From: CindyRAGLM@aol.com
Date: * No Date *
Subject: Questions to Cathy Bechtel from the Wed. Oct. 15 RAGLM Community Meeting
Attachment(s): 1

Cathy, here are the questions handed in at the Wed. Oct. 15 RAGLM Community meeting that we did not have time to address.  It was agreed that I would type the questions up and send them to you to address.  Please note that since I also said the questions would be posted to the community list sites, I did not feel comfortable posting names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses on the Internet.  For this reason that info. has been left off.  Each question has been given a number and that number identifies the person that presented the question.  If you need a persons contact info, please let me know and give me the question number.  Please address the questions via my personal e-mail address (CindyRAGLM@aol.com <mailto:CindyRAGLM@aolcom> ) and I will cross post it to the community list sites, as I stated I would do.  The community looks forward to hearing from you.
 
My apologies to RCTC and my community for taking over a week to get this done.  It's been a busy time and my Asthma has slowed me down a lot the last two weeks.  I am trying to keep on top of things and will do my best.

MCP Community Questions

Questions handed in at the Wed. Oct. 15, 2008, 7 p.m. RAGLM community meeting, but, there was no time to address these questions.  It was agreed that Cindy Ferry would type up the questions, send them to Cathy Bechtel at RCTC for her to answer.

1.      One set of criteria that has NOT been taken into account is the effect of the topography that option 9 must traverse in the section west of Wood Road.  Is it true that option 9 in this area has the greatest elevation changes as compared with the other options?  Elevation and grade changes result in higher construction costs, engineering costs and the result is a road that will have greater noise and pollution.

2.      Since the “parkway” would cause so much damage to the dams that you cannot place the parkway adjacent to them, how does RCTC justify placing this some “facility” so near homes?

3.      What mechanism is being put in place to compensate property owners for subsequent damage?

4.      This community prides itself as being ONE Community and developers are discouraged from placing walls around developments as a result.  Sound walls will cause a great division to this community and will forever change it.  The character most residents moved here for will be lost.

5.      What value will be used when you purchase the homes, fair market value when the home is purchased or the new depressed value?

6.      What good are plans for the parkway when it is ending at the already congested 15?  Where do the cars go from there?

7.      As per your agreement at the RAGLM Oct. 15, 2008 community meeting, I wish to have this question made a part of the public record.  Could the freeway go into the hills south of Lake Mathews Dr. where there is no or very little housing?  I am concerned about noise, seeing that I live on Rolling Meadows.  I do not feel it is fair to only give 30 days to read a 1000 page document and investigate it.  I bought my property for a rural area, not to be a neighbor to a freeway.

8.      Please enter into the public record.  Why wasn’t the alt. 9 route taken south and west of monument peak, which would eliminate the impact on the west edge of Lake Mathews Estates?

9.      Please add this document to the public record.  We do not want the Mid County Parkway to go through our neighborhood.  We built our dream home five years ago, choosing Lake Mathews for the natural beauty and quiet, peaceful location.  Please do not destroy our way of life.

10.  I do not want the parkway to come through Gavilan Hills.  I have lived here since 1984.  I love it here!  The parkway will totally change my love for the area.  It will ruin the peace and quiet.  It will cause more traffic, smog and noise.  There are lots of people who came here to get away from the noise and traffic.  I have heard there is a route that was thought of first, that goes on the 74 from the 215 in Perris and down to the 15 freeway.  That is the one I vote for.

11.  What about the Palomar Lighting requirements for this area?

12.  This current route is absurd!  This area is designated by EPA as having some of the worst air quality in the nation.  For health impact reasons alone, putting a freeway through the Cajalco Basin is insane.  Highway 74 makes more sense!  We want more time for public comment.

13.  I would like to see the RAGLM 74 route represented on the maps.  Why isn’t it?

14.  I want a formal public hearing to be held at the Cajalco Fire station regarding the proposed parkway through Gavilan Hills.  We have a right and I demand that it be held where those of us so greatly impacted with its effects can be heard.

15.  What are the decibel levels on the map based on?  Cars – trucks, which one?  Does his calculation take into account the use of engine breaks on grades?  Explain the benefit of adding another feeder to the existing bottleneck on 91 without first creating an alternative means to get from Riverside/Corona to Orange County?

16.  Why not go further behind Monument Mountain with the MCP, without trying to taking eminent domain properties that are major taxpayers I this County, when you are scared to do this in Mead Valley.

17.  Why not widen Cajalco and lave it at that?  We do not want this.

18.  We will have to put up with the smell and pollution of truck noise an sound walls will not cut the noise.  We were to always stay rural and keep the environment around here clean.

19.  Parkway project?  Don’t you mean freeway project?  This community was to remain rural!!  I am the live just off Lake Mathews Dr., on Rolling Meadows.  Can you tell me what positive impact this will have on my life and that of my neighbors?  I cannot think of one.  This will ruin the rural way of life and at the same time have a most negative impact on all that is living here on the Gavilan Plateau.  Your plan for the Mid County Parkway makes me SICK!!!

