managed segments. suggested because it provides the greatest improve mobility in the region. Lanes Alternative. Also examined are the region’s balance of regional benefits to traffic service and traffic management goals and how well the greatest consideration for BRT and HOV proposed alternatives improves transit operator travelers. planning.

B-9 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Other Project Related Analysis PSRs tell only part of the story of what is happening along the corridor. For a comprehensive analysis of the planned work for the I-15 corridor, the following Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) and Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) were also reviewed for the adjacent counties and metropolitan areas:

Long Range Transportation Plans • Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) 2006 LRTP • San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 2005 I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study RTP • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2008 RTP • SANDAG 2030 RTP (adopted in 2007)

Findings Focusing on only PSRs highlights a potential shortcoming in the Phase III Scope of Work. For example, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) has launched a comprehensive effort to widen 43.5 miles of the I-15 from the San Bernardino County line all the way to the confluence of the 15/215 interchange. The overall effort will include a new toll road between State Routes 60 and 74, and additional lane widening throughout the entire length of the facility. Along with the I-15 Improvement Project, RCTC is pursuing improvements to State Route 91 (SR-91) which will also include an additional general purpose lane, new toll lanes, improved access to the freeway and a significant upgrade to the 91/15 interchange. The planned 91/15 improvements are so significant that it will include major investments on approximately six miles of the I-15 from the Hidden Valley Parkway interchange in Norco all the way to the Cajalco interchange in Corona. Both of these projects have entered into the environmental analysis stage. An environmental document is expected to be approved for SR-91 in 2011 and in 2012 for the I-15 project. Construction on the SR-91 project will begin in 2011; construction on the I-15 project is scheduled for 2015. In both projects there is a large toll component which has added a level of information that far surpasses what is available in a PSR. For example, traffic modeling has been completed to a much higher level on these projects as part of traffic and revenue analyses. Also, improvements on the I-15 have been made due to legislation approved in 2008 (AB1954) authorizing RCTC to develop a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) facility. Furthermore, SBX4 (Cogdill) which was approved in 2009 as part of a state budget amendment, creates a pilot program for design build public/private partnerships. The I-15 in Riverside County is a potential candidate for this pilot program.

In addition, Caltrans Districts 8 and 11 Interstate 15 County Line Study identifies I-15 transit related projects including managed lanes to help address the gap between the counties in the border area. Route 202 operated by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), currently operates between Temecula and Oceanside via I-15, SR-78, and I-5. The purpose of this service is to connect Riverside residents to the Coaster commuter rail service. Consideration is being given by RTA and SANDAG planning staff to determine whether this service route could be modified to take advantage of the I-15 Managed Lanes in San Diego County to deliver patrons to service the Sorrento Mesa (and Coaster rail service for trips on to Downtown San Diego) area more directly and efficiently. Also, under consideration is the funding from various sources for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vehicles and operations for a commuter peak period enhanced bus service between Escondido and downtown San Diego beginning in 2012 with the opening of the 20 mile I-15 Managed Lane project. SANDAG’s RTP lists expansion of San Diego County’s northern-most segment of the I-15 from Escondido to the Riverside border in its “Reasonably

B-10 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Expected” revenue scenario, to be built by 2020. With many separate sources of project information, it is difficult to estimate the level of traffic and congestion at any point during the construction and expansion in the study area. The formal PSR documentation provided a limited picture of the changes planned for the I-15 corridor.

B-11 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Goods Movement Data Summary

The Goods Movement Data Summary task investigated the importance of goods movement in planning for future transportation enhancements in the I-15 corridor. The Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan (MCGMAP), which was part of a regional framework for goods movement initiatives, was used as a key resource for this work. This seven-county study looked at goods movement on Southern California’s regional infrastructure network through San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, Ventura and Imperial Counties. As part of the MCGMAP analysis and recommendations, reports outlining a Goods Movement Action Plan for Riverside County and San Diego County were also produced.

Riverside County’s freight corridors mostly run in an east/west orientation, while San Diego’s major corridors run more north/south. This creates two completely different outlooks when trying to compare freight movements in the study area. Riverside County has two major rail lines, expected to more than double in volume by 2035. Neither of the rail lines are in the I-15 corridor. Traffic on San Diego’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line is also expected to double by 2030, showing strong growth in the rail industry. There are also two shortline freight railroads in San Diego County, but their annual haul is minimal. I-15 is a significant truck freight corridor. The daily average truck count on the I-15 corridor is 11,060 in San Diego County and 11,960 in Riverside County.

While the focus of Phase III of the I-15 IRP effort is not on goods movement, I-15 is a key freight interstate route and a NAFTA corridor, and the future plans of this vital linkage between the two counties should take freight transport into consideration as part of the overall analysis of current plans and included as part of future plans.

Riverside County

Rail Riverside County has three rail mainlines owned by BNSF and Union Pacific (UP_. These include the BNSF Transcon, the UP Los Angeles Subdivision (UP LA Sub), and the UP El Paso Line. The BNSF Transcon is the artery linking the Los Angeles basin to all midwestern, southwestern and eastern markets on the BNSF rail system. UP LA Sub connects to the UP Sunset Corridor at Colton in the Los Angeles basin. The UP El Paso Line is part of the UP Sunset Corridor which extends to El Paso. This route is designated as the primary intermodal line between the Los Angeles basin and eastern markets traversing through Riverside County. From the 2005 report on the Inland Empire Railroad Mainlines, total freight train movements for lines in Riverside County are presented below in Table 2.

Table 2: Total Through Freight Train Movements per Peak Day by Line Segment in Riverside County Line Segment 2000 2010 2035 BNSF Atwood – West Riverside 57 82 121 BNSF/UP West Riverside – Colton 92 132 194 UP Mira Loma – W. Riverside County plus 64 90 126 UP West Colton – Colton UP El Paso Line UP Yuma Line 42 60 87 Source: Inland Empire Railroad Mainline Study, Final Report, June 30, 2005.

B-12 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Table 3 shows a doubling of through traffic on Riverside County rail lines by 2035. Rail freight passing through Riverside County is substantial and has implications on traffic congestion and safety issues at at-grade railroad crossings. Riverside County recently published the RCTC Grade Separation Funding Strategy: A Blueprint for Advancing Projects in 2008 identifying key issues with goods movement and the critical need for additional funding. The movement of goods by rail in Riverside County is mostly in the east-west direction and does not overlap with goods movement along the I-15 corridor, and therefore at-grade crossings are less of an issue for this corridor.

Truck Riverside County is a key freight corridor in Southern California. According to the 2006 goods movement study conducted by Cambridge Systematics1, in 2003, 104 million tons of goods were shipped through Riverside County with 35 percent (36 million tons) shipped via truck and 65 percent (68 million tons) handled by rail passing through Riverside County.

Table 3 below shows the 2007 truck volumes on Riverside County’s I-15 freeway segments. The percentage of trucks on I-15 through the county vary from 5.6 to 11.5 percent, with a general lowering of the number of trucks towards the San Diego County border. As indicated in the table, truck percentage around Fourth Street in Norco shows an increase, but the overall number of trucks on this segment of I-15 decreases. This indicates that a high number of passenger vehicles are also exiting I-15 in this area of Norco.

Table 3: Riverside County I-15 AADT and Truck Count Route Location AADT Total Trucks Truck % I-15 Jct. Route 60 225,000 18,450 8.20 I-15 Fourth St. Norco 157,000 17,992 11.46 I-15 Jct. Route 91 184,000 10,322 5.61 I-15 Jct. Route 74 120,000 11,825 9.89 I-15 Main St. 129,000 11,868 9.20 I-15 Baxter Rd. 131,000 11,397 8.70 I-15 Jct. Route 215 N 155,500 10,632 7.28 I-15 North Jct. Route 79 169,000 11,103 6.57 I-15 South Jct. Route 79 146,500 10,125 6.90 I-15 San Diego/ Riverside County Line 136,000 9,180 6.75 Source: Caltrans Traffic Data, 2007 Truck Traffic

According to estimates using Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Freight Analysis Framework data (2002 FAF2), approximately 19 percent of Riverside County’s Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic (AADTT) travels on the I-15 corridor.

1 Critical Goods Movement Issues for Riverside County, RCTC, September 2006

B-13 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

San Diego County

Rail BNSF is the major carrier in San Diego County and its mainline extends from the border with Orange County down the coast to National City. BNSF trains operate on the Los Angles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) parallel to I-5 freeway. This 62-mile mainline is the only viable rail link between San Diego and the rest of the nation, with freight volumes exceeding 30,000 carloads annually. By 2030, the volume is estimated to be more than 60,000 carloads per year.2

San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad (SDIV) is a shortline operator on the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway track in the United States. The SDIV has been owned and operated by RailAmerica (now Fortress Holdings) since 2000 and previously owned by RailTex (which RailAmerica acquired) and operated with the SDIV. The SDIV operated at one time on two rail lines but today operates on only one (the San Diego to El Cajon Line), which interchanges with the BNSF railway operations in San Diego. On this 15-mile long route, over 7,000 railcars were transported in 2007.3 Today this line is operated by the Carrizo Gorge Railway (CZRY), which is the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway’s (SDAE's) operator in Mexico and the Imperial Valley. CZRY estimates between 5,000 and 6,000 railcars travelled into Mexico on the SDIV line in 2008.4

Truck San Diego County truck routes tend to be more north/south in orientation, and are centered in the downtown San Diego area. The interstate highways in San Diego County are I-5, I-8, I-15, and I-805 and the state routes are the State Route 52 (SR-52), State Route 54 (SR-54), State Route 56 (SR-56), State Route 67 (SR-67), State Route 78 (SR-78), State Route 94 (SR-94), State Route 125 (SR-125), State Route 163 (SR-163), and State Route 905 (SR-905). I-8 is the only feature with significant capacity that extends beyond the western third of the county.

Table 4 below shows the 2007 truck volumes on San Diego County’s I-15 freeway segments and the levels of trucks at major junctions along the I-15 corridor. The percentage of trucks on I-15 through the county vary from 3.59 to 13.20 percent, with a general lowering of the number of trucks towards the Mexican border.

Table 4: San Diego County I-15 AADT and Truck Count Route Location AADT Total Trucks Truck % I-15 Jct. Route 76 123,500 11,307 9.19 I-15 Deer Springs Rd 124,000 16,368 13.20 I-15 Jct. Route 78 165,500 13,731 8.60 I-15 Valley Parkway 186,000 13,206 7.10 I-15 Escondido, South Junction of Centre City 189,000 13,419 7.10 I-15 San Diego, Poway Rd 234,000 16,614 7.10 I-15 San Diego, Miramar/ Pomerado Rd. 288,500 11,043 3.83 I-15 Jct. Route 163 302,000 11,265 3.73 I-15 Jct. Route 8 188,000 7,097 3.59

2 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Intermodal Improvements Fact Sheet, March 2009 3 Rail America 4 Carrizo Gorge Railway Phone Interview with Maria Martinez, Head of U.S. Rail Traffic, May 22, 2009

B-14 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Route Location AADT Total Trucks Truck % I-15 Jct. Route 805 128,500 4,248 3.65 I-15 Jct. Route 94 112,000 5,712 5.10 Source: Caltrans Traffic Data, 2007 Truck Traffic

According to estimates using FHWA’s 2002 FAF2 data, approximately 14 percent of San Diego County’s average annual daily truck traffic travels on the I-15 corridor.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation

As the I-15 IRP seeks to take a comprehensive approach to interregional transportation planning, goods movement is an important element. Riverside County freight corridors mostly run in an east/west orientation, while San Diego’s major corridors run more north/south.

Due to the economic slump in California and nationwide, truck volumes and rail traffic is on the short-term decline and may continue to slide for another year or more indicating ongoing economic fluctuations dictating future freight traffic. However, as the state and national economy eventually regain their health, an eventual increase in demand for goods will ensue, leading to an increase in truck and rail traffic in the region. Riverside and San Diego Counties will be impacted by this long-term trend of increased truck and rail traffic. It is recommended that future freight movement estimates be carried out periodically to address potential changes to freight demand resulting from changes in economic conditions.

Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure Development

This section of the report addresses the impact of the recently passed SB 375 legislation, develops and refines future BRT and commuter express transit plans in the I-15 and I-215 corridors, including analysis of transit priority treatments and a proposed phasing plan for transit infrastructure development and transit service in the study region.

