Board Members Ron Morrison, Chairman Councilmember, National City
Mickey Cafagna, Vice Chairman Mayor, Poway
Ramona Finnila Mayor Pro Tem, Carlsbad
Steve Padilla Mayor, Chula Vista BOARD OF DIRECTORS Phil Monroe Mayor Pro Tem, Coronado AGENDA Crystal Crawford Councilmember, Del Mar
Mark Lewis Mayor, El Cajon
Christy Guerin Councilmember, Encinitas Friday, May 28, 2004
Lori Holt Pfeiler 9 a.m. Mayor, Escondido SANDAG Patricia McCoy th Mayor Pro Tem, Imperial Beach 401 B Street, 7 Floor
Barry Jantz Downtown San Diego Councilmember, La Mesa
Mary Sessom Mayor, Lemon Grove
Jack Feller Councilmember, Oceanside
Dick Murphy Mayor, San Diego AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS
Jim Madaffer Councilmember, San Diego
Corky Smith • TransNet Extension ORDINANCE AND Mayor, San Marcos EXPENDITURE PLAN
Hal Ryan Councilmember, Santee • FY 2005 DRAFT PROGRAM BUDGET Joe Kellejian Mayor, Solana Beach • UPDATE ON REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Morris Vance Mayor, Vista
Dianne Jacob Chairman, County of San Diego
Advisory Members Victor Carrillo, Supervisor Imperial County PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING Pedro Orso-Delgado, District Director California Department of Transportation YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE SANDAG BOARD MEETING BY Leon Williams, Chairman Metropolitan VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Transit System
Judy Ritter, Chair North San Diego County Transit Development Board
CAPT Christopher Schanze, USN MISSION STATEMENT U.S. Department of Defense The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides San Diego Unified Port District information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life. Bud Lewis, Director San Diego County Water Authority San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 Luis Cabrera Cuaron (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org Consul General of Mexico
Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Board on any item at the time the Board is considering the item. Speaker’s Slips are located in the rear of the room. Once completed, the slip should be presented to the Clerk of the Board seated at the front table. Public speakers should notify the Clerk of the Board if they have a handout for distribution to Board members. Members of the public also are invited to address the Board on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/ Communications. All speakers are limited to three minutes. The SANDAG Board may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed on SANDAG’s Web site at www.sandag.org under Meetings. Public comments regarding the agenda can be forwarded to SANDAG via the e-mail comment form also available on the Web site. E-mail comments should be received no later than noon on the Wednesday preceding the Friday SANDAG Board meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY) or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 1-800-COMMUTE or see www.sdcommute.com for route information.
2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Friday, May 28, 2004
ITEM # RECOMMENDATION
1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE
+ A. APRIL 23, 2004 MEETING MINUTES
+ B. MAY 14, 2004 MEETING MINUTES
2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS
Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the Board on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the Clerk of the Board prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk of the Board if they have a handout for distribution to Board members. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
CONSENT ITEMS (4 THROUGH 7)
+ 4. ACTIONS FROM POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES APPROVE
+ 5. QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS JANUARY- INFORMATION/ MARCH 2004 (José Nuncio) POSSIBLE ACTION
This report summarizes the current status of major highway, transit, arterial, traffic management, and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) projects in SANDAG's five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The TransNet one-half percent local sales tax and other local, state, and federal sources fund these projects.
+ 6. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT – PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 INFORMATION/ (Marlene Kelleher) POSSIBLE ACTION
State law requires that the Board be provided a quarterly report of investments held by SANDAG.
+ 7. WORKERS COMPENSATION COVERAGE FOR VOLUNTEERS (Resolution No. APPROVE 2004-20) (Julie Wiley)
Pursuant to Labor Code Section 3363.5, SANDAG may cover its volunteers under its workers compensation insurance policy by adopting a resolution authorizing such coverage. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution so that persons volunteering for SANDAG will be covered by its workers compensation insurance in the event of an injury.
3
CHAIR’S REPORT
8. APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR BOARD OFFICERS APPOINT
Per the Bylaws, the Chair will appoint a five-member nominating committee for Board officers, made up of Board Members from each of the four subregions and a member from either the City of San Diego or the County of San Diego. The committee will submit its list of nominees, in writing, for mailing to Board Members as part of the June 25, 2004, Board meeting. Additional nominees for any office may be made by Board Members at the June meeting.
REPORTS
+ 9. 2004 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) - REVISED APPROVE SUBMITTAL (José Nuncio)
On March 26, 2004, the Board of Directors approved submittal of Option C of the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which maximizes the use of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) and other bonds. Early feedback from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) indicates that it will not make a decision on which projects will be financed with GARVEE bonds until after the statewide STIP is adopted on August 5, 2004. CTC staff is requesting submittal of a “pay as you go” STIP proposal that does not include GARVEE or other bond financing. On May 7, 2004, the Transportation Committee recommended Board approval of Option A, an initial STIP alternative with direction to continue to pursue GARVEE for as many projects as possible. Programming actions for three projects that are ready to go to construction in the near- term are discussed as well.
+ 10. COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01 – THE SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION SECOND READING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVIDING AND ADOPTION OF FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX ORDINANCE AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE INITIAL SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION PROGRAM ORDINANCE (COMMISSION ORDINANCE 87-1 – PROPOSITION A, 1987) FOR A FORTY-YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING ON APRIL 1, 2008 (SECOND READING) AND RESOLUTION NO. 2004-21 RELATED THERETO (Resolution 2004-21) (Craig Scott)
At the May 14, 2004 meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the introduction (First Reading) of the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan for the TransNet Extension (Commission Ordinance 04-01). If adopted, the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan would be sent to the County Board of Supervisors to be placed on the November 2, 2004 ballot.
11. UPDATE ON REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) (Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler, Chair, Regional Planning Committee; Carolina Gregor, SANDAG Staff)
+ A. WORKSHOP RESULTS (Janet Fairbanks) INFORMATION
SANDAG culminated its third and final round of public workshops on the draft RCP last month. Attached is a summary of the results. 4
+ B. UPDATED SMART GROWTH MATRIX AND PRINCIPLES FOR INCENTIVES INFORMATION (Stephan Vance)
Last month, the SANDAG Board discussed the smart growth matrix proposed for inclusion in the final RCP and aspects of the smart growth incentive program. Refinements to the matrix and the principles have been made, and are included in the attached report.
+ C. SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES TO THE DRAFT REGIONAL INFORMATION/ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) (Carolina Gregor) POSSIBLE ACTION
Based on public comments submitted on the draft RCP, comments received at the public workshops, and direction from the Regional Planning Committee and its Working Groups, several changes have been made to the draft RCP. The attached report provides a summary of the key changes. Next month, the Board will be asked to certify the final Environmental Impact Report and adopt the final RCP.
+ 12. FY 2005 DRAFT PROGRAM BUDGET (Reneé Wasmund) DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE ACTION The Draft FY 2005 Program Budget is attached for review. The SANDAG bylaws require the adoption of a final budget by July 1 of each year. The Program Budget includes the budget of SANDAG serving as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, the work elements identifed in the Overall Work Program, the Capital Budget and the Administration Budget. The final FY 2005 Program Budget is scheduled for Board approval at its June 25 meeting.
13. UPCOMING MEETINGS INFORMATION
The next meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors is scheduled for Friday, June 25, 2004 at 9 a.m.
14. ADJOURNMENT
GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director
+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment
5
7
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05-1-A MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS Meeting of April 23, 2004
Chairman Ron Morrison (National City) called the meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors to order at 9:15 a.m. The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Jim Madaffer (City of San Diego) and a second by Councilmember Hal Ryan (Santee), the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the following meeting minutes: March 19, 2004 (as revised), March 26, 2004, and April 9, 2004 (as revised)
2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
None.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBERS COMMENTS
Jim Bell, a member of the public, requested that his name be removed from the Regional Comprehensive Plan’s (RCP’S) working group so that he would no longer be associated with it. He said that the RCP is out of touch with world events and does not address fundamental issues related to the cost of energy, food, water, and fire restrictions. It also does not address how to make our region less vulnerable from natural disasters. He agreed with the need for a long-range plan but thought that the RCP is only a start. He offered to provide assistance regarding long-range planning.
Chuck Lungerhausen, a member of the public, expressed concern that former San Diego City Mayor and now radio personality, Roger Hedgecock, has come out against the TransNet Extension tax. Mr. Lungerhausen said that the TransNet tax has had more positive results for this county than any radio talk show person. He supported passage of the TransNet Extension but felt that it was not enough of a tax support for public transportation. He also did not think that this tax should have a sunset provision.
Mayor Dick Murphy (City of San Diego) said the National Partners for Local Communities awarded San Diego the designation of “one of the nine most livable cities in America.” He stated that this award is for the region rather than just for the City of San Diego.
2
Councilmember Jack Feller (Oceanside) noted that the replica of the Vietnam Wall is in Oceanside this weekend, and that it would be on display 24 hours a day. He encouraged all to visit it. Councilmember Crystal Crawford (Del Mar) mentioned that she recently met with the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations, Ernesto Derberz, at a recent conference co- sponsored by the Center for US-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the Institute of the Americas. She said that he is an economist by training and is very well spoken. The event at which he spoke was taped and she requested that a copy be provided to SANDAG. It should be available in early summer. She highly recommended that SANDAG take note of his comments.
Mayor Pro Tem Phil Monroe (Coronado) thanked the public speakers for their comments. He was glad to hear that Mr. Bell thought the RCP was a good start but he acknowledged that it will not solve all of the region’s problems. It will provide a framework that will be renewed in five years.
CONSENT ITEMS (4 through 8)
Chair Morrison noted that Item No. 8 would be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
4. ACTIONS FROM POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES (APPROVE)
Councilmember Crawford referred to the actions by the Interstate 5 (I-15) Interregional Partnership (IRP) and the Borders Committee meeting. She said that the I-15 IRP Draft Final Report was approved for distribution and comments are due back by June 20. She hoped that the Board would take note and provide comments on this report.
In the summary of actions for the Borders Committee on April 16, it states that the Borders Committee created a task force. She said the actual action was that several committee members agreed to work with Councilmember Feller on the matter of illegal immigration and will report back to the Borders Committee.
5. APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (APPROVE)
SANDAG’s Subcommittee for Accessible Transportation (SCAT) recommends approval of Resolution No. 2004-17, which endorses the scores awarded by the Local Review Committee, finds the applications for federal funds in Section 5310 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) program in conformance with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and assures that the projects will be added to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). These funds are available in statewide competition for social service agencies to purchase vehicles and related equipment that are used to transport seniors and persons with disabilities.
6. LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS REQUIRING MORE THAN $1,000 OR THREE DAYS STAFF TIME (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION)
Local Technical Assistance (LTA) policy guidelines require that projects involving more than three days’ staff time be reported to the Board of Directors. The projects covered in this
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 3
month’s report are transportation forecast modeling for the City of Encinitas and a survey of public safety personnel who use the San Diego County-Imperial County Regional Communication System.
7. MASTER MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (NCTD) AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (MTS), AND SANDAG BOARD POLICY ON ASSET OWNERSHIP AND DISPOSITION (APPROVE)
An MOU between SANDAG, NCTD, and MTS is proposed that is intended to establish a central document that includes the current and future agreements between the three agencies related to consolidation. The first proposed supplement to the MOU concerns an agreement among the parties regarding ownership of real and personal property. A related Board policy is also proposed concerning ownership and disposal of real and personal property assets. The Transportation Committee has recommended approval of the MOU and proposed Board Policy No. 028.
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Mickey Cafagna (Poway) and a second by Councilmember Christy Guerin (Encinitas), the SANDAG Board of Directors approved Consent Items 4 through 7, including the revisions as stated by Councilmember Crawford on Item 4, and excepting Item 8. Yes – 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No – 0. Abstain – 0. Absent – 0.
8. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (NCTD) WITH RESPECT TO SPRINTER FINANCING (APPROVE)
Mayor Corky Smith (San Marcos) asked about the private funding for this project. Staff replied that they would be tax-exempt bonds from the private sector.
Public Comments:
Councilmember Mike Preston (San Marcos) thought action on this item should be postponed. He said that the state has already told NCTD that it cannot use STIP money for this project, which means that it will have to use federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. This will take money away from the cities. He also didn’t agree with the trip projection of 10,000 passengers for this service. He asked the Board to delay this vote until the Board could conduct an audit of the project and review the ridership projections.
Leslie Jantz, a member of the public, said that it is of paramount importance that the TransNet Extension be approved, though it will not be easy to obtain the two- thirds required vote. He noted that if NCTD does not get the bonds for the Sprinter project, it will negatively impact obtaining the super-majority approval for the TransNet Extension. He expressed concern about the lack of grade separations and the farebox recovery ratio for the Sprinter project. He thought that using bond funds is not the intent of the federal Full Funding Grant Agreement.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 4
Board Member Comments:
Mayor Cafagna asked why this action needed to be taken now. Staff replied that we need to start the process for getting the bond rating so that it will be approved by the time the main line bids are opened.
Councilmember Judy Ritter (NCTD) reminded the Board that this project was included in the original TransNet program.
Transportation Chair Joe Kellejian (Mayor, Solana Beach) reported that this item came before the Transportation Committee last week and it was unanimously approved. He said that we really need to hold the state accountable for its $80 million commitment to fund the Sprinter project. He mentioned that State Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing, Sunne McPeak, is very supportive of this project. It meets her criteria and that of the State of California. We do have federal monies to contribute towards the project and it is a ready-to-go project. All of the right-of-way has been purchased, and negotiations are in progress with users of the freight line. This project will create jobs. We owe an obligation to the voters of the County of San Diego that approved the TransNet proposition in 1987 that included this project. This financing is a temporary measure until the state comes up with the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) money.
Staff added that TCRP funds were programmed for this project two years ago. The TCRP funding has been postponed for the past two years. CMAQ is only being used as backup collateral for the bonds.
Motion Made: Mayor Corky Smith moved to postpone this action until the Sprinter main line construction contract is settled. Councilmember Guerin seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Guerin agreed with the public speakers that in 1987 when the voters approved the original TransNet Ordinance, funding sources were much different than they are now. There is another rail line along the coast that needs significant funding. Costs for this project are spiraling out of control. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) staff has indicated they will not recommend approval of the STIP funding for the Sprinter. Her council does not approve of this project and by using CMAQ money, you are taking money from other projects. Staff clarified that CTC has decided that STIP funds cannot be used for paying off the bonds, and has not done an evaluation of the project.
Councilmember Morris Vance (Vista) inquired about the impact of a delay on this action. Staff responded that any delay in project implementation will cause an increase in costs. Main line bids are due in June.
Keith Curry, financial advisor for the project, said that in order to make the schedule, NCTD needs the MOU to obtain a bond rating and have the financing in place when the bids are opened in June. He added that the portion of the project financing secured by CMAQ is only for ten years to 2017.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 5
Substitute Motion: Mayor Kellejian offered a substitute motion to accept the MOU with NCTD with respect to the Sprinter financing. Mayor Pro Tem Ramona Finnila (Carlsbad) seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Substitute Motion:
Councilmember Guerin asked what will happen if the bids come in at an amount greater than the anticipated financing. Staff answered that the MOU is very specific with regard to the maximum financial obligation and only for the amount of the CMAQ funding commitment.
Mayor Pro Tem Phil Monroe (Coronado) appreciated the not-to-exceed limit in the MOU, but he expressed concern about any funding gap. Mr. Curry replied that the SANDAG obligation is for the not-to-exceed amount. NCTD is augmenting the project with its own revenue sources. To the extent the bids come in higher NCTD will have to resolve that. The financing is being structured within the confines of the MOU to limit the exposure to the region.
Councilmember Jim Madaffer (City of San Diego) agreed that we need to keep faith with the voters relative to the TransNet issue on November’s ballot. We need to make the point clear that we will complete those projects contained in the original measure. NCTD is paying a substantial part of the financial load for this project.
Councilmember Jack Feller (Oceanside) commented that this project was pretty well received by all of the cities affected when it was first approved. He wondered why that is no longer the case. He said that we need to continue to support this project.
Councilmember Morris Vance (Vista) thought that it would be wise to wait and see how the bids come in to determine the financial ability to proceed with the project.
Supervisor Jacob agreed that we need to keep faith with the voters. However, she said that there are some outstanding questions about this project that should be answered before proceeding with this action.
Karen King, Executive Director of NCTD, stated that this is a project that has been long in the making with a lot of roadblocks thrown in its way. A month ago this body took action on a whole package of projects that are at risk for the region and to go with the “Box of Chocolates” option to try and GARVEE bond for all of the projects that are difficult to move at this time. NCTD has agreed to step up to the plate and seek financing on its own and risk future revenues to back up that financing in order to deliver this project as promised. We can pull together the financing if the bids come in over that anticipated. This is an NCTD project and the NCTD Board may have to make some hard choices. The action being requested is for SANDAG to affirm the action taken a month ago to continue to proceed with implementation of this project.
Mayor Steve Padilla (Chula Vista) thought there should be a closer examination of the fundamental cost questions. Once the questions are better understood we may be in a position to move forward at that time.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 6
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Kellejian and a second by Mayor Pro Tem Finnila, the SANDAG Board moved to authorize the Executive Director to execute an MOU with NCTD, in substantially the form as presented, related to financing $80 million and associated interest costs for the Sprinter if the TCRP funds do not materialize. Yes – 11 (weighted vote, 63%). No – 7 (Chula Vista, County of San Diego, El Cajon, Encinitas, La Mesa, San Marcos, and Vista) (weighted vote, 37%). Abstain – Santee. Absent – 0. Passage of this substitute motion supersedes action on the original motion to postpone action.
CHAIR’S REPORT
9. RECOGNITION OF MIKE MCLAUGHLIN
Chair Morrison stated that in 1979, Mike McLaughlin joined the planning staff at SANDAG. Next month, Mike will retire from SANDAG as the agency’s Director of Land Use and Environmental Planning. He is being recognized today for his 25 years of dedicated public service, encompassing a professional career that includes exemplary knowledge of the planning profession, outstanding leadership guiding staff and planning students, and creativity finding solutions to the region’s challenges.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that it has been a pleasure to work at SANDAG. One of the perks not in the job description is the ability to work with this Board and previous Boards. Clearly the other perk has been to work with the staff at SANDAG. He had three hiring criteria: passion, hard work, and smarts. He said that SANDAG has the best staff in the world, and it has made the past 25 years a real pleasure.
Chair Morrison mentioned the opening of the Bayshore Bike Path Bridge last Saturday. He said that it was a very positive event, and Stephan Vance did a great job on this project.
Councilmember Patricia McCoy (Imperial Beach) commented that some of the staff and Board go back a very long time, and the dedication of staff has only increased over time.
10. APPOINTMENT TO SOURCEPOINT BOARD OF DIRECTORS (APPROVE)
The Chair has nominated El Cajon Mayor Mark Lewis to fill the vacant position on the SourcePoint Board. SourcePoint, a nonprofit corporation chartered by SANDAG, offers a broad range of services including economic and fiscal impact analysis, market feasibility studies, economic development strategies, transportation modeling, and geographic information system (GIS) services.
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Cafagna and a second by Councilmember Feller, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the appointment of El Cajon Mayor Mark Lewis to the SourcePoint Board. Yes – 15 (weighted vote, 94%). No – 0 (0%). Abstain – El Cajon (6%). Absent – 0.
Chair Morrison called a break at 10:15 a.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:23 a.m.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 7
REPORTS
11. STATUS REPORT ON REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) (INFORMATION)
A. SMART GROWTH OPPORTUNITY AREAS (INFORMATION)
Chair of the Regional Planning Committee, Lori Holt Pfeiler Mayor, (Escondido) introduced this item.
Bob Leiter, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning, provided background information related to the focus of the RCP and three topics: smart growth opportunity areas, strategic initiatives, and the remaining RCP workshops. The purpose of the RCP is to better connect land use and transportation plans and to use those plans to guide other plans in the region. This will happen through incentives and collaboration.
Mr. Leiter presented a proposed smart growth matrix including the following categories: metropolitan center, urban center, town center, community center, transit corridor, special use corridor, and rural village core, and showed examples of each of the categories. He identified characteristics of the smart growth opportunity areas.
Mr. Leiter stated that there will be Smart Growth Design Principles that will assist smart growth development. He stated that by 2030, each corridor will have some regional transit service. After adoption of the RCP, staff will continue to work with the County of San Diego and the 18 cities to apply the Smart Growth Design Principles to specific geographic areas and to develop a Smart Growth concept map.
Mr. Leiter reported that the RCP will provide guidelines for strengthening the local/regional connection, and will provide specific recommended actions. It will also provide a framework for providing incentives for smart growth. SANDAG should consider the extent to which local communities have incorporated these smart growth concepts into their local plans. The Draft TransNet Extension has a funding allocation for this program. Smart growth will improve the utilization of the areas and ridership on the transportation system. A report will be presented to the RCP committee with specific recommendations on the incentive planning program.
Patty Davis, Chair of the Stakeholders Working Group, said that given the projected population growth the region must grow smarter. About 44,000 people cross the border at San Ysidro every day for legitimate jobs and there are another 30,000 that come from Western Riverside County every day for work. The Working Group is supportive of the matrix, and feels that the incentives are critical to implementing smart growth. The matrix and the framework provide guidelines and focus on actual results.
Mayor Pfeiler mentioned that Gail Goldberg has been a great leader of the Technical Working Group. This group did not feel that including population control for the future was appropriate.
Mayor Pfeiler asked for feedback from Board members.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 8
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila asked if the term “activity centers” was going to be abandoned in favor of the seven new categories. Mayor Pfeiler indicated that we are breaking down activity centers to have more meaningful titles.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila asked if the number of dwelling units will be included as a range of numbers. Mr. Leiter replied affirmatively, and added that the Board will see this information next month. Ranges of density targets for each category have been drafted.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila thought that the town center concept should allow uniqueness for each area. Mr. Leiter stated that it can be unique as long at it meets the minimum levels. Staff has met with the planning directors in the region to develop the categories to fit all of the different situations.
Mayor Smith asked about the proximity of smart growth to transit. Mr. Leiter replied that for a town center we are looking at within a quarter mile of a transit station.
Mayor Smith asked how many people are on the Stakeholders Working Group. Ms. Davis replied that originally there were 25 people.
Supervisor Dianne Jacob (County of San Diego) said that overall the committee has done a good job, and she was glad that the rural village is one of the categories. However, she felt there is more work to be done. She expressed concern about the unincorporated areas being able to compete on a level playing field for the smart growth monies. She recommended that SANDAG staff continue to work with County staff to refine the categories. She suggested a weight on having a pedestrian/bicycle focus. She thought that the smart growth principles were heavily transit-oriented in the design principles. It seemed to her that the unincorporated communities only seemed to fit one category out of the seven. This means the County will not compete well for funding.
Mayor Mary Sessom (Lemon Grove) commented that staff should continue working with communities on the definitions. The plan for walkability and for bicycles is exactly the same. She agreed with the Supervisor on redefining the categories when you start giving out financial incentives.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila said this underscores the importance of having the County General Plan approved.
Councilmember Ryan asked if there is a pot of money for the unincorporated areas. Mayor Pfeiler replied that various areas will be competing for the smart growth funds, and there may be different criteria for different areas. The funding decisions will be made by the SANDAG Board.
Councilmember Ryan stated that the unincorporated areas are anticipated to experience more future growth than other areas. He wondered if a certain percentage of these monies should be set aside or at least earmarked for the unincorporated areas. Mayor Pfeiler noted that the success of any area will depend on the connection between the RCP and the different general plans.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 9
Mayor Kellejian commented that local transit service, bringing people from outlying areas to the core of the rural village, is one of the criteria being used. This includes park-and-ride facilities. He thought the County has done a pretty good job with that.
Mayor Pro Tem Monroe said he didn’t think that there will be a level playing field for the smart growth funds. He wondered if the Supervisor wanted a system where the funds would be divided up equally among the jurisdictions. He didn’t agree with that approach. He acknowledged that Coronado will probably not compete well for these funds. He said that SANDAG as the regional body should think that smart growth is important in those areas that can really make it work.
Ms. Davis noted that the Stakeholders and Working Group thought that smart growth will not happen without the smart growth incentive system.
Mayor Cafagna said that the idea of the incentive program is to make sure that smart growth is done and there are categories where you can deal with those issues.
Supervisor Jacob said that she did not want the money to be equally divided; she only wanted to ensure that the County is eligible to compete for the smart growth funds.
Councilmember Guerin agreed that the rural areas have different characteristics, but so do coastal areas. The beach areas have view issues and growth limitations. She stated that the competition will be fierce in that all areas have their limitations.
Mayor Pfeiler said that this program will show how well we will do in spite of our limitations.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila asked about the green car shuttle study. Mr. Leiter stated that as we do subregional plans, staff will work with the local jurisdictions to lay out the regional system, then look at opportunities to plan for the green car shuttle service to connect to those regional services and help identify funding sources. There will be different kinds of shuttles for different areas.
Councilmember Crawford asked if the criteria for the smart growth incentives will be released so that jurisdictions can gear up to meet them. Mr. Leiter said that staff is working on some principles and policies that would provide direction on those criteria. They would be further developed when we get closer to when the funding is available.
Councilmember Madaffer asked to what extent we are including areas that we don’t currently have that might be eligible for commitment. Mr. Leiter said that one of the local incentives is for redevelopment.
B. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES (INFORMATION)
Mr. Leiter reported that the draft RCP included over 200 separate recommended actions and lays out a set of strategic initiatives that includes: “sets of priority actions that could be undertaken by various groups to implement the key concepts contained in the RCP.” The RCP contains early actions that we are currently working on in this fiscal year and in FY 05.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 10
They are linked to SANDAG’s Overall Work Program, and will serve as a link to work programs of the local agencies and other regional service providers.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila, noted that page 9 talks about seawater desalinization facilities. The City of Carlsbad has chosen to go ahead and will take SANDAG up on its offer to help. The San Diego County Water Authority is no longer the lead agency for this project.
Mayor Sessom said that on page 4 under C, Crime Prevention, bike and pedestrian access is included in a huge category. She thought that might dilute the focus on bike and pedestrian access. She suggested that bike and pedestrian access be pulled from activities that don’t bear a close relationship.
C. REMINDER ABOUT RCP WORKSHOPS (INFORMATION)
Mayor Pfeiler reminded everyone to encourage great public involvement at the two remaining workshops: on Saturday, April 24 in El Cajon, and on Monday, April 26, in Oceanside. She suggested that street fairs also are a great opportunity to share this information. Mayor Pfeiler reviewed the remaining steps in the process leading up to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the Final RCP in June.
12. FY 2005 DRAFT OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION)
Renee Wasmund, Director of Finance, reviewed the revised version of the FY 2005 OWP. The OWP describes the work elements that will be accomplished by SANDAG during the next fiscal year, and include the following: planning, coordination, evaluation, monitoring, consensus building, and research efforts. These activities are determined by the priorities, mandates, and agency designations set by SANDAG, and balanced against available local, state, and federal funding. A draft OWP was reviewed by the Board at its March 26 meeting. Staff received comments and the responses are attached to the agenda item. Staff met with Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) representatives and they expressed satisfaction with our responses. Staff has also handled the comments submitted by the Federal transit Administration (FTA) to that agency’s satisfaction.
Ms. Wasmund noted that NCTD, MTS, and Chula Vista Transit (CVT) expressed a concern related to the proposed reduction of the passenger counting program. The transit operators use this information to evaluate route performance and results in service adjustments. Staff is proposing to reduce it by $130,000, and believes that we can still provide a quality project to the transit operators. The Executive Committee gave staff direction to work with the transit operators to develop a mutually satisfactory arrangement. In May staff will bring the entire SANDAG budget to the Board for review. Action at that time would approve the OWP component so that staff can begin the grant process.
Mayor Pro Tem Monroe asked why staff was dealing with the reduction in the transit passenger counting program at the Executive Committee rather than at the Transportation Committee. Ms. Wasmund replied that SANDAG has typically worked the budget process through the Executive Committee, though this matter can go before the Transportation Committee if the Board desires.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 11
Ms. Wasmund noted that staff looked at the data being provided through the passenger counting program and found that for a large part of the routes, there was not a huge change from year to year. She suggested that routes with the most need for the passenger counts be identified and then they could be conducted on a rotating basis. SDTC is initiating an automatic passenger counting system which would eliminate the need for this manual passenger counting system in the future.
Councilmember Ritter asked staff to share the proposal with NCTD before it goes back to the Executive Committee so it could provide comments. Ms. Wasmund agreed to provide a report to NCTD.
Mayor Padilla said he reviewed the correspondence from the transit operators and in the staff report, and the little fluctuation of data from year-to-year suggests there would not be a great compromise of the data.
Chair Morrison asked how this process compares with other transit agencies. Ms. Wasmund responded that the current process is far above the national standards, and the reduced program would still meet federal reporting requirements.
In response to a question from Mayor Pro Tem Monroe about changes in data over time, Ms. Wasmund said that staff looked at data between 2002 and 2003, and 46 percent of the routes had less than a 10 percent change, and 22 percent had less than a 5 percent change. However, we have not been able to do weekend counts and staff would try to provide this information.
Councilmember Ryan asked if MTS had provided comments. Ms. Wasmund answered that MTS initially did raise some concerns. When staff reports back to the Executive Committee, the response to MTS will be included in the final recommendation.
Councilmember Crawford wondered if it would be possible to group all of the functions under the five policy advisory committees and have a summary page with this information. She also asked that our relationship with tribal governments be included in the description of the Borders Committee.
13. UPCOMING MEETINGS
A special meeting will be held on Friday, May 14, 2004, at 10:15 a.m., to consider the first reading of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. The next Board of Directors business meeting is scheduled for Friday, May 28, 2004.
14. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 a.m.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Secretary
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE) 12
ATTENDANCE SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING APRIL 23, 2004
JURISDICTION/ NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS ORGANIZATION
City of Carlsbad Ramona Finnila (Member) Yes City of Chula Vista Steve Padilla (Member) Yes City of Coronado Phil Monroe (Member) Yes City of Del Mar Crystal Crawford (Member) Yes City of El Cajon Mark Lewis (Member) Yes City of Encinitas Christy Guerin (Member) Yes City of Escondido Lori Holt Pfeiler (Member) Yes City of Imperial Beach Patricia McCoy (Member) Yes City of La Mesa Dave Allan (Alternate) Yes City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom (Member) Yes City of National City Ron Morrison, Chair (Member) Yes City of Oceanside Jack Feller (Member) Yes City of Poway Mickey Cafagna, Vice Chair (Member) Yes City of San Diego – A Dick Murphy (Member) Yes City of San Diego - B Jim Madaffer (Member) Yes City of San Marcos Corky Smith (Member) Yes City of Santee Hal Ryan (Member) Yes City of Solana Beach Joe Kellejian (Member) Yes City of Vista Morris Vance (Member) Yes County of San Diego Diane Jacob (Member) Yes ADVISORY MEMBERS LISTED BELOW (ATTENDANCE NOT COUNTED FOR QUORUM PURPOSES) Caltrans Bill Figge (Alternate) Yes MTDB Leon Williams (Member) Yes NCTD Judy Ritter (Member) Yes Imperial County Victor Carrillo (Member) Yes US Dept. of Defense CAPT Christopher Schanze (Member) Yes SD Unified Port District Jess Van Deventer (Member) Yes SD County Water Authority Bud Lewis (Alternate) Yes Baja California/Mexico Javier de Leon (Alternate) Yes
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-A (APPROVE)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05-1-B MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS Meeting of May 14, 2004
Chairman Ron Morrison (National City) called the meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors to order at 10:20 a.m. The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached.
1. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
None.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBERS COMMENTS
Public comments were taken under Item 3.
REPORTS
3. COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01 – THE SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE RETAIL TRANSACTION AND USE TAX IMPLEMENTED BY THE INITIAL SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE (COMMISSION ORDINANCE 87-1 – PROPOSITION A, 1987) FOR A 40-YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING ON APRIL 1, 2008 (RESOLUTION 2004-19) (ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE)
Chair Morrison noted that there were a lot of requests to speak. He stated that on April 9, 2004, SANDAG accepted the draft TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan for public review and comment. The entire package has been available on the SANDAG Web site. In addition, more than 700 individuals and representatives of various groups as well as all elected officials in the region and their key staff were notified of its availability. Attachment 7, starting on page 95, summarizes the public comments received to-date. There are additional comments that have been distributed to the Board at your places. Based on the public comments and questions raised on the draft material, staff has made minor changes to the language contained in the April 9 version of the Ordinance and the related attachments.
Chair Morrison noted that there are two recommended actions for the Board’s consideration. The first is approval of Resolution 2004-19 dealing with the required environmental findings related to the TransNet Extension. The second action is to conduct the first reading of the TransNet Ordinance.
2
Chair Morrison indicated that SANDAG’s consultant on this matter, D.J. Smith, and Mayor Joe Kellejian, Chair of the Transportation Committee will provide introductory remarks. Then public comments will be heard and Board member comments will follow public comments.
Transportation Committee Chair Joe Kellejian (Mayor, Solana Beach) reported that in April 2003 SANDAG adopted its new Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) known as MOBILITY 2030. The plan was the product of more than two years of detailed analyses, public meetings, and extensive public outreach. The RTP contains a balanced set of transportation improvements throughout the region. The centerpiece of the plan is our collective Regional Transit Vision, which embodies a number of smart growth practices. The intent is to move people—not just vehicles. The extension of TransNet is the financial backbone needed to make the adopted RTP a reality. The TransNet Extension package contains a balanced set of improvements for all modes of transportation. Unfortunately, earlier this week the County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose the TransNet Extension unless it is dramatically changed to provide 50 percent of the funding for highways. This significant detour at this late date is totally inconsistent with the direction we have been headed. Staff’s response to the Supervisors’ action states that the recommended direction by the County Board would result in more traffic congestion, not less. He strongly encouraged the SANDAG Board to move forward with the well-balanced TransNet Extension Ordinance as presented. The extension of TransNet is the major milestone to helping us to determine our region’s transportation and mobility future. He asked DJ Smith to comment on issues that have been raised regarding the timing of the election and the potential impact of a major sift in the distribution of funds.
D.J. Smith stated that his comments are based on his experience of 14 years working on sales tax measures. The last two sales tax measures required two-thirds majority votes. He said that a balanced approach is absolutely essential with the voters. The last time a highway dominated measure was on the ballot was in San Bernardino County in 1986, and that measure was defeated. Two years later when a more balanced approach was presented, the measure was victorious. In every single poll in this county, transit has a deep and well-supported interest with voters across the board. We are not going to widen the freeway corridors due to environmental issues and the disruption to residential and business areas. More freeway lanes will not solve the traffic congestion problem. Managed lanes, reversible lanes, and bus rapid transit (BRT) are viewed as practical, efficient, and effective ways to use existing traffic corridors. We are living longer and will not be able to drive when we are older. We are going to have to have a system that older people can use. BRT, under development with other transit modes, will provide that next level of transit that people are expecting.
Mr. Smith said that this is the year to put the measure on the ballot. If Governor Schwarzeneggar continues to do well, there is a good chance for his reelection in 2006. That could result in a low voter turnout. If you wait to put it on the 2006 ballot and the measure is not successful, the original TransNet Ordinance will terminate. It’s much more difficult to gain approval of a new tax over that of extending an existing one. He believed that this is a solid program which is focused on the major concerns of the voters. Any major change in the measure at this time will have a significant negative impact. The stakes are really high for this county. If the tax goes away, it will be catastrophic to this region.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 3
Public Comments
Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego) stated that it would be wise to have as strong a consensus as possible on this measure. He shared some of Supervisor Jacob’s points regarding the TransNet Ordinance as written. One of those concerns was related to making changes to promises to the voters. There are people who are trying to unravel the promises made in the original TransNet funding. Part of that promise was a proposal to build light rail to the University City area. Second is the concern over the split of the money. We need to have a balanced proposal. The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) carries 73 million people a year. There is no roadway in this county that you could dump this amount of people onto without horrendous traffic congestion. He was hopeful that we can reach consensus. He suggested that a transportation study be conducted to determine how roads and transit work together.
