Board Members Mickey Cafagna, Chair Mayor, Poway Mary Teresa Sessom, First Vice Chair Mayor, Lemon Grove Lori Holt Pfeiler, Second Vice Chair Mayor, Escondido Matt Hall Mayor Pro Tem, Carlsbad BOARD OF DIRECTORS Steve Padilla Mayor, Chula Vista Phil Monroe AGENDA Councilmember, Coronado Crystal Crawford Mayor, Del Mar Mark Lewis Mayor, El Cajon Friday, September 22, 2006 Christy Guerin 9 a.m. to 12 noon Mayor, Encinitas SANDAG Board Room Patricia McCoy th Councilmember, Imperial Beach 401 B Street, 7 Floor Art Madrid San Diego Mayor, La Mesa Ron Morrison Vice Mayor, National City Shari Mackin Deputy Mayor, Oceanside Jerry Sanders AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS Mayor, San Diego Jim Madaffer Councilmember, San Diego • NEXUS STUDY FOR TransNet REGIONAL Pia Harris-Ebert TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT Vice Mayor, San Marcos PROGRAM Jack Dale Councilmember, Santee • PRELIMINARY LIST OF FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE Joe Kellejian Councilmember, Solana Beach PROJECTS FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION Judy Ritter Mayor Pro Tem, Vista • ARJIS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH Bill Horn DIVISION ACCOMPLISHMENTS Chairman, County of San Diego

Advisory Members Victor Carrillo, Chairman PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES DURING THE MEETING Imperial County Will Kempton, Director California Department of Transportation YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS Harry Mathis, Chairman Metropolitan Transit System MEETING BY VISITING OUR WEB SITE AT WWW.SANDAG.ORG Jerome Stocks, Chairman North County Transit District CAPT Michael Giorgione, USN U.S. Department of Defense MISSION STATEMENT William Hall, Commissioner The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. San Diego Unified Port District SANDAG builds consensus, makes strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, plans, engineers, Marilyn Dailey, Commissioner and builds public transit, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the San Diego County Water Authority region's quality of life. Luis Cabrera C. Consul General of Mexico San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ www.sandag.org Gary L. Gallegos Executive Director, SANDAG

Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the Board of Directors on any item at the time the Board is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located in the rear of the room, and then present the slip to the Clerk of the Board seated at the front table. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Board on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The Board of Directors may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.

This agenda and related staff reports can be accessed at www.sandag.org under Meetings on SANDAG’s Web site. 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 12 noon, two working days prior to the Board of Directors 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 AGENDA Friday, September 22, 2006

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

+1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES APPROVE

A. JULY 14, 2006, POLICY MEETING MINUTES B. AUGUST 4, 2006, MEETING MINUTES

2. 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. Board members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

+3. ACTIONS FROM POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES APPROVE

This item summarizes the actions taken by the Transportation Committee on September 1, 2006, the Executive and Borders Committees on September 8, 2006, and the Public Safety Committee on September 15, 2006.

CONSENT ITEMS (4 through 6)

+4. SANDAG FY 2007 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM APPROVE GOALS (Elaine Richardson)

SANDAG has an established Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program plan in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. In accordance with federal regulations, SANDAG is required to approve annual DBE program goals, herein referred to as Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL). The Board of Directors is asked to authorize staff to release the FY 2007 AADPL listed in the report for a 45-day public comment period. The Board also is asked to give final approval to these goals in the event no comments are received during the public comment period.

+5. QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS – INFORMATION APRIL TO JUNE 2006* (José A. Nuncio)

This quarterly report summarizes the current status of major highway, transit, arterial, traffic management, and transportation demand management projects in SANDAG's five-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program for the period April to June 2006.