Smart Growth - SB 375 (Steinberg) – California State Legislation SB 375 is California state legislation that became law effective January 1, 2009. It requires the reduction of green house gas (GHG) emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 375’s goal is to reduce GHGs by improving the connection between land use and transportation planning, resulting in more walkable, compact communities served by good, reliable transit, thus reducing the need to drive. SB 375 requires “California’s Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for GHG emissions, and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. Under SB 375, California’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) have been tasked with creating Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS). The MPOs are required to develop the SCS through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035.” 5 The SCS is a required new element of the RTP.

5 SCAG’s SB 375 Regional Implementation Plan. http:/www.scag.ca.gov/sb375/index.htm

B-15 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

SB 375 – Riverside County SCAG is the nation’s largest MPO, representing six counties - Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial and Ventura - and is responsible for a variety of planning and policy initiatives including SB 375. Unique to the SCAG region, SB 375 affords the opportunity for a Council of Governments (COG) along with the county transportation commission, to develop a subregional SCS for incorporation into the regional SCS. In Riverside County, there are two COGs: the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), which serves the eastern portion of the county and WRCOG serving the western portion of Riverside County.

To assist the COGs in defining its role in the SB 375 process, SCAG identified the following three variations/options of involvement for subregionals to consider:

1) Full Delegation. For Riverside County, this option would require that CVAG and WRCOG, in collaboration with RCTC, complete a comprehensive analysis of planned and programmed transit and planning projects throughout the two subregions. The jurisdictions would then be required to review and refine growth patterns to recommend areas for densification and identify future transportation projects and policies required to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The COGs and the CTC would be required to hold a series of scenario planning workshops together with a number of public hearings. In addition to the development of the SCS, the subregions would also be responsible for delegation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA);

2) Partial Delegation. This would require CVAG, WRCOG and RCTC to undertake the aforementioned planning and transit review and recommendation without accepting delegation of RHNA; and

3) Collaborative Planning Process. This planning process provides a flexible range of options in developing an SCS. Specifically, SCAG would oversee the process relying heavily on input from the subregions, local jurisdictions, and CTCs to identify planned and new transit projects, transportation plans and policies that will reduce GHG emissions, provide assistance with workshops and outreach programs, review and refine local data, and provide input into the development of additional regional policies to reduce GHG emissions.

SB 375 – San Diego County In the San Diego region, SANDAG is undertaking implementation of SB 375 and preparation of the SCS. Although the SCS is a new requirement, its origin lies in the regional planning processes already underway at SANDAG and other MPOs/COGs in the state, which set forth plans for future growth that integrate the transportation, land use, housing, environmental, and economic needs of each region. The SCS also is a continuation of the state’s Regional Blueprint Planning Program that has been funded with state grants using federal transportation planning funds since the program was initiated in 2005. The development of SANDAG’s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and Smart Growth Concept Map were partially funded from those grants, and will assist the region in its preparation of an SCS for the 2050 RTP.

B-16 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan SANDAG is the first major MPO in the state that is subject to SB 375. An SCS will be prepared as part of the region’s next RTP (2050 RTP), which is scheduled to be adopted in July 2011. The RHNA for the next housing element cycle is required to be consistent with the SCS, and also will be adopted by July 2011. Another major component of this work is the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast (Series 12), which will be used in the development of the RTP, SCS, and RHNA. (Reports about the relationship of SANDAG’s Overall Work Program to SB 375, the RTP schedule, and the Series 12 growth forecast have been prepared and can be found on SANDAG’s Web site.6 )

Existing Public Transportation The transit methods for reaching San Diego County from the southern area of Riverside County are rather limited. Bus/vanpools and three bus transit routes are the only public modes of transportation currently in place in the area. As indicated in the Interregional Transit, Vanpool and Buspool Study (Interregional Transit/Vanpool/Buspool Study conducted by SANDAG), there are 29,000 commuters per day that are traveling from Riverside County to San Diego County, with 60 percent of those trips generated from the greater Murrieta/Temecula area into San Diego County and 40 percent destined for jobs in either northern San Diego County, or closer to the downtown area. This draft study is an on-going effort commissioned by SANDAG to address commuting to San Diego from the communities of Riverside.

In general, prior travel demand forecasts from the IRP Phase II County Line Study, contained in Appendix B of the IRP Phase II Final Report, have indicated, as shown in Table 5 below, that the I-15 current eight-lane facility will be over capacity by 2015.7 These forecasts show that the I-15 existing eight-lane freeway cross-section at the Riverside/San Diego county line will start to reach capacity approximately by the year 2012 and will be experiencing congestion by 2015 if improvements are not made.

Table 5: Average I-15 Daily Traffic on Border between Riverside County and San Diego County Assuming No Improvements to Current Infrastructure Year Average Daily Traffic 2005 ADT (existing) 135,000 2010 ADT 150,000 2015 ADT 175,000 2020 ADT 200,000 2025 ADT 225,000 2030 ADT 250,000 Source: I-15 IRP Phase II County Line Study

The 2006 WRCOG Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Demand Analysis indicates that based on 2000 data the use of public transportation to work in Riverside County was at 1.4 percent which is much less than San Diego County at 3.3 percent and Los Angeles County at 6.5 percent. However, as part of the survey conducted by

6 http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=360&fuseaction=projects.detail

7 It is notable that all of the prior projections were based on factors that have been impacted, at least in the short term, by the economic downturn. However, given the continued increase in population, it is logical to assume that demands for travel will continue to increase between the two counties in the coming decades.

B-17 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

WRCOG, it was noted that 48.2 percent of the respondents did indicate they would use public transportation “under the right circumstances.”

From a San Diego County perspective, the Metropolitan Transit System’s (MTS) Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) indicated that 60 percent of the Riverside residents that have lived there for less than ten years came from San Diego and that there has been a dramatic increase in demand to San Diego County in the past five years. Further, the MTS COA noted in the Ridership Trends 2005 that the non-transit modes were becoming more attractive because of: • Increased downtown San Diego parking; • Increased highway network capacity; • Increased use of I-15 HOT lanes created by solo drivers switching from mixed use lanes; and • Heavily subsidized vanpools originating from Riverside to San Diego. The SANDAG iCommute (formerly Ridelink) program subsidizes 275 vanpools at $400 per month for commuters traveling from Riverside to San Diego.

A map of existing transit routes between Riverside and San Diego County inside the study area is shown in Figure 4 below.

B-18 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Figure 4: Existing Transit Routes in the Study Area

Summary of Transportation Strategies and Improvements

There are a number of transportation strategies and other improvements either previously implemented or planned for the I-15 IRP corridor area including the continuation of the vanpool program, express transit service, potential high-speed rail service, the I-15 Express Lanes Project, the tolled express lanes on I-15 and SR-91 as

B-19 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report well as HOV lanes. In addition, BRT and bus on shoulder strategies are planned for San Diego County in a small section between I-8 and SR-94. While the construction of the freeway improvements will take some time to complete, the vanpool program and RTA’s Route 217 provides an interim solution for commuters traveling through Temecula to Escondido.

The IRP Phase II Final Report included background information and updates regarding a number of public transportation issues and alternatives that have been developed as part of the IRP planning process. The next step options are presented based on the latest activities with a focus on four areas:

• Information that can be included in long range transportation plans; • Preliminary ideas regarding transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure which will be more fully explored in the SIP; • Input regarding phasing options for express bus and BRT services; and • Evaluating demand

Long Range Transportation Plans The transportation strategies identified in the Phase II Final Report are still relevant and can be further enhanced by ongoing activities between SANDAG and WRCOG in the area of Smart Growth, including TOD. Although public transportation will not be the primary mode of travel within the IRP corridor, it should be a growing market of opportunity that will be best developed through an ongoing and consistent process of programs and projects. Strategies regarding the LRTP process include:

1. To reaffirm that the prior findings of the Phase II process are still appropriate as shown below: i. Interregional coordination of vanpool and carpool programs; ii. Expand park and ride lots and improve rideshare information signage; iii. Joint outreach and marketing for transit, vanpool and ridesharing programs; iv. Implement interregional public transit commuter services; v. Support high speed rail transit services in the I-15 corridor; and vi. Implement the I-15 high-occupancy vehicle program.

2. To augment and update those findings as follows: i. Reinforce the importance of Smart Growth, SB 375, and the coordination of land use planning processes with the public transportation planning process; ii. Incorporate the preliminary findings of the Interregional Transit/Vanpool/Buspool Study into ongoing planning activities8; iii. Pending full implementation of the proposed and potential high occupancy vehicle program along the I-15 corridor, consider intermediate actions to facilitate bus flow such as bus on shoulder operations (in San Diego County) in congested areas; iv. Develop an inter-operator agreement process that defines the policy, planning, and financial roles and responsibilities of the agencies for operating and capital issues; and

8 The Interregional Transit/Vanpool study has been reviewed by RCTC staff but has not been presented to the RCTC Commission for policy board consideration.

B-20 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan v. Consistent with the overall strategy of the IRP, continue to support the progress of the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) Authority and work to incorporate future development and implementation of the HSR plans into the IRP process.

There are four issues of current interest for both San Diego and Riverside Counties which are as follows:

1. Maintaining consistency with current Smart Growth efforts by SANDAG and WRCOG and future projects pertaining to SB 375; 2. Implementation and phasing of transit and vanpool programs for the IRP corridor with particular emphasis on the transition phase from support of planning activities to potential commitment to participate in a joint program. Refer to Figure 4; 3. Bus on shoulder treatments in San Diego; and 4. Consideration and integration of HSR planning efforts along the IRP corridor.

Transit Priority Treatments and Transit Lane Infrastructure The primary recommendation affecting transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure would be for the affected parties to concur on a long-term goal including a facility comprised of four general purpose and two HOV/Managed/Toll Lanes in each direction throughout the IRP study area on the I-15 corridor.

Preliminary Phasing Options for Express Bus and BRT SANDAG has committed significant policy, planning, operational and financial resources to the I-15 corridor BRT service concept and is focused on the 2012 implementation date for service from Escondido to the south. RTA, on the other hand, has taken the approach to explore demonstration project service to Oceanside and now Escondido in order to gauge demand for these inter-county trips. In addition, according to RTA’s COA, planning activities are more concentrated on existing higher demand corridors in the northern part of the county, with typically a 10-year planning horizon. Thus, in the short-term it would be consistent for RTA to continue to assess the demand perspective, while SANDAG works to explore options to extend the 15-minute frequency service to northern San Diego County.

In the longer term, an inter-county operator plan and agreement, including operating and capital components would be an ideal approach to providing transit service in the I-15 corridor. Given the history from other locales regarding time delays and complications encountered, it is recommended that the plan and agreement be drafted in the near future. For discussion purposes, the transit phasing options presented in Figure 5 can be used as a starting point.

Evaluating Demand The following are basic principles that determine the success of commuter services:

• When introducing service into a corridor without any existing service, it is difficult to estimate demand, model demand, etc.; • Although each corridor is unique, if it is part of a consistent system that is favorably perceived, the potential to grow ridership is increased; • Quality customer service is a requisite for attracting commuters, especially discretionary riders; • Once quality has been ensured, then marketing and communication can continue to attract riders;

B-21 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

• Lack of commitment to a sustainable program can readily be perceived by potential users and will inhibit ridership; and • Ultimately, success is measured in many ways by many policy boards. Some adhere to strict ridership and subsidy thresholds; others include more flexible quantitative reviews tempered by qualitative evaluations.

B-22 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Figure 5: Conceptual Implementation Expansion Options

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, 2009

B-23 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Summary of Transit Related Findings

The transit treatment analysis assembled in the IRP Phase III Report, examines a range of various modes – BRT, express bus, buspools, vanpools, and high-speed rail. The report summarizes existing transit services in both Riverside and San Diego Counties, details the planned transit services in the near future based on adopted SCAG and SANDAG RTPs/RTIPs, and highlights possible options for future transit alternatives in the corridor, including phasing options for future service through the year 2025. These phased transit options (five, 10 and 15 years out) will be further examined below along with highway projects. Wilbur Smith Associates (consulting firm retained to develop the transportation component of Phase III) included the transit concepts and projects discussed in this report as it developed planning level cost estimates for transit alternatives (in addition to a No- Build and Transportation System Management alternatives) and prioritized a suite of potential projects for recommendation as detailed in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Overall Funding Strategy.

Infrastructure The primary recommendation affecting transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure would be for the participating agencies to concur on a long-term goal of a facility comprised of four general purpose and two HOV/Managed/Toll Lanes in each direction throughout the IRP study area. Approval in concept to extend infrastructure for a consistent application would seem to be appropriate, given the traffic projections that have been used as part of the IRP planning process.