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price (County of San Diego) said that the vote by the Board of Supervisors was not an attack on public transit but an emphasis on traffic improvements. What we are asking is to look at the formula that is proposed and at proportions that are consistent with the amount of transit riders in the region. What we find is that in the best case only 2 percent to 6 percent of people use the transit system. BRT is the path of the future because it is more flexible than fixed rail. We have to look at what is on the ground when we do planning. We need to figure out a way to improve our freeways and regional roads and put in place the BRT system. Heavy investment in heavy rail and light rail does not serve the intended purpose of this measure. We are looking for a solution for the future. We need to negotiate with all of the stakeholders to reach agreement.
Thomas Worham, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank and representing the Economic Development Corporation (EDC), expressed strong support for the TransNet Ordinance as presented. Economic development depends on infrastructure that works. If roads are clogged our economy will gravely suffer and the quality of life will be reduced. Businesses tell them that it is important to have highly skilled workers. Renewing TransNet can set the course for this region. It can make commutes better. Highway improvements and improvements in transit can be made. Please kept the momentum going and move approval of this Ordinance.
Vincent Mudd, representing San Diego Office Interiors and EDC, indicated that the focus should be on the small and micro businesses in San Diego. San Diego Office Interiors has 35 employees, and almost all of them are on the road. The cost of doing business has increased because it takes longer. We are wondering how long we can afford to do business here. TransNet will make a difference in his business. He thought that the one-third funding breakdown seemed to be reasonable. He noted that the hallmark of the service sector is mobility. He urged the Board to adopt the Ordinance and move forward.
Hal Sadler, Chairman of the Centre City Development Corporation (CCDC), commented that CCDC is involved in looking at the future. The downtown San Diego plan contemplates the doubling of the downtown residential population growth and employment. About 25 percent of the people who come into
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 4
downtown San Diego today use transit. It is important that future workers have that ability. They are also looking to limit the amount of parking in the inner core. Reduction in transit would cause service to be reduced and will force workers back into cars that would add to congestion. He encouraged the Board to support the one-third funding distribution.
Lisa Briggs, Executive Director, San Diego County Taxpayers Association, stated that the focus should be on the regional transportation system. We need to balance current and future decisions on quantitative data with a real need for flexibility. Overall the Ordinance has complied with these principles. She asked for an independent quality assessment study for transit. She said that the funding levels are not an arbitrary breakdown; but are related to specific projects. She believes this Ordinance is one she can take to her board for support. She said that the need for flexibility and study are key. Changes will need to be made in the future.
Dave Druker, Councilmember, City of Del Mar, and North County Transit District (NCTD) Board member, stated that transit is extremely important, and he was taken aback by the County Board’s request that the transit portion be reduced. The public wants to know about the transit plan. Companies want to know about transit. There is a false notion that only 2 percent of trips use transit. If you look at all trips in the region over the entire day, that is true. However, 20 percent to 30 percent of the people going to downtown San Diego are using transit. The Coaster has been extremely successful. Building freeways gives people no alternative. Transit is the only way to address traffic congestion in San Diego.
Bob Emery, Councilmember, City of Poway, and member of the MTS Board, said that the MTS Board unanimously urged the SANDAG Board to approve the TransNet Ordinance. Reducing the amount of money for transit would eliminate all major transit projects including BRT, would result in 350,000 more car on the roads, use 600,000 more gallons of gasoline, generate 2.8 million more pounds of smog, and would significantly reduce current operating hours. He noted that 50 percent of nothing is nothing.
Julie Nygaard, past chair of NCTD and representative of the Los Angeles-San Diego- San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) said that LOSSAN represents six counties along the coastal rail corridor from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. Last week, the LOSSAN Board voted unanimously to support local sales tax measures that enhance the accessibility and viability of rail and other public transit services. The TransNet Extension would include $200 million in local match for critical projects along its portion of the coastal rail corridor. These improvements will benefit the Coaster as well as Amtrak, MetroLink, and freight services. With the current TransNet program as a local match ($90 million in TransNet), over $250 million in improvements in the rail corridor have been made. More of our citizens are making the choice to ride public transit. Increased frequency is needed now. TransNet will go a long way to meet our needs. We need a balanced picture.
Mitch Mitchell, representing the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, urged the Board’s approval for the project list that has been presented with a focus on achieving balance. This could be a tremendous step forward to create traffic
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 5
congestion relief and a more positive situation for residents and businesses. It is important to realize that every second counts, every negative statement hurts, and every delay can be catastrophic. As a consumer, he made the decision to lead by example, so he became a Coaster rider to downtown San Diego from Carlsbad. He appreciates the flexibility of having the option of the Coaster. We have to create consensus not controversy. He urged the Board's support and approval of the TransNet Ordinance.
Harry Mathis, a member of the public, stated that he was Chairman of the San Diego Trolley, Board for nine years. He encouraged the SANDAG Board to stay the course. The proposed plan wisely establishes a necessary balance from all walks of life. Any change in the allocation at the expense of public transportation will prevent it from providing viable transportation alternatives, and place in serious jeopardy the ability to continue to operate the existing system. Ridership will grow, but we must have the resources to support our service. This is and must remain a team effort for any chance of success.
Richard Gisler, representing San Diego Councilmember Scott Peters, read comments into the record. The letter stated that while the extension needs to be flexible enough to serve the region’s changing needs throughout the proposed 40-year term, it must also be specific enough that voters will have confidence that the region’s needs will be met with real projects in an efficient and cost-effective manner. He asked for a quality assessment of the transit system plan now in place to ensure that we spend our funds efficiently on the projects we build. This assessment should be performed by an independent consultant with expertise and a track record of success in evaluating complicated transportation systems worldwide. He also supported the ability to adjust the project list by a two-thirds vote of the SANDAG Board. Giving local jurisdictions a veto of changes guts the ability of this system to work and is a troubling departure from the goal of regionalism. He was opposed to the double tracking through the Los Penasquitos Lagoon. Any money that could be used for double tracking to improve the corridor would be better spent if it were earmarked for BRT along the I-5 corridor. He was troubled by the continued efforts to divert funding from innovative new transit technologies, community serving elements, and environmental mitigation to roads. The region as a whole made further concessions earlier this year and amended the proposal in response to the demands of the County. To continue this shift will stymie efforts to innovatively address mobility issues in the region and seriously compromise the measure’s passage.
Kevin McNamara, a former chair of the Rancho Penasquitos Planning Board, said that they brought a lawsuit against the original TransNet projects over the issue of Route 56. However, they decided at that time that the greater good theory should hold. He said that the Board of Supervisors’ support is a vital link. He said that if this measure doesn’t get on the ballot, and it doesn’t pass, you will discover the consequences of not looking ahead.
Julie Meier Wright, representing the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation (EDC), indicated that the EDC has made the renewal of TransNet in 2004 one of its top policy priorities. Traffic congestion affects our competitiveness
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 6
for job investment. She saw no reason for new issues to be raised at this late date. She said that the EDC supports this TransNet Ordinance and noted that it is essential to the long-term prosperity of San Diego County.
Paul Blackburn, representing the Sierra Club, stated that the one-third funding distribution is arbitrary. He stated that you can get money for local streets and roads from other sources, but questioned where you could get regional transit money. In terms of what is needed this plan does not provide a significant amount of funding for transit.
David Hogan, representing the Sierra Club on the habitat protection elements of the TransNet Ordinance, said that the Sierra Club is pleased that there is some environmental mitigation included in the Ordinance, but the details are entirely unsatisfactory. The environmental mitigation programs are not legally binding. They feel that all Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) funding should be provided within a few years of the passage of TransNet. TransNet funding should also provide for projects in subregional plans.
Eric Bowlby, representing the Sierra Club, said that the RTP’s reasonably expected revenue scenario anticipates a funding need of $15.5 billion through 2030 including $8.5 billion for major new transit facilities. This draft TransNet Ordinance provides only $1 billion in transit capital facilities funding. The accomplishment of the majority of RTP projects will be impossible even with other funding sources. This will accelerate sprawl. There is also a lack of integration for smart growth efforts. The Ordinance should include meaningful development impact fees. The average future road construction cost per new home is between $12,000 and $15,000 or higher in the unincorporated areas. The lion’s share of future growth will occur within the City of San Diego. They agree with Supervisor Slater-Price that BRT is the path to the future, but she is not supporting the funding to give that network a good chance.
Matt Holland, representing the Sierra Club, stated that the Sierra Club feels that funds should be used for transit purposes; however, the Ordinance should not force local jurisdictions to spend money on transit; local jurisdictions should have the opportunity to participate in funding decisions. The Sierra Club recommends that in Sections 2c and 5a, all project proposals should be included in a biennial list before they become available for money. Also, the basis for roadways should be average daily trips rather than mileage.
Carolyn Chase, representing the Sierra Club, stated that the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement process excluded public comment. The Sierra Club feels that the fee specified will provide a paltry improvement in revenues. The amount for the impact fee has not been adequately studied. The Sierra Club thinks that the Capital Improvement Program is a product of negotiation with those who will fund the TransNet voter campaign. The development community has cut a deal in exchange for a few million dollars to pass the draft Ordinance. She said that the only part of the plan protected from change is the developer fee. She noted that the Sierra Club has submitted a 10-page letter outlining its concerns. She noted that they will oppose passage of this measure.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 7
John Chalker, Managing Director with LM Capital Group in San Diego, and on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, strongly encouraged the Board’s support of the TransNet Ordinance as currently drafted. The San Diego region is the seventh most congested region in the nation. Without additional funds we face gridlock and the economy will be negatively affected. We need to support any effort to bring additional funds into this area. While freeways are an integral component they are operating at near or at capacity. We need to consider other alternatives such as transit and smart growth to reduce traffic and to secure an economically prosperous community. He felt that transit ridership will grow in the future. He also thought that we need to send a unified voice to the voters.
Matt Adams, representing the Building Industry Association (BIA), stated that they have been working long and hard with SANDAG staff on this Ordinance. There is an absolute need to solve our traffic congestion problems. In the past, the building industry has steadfastly opposed impact fees. The building industry has provided over $450 billion for traffic improvements over the past 17 years, and the cost of government regulations on a single-family home is $126,000 per house. The BIA is supporting the TransNet Extension as it is currently presented. We have to work on the congestion issue and this is the best way to do it. It is essential to all of us to get this passed.
Therese O’Rourke, representing the US Fish and Wildlife Service, said they were cautiously optimistic about the existing plan. She asked that SANDAG continue to work with them to resolve the details.
William Jones, representing CityLink Investment Corporation, encouraged the Board to support the recommendation. He read a quote from a report sponsored by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council that stated that planning has changed towards more transit-oriented development. His company’s aim is for 30 percent of its workforce to arrive by transit. He stated that unfettered market forces are having a significant impact. This is an opportunity to help move our region into the future. He urged the Board to stay the course and to be courageous. There are private citizens that will stand behind it.
Julia Minton, representing San Diego Transit Riders United, said that this is a new organization that is requesting the elimination of current and future transit service inequities. San Diego’s urban bus routes have received inadequate funding. They asked that a transit equity study be funded every ten years. They also thought that the draft Ordinance should require no less from $50 million to fund capital improvements to address inequities. Prior transit funding allocations have favored lightly used routes over heavily used ones. They asked that Section 4c be changed to maximize existing transit services rather than provide new service. She suggested that local jurisdictions should find other funding sources for the lower-productive transit services.
Robert J. Hoffman, a member of the public, said that the purpose of the TransNet Ordinance is to encourage the use of transit. He didn’t feel that transit was the solution to traffic congestion. He noted that a surface street can handle 1,200
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 8
vehicles per hour, while a bus can only handle 504 seats, the Coaster handles only 540 seats in a trip, and the Trolley has 1,546 seats. He said that we are not solving transportation problems with this proposal; we are making jobs.
Chuck Lungerhausen, a member of the public, commented that three of the County Supervisors should be held accountable for trying to turn San Diego into Los Angeles. Los Angeles has dedicated a one cent sales tax for transit. We have one-sixth of one cent. He challenged the Supervisors to leave their cars at home and try to accomplish their tasks by transit. There needs to be more money for transit, not less. Unless you take transit, you don’t understand what passengers face.
Tom Held, President of the San Diego Highway Development Association, commented their strong support of the TransNet Extension, but said that it must contain sufficient elements for congestion relief. Their top priorities are road improvements, traffic signals, and freeway expansion. They recommend the reallocation of certain projects in the unconstrained revenue category. They do not endorse the County Board‘s position, but it is consistent with their concerns contained in a previous letter to the Transportation Committee chair. They trust the SANDAG Board to provide the maximum benefit for the voters of San Diego County.
Jim Schmidt, a member of the public, suggested that to help the Board on the potential veto issue, the SANDAG Board should have veto power over the 16 highway projects on pages 49 and 50. He strongly supported the TransNet Extension, and disagreed with the comments made by the Sierra Club members.
Ron Boshun, a member of the public, said that SANDAG is not accountable to the citizens of San Diego. The people of San Diego need to know that the TransNet Extension will cost $80 billion not $40 billion because the money will be bonded and then we will have to pay it back with interest.
Michael Beck, representing the Endangered Habitats League, commented on the environmental component of this Ordinance. He appreciated all of the effort that has been put into this; however, the level of assurance and legally binding language is not there. We have to make sure that what we have agreed to is included. He expressed concern about the concept of double counting on the habitat side. He asked for some order of magnitude on what part of the $850 million that could be made available early. We have expectations for up-front mitigations and there are no assurances on phasing.
Michael Winn, a member of the public, stated that there is an assumption that the voters will support the TransNet Extension. What is being proposed is a solution to a transportation problem while we are creating more problems. You have subsidized urbanized development and now you are saying there are traffic congestion problems. He thought there was a good chance that this measure will not be approved. He was not willing to sell the public on something that won’t work.
Grace Roos, representing the League of Women Voters of San Diego County, stated that the League supports the request for an equity study of the San Diego transit
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 9
system. The League has reviewed the Ordinance and supports TransNet. The primary aim is to increase funds for public transit. They also support flexibility. She said that the regional impact fee is a step in the right direction, but these fees should be extended to include commercial and industrial land uses to defray the impact of going to and from work, based on real costs from a nexus study. There should be a condition added that there will be not be additional moneys for local streets and roads until the development impact fees are collected. These funds should also go to public transit.
Caroline Thompson, representing NCTD, expressed her appreciation for the efforts of SANDAG staff on this document. It is critical that the stakeholders throughout the region take a good look at it. While it doesn’t solve all of the needs, it moves toward a regional transportation plan. This is a plan by which we will achieve our goals. NCTD’s top legislative objective is the extension of TransNet.
Jim Whalen, representing the Alliance for Habitat Conservation, said that they balance the needs of clients with the environment. We should have TransNet moving ahead with the best consensus possible and to lock-in the one-third distribution balance. There should also be some fine-tuning of the local jurisdictional role in the addition/deletion of projects. He acknowledged the fact that the building industry is supporting this Ordinance. He did not support extending the development impact fee to business and industry. He urged the Board to move ahead with the Ordinance.
Steven Russell, representing City of San Diego Deputy Mayor Toni Atkins, expressed appreciation for the efforts to craft the TransNet Extension. The Deputy Mayor feels that significant changes have been made to better reflect the transit needs of this region, and this Ordinance is a balanced approach. The Deputy Mayor supports this proposal.
Chair Morrison called a break at 12:22 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:33 p.m.
Public Comments (Continued)
Don Billings, representing the Torrey Pines Planning Board, said that he was a user of transit and understood the preconditions to make transit work. However, he expressed his strong opposition to what he called the “wasteful projects” in the TransNet Ordinance, and said that he would vigorously oppose it unless those projects were removed. He said that this plan squanders a real opportunity to build effective transit without lasting harm to our wetlands. SANDAG needs to drop the coastal double tracking project immediately.
Brad Barnum, representing the Associated General Contractors, expressed strong support of the TransNet Extension. He said that this balanced approach is the way to go. He also supported the two-thirds vote requirement to make a change. He commented that if this measure doesn’t pass, the construction industry is going to lose significantly. He said they are looking to the SANDAG Board for leadership. He also said that this is a chance to protect a secure local funding source.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 10
Barbara Minton, a member of the public, said that it seemed this matter needed a little more dialogue to resolve the concerns expressed.
Jim Baross, representing the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, expressed their appreciation for the contribution to reduce car traffic congestion by supporting money for bicycle transportation. They didn’t feel that the Ordinance provided sufficient resources for nonmotorized transportation, but supported moving the Ordinance forward.
Erik Bruvold, representing the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, urged the Board to adopt the TransNet Extension Ordinance. He noted that the private sector has put aside its personal preferences to support this measure. It’s time we moved forward to meet the needs of the diverse transportation requirements in our region. He said that we have a diverse region with different transportation needs.
David Hopkins, representing Walk San Diego and the SANDAG Walkable Communities Working Group, said that the Ordinance provides outstanding leadership by promoting new concepts for improving traffic congestion and for providing funding for pedestrian and bicyclists. Building freeways will not solve the congestion problem. Surveys have shown that transit is the way out of congestion.
John Quirk, Vice President of the Torrey Pines Association, said that a rail corridor through the Los Penasquitos Lagoon is damaging to the ecology. They would like the existing rail corridor moved from the wetlands into an alternative transportation corridor.
Tracy Morgan Hollingsworth, representing the East San Diego County Association of Realtors, urged the Board to consider their four points: support of the one-third funding split., good project definition, opposition to the residential development fee, and adoption of language to include concurrence from jurisdictions that would have projects deleted from the plan.
Craig Benedetto, representing the Alliance for Habitat Conservation, stated that they took a position in support of the TransNet Ordinance as drafted. They are committed to ensuring that all of the regional needs are met as quickly as possible. They support the balance of expenditures and feel that this Ordinance provides a significant amount of money for environmental mitigation. It is essential that this moves forward in 2004.
Jay Turner, representing North Park Main Street, stated that there is a need to balance all forms of transportation for the entire region. He stated that North Park is the most used corridor in the City of San Diego in terms of bus transportation. They are a mixed-use corridor, with many people moving in from suburban areas to eliminate their commute. They are strongly in support of the TransNet Extension. He didn’t think that building more freeway lanes would be helpful.
Elizabeth Courtney, representing the National Federation of the Blind of California, said the community should spend more money on public transportation instead of
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 11
roads. Ms. Courtney is legally blind and she depends totally on buses, the Coaster, and the trolleys to get around the city. Building more roads means more population in rural areas. If more people take public transportation they would leave their cars at home, and there would be less cars on the highway, and less money would be spent on gas.
Fred Taylor, Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind of California, indicated that there are 90,000 blind people in San Diego County and, by and large, they use public transit. As the population ages, more in the region will be visually impaired. He encouraged the Board to pass TransNet now.
Lynn Baker, representing the Endangered Habitats League, stated that the goal is to work toward common interests. They support the TransNet project list although they would like to see regional projects as a priority. They also support a transportation analysis to assure voters that they will get what is promised. The nexus study is the largest challenge because it is inconsistent with the priorities in the Regional Comprehensive Plan. She believed there is a compromise solution that includes passage of this measure.
Bob Alba, a member of the public, stated that a proposed lower amount for transit is an attack on the working class. He asked where businesses will be if workers cannot get to work. He said that we need new and more frequent bus service. He thought that more frequent service leads to higher ridership. He also said that buses need to operate earlier in the morning and later at night. Riders are not having their needs met. He asked the Board to reconsider proposed cuts to transit from TransNet monies and to adequately fund public transit.
Gordon Lutes, representing the Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors Association, said that they strongly support the TransNet Extension. He offered the following two comments: he encouraged the leadership to continue to work hard to bring together all parties to build a strong consensus, and they join the Regional Chamber of Commerce in the asking that projects be delivered by contracting out to private consulting firms.
George Thompson, President of Local 1309 of the Amalgamated Transit Union, said that several months ago, he did not support the TransNet Extension. However, he now understands that if the TransNet Extension is not passed, public transit service impacts will be significant.
Elise Casbe, representing Transit Riders United, said that most people consider mass transit to be bus, light rail, and rail. We need to stop subsidizing roads and move away from gas and oil dependence, and support smart growth for our quality of life. She supported real science as opposed to biased studies. She said that pollution causes most of our modern day cancers. She didn’t feel that the needs of workers on intercity bus lines were being addressed. She urged the Board to support mass transit, not roads.
Clive Richard, a member of the public, said that this is an issue where we have to come to some compromise and move forward to get ourselves out of the current
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 12
situation. He will be supporting TransNet and he will be urging others to support it as well.
Board Member Comments
Mayor Steve Padilla (City of Chula Vista) said that we have in front of us a draft Ordinance and Expenditure Plan that will not achieve all of the objectives. The question is whether or not it adheres in a general sense in a way that has value to improve the regional transportation infrastructure. It has been supported in this region and has been intelligently thought out. This plan had the unanimous support of this body. We can argue whether the plan contains enough for every interest. He asked to what point do you try to achieve consensus before you destroy it? It has been a substantial collaboration of a lot of different interests. The time has come for movement on this issue.
Motion Made
Mayor Padilla moved to: (1) adopt Resolution No. 2004-19, including the adoption of the environmental findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for the extension of the TransNet tax and adoption of a Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program; and (2) conduct the First Reading of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01), read the title of the Ordinance and waive further reading, with the second reading and adoption scheduled for the May 28, 2004, SANDAG Board meeting. Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler (Escondido) seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Mickey Cafagna (Mayor, Poway) said that we have been working with the County of San Diego through their representatives. In April 2003, we received a letter from the County approving the Regional Transportation Plan. He acknowledged that we don’t have enough money in the TransNet Ordinance to satisfy all of the needs but there is something for everyone. He said that the only way to relieve congestion is for those people who cannot ride public transportation to provide an alternative for those who can. An adequate public transportation system would positively impact those who cannot use public transportation. This is a critical part of the transportation congestion relief.
Mayor Dick Murphy (City of San Diego) stated that everyone here shares the belief that alleviating traffic congestion is critical to our quality of life. To respond to that belief, we need to approve the TransNet Extension Ordinance today and have it placed on the 2004 ballot. He suggested several minor changes that respond to the public input we have received. He thought that the environmental mitigation program should only be amended by a public vote. The first recommended change stated that “the substance of the Environmental Mitigation Program Principles in Attachment 3 and highway Environmental Enhancement Criteria in Attachment 4 should be binding.” The second recommended change was that “the Environmental Mitigation Program provisions should only be amended by public vote.” He asked the maker of the motion and the second to add these changes to the motion.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 13
SANDAG General Counsel read the title of the Ordinance. Mayor Padilla and Mayor Holt Pfeiler agreed to include the amendments proposed by Mayor Murphy into the motion.
Mayor Murphy stated that if TransNet passes in 2004, SANDAG staff should be directed to add to the FY 2005 Overall Work Program an “Independent Transit Planning Review” and to prepare a letter to MTS/NCTD requesting them to undertake a systemwide analysis to ensure services are responsive to the needs of the public, delivered in an equitable manner, and represents the best use of public funds by providing services in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
Mayor Padilla and Mayor Pfeiler agreed with that direction to staff.
Mayor Murphy commented that San Diego City Councilmember Scott Peters made it clear that he opposed double tracking through the Los Penasquitos Lagoon. While he believes in double tracking in the coastal corridor, he agreed with Councilmember Peters that double tracking through the Los Penasquitos Lagoon would be a mistake.
Vice Chair Cafagna asked for clarification on that. The SANDAG Executive Director said it was project 31, and there is an option for a series of improvements. The Ordinance was designed to give policy makers a tremendous amount of flexibility with projects.
Councilmember Jim Madaffer (City of San Diego) said that traffic congestion is the number one issue in San Diego. It is much easier to extend an existing tax than to get approval for a new tax. No one said this would be easy. He believed that this measure is a solid program and responds to the wishes of this community. He believed it to be a balance of what the voters want for the divergent needs of the region. The two members of the Board of Supervisors that were involved in earlier discussions of TransNet voted against the Board of Supervisors vote this week. The TransNet contribution is only 21 percent of the unconstrained program. TransNet brought millions of state and federal monies to this region.
Mayor Mark Lewis (El Cajon) asked about forming a subcommittee to work with the County of San Diego for 30 days to try to resolve their concerns.
Supervisor Dianne Jacob (County of San Diego) said that she was presenting the Board of Supervisors’ position on the TransNet Ordinance. She provided a chronology of how the County Board came to its position, indicating that all along the County Board had expressed concerns about the funding split and other issues. On May 11, 2004, the County Board adopted an oppose position unless the proposal is amended so there is no less than 50 percent for highways and no less than one-third for local streets and roads, and the remainder for everything else. The proposed local streets and roads share is 30.9 percent, compared to the current one-third. The 31.5 percent for highways is less than the one-third amount in the current TransNet Ordinance. That leaves 35.1 percent for transit. She will oppose the motion on the floor without the provisions she presented. She said that the purpose of TransNet is to solve traffic congestion problems. The traffic congestion is on our roads and highways and that’s where the money should be spent. Our congestion is worse now than with the current TransNet program. The issue is priorities. She provided information about money spent on transit operations. She suggested that we understand the cost to improve the existing system rather than expand the system at this time. The
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 14
public has a choice. The way the Ordinance is currently written is deceptive. Priority is placed on three projects: State Route 52, route 76, and the Mid-Coast light rail project. When you go out to sell this to the voters, you should be honest with them and tell them that by a two-thirds vote, the SANDAG Board can change the funding allocations for projects. She recognizes the importance of extending TransNet and said that we have until August 6 to be ready for the November ballot. There is time to try to iron out the differences between the County Board and the SANDAG Board.
Chair Morrison said that the information about TransNet was made available to all public officials for many months and the only entity that was consistently absent from the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet meetings was the East County representative from the County Board of Supervisors.
Chair Morrison noted that if you change the fund distribution to anything other than an equal one-third level, this would be considered a new tax rather than the extension of an existing tax.
Supervisor Jacob stated that in terms of the list of congestion relief projects, to not add a concurrence by a local jurisdiction for any project changes would be dishonest. She thought it would be a big mistake for the SANDAG Board not to consider the Board of Supervisors’ position.
Chair Morrison said that traffic congestion is more now because the state took money away from local jurisdictions. The question is: are we better off from when TransNet was approved in 1987? He said the answer was “yes.”
Mayor Pro Tem Phil Monroe (Coronado) said that it is the role of elected officials to build consensus. In June 2002, we looked at four different scenarios and seven criteria. The format for this TransNet Extension was decided then. He was opposed to eliminating the language that would allow the SANDAG Board to make changes with a two-thirds majority vote. He stated that this is a regional body. We will also have the Oversight Committee. Technology can change, and gas prices and parking can change in ten years. We have worked with the County and gave them five things that they asked for in this Ordinance. He strongly supported the motion and urged the Board to support it as well.
Councilmember Christy Guerin (Encinitas) said that we have been responsive in our public outreach and in collaboration with the local jurisdictions and community groups. The Board of Supervisors cannot even agree amongst itself. This Ordinance is a compromise document. She urged the Board to show its leadership and to move forward with the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
Councilmember Jack Feller (Oceanside) said that he is against any taxes, but we don’t have an alternative on the horizon. He also doesn’t like the idea of the $2,000 developer impact fee, but the development community has committed to being part of this. He is against spending money in a couple of other areas, but this measure has something for everyone but not everything for everyone. His major concern is that if we don’t go forward with this, the completion of route 76 will be delayed. Any percent of nothing is still nothing. We need to move forward to approve this measure.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 15
Mayor Corky Smith (San Marcos) said he supported the proposed TransNet Extension Ordinance. His city council was concerned about money for grade crossings in his city but the second amendment proposed by Mayor Murphy would address that concern.
Chairman Leon Williams (MTS) said that the MTS Board took an action to authorize him to speak on its behalf, strongly supporting the TransNet Ordinance and opposing the action of the County Board of Supervisors. Failure to pass this Ordinance would have dire consequences to the public transit system. The MTS Board urges your support. Transit carries over 300,000 passenger trips a day; that’s about 150,000 people. About 6.7 percent of residents use transit every day. We need to put the 2 percent number in context. Every day transit carries more than Interstates 5, 15, or 8, and significantly more than 805. He asked which one of those highways do we not need. As we get older, we will need public transit for our transportation alternative.
Mayor Pro Tem Ramona Finnila (Carlsbad) said that for every decision that SANDAG has made, we have gone through a public process to do it. She did not believe that major adjustments are needed to the TransNet Ordinance. This Ordinance is subject to amendments to be flexible for changes that are unforeseen. We cannot plan today for things that may happen in 40 years. Her city council unanimously approved support of the TransNet Ordinance. She noted that her city has been levying a development impact fee on both residential and industrial properties.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila asked for clarification on the request for a transit performance analysis. She said that we are to conduct a performance analysis as part of Senate Bill 1703. Mayor Murphy responded that a letter from the San Diego Taxpayers Association indicates that we are not providing equity transit service. MTS is already considering the conduct of such a study. We should evaluate whether the service they are providing is equitably distributed. There is a clause to conduct a study if TransNet passes.
Councilmember Judy Ritter (Vista) stated that NCTD conducted that type of study last year. The Executive Director stated that this is something we should do on an ongoing basis.
Pedro Orso-Delgado (Caltrans) agreed that we need to have a balanced system between roadways and transit. The only way to achieve that is to incorporate the transit element and the local streets and roads. We are looking at the MOBILITY 2030 and performance measures. One of the ways that you will achieve that is with TransNet. The safest money you will have is TransNet funds.
Councilmember Ritter commented that tourists expect and use public transit. As the population gets older, it will be using transit. We need to continue to build a good quality transit system. She urged the support of the motion as it stands.
Vice Chair Cafagna wanted to correct a couple of comments made by Supervisor Jacob. He said that we want the County’s support. After we take items off the top, as suggested by the Board of Supervisors, the new percent to highways is 32.7 percent, 33 percent for local streets and roads, and 34.2 percent for transit. We are pennies apart on the one-third split because it is project driven. You cannot leave a link off of it. We are looking at two things: 70 percent of the voters want transit, and 96 elected officials are going to be supporting this. It would be a very big mistake to oppose this. He said that traffic congestion is a
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 16
housing problem not a transit problem. He disagreed with the statement made by the Supervisor related to jurisdictions putting projects on this list. That is not the case. The list of projects was developed on a needs assessments and studies based on what is going to work. We went by a transportation and comprehensive plan to relieve congestion. The reason you find us unhappy is because we felt the County Board was in agreement with us and felt that it is unfair to come in at this late hour and tell us that you oppose this Ordinance. He noted that the two colleagues on the County Board who have worked with us and know about this work support it. He agreed on the issue of keeping our promises to the voters. He recommended that we come up with some kind of language to restrict the deletion of projects.
Mayor Padilla stated that with respect to the amendment language which now provides for a super majority vote and the supervisors advocacy of a local jurisdiction to that requirement, he suggested a language adjustment that would limit that concurrence requirement to a local jurisdiction only in the case of a project deletion.
Supervisor Jacob said that they want to ensure that when the voters approve this they will get what they voted for. This is a fundamental problem in the Ordinance as it is. The word “change” is what they object to.
Chair Morrison clarified that if you wanted to delete a project you would need a local jurisdiction concurrence. You would not be able to veto an ongoing project. Vice Chair Cafagna agreed with that clarification.
Supervisor Jacob said that language should be added to the end of Section 16 to delete a project listed in the Expenditure Plan or change the project scope defined in the Expenditure Plan, the concurrence of a jurisdiction or jurisdictions with land use authority must be maintained. This takes care of the problem indicated.
Mayor Padilla said that he could not support this change. The direction is to continue the dialogue. He would not support this change without some commitment from the County Board to support the TransNet Ordinance.
Councilmember Barry Jantz (La Mesa) thought the language should reflect a reduction of capacity rather than a change or deletion. He said there needs to be some continued dialogue. La Mesa’s position is that they want a vote today, though they still have a concern related to the impact fee. He was concerned about the simple two-thirds vote of the SANDAG Board to make a change to a project and would like to have something that will include a consensus with a local jurisdiction.
Motion Made
Councilmember Christy Guerin moved to amend the Ordinance to state that a project cannot be deleted without a two-thirds vote of the SANDAG Board plus the concurrence of the affected jurisdiction(s). Vice Chair Cafagna seconded this motion.
Mayor Padilla said this amendment does not have his concurrence.
Chair Morrison asked for comments on the motion on the floor.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 17
Councilmember Madaffer said that he would not be able to support the amendment but he appreciates its intent. He would rather vote on the original motion. He added that there has to be movement at the County Board before he would support that kind of an amendment.
SANDAG General Counsel stated that the Board can go forward with first reading and bring back a new amendment. The Ordinance would go to a second reading and the amendment could go for first reading. We have time to allow for that action.
Mayor Murphy opposed the amendment, indicating that it has to be conditioned upon the Board of Supervisors’ commitment to joining the SANDAG Board in a positive vote on the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
Motion Withdrawn
Councilmember Guerin withdrew her motion to amend.
Mayor Pro Tem Finnila asked for clarity on the transit analysis. Chair Morrison stated staff would be directed to conduct such an analysis and to report back to the Transportation Committee; however, it is dependent upon the passage of the TransNet Extension.
Councilmember Crystal Crawford (Del Mar) said that we are using the same language that was included in the original TransNet Ordinance. The super-majority vote of the SANDAG Board has only used twice during that time period. This issue has been carefully scrutinized. To put additional constraints undermines what we have done in creating the Oversight Taxpayer Committee and the 10-year review. Her council unanimously approved the TransNet Extension as presented.
Mayor Joe Kellejian (Solana Beach) indicated that his city strongly supports the approval of this Ordinance. He thanked those who served on the Transportation Committee on the RTP process, and the members of the SANDAG Board who passed that unanimously. He also thanked those who participated in the Ad Hoc Working Group on TransNet, and for all those people who put countless hours into this effort. He encouraged the Board to vote yes on this issue.
Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Padilla and a second by Mayor Holt Pfeiler the SANDAG Board of Directors approved: (1) the adoption of Resolution No. 2004-19, including the adoption of the environmental findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for the extension of the TransNet tax and adoption of a Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program; (2) the conduct of the First Reading of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01), read the title of the Ordinance and waive further reading, with the second reading and adoption scheduled for the May 28, 2004, SANDAG Board meeting; (3) modify the last sentence of Section 2D (page 52) as follows: Additional detail regarding this program is described in the documents titled “TransNet Extension Environmental Mitigation Program Principles,” and “Environmental Enhancement Criteria Mitigation Highway 67, 76,
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 18
and 94 Expansion Impacts,” which are hereby incorporated by reference as is fully set forth here; (4) modify the first sentence of Section 16 (page 59) as follows: “SECTION 16.
AMENDMENTS: With the exception of Sections 2D, 3, 4(E)(1), 8, 9, and 11, which require a vote of the electors of the County of San Diego to amend...”; (5) direct staff to add to the Fiscal Year 2005 Overall Work Program an “Independent Transit Planning Review” if the TransNet Extension passes and (6) direct staff to prepare a letter to MTS and NCTD requesting that each agency undertake a systemwide analysis of the transit system to ensure services are responsive to the needs of the public, delivered in an equitable manner, and represents the best use of public funds by providing services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. This letter shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Committee. Yes – 18 (weighted vote, 84%). No – 1 (weighted vote, 16%). Abstain – 0. Absent – 0.
4. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Secretary
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE) 19
ATTENDANCE SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING MAY 14, 2004
JURISDICTION/ NAME ATTENDING COMMENTS ORGANIZATION
City of Carlsbad Ramona Finnila (Member) Yes City of Chula Vista Steve Padilla (Member) Yes City of Coronado Phil Monroe (Member) Yes City of Del Mar Crystal Crawford (Member) Yes City of El Cajon Mark Lewis (Member) Yes City of Encinitas Christy Guerin (Member) Yes City of Escondido Lori Holt Pfeiler (Member) Yes City of Imperial Beach Mayda Winter (Alternate) Yes City of La Mesa Barry Jantz (Member) Yes City of Lemon Grove Jill Greer (Alternate) Yes City of National City Ron Morrison, Chair (Member) Yes City of Oceanside Jack Feller (Member) Yes City of Poway Mickey Cafagna, Vice Chair (Member) Yes City of San Diego – A Dick Murphy (Member) Yes City of San Diego - B Jim Madaffer (Member) Yes City of San Marcos Corky Smith (Member) Yes City of Santee Jack Dale (Alternate) Yes City of Solana Beach Joe Kellejian (Member) Yes City of Vista Morris Vance (Member) Yes County of San Diego Diane Jacob (Member) Yes ADVISORY MEMBERS LISTED BELOW (ATTENDANCE NOT COUNTED FOR QUORUM PURPOSES) Caltrans Pedro Orso-Delgado (Alternate) Yes MTDB Leon Williams (Member) Yes NCTD Judy Ritter (Member) Yes Imperial County Victor Carrillo (Member) No US Dept. of Defense CAPT Christopher Schanze (Member) No SD Unified Port District Jess Van Deventer (Member) No SD County Water Authority Bernie Rhinerson (Member) No Baja California/Mexico Luis Cabrera Cuaron (Member) No
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #1-B (APPROVE)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 4 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
ACTIONS BY POLICY Executive Committee (May 14, 2004) ADVISORY COMMITTEES The Executive Committee took the following The following actions were taken by the Policy actions: Advisory Committees (PACs) since the last Board meeting. Actions printed in bold • Approved the drafting of a letter to typeface must be ratified by the Board of the Governor recommending that the Directors to be effective. state consider the fiscalization of land use in the governmental relationship Transportation Committee (May 7, 2004) reform issue, and suggested that it follow the SANDAG model or The Transportation Committee took the something similar to that. following actions: • Created a subcommittee, consisting of • Recommended that Option A of the SANDAG Vice Chair and the the 2004 STIP alternatives be County of San Diego’s representative, presented to the SANDAG Board to consider the County’s request to of Directors for approval so it have a second seat on the SANDAG may be submitted to the Board and bring a recommendation California Transportation back to the Executive Committee for Commission (CTC). It was further discussion. recommended that in order to minimize potential project delays • Recommended that the SANDAG and cost increases, staff be Board of Directors approve the FY directed to continue to pursue 2005 OWP as presented. This bond financing as outlined in approval would include fully Option C. funding the passenger counting program. • Directed staff to provide a monthly status report to the Transportation Public Services Safety Committee Committee on the financial situation (May 14, 2004) of the STIP. The Public Safety Committee took the Regional Planning Committee following actions: (May 7, 2004) • Approved forwarding the memo that There was no action taken. details the status of the San Diego Data Processing Corporation (SDDPC) re-organization to the ARJIS member agencies.
2 • Recommended the inclusion of Borders Committee Meeting the Criminal Justice Research (May 21, 2004) Division and ARJIS work program and budget into the SANDAG The Borders Committee took the following Overall Work Program and action: Program Budget to be approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors • Approved the Borders Committee Work in June 2004. Plan for FY 2005, with minor changes.
Transportation Committee • Approved the recommendation of the (May 21, 2004) Chair of the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) The Transportation Committee took the regarding new leadership and issues following action: related to its membership.
• Authorized sending a letter to the Congressional Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in support of the San Diego – Los GARY L. GALLEGOS Angeles MAGLEV Project’s effort to Executive Director obtain a $6 million federal funding earmark in the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to study the feasibility of MAGLEV along inland I- 15, and I-8 corridors and their integration into the regional Southern California MAGLEV Projects.
• Approved the proposed fare increase for the Coaster commuter rail for inclusion in the NCTD’s FY 2005 budget.
• Recommended that the SANDAG Board of Directors approve a transfer of $3.5 million in Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) area TransNet funds from bus rapid transit (BRT) projects to transit operations to balance the FY 2005 MTS budget.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #4 (APPROVE)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 5 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION/ POSSIBLE ACTION
QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT region. The accompanying map (Attachment ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 3 – “Major Highway Projects”) locates these JANUARY-MARCH 2004 projects.
Caltrans completed the environmental Introduction document for the I-8 Widening (project #10). This project will widen I-8 eastbound from This quarterly report summarizes the current Second Street to Greenfield Drive in El Cajon. status of major highway, transit, arterial, The effort now moves to complete the design traffic management and transportation work, scheduled to be finished January 2006. demand management (TDM) projects in SANDAG’s five-year Regional Transportation Design for the section of the I-15 Managed Improvement Program (RTIP) for January- Lanes between Rancho Bernardo and March 2004. The TransNet one-half cent local Clarence Lane in Escondido (project #21) sales tax and other local, state, and federal has been completed. The construction sources fund the projects. The projects contract for this section, which is GARVEE contained in this report have been previously bond financed, is scheduled to be awarded prioritized and are included in the 2030 August 2004. The entire I-15 Managed Lanes Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). between SR 56 and Centre City Parkway are scheduled to open at the end of 2007. Attachment 1 – “TransNet Program” – indicates sales tax revenue available for Transit and Bikeway Projects allocation was $53.2 million in the FY 2003-04 third quarter. Revenue for the fiscal year is Attachment 4 – “Transit and Bikeway 5.6% higher than it was last fiscal year at this Projects” – provides basic cost and schedule time. Revenue is approximately 1.2% higher information on the major transit and bikeway than the FY 2003-04 TransNet Program projects in the San Diego region. The budget to date. An increase in the accompanying map (Attachment 5 – “Major construction cost index offsets the revenue Transit and Bikeway Projects”) locates these stream increase. The California Highway projects. Construction Price Index is currently 8.2% higher than last year at this time. Revenue A community outreach meeting was held for available for allocation since the inception of the I-15 Managed Lanes Bus Rapid Transit the TransNet Program totals $2.332 billion. project (project #45). This meeting was held to elicit input from the community on the Highway Projects design of the stations. The stations are scheduled to open by the end of 2007, Attachment 2 – “Highway Projects” – provides concurrent with the I-15 Managed Lanes. basic cost and schedule information on the major highway projects in the San Diego 2
The San Diego Bayshore Bikeway The City of San Diego completed the Sweetwater Phase (project #80) was environmental document for the SR completed and opened to cyclists in early 163/Clairemont Mesa Blvd Interchange April. This project includes a bridge over the (project #107). The design of the interchange Sweetwater channel. The Saltworks Phase is now moving forward with completion of the San Diego Bayshore Bikeway scheduled for July 2005. The initial phase of (project #81) is currently under design and is the interchange reconstruction is scheduled scheduled to begin construction in late 2004. to be open to traffic by December 2006.
Arterial and Freeway The City of San Marcos completed the design Interchange Projects for the new SR 78/Las Posas Road Interchange (project #109). Award of the Attachment 6 – “Arterial and Freeway construction contract will occur this summer, Interchange Projects” – provides cost and with completion and opening to traffic schedule information on the major arterial scheduled for December 2005. and interchange projects in the San Diego region. The accompanying map (Attachment Traffic and Demand Management 7 – “Major Arterial and Interchange Projects”) locates these projects. Attachment 8 – “Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System Projects” – The City of Chula Vista awarded the provides cost and schedule information on construction contract of its I-805/Olympic the major traffic management and intelligent Parkway Interchange Reconstruction transportation system projects in the San project (project #92). This project will widen Diego region. The accompanying map the existing ramps and bridge across I-805, (Attachment 9 – “Major Traffic Management improving traffic flow on both Orange Projects”) locates some of these projects, as Avenue/Olympic Parkway as well as on I-805. applicable. Completion is scheduled for November 2005. Attachment 10 – “Transportation Demand The City of Chula Vista completed and and Incident Management” – summarizes opened to traffic the Palomar Street monthly activities in those functional areas. Widening project (project #93). This project Attachment 11 – “Freeway Service Patrol widened Palomar Street from I-5 to Industrial Assists” – summarizes the number of assists by Boulevard. the Freeway Service Patrol. Attachment 12 – “Vanpool Program” – summarizes the The City of Coronado completed a feasibility number of daily vanpool origins by major study for the Coronado Tunnel (project #94). area. The feasibility study looked at various options, including grade separation and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) tunnel alternatives. The city has begun work programs reduced an estimated 53,800 on the environmental clearance which is pounds of smog forming pollution during FY scheduled to be complete by August 2008. 2003-04 third quarter, an increase of 30% over last year at this time. During this same The City of Oceanside completed and opened time period, the Freeway Service Patrol to traffic the Rancho del Oro Drive assisted approximately 12,400 motorists, Extension (project #100) in early May. This about the same as last quarter. project extended Rancho del Oro Drive from Oceanside Boulevard to Mesa Drive.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #5 (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION) 3
SANDAG’s Vanpool Program participation On Friday May 21st the San Diego region rate continues to increase, growing 20% celebrated Bike to Work Day. With 26 pit percent in the last year, from 264 vanpools to stops located throughout the region, bicyclists 317 vanpools. Vanpools from outside San could stop to quench their thirst, refuel with Diego County represent 50% of all vanpools, a healthy snack, or even get a bike tune up. and have increased 25% in the past year from Bike to work day serves to focus attention on 127 to 159 vanpools. Average ridership per bicycling as an alternative to driving to work vanpool was approximately 9.3 passengers, alone. Several local companies have joined with 2,952 individuals participating in the SANDAG in support of the event such as San program. Diego County Credit Union, SAIC Qualcomm and the APCD. Employer Programs: During the quarter, staff contacted 90 employers. Ten formal presentations were delivered to employers, an 11 percent increase over the previous period (9). Twelve companies began offering a transportation benefit to their employees, GARY L. GALLEGOS and eight companies began internally Executive Director marketing or promoting commuter services to their employees. No employer surveys were Attachments (12) conducted during the reporting period. Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, Marketing/Outreach: Work began on the (619) 699-1908; [email protected] development of an employer outreach event scheduled for June, 2004. Work continued on Funds are budgeted in the the I-5/I-805 “Merge” employer outreach TransNet, STIP-RIP, RSTP, and CMAQ Programs project. An update of the RideLink commuter program collateral has been initiated. Work began on updating and enhancing the RideLink Web site to provide more information for employers.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #5 (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION) TransNet Program - January - March 2004 Progress Report
TransNet Allocations Fund Disbursements Program & Recipient This Quarter FY To Date Program To Date This Quarter FY To Date Program To Date
BICYCLE ELEMENT Various Agencies$ 250,000 $ 750,000 17,850,077$ 100,000 $ 151,570 $ 12,135,132 $ 250,000 $ 750,000 17,850,077$ 100,000 $ 151,570 $ 12,135,132
WALKABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Various Agencies - - 1,050,683 - - 680,000 $ - $ - 1,050,683$ - $ - $ 680,000 HIGHWAY ELEMENT Programwide 17,641,875 52,656,579 783,213,361 10,335,045 29,684,847 772,349,400 $ 17,641,875 $ 52,656,579 783,213,361$ 10,335,045 $ 29,684,847 $ 772,349,400 TRANSIT ELEMENT Elderly/Disabled (Various Agencies) 176,419 526,566 7,400,396 172,836 518,508 7,541,490 MTDB 12,413,501 37,051,192 552,621,673 23,735,935 100,244,935 592,264,212 NSDCTDB 5,051,955 15,078,821 213,364,284 19,708,500 35,641,010 214,209,177 $ 17,641,875 $ 52,656,579 773,386,353$ 43,617,271 $ 136,404,453 $ 814,014,879 LOCAL STREET & ROAD ELEMENT Carlsbad 598,246 1,785,683 24,628,395 - - 20,129,250 Chula Vista 1,113,030 3,322,079 40,386,604 1,800,000 3,375,000 36,005,100 Coronado 148,756 444,162 6,910,339 315,543 841,457 6,192,073 Del Mar 48,523 145,013 2,463,135 48,630 84,261 2,401,674 El Cajon 539,688 1,610,915 23,842,015 458,000 1,266,000 25,169,187 Encinitas 380,837 1,136,817 18,575,047 540,000 1,260,000 17,216,026 Escondido 775,642 2,315,128 32,576,220 364,000 1,714,000 31,740,091 Imperial Beach 154,026 459,891 7,177,460 - - 6,452,984 La Mesa 346,199 1,033,439 16,514,622 390,000 655,000 14,414,400 Lemon Grove 162,156 484,153 7,732,555 162,000 477,163 7,728,569 National City 323,992 967,162 14,249,909 269,385 804,809 13,713,309 Oceanside 981,563 2,929,708 39,308,504 - - 32,746,522 Poway 327,787 978,487 14,531,053 235,000 1,670,000 21,871,790 San Diego City 7,148,087 21,333,956 307,227,085 5,933,781 25,130,621 319,218,186 San Marcos 378,680 1,130,379 13,860,996 200,000 2,100,000 16,631,350 Santee 316,845 945,831 14,507,377 335,000 335,000 12,640,056 Solana Beach 102,045 304,751 5,088,943 - 200,849 4,981,389 Vista 511,161 1,525,774 22,889,358 - - 22,407,873 County of San Diego 3,284,611 9,803,250 144,032,194 1,434,288 8,333,786 146,697,348 $ 17,641,875 $ 52,656,579 756,501,810$ 12,485,627 $ 48,247,946 $ 758,357,177
TRANSNET PROGRAM $ 53,175,625 $ 158,719,736 2,332,002,284$ 66,537,943 $ 214,488,816 $ 2,357,536,588
1) TransNet Allocations consist of tax allocations from the State plus interest earnings. 2) Disbursements include cash disbursements and bond proceeds. Debt service costs are not included. Attachment 2 Highway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
1 I-5 Realignment US GSA/Caltrans Environmental Jun-05 $47,000 $12,000 $47,000 2008 On Schedule Virginia Ave POE Relocation in San Ysidro 2 I-5 Widening Caltrans Design Oct-04 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 2006 On Schedule 24th Street to Harbor Drive 3 I-5 Widening City of San Diego Environmental Mar-04 $3,900 $3,900 $3,200 2006 On Schedule Genesee Ave to Sorrento Valley Road 4 I-5/ I-805 Merge Widening Caltrans Construction Jan-07 $180,200 $180,200 $180,200 2007 On Schedule Genesee Ave to Del Mar Heights Rd 5 I-5 Widening (Northbound) Caltrans Construction Aug-04 $6,100 $6,100 $6,100 2004 On Schedule Del Mar Heights Rd to Via de la Valle 6 I-5 HOV/General Purpose Lanes Caltrans Environmental Feb-08 $900,000 $12,000 $900,000 2015 On Schedule Del Mar Heights Rd to Vandegrift Blvd 7 I-5 Noise Barriers SANDAG Environmental Aug-04 $1,244 $1,244 $1,275 2006 On Schedule City of Oceanside 8 I-5/ SR-56 Connectors City of San Diego Environmental Mar-06 $140,000 $4,303 $140,000 2008 On Schedule West to North and South to East 9 I-5/ SR-78 Connectors Caltrans Feasibility Study Oct-04 $120,000 $500 $120,000 N/A N/A North to East Connector and West to South 10 I-8 Widening (Eastbound) Caltrans Design Jan-06 $11,500 $11,500 $9,400 2009 On Schedule 2nd Street to Greenfield Drive 11 SR-11 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Environmental Jul-07 $190,000 $8,000 $190,000 2011 On Schedule Freeway Access to New Border Crossing 12 I-15 Widening (Southbound) Caltrans Construction Dec-04 $9,300 $9,300 $9,300 2004 Behind Friars Road to I-8 13 I-15 Managed Lanes South Caltrans Design Aug-07 $218,000 $10,000 $218,000 2012 On Schedule SR-163 to SR-56 14 I-15 Widening Caltrans Construction Dec-04 $37,000 $37,000 $40,000 2004 On Schedule Mira Mesa Blvd to Miramar Way 15 I-15 Widening Caltrans Construction Oct-05 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 2005 On Schedule Mercy Rd to SR-56
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Attachment 2 Highway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
16 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Design Oct-04 $35,000 $35,000 $57,000 2007 On Schedule Poway Road to Via Rancho Parkway 17 I-15/ SR-56 Interchange Caltrans Construction Oct-04 $26,300 $26,300 $26,300 2004 On Schedule I-15/SR 56 Interchange Improvements and I-15 Widening 18 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-07 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 2007 On Schedule 15/56 to Camino del Norte 19 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-07 $61,000 $61,000 $61,000 2007 On Schedule Camino del Norte to Duenda Road 20 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-07 $86,000 $86,000 $109,000 2007 On Schedule Duenda Road to Lake Hodges 21 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Design Dec-04 $60,000 $60,000 $49,000 2007 On Schedule Rancho Bernardo Road to Clarence Lane 22 I-15 Managed Lanes North Caltrans Design Dec-07 $120,000 $5,000 $120,000 2011 On Schedule Centre City Pkwy to SR-78 23 SR-52 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Design & Apr-07 $333,000 $333,000 $333,000 2009 On Schedule SR-125 to SR 67 Right of Way 24 SR-54 and SR-125 HOV Lanes* Caltrans Environmental N/A $140,000 $7,000 $140,000 N/A N/A I-5 to SR-94 25 SR-56 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Construction Jul-04 $142,331 $142,331 $142,331 2004 On Schedule Camino del Sur to Carmel Country Rd 26 SR-76 4-Lane Conventional Caltrans Environmental Aug-07 $101,000 $17,500 $101,000 2011 On Schedule Melrose Dr to Mission Rd (S13) 27 SR-76 Intersection Improvements Caltrans Design & Jul-04 $5,000 $5,270 $5,000 2005 On Schedule Olive Hill Road Right of Way 28 SR-78 Widening (Eastbound) Caltrans Design Nov-04 $3,670 $3,670 $5,600 2005 On Schedule El Camino Real 29 SR-94 Capacity Enhancement* Caltrans Environmental N/A $400,000 $20,000 $400,000 N/A N/A I-5 to SR-125 30 SR-94 Noise Barriers SANDAG Environmental Aug-04 $738 $738 $738 2006 On Schedule City of La Mesa
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Attachment 2 Highway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
31 SR-94/ SR-125 Connectors* Caltrans Environmental N/A $106,300 $60,000 $106,300 N/A N/A SR-125 Frwy Widening (West to North and South to East) 32 SR-125/ SR-54 6-Lane Freeway Caltrans Design-Build Jun-05 $138,500 $138,500 $138,500 2005 On Schedule San Miguel Rd to Briarwood Rd and Elkelton Blvd (Gap & Connector) 33 SR-125 4-Lane Toll Highway CTV Design-Build Sep-06 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 2006 On Schedule SR-905 to San Miguel Rd 34 SR-905 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Environmental May-04 $261,200 $210,000 $261,200 2007 On Schedule I-805 to U.S./Mexico Border 35 SR-905 Construct Interchange Caltrans Construction Dec-04 $31,100 $31,100 $31,100 2004 On Schedule Siempre Viva Rd Totals
Approved Cost to Funded Budget Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
$4,412,583 $2,035,656 $4,448,744
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Attachment 3
SR-76/Olive Hill Intersection Reconstruction Highway Widening
I-5/SR-78 Connectors
Oceanside Noise Barriers SR-78 Widening
I-15 / HOV / Managed Lanes North Segment
HOV/General Purpose Lanes HOV/Managed Lanes Middle Segment I-5 Widening
New Freeway I-15 Widening and SR-56 Interchange Modifications I-5/I-805 Merge Widening I-15Widening I-5 / SR-56 New Connectors
I-5 I-15 / HOV / Managed Lanes Widening South Segment
I-15 New Freeway Widening I-8 Widening
MAJORMAJOR HIGHWAY La Mesa Noise Barriers HIGHWAYPROJECTS PROJECTS SR-94 / SR-125 SR-94 Ultimate Connectors and SR-125 Widening JanuaryJuly – September – March 2004 2003 Widening
SR-54 / SR-125 HOV Lanes Project Under Development
Project Under Construction New Freeway
I-5 Widening New Toll Highway (Design/Build)
New SR-11 Freeway New Freeway
I-5 Realignment
Siempre Viva Interchange Attachment 4 Transit and Bikeway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
40 San Ysidro Station MTS Construction May-04 $22,100 $22,100 $22,100 2003 Behind Station Modifications
41 East Village Stations MTS Construction Jun-04 $23,011 $23,011 $23,011 2004 On Schedule Station Modifications
42 Mission Valley East LRT MTS Construction May-05 $496,000 $496,000 $496,000 2005 On Schedule I-15 to Baltimore Drive
43 Mid-Coast Balboa LRT SANDAG Design Jun-06 $23,700 $23,700 $134,200 2009 On Schedule Old Town to Balboa Ave
44 Nobel Drive Coaster Station MTDB Design Nov-04 $13,090 $13,090 $13,090 2006 Behind New Coaster Station
45 I-15 Managed Lanes/BRT PD Design & Aug-05 $51,582 $51,582 $51,582 2007 On Schedule Sabre Springs, Rancho Bernardo, Del Lago Right of Way 46 Oceanside Transit Station NCTD Construction Aug-05 $9,100 $9,100 $9,100 2004 On Schedule Parking Structure
47 Sprinter LRT NCTD Construction Dec-05 $351,500 $351,500 $351,500 2005 On Schedule Coast Hwy to Valley Pkwy
48 South Bay Maintenance Facility MMO Right of Way Jun-08 $12,134 $6,934 $12,134 2008 Behind Property Expansion
49 SDTC New Buses MMO Procurement Jun-05 $14,350 $14,350 $14,350 2005 Behind Acquire 41 New CNG Buses
50 MTDB New Buses MMO Procurement Jun-05 $2,450 $2,450 $2,450 2005 Behind Acquire 6 New CNG Buses
51 CVT New Buses CVT Procurement Jun-05 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 2005 Behind Acquire 7 New CNG Buses
52 City College Station MTDB Design May-04 $6,189 $6,189 $6,189 2007 Behind Realignment
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded May 2004 Attachment 4 Transit and Bikeway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
53 Spring Valley Transit Center MMO On Hold N/A $1,200 $200 $1,200 2008 On Schedule
54 East County Maintenance Facility MMO Right of Way Jun-08 $13,400 $8,138 $13,400 2008 Behind Maintenance and Operation Facility
55 Grossmont Station La Mesa Design Aug-04 $770 $770 $2,700 2004 On Schedule Pedestrian Enhancements
56 Trolley Station Improvements MTDB Design May-04 $10,903 $4,350 $10,903 2007 On Schedule Fiber Optic Infrastructure
57 MTDB Bus Stop Improvements MMO Construction May-04 $1,370 $1,370 $1,370 On Hold N/A ADA Modifications
58 SDTI Bus Stop Improvements SDTI Support Aug-05 $4,404 $1,644 $4,404 2005 On Schedule CCTV Equipment Upgrades
59 Power Substation Improvements SDTI Construction Dec-04 $1,146 $1,146 $1,146 2004 On Schedule Refurbish & Standardize
60 Operations Center MTDB Construction Nov-04 $3,195 $3,195 $3,195 2004 On Schedule Phase I
61 Fenton Parkway Station MTDB On Hold N/A $1,005 $1,005 $1,005 2003 On Schedule Shelter Improvements
62 SDTC/SDTI MTDB Implementation Dec-05 $3,613 $3,613 $3,613 2005 Behind Financial Management System
63 San Diego Transit Radio SDTC Implementation Dec-05 $16,675 $16,675 $16,675 2005 On Schedule AVL System
64 Low Floor Vehicle Station SDTI Advertise May-04 $11,469 $8,250 $11,469 2005 On Schedule Platform Retrofit
65 Kearny Mesa Station Improvements SDTC Design May-04 $3,200 $2,420 $3,200 2005 On Schedule CNG Fuel Station
66 IAD Expansion Land Purchase SDTC On Hold N/A $3,038 $3,038 $3,038 On Hold N/A
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded May 2004 Attachment 4 Transit and Bikeway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
67 Blue Line Improvements SDTI Close Out Jun-04 $1,827 $1,827 $1,827 2005 On Schedule Catenary Improvement
68 LRV Rehabilitation SDTI On going N/A $3,344 $1,044 $3,344 On going N/A Body and Paint
69 Traction Motor Rehabilitation SDTI Procurement Jun-04 $6,160 $3,660 $6,160 2004 Behind
70 Kearny Mesa Transit Center REGIONAL Design May-05 $1,470 $150 $1,470 2005 On Schedule Construction
71 Train Location SDTI Design Mar-04 $6,865 $687 $6,865 2003 On Schedule Signal Interface Equipment
72 Tunnel Fleet Modification SDTI Construction May-05 $4,390 $1,900 $4,390 2005 Behind
73 LRV Shop Modifications SDTI Design May-04 $2,051 $821 $2,051 2005 Behind Low Floor Vehicle Accommodation
74 San Ysidro Intermodal Facility MTDB On Hold N/A $12,000 $12,000 $12,000 2005 On Hold Freight Facility
75 Catenary Improvement Project MTDB Design Jul-04 $2,227 $417 $2,227 2006 On Schedule Component Replacement
76 Smart Card Project MTDB Implementation Dec-05 $39,300 $39,300 $39,300 2005 On Schedule
77 Coastal Rail SANDAG Environmental Jun-04 $2,498 $2,498 N/A 2006 N/A Double Track Corridor Level EIR
78 Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway NCTD Construction Mar-05 $14,970 $14,970 $14,970 2005 On Schedule
79 Coastal Rail Trail SANDAG Construction Dec-05 $12,833 $12,833 $25,456 2005 On Schedule
80 Del Mar Bluffs SANDAG Preliminary Sep-04 $22,953 $4,953 $22,953 2006 On Schedule Stabilization Engineering TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded May 2004 Attachment 4 Transit and Bikeway Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Cost to Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
81 East Division Maintenance SANDAG Design Aug-04 $5,302 $3,736 $5,302 2006 On Schedule Facility
82 Santa Margarita River Bridge SANDAG Preliminary Jun-04 $31,000 $2,500 $31,000 2006 On Schedule Replacement & 2nd Track Engineering 83 Sorrento-Miramar Curve SANDAG Final Design On Hold $45,200 $31,718 $45,200 On Hold N/A Realignment & 2nd Track
84 NCTD Field Division Office SANDAG Preliminary Jul-04 $8,562 $1,663 $8,562 On Hold N/A Maintenance of Way Engineering 85 San Diego Bayshore Bikeway SANDAG Completed $6,698 $6,698 $7,398 2004 Completed Sweetwater phase
86 San Diego Bayshore Bikeway SANDAG Design Jun-04 $350 $350 $2,575 2005 On Schedule Salt Works phase
87 Escondido-San Diego Bikeway SANDAG Design Jul-04 $2,500 $2,500 $3,500 2005 Behind Mission Valley Segment
Totals
Approved Cost to Funded Budget Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
$1,335,494 $1,224,445 $1,461,974
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded May 2004 Attachment 5
EAST VILLAGE
City Co llege ENHANCEMENTS Improvements
B ST
Park and C ST Market Trolley BROADWAY Station Improvements E
AV
H
T
2 FST
1
G ST 12th Avenue Corridor 82 MARKET Improvements
ST ISLAND
H
T
6
Orange to 1 Blue L ine
T
S
Connection H
T
46 25 78 IMPERIAL
47 45a TRANSIT AND BIKEWAY PROJECTS 79 40. San Ysidro Station Enhancement 42. Mission Valley East LRT
45b 43. Balboa Mid-Coast LRT
44. Nobel Drive Coaster Station
45a. Del Lago BRTC
45b. Rancho Bernardo BRTC 45c 45c. Sabre Springs BRTC 46. Parking Structure Oceanside Station
47. Oceanside-Escondido Rail
83 48. South Bay Maintenance Facility 80 44 53. Spring Valley Transit Center 54. East County Bus Maintenance Facility
61. Fenton Parkway Station 70 54 65. Kearney Mesa Fueling Station 65 70. Kearney Mesa Transit Center
74. San Ysidro Intermodal Freight Facility
87 78. Oceanside-Escondido Rail Trail 42 79. North Coastal Bikeway 43 80. Del Mar Bluffs 55 82. Santa Margarita River Bridge MAJOR 61 83. Sorrento-Miramar Curve TRANSIT AND BIKEWAY 86. San Diego Bayshore Bikeway PROJECTS 87 Escondido San Diego Bikeway January – March 2004 SEE INSET MAP . East Village Enhancements: 53 See Inset Map Project Under Development Project number refers to Project Under Construction Project ID in Attachment 4 Bus Rapid Transit Center (BRTC) LRT: Light Rail Transit 86 48
40 74 Attachment 6 Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Cost to Approved Budget Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's)
90 Extend South Melrose Drive Carlsbad Design & Jul-04 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 2006 Behind Palomar Airport Road to Carlsbad/Vista city limit Right of Way
91 Widen Rancho Santa Fe Rd Carlsbad Construction Jan-06 $41,300 $41,300 $41,300 2006 Behind La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive
92 Olympic Parkway/ I-805 Interchange Chula Vista Construction Nov-05 $21,626 $21,626 $21,626 2005 Behind Reconstruct and widen interchange
93 Widen Palomar Street Chula Vista Complete $3,967 $3,967 $2,848 Complete I-5 to Industrial Blvd.
94 Coronado Tunnel Coronado Environmental Aug-08 N/A $1,500 $454,000 N/A N/A Construct new tunnel
95 Widen Jamacha Road El Cajon Environmental Apr-04 $4,672 $570 $4,672 2005 Behind E. Main St. to South city limit
96 Manchester Ave/ I-5 Interchange Encinitas Environmental May-05 $49,700 $2,425 $49,700 2008 On Schedule Reconstruct interchange
97 Widen Bear/ East Valley Pkwy Escondido Environmental May-04 $13,679 $9,000 $13,679 2006 On Schedule Orleans to North city limit
98 Nordahl Road/ SR-78 Interchange Escondido Environmental Dec-04 $3,300 $3,120 $3,300 2007 On Schedule Widening, Mission Avenue to Montiel Road
99 Widen Plaza Blvd National City Environmental Nov-04 $9,060 $2,258 $9,060 2007 On Schedule Highland Avenue to Euclid Avenue
100 Extend Rancho Del Oro Drive Oceanside Complete $6,921 $6,921 $6,921 Complete Oceanside Blvd. to Mesa Drive
101 Rancho Del Oro Dr/ SR-78 Interchange Oceanside Environmental Jun-05 $34,000 $9,856 $34,000 N/A N/A Vista Way to SR 78
102 Widen Espola Road Poway Environmental Sep-05 $8,900 $2,083 $8,900 2008 On Schedule Twin Peaks Rd. to 900' South of Titan Way
103 Extend Carroll Canyon Rd San Diego Environmental Mar-05 $15,000 $11,792 $18,300 2006 Behind Sorrento Valley Rd. to Scranton Rd.
104 Genesee Ave/ I-5 Interchange San Diego Environmental Jun-06 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 2007 On Schedule
105 Genesee Ave Widening San Diego Design & Nov-04 $2,733 $2,733 $2,733 2004 Behind I-5 to Campus Point Right of Way
106 Friars Rd/ SR-163 Interchange San Diego Environmental May-05 $15,300 $2,530 $15,300 2009 On Schedule
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Attachment 6 Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Cost to Approved Budget Funded Budget Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Complete On schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) Completion ($1,000's)
Fashion Valley Rd. to Frazee Rd.
107 Clairemont Mesa Blvd/SR-163 Interchange San Diego Design & Jul-05 $14,370 $10,900 $18,050 2006 On Schedule Kearny Mesa Rd. to Kearny Villa Rd. Right of Way
108 El Camino Real San Diego Environmental Aug-05 $20,000 $13,000 $20,000 2008 Behind Via de la Valle to San Dieguito Rd.
109 Las Posas Rd/ SR-78 Interchange San Marcos Construction Dec-05 $20,200 $20,200 $20,200 2005 On Schedule Construct new interchange
110 Rancho Santa Fe Rd San Marcos Construction Sep-04 $14,300 $16,100 $16,100 2004 On Schedule Melrose Drive to Island Drive
111 Forester Creek Channelization Santee Design & Aug-04 $29,919 $29,919 $29,919 2005 On Schedule Mission Gorge Rd. to Prospect Avenue Right of Way
112 Lomas Santa Fe Dr/ I-5 Interchange Solana Beach Design & Jul-05 $20,400 $15,000 $20,400 2006 On Schedule Reconstruct interchange Right of Way
113 Widen West Vista Way Vista Environmental Aug-04 $15,400 $1,160 $15,400 2007 Behind Thunder Drive to Melrose Drive
114 South Santa Fe Ave Co. of San Diego Environmental Jun-04 $35,110 $26,100 $35,110 2007 On Schedule Vista city limit to San Marcos city limit
115 Bradley Ave/ SR-67 Interchange Co. of San Diego Environmental Aug-05 $14,558 $3,450 $14,558 N/A N/A Reconstruct and widen interchange
116 Los Coches/ I-8 Interchange Co. of San Diego Construction Dec-06 $6,931 $6,931 $6,931 2006 On Schedule
Totals Cost to Approved Budget Funded Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
$451,346 $294,441 $913,007
TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Attachment 7
Widen W. Vista Way Widen South SantaFeAve. New Las Posas Interchange Modify Nordahl Rd. Interchange
New Freeway Widen Bear / East Valley Pkwy. Interchange SR-78/Rancho Del Oro Dr. Extend South Melrose Dr. Widen Rancho SantaFeRd.