20.  Do not go forward with this Mid County Freeway.  Develop and expand highway 74.

21.  WE do not want a “Parkway” or “Freeway” through this area.  Once that would happen, this area would be forevermore destroyed?  Do not put this through!  None of the plans that are on the table are in the best interest of this area!

22.  The parkway is proposed to go through an area that is where an elementary school IS going in.  It WILL effect the children.  We do NOT want it in Gavilan Hills.

23.  What happens to the established state equestrian trails that run north to south thru Gavilan Hills?

24.  We need a sanctioned meeting for Gavilan Hills and Lake Mathews Area.

25.  Give RAGLM more time to review the RCTC plan.

26.  We need a meeting in our area because we are not Perris.

27.  Give full consideration to the unique lifestyle of our community.  The freeway route 9 will take this away forever. Use the 74!  It saves money and our lifestyle.

28.  Please make this a part of the public record.  Freeways do NOT bring rural lifestyles.  What about breathing up on the hill?  There is no place for the pollution to go.  It will just sit and destroy the lungs of our children and adults living here.  No freeway up a 7% grade up our hill!  The noise and pollution in our rural area is NOT acceptable!

29.  Route 4.9A was discarded in 10 min. and by your own admission and my knowledge the “Up The Hill” route has taken months.  What about the 74, which was approved and suggested by your own committee?  How do you know what the noise decibels are?  You can set on Cajalco when those big/medium trucks roll by MANY feet/yards away and buildings rumble and you cannot speak in the normal tone of voice.

30.  The water table is VERY high on the mountain.  How can you put an “overpass” without digging down deep and not have your overpass wash away in the heavy rain?

31.  If you build a freeway “they” will come.  That freeway will be packed with many more than 50,000 cars per day.  RAGLM wants more time to review and scrutinize the EIR report, give it to them.

32.  Use highway 74 for the Mid County Parkway.  Do not put a freeway in the middle of a rural residential area.  We need more time to review the EIR.  It makes no sense to put this in such a rugged, hilly, rocky area.  Seems it would cost much, much more of our tax dollars then to build it on the flat land.

33.  I’m thinking more like a big ugly trucking freeway, that destroys habitat and a rural way of life.  We moved out here 27 years ago to get away from the city life style.  I don’t understand why you want to push traffic up into the hills, then down the hill.  I know there are better routes.  I would appreciate it if you would find them.  Stay with Cajalco.  John Roth, our speaker, agrees to stay on Cajalco.  I’m just sick about this whole thing!  It’s not for our benefit.  It’s just coming through.  We can’t even get on it and use it ourselves.

34.  Please make this a part of the public record.  I am 100% against Route 9.  This freeway WILL destroy MANY rural communities in Riverside County.  I have never seen the area near a freeway enhanced.  I want to know how Gavilan Hills and Lake Mathews are going to be affected by pollution?

35.  Please add this to the Public Record.  It was mentioned by Cathy Bechtel during the RAGLM meeting on 10/15/08 that a mailing concerning issues such as the Mid County Parkway is made to those within 300 feet of the proposed route.  I submit that 300 feet is NOT a REASONABLE distance.  The impact of such projects extends MUCH further.  My property would be about 6000 feet from the proposed Placentia/215 interchange area.  I feel that such projects need to be publicized to a MUCH larger audience.

36.  Please add this to the Public Record.  At the RAGLM meeting on 10/15/08, a map that showed the proposed routes for the Mid County Parkway included various outlines for approved and proposed residential developments.  One such proposed residential development is actually going to be a business park that has had construction/clearing started (Nuevo Road/215/Satreet area).  A map in the EIR document shows an area colored as farmland of local importance.  The area has been cleared as part of the business park mentions above.  I submit that the information being presented as used for decision making is faulty and need further review.

37.  You need to use the highway 74!  Have dedicated truck lanes on the 74, east/west.  Blueline Streams, high water table, 8’ at Harley John/Cajalco  We need a sanctioned meeting in our area.  We are the MOST affected.

Cindy Ferry

Community Spokesperson for the Greater Lake Mathews area.
Owner/Operator of:  <mailto:XLakeMathewsTalks@Yahoogroups.com> LakeMathewsTalks@Yahoogroups.com, GHSchoolRedistrictingCommittee@Yahoogroups.com <mailto:XGHSchoolRedistrictingCommittee@Yahoogroups.com> , Lake_Mathews_Transit@Yahoogroups.com <mailto:XLake_Mathews_Transit@Yahoogroups.com>  and  <javascript:void> Watt_LMCOI@Yahoogroups.com
Member/Monitor of:  <javascript:void> RAGLMNotice@Yahoogroups.com and WoodcrestTalks@Yahoogroups.com <mailto:XWoodcrestTalks@Yahoogroups.com> 
CindyRAGLM@aol.com (best way to reach me)
(951) 657-6610
16115 Rocky Bluff Road
Gavilan Hills, CA. 92570-7471

  _____  

Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics –  <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001> check it out!