Pending implementation of additional roadway capacity, the study of a bus on shoulder program called Transit Only Lanes in California is recommended for San Diego County, which is similar to the effective SR-52/I-805 operation SANDAG has used since December 2005. The operational criteria used in that project is to allow shoulder operation by transit if speeds decrease to 30 mph or below and that the bus speed be limited to 10 mph faster than traffic in the mixed flow lanes. Before implementing, Caltrans would need to study bus on shoulder for transit only lanes including capital costs as using the shoulders would require increased maintenance, pavement repair, signage, and enforcement costs.

Another important infrastructure requirement would be to effectively plan for longer term availability of park-and- ride facilities particularly in Temecula. Park-and-ride demand is typically highest at the last service point before the transit vehicle enters the highway. Thus, it would be logical to expect potential travelers from both the I-15 and I-215 corridors to the north to park in Temecula. Park-and-ride facilities can also serve as coordination points with longer term facilities. They can act as the forerunners of the locations of larger transit facilities such as bus centers, HSR stations, or BRT transit stops.

Transit Demand Commuter bus service builds in different ways in different corridors and no two corridors are exactly the same. In addition transit use as a percentage of trips is currently less in Riverside County than San Diego County. This is based on a number of factors, density, availability, etc. and is referenced to indicate it may be logical to anticipate a slower demand growth for transit in the I-15 corridor.

The short-term option could be retaining the current practice of RTA’s Route 217 to operate through Temecula to Escondido where it would connect with expanded MTS service. This would give the RTA an opportunity to determine how demand for service is building within the corridor and then determine what level of longer term

B-24 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan investment and operating scenario might best serve Riverside County. From a SANDAG perspective, new commuter service from the park-and-ride/direct access ramp segment currently in service would also provide valuable data that could then be used as a basis for future service planning discussions.

Operations Initial discussions have started between SANDAG, RTA, RCTC, MTS and North County Transit District regarding developing an operating plan for the corridor based on the implementation of managed lanes transit service to Escondido in 2012. Multi-jurisdictional planning is usually complicated by financial-related issues; as a result, the affected agencies should consider developing operational agreements.

Current operation from Riverside County to Escondido and the current operation of MTS service to the middle segment of the I-15 express lanes are representative of the potential near term use of expanded services. These services should be monitored to assess customer input regarding frequency, travel time, transferring and other issues. Results of monitoring the various services can be included in future operating plans.

A phased implementation within the corridor and a demonstration service from Temecula to downtown San Diego is recommended. This service would be valuable in testing the relationship between potential demand and real customer use and would provide feedback to decision makers regarding priorities for funding, and other phasing issues.

In the longer term, a frequent peak period service scenario of 30 or even 15 minute headways would be most successful in attracting commute riders. Mid-day and weekend service should also be tested from a two-direction perspective, since this corridor will continue to build demand. An ultimate regional service plan in Riverside County would logically include connections further north of Temecula to Murrieta, Lake Elsinore and perhaps two-way service to/from the Corona Metrolink Station as well as I-215 service to the Perris Valley Metrolink Station. These regional services should also be supported by local feeder connections.

As previously mentioned, capital costs in addition to operating costs must be taken into account when developing plans for new inter-county bus service. Operational issues to be considered include different county cost structures as well as union work rules.

Phasing On-going work by SANDAG and WRCOG staff regarding smart growth also accentuates the importance of land use planning and public transportation. As with many IRP related concepts, continued communication and consistency of application are important aspects of the planning process. The SANDAG sponsored Interregional Transit/Vanpool/Buspool Study includes ideas for transit and buspool demonstration projects, which are of value since they combine these concepts into an overall approach to service alternatives for the IRP corridor. The study introduces a conceptual phasing plan for transit in the corridor through 2035 and indicates that at some juncture more specific implementation plans need to be developed.

B-25 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Conclusions and Recommendations for Implementation

Analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure focused on potential transit improvements in the I-15 corridor. It involved the review and refinement of future BRT and/or commuter express transit plans in the I-15 and I-215 corridors. The review incorporated the results from WRCOG’s TOD Study and the Interregional Transit, Buspool, and Vanpool Study which was conducted by SANDAG. Additionally, this work was coordinated with the smart growth land use planning efforts also underway in the I-15 and I-215 corridors which looks to coordinate land use and transit planning. The work included an analysis of transit priority treatments and transit lane infrastructure. It also included the development of preliminary phasing options for express bus and BRT services given existing and proposed infrastructure.

The WSA team reviewed a number of prior and current reports and documents, researched additional resources, provided comments regarding infrastructure, demand and operations, in order to make recommendations for next steps for the two counties. Often within the public transportation community individual agencies develop a “family of services” concept that reinforces that all services should be thought of in a holistic, seamless way. In this instance the two-county area has the potential to expand that family of services from a multi-county perspective. That perspective also has the potential to incorporate the principles of “mobility management” which focuses on the needs of the customers and multi-modal partnerships as opposed to management of assets. The counties could then move forward with transit, vanpool and buspool solutions that balance the needs with the resources and focus on efficiency and effectiveness. Continued coordination and partnering between the two counties is important to the implementation of these solutions. The suggested next steps for consideration are:

• Initiate bus on shoulder assessment and analysis for the I-15 corridor in San Diego County; • Develop an agreement in principle for operating plans – including vanpools and buspools and other planning studies (e.g. TOD and other managed growth planning); • Monitor ridership and demand for current RTA and MTS services; • Consider phasing of a demonstration express bus line from Temecula to downtown San Diego; • Develop operating plans for capacity enhancing freeway projects; • Implement, if warranted and feasible, bus on shoulder operation in San Diego county; • Implement expanded inter-county services; • Construct additional HOV lanes; • Continue to aggressively plan and build park-and-ride lots; and • As resources become available and ridership warrants, continue to expand operations and connections to the regional system and the local communities.

As illustrated in Table 6, Riverside and San Diego counties are very different in some critical ways that will make integrating and sustaining intercounty service a challenge. First and foremost is the difference in planning philosophies between the two counties. In San Diego County the focus is led by SANDAG, which is a MPO, a COG, a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and is also responsible for long-range transportation planning. The focus in San Diego County on the I-15 has been on the managed lanes concept with transit as a core component of future plans. Expanded BRT operations will soon be a reality in the I-15 corridor; bus on shoulder plans are also being discussed. To a degree, making improvements to the I-15 freeway infrastructure in northern San Diego County has been to improve transit operations. Transit works well along the southern portion of I-15 IRP Study Corridor (from Escondido south to downtown San Diego) for many reasons: a relatively dense

B-26 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan spine of communities with many commuters headed to downtown San Diego; a dedicated funding source in TransNet with transit as an important focus; a well-established eight-mile HOT lane stretch on the I-15 utilized by buses, especially during peak hours; and a willingness as evidenced by the passage of TransNet to improve transit and look at options such as bus on shoulder.

In short, SANDAG has partly focused on transit in the I-15 corridor in San Diego County because transit has been a successful, well used mode in the corridor. Farebox recovery on the MTS commuter services is approximately 46%. In comparison, RTA has a low bus farebox recovery ratio (less than 17% for blended rural/urban service) making it more difficult to establish new and expanded transit services such as intra-county BRT service.

In Riverside County, there are seven public bus operators with each operator having its own planning authority and policy board. RCTC is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Riverside County and has transit oversight responsibility but does not plan transit services. On the I-15 corridor, RTA - a joint powers authority – has responsibility for transit planning and operation. Compared to San Diego, Riverside County has a relatively low land use density and a more spread out pattern of development, which is not easily served by transit. However, Riverside County has a highly successful vanpool program that is subsidized by SANDAG. Individuals using the vanpool program are not likely to switch to conventional bus transit services, which in effect, reduces the pool of riders for transit.

In 1988 and again in 2002, more than two-thirds of Riverside County residents approved a half-cent sales tax initiative called Measure A to fund transportation projects. As a result, the focus on the I-15 in Riverside County has been more centered on freeway improvements including improving interchanges, and constructing/expanding HOV lanes (which will be utilized by transit buses). RCTC also has plans to implement the use of HOT lanes on the I-15 and SR-91. Although the Measure A Expenditure Plan includes the addition of one lane - in each direction from SR-60 to the San Diego County line - on the I-15, there are no short-term plans to add HOV/HOT lanes in the existing gap between the 15/215 split and the San Diego County line. It should be noted, however, that with the planned freeway improvements, there will be enhancements in transit operations in the I-15 corridor as buses will be able to utilize the HOT lanes once implemented. The Measure A Expenditure plan is primarily a freeway/highway funding mechanism with some dedicated funding for transit and Metrolink’s commuter rail system. Without a large amount of dedicated funding for transit it is difficult to increase services and gain transit mode share while meeting the state-mandated farebox recovery ratio. These issues – low density and dedicated funding for transit - are fundamental differences between the two counties in the provision of transit services.

Lastly, from a transit operator perspective, the two transit systems (RTA in Riverside County and MTS9 in San Diego County) have different operating costs, different metrics for measuring service, vastly different service areas, and serve different population densities. For example, San Diego County’s density along the I-15 corridor makes it an ideal candidate for BRT and express bus service while Riverside County’s lower densities and dispersed activity centers make BRT and express bus service more difficult. It is understandable that Riverside County might view expanding vanpools as a key component for the solution to intracounty travel while San Diego County views BRT and express bus as the critical component. Each county’s perspective is logical and reasonable. The challenge will be to find the middle ground that makes sense financially, operationally, institutionally and politically.

9 Note that in addition to MTS, NCTD is also a transit operator in San Diego County. MTS, however, has taken the lead in terms of interregional transit.

B-27 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Table 6: Varied Planning Approaches and Agency Responsibilities SANDAG RCTC MPO & RTPA RTPA Long Range Transportation Planning Responsibility High density – many commuters traveling to Low density – more spread out pattern of downtown San Diego development SB 375 – 1st major MPO subject to SB 375/SCS SB 375 will be part of RTP process WRCOG and CVAG: selected “collaborative” process TransNet - $14 billion/40 years (transit, highway, Measure A - $4.6 billion/30 years local roads, etc.) $390 million available in western Riverside County for commuter assistance, rail, bus and specialized transit services Managed lane concept with transit as a core HOV/HOT lanes (transit enhancement) component (BRT, bus on shoulder)

Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Funding Strategy

Based upon the findings of the above tasks a series of multimodal alternatives were developed. The intent was that each of these alternatives would be reviewed in terms of cost-effectiveness and funding potential. The alternatives were developed to represent a range of options and a mix of projects. A No-Build alternative is described to identify those projects which are currently slated for implementation and to represent the baseline against which the other alternatives could be compared. The other alternatives represent a range of costs and implementation timeframes, with low-cost relatively easily implemented projects grouped in the TSM/TDM alternative, and the more cost intensive and complex projects grouped under the express bus and BRT alternatives. Table 7 on the following page presents the alternatives, which are also described below.

Table 8 presents of summary evaluation of each of the alternatives. It is important to note that all the alternatives are compared relative to the no build option, and that the highway and transit improvements associated with each alternative have been combined. Each alternative was ranked in terms of performance compared to the no build opinion, using a three tiered ranking system: none or slight improvement, some improvement, or vast improvement. The results from Tables 2 and 3 in the CLEAT funding strategy report were used for the cost and ridership related criteria, and the other criteria were evaluated in a qualitative context. The results for each option are discussed below:

No Build The No Build option involves significant expense for the highway projects which are currently in the RTIP. However, these projects serve significant demand and because they include HOV/HOT lanes, they provide true multi-modal mobility benefits. The transit projects in the no build scenario including the vanpool program and the express bus improvements perform well, but involve relatively small ridership or usage numbers.

TSM/TDM Alternative

B-28 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan The projects included in the TSM/TDM are by definition low cost. Given the small investments involved these measures perform well in terms of usage and cost effectiveness. However, because the amount of usage is relatively small, the gains in mobility, environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies are also small, and there are no long term elements that would support positive, transit oriented land use development.

Alternative 1 – Express Bus This alternative performs well overall, but does involve significant costs. However, having completed HOV lanes linking the two counties with an integrated express bus program would yield significant mobility and environmental benefits.

Alternative 2 – BRT Of the three build alternatives, the BRT option involves the greatest costs. It also involves somewhat higher usage and mobility enhancement as compared with the express bus alternative. The fact that it involves the construction of dedicated BRT stations reflecting a long term commitment to transit means that it is more likely to stimulate transit supportive development along the I-15 corridor.