Modify Lomas Santa Fe Dr. Interchange
Widen Espola Road Manchester Ave. Interchange Widen El Camino Real
Extend Carroll Cyn. Rd. Modify Genesee Ave. Interchange Modify Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Interchange Widen Genesee Ave. Modify Bradley Ave. Interchange
Modify Friars Rd. Modify Los Coches Interchange Interchange
Widen Jamacha Blvd. ARTERIAL AND INTERCHANGE PROJECTS Tunnel January– March 2004 Widen Plaza Blvd. Arterial Under Development
Arterial Under Construction
Interchange Under Development
Interchange Under Construction
New Palomar St. Interchange
Modify Olympic Parkway Interchange Traffic Management and Intelligent Attachment 8 Transportation System Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Funded Cost to Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete On schedule? Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
120 CCTV Incident Identification System Caltrans Construction Nov-04 $11,200 $11,200 $11,200 2004 On Schedule I-8: SR-163 to Mission Gorge Rd I-15: I-8 to SR-163 I-805: I-8 to SR-163 121 CCTV Incident Identification System Caltrans Design May-04 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 2006 On Schedule I-15: SR-94 to I-8 I-805: SR-94 to I-8 122 Changeable Message Signs Caltrans Design May-04 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 2005 On Schedule I-5: 3 Locations 123 Changeable Message Signs Caltrans Construction Jun-04 $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 2004 On Schedule I-8: 3 Locations SR-94: 1 Location 124 Ramp Meters (Northbound) Caltrans Environmental Feb-05 $7,700 $7,700 $7,700 N/A N/A I-5: Coronado Ave to E Street 125 Ramp Meters (Northbound) Caltrans Design May-04 $9,800 $9,800 $9,200 2006 Behind I-805: Otay Valley Rd to E Street 126 Traffic Monitoring Systems Caltrans Design Mar-04 $6,500 $6,500 $6,500 2006 On Schedule I-5, SR-52, SR-94 and I-805 127 Regional Automated Vehicle Location SANDAG Construction Mar-04 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 2003 On Schedule Coaster, Inland Breeze, Airporter, Poway Bus 128 Automated Vehicle Classification SANDAG Design Jul-04 $750 $750 $750 2006 On Schedule Freeway System, Ports 129 Advanced Traveler Information System SANDAG Permit Approval Apr-04 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 2008 On Schedule Freeway System 130 Performance Monitoring System SANDAG Design Sep-04 $200 $200 $200 2005 On Schedule Arterial, Freeway, Transit Systems 131 Regional Arterial Management System SANDAG Implementation Jan-06 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 2006 On Schedule Arterial System
CCTV: Closed Circuit Television Camera Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Traffic Management and Intelligent Attachment 8 Transportation System Projects
Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Funded Cost to Current Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete On schedule? Completion ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
Totals
Approved Funded Cost to Budget Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)
$54,850 $54,850 $54,250
CCTV: Closed Circuit Television Camera Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit May 2004 Attachment 9
Northbound Ramp Meters
Map Key: CCTV: Closed Circuit Television Camera CMS: Changeable Message Sign
Traffic Monitoring Stations
CCTV Incident Identification System
CCTV Incident Identification System
MAJOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROJECTS January – March 2004 Traffic Monitoring Stations Project Under Development
Project Under Construction
CMS Under Development
CMS Under Construction Northbound Ramp Meters
Northbound Ramp Meters Transportation Demand and Incident Management Jan-Mar 2004 Progress Report
Fiscal Year Last Fiscal This Quarter Last Quarter To Date Year To Date
DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Reduced Travel Person Trips Reduced 376,002 370,574 1,115,368 906,228 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduced 19,218,948 18,802,616 56,461,764 43,445,055
Reduced Emissions Pounds of Smog-forming Pollution Reduced 53,384 52,227 156,833 120,679
Reduced Fuel Consumption Gallons of Fuel 1,047,639 1,024,943 3,077,771 2,368,224
Reduced Costs Reduced Auto Fees $9,378,847 $9,175,678 $27,553,343 $21,201,186
Program Activity Number of Vanpools 317 309 317 264 Vanpool Passengers 2,952 2,881 2,952 2,458 Companies in RideLink Subsidy Program Bike Locker Members 406 428 406 454 Guaranteed Ride Home Participants 3,342 3,092 3,342 2,797 Total Phone Calls Received 2,694 2,412 8,668 7,796 Carpool Matchlists Distributed 722 2,352 5,887 5,616
INCIDENT MANAGEMENT
Freeway Service Patrol Total Assists 12,427 12,444 38,273 41,006 (Incl. FSP for Traffic Management Plans on I-5, I-15)
Freeway Changeable Message Signs Incident Broadcasts 100 168 414 401 Broadcast Duration (total minutes) 11,038 43,630 73,414 51,817
Freeway Incident Advisories Sig Alerts 133 137 393 246 Sig Alert Duration (total minutes) 10,492 18,129 39,515 28,830 Attachment 11
Camp Pendleton
To San Clemente
15
5 76 76
Oceanside Vista
78 P San A 3 C Marcos II F II C
O
C E Carlsbad A Escondido N
78 1 Patrol Beat 1 78 1,278 Assists Encinitas 2 Patrol Beat 2 1,159 Assists 67 Solana 3 Patrol Beat 3 Beach 5 1,310 Assists
56 Poway 4 Patrol Beat 4 Del Mar 7 15 1,285 Assists
5 Patrol Beat 5 6 2,879 Assists
6 Patrol Beat 6 2.846 Assists 52 52 Santee 67 7 Patrol Beat 7 8 45 1,670 Assists 125
El 805 Cajon 2 La 8 Mesa 15 San 163Diego Lemon 94 Grove 125 5 94
282 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL ASSISTS Coronado National (Data for January – City 54 March 2004) 75 May 2004 1 Chula 125 Vista 805
Imperial Beach 5 S 905 11 UNITED STATE MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. Attachment 12
76
Camp Pendleton 76
4 15 5 5 76 76 Oceanside Vista 78 San Marcos 6
Escondido Carlsbad
78
78
Encinitas
5
67 0 CENTRAL Solana Beach 23 Vanpools
1 NORTH CITY Poway 27 Vanpools Del Mar 56 3 2 SOUTH SUBURBAN 6 27 Vanpools 1 125 3 EAST SUBURBAN 32 Vanpools Santee 67 52 4 NORTH COUNTY WEST 8 25 Vanpools 274 15 VANPOOLS FROM OTHER COUNTIES 5 NORTH COUNTY EAST El 20 Vanpools Cajon Imperial 9 La 8 Los Angeles 5 125 Mesa 6 EAST COUNTY 54 Orange 7 4Vanpools 163 San Lemon Riverside 136 Diego Grove 94 San Bernardino 2
209 15 VANPOOL PROGRAM 282 0 Number of Coronado Vanpool Origins by National 125 94 Major Area City 54 (Data for January – 75 March 2004) 2 Chula 805 May 2004 Vista
Imperial 5 Beach 905 TATES 11 UNITED S MEXICO
MEX 1-D Tijuana, B.C.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 6 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION/ POSSIBLE ACTION
QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT – the money managed by SANDAG, including PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2004 funds of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, is currently Background invested in seven major funds or accounts. They are: The California Government Code requires that the Board be provided a quarterly report of 1. State of California Local Agency investments held by SANDAG. This report Investment Fund (LAIF) – State law allows includes all money under the direction or care local agencies to invest up to $40 million of SANDAG as of March 31, 2004, including in LAIF. SANDAG currently has $10,000 funds of the San Diego County Regional invested in LAIF. This fund is highly liquid Transportation Commission and SourcePoint. and funds may be accessed easily for immediate needs. Discussion
2. California Asset Management Program SANDAG’s Investment Policy and California (CAMP) – Cash Reserve Portfolio – This is Government Code Section 53646 (b) outlines a fund administered by SANDAG’s the requirements for the treasurer or chief financial advisor, Public Financial financial officer of a local agency in reporting Management, Inc. (PFM), for the specific to the legislative body of the local agency. The purpose of managing the investment of attached report prepared by the Financial bond funds that are subject to arbitrage Services Manager shows summary (Attachment investment restrictions. SANDAG uses this 1) as well as detailed information (Attachment program for debt service related to its 2) regarding SANDAG’s investment portfolio as various sales tax revenue bond issues. All of the end of the last fiscal quarter. bond debt service funds in CAMP are actually under the control of our bond As of March 31, 2004, a total of $174.2 million trustee, US Bank (formerly First Trust was held by SANDAG in a number of California). Only the trustee may deposit investment accounts in comparison to $171.2 or withdraw bond debt service money. million held in the previous quarter. The $3.0 Approximately $55.9 million are currently million increase during the quarter is primarily on deposit with CAMP. due to the timing of sales tax receipts and the 3. Fidelity Funds – These are a series of high payment of TransNet debt service. quality money market instruments,
including AAA rated US treasury funds, Approximately $14.0 million was held in five managed by Fidelity Investments Public Bank of America money market checking Sector Services Company. These also are accounts at the end of the quarter. Funds in highly liquid and are used for immediate these money market checking accounts are cash needs. Approximately $6.5 million transferred to other accounts discussed below, are invested in these mutual funds. or to local agencies as part of their TransNet payments on an ongoing basis. The majority of 2
4. Nations Funds – These are a series of an important investment objective for the government treasury obligation mutual future. funds managed by Bank of America. These also are highly liquid and are used Certifications for immediate cash needs. Approximately $8.9 million are invested in these mutual As required by state law, the Director of funds. Finance reports that this portfolio, together with the authorized short-term commercial 5. US Bank – SANDAG has a forward paper program, will provide the necessary delivery agreement with Wachovia Bank liquidity to meet the expenditure requirements for investment of its bond principal and of SANDAG and the TransNet program for the interest funds. These funds also are next six months. under the control of US Bank, SANDAG’s bond trustee. This money, totaling This portfolio is in compliance with SANDAG's approximately $76.6 million, is held by updated Investment Policy and with state law, the trustee for bond debt service approved at the SANDAG Board of Director's payments and payment of interest on the meeting on January 23, 2004. short-term commercial paper program as part of the sales tax program.
6. US Trust – US Trust was hired to manage the bond fund proceeds within the GARY L. GALLEGOS guidelines of SANDAG’s Investment Policy. Executive Director These funds are under the control of our bond trustee, US Bank. Only the trustee Attachments may deposit or withdraw bond proceeds money. US Trust also invests a portion of Key Staff Contact: Marlene Kelleher, SANDAG’s sales tax proceeds. (619) 699-1988; [email protected] Approximately $9.4 million of sales tax proceeds are invested by US Trust.
7. Duetsche Asset Management Funds – These are a series of high quality money market instruments, including AAA rated US treasury funds, managed by Scudder Kemper Institutional Services Company. These also are highly liquid and are used for immediate cash needs. Approximately $2.8 million are invested in these mutual funds.
As of March 31, 2004, the yield to maturity of the portfolio was 2.70% with a weighted average maturity of 173 days in comparison to 2.18% and 45 days in the prior quarter.
A report has also been prepared on our non- money market investments, in accordance with SANDAG’s Investment Policy (Attachment 3.) Management has continued to implement the Board’s strategy to diversify SANDAG’s investment portfolio. This will continue to be
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item #6 (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION) SANDAG Attachment 1 SUMMARY OF PORTFOLIO BALANCES AS OF MARCH 31, 2004 WEIGHTED BOOK PERCENT OF MARKET MARKET UNREALIZED YIELD TO AVG DAYS TO VALUE PORTFOLIO VALUE PRICE GAIN/(LOSS) MATURITY MATURITY
BANK OF AMERICA $ 14,072,459.12 8.08% $ 14,072,459.12 100.00% $ 0.00 0.00% 1
STATE OF CA LOCAL AGENCY INVEST. FUND (LAIF) 9,758.47 0.01% 9,758.47 0.00% 0.00 1.47% 145 **
CALIFORNIA ASSET MANAGEMENT PRGM (CAMP) 55,942,441.49 32.11% 56,196,007.72 100.45% 253,566.23 1.45% 385 **
FIDELITY FUNDS 6,464,501.76 3.71% 6,464,501.76 100.00% 0.00 0.90% 53 **
NATIONS FUNDS 8,915,558.26 5.12% 8,915,558.26 100.00% 0.00 0.88% 46 **
US BANK 76,595,950.47 43.96% 77,906,396.69 101.71% 1,310,446.22 4.76% 30 **
US TRUST 9,402,859.09 5.40% 9,404,857.09 100.02% 1,998.00 0.99% 583
DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT FUNDS 2,835,247.00 1.63% 2,835,247.00 100.00% 0.00 0.97% 52 **
TOTAL $ 174,238,775.66 100.00% $ 175,804,786.11 100.90% $ 1,566,010.45 2.70% 173
** Although average days to maturity is greater than one day, funds are available at par the same day.
SUMMARY BY TYPE OF FUNDS:
BOOK PERCENT OF MARKET MARKET UNREALIZED YIELD TO AVG DAYS TO VALUE PORTFOLIO VALUE PRICE GAIN/(LOSS) MATURITY MATURITY
SANDAG FUNDS $ 3,105,739.48 1.78% $ 3,105,739.48 100.00% $ 0.00 0.35% 19
SOURCEPOINT FUNDS 581,853.16 0.33% 581,853.16 100.00% 0.00 0.26% 14
CORONADO BRIDGE TOLL FUNDS 1,422,166.04 0.82% 1,422,166.04 100.00% 0.00 0.85% 39
TRANSNET FUNDS - Sales Tax 72,087,386.47 41.37% 72,341,624.01 100.35% 254,237.54 1.15% 374 - Debt Service 97,041,630.51 55.69% 98,353,403.42 101.35% 1,311,772.91 3.98% 33
TOTAL TRANSNET FUNDS 169,129,016.98 97.07% 170,695,027.43 100.93% 1,566,010.45 2.77% 177
TOTAL FUNDS $ 174,238,775.66 100.00% $ 175,804,786.11 100.90% $ 1,566,010.45 2.70% 173 SANDAG DETAIL OF PORTFOLIO BALANCES Attachment 2 AS OF MARCH 31, 2004
BOOK PERCENT OF MARKET MARKET UNREALIZED YIELD TO AVG DAYS TO VALUE PORTFOLIO VALUE PRICE GAIN/(LOSS) MATURITY MATURITY
BANK OF AMERICA: Checking - Transnet $ 11,678,049.22 6.70% $ 11,678,049.22 100.00% $ 0.00 0.00% 1 Checking - SANDAG (General) 1,977,847.60 1.14% 1,977,847.60 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 1 Checking - SourcePoint 416,562.30 0.24% 416,562.30 100.00% 0.00 0.00% 1
TOTAL BANK OF AMERICA $ 14,072,459.12 8.08% $ 14,072,459.12 100.00% $ 0.00 0.00% 1
STATE OF CA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF): Sales Tax $ 9,758.47 0.01% $ 9,758.47 0.00% $ 0.00 1.47% 145
TOTAL STATE OF CA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND $ 9,758.47 0.01% $ 9,758.47 0.00% $ 0.00 1.47% 145 **
CALIFORNIA ASSET MANAGEMENT PRGM (CAMP): CASH RESERVE PORTFOLIO 92 Bond Principal $ 989,632.21 0.57% $ 989,696.43 100.01% $ 64.22 1.07% 44 92 Bond Interest 299,945.63 0.17% 299,965.09 100.01% 19.46 1.07% 44 93 Bond Principal 1,229,094.98 0.71% 1,229,174.73 100.01% 79.75 1.07% 44 93 Bond Interest 539,992.39 0.31% 540,027.43 100.01% 35.04 1.07% 44 94 Bond Principal 2,874,489.30 1.65% 2,874,675.82 100.01% 186.52 1.07% 44 94 Bond Interest 394,706.13 0.23% 394,731.74 100.01% 25.61 1.07% 44 94 Bond Reserve 12,166,248.14 6.98% 12,167,037.59 100.01% 789.45 1.07% 44 96 Bond Principal 1,494,069.75 0.86% 1,494,166.70 100.01% 96.95 1.07% 44 96 Bond Interest 457,501.51 0.26% 457,531.20 100.01% 29.69 1.07% 44 TNET Sales Tax 216,409.08 0.12% 216,423.12 100.01% 14.04 1.07% 44
TOTAL CASH RESERVE PORTFOLIO: $ 20,662,089.12 11.86% $ 20,663,429.85 100.01% $ 1,340.73 1.07% 44 **
INDIVIDUAL PORTFOLIO TNET Sales Tax $ 35,280,352.37 20.25% $ 35,532,577.87 100.71% $ 252,225.50 1.67% 584
TOTAL INDIVIDUAL PORTFOLIO: $ 35,280,352.37 20.25% $ 35,532,577.87 100.71% $ 252,225.50 1.67% 584 **
TOTAL CALIFORNIA ASSET MANAGEMENT PRGM (CAMP): $ 55,942,441.49 32.11% $ 56,196,007.72 100.45% $ 253,566.23 1.45% 385
FIDELITY FUNDS DOMESTIC MONEY MARKET TRUST FUND Sales Tax $ 3,013,730.65 1.73% $ 3,013,730.65 100.00% $ 0.00 0.94% 57 TREASURY FUND Sales Tax 3,450,771.11 1.98% 3,450,771.11 100.00% 0.00 0.87% 50
TOTAL FIDELITY FUNDS $ 6,464,501.76 3.71% $ 6,464,501.76 100.00% $ 0.00 0.90% 53 ** SANDAG DETAIL OF PORTFOLIO BALANCES Attachment 2 AS OF MARCH 31, 2004
BOOK PERCENT OF MARKET MARKET UNREALIZED YIELD TO AVG DAYS TO VALUE PORTFOLIO VALUE PRICE GAIN/(LOSS) MATURITY MATURITY
NATIONS FUNDS: CASH RESERVES FUND Sales Tax $ 254,815.76 0.15% $ 254,815.76 100.00% $ 0.00 0.92% 46 SourcePoint 165,290.86 0.09% 165,290.86 100.00% 0.00 0.92% 46 SANDAG 396,618.49 0.23% 396,618.49 100.00% 0.00 0.92% 46 TOTAL PRIME FUND $ 816,725.11 0.47% $ 816,725.11 100.00% $ 0.00 0.92% 46 TREASURY RESERVES FUND Bridge Toll Funds 1,422,166.04 0.82% 1,422,166.04 100.00% 0.00 0.85% 39 GOVERNMENT RESERVES FUND Sales Tax 6,676,667.11 3.83% 6,676,667.11 100.00% 0.00 0.88% 48
TOTAL NATIONS FUNDS $ 8,915,558.26 5.12% $ 8,915,558.26 100.00% $ 0.00 0.88% 46 **
US BANK 96 Arbitrage Rebate $ 103,018.66 0.06% $ 103,018.66 100.00% $ 0.00 0.47% 30 96 Bond Principal 16,811,038.32 9.65% 17,124,553.50 101.86% 313,515.18 4.96% 30 96 Bond Interest 2,587,189.67 1.48% 2,617,072.74 101.16% 29,883.07 4.60% 30 93 Bond Principal 13,829,572.90 7.94% 14,087,485.61 101.86% 257,912.71 4.96% 30 93 Bond Interest 3,053,684.16 1.75% 3,088,955.44 101.16% 35,271.28 4.60% 30 92 Project Fund 2,449.74 0.00% 2,449.74 100.00% 0.00 0.49% 30 92 Bond Principal 11,135,173.45 6.39% 11,342,837.33 101.86% 207,663.88 4.96% 30 92 Bond Interest 1,699,888.62 0.98% 1,719,532.28 101.16% 19,643.66 4.73% 30 94 Bond Principal 24,878,960.51 14.28% 25,299,735.81 101.69% 420,775.30 4.53% 30 94 Bond Interest 2,232,060.45 1.28% 2,257,841.59 101.16% 25,781.14 4.60% 30 91 Commercial Paper Interest 246,902.98 0.14% 246,902.98 100.00% 0.00 0.47% 30 91 Commercial Paper Project Fund 16,011.01 0.01% 16,011.01 100.00% 0.00 0.47% 30 91 Commercial Paper Interest Acct 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00% 0
TOTAL US BANK $ 76,595,950.47 43.96% $ 77,906,396.69 101.71% $ 1,310,446.22 4.76% 30 **
US TRUST Sales Tax $ 9,402,859.09 5.40% $ 9,404,857.09 100.02% $ 1,998.00 0.99% 583
TOTAL US TRUST $ 9,402,859.09 5.40% $ 9,404,857.09 100.02% $ 1,998.00 0.99% 583
DUETSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT FUNDS SANDAG $ 731,273.39 0.42% $ 731,273.39 100.00% $ 0.00 0.97% 52 Sales Tax 2,103,973.61 1.21% 2,103,973.61 100.00% 0.00 0.97% 52
TOTAL DUETSCHE FUNDS $ 2,835,247.00 1.63% $ 2,835,247.00 100.00% $ 0.00 0.97% 52 **
TOTAL $ 174,238,775.66 100.00% $ 175,804,786.11 100.90% $ 1,566,010.45 2.70% 173 Attachment 3
NON-MONEY MARKET INVESTMENTS US TRUST AS OF MARCH 31, 2004
Cash Equivalents ONLY Weighted Unrealized Current Average Days Book Value Market Value Gain/(Loss) Yield to Maturity
AMEX Corp Disc Coml Paper $498,527 $498,527 0 0.90% 19 Amgen Fin Corp Disc Coml Paper $997,482 $997,482 0 1.00% 5 FHLM Corp Disc Notes $996,711 $996,711 0 0.90% 40 FNMA Disc Note $994,287 $994,287 0 1.00% 70 GE Cap Corp Disc Coml Paper $1,096,145 $1,096,145 0 0.90% 34 HFC Disc Coml Paper $997,342 $997,342 0 0.90% 21 Pru-Fdg Corp Disc Coml Paper $995,386 $995,386 0 1.00% 68 UOP Blackrock T Fund $14,204 $14,204 0 0.90% 1 UOP Blackrock T Fund $588,294 $588,294 0 0.90% 1 FHLB Cons Bd $1,000,000 $1,000,630 630 1.20% 135 FHLB $1,198,632 $1,200,000 1,368 1.10% 189
(1) $9,377,010 $9,379,008 $1,998 0.99% 583
(1) - This schedule is presented to detail SANDAG's investment in Non-Money Market investments only in accordance with SANDAG's Investment Policy and therefore does not agree to the total investments held by US Trust on the preceding pages of the quarterly investment report. The difference of $25,849.09 represents investments in Money Market investments.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 7 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
WORKERS COMPENSATION that they are provided with insurance COVERAGE FOR VOLUNTEERS coverage in the unfortunate event that they are injured while providing volunteer services. The Office of General Counsel further Recommendation believes that providing such coverage is also in the best interest of SANDAG as it will limit It is recommended that the Board adopt SANDAG’s liability for injury to volunteers to Resolution No. 2004-20 declaring that they types of claims recoverable under its SANDAG’s volunteers are employees for workers compensation insurance policy. workers compensation purpose only. According to SANDAG’s insurance broker, extending workers compensation coverage to Pursuant to Labor Code Section 3363.5, the volunteers should not cause any increase in Board may cover its volunteers under its SANDAG’s workers compensation insurance workers compensation insurance policy by premiums. adopting a resolution authorizing such coverage. The attached proposed resolution would authorize coverage for volunteers as permitted by the Labor Code. GARY L. GALLEGOS Discussion Executive Director
From time to time SANDAG has volunteers Key Staff Contact: Julie D. Wiley, who perform services on its behalf. Most of (619) 699-6966, [email protected] the time the volunteers are members of SANDAG’s or its member agencies’ staff who No Budget Impact provide community outreach services on behalf of SANDAG during off-duty hours. Typically these persons would not be covered by SANDAG’s workers compensation insurance while providing volunteer services. Labor Code Section 3363.5, however, allows public agencies to declare its volunteers as employees for purposes of workers compensation coverage in a resolution.
The Office of General Counsel believes it would be in best interest of SANDAG’s volunteers for SANDAG to provide them workers compensation insurance coverage so
RESOLUTION
401 B Street, Suite 800 2004-20 San Diego, CA 92101 NO. Phone (619) 699-1900 • Fax (619) 699-1905 www.sandag.org
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AUTHORIZING WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR ITS VOLUNTEERS
WHEREAS, from time to time volunteers provide various types of services to SANDAG; and
WHEREAS, except for certain statutory exceptions, volunteers are not covered by SANDAG’s workers compensation insurance policy if they are injured as a result of such volunteer services; and
WHEREAS, Labor Code section 3363.5 provides that a public agency may declare its volunteers as employees for workers compensation insurance purposes by adopting a resolution authorizing such coverage;
NOW THEREFORE, SANDAG does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Labor Code section 3363.5, SANDAG does hereby declare that any person who performs voluntary service without pay for SANDAG shall be deemed to be an employee of SANDAG solely for workers compensation insurance purposes, provided the services were authorized by a Chief Deputy Executive Director or the Executive Director of SANDAG.
Section 2. The provisions of this resolution shall be prospective in nature.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th of May, 2004.
______ATTEST: ______CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North San Diego County Transit Development Board, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, and Baja California/Mexico.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 9 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE
2004 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – REVISED SUBMITTAL
Recommendation
On May 7, the Transportation Committee recommended that Option A of the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) alternatives, which does not include any additional bond financing, be approved so it may be formally submitted to the CTC. The Transportation Committee further recommended that, in order to minimize potential project delays and cost increases, staff continue to pursue bond financing as outlined under Option C previously approved by the Board as the preferred 2004 STIP alternative.
Introduction
On March 26, 2004, the Board of Directors approved submittal of Option C of the 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which maximizes the use of Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) and other bonds. Early feedback from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) indicates that it will not make a decision on which projects will be financed with GARVEE bonds until after the statewide STIP is adopted on August 5, 2004. CTC staff is requesting submittal of a “pay as you go” STIP proposal that does not include GARVEE or other bond financing. Potential programming actions for three projects that are ready to go to construction in the near-term are discussed as well.
Discussion
On March 26, 2004, the Board of Directors approved Option C of the Draft 2004 STIP proposal that included approximately $253 million in GARVEE bonds and $80 million in North County Transit District (NCTD) bond financing for the Sprinter (see Attachment 1 for comparison of Option A to the preferred Option C). Although the “May Revise” of the draft FY 2004/05 Budget Act proposes to remove the cap on the amount of GARVEE bonds the state issues for transportation projects, the CTC has indicated that they will not begin to make a determination of which projects will be financed with GARVEE bonds until September 2004. A regional “pay as you go” STIP proposal that does not contain any bond financing, therefore, needs to be submitted to the CTC.
Option A
Option A, a “pay as you go” STIP programming alternative that does not include any additional bond financing beyond that already approved for the I-15 Managed Lanes, was developed as part of the set of alternatives presented to the Transportation Committee for its review and discussion beginning in February 2004. Details for Option A are shown in Attachment 2. It proposes to 2 program the available funds on the existing STIP projects, however, it does not fully fund all of them. Over $296 million dollars in budget gaps remain with Option A, of which approximately $73.7 million correspond to on-going construction, acquisition and procurement Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) contracts (see Attachment 3). Although the Schwarzenegger administration had initially proposed terminating the TCRP program, the “May Revise” of the proposed FY 2004/05 Budget Act withdraws the termination recommendation. Therefore, TCRP expenditures are continuing and the $73.7 million figure is expected to decrease, at least during the remainder of the current fiscal year. The “May Revise” adds $163 million in the proposed FY 2004/05 Budget Act to continue the TCRP program through FY 2004/05. These changes are being reviewed by the Legislature as part of the overall budget approval and negotiation process. Staff continues to monitor legislative action regarding the TCRP and will recommend specific action once proposals are approved.
Option A is a “pay as you go” alternative, which relies on the availability of STIP funds on a year by year basis and programs the funds accordingly. The CTC shifted the available funds that remained from the 2002 STIP and spread them farther into the last years of the new 2004 STIP cycle (FY 2007/08 and FY 2008/09). See Figure 1 below for a graphical representation. As a result of this shift in funds availability, projects delays will occur. Project specific delays are shown in more detail in Attachment 2.
FIGURE 1—2002 STIP PROGRAM VS. 2004 STIP PROPOSED PROGRAM ($ MILLIONS)
120 100 80
60
40 20 0 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
Fiscal Year
2002 STIP 2004 STIP
It should be noted that the GARVEE bonds for the I-15 Managed Lanes have already been approved and are not impacted by approval of Option A. The I-15 Managed Lanes bonds have been sold and the proceeds received. The project is continuing under construction, as scheduled.
Other Considerations
As mentioned above, over $296 million in budget gaps remain with Option A. Of this amount, approximately $73.7 million correspond to authorized TCRP funds currently being expended some of which is subject to future appropriations of TCRP funds. The $73.7 million will continue to shrink until the funds are expended. The remaining $222.7 million budget gap corresponds to various projects as shown on Attachment 3, including SR 52 construction and the Sprinter.
Table 1 below shows how Option A is different from Option C after both the available STIP and TCRP funds have been applied to the overall transportation project funding needs.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 9 (APPROVE) 3
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF OPTION A VS. OPTION C
OPTION A – OPTION C – ITEM NO ADDITIONAL MAXIMIZE GARVEE BONDS ($000’S) GARVEE BONDS ($000’S)
a. Initial need to complete the 2002 STIP projects $420,395 $420,395 b. Delay Costs $79,855 $16,476 c. Financing Costs $0 $115,080 d. Need through 2004 STIP period (FY 2005-09) $500,250 $551,951 including delay and financing costs (a+b+c) e. TCRP Funds on on-going Construction $73,721 $73,721 and Procurement Contracts* f. Revised Need (d minus e) $426,529 $478,230 g. 2004 STIP Funds Available $203,849 $203,849 h. Budget Gap (f minus g) $222,680 $274,381 i. Additional Revenues through FY 2005-2009: Plan to Bridge Budget Gap j. Option A: RSTP/CMAQ/Other funds $222,680 $0 k. Option C: GARVEE/Other Bonds $0 $274,381
*Approximately $17.5 million were added to this figure from the $57.5 million shown in the March 26 report to account for SR 905 funds that were originally counted as not available but which have since been made available for right of way acquisitions through June 30, 2004.
Option A follows a “pay as you go” approach with STIP funds and does not include additional GARVEE bonds. Although the reduced delay costs in Option C are offset by the financing costs, an additional benefit to commuters and travelers of Option C over Option A is from having several major transportation facilities completed years earlier, including SR 52 and SR 905, as shown in Attachment 1.
Under Option A, the $222.7 million budget gap could be addressed by RSTP, CMAQ or other funds. Staff is not recommending any programming actions at this time, however, pending the outcome of the GARVEE bond discussion with the CTC.
There are three projects, however, that are or will be ready to go to construction in the near term that will need alternative funding if the CTC does not concur with the GARVEE bond financing that the Board approved for submittal at its March 26 meeting.
SR 905
Regional STIP funding for SR 905 under Option A would not be available until FY 2007/08. Caltrans has offered to make its interregional share of the STIP available in FY 2005/06. One option to accelerate the availability of the regional STIP funds would be to delay the acquisition of right of way for SR 52 by one year and program the regional STIP funds in FY 2005/06. However, staff considers the prospects for SR 905 to be selected for GARVEE bond financing to be high given its status as a gateway of state, national and international significance for goods movement, which is
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 9 (APPROVE) 4 one of the CTC’s stated key criteria. Programming STIP funds on right of way acquisition for SR 52, therefore, makes more sense as GARVEE bond financing is more likely to be approved for SR 905. If the CTC fails to select SR 905 for GARVEE bond financing as was originally proposed under Option C, however, the region may need to program Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds in FY 2005/06 to meet the state’s proposal to program its interregional share of the STIP in that year. Approximately $24 million are needed in FY 2005/06. Staff will inform the Transportation Committee as more details become available.
SR 56 Landscaping
The design of this project is currently scheduled to be complete in Fall 2004. If the CTC does not approve GARVEE bond financing for other larger projects, STIP programming capacity for this $3.4 million project will not be freed up and other funds will be required to award this project. This project is required as mitigation under the California Coastal Commission’s permit. Since this project was covered only under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and federal clearance under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was not obtained, it does not qualify for federal funds. This would likely require a future exchange of funds with other project or projects that have local funds as federal funds would not be eligible. Staff will inform the Transportation Committee as more details become available.
Sprinter
This project has $80 million in unallocated TCRP funds that are currently not available due to the current suspension on new TCRP allocations. The design has been completed and NCTD is ready to award this construction contract. As discussed and approved by the Board at its March 26, 2004 meeting, Option C includes using STIP funds to back an NCTD-issued bond to temporarily replace the $80 million in TCRP funds. If the CTC does not approve the use of STIP funds for this bond, however, NCTD would still issue the bond and cover the interest payments only through FY 2007 while negotiations continue to have the state honor its $80 million commitment. The region would begin re-payment of the principal using unprogrammed Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, estimated at approximately $10.5 million per year over a ten-year period. This alternative funding concept was approved by the Board at its March 26, 2004 meeting. A Memorandum of Understanding which includes the use of these CMAQ funds was approved by the Board of Directors at its April 23 meeting.
Next Steps
A preliminary draft of Option A has been submitted to the CTC to meet their timeline with the qualification that it is pending approval by the Board of Directors. Pending Board approval, a formal submittal of Option A of the 2004 STIP will be made to the CTC. A 2004 STIP hearing for Southern California will be held at the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles on June 17, 2004. Adoption of the 2004 STIP is scheduled for August 5, 2004.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director
Attachments
Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, (619) 699-1908; [email protected]
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 9 (APPROVE) STIP Options Comparison Table Attachment 1
STIP Option A No STIP Option C Maximize Item Phase Additional GARVEE GARVEE
Proposed Proposed Year of Year of Amount Amount 2004 STIP Program Proposals Completion Completion ($000's) ($000's) Remaining 2002 STIP Projects 1 SR 52 Freeway Right of Way 49,620 2008 25,961 2006 2 SR 52 Freeway Construction 68,920 2011 36,702 2009 3 SR 905 Freeway Construction 23,866 2010 21,528 2007 4 SR 54/SR 125, from I-805 to SR 94, HOV lanes Design 6,500 2009 6,500 2009 5 Regional automated fare system Implementation 19,500 2005 19,500 2005 6 Oceanside parking structure Construction 0 2005 0 2005 7 Mid-Coast Balboa extension Right of Way acquisition Right of Way 9,254 2008 47,599 2007 8 I-5/Del Mar Hts to Via de la Valle, NB auxiliary lane Construction 0 2004 0 2004 9 TMS: changeable message signs Construction 1,060 2007 1,060 2007 10 TMS: monitoring stations, pullouts Construction 6,050 2010 6,050 2010 11 TMS: ramp meters Construction 7,163 2010 7,163 2008 12 Rideshare TDM program Implementation 9,168 Continuous 9,168 Continuous 13 Planning, programming, and monitoring Implementation 2,121 Continuous 2,121 Continuous 14 RSTP/CMAQ/TEA match reserve Construction 627 Various 627 Various SubTotal Remaining 2002 STIP Projects (Projects 1-14) 203,849 183,979
Other Projects Not Included in Remaining 2002 STIP A I-15 Managed Lanes Freeway Elements** Construction 0 2007 0 2007 B I-15 Managed Lanes Bus Rapid Transit Construction 0 2007 12,086 2007 C Sprinter Construction 0 2006 4,384 2006 D SR 56 Landscaping Required Mitigation Construction 0 2006 3,400 2006 E East Village Transit Stations Construction 0 2005* 0 2005* F MTS Buses Procurement 0 2005* 0 2005* G I-5/I-805 "Merge" Construction 0 2007* 0 2007* H SR 56 "Middle" Freeway Construction 0 2004* 0 2004* SubTotal non-Remaining 2002 STIP Projects (Projects A-H) 0 19,870
Total (Projects 1-14 and A-H) 203,849 203,849 * These on-going construction and procurement projects have TCRP funds at risk. The projects will proceed through construction as currently scheduled. There may be Delay Costs associated with redirecting funds from other projects if it becomes necessary to backfill the TCRP funds. = Denotes project is proposed to be funded with GARVEE bond proceeds. Amount shown corresponds to debt service within 2004 STIP period. * As compared with the 2002 STIP Programmed Schedule ** I-15 Managed Lanes was included in the January 16, 2004 report as needing $12 million. The CTC has included this amount as part their approved GARVEE bond financing and is no longer needed. 2004 STIP Option A Attachment 2
2004 STIP Baseline Delay Period Environmental FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 Delay Cost Option A Right of Way Construction Ref Option A Program (Years) and Design Program 1 SR 52 from SR 125 to SR 67, 4-lane freeway, Right of Way Acquisition 24,861 24,759 49,620 2 0 49,620 49,620 2 SR 52 from SR 125 to SR 67, 4-ln fwy, Construction 68,920 68,920 2 0 68,920 68,920 3 SR 905, 6-lane freeway, Construction 23,866 22,496 4 1,370 23,866 23,866 4 SR 54/SR 125, from I-805 to SR 94, HOV lanes 6,500 6,500 0 0 6,500 6,500 5 Regional automated fare system 3,900 9,750 5,850 19,500 0 0 19,500 5,220 14,280 6 Oceanside parking structure 0000 7 Mid-Coast Balboa extension 1,000 2,000 1,000 5,254 8,818 0 0 8,818 4,000 4,818 8 I-5/Del Mar Hts to Via de la Valle, NB auxiliary lane 0000 9 TMS: changeable message signs 1,060 1,060 0 0 1,060 1,060 10 TMS: monitoring stations, pullouts 6,050 6,050 0 0 6,050 6,050 11 TMS: ramp meters 7,163 6,555 5 1,044 7,599 7,599 12 Rideshare TDM program 1,738 1,792 1,824 1,879 1,935 9,168 0 0 9,168 9,168 13 Planning, programming, and monitoring 334 334 334 334 785 2,121 0 0 2,121 2,121 14 RSTP/CMAQ match reserve 440 187 627 0 0 627 627 Sub-Total "Existing" 7,412 39,984 33,767 31,333 91,353 201,435 2,414 203,849 15,720 54,438 133,691 Target 4,133 39,984 33,825 33,150 92,757 203,849 (Over Target) / Under Target (3,279) 0 58 1,817 1,404 0 SANDAG share of inflation cost. Region would work with Caltrans to cover their share of construction cost escalation Funding Gaps not Funded under Option A Attachment 3
Other High Priority Projects with Funding Gaps not included in Option A Delay 2004 STIP Current Delay Environmental Ref FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 Period Option A Right of Way Construction Shortfall Cost2 and Design (Years) Shortfall 2 SR 52 Construction - Remaining Need 1 79,924 71,380 2 8,544 79,924 79,924 Mid Coast Balboa Extension 19,590 18,876 2 1,150 20,026 19,590 B I-15 Managed Lanes Bus Rapid Transit 1 24,507 23,100 2 1,407 24,507 24,507 C Sprinter1 9,000 43,000 42,616 80,000 2 14,616 94,616 94,616 D SR 56 Landscaping Required Mitigation 1 3,607 3,400 2 207 3,607 3,607 Total 12,607 67,507 42,616 19,590 79,924 196,756 25,924 222,680 25,924 222,680
Total remaining budget gap under Option A
Potential TCRP Funding Gaps not addressed at this time 3 SR 9053 19,369 17,179 * 2,190 19,369 19,640 E East Village Transit Stations 12,515 11,797 * 718 12,515 12,515 F MTS Buses 18,848 17,766 * 1,082 18,848 18,848 G I-5/I-805 "Merge" 16,914 15,943 * 971 16,914 16,914 H SR 56 "Middle" Freeway 6,075 5,726 * 349 6,075 6,075 Sub-Total Non-STIP Sources 73,721 000068,411 5,310 73,721 0 0 73,992
* Shortfall amounts are TCRP funds at risk through April 30, 2004. Projects will proceed through construction as currently scheduled. The Delay Cost is the estimated cost associated with redirecting funds from other projects if it becomes necessary to backfill the TCRP funds. 1. Indicates TCRP suspension contributed to funding gap 2. Delay costs correspond to potential contract suspension costs for two years until next STIP cycle adds new funds. 3. Caltrans is currently spending down $17.45 million in TCRP, they anticipate making offers for early acquisition by Jun 30, 2004 TCRP funds at risk on on- going construction, acquisition and procurement contracts
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 10 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
COMMISSION ORDINANCE 04-01 – THE SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX IMPLEMENTED BY THE INITIAL SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE (COMMISSION ORDINANCE 87-1 – PROPOSITION A, 1987) FOR A FORTY-YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING ON APRIL 1, 2008 (SECOND READING) AND RESOLUTION NO. 2004-21 RELATED THERETO
Recommendation It is recommended that the SANDAG Board of Directors conduct the second reading of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01), read the title of the Ordinance,, and adopt Ordinance 04-01. It is further recommended that the Board adopt Resolution No. 2004-21, which calls for the election, authorizes placement of specified ballot language on the County ballot, provides for payment to the County for the costs associated with placing the Ordinance on the ballot, and authorizes staff to prepare the Argument in Favor of the Ordinance and the Rebuttal for inclusion in the voter materials sent to the County.