Table 7 – Summary Evaluation of the Alternatives

Evaluation Measures 1 No Build TSM/TDM Alternative 1 – Express Bus Alternative 2-BR

•Costs, Capital and Operating { z {

•Cost Effectiveness { z

• Usage z z z

• Mobility Improvement z z z

• Environmental Benefits z z

•Operating Efficiencies z z

•Transit Supportive Land Use { z

Legend : Not applicable (N/A), none or slight improvement ({), some improvement ( ), or vast improvement (z). 1. Includes Projects H1-H3 and T1-T4 from Table 1

B-29 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Evaluation Measures 1 No Build TSM/TDM Alternative 1 – Express Bus Alternative 2-BR

2. Includes Projects H4–H5 and T5-T7 from Table 1 3. Includes Projects H6 and T8 from Table 1 4. Includes Projects H7 and T9 form Table 1

B-30 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Challenges and Constraints to Implementation

There are certain challenges and constraints to the implementation of any of the alternatives identified above. These include:

• Funding – The most significant obstacle to implementing any of the alternatives is funding. The current economic crisis has stressed the available funding mechanisms to the extent where all existing federal, state, and county revenues are in serious jeopardy. The ability to fund the projects in the No Build alternative is in itself a major challenge for the counties. Projects which require major new funds are not likely to be implemented in the near or intermediate term. Transit operating funds are particularly difficult to come by, so major new transit services will be difficult to implement within the corridor. Phasing and incremental development of projects is probably the only way to implement larger projects. • Land Use and Economic Characteristics - Along the portion of the I-15 corridor under consideration there are marked differences in the densities and the mix of land uses. Along the southern portion of the I-15 IRP Study Corridor (from Escondido south to downtown San Diego) most of the corridor is heavily developed with a mix of residential, commercial retail, and employment sites. While the densities are below that typically considered necessary to sustain rail transit, they are sufficient to support express bus or BRT type services. In Riverside County the land uses are generally less dense and in some places interspersed with agricultural uses. While there are significant retail developments, there are fewer employment centers compared to San Diego County. Residential development in Riverside County provides a lower cost housing resource for many who find jobs in San Diego County. The densities and mix of uses along I-15 in southern Riverside County are not clearly sufficient to sustain a significant investment in bus transit, although there is clearly a need to provide an alternative to auto travel. • Institutional Barriers - There are various issues related to the provision of truly integrated transit services between the two counties. The two transit operators, MTS and the RTA have different cost structures and work rules making shared operation of services difficult. If one agency or the other operates the services, then a cost sharing agreement is necessary. There are also differing philosophies regarding the acceptability of various transportation improvements. For example, the bus on shoulder lanes have been successfully implemented in San Diego County, but are not considered as an option in Riverside County due to the extensive improvements planned on the I-15 and SR-91. • Transportation Needs and Priorities – Both counties have pressing transportation infrastructure needs of their own which do not involve interregional concerns. This makes it difficult to place a high priority on interregional projects which may provide benefit to the adjacent county without potential for reimbursement.

Conclusions

In the short term, the TSM/TDM alternative offers significant benefit and the ability to lay the groundwork for continued cooperation and sharing of resources for the two counties. For example, the bus on shoulder concept offers a low cost opportunity to provide improved bus transit operations in North San Diego County. RTA’s route 217 should provide an initial measure of the value of interregional bus services and should set the stage for ongoing discussions and agreements between the counties for the provision of future transit services. Until these agreements occur, transit users will have to cope with the need to transfer from one system to another. Strong evidence of interregional cooperation would be to improve the traveler information services (511) in both counties

B-31 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report so that travelers using transit to enter their neighboring county would have direct access to transit service and connectivity information in that county as well as their own county. An overall plan for transit integration needs to be in place by 2012 when SANDAG expects that the managed lane project will be complete to Escondido. In addition, the cost effectiveness indices used in this report can be used to monitor the performance of the individual projects as they are implemented as part of the Strategic Implementation Plan.

In the mid term, SANDAG is planning to extend the HOV/HOT lanes to the county line by 2020. In Riverside County, there is currently no immediate plan in place to extend the lanes south of Murrieta to close the gap to the county line. The 30 year RCTC sales tax measure does call for one additional lane in each direction, but it is not clear when these lanes will be implemented. During this period before the gap is closed there should still be efforts to move forward with improved transit services in the corridor. This will help determine whether the longer term improvements take the form of express buses, BRT services, or a hybrid of both. The type of bus service which is ultimately selected may not be as important as the ability of the two counties to provide travelers with an integrated transit service that takes full advantage of the major investment in HOV/HOT facilities being made in both counties.

In the long term, the completion of the interregional I-15 HOV/HOT managed lanes system which would span the entirety of Riverside County and most of San Diego County should be the goal.

At the same time the opportunity of the use of this corridor as part of the statewide HSR network needs to fully considered and addressed. This corridor is included in the second tier of improvements identified in the HSR plan. While the development of HSR in the I-15 corridor is a long term proposal, there is a firm commitment to this element of the HSR system in the plan. Future transportation improvements in the corridor need to recognize the eventuality of HSR and avoid potential conflicts that would impede its implementation. The HSR rail stations will become important regional transportation hubs which will need to be integrate into the regional and local transit network.

Table 8 – on the following page - summarizes the overall corridor implementation strategies and specific transit improvements discussed in the previous sections of this report as well as the recommended timeline for implementation.

B-32 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan Table 8. Summary of Implementation Recommendations Timeline (years) Implementation Steps Budget/Cost 0-5 5-10 10-15 Overall Corridor Implementation Recommendations x Initiate the bus on shoulder assessment and analysis for the I-15 corridor x Develop an agreement in principle for operating plans – including vanpools and buspools and other planning studies (e.g. TOD and other x Monitor ridership and demand for current RTA and MTS services x Consider phasing of demonstration line from Temecula to downtown San Diego x Develop operating plans for capacity enhancement freeway projects for both counties x Implement bus on shoulder operation $ 5,000,000 x Implement expanded inter-county services x Construct additional HOV lanes $ 117,000,000 x Continue to aggressively plan and build park-n-ride lots that feed the BRT system $ 20,000,000 xx xContinue to expand operations and connections to the regional system and the local communities using phasing options. Total $ 142,000,000 Buspool : Convert to vanpool pairs to 28 buspools x Confirm Market Demand x Fleet Expansion: 13 buses x Driver Licensing:13-16 drivers xxRunning buspools Total $ 2,600,000 Transit Route Expansion: Expand RTA 208/RTA 206/MTS 810 between Temecula and Escondido xx xInterregional Coordination x Confirmation of Market Demand x Station Construction: 2 stops x Equipment Acquisition: 2 buses x Extended Operations Total $ 3,400,000 Express Bus: New Route comparable to RTA 202, but switch to Temecula to Downtown San Diego* xx xInterregional Coordination x Confirmation of Market Demand x Station Construction: 5 stops x Equipment Acquisition: 8 buses x New Express Route: Bus on Shoulders Total $ 3,900,000 Express Bus: Riverside Downtown Terminal through Murietta, Temecula, Escondido, Mira Mesa, Keamy Mesa, to Downtown San Diego** xx xInterregional Coordination x Confirmation of Market Demand x Station Construction: 5 stops x Equipment Acquisition: 8 buses x New Express Route: Bus on Shoulders x New Express Route: HOV Lanes*** Total $ 22,000,000 Bus Rapid Transit: Extension of BRT North from Escondido into Riverside County**** xx xInterregional Coordination x Confirmation of Market Demand x Station Construction: 2 stops x Equipment Acquisition: 8 buses xxNew BRT Route: Bus on Shoulders xxBRT Dedicated Lanes Construction x New BRT Route: Dedicated Lanes Total $ 386,000,000 Multi-County Goods Movement x Conduct future freight movement estimates periodically to address potential changes to freight demand resulting from changes in x Consider freight transport in the future plans of I-5 linkage between the two counties as part of the overall analysis of current plans and Total $ - GRAND TOTAL$ 559,900,000 Notes: * Riverside-San Diego County Interregional Transit Options: Option 1 ** Riverside-San Diego County Interregional Transit Options: Option 3 *** By 2020 all of corridor will have HOV/Managed lanesexcept between I-15/I-215 split to county line **** Riverside-San Diego County Interregional Transit Options: Option 2

B-33 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

References

Task 1 – PSR Summary

Project Study Reports Project Study Report for I-15 between SR-79 to north of the I-15/I-215 Junction, April 2002 Project Study Report for Interchange Improvements on I-15 at Railroad Canyon Road, September 2002 Project Study Report for the I-15/SR-79 South Interchange, February 2004 Project Study Report to Modify Existing Interchange at I-15/SR-74 Junction, January 2005 Project Study Report to Widen Roadbeds and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes on I-15, between I-15/I-215 Split and Riverside County Line, October 2007 North I-15 Corridor Project Study Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, September 1998 I-15 Final Project Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003

Related Documents Orange County Transportation Authority, 2006 Long-Range Transportation Plan San Bernardino Associated Governments, I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study, December 2005 Southern California Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, May 2008 San Diego Association of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future, November 2007 San Diego Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, July 2008

Task 2 – Goods Movement

Critical Goods Movement Issues for Riverside County, RCTC, September 2006 Alameda Corridor East – Riverside County Impacts and Needs, www.rctc.org Honda North America discussions, 2005 Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, 2008 Caltrans Traffic Data Branch 2007 Data San Diego Association of Governments 2007 RTP Port of Los Angeles Press Kit on Goods Movement Inland Empire Railroad Mainline Study, Final Report, June 30, 2005 IRP Phase II Final Draft Report, March 2007 LOSSAN Rail Corridor Intermodal Improvements Fact Sheet, March 2009 RailAmerica: San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad http://www.railamerica.com/shippingservices/railservices/SDIY.aspx Carrizo Gorge Railway Phone Interview with Maria Martinez, Head of U.S. Rail Traffic, May 22, 2009

Task 3 -Transit

I-15 IRP Phase II Final Report, March 2007 Southern California Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Plan, May 2008 San Diego Association of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, November 2007 San Diego Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, July 2008

B-34 Appendix B – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

I-15 IRP Phase III, Strategic Improvement Plan RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Service Enhancement Plan (COA), 2007 San Diego MTS COA Ridership Trends 2005 San Diego Association of Governments TransNet Brochure Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 64 Bus Use of Shoulders 2006 Western Riverside Council of Governments Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Demand Analysis San Diego Association of Governments I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Operations Plan, March 2007 I-15 Comprehensive Corridor Study, December 2005 San Diego – Riverside Interregional Transit, Vanpool, & Buspool Study, September 17, 2009 Initial Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map, Summer 2009 2006 State of the Commute, Southern California Association of Governments

Task 4 – Cost Effectiveness

Project Study Report for I-15 between SR-79 to north of the I-15/I-215) Junction, April 2002 Project Study Report to Widen Roadbeds and HOV Lanes on I-15, between I-15/I-215 Split and Riverside County Line, October 2007 North I-15 Corridor Project Study Report, between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, September 1998 I-15 Final Project Report, Between SR-52 and SR-78, San Diego County, February 2003 San Diego Association of Governments, 2030 Regional Transportation Plan: Pathways for the Future, November 2007 San Diego Association of Governments, 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program, July 2008 Multi-County Goods Movement Action Plan, 2008 I-15 IRP Phase II Final Report, March 2007 San Diego – Riverside Interregional Transit, Vanpool, & Buspool Study, September 17, 2009 San Diego Association of Governments I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Operations Plan, March 2007

B-35

PHASE III – FINAL DRAFT REPORT

APPENDIX C

1. I-15 Interregional Partnership Workforce Housing Survey E-Mail to Jurisdictions, NCTD, Cal State San Marcos, and Palomar Pomerado Health 2. Survey of Potential Demonstration Sites Matrix 3. Summary of Potential Candidate Sites 4. Developer Interviews 5. Project Descriptions and Financial Feasibility Tables 6. Sample Requests for Proposals: City of Vista, City of Los Angeles, City of

Irwindale, City of Poway Appendix C – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

From: Baldwin, Susan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 3:55 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Jerry Hittleman'; '[email protected]'; 'Brindley, Karen'; 'Backoff, Jerry'; 'Zinner, Jeff'; 'John Conley'; '[email protected]'; 'Roni Keiser'; 'Barbara Redlitz'; '[email protected]'; 'Muto, Devon'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Erinna Arvizu; Paul Marra; Linnie Gavino; Gregor, Carolina; Clementson, Coleen; Eary, Christine

Subject: I-15 Interregional Partnership - Workforce Housing Survey

Importance: High

Dear Redevelopment/Planning staff:

SANDAG is working with Keyser Marston Associates on a workforce housing project, the goal of which is to create a proposal for a workforce housing project at a site in a smart growth opportunity area served by the SPRINTER line. This project is part of the I-15 Interregional Partnership (I-15 IRP) that SANDAG has been working on with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Caltrans, and transit agencies in both regions.

As part of the workforce housing project, we are sending out a brief survey to help the consultant and SANDAG identify potential sites for workforce housing. We are sending this survey to redevelopment staff with the local jurisdictions of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, and the County of San Diego. Copies also are being sent to planning staff from those jurisdictions who participate in the Regional Planning Technical Working Group and SPRINTER Smart Growth Working Group. We hope that redevelopment, planning, and housing staff will collaborate on the survey, as both have different information and insights that will help identify the sites with the most potential.

Please return the survey by Wednesday, July 8, 2009, to me and Erinna Arvizu, Keyser Marston Associates. Ms. Arvizu will be contacting you next week to make sure that you received the survey and to answer any questions that you might have.

If you have any questions, you can contact her at [email protected] (619-718-9500) or me at [email protected] (619-699-1943).

We are excited to be working on this important project and look forward to your responses and participation in this project. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Susan Baldwin

SUSAN B. BALDWIN, AICP Senior Regional Planner San Diego Association of Governments 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101

619-699-1943 (phone) 619-699-1905 (fax) [email protected]

C-2 Appendix C – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

C-3 Appendix C – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

C-4 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-5 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-6 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-7 Appendix C – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

C-8 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-9 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-10 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-11 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-12 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-13 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-14 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-15 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-16 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-17 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-18 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-19 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-20 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-21 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-22 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-23 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-24 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-25 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-26 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-27 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-28 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-29 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-30 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-31 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-32 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-33 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-34 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-35 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-36 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-37 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-38 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-39 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-40 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-41 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-42 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-43 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-44 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-45 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-46 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-47 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-48 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-49 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-50 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-51 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-52 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-53 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-54 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-55 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-56 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-57 Appendix C – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

C-58 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-59 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-60 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-61 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-62 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-63 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-64 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-65 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-66 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-67 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-68 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-69 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-70 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-71 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-72 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-73 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-74 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-75 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-76 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-77 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-78 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-79 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-80 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-81 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-82 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-83 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-84 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-85 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-86 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-87 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-88 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-89 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-90 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-91 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-92 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-93 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-94 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-95 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-96 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-97 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-98 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-99 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-100 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-101 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-102 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-103 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-104 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-105 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-106 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-107 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-108 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-109 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-110 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-111 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-112 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-113 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-114 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-115 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-116 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-117 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-118 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-119 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-120 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-121 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-122 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-123 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-124 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-125 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-126 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-127 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-128 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-129 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-130 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-131 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-132 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-133 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-134 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-135 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-136 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-137 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-138 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-139 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-140 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-141 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-142 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-143 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-144 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-145 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-146 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-147 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-148 Appendix C – I-15 Phase III Final Report

C-149

PHASE III – FINAL DRAFT REPORT

APPENDIX D

Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map

Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report I-15 IRP JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

San Diego Association of Governments WRCOG Executive Committee (SANDAG) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Crystal Crawford Mayor, City of Del Mar Rick Gibbs SANDAG Borders Committee Councilmember, City of Murrieta RCTC Commissioner Sam Abed Councilmember, City of Escondido Ron Roberts SANDAG Borders Committee Mayor, City of Temecula RCTC Commissioner Dave Allan Councilmember, City of La Mesa Jeff Stone (A) SANDAG Borders Committee Supervisor, Riverside County RCTC Second Vice Chair Jack Feller (A) Councilmember, City of Oceanside Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) SANDAG Borders Committee Karen Spiegel

Mayor Pro Tem, City of Corona Past Members Chair, RTA Board of Directors Ed Gallo Councilmember, City of Escondido Jeff Comerchero (A) SANDAG Borders Committee Mayor Pro Tem, City of Temecula First Vice Chair, RTA Board of Directors

Western Riverside Council of Government Past Members (WRCOG) Frank Hall Thomas Buckley Councilmember, City of Norco Councilmember, City of Lake Elsinore First Vice Chairman, RTA Board of Directors WRCOG Executive Committee Frank Kessler (A) Chuck Washington Councilmember, City of Canyon Lake Councilmember, City of Temecula Second Vice Chairman, RTA Board of Directors WRCOG Executive Committee

Scott Farman (A) AGENCY EXECUTIVES Councilmember, City of Wildomar SANDAG Gary L. Gallegos WRCOG Executive Committee WRCOG Rick Bishop

RCTC Anne Mayer Scott Mann (A) RTA Larry Rubio Councilmember, Menifee

WRCOG Executive Committee

Past Members ACKNOWLEDGMENT Doug McAllister (A) The I-15 IRP would like to thank Caltrans for Mayor Pro-Tem, City of Murrieta its sponsorship of Phase III through a grant to WRCOG Executive Committee SANDAG and WRCOG.

Charles White (M) Councilmember, City of Moreno Valley

D-2 Appendix D – I-15 Phase III Final Report

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map

PRIMARY Primary editing by Carolina Gregor and Midori Wong, AUTHORS: San Diego Association of Governments; with major contributions by members of the Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group

DATE: February 2010

SOURCE OF San Diego Association of Governments COPIES: 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-1900

NUMBER OF 27 PAGES:

ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the development of the Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map, a project of the Phase III I-15 Interregional Partnership (IRP) Housing Strategy. This smart growth planning effort included both land use and transit planning components focused on identifying smart growth opportunities centered on the I-15 and I-215 freeway corridors in the cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula. Products include identification of smart growth place type categories, quantitative and qualitative analysis of designated local smart growth opportunity areas, and GIS base maps illustrating these concepts.

D-3 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals aided in the preparation of this report. In particular, the contributions and involvement of members of the Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group is acknowledged:

City of Lake Elsinore RCTC Tom Weiner, Acting Director of Community Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager Development Claudia Chase, Property Administrator (ret.) Matt Harris, Senior Planner RTA Justin Carlson, Associate Planner Mark Stanley, Director of Planning City of Murrieta Lorelle Moe-Luna, Senior Planner Mary Lanier, Director of Planning SANDAG Cynthia Kinser, Deputy Director of Planning Carolina Gregor, Senior Regional Planner Greg Smith, Associate Planner Midori Wong, Assistant Regional Planner Susan Vombaur, Traffic Engineer WRCOG City of Temecula Kevin Viera, Program Manager Bob Johnson, Assistant City Manager Punarvasu Pillalamarri, Staff Analyst II Patrick Richardson, City Planner Dan York, City Engineer Dale West, Associate Planner Katie Innes, Assistant Planner

The Working Group would also like to acknowledge the following individuals in assisting development of this work:

Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, RCTC Bob Leiter, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning, SANDAG Coleen Clementson, Principal Regional Planner, SANDAG Jane Clough-Riquelme, Senior Regional Planner, SANDAG Susan Baldwin, Senior Regional Planner, SANDAG Mark Butala, Manager, Comprehensive Planning, SCAG Lingqian Hu, Associate Regional Planner, SCAG Mitra Mehta-Cooper, Principal Planner for Strategic Programs, County of Riverside Planning Department Dana Schuma, Associate Planner, City of Temecula Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant, City of Temecula

D-4 Appendix D – I-15 Phase III Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND ...... 7

PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 7

SMART GROWTH PLACE TYPES ...... 8

SMART GROWTH OPPORTUNITY AREAS...... 10

Maps ...... 10

Site Descriptions...... 10

NEXT STEPS...... 12

APPENDICES ...... 16

D-5 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Western Riverside Smart Growth Place Types...... 9

Table 2 Smart Growth Design Principles...... 9

Table 3 Smart Growth Place Types...... 16

Table 4 Smart Growth Opportunity Area Site Descriptions ...... 25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map Boundaries...... 7

Figure 2 Final Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map ...... 11

Figure 3 Interregional Perspective of Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in Western Riverside and Northern San Diego Counties ...... 15

Figure 4 Subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map – City of Lake Elsinore ...... 21

Figure 5 Subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map – City of Murrieta ...... 22

Figure 6 Subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map – City of Temecula ...... 23

Figure 7 Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map (with polygons ...... 24

D-6 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT

BACKGROUND

The I-15 Interregional Partnership (I-15 IRP) is a voluntary compact between local elected officials The Western Riverside Smart Growth representing San Diego and Western Riverside Opportunity Area Map is intended to be counties. The primary goal of the I-15 IRP is to used as a long-term planning and foster collaborative strategies in economic coordination tool as local jurisdictions development, transportation, and housing that update their General and/or Specific Plans will improve the quality of life for residents by and as local and regional transportation and reducing the impacts of interregional commuting transit planning efforts advance. and jobs-housing imbalance in areas along the Interstate 15 (I-15) corridor that links San Diego and Riverside counties. I-15 IRP partner agencies, including the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and others have completed two phases of the partnership and are now in Phase III of work.

Building from Phase II recommendations, the Phase III Housing Strategy called for development of a “Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map” for selected Western Riverside cities, modeled after SANDAG’s Smart Growth Concept Map for the San Diego region, to identify areas where higher-density residential and employment development could be located as major activity centers and integrated with transit service.

PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map Boundaries This smart growth planning effort focuses initially on three pilot cities in Southwestern Riverside: Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula. Development of the map included both land use and transit planning components focused on identifying smart growth opportunities centered on the I-15 and I-215 freeway corridors (Figure 1).

The map has been developed in conjunction with transportation and transit network planning completed for the Phase III Transportation Strategy, including components of the Transportation Strategic Implementation Plan (SIP) developed by RCTC and consultant firm Wilbur Smith Associates.

D-7 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Future work expanding the map to include additional jurisdictions will be funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project program following the end of Phase III, and is anticipated to serve as the foundation for developing a subregional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the next update of the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), as required by Senate Bill 375 (2008).

The work plan for this phase included:

Identification of smart growth place type categories applicable to the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore;

Identification of smart growth opportunity areas exemplifying characteristics of the smart growth place type categories;

Creation of GIS base maps and shape files illustrating smart growth opportunity areas;

Quantitative analysis of existing/planned capacity for residential and employment density and transit service; and

Qualitative description of local planning efforts and progress toward meeting smart growth place type intensities.

To facilitate this process, SANDAG and WRCOG engaged community development, planning, and public works department staff from each of the jurisdictions, as well as representatives from the other I-15 IRP regional partner agencies to form the Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group. This group met regularly throughout Phase III to guide development of the map.

SMART GROWTH PLACE TYPES

To help identify possible smart growth place type categories applicable to the pilot cities, the Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group reviewed and discussed various approaches to defining smart growth adopted by several Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for use in local and regional planning. These included the SCAG Compass Blueprint Growth Vision Report and 2% Strategy; the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Smart Growth Concept Map; and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Sacramento Region Blueprint and Place Type Menu.

Using these resources as a guide, the Working Group identified six categories of smart growth place types for the map: Regional Centers, Town Centers, Community Centers, Mixed Use Transit

D-8 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT

Corridors, Special Use Centers, and Employment Centers. Each smart growth place type is associated with certain general land use type and intensity characteristics, housing and employment density targets, and transit service thresholds outlined below.

Table 1 Western Riverside Smart Growth Place Types

Minimum Minimum Smart Growth Place Minimum Transit Service Residential Employment Type Characteristics Target Target Regional Center 30 du/ac 45 emp/ac BRT, Regional, Commuter Express, Local Routes, Shuttle Routes Town Center 20 du/ac 30 emp/ac Regional, Local Routes Community Center 20 du/ac N/A Local Routes Mixed Use Transit 25 du/ac 30 emp/ac Regional, Local Routes Corridor Special Use Center Optional 45 emp/ac Regional, Commuter Express, Local, (e.g., educational, medical Shuttle Routes facilities) Employment Center N/A 50 emp/ac Regional, Commuter Express, Local, Shuttle Routes

The Working Group also identified a seventh place type, Rural Village, which will be further developed in partnership with the County of Riverside as part of the Expanded Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map and Transit Development Plan. A detailed profile of the initial six place types is provided in Table 3 of the Appendix.

Working Group members also expressed agreement for the following design principles applicable to all smart growth place type categories and critical to the success of smart growth.