Introduction
At the May 14, 2004 meeting, the Board approved the required environmental findings and conducted the first reading of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. At that meeting, the Board approved changes to the Ordinance language.
The TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, included as Attachment 1 to this report, reflects the changes made by the Board at the last meeting. Attachments 2-6 are the various materials incorporated by reference in the Ordinance.
Public Utilities Code sections 132300 et seq. and 132632 give SANDAG, serving as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), the authority to place the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan on the County ballot. Attached Resolution No. 2004-21 is intended to serve as direction from the Board, acting as the RTC, to place the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan on the November 2, 2004 San Diego County consolidated ballot. The Resolution further provides for adoption of the specific ballot language to be used and compensation to San Diego County for the cost of including the Ordinance on the ballot. Additionally, the resolution authorizes SANDAG staff to prepare the Argument in Favor of the Ordinance and the Rebuttal language to be included in the voter materials to be sent to the County. The ballot language included in Resolution No. 2004-21 is undergoing review by legal counsel and may be modified prior to the May 28, 2004 Board meeting.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director
Attachments
Key Staff Contact: Craig Scott, (619) 699-1926; [email protected]
Funds are budgeted in Work Element #11102
RESOLUTION
401 B Street, Suite 800 2004-21 San Diego, CA 92101 NO. Phone (619) 699-1900 • Fax (619) 699-1905 www.sandag.org
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CALLING AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004, REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONDUCT THE ELECTION AND TO CONSOLIDATE THAT ELECTION WITH THE CONSOLIDATED COUNTYWIDE ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE SAME DAY, APPROVING BALLOT LANGUAGE, AUTHORIZING REIMBURSEMENT TO THE COUNTY FOR ELECTION EXPENSES, AND AUTHORIZING SANDAG STAFF TO PREPARE THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE REBUTTAL FOR INCLUSION IN THE VOTER MATERIALS
WHEREAS, Public Utilities Code sections132300 et seq. and132632 give SANDAG, serving as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (RTC), the authority to place a proposition concerning Ordinance 04-01 and the Expenditure Plan (“Ordinance”) on the County ballot; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission has called an election to be held in San Diego County on November 2, 2004; and
WHEREAS, Section 439.1 of the Administrative Code of the County of San Diego authorizes the Registrar of Voters of the County of San Diego to render specified services relating to the conduct of an election to any district which has by resolution requested the Board of Supervisors to permit the Registrar to render the services, subject to the requirements set forth in that section; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Elections Code section 10400 et seq., the Board of Supervisors has authority to consolidate political subdivision elections with each other and a statewide election to be held on the same day; and
WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission (hereinafter “SANDAG”) wishes to specify the language concerning Ordinance to be placed in the ballot materials as required by Elections Code section 10403 and to direct that staff prepare the Argument in Favor of the Ordinance and Rebuttal and send those materials to the Registrar of Voters for inclusion in the ballot materials; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. Pursuant to the above-cited statutes, the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County is hereby requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to render all services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the conduct of an election concerning the Ordinance on November 2, 2004. Such services are to include, but not be limited to the following activities as may be appropriate to the subject election:
a. Furnish a tabulation of the number of registered voters in each precinct. b. Establish voting precincts, secure locations of polling places, secure the services of election officers for each precinct as required by law, and furnish a list of precincts, polling places, and election officer for filing in the office of the Registrar of Voters. c. Prepare and furnish to the election officers necessary election supplies for the conduct of the election. d. Cause to be translated, as appropriate, and printed the requisite number of sample ballots, official ballots, rosters, and other necessary forms. e. Furnish and address to mail sample ballots and mail-in ballot materials to the registered voters of the County of San Diego. f. Cause the ballot materials to be mailed, as required by law. g. Assemble the election materials and supplies into ballot containers and make the necessary arrangements for their delivery to the various precincts. h. Distribute absent voter ballots as required by law. i. Receive the returns of the elections and supplies. j. Sort and assemble the election materials and supplies in preparation for canvassing of the returns of the election. k. Canvass the returns of the election, including the absent voters ballots. l. Furnish a tabulation of the number of votes given in each precinct. m. Make all arrangements and take the necessary steps to pay the costs of the election incurred as the result of the services performed for SANDAG and pay the election officials the amounts prescribed by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
2. SANDAG hereby agrees that it will be bound by the requirements of Section 439.1 of the County Administrative Code and such terms and conditions as the Registrar of Voters may prescribe, and agrees that it will reimburse the County in full for its costs and expenses in rendering such services.
3. In accordance with Section 439.1 of the County Administrative Code, SANDAG further agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents and employees from expense of liability, including reasonable attorneys fees, as the result of an election contest arising after conduct of the election concerning the Ordinance.
4. Pursuant to Elections Code section 10403, SANDAG shall file with the Board of Supervisors, and a copy with the elections official, this resolution requesting the consolidated election, adopting the Ordinance, and calling for the election on November 2, 2004.
5. The exact form of the proposition to appear on the ballot and be submitted to the voters is as shown below and that the full Ordinance entitled San Diego County Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Ordinance 04-01) shall be included in the ballot materials and sample ballot materials mailed to the voters:
SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. To relieve traffic congestion, improve safety, and match state/federal A funds by:
• Expanding I-5, I-8, I-15, SR 52, SR 54, SR 56, SR 67, SR 76, SR 78, SR 94, SR 125, I-805; • Maintaining/improving local roads; • Increasing transit for seniors and disabled persons; • Expanding commuter express bus, trolley, Coaster services;
Shall San Diego County voters continue the existing half-cent transportation sales tax (SDCRTC Ordinance 04-01) for forty years, including creating an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee to conduct yearly audits ensuring voter mandates are met? YES 000 c NO 000 c
6. The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego is hereby requested to consolidate this election with the consolidated election to be held on November 2, 2004.
7. The County of San Diego shall be reimbursed in full for the services performed by the Registrar of Voters on behalf of SANDAG in connection with election services herein described.
8. The Secretary is hereby directed to deliver forthwith certified copies of this resolution to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego and to the Registrar of Voters.
9. SANDAG staff is hereby directed to prepare the Argument in Favor of the Ordinance ballot measure, and if necessary the Rebuttal to the argument against it. Staff shall solicit from interested groups and individuals, including elected officials, the appropriate persons to sign these documents. The SANDAG Chair and Vice Chair shall then approve the selection of the individuals who will be requested to sign the documents on behalf of SANDAG. Staff is further directed to submit the approved documents to the Registrar of Voters in a timely manner.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by SANDAG, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, this 28th day of May, 2004.
______ATTEST: ______CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego. ADVISORY MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit System, North San Diego County Transit Development Board, Imperial County, U.S. Department of Defense, San Diego Unified Port District, San Diego County Water Authority, and Baja California/Mexico.
Attachment 1
TransNet Extension ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN Commission Ordinance 04-01
The San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission ordains as follows:
SECTI0N 1. TITLE: This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. This Ordinance provides for an extension of the retail transactions and use tax implemented by the initial San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance (Commission Ordinance 87-1 – Proposition A, 1987) for a forty year period commencing on April 1, 2008. The Expenditure Plan for this extension is set forth in Sections 2 and 4 herein and is an expansion of the Expenditure Plan contained in Commission Ordinance 87-1.
SECTION 2. EXPENDITURE PLAN SUMMARY: This Ordinance provides for the implementation of the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program, which will result in countywide transportation facility and service improvements for highways, rail transit services, new bus rapid transit services, local bus services, senior and disabled transportation services, local streets and roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transportation-related community infrastructure to support smart growth development, and related environmental mitigation and enhancement projects. These needed improvements shall be funded by the continuation of the one-half of one percent transactions and use tax for a period of forty years. The revenues shall be deposited in a special fund and used solely for the identified improvements. The specific projects and programs to be funded shall be further described in the document titled “TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan Analysis”, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Any ancillary proceeds resulting from the implementation of the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program shall be used for transportation improvement projects in the San Diego region. A summary of the major projects and programs, including the major highway and transit improvements depicted on Figure 1, is provided in the following sections. All dollar references in this Ordinance are in 2002 dollars.
A. Congestion Relief Program - Major Transportation Corridor Improvements:
1. Highway and transit capital projects: Of the total funds available, an estimated $5,150 million will be used to match an estimated $4,795 million in federal, state, local and other revenues to complete the projects listed below (see Figure 1). The total costs include an estimated $500 million in financing costs related to bonds to be issued to accelerate the implementation of the major Congestion Relief projects identified in this section. The costs shown include the total estimated implementation costs of each project net of habitat-related environmental mitigation costs for those transportation projects, which are funded under Section 2(D). Three of the highway projects listed below (SR 67, SR 76, and a portion of SR 94) are described as including environmental enhancements, as further described in the document titled “Environmental Enhancement Criteria Mitigating Highway 67, 76 and 94 Expansion Impacts”, which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
5 Camp Pendleton
North County 15 North County West Local strEeeta ansdt road projects, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and 5 76 other projects not shown.
Oceanside Vista
78 San Marcos
Carlsbad Escondido
78
Encinitas
67 Solana Beach 5 Poway
56 Del Mar
15
52 Santee 67 52
Figure 1 5 805 125 TRANSNET EXTENSION San 8 Diego El Major Highway and 163 Transit Improvements 8 Cajon La Mesa Highway 15 Lemon 94 Grove Transit 125 Highways with 282 Environmental Enhancements Coronado 805 National 54 Border Access City Improvements 75
MILES 125 0 3 6 Chula Vista South 0 4.83 9.6 805 KILOMETERS County
Imperial 5 Beach 905 11 a. Highway Capital Improvements (including managed lane/high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane additions and general purpose lane additions) - $6,760 million:
1. Interstate 5 South: Add two HOV lanes from I-8 to SR 905 - $722 million.
2. Interstate 5 Mid-Coast: Add two HOV lanes from I-8 to I-805, including funding for environmental work and preliminary engineering for improvements at the I-5/I-8 interchange - $192 million.
3. Interstate 5 North: Add four managed lanes from I-805 to Vandegrift Boulevard in Oceanside, including HOV to HOV connectors at the I-5/I-805 interchange and freeway connectors at the I-5/SR 56 and I-5/SR 78 interchanges - $1,234 million.
4. Interstate 8: Add two general purpose lanes from Second Street to Los Coches Road - $29 million.
5. Interstate 15: Add four managed lanes from SR 78 to Centre City Parkway in Escondido and from SR 56 to SR 163 and add two HOV lanes from SR 163 to SR 94, including HOV to HOV connectors at the I-15/SR 78 and I-15/SR 94 interchanges - $882 million.
6. Interstate 805: Add four managed lanes from I-5 to SR 54 and two reversible HOV lanes from SR 54 to SR 905, including HOV to HOV connectors at the I-805/SR 52 interchange and improvements at the I- 805/SR 54 interchange - $1,371 million.
7. SR 54/SR 125: Add two lanes to provide a continuous facility with three general purpose lanes and one HOV lane in each direction - $139 million
8. SR 56: Add one general purpose lane in each direction from I-5 to I-15 - $99 million.
9. SR 52: Construct four-lane freeway from SR 125 to SR 67, add two general purpose lanes and two reversible managed lanes from I-15 to SR 125, and add two HOV lanes from I-805 to I-15 - $476 million.
10. SR 67: Expand to a continuous four-lane facility, including environmental enhancements, from Mapleview Street to Dye Road - $218 million.
11. SR 75/SR 282: Provide matching funds for construction purposes only for a tunnel from Glorietta Boulevard to Alameda Boulevard - $25 million.
12. SR 76: Add two general purposes lanes from Melrose Drive to I-15, including environmental enhancements from Mission Road to I-15 - $164 million.
13. SR 78: Add two HOV lanes from I-5 to I-15 - $495 million.
14. SR 94/SR 125: Add two HOV lanes from I-5 to I-8, including freeway connectors at the SR94/SR 125 interchange - $601 million.
7
15. SR 94: Widen to six lanes from SR 125 to Avocado Boulevard and expand to a continuous four-lane facility from Avocado Boulevard to Steele Canyon Road, including environmental enhancements from Jamacha Road to Steele Canyon Road - $88 million.
16. Border Access Improvements: Provide matching construction funds for access improvements in the international border area - $25 million. b. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rail Transit Capital Improvements - $2,685 million:
1. BRT service from Escondido to Downtown San Diego using the I-15/SR 94 managed/HOV facilities, including new and improved stations and direct access ramps - $369 million.
2. BRT service from Escondido to Sorrento Mesa using the managed lane facility on I-15 - $60 million.
3. BRT service from Otay Mesa to Downtown San Diego using I-805/SR 94 managed/HOV lane facilities, including new stations and direct access ramps - $497 million.
4. BRT service from San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa using the managed/HOV lane facilities on I-805/I-15/SR 52 including station improvements - $70 million.
5. Blue Line Light Rail Transit improvements including station enhancements, signal upgrades, conversion to low-floor vehicles and grade separations in Chula Vista - $268 million.
6. Mid-Coast Transit Guideway Improvement Project using light rail technology to provide high-level transit service along the I-5 corridor from the Old Town area to the U.C. San Diego/University Towne Center area, would rely in part on federal funding. Absent federal funding, then bus technology may be considered for the high level service planned for this corridor - $660 million.
7. Super Loop providing high quality connections to locations in the greater U. C. San Diego/University Towne Center area, including arterial improvements with bus priority treatments, stations and vehicles - $30 million.
8. North I-5 Corridor Coaster/BRT service providing high quality north-south transit service improvements by upgrading the Coaster commuter rail tracks and stations, providing BRT service in the El Camino Real corridor, or a combination of the two - $376 million.
9. Orange Line Light Rail Transit Improvements including station enhancements, signal upgrades and conversion to low-floor vehicles - $69 million.
8 10. SR 78 Corridor Sprinter/BRT service providing high-quality east-west transit service improvements by upgrading and extending the Sprinter rail line, providing BRT service along the Palomar Airport Road corridor, or a combination of the two - $197 million.
11. BRT service from San Diego State University to Downtown San Diego along the El Cajon Boulevard/Park Boulevard corridor with arterial improvements with bus priority treatments, stations and vehicles - $89 million.
2. Operating Support for the BRT and Rail Transit Capital Improvements: Of the total funds available, an estimated $1,100 million will be used to operate and maintain the services described under Section 2(A)(1)(b).
3. Environmental Mitigation: An estimated $600 million, including $450 million for direct mitigation costs and $150 million for economic benefit, will be used to fund the habitat-related mitigation costs of the major highway and transit projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan as part of the Environmental Mitigation Program described in Section 2(D).
B. Congestion Relief Program - Transit System Service Improvements and Related Programs:
An estimated $2,240 million will be used to provide ongoing support for the reduced-price monthly transit programs for seniors, persons with disabilities, and students and for the continuation and expansion of rail, express bus, local bus, community shuttles, and dial-a-ride services, including specialized services for seniors and persons with disabilities, and related capital improvements.
C. Congestion Relief Program - Local System Improvements and Related Programs:
An estimated total of $4,480 million will be allocated to local programs in the following three categories:
1. Local Street and Road Program: An estimated $3,950 million will be allocated on a fair and equitable basis, using the formula specified in Section 4(D)(1), to each city and the County of San Diego (hereinafter referred to as local agencies) to supplement other revenues available for local street and road improvements. In developing the biennial list of projects to be funded with these revenues as required under Section 5(A), local agencies shall give high priority in the use of these funds to improvements to regional arterials, grade separation projects, and related facilities contributing to congestion relief. At least 70% of the revenues provided for local street and road purposes should be used to fund direct expenditures for construction of new or expanded facilities, major rehabilitation and reconstruction of roadways, traffic signal coordination and related traffic operations improvements, transportation-related community infrastructure improvements to support smart growth development, capital improvements needed to facilitate transit services and facilities, and operating support for local shuttle and circulator routes and other services. No more than 30% of these funds should be used for local street and road maintenance purposes. A local agency desiring to spend more than 30% of its annual revenues on local street and road maintenance-related projects shall provide justification to the Commission as part of its biennial project list submittal. The Commission shall review each local agency’s biennial project list submittal and make a finding of consistency with the provisions of this
9 Ordinance and with the Regional Transportation Plan prior to approving the local agency’s project list for funding. The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee shall also review the proposed project lists and make recommendations to the Commission.
2. Environmental Mitigation: An estimated $250 million, including $200 million for direct mitigation costs and $50 million for economic benefit, will be used to fund the habitat- related mitigation costs of local transportation projects consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan as part of the Environmental Mitigation Program described in Section 2(D).
3. Smart Growth Incentive Program: An estimated $280 million will be allocated to the Smart Growth Incentive Program to provide funding for a broad array of transportation-related infrastructure improvements that will assist local agencies in better integrating transportation and land use, such as enhancements to streets and public places, funding of infrastructure needed to support development in smart growth opportunity areas consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan, and community planning efforts related to smart growth and improved land use/transportation coordination. These funds shall be allocated on a regional competitive grant basis. It is intended that these funds be used to match federal, state, local, and private funding to maximize the number of improvements to be implemented. The Commission shall establish specific project eligibility criteria for this program.
D. Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation:
An estimated $850 million will be used to fund habitat-related environmental mitigation activities required in the implementation of the major highway, transit and regional arterial and local street and road improvements identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. Of this total, an estimated $250 million is related to mitigation requirements for local transportation projects and an estimated $600 million is related to mitigation requirements for the major highway and transit projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan. The intent is to establish a program to provide for large-scale acquisition and management of critical habitat areas and to create a reliable approach for funding required mitigation for future transportation improvements thereby reducing future costs and accelerating project delivery. This approach would be implemented by obtaining coverage for transportation projects through existing and proposed multiple species conservation plans. If this approach cannot be fully implemented, then these funds shall be used for environmental mitigation purposes on a project by project basis. Additional detail regarding this program is described in the documents titled “TransNet Extension Environmental Mitigation Program Principles” and “Environmental Enhancement Criteria Mitigating Highway 67, 76, and 94 Expansion Impacts”, which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
E. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program:
A total of two percent of the total annual revenues available (an estimated $280 million) will be allocated to the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program to provide funding for bikeway facilities and connectivity improvements, pedestrian and walkable community projects, bicycle and pedestrian safety projects and programs, and traffic calming projects. These funds shall be allocated on a regional competitive grant basis. It is intended that these funds be used to match federal, state, local, and private funding to maximize the number of
10 improvements to be implemented. The Commission shall establish specific project eligibility criteria for this program.
F. Administration and Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee:
Up to one percent of the total annual revenues available will be used for administrative expenses and up to $250,000 per year will be used for the operation of an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee.
SECTION 3. IMPOSITION OF TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX: In addition to any other taxes authorized by law, there is hereby imposed in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Diego, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code commencing with Code Section 132000, an extension of the existing transactions and use tax at the rate of one-half of one percent (1/2%) commencing April 1, 2008, for a period of forty years, in addition to any existing or future authorized state or local transactions and use tax. If, during this time period, additional state or federal funds become available which would fund the projects and services contained in the Regional Transportation Plan, then the tax may be reduced by action of the Commission.
SECTION 4. EXPENDITURE PLAN PURPOSES: The revenues received by the Commission from the existing measure as extended by this measure, after deduction of required Board of Equalization costs for performing the functions specified in Section 132304(b) of the Public Utilities Code, shall be used to improve transportation facilities and services countywide as set forth in the Expenditure Plan and in a manner consistent with the long-range Regional Transportation Plan and the short- range, multi-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program, and for the administration of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") commencing with Public Utilities Code Section 132000. Commencing July 1, 2008, after the deduction of administrative expenses, Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee expenses, and funding for the Bicycle, Pedestrian and Neighborhood Safety Program as described in Sections 2(E), 2(F), 11 and 12, the remaining annual revenues shall be allocated as follows:
A. Forty-two and four-tenths percent for the major highway and transit Congestion Relief projects specified in Section 2(A)(1), including four and four-tenths percent for the habitat- related mitigation costs of the major highway and transit projects as described in Section 2(A)(3) to be used to fund a portion of the Environmental Mitigation Program described in Section 2(D).
B. Eight and one-tenth percent for operation of the specific transit Congestion Relief projects as described in Section 2(A)(2). This funding is for the operation of new or expanded services only and is not available for the operation of services in existence prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
C. Sixteen and one-half percent for the transit programs described in Section 2(B). The revenues made available annually for transit purposes shall be allocated and expended pursuant to the following distribution formula and priorities:
1. Two and one-half percent of the funds made available under Section 4(C) shall be used to support improved transportation services for seniors and disabled persons. These funds shall be used to support specialized paratransit services required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
11 2. Three and one-fourth percent of the funds made available under Section 4(C) shall be used to support a competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations and local agencies. The funds shall be used to provide specialized transportation services for seniors focusing on innovative and cost-effective approaches to providing improved senior transportation, including, but not limited to, shared group services, special shuttle services using volunteer forces, and brokerage of multi-jurisdictional transportation services.
3. From the remaining revenues, there shall be expended such sums as necessary to guarantee in the North San Diego County Transit Development Board and Metropolitan Transit Development Board areas of jurisdiction for the duration of the measure (1) a monthly regional transit pass for senior (60 years or older) and disabled riders priced at not more than 25 percent of the cost of the regular regional monthly transit pass, and (2) a monthly regional youth transit pass for students (18 years or under) priced at not more than 50 percent of the cost of the regular regional monthly transit pass.
4. Remaining revenues shall be allocated for transit service improvements, including operations and supporting capital improvements. The revenues shall be allocated through the annual transit operator budget process and the improvements to be funded shall be consistent with the Short Range Transit Plan.
5. To maintain eligibility for the receipt of funds under Section 4(C), a transit operator must limit the increase in its total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services or the increase in its total operating cost per revenue vehicle mile for rail services from one fiscal year to the next to no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index for San Diego County over the same period. If the requirement is not achieved, the operator may not receive any additional funding under Section 4(C) in the following year above the amount received in the previous fiscal year adjusted for any increase in the Consumer Price Index for San Diego County. If there were unusual circumstances in a given fiscal year, the operator may request the approval of the Commission to calculate the requirement as an average over the previous three fiscal years. The operator may also request the approval of the Commission to exclude from the calculation certain cost increases that were due to external events entirely beyond the operator’s control, including, but not limited to, increases in the costs for fuel, insurance premiums, or new state or federal mandates.
D. Thirty-three percent for the Local Programs described in Section 2(C) in the following three categories:
1. Twenty-nine and one-tenth percent for the local street and road program described in Section 2(C)(1). The revenues available for the local street and road program shall be allocated and expended pursuant to the following distribution formula:
a. Each local agency shall receive an annual base sum of $50,000.
b. The remaining revenues after the base sum distribution shall be distributed to the each local agency on the following basis:
1. Two-thirds based on total population using the most recent Department of Finance population estimates.
12
2. One-third based on maintained street and road mileage.
c. For the purposes of Section 4D(1)(a) and (b), any new incorporations or annexations which take place after July 1 of any fiscal year shall be incorporated into the formula beginning with the subsequent fiscal year. The San Diego Association of Governments population estimates of such new incorporations or annexations shall be used until such time as Department of Finance population estimates are available.
2. One and eight-tenths percent for the habitat-related mitigation costs of local transportation projects described in Section 2(C)(2) to be used to fund a portion of the Environmental Mitigation Program described in Section 2(D).
3. Two and one-tenth percent for the Smart Growth Incentive Program described in Section 2(C)(3).
E. General Provisions:
1. In implementing the projects funded under Section 4(A), priority shall be given to projects included in the Expenditure Plan for Proposition A as passed by the voters in 1987 that remain uncompleted, such as the eastern ends of the SR 52 and SR 76 highway improvement projects and the Mid-Coast light rail transit project. The Commission shall ensure that sufficient funding or bonding capacity remain available to implement such projects as expeditiously as possible once the environmental clearance for these projects is obtained and needed state and federal matching funds are committed.
2. Once any state highway facility or usable portion thereof is constructed to at least minimum acceptable state standards, the state shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation thereof.
3. All new projects, or major reconstruction projects, funded by revenues provided under this Ordinance shall accommodate travel by pedestrians and bicyclists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility or where the costs of including bikeways and walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use. Such facilities for pedestrian and bicycle use shall be designed to the best currently available standards and guidelines.
4. All state highway improvements to be funded with revenues as provided in this measure, including project development and overall project management, shall be a joint responsibility of Caltrans and the Commission. All major project approval actions including the project concept, the project location, and any subsequent change in project scope shall be jointly agreed upon by Caltrans and the Commission and, where appropriate, by the Federal Highway Administration and/or the California Transportation Commission.
13 SECTION 5. EXPENDITURE PLAN PROCEDURES:
A. Each local agency shall biennially develop a five-year list of projects to be funded with revenues made available for local street and road improvements under Section 4(D). A local public hearing on the proposed list of projects shall be held by each local agency prior to submitting its project list to the Commission for approval pursuant to Section 6.
B. All projects to be funded with revenues made available under Section 4 must be consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Project priorities or phasing shall also be consistent with the RTP. The Expenditure Plan shall be reviewed for consistency with RTP following each major update of the RTP as required by state or federal law. The Expenditure Plan shall be amended as necessary to maintain consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan. If funds become available in excess of the amount allocated in the Expenditure Plan, additional projects shall be added to the Expenditure Plan consistent with the priorities in the Regional Transportation Plan. Any amendments to the Expenditure Plan shall be made in accordance with the procedures for amending this ordinance as provided for in Section 16.
C. In the allocation of all revenues made available under Section 4, the Commission shall make every effort to maximize state and federal transportation funding to the region. The Commission may amend the Expenditure Plan, in accordance with Section 16, as needed to maximize the transportation funding to the San Diego region.
SECTION 6. PROJECT PROGRAMMING APPROVAL: The Commission shall biennially approve a five- year project list and a biennial program of projects to be funded during the succeeding two fiscal years with the revenues made available under Section 4 herein. The program of projects will be prepared as a part of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) process as required by state and federal law. A public hearing will be held prior to approval of the program of projects. The Commission may amend the program of projects as necessary in accordance with the RTIP amendment procedures. Projects shall not be funded with the revenues made available under Section 4 unless the projects are in the approved program of projects.
SECTION 7. COOPERATIVE FUND AGREEMENTS: Except as provided for herein, the distribution of funds as set forth in Section 4 shall be met over the duration of the measure. To maximize the effective use of funds, revenues may be transferred or exchanged under the following circumstances:
A. The Commission, or agencies receiving funds by annual or multi-year agreement, may exchange or loan funds provided that the percentage of funds allocated for each purpose as provided in Section 4 is maintained over the duration of the measure and reviewed as part each 10-year comprehensive program review as described in Section 17. All proposed exchanges, including agreements between agencies to exchange or loan funds, must include detailed fund repayment provisions, including appropriate interest earnings such that the Commission suffers no loss of funds as a result of the exchange or loan. All exchanges must be approved by the Commission and shall be consistent with any and all rules approved by the Commission relating thereto.
B. The Commission may exchange revenues for federal, state, or other local funds allocated or granted to any public agency within or outside the area of jurisdiction of the Commission to maximize effectiveness in the use of revenues. Such federal, state, or local funds shall be distributed in the same manner as the revenues from the measure.
14 SECTION 8. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT: It is the intent of the Legislature, as stated in the Act, and the Commission that revenues provided from this measure be used to augment, not supplant existing local revenues being used for the purposes set forth in Section 4 herein. Each local agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years completed prior to the operative date of this Ordinance (Fiscal Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03), as was reported in the State Controller's Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads and as verified by an independent auditor. The maintenance of effort level as determined through this process shall be subject to adjustment every three years based on the Construction Cost Index developed by Caltrans. Any increase in the maintenance of effort level based on this adjustment shall not exceed the growth rate in the local jurisdiction’s General Fund revenues over the same time period. The Commission shall not allocate any revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) to any eligible local agency in any fiscal year until that local agency has certified to the Commission that it will include in its budget for that fiscal year an amount of local discretionary funding for streets and roads purposes at least equal to the minimum maintenance of effort requirement. An annual independent audit shall be conducted to verify that the maintenance of effort requirement for each agency was met. Any local agency which does not meet its maintenance of effort requirement in any given year shall have its funding under Section 4(D)(1) reduced in the following year by the amount by which the agency did not meet its required maintenance of effort level. In the event that special circumstances prevent a local agency from meeting its maintenance of effort requirement, the local agency may request up to three additional fiscal years to fulfill its requirement. Such a request must be approved by the Commission. The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee shall also review such requests and make recommendations to the Commission. Any local street and road revenues not allocated pursuant to the maintenance of effort requirement shall be redistributed to the remaining eligible agencies according to the formula described in Section 4(D)(1). The maintenance of effort requirement also shall apply to any local agency discretionary funds being used for the other purposes specified under Section 4. In addition, revenues provided from this Ordinance shall not be used to replace other private developer funding that has been or will be committed for any project.
SECTION 9. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTCIP):
A. New Development Exactions
Starting on July 1, 2008, each local agency in the San Diego region shall contribute $2,000 in exactions from the private sector, for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to the RTCIP. These exactions shall ensure future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System and related regional transportation facility improvements, as defined in San Diego Association of Governments’ (SANDAG’s) most recent, adopted Regional Transportation Plan. New residential housing units constructed for extremely low, very-low, low, and moderate income households, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50105, 50106, 50079.5 and 50093, will be exempted from the $2,000 per unit contribution requirement. The amount of contribution shall be increased annually, in an amount not to exceed the percentage increase set forth in the Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record or similar cost of construction index. Each local agency shall establish an impact fee or other revenue Funding Program by which it collects and funds its contribution to the RTCIP. Each local agency shall be responsible for establishing a procedure for providing its monetary contribution to the RTCIP. The RTCIP revenue will be used to construct improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new or widened arterials, traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements, freeway interchange and related freeway improvements, railroad grade separations, and improvements required for regional
15 express bus and rail transit. This action is predicated on the desire to establish a uniform mitigation program that will mitigate the regional transportation impacts of new development on the Arterial system. While the RTCIP cannot and should not fund all necessary regional transportation network components and improvements, the RTCIP will establish a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute its pro rata share towards addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure.
B. Oversight, Audit and Funding Allocations
The Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) shall be overseen by SANDAG and implemented by each local agency, with the objective of developing a consolidated mitigation program for the San Diego region as a funding source for the Regional Arterial System. The RTCIP and each local agency’s Funding Program shall be subject to an annual review and audit to be carried out by the SANDAG and the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee, as defined in Section 11 of this Ordinance. Any local agency that does not provide its full monetary contribution required by Section 9(A) in a given fiscal year will not be eligible to receive funding for local streets and roads under section 4(D)(1) of the TransNet Ordinance for the immediately following fiscal year. Any funding not allocated under 4(D)(1) as a result of this requirement shall be reallocated to the remaining local agencies that are in compliance with this Section.
C. Implementation of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTCIP)
Provisions for implementation of the RTCIP are described in the document titled “TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program,” which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 10. BONDING AUTHORITY: Upon voter approval of the ballot proposition to approve the extension of the tax and the issuance of bonds payable from the proceeds of the tax, bonds may be issued by the Commission pursuant to Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, at any time, and from time to time, payable from the proceeds of the existing tax and its extension and secured by a pledge of revenues from the proceeds of the tax, in order to finance and refinance improvements authorized by Ordinance 87-1 and this Ordinance. The Commission, in allocating the annual revenues from the measure, shall meet all debt service requirements prior to allocating funds for other projects.
SECTION 11. INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: An Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) shall be established to provide an enhanced level of accountability for expenditure made under the Expenditure Plan. The ITOC will help to ensure that all voter mandates are carried out as required and will develop recommendations for improvements to the financial integrity and performance of the program. The roles and responsibilities of the ITOC, the selection process for ITOC members, and related administrative procedures shall be carried out in substantially the same manner as further described in the document titled “Statement of Understanding Regarding the Implementation of the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee for the TransNet Program,” which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. Up to $250,000 per year, with adjustments for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for San Diego County, may be expended for activities related to the ITOC.