Table 2 Smart Growth Design Principles

Human-scale built environment that creates uniqueness and identity Vertically and horizontally mixed use development, with vertical mixed use located near transit stations Robust transportation choices that complement the intensity of development within the Smart Growth Opportunity Area (SGOA) Strong pedestrian orientation: network of streets and pedestrian paths, narrower street scales, special designs to facilitate pedestrian crossings at intersections, and the walker having precedence Bike access/locker facilities and park-and-ride facilities woven in the human-scale design Transit station(s) located centrally within main activity area(s); transit user amenities located adjacent to stations (e.g., child care facilities, coffee bars, dry cleaning drop-off) Nearby recreational facilities and public plazas

D-9 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

SMART GROWTH OPPORTUNITY AREAS

Maps

After defining smart growth place types applicable to the study area, each jurisdiction identified local places that currently exemplify the characteristics of the place types, or could in the future, if local plans are updated and regional transit service designations are met. Collectively, 13 smart growth opportunity areas were identified, including 3 Regional Centers, 3 Town Centers, 4 Special Use Centers, 1 Community Center, and 2 Employment Centers (Note: Two Mixed Use Transit Corridors were designated as portions of one Regional Center).

Regional transit services are in various stages of planning, design, and construction. Likewise, local transit routes are flexible and subject to change as often as every three to six months through the short-range transit planning process. To reflect this variability, all categories of transit service are shown as either corridors or overlays. Areas where regional transit services, such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), will be prioritized are shown as “Future Transit Corridors.” These priority corridors are the I-15 and I-215. Areas where investments in high-frequency local transit service will be prioritized to complement the regional transit network are shown as a “Transit Priority Area” overlay.

The map also shows existing transportation and transit infrastructure, habitat and Regional Conservation Act (RCA) areas, parks, and Native American tribal lands.

Figure 2 shows the final Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map. Subregional maps for the cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and Temecula are included in the Appendix as Figures 4, 5, and 6, respectively. A version of the regional map showing smart growth opportunity areas as polygons is also included in the Appendix as Figure 7.

Site Descriptions

Working group members also prepared a “site description” for each smart growth opportunity area, coded by an initial and number that correspond to the regional and subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area maps. The land use description, prepared by the planning staffs of local jurisdictions, describes general land use characteristics and progress toward meeting these density targets through development of plans or other local efforts. This progress is depicted using the following symbols:

Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities

Status of Planning Effort: ● General or Specific Plan adopted General or Specific Plan underway or scheduled Possible future planning opportunity

Plan Consistency with Place Type Intensity Ranges: ● Current plan allows for density range at or above place type intensity Current plan allows for density range near place type intensity Current plan allows for density range well below place type intensity

D-10 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT

Figure 2 Final Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map

D-11 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Transit service descriptions for each smart growth opportunity area were prepared by RTA and are based on RTA transit service plans. The following transit service designations are used to distinguish between existing and planned services, as well as those that are not included in current plans, but could be implemented contingent upon certain conditions.

RTA Transit Service Descriptions

Existing transit indicates that bus service is presently in operation.

Planned transit service refers to bus service that is planned for in the respective area in the next five to ten years based on RTA’s Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) or Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) Study.

Possible transit service indicates that bus service is currently not planned for in the respective area, but could be implemented should the minimum residential and employment density targets be met and financial conditions permitted.

The site descriptions document is included in the Appendix as Table 4.

Note: The planning period for the land use component extends from the present to 2035, the horizon year for the growth forecast approved by WRCOG. Information gathered on the status of local planning efforts varies by the horizon year of each jurisdiction’s current General and/or Specific Plans. The planning period for the transit service component extends from the present to 2018, the horizon year for RTA’s Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA). Despite differing horizon years, the overarching goal of the process is to use the map to help facilitate long-term planning efforts that result in a greater degree of transit-oriented development in the region.

NEXT STEPS

This planning effort ultimately produced a set of specific Smart Growth Place Type categories applicable to the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, and Lake Elsinore; the identification of at least two smart growth opportunity areas per city corresponding to these place types; data analysis and general land use site descriptions for those areas; and a Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map illustrating those areas and the transportation and transit services connecting them. It is anticipated that Western Riverside Smart Growth Map Working Group members, representing planning, community development, and public works staff from each of the jurisdictions, will present these products to local City Councils and other interested parties, and to facilitate public outreach in conjunction with local plan updates in order to obtain feedback from a variety of stakeholders.

In addition, this effort enhanced collaboration among the existing I-15 IRP agencies and engaged new local and regional partners. During the course of planning for this effort, SCAG, as the MPO that receives subregional input from WRCOG, agreed to provide additional funding through its Compass Blueprint Demonstration Project grant program to expand work to additional geographic areas in Western Riverside County (see Figure 3). The initial work funded by the I-15 IRP provides a basis for the expanded project, which will develop an expanded Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map and Transit Development Plan for a larger subregional study area. It is anticipated that this work could be used as a model for SCAG and its subregions to develop the

D-12 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT

Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for the next update of the SCAG RTP, as required by Senate Bill 375 (2008). It is anticipated that WRCOG and RCTC will lead this next phase of work.

Senate Bill 375 is California state law that requires the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light trucks and automobiles through land use and transportation efforts that will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The goal of the legislation is to reduce GHG emissions by improving the connection between land use and transportation planning, resulting in more walkable, compact communities served by high quality transit, thus offering more transportation choices and reducing the need to drive. The law requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets, and tasks each of California’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) with creating an SCS, a new element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Each SCS is required to demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035.

Riverside County is a subregion of SCAG, the nation’s largest MPO, which also represents five other counties – San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, and Ventura. SCAG is responsible for a variety of planning and policy initiatives including Senate Bill 375. Unique to the SCAG region, SB 375 affords the opportunity for a COG, along with the county transportation commission, to develop a subregional SCS for incorporation into the regional SCS. In Riverside County, there are two COGs: the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), which serves the eastern portion of the county, and WRCOG serving the western portion of Riverside County.

To assist the COGs in defining their role in the SB 375 process, SCAG identified the following three variations/options of involvement for subregionals to consider:

1. Full Delegation. For Riverside County, this option would require that the CVAG and WRCOG, in collaboration with RCTC, complete a comprehensive analysis of planned and programmed transit and planning projects throughout the two subregions. The jurisdictions would then be required to review and refine growth patterns to recommend areas for densification and identify future transportation projects and policies required to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels. The COGs and the CTC would be required to hold a series of scenario planning workshops together with a number of public hearings. In addition to the development of the SCS, the subregions also would be responsible for delegation of the RHNA.

2. Partial Delegation. This would require CVAG, WRCOG, and RCTC to undertake the aforementioned planning and transit review and recommendation without accepting delegation of the RHNA. 3. Collaborative Planning Process. This planning process provides a flexible range of options in developing a SCS. Specifically, SCAG would oversee the process relying heavily on input from the subregions, local jurisdictions, and CTC to identify planned and new transit projects, transportation plans, and policies that will reduce GHG emissions, provide assistance with workshops and outreach programs, review and refine local data, and provide input into the development of additional regional policies to reduce GHG emissions.

In December 2009, both CVAG and WRCOG’s policy boards selected the Collaborative Planning Process for Riverside County’s involvement in SB 375. RCTC’s policy board has not taken any action related to SB 375 implementation; however, one of RCTC’s responsibilities is the coordination of all public transportation services within the county with a goal of promoting program efficiency and service cooperation between transit operators. Unfortunately, over the last year, transit funding has

D-13 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

been significantly reduced. For transit to play an effective role in reducing GHG, it is essential that transit funding levels be increased. RCTC will continue to monitor the developments of SB 375 as it relates to transit services and funding, as well as the COG’s collaborative planning process with SCAG.

In considering the continued development of the Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map in the context of SB 375 implementation, the Smart Growth Concept Map for the San Diego region can also again serve as a broad framework offering several potential policy options as a guide. For example, in addition to serving as a planning tool, the Smart Growth Concept Map was used as the foundation for developing a competitive incentive program to encourage implementation of smart growth development consistent with goals and policies set out in the RTP and the RCP. Areas on the map are exclusively eligible for direct financial incentives to support compact, mixed use development focused around public transit to increase housing and transportation choices. The Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) awards grant funding to local governments to fund public transportation and transportation-related infrastructure improvements in two categories: capital projects and planning projects. Projects funded by the program are intended to serve as models for how infrastructure and planning can make smart growth an asset to communities in a variety of settings and should help attract private investment to build projects that create great places.

The SGIP is funded by TransNet, the half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects first approved by San Diego County voters in 1988, and then extended in 2004 for another 40 years. Administered by SANDAG, the program’s primary goals are to expand the region’s transportation system, reduce traffic congestion, and implement critical new transportation programs. During the 60-year life of the program, more than $17 billion will be generated and distributed among highway, transit, and local road projects in approximately equal thirds. Approximately two percent of annual TransNet revenues (about $5 million in Fiscal Year 2009) are to be awarded through the SGIP for the duration of the current 40 year program.

As a starting point, the Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area map can initially inform updates of the SCAG RTP and other subregional plans, particularly to help prioritize transportation infrastructure investments and deployment of transit services to support smart growth development consistent with SCAG Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy and other regional goals. The RTP development process, in turn, can help to identify needed refinements to the map, creating an iterative process where transportation and land use planning adjust to each other over time. Utlimately, the map provides a means for connecting local, subregional, and regional decision-making processes, enabling policymakers and agencies to collaborate on investment decisions that will help the region to achieve land use, transportation, and quality of life goals.

D-14 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT

Figure 3 Interregional Perspective of Smart Growth Opportunity Areas in Western Riverside and Northern San Diego Counties

D-15 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

APPENDICES

Table 3 Smart Growth Place Types

CATEGORY/ TRANSPORTATION LAND USE PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE LAND USE TYPE SYSTEM INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS

Regional Center Employment draws Desired Building Freeway Served by BRT, several regional, from throughout Types: Mid- to connections with express, and local transit lines region, while other high-rise residential multiple access High to very high-frequency service uses draw mainly and office/commercial points (minimum of 30 min, 15 min during from subregional 30-65+ dwelling Exclusive HOV peak) on all corridor/regional area units/average net corridors designed services Mixed use residential acre for mass transit Transit center, along with multiple employment 25+ dwelling unit/acre Minimal major transfer locations and/or Civic/cultural for mixed use sites park-and-ride internal shuttle system facilities facilities; access 45+ employees/ should be handled average net by internal shuttle employment acre system Town Center Draws mainly from Desired Building Served by one or Served by one to two regional lines immediate Types: Low- to more regional and and local lines subregional area mid-rise several local transit High-frequency service lines Residential and 20-45+ dwelling (30 min service) throughout the day office/commercial, units/average net acre Served by regional on most regional and local transit including mixed use arterials lines 30-50 employees/ Civic/cultural average net acre Highway Access to transit center, multiple facilities connection major transfer locations May include HOV Shared-use parking or dedicated corridor segments park-and-ride facilities for regional transit services Community Center Draws from nearby Desired Building Served by arterials Served by at least one community/ Types: Low- to and/or collector high-frequency local transit service neighborhoods mid-rise streets route (30 min in peak, minimum of 60 min in non-peak hours) Residential and 20-45+ dwelling units/ Connection to rural commercial, average net acre and suburban including mixed use service road network Possible community-serving civic uses

D-16 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT CATEGORY/ TRANSPORTATION LAND USE PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE LAND USE TYPE SYSTEM INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS Mixed Use Transit Corridor Draws mainly from Desired Building Located along a Served by regional and/or local several nearby Types: Variety of low-, major arterial transit lines communities mid-, and high-rise High-frequency service Residential and 25-75+ dwelling unit/ (30 min service) throughout the day office/commercial, average net acre along on most regional and local transit including mixed use transit corridor lines

Linear size with Employment: Multiple station locations with one width extending one Commercial and retail or more on-street transfer locations to two blocks supportive uses with intersecting services outward from corridor 30+ employees/ average net acre

Special Use Center

Employment draws Desired Building Nearby freeway Served by one or more regional, from throughout Types: Variety of low-, access commuter express, and local transit region with other mid-, and high-rise lines Served by one or uses being 45+ employees/ more regional and High-frequency service (30 min community serving average net acre local transit lines service) throughout the day on Dominated by one most regional and local transit lines Optional residential: non-residential land 50+ dwelling Peak hour service for commuter use, i.e., university or units/average net express lines hospital, or casino residential acre May be served by shuttle service for Retail support internal trips with very services high-frequency service (15 min Potential residential service) element Access to transit center, multiple major transfer locations Employment Center

D-17 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

CATEGORY/ TRANSPORTATION LAND USE PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE LAND USE TYPE SYSTEM INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS

Employment draws Desired Building Nearby freeway Served by one or more regional from throughout Types: Variety of access and local transit lines region with other low-, mid-, and Priority corridors for High-frequency service uses being high-rise one or more (30 min service) throughout day on community serving 50+ employees/ regional and local most regional and local transit lines Dominated by average net acre transit lines Peak hour service on commuter non-residential land Major arterial express lines uses corridors Possible high-frequency shuttle Retail support service for internal trips services (15 min service) Access to transit center, multiple major transfer locations

D-18 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT NOTES:

Computing Land Use Intensity Measurements per Net Acre:

Residential: Total dwelling units divided by built or planned residential acreage net of public right-of-way Employment: Total employees divided by built or planned office, commercial, and retail acreage net of public right-of-way Mixed Use: Total dwelling units divided by built or planned residential acreage net of public right-of-way and any other non-residential uses (e.g., commercial, retail, etc.)