SECTION 12. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: Revenues may be expended by the Commission for staff salaries, wages, benefits, and overhead and for those services, including contractual services, necessary to administer the Act; however, in no case shall such expenditures exceed one percent of the annual revenues provided by the measure. Any funds not utilized in a given fiscal year shall
16 remain available for expenditure in subsequent fiscal years. Costs of performing or contracting for project related work shall be paid from the revenues allocated to the appropriate purpose as set forth in Section 4 herein. An annual independent audit shall be conducted through the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee to assure that the revenues expended by the Commission under this section are necessary and reasonable in carrying out its responsibilities under the Act.
SECTION 13. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEPARATE ACCOUNTS: Each agency receiving funds pursuant to Section 4 shall have its funds deposited in a separate Transportation Improvement Account. Interest earned on funds allocated pursuant to this Ordinance shall be expended only for those purposes for which the funds were allocated.
SECTION 14. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES: Upon approval of this measure by the voters, the Commission shall, in addition to the local rules required to be provided pursuant to this ordinance, adopt implementing ordinances, rules, and policies and take such other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibilities.
SECTION 15. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES: This Ordinance shall be effective on November 3, 2004, if one of the following events occurs: 1) two-thirds of the electors voting on the ballot proposition approving the ordinance vote to approve the ballot proposition on November 2, 2004; or 2) a law is passed on or before November 2, 2004 that lowers the voter approval threshold applicable to this Ordinance and the number of electors voting in favor of this Ordinance meets that threshold. The extension of the tax authorized by Section 3 of this Ordinance shall be operative on April 1, 2008. Bonds payable from the proceeds of the tax may be issued at any time prior to, on or after April 1, 2008. The provisions of Section 4 of this Ordinance, relating to the allocation of revenues, shall be operative on July 1, 2008.
SECTION 16. AMENDMENTS: With the exception of Sections 2(D), 3, 4(E)(1), 8, 9, and 11 which require a vote of the electors of the County of San Diego to amend, this ordinance may be amended to further its purposes by ordinance, passed by roll call vote entered in the minutes, with two-thirds of the Commission concurring consistent with the Commission’s standard voting mechanism. Separate documents incorporated by reference in the Ordinance in Sections 2, 9, and 11 also may be amended with a two-thirds vote of the Commission.
SECTION 17. TEN-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW: The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive review of all projects and programs implemented under the Expenditure Plan to evaluate the performance of the overall program over the previous ten years and to make revisions to the Expenditure Plan to improve its performance over the subsequent ten years. Such comprehensive program reviews shall be conducted in Fiscal Years 2019, 2029 and 2039. Revisions to the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan required as a result of the ten-year review shall be subject to the amendment process in Section 16.
SECTION 18. DESIGNATION OF FACILITIES: Each project or program in excess of $250,000 funded in whole or in part by revenues from this Ordinance shall be clearly designated during its construction or implementation as being provided by revenues from this Ordinance.
SECTION 19. SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, part, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held unenforceable or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining funds or provisions of this Ordinance, and the Commission declares that it would have passed each part of this Ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other part. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any part, clause, or
17 phrase of Section 9(A) of the Ordinance is for any reason held unenforceable or unconstitutional, the remaining portions of Section 9 shall be deemed invalid.
SECTION 20. ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: Article XIII(B) of the California Constitution requires the establishment of an annual appropriations limit for certain governmental entities. The maximum annual appropriations limit for the Commission shall be established as $950 million for the 2004-05 fiscal year. The appropriations limit shall be subject to adjustment as provided by law. All expenditures of the transactions and use tax revenues imposed in Section 3 are subject to the appropriations limit of the Commission.
SECTION 21. DEFINITIONS:
A. Commission. Means the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission created by Chapter 1576 of the Statutes of 1985 (Division 12.7 of the Public Utilities Code, commencing with Section 132000).
B. Transit. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the construction, operation and maintenance of public transportation services and facilities including the acquisition of vehicles and right-of-way. Public transportation services include, but are not limited to, local and express bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), paratransit (dial-a-ride), fixed guideway, light rail (trolley) and commuter rail services and facilities.
C. Local Streets and Roads. Means all purposes necessary and convenient for the purposes as described in Section 2(C)(1).
D. Highways. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of highway facilities, including all state highway routes and any other facilities so designated in the Expenditure Plan.
E. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Means all purposes necessary and convenient to the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of facilities intended for use by bicycles and pedestrians. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities shall also mean facilities and programs that help to encourage walking and the use of bicycles, such as secure bicycle parking facilities and bicycle and pedestrian promotion and safety education programs.
F. Bonds. Means indebtedness and securities of any kind or class, including but not limited to bonds, notes, bond anticipation notes, and commercial paper.
G. Expenditure Plan. Means the expenditure plan required by Section 132302 of the Public Utilities Code to be included in the transactions and use tax ordinance to be approved by the Commission. The expenditure plan includes the allocation of revenues for each authorized purpose.
H. Regional Transportation Plan. Means the long-range transportation plan for the San Diego region required by Section 65080 of the Government Code to be prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments as the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency.
I. Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Means the five-year programming document required by Section 65080 of the Government Code to be prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments as the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency.
18 J. Transit Operator. Means any transit district, included transit district, municipal operator, included municipal operator, or transit development board as defined in Public Utilities Code Section 99210.
K. Regional Comprehensive Plan. Means the document integrating land use, transportation systems, infrastructure needs, and public investment strategies within a regional framework to be prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments as required by Section 132360 of the Public Utilities Code.
SECTION 22. EFFECT ON COMMISSION ORDINANCE 87-1: This Ordinance is intended to extend and expand the provisions of Commission Ordinance 87-1, and shall not be read to supercede Commission Ordinance 87-1. If this Ordinance is not approved by the voters of San Diego County, the provisions of Commission Ordinance 87-1 and all powers, duties, and actions taken thereunder shall remain in full force and effect.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, the ____ day of ______, 2004 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: ______Chairman
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
I, Gary L. Gallegos, the Secretary of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an Ordinance adopted by the San Diego County Regiona1 Transportation Commission on ______, 2004 at the time and by the vote stated above, which said Ordinance is on file in the office of the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission.
DATED: ______, 2004
______Secretary
19 Attachment 2
TransNet Extension 40-Year Expenditure Plan
(in millions of 2002 dollars)
Total TransNet Percent Percent Requirement of Net of Total # Expenditure Plan Component (40-year Total)
1 Congestion Relief Program
2 Major Transportation Corridor Improvements: $6,850 50.5% 48.9% 3 Freeway, Highway, & Transit Capital Projects $5,150 38.0% 36.8% 4 Project Specific Transit Operations $1,100 8.1% 7.9% 5 Freeway, Highway, & Transit Project Environmental Mitigation $600 4.4% 4.3%
6 Local System Improvements $4,480 33.0% 32.0% 7 Local Street & Road Projects $3,950 29.1% 28.2% 8 Local Street & Road Project Environmental Mitigation $250 1.8% 1.8% 9 Smart Growth Incentive Competitive Grant Program $280 2.1% 2.0%
10 Transit System Improvements - $2,240 16.5% 16.0% 11 Continuing Bus/Rail Support and Improvements, including Senior/ 12 Disabled/Youth Transit Passes and Specialized Senior/Disabled Transportation Services
13 Sub-Total $13,570 100.0% N/A
14 Bicycle, Pedestrian & Neighborhood Safety Grant Program $280 * 2.0%
15 Administration $140 * 1.0%
16 Oversight Committee $10 * 0.1%
17 TOTAL TransNet Funding Requirement $14,000 100.0%
18 TOTAL TransNet Funds Available $14,000 100.0%
* These categories deducted "off the top" prior to other allocations.
20 TRANSNET EXTENSION EXPENDITURE PLAN ANALYSIS
TransNet Proposal TABLE 1: Congestion Relief Program - Major Transportation Table Total Net Transit Mitigation Corridor Improvements Capital Capital Operating Cost** Cost Cost* Cost 2 I-15 $1,400 $10 $1,390 $240 3 I-805 $2,100 $24 $2,076 $170 4 I-5 (INTERNATIONAL BORDER TO I-805) $1,893 $21 $1,872 $310 5 I-5 (I-805 TO VANDEGRIFT) $1,670 $60 $1,610 $170 6 SR-52 $410 $3 $407 $0 7 SR-94 / SR-125 $620 $10 $610 $0 8 SR-54 / SR-125 $140 $1 $139 $0 9 SR-67 $240 $22 $218 $0 10 I-8 $30 $1 $29 $0 11 SR-78 $700 $8 $692 $130 12 SR-76 $180 $16 $164 $0 13 SR-56 $100 $1 $99 $0 14 MID-CITY SAN DIEGO TO DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO $90 $1 $89 $80 15 CORONADO TUNNEL $25 $0 $25 $0 16 BORDER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS $25 $0 $25 $0 TOTAL ALL CORRIDORS $9,623 $178 $9,445 $1,100
(See FIGURE 1) TOTAL TRANSNET FUNDING REQUIREMENT $4,650 $1,100
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION $5,750
ESTIMATED FINANCING COST: $500
FREEWAY/HIGHWAY/TRANSIT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION: $600
TOTAL TRANSNET: $6,850
CHANGES TO MARCH 19, 2004 DRAFT VERSION SHOWN IN BOLD. Note: Costs in millions of 2002 dollars and rounded to the nearest $10 million, with the exception of the matching funds included for the Coronado Tunnel and Border Access Improvement projects.
* Of the total net capital cost of $9,445 million, TransNet funding is assumed to leverage approximately 50% from federal, state, and other sources. Additional matching funds are assumed to compensate for the 100% TransNet funds used for the Environmental Mitigation Program, reducing the TransNet requirement to approximately $4,650 million. ** The figures in this column represent the habitat-related mitigation costs included in the original cost estimates that will be funded out of the Environmental Mitigation Program. Page 1 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 2: I-15 CORRIDOR TransNet (SEE FIGURE 2) Extension
Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
1 I-15 SR 163 SR56 8F 8F+4ML/MB $220 c $220
2 I-15 Centre City Pkwy SR 78 8F 8F+4ML $120 c $120 3 I-15 SR94 SR 163 6F/8F 8F+2HOV $200 $3 $197 4 HOV 2 HOV I-15 SR 78 -- E to S, N to W $200 $3 $197 5 HOV 2 HOV I-15 SR 94 -- S to W, E to N $150 $2 $148
6 SR94 I-5 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV $80 $1 $79
No Kearny Mesa Transitway; uses HOV lanes on I- BRT Rt 610 15 between Qualcomm and SR 52. via I15/SR94 Escondido Trans Downtown San Builds/upgrades 6 BRT stations, upgrades 7 CAPITAL Ctr Diego -- downtown stations, builds DARs in 4 locations. $370 $1 $369 BRT Rt 610 via I15/SR94 Escondido Trans Downtown San 10 min peak only service by 2010; 7 OPERATIONS Ctr Diego -- 10 min peak / 15 min offpeak service by 2030 $150 BRT Rt 470 via I15/Mira Mesa Blvd Escondido Trans Escondido to Sorrento Mesa; 8 CAPITAL Ctr Sorrento Mesa -- Uses Rt 610 stations and DARs. $60 <$1 $60
BRT Rt 470 via I15/Mira Mesa Blvd Escondido Trans 15 min peak only service from Escondido by 8 OPERATIONS Ctr Sorrento Mesa -- 2016 $90
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $1,400 $10 $1,390 $240
BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures. c=cleared, project habitat impacts previously cleared or not included.
Page 2 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 3: I-805 CORRIDOR
TransNet (SEE FIGURE 3) Extension
Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
9 I-805 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2HOV, Reversible $150 $2 $148 10 I-805 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+4ML $450 $5 $445 11 I-805 Mission Valley Viaduct 8F 8F+4ML $250 $4 $246 12 I-805 I-8 I-5 8F 8F+4ML $380 $6 $374 13 I-805 and SR 54 interchange improvements (E to S) $10 <$1 $10
BRT Rt 628 Builds fewer DARs along I-805 reflecting changes via I805/SR94 Downtown San to highway improvement; 14 CAPITAL Otay Mesa Diego -- Builds 13 stations and DARs in 4 locations. $500 $3 $497 BRT Rt 628 via I805/SR94 Downtown San 15 min peak / 30 min offpeak svc by 2010; 14 OPERATIONS Otay Mesa Diego -- 10 min peak / 15 min offpeak service by 2020 $120 15 SR94 HWAY I-805 I-15 8F 8F+2HOV $70 $1 $69 BRT Rt 680 via I805/I15/SR52 Builds 1 new station; uses DARs and stations 16 CAPITAL San Ysidro Sorrento Mesa -- built by routes 610 and 628. $70 <$1 $70 BRT Rt 680 via I805/I15/SR52 15 min peak only service by 2015; 10 min peak 16 OPERATIONS San Ysidro Sorrento Mesa -- only service by 2030 $50 17 SR 52 I-15 I-805 6F 6F+2HOV $70 $1 $69 18 HOV 2 HOV I-805 SR 52 -- W to N, S to E $150 $2 $148
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $2,100 $24 $2,076 $170
BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures.
Page 3 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 4: I-5 CORRIDOR (International Border to I-805) TransNet (SEE FIGURE 4) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
19 I-5 SR 905 SR 54 8F 8F+2HOV $130 $2 $128
20 I-5 SR 54 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV $600 $6 $594 8F+2HOV (including environmental and preliminary engineering for I-5/I-8 21 I-5 I-8 I-805 8F interchange improvements $193 $1 $192
Conversion to low-floor vehicles, enhanced Route 500 stations, signal upgrades, extended platforms, 22 Blue Line Trolley Improvements grade separations in Chula Vista $270 $2 $268
Route 500 22 Blue Line Trolley Improvements 7.5 min peak / 7.5 min offpeak by 2020 $90
Route 570 MidCoast Extension of light rail transit from Old Town 23 CAPITAL Old Town UCSD/UTC -- Transit Center to UTC via I-5 and UCSD $670 $10 $660 Route 570 MidCoast 23 OPERATIONS Old Town UCSD/UTC -- 15 min all day service by 2020 $110
Route 634 Signal priority, queue jumper lanes, other 24 Super Loop CAPITAL UTC UCSD -- arterial improvements, vehicles, stations $30 <$1 $30 Route 634 Super Loop 24 OPERATIONS UTC UCSD -- 10 minute all day service by 2010 $110
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $1,893 $21 $1,872 $310
BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures.
Page 4 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 5: I-5 CORRIDOR (I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd.) TransNet (SEE FIGURE 5) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
25 I-5/I-805 Merge 16F 16F+4ML $30 c $30
26 I-5 SR 56 Leucadia Blvd 8F 8F+4ML $400 $16 $384 27 I-5 Leucadia Blvd Vandegrift Blvd. 8F 8F+4ML $370 $11 $359 28 HOV 2 HOV I-5 I-805 -- N to N, S to S $180 $3 $177 29 FWY 2 FWY I-5 SR 56 -- W to N, S to E $140 $4 $136 30 FWY 2 FWY I-5 SR 78 -- W to S, S to E $150 $2 $148 Corridor transit improvements that would include some combination of projects from the following: Coaster: Vehicles, stations improvements including parking, double tracking and other I-5 CORRIDOR: Route improvements, Del Mar tunnel; and 398 COASTER/BRT BRT (El Camino Real/I-5): Vehicles, stations, Route 472 signal priority and other arterial improvements (El Camino Real) along El Camino Real, direct access ramps on I-5 31 CAPITAL Improvements -- south from Encinitas. $400 $24 $376
I-5 CORRIDOR: Route Coaster: 20 min peak / current offpeak svc by 398 COASTER/BRT 2016; 20 min peak / 60 min offpeak service by Route 472 2025; (El Camino Real) BRT (El Camino Real/I-5): 15 min peak / 30 31 OPERATIONS Improvements -- min offpeak service by 2020 $170
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $1,670 $60 $1,610 $170
BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures. c=cleared, project habitat impacts previously cleared or not included. Major north-south transit service improvements are assumed for this corridor with the primary options being enhanced service on the Coaster and BRT service in the El Camino Real/I-5 Corridor.
Page 5 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 6: SR-52 TransNet (SEE FIGURE 6) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
32 SR 52 I-15 SR 125 4F 6F+2ML (Reversible) $170 $3 $167
(I-15 - I-805 segment included in I-805 corridor for transit services; I-805/SR 52 HOV2HOV Connector included in I-805 corrido 33 SR 52 SR 125 SR 67 -- 4F $240 c $240
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $410 $3 $407 $0 c=cleared, project habitat impacts previously cleared or not included.
TABLE 7: SR-94 / SR-125 TransNet (SEE FIGURE 6) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost 34 SR 94 and SR 125 Interchange W to N, S to E $110 $2 $108 (I-805 to I-5 segments included in I-15 and I-805 corridors for transit services)
Widen to 6-lane freeway from SR 125 to 35 Avocado Blvd and provide 4-lane conventional SR 94 SR 125 Steele Canyon 4F/4C-2C highway from Avocado Blvd to Steele Canyon $90 $2 $88 36 SR 94/SR 125 I-805 I-8 8F 8F+2HOV $350 $5 $345
Route 520 Conversion to low-floor vehicles, enhanced 37 Orange Line Trolley Improvements -- stations, signal upgrades, extended platforms. CAPITAL Current headway. $70 $1 $69
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $620 $10 $610 $0
Page 6 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 8: SR-54 / SR-125 TransNet (SEE FIGURE 6) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
Widen to provide a continuous 6F+2 HOV 38 SR 54/SR 125 I-805 SR 94 4F+2/6 F Facility $140 $1 $139
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $140 $1 $139 $0
TABLE 9: SR-67
TransNet (SEE FIGURE 6) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost 4C - To be constructed with environmental 39 SR 67 Mapleview St Dye Rd 2C enhancements $240 $22 $218
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $240 $22 $218 $0
TABLE 10: I-8 CORRIDOR TransNet (SEE FIGURE 6) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
40 I-8 Second St Los Coches 4F 6F $30 $1 $29 TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $30 $1 $29 $0
Page 7 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 11: SR-78 TransNet (SEE FIGURE 7) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
41 SR 78 I-5 I-15 6F 6F+2HOV $500 $5 $495
FWY 2 FWY I-5 SR 78 Included in I-5 North Coast Corridor
HOV 2 HOV I-15 SR 78 Included in I-15 Corridor Corridor transit improvements that would include some combination of projects from the SR 78 Corridor Route following: 399 SPRINTER/ SPRINTER: double tracking, North County Fair 42 BRT Route 471 Improvements -- extension, some grade separations; and (Palomar Airport Rd) BRT (Palomar Airport Rd): vehicles, signal CAPITAL priority and other arterial improvements; builds 18 stations $200 $3 $197 SR 78 Corridor Route SPRINTER: 15 min peak / current offpeak svc by 399 SPRINTER/ 2016, 15 min all day service by 2030; 42 BRT Route 471 Improvements -- BRT (Palomar Airport Rd): 15 min peak / 30 (Palomar Airport Rd) min off peak service by 2020 OPERATIONS $130
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $700 $8 $692 $130 BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures. Major east-west transit service improvements are assumed for this corridor with the primary options being enhanced service on the Sprinter and BRT service in the Palomar Airport Rd / San Marcos Blvd Corridor.
TABLE 12: SR-76 TransNet (SEE FIGURE 7) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
4C - (Mission Road to I-15 segment to be 43 SR 76 Melrose Dr I-15 2C constructed with environmental enhancements) $180 $16 $164
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $180 $16 $164 $0
Page 8 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 13: SR-56 TransNet (SEE FIGURE 7) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
44 SR 56 I-5 I-15 4F 6F $100 $1 $99
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $100 $1 $99 $0
TABLE 14: MID-CITY SAN DIEGO TO DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO TransNet (SEE FIGURE 7) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost BRT Showcase Rt 611 Signal priority, queue jumper lanes, other via El Cajon&Park Downtown San 45 SDSU -- arterial improvements, vehicles; builds 13 Blvds Diego stations and upgrades to downtown stations CAPITAL $90 $1 $89 BRT Showcase Rt 611 via El Cajon&Park Downtown San 45 SDSU -- 10 min peak / 15 min offpeak by 2006 Blvds Diego OPERATIONS - $80
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $90 $1 $89 $80 BRT capital costs include new and/or improved stations, direct access ramps (DARs), vehicles, right of way, and arterial priority measures.
Page 9 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR TRANSNET EXTENSION
TABLE 15: CORONADO TUNNEL TransNet (SEE FIGURE 7) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost Tunnel 46 SR75/SR 282 Glorietta Blvd Alameda Blvd -- Construction Match Only $25 c $25
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $25 $0 $25 $0 c=cleared, project habitat impacts previously cleared or not included.
TABLE 16: BORDER ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS TransNet (SEE FIGURE 7) Extension Net Project Capital Mitigation Operating Route/Facility From To Existing Improvement Capital Number Cost Cost Cost Cost
Border Access Miscellaneous improvements to Construction 47 -- Improvements enhance access in the border area. Match $25 c $25
TOTAL FOR CORRIDOR: $25 $0 $25 $0 c=cleared, project habitat impacts previously cleared or not included.
Page 10 Revisions Since March 19, 2004 Board Discussion 04/15/2004 San Diego Region
Camp MAP AREA Pendleton
North County 15 North County West East 5 76 76
Oceanside Vista
78 San Marcos
Carlsbad Escondido
78
78
Encinitas
67 Solana Beach 5 Poway P A 56 C County of San Diego I Del Mar F I C O C E 15 A North East N City County
52 Santee 67 Figure 1 52 PROPOSED TRANSNET 8 5 PROJECTS 805 125 April 2004 San Diego El 805 Transit 8 Cajon La Managed/HOV Lanes Mesa 15 General Purpose Lanes 163 Lemon 94 Grove 125 General Purpose Lanes 94 with Environmental Enhancements 282 Central
Freeway Connectors Coronado National 54 HOV to HOV Connectors City 75 Border Access 125 See Table 1 Chula Vista 805 South MILES County 036 Imperial 0 4.83 9.6 5 905 UNITED STATES KILOMETERS Beach 11 MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. San Diego Region PROJECT DESCRIPTION I-15 CORRIDOR
PROJECT COST ($ Millions) 1 I-15 (SR-163 – SR-56) $220 Camp MAP AREA Pendleton North County 2 I-15 (Centre City Parkway – SR-78) $120
East 3 I-15 (SR-94 – SR-163) $197 North County 15 4 I-15 / SR-78 (HOV – HOV) $197
West 5 I-15 / SR-94 (HOV – HOV) $148
5 6 SR-94 (I-5 – I-15) $79 76 7 BRT (Escondido – Downtown) $519
Oceanside Vista 8 BRT (Escondido – Sorrento Mesa) $150
78 San $1,630 Marcos TOTAL COST: P A See Table 2 C 4 I F I Carlsbad C Escondido O C 78 E A 78 N 2
Encinitas
67 Solana Beach 5 Poway
Figure 2 56 County of San Diego PROPOSED TRANSNET Del Mar PROJECTS 1 AprilFigure 2004 7 8 I-15 CORRIDORS 15 North East Transit November 2003 7 City County NovemberManaged/HOV 2003 Lanes
52 Santee General Purpose Lanes 67 52 General Purpose Lanes 8 with Environmental 5 805 Enhancements 125
Freeway Connectors San 3 Diego El 805 HOV to HOV Connectors 8 Cajon La Border Access 15 Mesa 163 OVERALL NETWORK 94 Lemon Transit Grove 6 125 94 Managed/HOV Lanes 282 Central General Purpose Lanes 5 General Purpose Lanes Coronado 54 with Environmental National Enhancements City 75 Freeway Connectors 125 HOV to HOV Connectors Chula Vista South Border Access 805 County MILES 036 Imperial 0 4.83 9.6 5 KM Beach 905 11 UNITED STATES MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. San Diego Region PROJECT DESCRIPTION I-805 CORRIDOR
PROJECT COST ($ Millions) 9 I-805 (SR-905 – SR-54) $148 Camp MAP AREA Pendleton 10 I-805 (SR-54 – I-8) $445
11 I-805 (Mission Valley) $246 North County 15 North County 12 I-805 (I-8 – I-5) $374 West 13 I-805 / SR-54 (Interchange) $10 East 5 14 BRT (Otay Mesa – Downtown) $617 76 15 SR-94 (I-805 – I-15) $69
Oceanside Vista 16 BRT (San Ysidro – Sorrento Mesa) $120
78 San 17 SR-52 (I-15 – I-805) $69 Marcos 18 I-805 / SR-52 (HOV – HOV) $148
TOTAL COST: $2,246
Carlsbad Escondido See Table 3 P A C 78 I F I 78 C O Encinitas C E A N 67 Solana Beach 5 Poway
Figure 3 56 County of San Diego PROPOSED TRANSNET Del Mar PROJECTS AprilFigure 2004 7 I-805 CORRIDORS 18 15 North East NovemberTransit 2003 805 City County NovemberManaged/HOV 2003 Lanes 52 Santee General Purpose Lanes 17 67 52 8 General Purpose Lanes with Environmental 5 12 125 Enhancements 16 Freeway Connectors San Diego El 805 HOV to HOV Connectors 8 Cajon La Border Access 11 Mesa 15 163 OVERALL NETWORK Lemon 15 94 Grove Transit Central 94 Managed/HOV Lanes 125 282 10 General Purpose Lanes 13 54 Coronado General Purpose Lanes National with Environmental City Enhancements 75 Freeway Connectors 9 125 HOV to HOV Connectors Chula 14 Vista 805 South Border Access County MILES 036 Imperial 16 5 UNITED STATES KM 0 4.83 9.6 Beach 11 905 MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. San Diego Region PROJECT DESCRIPTION I-5 CORRIDOR (International Border to I-805) 76 PROJECT COST ($ Millions) Camp 19 I-5 (SR-905 – SR-54) $128 MAP AREA Pendleton
20 I-5 (SR-54 – I-8) $594 North County 15 North County 21 I-5 (I-8 – I-805) $192 West East 22 Blue Line Trolley Improvements $358 5 23 Mid-Coast Transit Guideway Project $770 76 24 Mid-Coast Super Loop $140
Oceanside Vista TOTAL COST: $2,182 78 San Marcos See Table 4
P A Carlsbad Escondido C I F I 78 C O C 78 E A Encinitas N
67 Solana Beach 5 Poway Figure 4 56 PROPOSED TRANSNET Del Mar County of San Diego PROJECTS April 2004 I-5 CORRIDOR (International Border to I-805) 15 North East NovemberTransit 2003 City County NovemberManaged/HOV 2003 Lanes 24 52 Santee General Purpose Lanes 67 52 General Purpose Lanes 21 8 with Environmental 5 805 125 Enhancements 23 Freeway Connectors San Diego El 805 HOV to HOV Connectors 8 Cajon La Border Access Mesa 163 15
OVERALL NETWORK Lemon 20 94 Grove Transit 125 94 Managed/HOV Lanes 282 Central General Purpose Lanes
General Purpose Lanes Coronado 54 with Environmental National Enhancements City 75 Freeway Connectors 22 125 HOV to HOV Connectors Chula 19 Vista 805 South Border Access County MILES 036 Imperial 5 KM 0 4.83 9.6 Beach 905 11 UNITED STATES MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. San Diego Region PROJECT DESCRIPTION I-5 CORRIDOR (I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd.) PROJECT COST ($ Millions) Camp 25 I-5 – I-805 Merge $30 MAP AREA Pendleton 26 I-5 (SR-56 – Leucadia Blvd.) $384 North County 15 27 I-5 (Leucadia Blvd. – Vandegrift Blvd.) $359 North County West 28 I-5 / I-805 (HOV – HOV) $177 East 76 29 I-5 / SR-56 Connectors $136 5 30 30 I-5 / SR-78 Connectors $148 31 North-South Transit $546 Oceanside Vista Improvements: COASTER / BRT (El Camino Real) 78 San Marcos TOTAL COST: $1,780
See Table 5 P A C I F Carlsbad Escondido I C 27 O C 78 E 31 78 A N 31 Encinitas
67 Solana Beach 5 26 Poway Figure 5 56 29 County of San Diego PROPOSED TRANSNET Del Mar PROJECTS April 2004 I-5Figure CORRIDOR 7 (I-805 to Vandegrift Blvd.) 25 15 North East NovemberTransit 2003 City County NovemberManaged/HOV 2003 Lanes 28 52 Santee General Purpose Lanes 67 52 8 General Purpose Lanes with Environmental 5 805 125 Enhancements San Freeway Connectors Diego 805 El HOV to HOV Connectors 8 Cajon La Border Access Mesa 15 163 OVERALL NETWORK Lemon 94 Grove Transit 125 94 Managed/HOV Lanes 282 Central General Purpose Lanes Coronado General Purpose Lanes National 54 with Environmental City Enhancements 75 Freeway Connectors 125 HOV to HOV Connectors Chula Vista 805 South Border Access County MILES 036 Imperial 5 905 UNITED STATES KM 0 4.83 9.6 Beach 11 MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. San Diego Region PROJECT DESCRIPTION EAST COUNTY CORRIDORS
PROJECT COST ($ Millions) 32 SR-52 (I-15 – SR-125) $167 76
Camp MAP AREA Pendleton 33 SR-52 (SR-125 – SR-67) $240 34 SR-94 / SR-125 Connectors $108 15 North County 35 SR-94 (SR-125 – Steele Canyon) $88 North County West 36 SR-94 / 125 (I-805 – I-8) $345 East 5 37 Orange Line Trolley Improvements $69 76 38 SR-54 / SR-125 (I-805 – SR-94) $139
Oceanside Vista 39 SR-67 (Mapleview – Dye Rd. $218
78 San 40 I-8 (2nd Street – Los Coches) $29 Marcos
TOTAL COST: $1,403
See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 P A Carlsbad C Escondido I F I 78 C O 78 C E A A Encinitas N
67 Solana Beach 5 Poway
56 Figure 6 County of San Diego Del Mar PROPOSED TRANSNET PROJECTS 39 AprilFigure 2004 7 EAST COUNTY CORRIDORS 15 North East NovemberTransit 2003 City County NovemberManaged/HOV 2003 Lanes Santee 52 General Purpose Lanes 67 52 8 General Purpose Lanes 32 with Environmental 5 805 125 Enhancements 33 San Freeway Connectors Diego 40 805 El 8 Cajon HOV to HOV Connectors La Mesa Border Access 15 36 34 163 OVERALL NETWORK Lemon 94 Grove Transit 35 37 94 Managed/HOV Lanes 282 Central 125 General Purpose Lanes Coronado General Purpose Lanes National 54 with Environmental City 38 Enhancements 75
Freeway Connectors 125 HOV to HOV Connectors Chula Vista 805 South Border Access County MILES 036 Imperial 5 905 UNITED STATES KM 0 4.83 9.6 Beach 11 MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. San Diego Region PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS
PROJECT COST ($ Millions) 41 SR-78 (I-5 – I-15) $495 43 76 Camp MAP AREA Pendleton 42 East-West Corridor Transit $327 Improvements: SPRINTER / BRT (Palomar Airport Rd.) North County 15 North County 43 SR-76 (Melrose – I-15) $164 West East 44 SR-56 (I-5 – I-15) $99 5 45 BRT (SDSU – Downtown) $169 76 42 46 Coronado Tunnel (Construction only) $25 Oceanside Vista 47 Border Access Improvements $25
78 San 41 Marcos TOTAL COST: $1,304
See Tables 11 – 16
P Carlsbad A Escondido C 42 I F 78 I C O 78 C E E Encinitas A N
67 Solana Beach 5 44 Poway Figure 7 56 County of San Diego PROPOSED TRANSNET Del Mar PROJECTS AprilFigure 2004 7 ADDITIONAL CORRIDORS 15 North East NovemberTransit 2003 City County NovemberManaged/HOV 2003 Lanes 52 Santee General Purpose Lanes 67 52 8 General Purpose Lanes with Environmental 5 805 125 Enhancements Freeway Connectors San Diego El 805 HOV to HOV Connectors 8 Cajon La Border Access Mesa 15 163 OVERALL NETWORK 45 Lemon 94 Grove Transit 125 94 Managed/HOV Lanes 282 Coronado Central General Purpose Lanes 46 General Purpose Lanes National 54 with Environmental City Enhancements 75 Freeway Connectors 125 HOV to HOV Connectors Chula Vista 805 South Border Access County MILES 036 Imperial 5 905 UNITED STATES KM 0 4.83 9.6 Beach 11 47 MEXICO
1-D Tijuana, B.C. Attachment 3
TRANSNET EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION PROGRAM (EMP) PRINCIPLES
1. The TransNet Extension Expenditure Plan shall include a funding allocation category entitled “Transportation Project Environmental Mitigation Program.”
2. The Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP) shall include an allocation for the estimated direct costs for mitigation of upland and wetland habitat impacts for regional transportation projects included in the proposed TransNet Expenditure Plan, as well as for regional projects that are included in the adopted 2030 Regional Transportation Plan Mobility Network. The “mitigation costs,” including land acquisition, restoration, management, and monitoring, for these regional projects are estimated at approximately $450 million. Funds for direct mitigation, management and monitoring of these projects shall be placed into a “Transportation Project Mitigation Fund,” where they can be used as partial funding for regional acquisition, habitat management and monitoring activities related to implementation of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), and future amendments thereto.
3. The EMP shall also include an allocation for the estimated direct costs for mitigation of upland and wetland habitat impacts for local transportation projects, in a total amount not to exceed $200 million. Funds for direct mitigation of these projects shall also be placed in the “Transportation Project Mitigation Fund” outlined in Section 2 above.
4. The EMP shall also include a funding allocation for the estimated economic benefits of incorporating specified regional and local transportation projects into applicable habitat conservation plans, thereby allowing mitigation requirements for covered species to be fixed, and allowing mitigation requirements to be met through purchase of land in advance of need in larger blocks at a lower cost. The benefits of this approach are estimated at approximately $200 million ($150 million for regional projects and $50 million for local projects). This amount will be allocated to a “Regional Habitat Conservation Fund,” which will be made available for regional habitat acquisition, management and monitoring activities necessary to implement the MSCP and MHCP described in Section 2 above. Therefore, the total funding allocation for the Environmental Mitigation Program shall be set at $850 million.
5. SANDAG shall work with the Wildlife Agencies (California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service) and permit holders under the MSCP and MHCP to establish a regional entity that will be responsible for the allocation of funding included in the “Regional Habitat Conservation Fund” in accordance with the goals and policies of said plans. In addition, this entity will provide recommendations regarding the structure and content of future funding measures as described in Section 10 below.
6. Land acquisitions, and management and monitoring activities, that result from the implementation of this program shall receive credit toward the “regional funding obligations,” if any, under the applicable habitat conservation plans, with the exception that land acquisitions in the MSCP planning area (as designated and permitted as of April 9, 2004) shall not count toward the regional funding obligation for land acquisition (currently estimated at 10,267 acres) established for that program.
38
7. In order to provide the economic benefits of the proposed EMP, the participating local jurisdictions shall apply for, and the Wildlife Agencies shall process, requests for any necessary amendments to the previously adopted MSCP and related agreements and permits, to include Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) transportation projects as “covered projects” under this plan pursuant to the standards in effect at that time for the remaining life of those plans. For projects in the planning areas of the MHCP and proposed MSCP North County Suburban for unincorporated North County, the participating local jurisdictions shall include RTP projects in their proposed plans and implementing agreements, and the Wildlife Agencies will process those plans and agreements so as to provide coverage for RTP projects for the life of those plans.
8. The expenditure of funds included in this allocation category shall be phased over time in order to allow goals of regional habitat acquisition, management and monitoring to be met, while also meeting the requirements for individual transportation projects. The timeframe by which the phasing will be done will allow for the early acquisition of land within the first 10 years of the permits and/or amended permits with corresponding funds available for management and monitoring. In addition, mitigation land for projects in the planning area covered in the proposed MSCP for unincorporated North County shall be purchased within the multiple habitat planning area designated for that plan, while mitigation for projects in the adopted MSCP and MHCP planning areas shall be purchased within the multiple habitat planning areas designated for those plans, unless otherwise approved by SANDAG, the Wildlife Agencies, and affected permit holders. As transportation projects are completed, if it is determined that the actual direct costs for mitigation of upland and wetland habitat impacts are less than those that were estimated in Section 2 above, those cost savings shall be transferred to the “Regional Habitat Conservation Fund” described in Section 4 above.
9. In addition to the direct economic benefits associated with inclusion of these projects in the MSCP and MHCP, SANDAG and the Wildlife Agencies both recognize the value of expedited processing of environmental documents for individual transportation projects by all involved Federal, State, and regional agencies. Therefore, SANDAG and the Wildlife Agencies shall actively support efforts to accomplish complete review of environmental documents within reduced timeframes. To the extent that the processing time required for such documents is reduced, the value of expedited processing shall be allocated equally between transportation-related expenditures and the “Regional Habitat Conservation Fund". SANDAG and the Wildlife Agencies will develop guidelines for implementing this principle within one year of the passage of the TransNet extension.
10. SANDAG agrees to act on additional regional funding measures (a ballot measure and/or other secure funding commitments) to meet the long-term requirements for implementing habitat conservation plans in the San Diego region, within the timeframe necessary to allow a ballot measure to be considered by the voters no later than four years after passage of the TransNet Extension. In the event that such future funding measures generate funding to fully meet regional habitat acquisition and management requirements, SANDAG is authorized to reallocate excess funds included in the “Regional Habitat Conservation Fund” to local transportation projects.
39
11. In the event that SANDAG and its member agencies are not able to obtain coverage for transportation projects the MSCP and MHCP in accordance with the principles set forth above, the funding allocations set forth in this program shall be made available to meet habitat mitigation requirements of transportation projects, either through an alternative program that is acceptable to SANDAG, its member agencies, and the Wildlife Agencies, or through environmental review and permitting of individual projects under existing regulatory procedures.
40 Attachment 4
TransNet Expenditure Plan:
Environmental Enhancement Criteria Mitigating Highway 67, 76, and 94 Expansion Impacts
Segments of Highways SR 67, SR 76 and SR 94 are proposed for expansion from two to four lanes through funding identified in the TransNet Expenditure Plan. The proposed expansions will have substantial direct and indirect impacts to plant and animal species and to the regional wildlife movement corridors bisected by the roads. These corridors are essential “infrastructure” for our region’s nationally-recognized habitat preservation plans.
Very high levels of road kill are a significant existing condition on all of these highway segments, which could be exacerbated by the increased traffic along the expanded highways should they be widened. Direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant and animal populations, and to the function of the wildlife corridors, should be mitigated in order to produce an on-site “net- benefit” to species and to the movement of wildlife along these wildlife corridors.
In order to accomplish this objective, it is necessary that the adopted TransNet Expenditure Plan include policy language and directives that insures the “net benefit” mitigation standard is met. This will require a comprehensive baseline analysis of existing and future conditions, adoption of measures to mitigate direct and indirect impacts to species, adoption of measures to accommodate species-specific wildlife movement through the corridors, and implementation of capital project designs that can reduce impacts.
Biological analysis and recommendations need to be consistent with Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) and Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) goals and objectives, data, and protocols. Analysis will commence at the time of, or prior to, TransNet funding availability.
Key road segments:
¾ SR67, Mapleview to Dye Road
¾ SR76, Melrose to I-15
¾ SR94, Jamacha Road to Steele Canyon Road
41 Attachment 5
TransNet EXTENSION REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Providing new transportation services and facilities is an expensive undertaking. Not providing them, however, will result in a decreased quality of life due to significant increases in traffic congestion, degrading mobility throughout the San Diego region. As SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan explains, our challenge is especially critical for the Regional Arterial System, which is forecast to carry an increasingly significant amount of traffic volume. The SANDAG Board recognizes the need to establish a new Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) that ensures future development will contribute its share toward funding and mitigating new traffic impacts on the Regional Arterial System.
A. Funding Program
1. Section 9 of the TransNet Ordinance requires that local jurisdictions establish a program or mechanism that provides $2,000 per new residential unit for the purpose of funding the Regional Arterial System, including SR 75. For purposes of the RTCIP, the Regional Arterial System is defined in SANDAG’s most recent and adopted Regional Transportation Plan. Each jurisdiction’s program or mechanism shall be known as a “Funding Program.” Local jurisdictions may choose to implement a Funding Program through a development impact fee program or other exactions from the private sector.
2. In the event a jurisdiction(s) chooses to establish a development impact fee program to meet its Funding Program requirements, said program shall be consistent with Government Code Section 66000 et seq.
3. SANDAG will be responsible for producing the required nexus study to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. for Funding Programs utilizing a development impact fee. The first draft of the regional nexus study shall be presented to the SANDAG Board within nine months of the successful reauthorization of TransNet.
4. In no case will non-residential development be subject to a development impact fee to meet the requirements of Section 9 of the TransNet Ordinance.
5. Each jurisdiction’s Funding Program shall be submitted for review by the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) referred to in Section 11 of the TransNet Ordinance prior to April 1, 2008, approved by Regional Transportation Commission by June 1, 2008 and shall become operative on July 1, 2008. Failure to submit a Funding Program for review by the ITOC by April 1 of any year beginning April 1, 2008 shall result in that jurisdiction losing eligibility to receive funding for local streets and roads under Section 4(D)(1) of the Ordinance until July 1 of the following year.
42
B. Purpose
1. The purpose of each jurisdiction’s Funding Program is to provide additional revenue to fund those facility and service improvements on the Regional Arterial System necessitated by development of newly constructed residences.
C. Fee Adjustment
1. The fee amount per residential unit shall be adjusted by SANDAG on July 1 of each year beginning July 1, 2009 based upon the Engineering Construction Cost Index as published by the Engineering News Record or similar cost of construction index.
2. Any increase shall not exceed the percentage increase set forth in the construction index. In no event, however, shall the increase be less than two percent per year. The purpose of this annual adjustment is to retain purchasing power in anticipation of future inflation.
D. Expenditure of Funding Program Revenues
1. Revenues collected under Section 9 of the TransNet Ordinance shall be deposited into each jurisdiction’s Funding Program for use on the Regional Arterial System as described in this Subsection D.
2. Revenue collected through the Funding Programs shall be used to construct transportation improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new arterial roadway lanes, turning lanes, reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services, or similar types of improvements, preliminary and final engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand generated by new development throughout the San Diego region. A reasonable portion of the program revenue, up to a maximum of three percent, may be used for fund administration.
3. Expenditure of the Funding Program revenues shall be in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in SANDAG’s most recent and adopted long-range Regional Transportation Plan and with Section 5 of the TransNet Ordinance. To maximize the effective use of these Funding Program revenues, they may be transferred, loaned, or exchanged in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the TransNet Ordinance.
E. Exemptions
The following development types shall be exempt from the Funding Program requirements:
1. New moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential units as defined in Health & Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, 50106, and by reference in Government Code section 65585.1.
43
2. Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities.
3. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing dwelling unit.
4. All new, rehabilitated, and/or reconstructed non-residential structures.
5. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreements (pursuant to applicable Government Code Sections) prior to the effective date of this ordinance, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided, however that, if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended after July 1, 2008, the requirements of this funding program shall be imposed.
6. Guest Dwellings
7. Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning.
8. Kennels and Catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit.
9. The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship, eligible for property tax exemption.
10. Residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to July 1, 2008.
11. Condominium conversions
F. Credits
1. If a developer funds or constructs improvements on the Regional Arterial System and/or as that arise out of SANDAG’s Congestion Management Program, the developer shall receive credit for the costs associated with the arterial improvements, offsetting the revenue requirements of the Funding Program. Such credits shall only apply to the Funding Program for the jurisdiction in which the residential unit was developed.
2. In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by the local jurisdiction in consultation with the developer.
3. The amount of the credit shall not exceed the revenue requirements of the most current Funding Program or actual cost, whichever is less.
4. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in their Funding Program, against the Regional Arterial System and eliminate any overlap in its Funding Program except where there is a legally recognized benefit district established.
44
5. If there is a legally recognized benefit district established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against its Funding Program.
G. Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Funding Program Revenues
1. Each jurisdiction shall establish and implement a procedure to levy and collect its required contribution to the RTCIP in its Funding Program document.
2. Each jurisdiction shall determine its own schedule for collecting and/or contributing private sector exactions to its Funding Program. This schedule shall be kept up-to-date and provided to SANDAG and the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee each year at the time of the annual review and audit. Each jurisdiction must submit its Funding Program documents, including an expenditure plan and financial records pertaining to its Funding Program, to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee for a review and audit by July 1 of each year beginning July 1, 2009. The Taxpayer Independent Oversight Committee shall review each jurisdiction’s Funding Program consistent with its auditing role as described in Section 11 of the Ordinance and the Statement of Understanding referenced in that Section.
3. Funding Program revenue requirements shall not be waived.
4. Each jurisdiction shall have up to but no more than seven fiscal years to expend Funding Program revenues on the Regional Arterial Systems projects. The seven year term shall commence on the first day of July following the jurisdiction’s receipt of the revenue. At the time of the review and audit by the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, each jurisdiction collecting a development impact fee to meet the requirements of its Funding Program shall provide the Committee with written findings for any expended, unexpended and uncommitted fees in their Program Fund and demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq. Unless a planned need for such fees can be demonstrated and a justification for the delay can be provided that is acceptable to the Taxpayer Independent Oversight Committee, the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the Funding Program revenues shall be transferred to the Regional Transportation Commission (SANDAG) to be expended within three years on qualified projects within the same subregion. Contributions to the Funding Program not committed or expended by the tenth anniversary date of the July 1 following collection shall be refunded to the current record owner of the development project on a prorated basis. In no case will a refund be more than was initially contributed to the Funding Program.
5. The Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee identified in Section 11 of the Ordinance shall be responsible for issuing an annual audit statement on each jurisdiction’s compliance with requirements of Section 9 of the TransNet Ordinance by October 1 of each year beginning October 1, 2009. SANDAG will report to the Board on the RTCIP and the annual audit statement in November of each year beginning in November 2009.
45 Attachment 6
STATEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THE TRANSNET PROGRAM
Purpose of the ITOC
The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is intended to provide an increased level of accountability for expenditures made under the TransNet Extension, in addition to the independent annual fiscal and compliance audits required under the existing TransNet program. The ITOC should function in an independent, open and transparent manner to ensure that all voter mandates are carried out as required in the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, and to develop positive, constructive recommendations for improvements and enhancements to the financial integrity and performance of the TransNet program.
Intent of the ITOC as a Functional Partner to SANDAG
The TransNet Ordinance contains a summary of the ITOC’s role and responsibilities consistent with the above Purpose. In this document, additional and supplementary details with regard to the ITOC are delineated. These pertain to the process for selecting members of ITOC, terms and conditions governing membership, responsibilities, funding and administration, and conflict of interest provisions.
It is noteworthy that these details have been developed in a cooperative process between SANDAG and representatives of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, and with the involvement of other transportation professionals within the region. This document is understood to provide the basis for describing how the ITOC will function once the Ordinance is approved.
In addition to the details outlined in this document the intent that provides the foundation for the desired partnership between ITOC and SANDAG, as viewed by the principal authors, is summarized as follows:
Resource—it is the intent that the ITOC will serve as an independent resource to assist in SANDAG’s implementation of TransNet projects and programs. The Committee’s membership is designed to provide to SANDAG a group of professionals who, collectively, can offer SANDAG the benefit of their experience to advance the timely and efficient implementation of TransNet projects and programs. The ITOC will work in a public way to ensure all deliberations are conducted in an open manner. Regular reports from the ITOC to the SANDAG Board of Directors (or policy committees) are expected with regard to program and project delivery, and overall performance.
Productive—it is the intent that the ITOC will rely upon data and processes available at SANDAG, studies initiated by the ITOC, and other relevant data generated by reputable sources. It is understood, however, that SANDAG will be continuously striving to improve the reliability of data and to update analytical and modeling processes to be consistent with the state-of-the- art, and that the ITOC will be kept abreast of any such efforts, and invited to participate in development of such updates in a review capacity.
46 Cost-efficient—it is the intent that the ITOC will not add cost burden to SANDAG’s implementation of the TransNet program and projects. Rather, through a cooperative and productive working relationship between ITOC and the SANDAG implementation team, it is the objective that costs will be saved.
Flexible—it is the intent that the ITOC will assist SANDAG to be opportunistic to take advantage of changing situations in the future with regard to technologies and transportation developments. Therefore, the provisions contained below are viewed through 2048 based upon a 2004 perspective and are not meant to be unduly restrictive on ITOC’s and SANDAG’s roles and responsibilities.
Membership and Selection Process
1. Membership: There shall be seven ITOC voting members with the characteristics described below. The intent is to have one member representing each of the specified areas of expertise. If, however, after a good faith effort, qualified individuals have not been identified for one or more of the areas of expertise, then no more than two members from one or more of the remaining areas of expertise may be selected. For each of the areas of expertise listed below, an individual representing one of the region’s colleges or universities with a comparable level of academic experience also would be eligible for consideration.
A professional in the field of municipal/public finance and/or budgeting with a minimum of ten years in a relevant and senior decision making position in the public or private sector. A licensed architect, civil engineer or traffic engineer with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the fields of transportation and/or urban design in government or the private sector. A professional with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in real estate, land economics, and/or right-of-way acquisition. A professional with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the management of large-scale construction projects. A licensed engineer with appropriate credentials in the field of transportation project design or construction and a minimum of ten years experience in a relevant and senior decision making position in the government or private sector. The chief executive officer or person in a similar senior-level decision making position, of a major private sector employer with demonstrated experience in leading a large organization. A professional in biology or environmental science with demonstrated experience of ten years or more with environmental regulations and major project mitigation requirements and/or habitat acquisition and management. Ex-Officio Members: SANDAG Executive Director and the San Diego County Auditor
The criteria established for the voting members of the ITOC are intended to provide the skills and experience needed for the ITOC to carry out its responsibilities and to play a valuable and constructive role in the ongoing improvement and enhancement of the TransNet program.
47 Applications will be requested from individuals interested in serving on the ITOC through an open, publicly noticed solicitation process.
2. Technical Screening Committee: A technical screening committee will be established to review applications received from interested individuals. This committee will consist of three members selected by the SANDAG Executive Director from high-level professional staff of local, regional, state or federal transportation agencies outside of the San Diego region, or from one of the region’s colleges or universities in a transportation-related field, or a combination thereof. The committee will develop a list of candidates determined to be qualified to serve on the ITOC based on the criteria established for the open position(s) on the ITOC. The technical screening committee will recommend two candidates for each open position from the list of qualified candidates for consideration by the Selection Committee. The recommendations shall be made within 30 days of the noticed closing date for applications.
3. Selection Committee: A selection committee shall be established to select the ITOC members from the list of qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee. The selection committee shall consist of the following:
Two members of the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors The Mayor of the City of San Diego A mayor from the Cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, or National City selected by the mayors of those cities. A mayor from the Cities of El Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, or Santee selected by the mayors of those cities. A mayor from the Cities of Carlsbad, Del Mar, Encinitas, Oceanside, or Solana Beach selected by the mayors of those cities. A mayor from the Cities of Escondido, Poway, San Marcos, or Vista selected by the mayors of those cities.
The selection of ITOC members shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of recommendations from the technical screening committee. All meetings of the selection committee shall be publicly noticed and conducted in full compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act. Should the selection committee be unable to reach agreement on a candidate from the qualified candidates recommended by the technical screening committee, the selection committee shall request the technical screening committee to recommend two additional qualified candidates for consideration.
Terms and Conditions for ITOC members
ITOC members shall serve a term of four years, except that initial appointments may be staggered with terms of two to four years.
ITOC members shall serve without compensation except for direct expenses related to the work of the ITOC.
In no case shall any member serve more than eight years on the ITOC.
48 If and when vacancies in the membership of the ITOC occur, the same selection process as outlined above shall be followed to select a replacement to fill the remainder of the term. At the completion of a term, eligible incumbent members will need to apply for reappointment for another term.
Term limits for ITOC members should be staggered to prevent significant turnover at any one time. The initial appointment process should be based on this staggered term limit concept.
ITOC Responsibilities
The ITOC shall have the following responsibilities:
1. Conduct an annual fiscal and compliance audit of all TransNet-funded activities using the services of an independent fiscal auditor to assure compliance with the voter-approved Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. This annual audit will cover all recipients of TransNet funds during the fiscal year and will evaluate compliance with the maintenance of effort requirement and any other applicable requirements. The audits will identify expenditures made for each project in the prior fiscal year and will include the accumulated expenses and revenues for ongoing, multi-year projects.
2. Prepare an annual report to the SANDAG Board of Directors presenting the results of the annual audit process. The report should include an assessment of the consistency of the expenditures of TransNet funds with the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan and any recommendations for improving the financial operation and integrity of the program for consideration by the SANDAG Board of Directors. This consistency evaluation will include a review of expenditures by project type for each local jurisdiction. The ITOC shall share the initial findings of the independent fiscal audits and its recommendations with the SANDAG Transportation Committee 60 days prior to their release to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues related to the ITOC’s draft report and recommendations. Once this review has taken place, the ITOC shall make any final amendments it deems appropriate to its report and recommendations, and adopt its report for submission directly to the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public. The ITOC shall strive to be as objective and accurate as possible in whatever final report it adopts. Upon completion by the ITOC, the report shall be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors at its next regular meeting and shall be made available to the public.
3. Conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies involved in the implementation of TransNet-funded projects and programs to review project delivery, cost control, schedule adherence and related activities. The review should include consideration of changes to contracting, construction, permitting and related processes that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the expenditure of TransNet revenues. These performance audits shall be conducted using the services of an independent performance auditor and should include a review of the ITOC’s performance. A draft of the ITOC’s report and recommendations regarding the performance audits shall be made available to the SANDAG Transportation Committee at least 60 days before its final adoption by the ITOC to resolve inconsistencies and technical issues related to the ITOC’s draft report and recommendations. Once this review has taken place, the ITOC shall make any final amendments it deems appropriate to its report and related recommendations, and adopt its report for presentation directly to the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public. The ITOC shall strive to be as
49 objective and constructive as possible in the text and presentation of the performance audits. Upon completion by the ITOC, the report shall be presented to the SANDAG Board of Directors at its next regular meeting and shall be made available to the public.
4. Provide recommendations to the SANDAG Board of Directors regarding any proposed amendments to the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.
5. Provide recommendations as part of the 10-year review process. This process provides an opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the TransNet program every 10 years and to make recommendations for improving the program over the subsequent 10 years. This review process should take into consideration the results of the TransNet-funded improvements as compared to the performance standards established through the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan.
6. Participate in the ongoing refinement of SANDAG’s transportation system performance measurement process and the project evaluation criteria used in development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and in prioritizing projects for funding in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. The focus of this effort will be on TransNet-funded projects. Based on the periodic updates to the RTP, as required by state and federal law, the oversight committee shall develop a report to the SANDAG Transportation Committee, the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public providing recommendations for possible improvements and modifications to the TransNet program.
7. On an annual basis, review ongoing SANDAG system performance evaluations, including SANDAG’s “State of the Commute” report, and provide an independent analysis of information included in that report. This evaluation process is expected to include such factors as level of service measurements by roadway segment and by time of day, throughput in major travel corridors, and travel time comparisons by mode between major trip origins and destinations. Such information will be used as a tool in the RTP development process.
8. Review and comment on the programming of TransNet revenues in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). This provides an opportunity for the ITOC to raise concerns regarding the eligibility of projects proposed for funding before any expenditures are made. In addition to a general eligibility review, this effort should focus on significant cost increases and/or scope changes on the major corridor projects identified in the Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.
9. Review proposed debt financings to ensure that the benefits of the proposed financing for accelerating project delivery, avoiding future cost escalation, and related factors exceed issuance and interest costs.
10. Review the major Congestion Relief projects identified in the Ordinance for performance in terms of cost control and schedule adherence on a quarterly basis.
In carrying out its responsibilities, the ITOC shall conduct its reviews in such a manner that does not cause unnecessary project delays, while providing sufficient time to ensure that adequate analysis can be completed to allow the ITOC to make objective recommendations and to provide the public with information about the implementation of the TransNet program.
50 ITOC Funding and Administration
1. All costs incurred in administering the activities of the ITOC, including related fiscal and performance audit costs, shall be paid annually from the proceeds of the TransNet sales tax. The funds made available to the ITOC shall not exceed $250,000 annually, as adjusted for inflation annually for the duration of the program. Any funds not utilized in one fiscal year shall remain available for expenditure in subsequent years as part of the annual budget process.
2. The expenditures of the ITOC shall be audited annually as part of the same fiscal audit process used for all other TransNet- funded activities.
3. The process for selecting the initial ITOC members shall be started no later than April 1 of the year following the passage of the Ordinance by the voters. Because the funding for this activity would not be available until Fiscal Year 2008-09, the ITOC activities during the initial transition period will be phased in to the extent possible within the budget constraints of the one percent administrative cap under the current TransNet Ordinance. Given the forty-year duration of the TransNet tax extension, the ITOC shall continue as long as funds from the current authorization remain available.
4. An annual ITOC operating budget shall be prepared and submitted to the SANDAG Board of Directors for its approval 90 days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year.
5. All ITOC meetings shall be public meetings conducted in full compliance with the Brown Act. The ITOC will meet on a regular basis, at least quarterly, to carry out its roles and responsibilities.
6. SANDAG Directors and staff will fully cooperate with and provide necessary support to the ITOC to ensure that it successfully carries out its duties and obligations, but should limit involvement to the provision of information required by the ITOC to ensure the independence of the ITOC as it carries out its review of the TransNet program and develops its recommendations for improvements.
7. ITOC members and their designated auditors shall have full and timely access to all public documents, records and data with respect to all TransNet funds and expenditures.
8. All consultants hired by the ITOC shall be selected on an open and competitive basis with solicitation of proposals from the widest possible number of qualified firms as prescribed by SANDAG’s procedures for procurement. The scope of work of all such consultant work shall be adopted by the ITOC prior to any such solicitation.
9. SANDAG shall provide meeting space, supplies and incidental materials adequate for the ITOC to carry out its responsibilities and conduct its affairs. Such administrative support shall not be charged against the funds set aside for the administration of the ITOC provided under No. 1 above.
51 Conflict of Interest
The ITOC shall be subject to SANDAG’s conflict of interest policies. ITOC members shall have no legal action pending against SANDAG and are prohibited from acting in any commercial activity directly or indirectly involving SANDAG, such as being a consultant to SANDAG or to any party with pending legal actions against SANDAG during their tenure on the ITOC. ITOC members shall not have direct commercial interest or employment with any public or private entity, which receives TransNet sales tax funds authorized by this Ordinance.
52
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 11-A MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION
UPDATE ON REGIONAL Overview of Workshop Results COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) Six workshops were held throughout the region in the cities of Encinitas, Vista, San A. WORKSHOP RESULTS Diego, Chula Vista, El Cajon, and Oceanside.
Attendance by local elected officials, The Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) work members of the SWG and TWG, and the program includes an extensive public public was approximately l00 participants. involvement effort, including three rounds of subregional workshops. The first round of Four “stations” were set up to help guide the workshops was held from January through public to particular areas of interest. The March, 2003 and focused primarily on “ABCs of the RCP” station was designed to refining the regional vision and core values, provide general information about the RCP which serve as the foundation for the RCP. for those citizens who were new to the The second round of workshops was held in process and therefore not familiar with the September 2003 and focused on obtaining RCP. A PowerPoint presentation was provided input on the draft goals, policy objectives, to guide citizens through the document. The and actions to be included in the RCP. The “Vision for the Future” station provided an third, and final, round of workshops was held overview of the many different topics covered last month and focused on receiving input by the RCP. The station covered the heart of from the public on the draft RCP and the the RCP and how we are going to address all draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). of these issues in the future. The “How Do
We Get There?” station focused on the The Regional Planning Committee and its implementation program; how we are going Stakeholders and Technical Working Groups to put the plan in action. And finally, a (SWG and TWG) helped design the workshop station was set up to answer questions and content and organization and were present receive input on the draft EIR. at the workshops to interact with the public.
Comment cards were available at each station The third round of workshops was designed for citizens to provide written comments. in an “open house” format to provide an Also, a court reporter was at each workshop informal setting where residents could ask to record citizen’s oral comments. questions, discuss issues, and offer comments and feedback on the draft RCP and draft EIR. Approximately 70 comments were received at These workshops presented another the workshops. Staff has reviewed the opportunity for residents to come together as comments and modified the revised working a community to weigh in on important issues draft RCP, as necessary, to reflect the that will affect our region’s future. comments.
2
The majority of the workshop comments focused on transportation issues, either specific proposed road and transit projects, or issues such as addressing the importance of freight transportation, improving transportation demand management opportunities, coordinating with Orange County and SCAG on growth and transportation connections, and improving public transit between jobs and housing.
Other comments included the need for affordable housing, the need to require fire breaks between structures and habitat, the need to protect streams, rivers, and wetlands, and building infrastructure before housing is built.
All comments received on the RCP, either at the workshops, by letter, fax, or e-mail will be responded to and provided as an appendix to the RCP.
GARY L. GALLEGOS
Executive Director
Key Staff Contact: Janet Fairbanks,
(619) 699-6970; [email protected]
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-A (INFORMATION)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 11-B MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION
UPDATE ON REGIONAL SANDAG should focus transportation COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) infrastructure investments and deploy transit services to support smart growth B. UPDATED SMART GROWTH development. MATRIX AND PRINCIPLES FOR INCENTIVES In addition to developing the smart growth area matrix, the Smart Growth Working Introduction Group has proposed principles to help guide the development of regional smart growth At the April 23, 2004 Board meeting, staff incentives. The recommended principles provided the Board with a status report on address both how, and to what extent, the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). That SANDAG’s overall transportation funding report focused, in part, on the effort to decisions should be used to support smart develop a matrix of smart growth growth development. The principles also opportunity areas. The draft matrix, provide guidance on how the Smart Growth consisting of seven smart growth area Incentive Program established in the Regional classifications, defines the areas in terms of Transportation Plan, MOBILITY 2030, and four characteristics: land use type included in the ordinance for the extension of characteristics, land use intensity targets, the TransNet program should be structured. transportation system characteristics, and public transit service characteristics. At the The draft RCP has been revised to include time of the April Board meeting, the Smart these smart growth incentive principles, as Growth Working Group, an ad hoc group of well as the matrix of smart growth area stakeholders and local agency planning staff, classifications. The discussion below shows were still working to develop a consensus on how these two topics are discussed in the the area characteristics, and in particular, the Urban Form chapter of the RCP. land use intensity targets. Discussion Those intensity targets have now been identified, and the Regional Planning Smart Growth Categories Committee has accepted the attached matrix with land use intensity targets for inclusion Under SANDAG’s adopted smart growth into the final draft RCP. With adoption of the principles, smart growth areas are places that final RCP, the matrix of smart growth area accommodate, or have the potential to classifications will provide a basis for accommodate, higher residential and/or identifying areas throughout the region employment densities. They are pedestrian- where existing or planned development friendly activity centers that are connected to reflects the characteristics of one of the smart other activity centers by transit or could be in growth area types. The concept map would the future. then become the basis for establishing where
2
Throughout the region, development particular area, its design features will create reflecting these principles is already occurring an attractive, human-scale community that in both new projects and through supports a variety of travel modes. redevelopment. However, because the San Diego region is so diverse, the character of Rural Village Cores represent a unique type of smart growth areas will vary depending on smart growth. Because they are remote from the particular setting. Smart growth in the urbanized portion of the region, public downtown San Diego is different from smart transportation generally cannot play a growth in downtown Escondido, which in significant role in meeting their travel needs. turn is different from smart growth in Nevertheless, rural villages can have smart Ramona. growth characteristics, and contribute to the region’s smart growth development goals While some general principles may apply to because they can provide for a small-scale any smart growth area, local character and concentration of development in a walkable, physical or regulatory constraints will mixed use setting that allows village residents influence how it is manifested from place to and visitors to travel around the village core place. The amount of vacant land and land on foot or by bicycle. They can provide a focal available for redevelopment also will vary point for commercial and civic uses that can from one community to the next, as will the serve surrounding rural areas. Additionally, if extent to which existing development rural villages can accommodate moderately conforms to smart growth design principles. higher densities and focus development closer to the village core, they help relieve pressure Smart growth areas in the San Diego region for development in outlying areas. The can be divided into seven categories, as County of San Diego’s draft GP2020 shown in the attachment to this report. Each encourages this kind of development by category can be described in terms of its proposing a rural village limit line that would general land use characteristics, the intensity contain all but very low density development of its development, and the kinds of in rural areas. transportation services necessary to serve its travel needs. Of particular importance is the With adoption of the final RCP, the matrix of kind of public transit service provided in each smart growth area classifications will provide smart growth area type (with the possible a basis for identifying areas throughout the exception of the Rural Village Core). The type region where existing or planned and level of public transit needs to be development reflects the characteristics of coordinated with the land use type because one of the smart growth area types. In the two depend on one another. More addition, local jurisdictions will be intensely developed smart growth areas encouraged to identify locations where smart require a higher level of public transit service growth development would be desirable, and to meet the area’s mobility needs, and higher could occur if existing plans are modified to levels of transit investment need the intensity allow it. These areas will be classified as Smart of development to ensure that it reaches the Growth Opportunity Areas. Through a maximum number of potential riders. collaborative process, SANDAG and the local agencies will designate these areas on a The matrix of smart growth area Smart Growth Concept Map. The concept characteristics includes a set of overarching map would then become the basis for urban design principles that apply to all smart establishing where SANDAG should focus growth area types, though the transit-related transportation infrastructure investments and features would not be a significant factor in deploy transit services to support smart the Rural Village Core. These design principles growth development. ensure that as smart growth develops in a
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-B (INFORMATION) 3
Smart Growth Incentives Program Demonstration Projects. SANDAG should initially focus on public Following adoption of the RCP, SANDAG will infrastructure improvements for work with local agencies and stakeholders to "ready-to-go" projects that will identify areas where its transportation demonstrate smart growth principles funding decisions could provide stronger and serve as a catalyst for additional support for smart growth development. The smart growth development in key draft RCP includes the following principles to locations. guide development of criteria for applying these smart growth incentives to implement b. Planning. SANDAG should provide the Regional Comprehensive Plan. technical assistance and/or planning grants to local jurisdictions to 1. Regional Funding for Transportation implement regional smart growth Investments that Support Smart goals and policy objectives through Growth. In its development of the local plans and regulations. Assistance Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and could support preparation of general programming of transportation projects, plan amendments, community plans, SANDAG should ensure that its decisions specific plans, and development regarding key regional transportation regulations that facilitate smart corridor investments give highest priority growth development. to implementation of smart growth by local jurisdictions in "smart growth 3. Local Incentives for Smart Growth. opportunity areas," with a particular Local jurisdictions should provide focus on opportunities for housing incentives for appropriate development in affordable to all income levels. smart growth opportunity areas, such as Additionally, SANDAG should ensure that priorities for infrastructure improvements, the design and implementation of its fee reductions, priority processing of regional transportation facilities supports development plans, and others. SANDAG smart growth development by local should give priority in its funding jurisdictions. decisions to jurisdictions that are providing local smart growth incentives. 2. Regional Funding for Smart Growth Infrastructure and Planning. 4. Funding for Other Smart Growth Activities. SANDAG should work with a. Infrastructure Improvements. other agencies (e.g., California SANDAG should provide direct Department of Housing and Community financial incentives to local Development (HCD), U.S. Environmental communities for needed Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and infrastructure improvements in smart Wildlife Service, and private foundations) growth opportunity areas. to coordinate the development of Improvements funded under such a programs that provide incentives for program might include transit access other types of smart growth activities, improvements, community parking, such as affordable housing production, bicycle and pedestrian circulation habitat protection, and the like. improvements, traffic calming, streetscape improvements, transit- Working with local jurisdictions and related roadway improvements, and stakeholders, SANDAG will use the principles others. The program should use a described above to develop the Smart Growth variety of available funding sources. Incentive Program called for in MOBILITY 2030, and anticipated in the extension of the
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-B (INFORMATION) 4
TransNet local transportation sales tax. Program development will include determining the specific types of projects to support, the project selection process, and program administrative requirements. In addition, SANDAG should continue to refine the process it uses to prioritize transportation project funding to ensure that that process supports smart growth development to an appropriate extent.
The draft RCP is on the May 24, 2004 agenda for a joint meeting of the Regional Planning Committee and its Technical and Stakeholders Working Groups. Any substantive changes to the RCP that are recommended as a result of that meeting will be provided to the Board on May 28.
GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director
Attachment
Key Staff Contact: Stephan Vance, (619) 699-1924; [email protected]
Funds are budgeted in Work Element #3000200
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-B (INFORMATION) Attachment
SMART GROWTH DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The following design principles apply to all categories and are critical to the success of smart growth. 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 compliment the intensity of development within the Smart Growth Opportunity Area (SGOA) o Strong pedestrian orientation: network of streets & pedestrian paths, narrower street scales, special designs to facilitate pedestrian crossings at intersections, and the walker having precedence o Bike access/locker facilities and park-n-ride facilities woven in the human-scale design o 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
LAND USE TYPE LAND USE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE CATEGORY EXAMPLES CHARACTERISTICS INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
Metropolitan Draws from Desired Building Types: Access from several Served by numerous corridor/ Downtown San Diego Center throughout the Mid- to high-rise freeways with multiple regional/local services region residential and office/ access points Very high frequency service (<15 Metropolitan commercial Hub transit system minute) throughout the day on center has 75+ du/ average net Regional hub for numerous all corridor/ regional services several SGOA residential acre within ¼ local, corridor, regional High frequency service designations mile radius of transit transit lines (15minute) all day on most local Regional station Shuttle services and services commercial/ 80+ employees/average pedestrian orientation for Multiple station locations, with retail center net acre within ¼ mile of internal trips several key transfer points Regional transit station Internal shuttle system civic/cultural center
5
LAND USE TYPE LAND USE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE CATEGORY EXAMPLES CHARACTERISTICS INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
Urban Employment Desired Building Types: Freeway connections with Served by several corridor/ Existing and Planned: Center draws from Mid-to high-rise multiple access points regional lines & several local Rio Vista (Mission Valley (San
throughout residential and office/ Served by several services Diego) region, while commercial corridor/regional transit High to very high frequency Little Italy (San Diego) other uses draw 40-75+ du/average net lines + several local services service (<15 minute peak) on all Costa Verde (University City) mainly from acre residential within ¼ Possible shuttle routes for corridor/regional services (San Diego) subregional area mile radius of transit internal trips High frequency throughout the The Boulevard Marketplace Urban centers station Minimal park-and-ride day Pilot Village (San Diego) likely located 25+ du/ac for mixed use facilities - access should be on all lines Morena Linda Vista (San within larger sites within ¼ mile radius handled by internal shuttle • Key transit center, along with Diego) area that has of transit station system multiple smaller station locations East Urban Center (Chula several SGOA 50+ employees per net • Possible internal shuttle system Vista) designations acre within ¼ mile of Mixed use transit station employment Civic/cultural facilities Town Draws mainly • Desired Building Types: Served by one or more Served by 1-2 corridor/ regional Existing and Planned: Center from immediate Low- to mid-rise corridor/ regional transit line or Downtown Oceanside
subregional area • 20-45+ du/average net line and several local <5 minute shuttle distance from Downtown Escondido Residential and acre within ¼ mile radius services corridor/regional station, + Downtown Encinitas office/ of transit station or May also be served by multiple local services Downtown La Mesa commercial, connecting transit service regional arterials Very high frequency service (<15 Downtown El Cajon including mixed • 30-50 employees/ average minute peak) on Downtown Chula Vista use net acre within ¼ mile of corridor/regional service or La Jolla (San Diego) Civic/cultural transit station or connecting shuttle Village Center Pilot Village facilities connecting transit service High frequency throughout the (Euclid/Market, San Diego) day on most lines Hillcrest (San Diego) Multiple station locations, some Heart of the City (San with central access/transfer point Marcos)
6
LAND USE TYPE LAND USE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE CATEGORY EXAMPLES CHARACTERISTICS INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
Shared-use parking or dedicated Vista Village Transit Center park-and-ride facilities for Santee Town Center regional transit services Potential SGOA: Grantville Trolley Station (SD) San Marcos Creek Specific Plan
Community Draws from Desired Building Types: Served by at least one Served by at least one corridor/ Existing and Planned: Center nearby Low- to mid-rise corridor or regional transit regional service Otay Ranch Villages
community/ 20-45+ du/average net line High frequency service (15 Mercado (Barrio Logan, San neighborhoods acre within ¼ mile of Served by arterials and/or minute peak) on Diego) Residential and transit station collector streets corridor/regional services Mira Mesa Market Center commercial, Moderate to high frequency (San Diego) including mixed throughout the day Pacific Highlands Ranch (SD) use One or more on-street stations Downtown Lemon Grove Possible Downtown Coronado community- San Elijo/La Costa Meadows serving civic uses Community Center (San Marcos) Potential SGOAs: Solana Beach/ NCTD Mixed Use Site Lakeside (County) Spring Valley (County)
7
LAND USE TYPE LAND USE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE CATEGORY EXAMPLES CHARACTERISTICS INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
Transit Draws mainly Desired Building Types: A Located along a major Generally served by a corridor/ Existing and Planned: Corridor from several variety of low-, mid-, and arterial regional line + local services El Cajon Blvd (Mid-City) nearby high-rise Served by a High frequency service (15 Washington Ave (Mission communities 25-75+ du/average net corridor/regional service, or minute in peak) on corridor/ Hills) Residential and acre along transit corridor local services with <10 regional and/or local services University Avenue (La Mesa) office/ and within ¼ mile of minutes travel time of Multiple station locations, with South Santa Fe Transit commercial, transit stations corridor/ regional line one or more on-street transfer Corridor (Vista) including mixed Employment: Commercial station locations with intersecting Potential SGOA: use and retail supportive uses Small shared-use park-and- services. El Camino Real (Encinitas) Linear size with ride facilities possible length extending from >1 mile long, and width extending 1-2 blocks outward from corridor
Special Use Employment Desired Building Types: Nearby freeway access Generally served by one or more Existing and Planned: Center draws from Variety of low-, mid-, and Served by one or more corridor/ regional line + local Grossmont Center/ Hospital/
throughout high-rise corridor/ regional lines and services Trolley Station (La Mesa) region, with 45+ employees/average local services High to very high frequency The Paseo at SDSU (San other uses being net acre within ¼ mile of May be served by shuttle service (15 minute or better in Diego) community transit station service for internal trips peak) on corridor/ regional Chula Vista Bayfront serving Optional residential: 50+ services Palomar College (San Special use du/ average net Moderate to high frequency Marcos) centers may be residential acre throughout the day Cal State San Marcos located within Multiple station locations, with Potential SGOAs: larger area that possible central access/transfer Ocean Ranch / Rancho Del has several SGOA point Oro Industrial Complex designations (Oceanside)
8
LAND USE TYPE LAND USE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE CATEGORY EXAMPLES CHARACTERISTICS INTENSITY TARGETS CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS
Dominated by Vista County Courthouse one non- Area residential land use Retail support services Potential residential element
Rural Village Village Core is For Village Core: Concentrated local road Village Cores should include or Existing and Planned: Core * concentrated 10-30+ du/average net network within village, allow for bus stops and an Ramona
area of acre (residential or mixed with connection to urban expansion of bus service in Fallbrook residential and use) areas higher density areas Alpine commercial Desired Building Types: Bicycle and pedestrian- Served by one or more local Potential SGOA: development Low-rise residential friendly street design in services Valley Center within overall 20+ employees/net Village Core Moderate frequencies village* average acre Possible park-n-ride throughout the day Draws from facilities near major road Possible peak period nearby rural or transit corridor corridor/regional service with areas Possible local transit transit stations located within Low-rise service; or central access village core employment and point for possible corridor/ residential regional peak transit line Civic center
* Rural Village Core within Unincorporated Rural Villages The County of San Diego’s draft GP2020 defines rural villages as distinct communities that include concentrated areas of residential and commercial development contained by a Village Limit Line. Villages typically range from 1,000 to 7,000 acres (but could be as small as 150 acres) and are located within or partly within the San Diego County Water Authority water service boundary. Villages contain densities that range from 2 – 29 du/acre, with the lowest density typically located near the Village Limit Line. Each village contains a Village Core with residential densities ranging from 10.9 – 29 du/acre. Lowest densities within villages are typically located near Village Limit Lines, with preliminary floor area ratios (FAR’s) of .25 within the Village Limit Line (likely higher within the Village Core). The villages form up to 20% of the overall community, with the remainder encompassing semi-rural and rural lands.
9
NOTES:
Potential SGOAs Areas discussed at local and regional meetings with local planning directors that are not currently included in existing plans and policies, but may offer the potential for additional smart growth
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
Transit Service Definitions: Shuttle services (Green Car) – Designed for short-distance trips in neighborhood/employment areas, and feeder access to/from corridor & regional services Local services (Blue Car) – Designed for shorter-distance trips with frequent stops (e.g. current local bus services) Corridor services (Red Car) – Designed for medium distance trips with station spacing about every mile on average (e.g. trolley services, future arterial based BRT routes) Regional services (Yellow Car) – Designed for longer distance trips with stations spacing every 4-5 miles on average (e.g. Coaster, future freeway-based BRT routes)
10
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 11-C MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION/ POSSIBLE ACTION
UPDATE ON REGIONAL meeting will be reported to the Board on COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) May 28, 2004, as necessary.
C. SUMMARY OF KEY CHANGES This report summarizes the key changes TO THE DRAFT REGIONAL proposed by SANDAG staff to the revised COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (RCP) draft RCP. The report also summarizes public comments received, but not incorporated into Introduction the revised draft RCP.
Over the past two years, the SANDAG Board On June 25, 2004, the Board will be asked to of Directors, the Regional Planning certify the final Environmental Impact Report Committee, the Regional Planning Technical (EIR) and adopt the final RCP. and Stakeholders Working Groups, and others have worked together to prepare the draft Discussion Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). Overall, no fundamental changes in policy Last December, SANDAG accepted the draft direction are being proposed by SANDAG RCP for public review and comment. The most staff to the draft RCP. Key recommendations recent round of public participation and contained in the original draft RCP that outreach efforts resulted in the submission of remain in the revised working draft include: over 700 comments on the draft RCP, with approximately 70 of those resulting from the Focusing future population and job third round of workshops, as noted in Item growth away from rural areas and closer 11-A. These comments, as well as direction to existing and planned job centers and and input from the Regional Planning public facilities; Committee and its Working Groups, have led Directing transportation facility to corresponding changes and refinements to improvements and other infrastructure the plan, strengthening and enhancing the resources toward smart growth document as a whole. opportunity areas; Increasing mobility and transportation SANDAG staff has prepared a revised working choices; draft RCP reflecting the most recent round of Meeting our housing needs; changes. On May 24, 2004, staff will request Protecting and enhancing our the Regional Planning Committee and its environment; Working Groups to review the revised Collaborating with our surrounding areas document and recommend approval to the and tribal governments within the region SANDAG Board. Comments from the joint to proactively address border-related issues; 2
Recognizing the importance of social area classifications will provide a basis for equity and environmental justice in the identifying areas throughout the region planning process; where existing or planned development Ensuring that new public facilities and reflects the characteristics of one of the infrastructure networks are built smart growth area types. The concept concurrently with development; and map would then become the basis for establishing where SANDAG should focus Focusing on collaboration and incentives transportation infrastructure investments as key implementation mechanisms. and deploy transit services to support
smart growth development. While the major recommendations of the draft plan have remained constant, a number 2. Principles for Developing Smart of additions, refinements, and clarifications Growth Incentives. Also as discussed in are being proposed. Generally, the changes Item 11-B and at the last Board meeting, fall into two categories – those that were principles for developing criteria for smart called for in the draft RCP in order to growth incentive programs that complete the final RCP, and those that implement the Regional Comprehensive resulted from technical clarifications or from Plan have been added to the Urban Form comments submitted by the public. The key chapter. changes are described below. 3. Guidelines for Strengthening Local Key Changes Based on Work and Regional Plans. A table setting Called for in the Draft RCP forth guidelines for strengthening local and regional plans has been added to the The draft RCP contained several chapters that Implementation chapter. The guidelines indicated that additional work would be will serve as a tool for local jurisdictions to done between the release of the draft RCP consider where their local plans might and the adoption of the final RCP. These better connect to the goals and policy chapters included: Urban Form, Performance objectives of the RCP at two levels: the Monitoring, and Implementation. The entire planning area and the specific following changes are being proposed by smart growth opportunity area. staff in these chapters to complete the additional work called for in the draft RCP. 4. Subregional Planning and Over the past several months, the Regional Implementation Framework. Planning Committee and the Technical and Refinements have been made to the Stakeholders Working Groups have been subregional planning and implementation involved in reviewing and contributing to the framework of the Implementation proposed changes. chapter, calling for greater coordination with existing planning and 1. Smart Growth Area Classification implementation processes at the regional Matrix. As discussed in Item 11-B and at and local levels. The framework includes last month’s Board meeting, a matrix has two types of subregional plans: been added to the Urban Form chapter (1) corridor studies that focus on major that identifies the land use and regional highway and transit transportation characteristics of existing improvements at the broader level, and and potential smart growth areas for (2) subarea studies that hone in on local seven distinct categories, ranging from and community improvements that the metropolitan center to town centers support regional transportation to rural village cores. With adoption of investments. A new table has been added the final RCP, the matrix of smart growth summarizing the main elements of the
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-C (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION) 3
framework, including corridor studies, and population growth. It more clearly subarea studies, and project development recognizes that if these homes are not and implementation activities. built within our own region, they will be built in surrounding areas such as 5. Strategic Initiatives. A detailed set of Riverside and Imperial Counties and Baja Strategic Initiatives has been added to the California. It calls for the region to take Implementation chapter. The Strategic more responsibility for its own housing Initiatives provide a detailed work needs and address the difficult issues program for implementing the actions associated with additional growth. It also contained in the RCP –- identifying calls for placing many of those new responsible implementing entities and homes in areas that are already urbanized specific timelines to ensure accountability. and where infrastructure has already been built. 6. Performance Monitoring Baseline Report and Targets. Annual and 4. Housing Element Law and Other periodic performance indicators have Housing Items. Information about been added to the Performance current housing element law reform Monitoring chapter. Additionally, the efforts has been added to the Housing chapter contains a commitment to set chapter, along with a corresponding performance targets (short- and long- policy objective to increase the term numeric targets) after the release of effectiveness of housing element law, the first monitoring report, scheduled for creating a more meaningful housing fall 2004. allocation process. Also, a stronger link between housing and smart growth Other Changes Resulting from opportunity areas was incorporated, and Technical Clarifications or from information about green building Comments by the Public techniques, nonprofit housing development, and the housing needs of Other proposed changes, in addition to those military personnel and farmworkers, has described above, include the following been added. refinements based on technical clarifications or public comments. 5. Natural Fire Ecology. Text and policy objectives on natural fire ecology have 1. Final 2030 Cities/County Forecast. Last been added to the Healthy Environment December, SANDAG approved the Final chapter, focusing on the relationship 2030 Cities/County Forecast. All forecast- between urban areas, natural habitat related figures have been updated in the conservation planning efforts, and fire revised working draft RCP. management. New text clarifies that current habitat conservation plans include 2. Local Land Use Authority. The revised fire management plans to achieve draft RCP more clearly articulates that biological resources goals and hazard local cities and the County have, and will reduction for humans and their property. continue to retain, local land use Current habitat conservation plans also authority. call for fire management that is compatible with conservation of 3. Housing Responsibilities. The revised biological resources, including reducing draft more clearly states that local fuel loads in areas where fire may jurisdictions within the region must threaten human safety or property, provide enough homes to meet the suppressing fires once they have started, housing demand created by projected job
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-C (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION) 4
and providing access of fire suppression 10. I-15 Interregional Partnership equipment and personnel. Actions. The recommended actions resulting from the I-15 Interregional Plan 6. Water Supply and Quality of Drinking on jobs / housing, economic development, Water. A description of the recently and long-range housing strategies have approved Imperial Irrigation District (IID) been added to the Borders chapter. Transfer Agreement has been added to the Public Facilities chapter. The IID 11. Homeland Security. An action has been Transfer allows the San Diego County added to the Borders chapter to pursue Water Authority to purchase conserved funding opportunities with partners in Colorado River agricultural water from Imperial County and Mexico to encourage the Imperial Valley. Additionally, text has a comprehensive approach to Homeland been added recognizing the impacts of Security which supports economic urban development on our water prosperity while respecting public safety resources, including drinking water, and in the Californias. actions have been added to protect local drinking water sources. Additional Public Comments
7. Wastewater. Information has been A number of public comments received on added to the Public Facilities chapter the draft RCP requested that new topics be describing the connections between considered for inclusion in the final RCP. sewer systems and storm drain systems in Many of the proposed topics were the region, and clarifying the roles of incorporated into the revised working draft sanitation districts, municipal water RCP, as outlined above, but given time and districts, and community service districts resource constraints, several were not. The that provide wastewater services to following is a list of topics included in the various areas in the San Diego region. closing paragraph of the Implementation Actions have been added calling for an chapter, indicating consideration for inclusion assessment of the effectiveness of local in future updates of the RCP. stormwater programs. Schools and smart growth 8. Public Safety. Language has been added Public safety chapter addressing fire to the Public Facilities chapter describing control/prevention, fire protection the creation of SANDAG's Public Safety facilities, and criminal justice / crime Committee and its roles and prevention issues responsibilities, including improving the quality of life in the region by promoting Urban community forests public safety and justice through Greater coordination with school, fire, collaboration, information sharing, sewer, and water districts and emergency effective technology, and objective personnel monitoring and assessment. Archaeological and cultural resources 9. Tribal Governments. Text has been Communication technology added to the Borders chapter clarifying land ownership, territorial boundaries, Agriculture, as related to our economy land use authority and responsibilities, Noise pollution and mitigation issues gaming issues, transportation needs, Other issues were raised by the public public facility needs, sovereignty, and through the public comment period and at other issues affecting the 18 reservations the third round of workshops that staff in the region. believes are better addressed in other
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-C (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION) 5 documents or are beyond the scope of the Proposed Additional Changes RCP. These include: In addition to the changes described in this The negative effects of population report, staff also proposes incorporating maps growth and the need for education and into the Urban Form chapter showing promotion of family planning programs projected employment and population intensities in the San Diego region in the year Systemic poverty as a major obstacle to 2030. Incorporation of these maps would regional economic growth provide additional context for the smart Privatization of government services growth area classification matrix and for Creating opportunities for economic developing the smart growth concept map equality for all residents of the region during the next fiscal year.
Analysis of population-slowing methods Finally, staff may need some flexibility to used by other jurisdictions address comments received on the draft Recreational opportunities Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In responding to comments on the draft EIR, How to maintain natural patterns of staff may need to make additional temperature and rainfall (global refinements or clarifications to the final RCP. warming) If any potential changes result in Providing credit to jurisdictions that host fundamental changes in policy direction, staff regional facilities will call for a special meeting of the Regional Planning Committee, as necessary, to Biosolids and associated issues, such as complete the final RCP. treatment requirements, land needed for
storage, processing, etc. As noted earlier, the Board will be asked to Countywide Quiet Zones for railways certify the final EIR and adopt the final RCP on June 25, 2004. Replacement Airport Site Creation of a demonstration test line for a personal rapid transit system Identification of a dedicated source of revenue for storm water infrastructure GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director A matrix listing all public comments received on the draft RCP and SANDAG's Key Staff Contact: Carolina Gregor; corresponding responses will be available as (619) 699-1979; [email protected] part of the final RCP.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 11-C (INFORMATION/POSSIBLE ACTION)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 04-05- 12 MAY 28, 2004 ACTION REQUESTED – DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE ACTION
FY 2005 DRAFT PROGRAM BUDGET with the goal of achieving savings, while at the same time providing the transit operators with more useful data. NCTD, Recommendation MTS and Chula Vista Transit all objected to this proposal, and we worked with It is recommended that the Board review them to address their concerns, while at and provide comments on the Draft FY the same time being mindful of the 2005 Program Budget and approve the FY budget constraints we are working 2005 OWP in substantially the same form within. Upon further analysis and as attached. This approval would include through discussions with the transit fully funding the passenger counting operators, we became aware of program. At its May 14 meeting, the additional data needs which, combined Executive Committee recommended with the fact that the automatic approval of the FY 2005 OWP. passenger counters (APC) won’t be deployed until late in FY 2005 has convinced us that FY 2005 would not be the year in which to reduce the PCP. Introduction Therefore, our recommendation is to fully
fund the passenger counting program, This item provides the FY 2005 Draft Program while at the same time accelerate the Budget, as well as a revised version of the FY process of equipping all transit fleets with 2005 Overall Work Program (OWP). The APCs. In FY 2006, San Diego Transit will Program Budget includes the budget of have enough buses equipped with APCs SANDAG serving as the San Diego County to reduce the level of manual counts Regional Transportation Commission, the currently performed. This should yield work elements identified in the OWP, the over $100,000 annually in PCP cost Capital Budget and the Administration savings, with a relatively small capital Budget. investment. Once SDTC has a working Discussion APC system, expanding this program to other operators will become the next
priority. Over the next few months we The Executive Committee and the Board have will work with the transit operators to reviewed previous drafts of the OWP, and all develop an APC transition plan as part of comments have been incorporated in this a broader strategic plan for optimizing latest draft. There were a few topics that we transit data collection tied to critical were directed to report back on, as follows: needs.
1. Passenger Counting Program – The The passenger counting program is original proposal was to rework the funded in large part by Federal Transit transit Passenger Counting Program (PCP) 2
Administration Section 5307 funding. In 3. Capital Program (Section 5) – includes the order to accommodate the transit transit-related regional capital operators’ request to fully fund the improvements that are programmed and passenger counting program back to its funded through SANDAG. The Capital original amount, we could transfer Program includes the projects that are $130,000 of Section 5307 funds from the carrying over from the current year, as Transit First Implementation project. well as the Capital Improvement Program approved by the SANDAG Board in 2. Contracts – The Executive Committee January. requested that we add a list of contracts to the OWP. This has been included in 4. TransNet Program (Section 6) – the cost of Appendix A of the OWP. The list provides managing and administering funds for current contracts, as well as contracts that local roads, freeways, and transit we expect to enter into during FY 2005. improvements, the majority of which passes through SANDAG to the local 3. Committee List – For each work element jurisdictions, Caltrans and transit agencies. in the OWP, we indicate any policy committee involvement. The Board 5. Board Budget (Section 7) – includes requested that this information be expenses relating to the Board of presented in a table. That information is Directors function. included in Attachment A to this agenda item. As we went through this exercise, 6. Member Agency Assessments (Section 8) – we found some instances where We are proposing to hold member agency committees should have been listed, but assessments constant at the FY 2003 level. weren’t. Those corrections will be made Attachment B contains an updated table to the OWP in the final version. We will with the January 1, 2004 population also include this table in the final version. estimates (this information was received subsequent to publishing deadline but This is the first draft of the Program Budget will be included in the final version). brought for Board review. The Executive Attachment C contains a table showing Committee reviewed the draft at its May 14 the ARJIS member assessments, which are meeting. The Program Budget includes the being held constant at the FY 2001 level. following budget components: This information will also be included in the final version. 1. Administrative Budget (Section 3) – includes the costs that are not directly 7. Organization Structure (Section 9) – charged to a capital project or work Organization charts, a summary of the element, including indirect salaries and components of personnel costs, a listing benefits, postage, paper, supplies, legal of authorized positions and a and audit fees, equipment rental and classification table are included in this maintenance, rent, insurance, telephone, section. The position classification table and miscellaneous expenses. shows a net increase of 5.5 positions and other reclassifications of positions. Many 2. Overall Work Program (Section 4) – of these actions occurred and were includes the planning, coordination, approved by the Board throughout the evaluation, monitoring, consensus current fiscal year to accommodate new building, and research efforts conducted work. Following are the additional by SANDAG on behalf of member changes proposed: agencies.
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 12 (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION) 3
1 environmental planning position so Deleted one Division Director, and that we can reduce our reliance on upgraded two senior planning positions consultants (loaded cost of $102,000 to principal positions (savings of which is more than offset by a $100,000) reduction in consultant services) 1 administrative support position, The Program Budget is scheduled for final (loaded cost of $49,000 which is fully Board approval at the June meeting. We are offset by a reduction in the use of recommending approval of the OWP today, in temporary help) substantially the same form as attached so 1 assistant planning position, which we that we can begin the process of filing for the are absorbing as part of the transfer of federal grants. We anticipate making minor the CTSA program from American Red adjustments to the OWP between now and Cross to SANDAG (loaded cost of June, and will report those adjustments to the $72,000, funded by dedicated TDA Executive Committee and the Board at the funds) June meetings. 1 Criminal Justice position to conduct new studies (loaded cost of $102,000 which will be funded by dedicated grants) 1 Information Technology position to GARY L. GALLEGOS be able to continue to provide an Executive Director appropriate level of support given the increasing complexity of the demands Attachments/Enclosures in the IT environment (loaded cost of $73,000). Key Staff Contact: Renee Wasmund, (619) 699-1940; [email protected]
SANDAG Board of Directors May 28, 2004 – Agenda Item # 12 (DISCUSSION/POSSIBLE ACTION) SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Attachment A FY 2005 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM - POLICY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT *
Regional PROJECT Borders Planning Public Safety Transportation Executive General NUMBER PROJECT TITLE Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Services**
1 - IMPLEMENTATION 11091 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & OVERSIGHT X 11092 I-15 MANAGED LANES IMPLEMENTATION STUDY X 11093 REGIONAL ARTERIAL MGMT SYSTEM X 11094 REGIONAL TRANSIT MGMT SYSTEM X 11095 TRAVELER INFORMATION - 511 SERVICE X 11102 TransNet FINANCIAL MGMT X 11103 TransNet PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM X
2 - TECHNICAL SERVICES 20001 INFO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT X 20002 PC, INTERNET & DATABASE APPLICATIONS X 20003 TRANSPORTATION MODEL APP & DEVELOPMENT X 20004 OUTREACH & PRODUCT COORDINATION X 20005 DEMOGRAPHIC & ECONOMIC ESTIMATES & FORECASTS X 20006 GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEMS SERVICES X 20007 ASSISTANCE TO TRANSIT OPERATIONS & PLANNING X 20009 REGL TRANSPORT INFO SYS X 20011 REGL ECONOMIC & MUNICIPAL FINANCE SERVICES XX 20014 REGL CJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH & CLEARINGHOUSE X 20016 REFLECTIONS-EVAL OF DAY TREATMENT CENTER X 20018 PROG. ASSESS: MENTALLLY ILL CRIME OFFENDERS X 20019 PROG. ASSESS: JUVENILE JUSTICE CRIME PREV ACT X 20021 YOUTH (of color) HIV/SAP PROJ EVAL X 20023 ASSESSMENT OF A SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAM X 20024 PROG. ASSESS: PATHWAYS TO TOLERANCE X 20025 ASSESS LITERACY PROGRAM FOR INCARC. YOUTH X 20026 SUBSTANCE ABUSE MONITORING X 20031 PROGRAM GRAPHICS & PRINTING SUPPORT X 20033 PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS OUTREACH X 20034 VDS -EVALUATION OF WINDOWS TO HEALTH EDUC. PROG. X 20035 PROGRAM ASSESSMENT OF THE FAMILY TIES PROG. X 20036 HEPATITIS OUTREACH EVALUATION X 21000 NEW PERFORMANCE MONITORING INFO SYSTEM X X X 22001 NEW ARJIS: MAINTENANCE & SUPPORT X 22002 NEW ARJIS: PROJECT MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENTS X 22003 NEW ARJIS: COPLINK X 22004 NEW ARJIS: BORDER SAFE X
3 - PLANNING 30001 LAND USE & ENVIRON. PLANNING COORDINATION X X 30002 NEW REGIONAL COMP PLAN - IMPLEMENTATION X 30004 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN X 30005 HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PLAN X 30006 TRANSIT PLANNING AND PROJ DEVELOPMENT X 30007 ARTERIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN X 30008 NONMOTORIZED TRANSP PLNG & PROJ DEV X 30009 FREIGHT/INTERMODAL PLANNING X X 30010 INTERCITY RAIL & HIGH-SPEED RAIL PLANNING X 30011 TRANS. PLANNING FOR SENIORS & DISABLED X 30013 AIR QUALITY PLNG/CONFORMITY X 30017 I-15 BRT SERVICE AND PARK & RIDE PLANNING X 30018 DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO TRANSIT FIRST STUDY X 30022 SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROGRAM XX 30023 REGIONAL SHORT-RANGE TRANS SERV PLNG/MONITORING X 30026 REGIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM X 30027 REGIONAL OPEN SPACE & NAT RES STRATEGIES XX SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Attachment A FY 2005 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM - POLICY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT *
Regional PROJECT Borders Planning Public Safety Transportation Executive General NUMBER PROJECT TITLE Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Services**
30028 REGIONAL SHORELINE MGMT X 30029 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STRATEGIES X 30030 REGIONAL ENERGY PLANNING COORDINATION X 3 - PLANNING, continued 30032 BORDERS PLANNING & COORDINATION X 30033 INTERREGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS X 30034 ECONOMY & SECURITY @ INT'L BORDER X 30038 TRANSIT EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRNG MANUAL X 30039 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW XX 30043 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY STRATEGIES X 30044 NEW I-5/I-805 SUBREGIONAL TRANSP PLAN X 30045 NEW SUBREGIONAL TRANSP PLN/CMP DEFICIENCY PLANS X 30047 COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGENCY X 30048 NEW REGIONAL TRANSIT FARE STRUCTURE X 30049 TRANSIT STATION JOINT DEV. PROJECT COORD. XX 30050 I-5 NORTH COAST MANAGED LANES VALUE PRICING STUDY X
4 - PROGRAMMING, PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT 40001 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & COORDINATION X 40002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PERF MONITORING X 40003 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM X 40005 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ADMINISTRATION X 40006 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROG X
5 - DEVELOPMENT 50002 LEUCADIA BLVD GRADE SEPARATION STUDY X 50003 ENCINITAS PEDESTRIAN X-ING STUDY X 50004 REGL INTERMODAL (TSM) NETWORK X 50005 MID-COAST SUPER LOOP PROJECT DEVELOPMENT X 50006 SHOWCASE BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT DEV X 50007 NORTH BAY & BEACH AREA TRANSIT 1st PLNG/PROJ DEV X 50009 SOUTH BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT 1st PLNG/PROJ DEV X 50010 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT FIRST/BRT PLANNING X 50011 MID-COAST UNIVERSITY CITY LRT PROJ DEV X 50014 MIRA MESA TRANSIT CENTER PROJECT DEV X
6 - SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT 60001 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MGMT (TDM) PROGRAM X 60002 I-15 FasTrak PROGRAM X 60003 FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL X 60004 S.D. STATION CAR PROGRAM STUDY/ PHASES I & II X 60006 AUTOMATED VEHICLE CLASSIF (AVC) PROJ X
7 - PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS 70001 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION & OWP PROGRAM MGMT X 70003 REGIONAL INTERGOVERMENTAL REVIEW XX 70004 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM XX 70005 SOCIAL EQUITY & ENVIRON. JUSTICE XX 70006 TRIBAL GOVERNMENT LIAISON XX 70009 NEW GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS X 70010 NEW REG TRANSIT BUSINESS DEV & PUBLIC INFO PROGRAM X 70011 NEW REGIONAL ENVIRON. DOCUMENTATION XX 70012 EFFECTIVE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION METHODS X 72001 SANDAG SERVICES TO SOURCEPOINT X SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Attachment A FY 2005 OVERALL WORK PROGRAM - POLICY COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT *
Regional PROJECT Borders Planning Public Safety Transportation Executive General NUMBER PROJECT TITLE Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Services**
74000 LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO MEMBER AGENCIES X
*This listing identifies the primary committee; in several cases multiple committees may share a balanced policy interest. **These tasks identified normally do not have any direct involvement in the policy aspects of any committee but provide information and technical support to one or more committees. REVISED - Attachment 2 THIS ITEM RELATES TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS FY 2005 MEMBER AGENCY ASSESSMENTS
CERTIFIED* CERTIFIED** COMBINED MEMBER AGENCY POPULATION # % POPULATION % OF ACTUAL APPROVED $ % CRIMINAL TOTAL 1/01/2003 CNG CNG 1/01/2004 REGION FY 2004 FY 2005 CNG CNG JUSTICE COLUMNS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (8)+(11)
CARLSBAD 90,778 2,217 2.4% 92,995 3.1% $ 16,686 $ 16,873 $ 187 1.1% $ 3,899 $ 20,772 CHULA VISTA 200,677 8,456 4.2% 209,133 6.9% 36,909 37,944 1,035 2.8% 8,768 46,712 CORONADO 26,444 15 0.1% 26,459 0.9% 4,871 4,801 (70) -1.4% 1,109 5,910 DEL MAR 4,526 29 0.6% 4,555 0.2% 832 826 (6) -0.7% 191 1,017 EL CAJON 97,142 501 0.5% 97,643 3.2% 17,868 17,716 (152) -0.9% 4,094 21,810 ENCINITAS 61,399 1,187 1.9% 62,586 2.1% 11,304 11,355 51 0.5% 2,624 13,979 ESCONDIDO 138,814 1,691 1.2% 140,505 4.7% 25,511 25,493 (18) -0.1% 5,891 31,384 IMPERIAL BEACH 27,752 27 0.1% 27,779 0.9% 5,105 5,040 (65) -1.3% 1,165 6,205 LA MESA 55,966 83 0.1% 56,049 1.9% 10,293 10,169 (124) -1.2% 2,350 12,520 LEMON GROVE 25,500 92 0.4% 25,592 0.8% 4,690 4,643 (47) -1.0% 1,073 5,716 NATIONAL CITY 60,039 (2,992) -5.0% 57,047 1.9% 11,049 10,350 (699) -6.3% 2,392 12,742 OCEANSIDE 170,663 2,644 1.5% 173,307 5.7% 31,387 31,444 57 0.2% 7,266 38,710 POWAY 50,084 548 1.1% 50,632 1.7% 9,211 9,186 (25) -0.3% 2,123 11,309 SAN DIEGO 1,281,382 12,650 1.0% 1,294,032 42.9% 235,695 234,783 (912) -0.4% 54,256 289,038 SAN MARCOS 63,851 3,575 5.6% 67,426 2.2% 11,743 12,233 490 4.2% 2,827 15,061 SANTEE 53,847 175 0.3% 54,022 1.8% 9,909 9,801 (108) -1.1% 2,265 12,066 SOLANA BEACH 13,396 35 0.3% 13,431 0.4% 2,464 2,437 (27) -1.1% 563 3,000 VISTA 93,229 819 0.9% 94,048 3.1% 17,147 17,064 (83) -0.5% 3,943 21,007 COUNTY 460,615 9,348 2.0% 469,963 15.6% 84,751 85,268 517 0.6% 63,200 148,467
TOTAL REGION 2,976,104 41,100 1.4% 3,017,204 100.0% $ 547,426 $ 547,426 $ (0) 0.0% $ 170,000 $ 717,426
PROJECTED USE OF MEMBER ASSESSMENTS & CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLEARINGHOUSE FUNDING
PROGRAM FUNDING $ 331,826 397,926 $ 66,100 20% $ 170,000 $ 567,926 LOCAL EXPENSE 215,600 149,500 (66,100) -31% 0 149,500 CASH FLOW RESERVE 0 0 0% 0 0
TOTAL $ 547,426 $ 547,426 $ 0 0.0% $ 170,000 $ 717,426
* JANUARY 1, 2003 CERTIFIED POPULATION ESTIMATES. THESE FIGURES ARE ADJUSTED AGAIN WHEN THE 2004 ESTIMATES ARE RELEASED. **JANUARY 1, 2004 POPULATION ESTIMATES, AS RECEIVED FROM THE STATE DEPT. OF FINANCE, MAY 2004 Board of Directors Meeting - May 28, 2004 Attachment C
FY2005 ARJIS MEMBER ASSESSMENTS And Other Revenue Sources
Member Agency Name Assessments (1)
Carlsbad$ 35,423 Chula Vista 99,289 Coronado 17,722 Del Mar 2,887 El Cajon 75,572 Encinitas 32,354 Escondido 69,354 Imperial Beach 15,798 La Mesa 42,736 Lemon Grove 13,974 National City 32,660 Oceanside 80,453 Poway 25,823 San Diego 843,048 San Marcos 26,887 Santee 30,379 Solana Beach 7,747 Vista 45,266 County Sheriff 270,774 Total: Member Agencies $ 1,768,146
Sub-Total: Ex-Officio Members (2) $ 78,937 Total: ARJIS Membership Assessments $ 1,847,083
Other ARJIS Sources of Revenue: ARJIS User & Network Connectivity Fees (3) $ 2,192,726 Federal Grants (4) 735,000 TOTAL: ARJIS REVENUE SOURCES$ 4,774,809
PROJECTED USE OF ARJIS REVENUE Work Element (5) OWP# Expenses Maintenance & Support 22001$ 2,732,577 Project Mgmt & Enhancements 22002$ 1,557,232 COPLINK 22003$ 128,000 Border Safe 22004$ 357,000 $ 4,774,809
Notes: 1) Member assessment charges cover the administrative costs of ARJIS, including salaries, development, rent, and other overhead. Assessments are based on population, but have been frozen by the ARJIS board since 2001. 2) See next page for list of ex-officio agencies 3) User & Network fees are 'pass-through' charges for system support and infrastructure maintenance. Charges are based on usage as of 2001, and have been frozen by the ARJIS board since that time. 4) Federal Grants are from the following agencies: National Institute of Justice, National Science Foundation, and the Dept. of Homeland Security. 5) See Chapter 4 for description of work elements, listed by OWP number. Attachment C
FY2005 ARJIS EX-Officio Member Assessments
Member Agency Name Assessments (1)
US Border Patrol 3,942 RATT 2,550 SD Community College PD 1,626 DA Catch 2,539 US Marshal 9,849 FBI 8,962 IRS Criminal 788 ATF 1,183 INS 1,419 US Customs 3,148 US Forest Svc 1,032 US Attorney 2,938 Donovan Correctional 818 US Postal Svc 2,094 Secret Service 761 SD City Schools Police 2,651 SD State University 1,787 University of Cal SD 1,366 Dept of Insurance 788 Naval Crim Invstgtv Svc 1,511 US Pretrial 1,406 Harbor Police 3,498 Drug Enforcement Agency 3,548 US Probation 3,358 SD/Imp Co NIN 1,971 Health Services/Medical Fraud 788 US Coast Guard 788 Southwest College 788 Navy Brig 788 US Dept of State 788 Palomar College 788 Mira Costa College 788 Imperial County 7,885 Ex-Officio Total$ 78,937
NOTES:
(1) Member assessment fees pay for all administrative costs of ARJIS, including development costs. Since Ex-Officio member agencies have no population base, rates are based on usage. During the year, new members may be added at their request.