Land Use Building Type Definitions:

Low-Rise = 2-3 stories Mid-Rise = 4-6 stories High-Rise = 7+ stories

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route Classifications:

Route Classifications help to define the type of service to operate based on the density of the area in which the service is routed. RTA service can be classified into five fixed-route categories – regional, local, rural, express, and shuttle (or special). Complimentary to the fixed-route service is paratransit service, also known as Dial-a-Ride (DAR).

Regional Services are the backbone of the network as it operates between urbanized areas on primary corridors and may utilize the freeway system to travel between communities. It is not uncommon for regional service to travel through non-urban areas to link two urban areas. Within an urbanized area, stops are spaced at intervals of about one-quarter mile, or as development permits.

Local Services supplement regional routes by circulating throughout various neighborhoods and serving secondary corridors. A local route also serves as feeder routes to regional and express routes and transports customers within a community on shorter trips. Bus stop spacing is at urban service intervals. Local service is further defined by routes that are operated directly by RTA and those that are contracted to private sector service providers. Routes operated directly account for about three-quarters of the system-wide ridership.

Rural Service is an exclusive route serving as lifeline service that feeds regional service. The service is, for the most part, limited in operation and serves secondary roadways within non-urbanized areas. Given the growth of western Riverside County, rural route service is primarily limited to portions of Regional route service and areas between cities.

Express Services provide limited stop service designed to transport commuters to and from employment sites and provide connections to service outside western Riverside County. Labeled as CommuterLink, these buses use the freeway system to provide faster service.

Shuttle/Special Services are designed to meet the needs of a specific market or community and often are designed as a circulator to serve a targeted group with common travel patterns.

D-19 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Paratransit Service, also known as DAR, complements fixed-route service for customers who are physically challenged and are unable to navigate their way to a bus stop. DAR service is offered curb-to-curb within three-quarters of a mile of fixed-route service, excluding express routes. Passengers eligible for the service are seniors and those qualified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) law.

D-20 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT Figure 4 Subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map – City of Lake Elsinore

D-21 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Figure 5 Subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map – City of Murrieta

D-22 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

DRAFT REPORT Figure 6 Subregional Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map – City of Temecula

D-23 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Figure 7 Western Riverside Smart Growth Opportunity Area Map (with polygons)

D-24 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Report

DRAFT REPORT

Table 4 Smart Growth Opportunity Area Site Descriptions

Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Status of Planning Effort: Plan Consistency with Place Type Intensity Ranges:

● General or Specific Plan adopted ● Current plan allows for density range at or above place type intensity General or Specific Plan underway or scheduled Current plan allows for density range near place type intensity Possible future planning opportunity Current plan allows for density range well below place type intensity

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges (LAKE Downtown Regional The City’s Redevelopment Agency has sponsored the Existing local transit service. ELSINORE) Lake Elsinore: Center drafting of a Downtown Master Plan for the existing It is anticipated that the As of October 1, 2009, the Planned regional and local LKE-1 south of I-15 121 acre downtown area. The Master Plan will serve as Downtown Master Plan will be current General Plan Land Use transit service with and north of a bold vision to transform the historic downtown core adopted in late 2009. Full Designations and Zoning/ high-frequency throughout the lakefront of the City into a viable, livable, and memorable city build-out of the plan will likely Development standards that the day. between Riley center. occur over a 20-year period. govern the property within this Street and Possible commuter express place type area yield a density Chestnut The main concept of the Master Plan is to reconnect and shuttle service for internal range and employment range Street within the existing downtown area with the lakefront to the trips could be implemented well below the place type the City of south. The concept would be achieved by realigning should the minimum thresholds. However, anticipated Lake Elsinore and extending Main Street directly to the water. residential and/or General Plan Updates and the Moreover, Lakeshore Drive would be extended west employment density targets adoption of the Lake Elsinore across the existing drainage channel. Given the length be met and financial Downtown Master Plan in late of Main Street between the I-15 freeway and the lake, conditions permitted. 2009 will serve to allow for an and the public’s propensity to walk a limited distance, overall average residential density the design team has created five distinct districts that of 30 du/ac. In addition, can be walked in five minutes time. The districts associated land use designations include the following: Gateway District, and standards will allow for the Garden District, Cultural District, Historic District, and construction of 1,861,038 square Waterfront District. feet of commercial/office space which should achieve 45 emp/ac. Therefore, the target thresholds for the Regional Center place type shall be achieved.

D-25 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges LKE-2 Ballpark Town A master planned, mixed use development totaling Existing local transit service. District: south Center 87.2 acres. The development is intended to create a It is anticipated that the As of October 1, 2009 the Planned regional and local of Lakeshore unique sense of place and a regional destination venue Diamond Specific Plan will be current General Plan Land Use transit service with Drive, east of surrounding the existing Diamond Baseball Stadium adopted in late 2009. Full Designations and Zoning/ high-frequency throughout Mission Trail, complex. The mixed use project consists of a creative build-out of the place type area Development Standards that the day. and north of blend of retail, office, hotel, education center, and will likely occur over a seven to govern the property within this Victor Street high-density residential uses located around the ten year period. place type area yield a density within the City existing stadium. Supporting uses include lakefront range well below the place type of Lake amenities, plazas, and other public places, attractive thresholds. However, anticipated Elsinore streetscapes, trails, parking, vehicular and pedestrian General Plan Updates and the circulation. A Specific Plan Amendment and a adoption of the Diamond New Specific Plan are anticipated to be approved in Specific Plan in late 2009 will association with the development in late 2009. The serve to allow for an overall project would be developed in three phases – 2012, average residential density of 2014, and 2016. 20 du/ac. In addition, associated land use designations and The City also requests that the previously approved standards will allow for the Summerly master-planned community also be included construction of 897,000 square within the Town Center as it is located directly feet of commercial/office space, adjacent and to the south of the proposed which should achieve 30 emp/ac. development described above. The 707 acre site, Therefore, the target thresholds which includes an existing 18-hole public golf course for the Town Center place type and clubhouse, was approved for a maximum of shall be achieved. 1,956 detached single-family units (6 du/ac). Three tracts have been approved within the development to date totaling, 223 units. However, given the economic downturn, only model homes have been constructed to date.

D-26 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Report

DRAFT REPORT

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges (MURRIETA) South of Special Use The North Murrieta/I-215 Corporate Corridor, Existing regional transit MUR-1 Keller Road, Center anchored by the Loma Linda University Medical Center service. A Comprehensive General Plan East of I-215 at Murrieta, is poised to be an employment center for Update, to be adopted in Planned regional and local and north of future medical related, technology, and professional April 2011, includes a Focused transit service with moderate Clinton Keith offices. The City is embarking on a General Plan Redevelopment Area Land Use to high-frequency throughout Road Update that will create this new vision for the area, Analysis for evaluation of land the day. including mid- and higher-rise offices, with increased uses and zoning. floor area ratio. This is a departure from the current Possible commuter express industrial/business park and single-family residential service during peak hours and zones, most of which is vacant, however, it reflects the shuttle service for internal new demand for job creating office and technology trips could be implemented businesses and support for the Medical Center. should the minimum residential and/or employment density targets be met and financial conditions permitted. MUR-2 Intersection of Regional Murrieta Golden Triangle Regional Center, at the heart Existing local transit service. I-15 and Center of Murrieta, provides future opportunities for mixed There is an existing Specific Plan Planned regional and local I-215, north to use retail and office development. With existing office, for the triangle portion of site at transit service with moderate Los Alamos retail, and multi-family housing, this area provides the the southern end. The site is a to high-frequency throughout Road future opportunity for a true “urban regional center” proposed location for a the day. in Murrieta. Transportation amenities include access to High-Speed Rail station, and has both the I-15 and I-215 freeways and a proposed Possible commuter express the potential for regional High-Speed Rail stop. Available land encourages service during peak hours commercial and office uses as creativity in developing a range of mixed land uses that could be implemented should the area develops. The area to supports regional retail development and employment the minimum residential the north of Murrieta Hot opportunities. and/or employment density Springs Road is also being targets be met and financial evaluated with the conditions permitted. Comprehensive General Plan Update.

D-27 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges MUR-3 South of Town The Murrieta Town Square, which houses the city Existing local transit service. ● Kalmia Street, Center government offices, is centrally located within this The area includes much of the Planned regional and local west of I-15, Town Center location. Town Square is the Historic Murrieta Specific Plan. transit service with east of Civic Center encompassing City Hall, the Projected housing and high-frequency throughout Washington Police Station, Fire Station #1, Library, Senior Center, employment densities for this the day. Avenue and Community Services Center. The surrounding has location support a Town Center a strong base of retail uses and range of housing. Also without changes to the land use within the area is Historic Downtown Murrieta and and zoning. vacant land, providing opportunities for redevelopment of under utilized sites and new mixed use development.

MUR-4 South of Special Use The South Murrieta Business Corridor, on the west side No existing or planned transit Murrieta Hot Center of I-15, is anchor to the new Murrieta Education service. A Comprehensive General Plan Springs Road, Center, a 5-story “state of the art” education complex, Possible regional and local Update, to be adopted in west of I-15, which will include major technical and vocational transit service with moderate April 2011, includes a Focused east of learning opportunities. As a regional draw, this anchor to high-frequency throughout Redevelopment Area Land Use Jefferson will serve as a special use job center, promoting like the day; and connections to Analysis for evaluation of the Avenue facilities with freeway exposure and access, and commuter express service land use and zoning. additional office development. Like the during peak hours could be North Murrieta/I-215 Corporate Corridor, the City is implemented should the embarking on a General Plan Update that will create a minimum residential and/or new vision for the area, including mid- and higher-rise employment density targets offices, with increased floor area ratio. This is a be met and financial departure from the industrial/business park zones and conditions permitted. non-conforming residential uses, currently in the area, but reflects the new demand for education and job creating businesses.

D-28 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Report

DRAFT REPORT

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges (TEMECULA) Westside Employment The Westside Business Park functions as the City's Existing regional service on TEM-1 Business Center main employment center. The area consists primarily of Diaz Road from Winchester As of August 25, 2009, possible As of August 25, 2009, the Park- Bounded property designated as Industrial Park and Road to Rancho Way. future planning opportunity current various General Plan by Diaz Road Public Institutional, with smaller areas designated as exists for this place type area. Land Use Designations and Planned local transit service and Murrieta Professional Office, Community Commercial, and Zoning/Development Standards with moderate to Creek to the Service Commercial. The area is characterized by that govern the property within high-frequency throughout east, Cherry primarily built-out property with a mix of moderately this place type area will yield a the day. Street and the intense industrial, office, research and development, density range that is well below City of and warehouse uses. Some vacant properties exist Possible regional and local the minimum place type intensity Murrieta to within this area and present the potential for future transit service with of 50 emp/ac. The potential the north, in-fill development. Additionally, this area also includes connections to commuter consideration and opportunity bordering the site of the future Temecula Transit Center, which is express service during peak for a General Plan and Riverside anticipated to be located on the northwest corner of hours could be implemented Zoning Amendment exist to County the Westside Business Park Smart Growth Opportunity should the minimum increase the target FAR and (within the Area, bordering the City of Murrieta to the north. residential and/or modify the development city's Sphere employment density targets standards in this area to meet of Influence) be met and financial the minimum 50 emp/ac to the west conditions permit. threshold, inlcuding allowing and the incentives to attract future large boundaries of employers to the area to help SP-8 (Westside achieve the place type minimum. Specific Plan) to the south.

D-29 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges TEM-2 Old Town - Town Old Town encompasses the Old Town Specific Plan Existing local transit and Located west Center (SP-5), the Westside Specific Plan (SP-8), as well as a shuttle service. A comprehensive update to the The Old Town Specific Plan of I-15 linear extension of Old Town located to the south. This Old Town Specific Plan is amendment allows for densities Planned regional and local between area is characterized by historic, cultural, civic, retail, currently underway. This ranging from 15-40 du/ac in the transit service with Rancho commercial, industrial, and some residential land uses comprehensive amendment is Neighborhood Residential Zoning high-frequency throughout California with a traditional grid pattern street network. The anticipated to be adopted by District. Once adopted, the the day; and shuttle service Road to the Old Town Specific Plan is currently being amended to February 2010. Build-out of the Specific Plan will also allow for with very high-frequency. north and allow for higher-density residential and mixed use Old Town area, based upon the the construction of additional SR-79/ development to promote walkability and transit revised Specific Plan, is residential units within two Temecula opportunities. The Westside Specific Plan is anticipated to occur over an different mixed use areas: the Parkway to characterized by vacant and underutilized property approximate 30-year period. Downtown Core and Residential/ the south, and with a mix of land use designations, including light Limited Mixed Use zoning bounded by industrial, professional office, medium density districts. Based upon the the City's residential and open space. This area is anticipated to residential projections for these most western be developed with a university campus and other land areas, it is anticipated the boundary uses that are complimentary to the uses anticipated in 30 du/ac minimum that is adjacent to Old Town proper. Immediately south of Old Town required to meet the the City's proper is Old Town South, a linear extension of Town Center place type existing Old Town with underutilized commercial land uses. designation will be achieved. Sphere of The Old Town Place Type is accessed by two major Additionally, The Old Town Influence arterial streets with access to I-15. Local bus service Specific Plan will allow for the boundaries. and park-and-ride currently serves this area. This area construction of 2,235,990 has the potential for future regional transit square feet of commercial and connections. 159,809 square feet of civic uses, which should achieve the 30 emp/ac minimum that is required to meet the Town Center place type designation.

D-30 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Report

DRAFT REPORT

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges TEM-3 Temecula Special Use Temecula Parkway is a major east/west thoroughfare in Existing local transit service on Regional Center the City of Temecula from I-15. The future potential Temecula Parkway between Possible future planning As of August 25, 2009, the Hospital development of the Temecula Regional Hospital Core Margarita Road and opportunity exists for this place various General Plan Land Use Core - is associated with the anticipated future development Meadows Parkway. No type area. Designations and Zoning/ Generally of the Temecula Regional Hospital located east of existing or planned transit Development Standards that located west Dona Lynora Road, north of Temecula Parkway and service west of Margarita govern the property within this of the west of Margarita Road. The Temecula Regional Road. place type area will yield a intersection of Hospital will consist of five buildings: a density range that will result in a Possible regional and local Margarita 320-bed hospital facility with a helipad, a bed tower, much lower density than the transit service with moderate Road and two medical office buildings, and a cancer treatment minimum 45 emp/ac than that to high-frequency throughout Temecula and research facility. The property surrounding the required by the Special Use the day; connections to Parkway and Temecula Regional Hospital has been identified to Center Place Type designation. commuter express service and is bounded by potentially redevelop as the City's main core for future The future planning effort for park-and-ride lot during peak the Paloma medical, health, and technology oriented businesses. this area may include a General hours; and shuttle service for del Sol Future land uses surrounding the hospital facility are Plan and Zoning Amendment, internal trips could be Specific Plan anticipated to support the Temecula Regional Hospital which may include a change in implemented should the (SP-4) to the and the future medical educational facilities for nurse FAR to achieve the minimum minimum residential and/or east, Pio Pico training. Currently, the property within this potential employment density, as well as a employment density targets Road to the smart growth corridor is designated as number of incentives to attract be met and financial north, and Community Commercial, Professional Office, Highway potential future employers and conditions permit. situated east Tourist Commercial, Public Institutional, and the uses that are related to the of Dona De Portola Road Planned Development Overlay PDO-8. future Temecula Regional Lynora Road, Hospital and medical/biotech adjacent to industry. Although, the Special the Rancho Use Center Place Type does not Pueblo require a minimum number of Planned dwelling units, the future plan Development for this area may consider Overlay allowing for the development of (PDO- 6). mixed use residential development, or residential development associated with the future medical educational facility to support nurse training and instruction in close proximity to the hospital.

D-31 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges TEM-4 French Valley Employment The area immediately surrounding the French Valley Existing regional transit Airport Center Airport runway, designated as the French Valley service on Winchester Possible future planning As of August 25, 2009, this Employment Airport Employment Center, has the potential to Road/SR-79 from Temecula to opportunity exists for this place property is located within the Center - develop as a large-scale employment center associated Hemet. type area. City of Temecula’s General Plan Located north with the airport and surrounding land uses. The Sphere of Influence, and is Planned regional and local of the City of property within this potential smart growth area is currently under the County of transit service with moderate Temecula designated primarily as Industrial Park, Riverside’s jurisdiction. The to high-frequency throughout within the Public Institutional, and Professional Office. A small current plan for this area allows the day. County of portion of the property within this area is designated for a density range that is well Riverside as Community Commercial and Highway Tourist Possible connections to below the minimum place type jurisdiction Commercial. The future development of this area has commuter express service intensity of 50 emp/ac. This area and City's the potential to have a range of industrial, during peak hours could be has the future potential to be Sphere of manufacturing, and warehouse oriented uses that are implemented should the annexed by the City of Temecula. Influence, complimentary to the airport. The commercial nodes minimum residential and/or As part of the annexation effort, bordered by that exist within the area have the potential to develop employment density targets the City of Temecula may Winchester to serve the surrounding businesses and communities. be met and financial propose pre-zoning that would Road to the Currently Regional Bus Service runs parallel to the conditions permit. result in the appropriate Land east and airport along Winchester Road/SR- 79. Use Designation, Zoning and Benton Road Development Standards that to the north. would allow the property within The French this place type area to develop in Valley Airport a manner that would be is located in consistent with the Employment the Borel Center place type designation Airpark and yield a minimum of Specific Plan - 50 emp/ac. Incentives that would SP #365, attract employers may also be which considered. encompasses the entire French Valley Airport and immediately surrounding property

D-32 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Report

DRAFT REPORT

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges TEM-5 Temecula Regional The Temecula Regional Center encompasses the Existing local transit, regional, Regional Center Promenade Mall, Abbott Vascular Research Laboratory, express, and shuttle service Possible future planning As of August 25, 2009, the Center – Temecula Auto Mall, and surrounding commercial on Jefferson Avenue, Ynez opportunity exists for this place various General Plan Bounded by properties. The Temecula Regional Center smart Road, and Winchester type area. Designations and Zoning/ Murrieta growth area includes the most diverse land use Road/SR-79. Development Standards that Creek to the designations and has the highest daytime and evening govern the properties within this Planned regional and local west, activity within the City. This area is predominately place type area do not currently transit service on bounded by designated as Community Commercial, allow for development to occur Service Commercial, and Highway Tourist Commercial. Jefferson Avenue and Margarita that would result in meeting the Smaller portions of the smart growth area are Ynez Road with Road to the minimum 30 du/ac and minimum designated as Industrial Park and Professional Office. high-frequency throughout east, generally 45 emp/ac as required by the This area also includes two future mixed use transit the day and connections to located north Regional Center place type corridors: the Jefferson Avenue Mixed Use Transit BRT and commuter express of Rancho designation. The existing Corridor and Ynez Road Mixed Use Transit Corridor. service at the transit center. California The Jefferson Mixed Use Transit Corridor is a four lane Temecula Regional Center Road and arterial that parallels the I-15 freeway to the west and Possible shuttle service to Specific Plan does currently allow south of the is characterized by older underutilized commercial land connect the Jefferson and for some mixed use Harveston uses connecting to Old Town Temecula to the south Ynez corridors with other development, including Specific Plan and the future Temecula Transit Center to the north. Mixed Use and Special Use residential, however no mixed (SP-13) area. The Ynez Mixed Use Transit Corridor is characterized areas could be implemented use or residential development by commercial, retail, restaurant, and office uses, and should the minimum has occurred within this specific also includes the County Administrative offices. Both residential and/or plan area. Additionally, future of these major north/south mixed use transit corridors employment density targets planning efforts will need to be are intended to redevelop with mixed use and transit be met and financial pursued along both the Jefferson oriented development to support additional transit conditions permit. and Ynez Corridors that will opportunities in the area. This area is accessible by two result in transit oriented mixed major interchanges (I-15/Winchester Road and I-15/ use development with an Ranch California Road) and is served by four important emphasis on future residential transportation corridors (Winchester Road/SR-79 development in order to meet North, Rancho California Road, Jefferson Avenue and the minimum residential density Ynez Road). Winchester Road/SR-79 North operates as and employment density a regional transportation corridor with regional bus service. The area is served by both regional and local required by the Regional Center bus service, as well as multiple park-and-ride locations place type designation. along Winchester Road and Rancho California Road. Currently, the City of Temecula BRT could potentially accommodate this area in the General Plan identifies Jefferson future and could become more feasible as the mixed Corridor as a land use focus area use transit corridors are redeveloped. A portion of this where mixed use development smart growth place type is within the City's may be appropriate in the future. Redevelopment boundary, giving this area an This designation would need to advantage to redevelop with higher residential be expanded upon in order to densities and mixed use development that will support help achieve the Regional Center local transit service and pedestrian scale development. place type designation.

D-33 Appendix D – I-15 IRP Phase III Final Report

Smart Progress Toward Meeting Place Type Intensities Growth Jurisdiction Location Land Use Description Transit Service Description Place Plan Consistency with Place Type Status of Planning Effort Type Ranges TEM-6 Harveston Community Harveston Community Center is characterized as a Existing and planned shuttle ● Community Center high-quality, master planned community with a service from the Harveston A Specific Plan Amendment may Center - The lake/park at its center. The land use designations for community to the Promenade The Harveston Specific Plan was be considered to allow for Harveston this smart growth area include a mix of low, medium Mall. adopted August 2001, and additional mixed use Community and high-density residential development and open amended August 2003. development, which would result Possible local transit service Center smart space. Additionally, a 1.8 acre portion of the site has However, the current specific in the construction of additional with high-frequency could be growth area is been designated as a mixed use overlay area known as plan would not allow for residential units within the implemented should the bounded by the "Village Center". This mixed use "Village Center" development to occur to meet 112 acre commercial site located minimum residential and/or the City of is located at the core of the smart growth area, nestled the 20 du/ac minimum that is on the western-most portion of employment density targets Temecula between the high- and medium-density residential required to meet the the Specific Plan. be met and financial boundaries to areas. This area is intended to attract neighborhood Community Center place type conditions permit. the north, I-15 commercial land uses to serve the immediately designation. to the west, surrounding neighborhood and its residents. There is Margarita also a 12 acre portion of property that is designated Road to the Public Institutional that has been developed as an east, following Elementary School. Harveston Community Center is the existing also characterized by recreational amenities including boundaries of an expansive trail network that provides an alterative the Harveston pedestrian and bicycle oriented network along the Specific Plan local, collector and major arterial roadways. This trail (SP-13). network provides connectivity throughout the area. Additionally, Harveston Community Center is served by local transit service (Trolley), which runs through Harveston, to the Promenade Mall and into Old Town and back to Harveston.

TEM-7 Pechanga - Special Use Pechanga Entertainment Center is a destination resort Existing and planned local The City of Temecula does not Pechanga Center with a regional draw, and is classified as a special use transit that connects to other have land use jurisdiction within Entertainment center. The facilities include a casino, full service hotel, local and regional service at the boundaries of this smart Center is golf course, spa, various entertainment oriented the Promenade Mall. growth opportunity area. located on the venues, and restaurant/dining opportunities. Pechanga Possible regional, local, and east side of Band has been a sovereign government before the express transit service with the City of establishment of the United States and are recognized high-frequency and Temecula, on as a sovereign nation. The Pechanga Band has a connections to the transit the southwest government-to-government relationship with the U.S. center could be implemented corner of should the minimum Pechanga residential and/or employment Parkway and density targets be met and Wolf Valley financial conditions permit. Road.

D-34