3 +6. REPORT SUMMARIZING DELEGATED ACTIONS TAKEN BY EXECUTIVE APPROVE DIRECTOR* (Renée Wasmund)

In accordance with SANDAG Board Policy Nos. 003 (Investment Policy) and 017 (Delegation of Authority), this report summarizes certain delegated actions taken by the Executive Director during June and July 2006. The Board of Directors is asked to ratify the action taken by the Executive Director to enter into a contract with Caltrans to accept $278,600 in funding for a new project for Integrated Corridor Management along the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes corridor.

CHAIR’S REPORTS (7 through 9)

+7. APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR 2007 SANDAG INFORMATION BOARD OFFICERS

In accordance with the SANDAG Bylaws, the Chair will appoint up to a six-person nominating committee for Board officers, made up of Board members from each of the four subregions and a member from the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. The nominating committee will interview the applicants for the Chair, First Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair positions and will submit its slate nominees, in writing, for mailing to Board members in November.

8. REPORT ON REGIONAL ISSUES AFFECTING MARINE CORPS INSTALLATION INFORMATION WEST (Major General Michael R. Lehnert)

Major General Michael R. Lehnert, Commander, Marine Corps Installation West, will update the Board of Directors on major regional issues associated with his command.

9. RECOGNITION OF TONI BATES, DIVISION DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT INFORMATION PLANNING, UPON HER RETIREMENT FROM SANDAG

REPORTS (10 through 15)

+10. SPRINTER PROJECT STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVE ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL PAPER* (José Nuncio and Jim Linthicum, SANDAG; Tom Lichterman, NCTD)

In August, the Board of Directors authorized NCTD to access up to $10 million in funding from the SANDAG TransNet Commercial Paper (CP) program to cover the SPRINTER project’s cash flow needs during August and September. To cover cash flow needs beyond September, the Board's action also allowed NCTD to request TransNet CP on a month-by-month basis. Approval of each funding request requires a monthly project status report, including discussion of implementation and effectiveness of project cost control measures. NCTD and SANDAG staffs will summarize recent progress on the project. The Board is asked to authorize NCTD to access up to $18.2 million in TransNet CP funding to cover SPRINTER cash flow needs through October 2006.

4 +11. NEXUS STUDY FOR TransNet REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION ACCEPT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM* (Councilmember Jim Madaffer, Transportation Committee Vice Chair; Marney Cox)

The purpose of the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) is to ensure that future development will contribute its share toward funding and mitigating new traffic impacts on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTCIP requires each local jurisdiction to establish a program or mechanism to collect an impact fee per new residential unit for the purpose of funding the RAS. In accordance with the TransNet Ordinance, SANDAG is responsible for producing the required Nexus Study to satisfy the California Government Code requirements for funding programs utilizing a development impact fee. The Transportation Committee recommends that the SANDAG Board of Directors accept the Nexus Study for the purpose of distributing it to the local jurisdictions for their use in implementing the funding program required by the TransNet Ordinance.

+12. PRELIMINARY LIST OF FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR THE APPROVE SAN DIEGO REGION (Michael Hix)

On September 8, 2006, the Board of Directors accepted for planning purposes a list of potential freight infrastructure projects and freight project evaluation criteria developed by the Freight Working Group. Using the criteria, staff and the Freight Working Group have ranked the potential freight infrastructure projects. The Board is asked to approve the preliminary list of freight infrastructure projects for inclusion in the initial San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan and for submittal to the state for consideration in its Statewide Goods Movement Action Plan.

+13. OTAY MESA-MESA DE OTAY BINATIONAL CORRIDOR STRATEGIC PLAN: APPROVE EARLY ACTION PLAN (Supervisor Victor Carrillo, Borders Committee Vice Chair; Elisa Arias)

SANDAG, in partnership with the City of Tijuana's Municipal Planning Institute (Instituto Municipal de Planeación or IMPlan), has evaluated transportation, housing, economic development, and environmental conservation issues as part of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan. The Board of Directors is asked to approve the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Early Action Plan for planning purposes.

+14. FIRST ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE TransNet INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER INFORMATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* (ITOC Chair Maryam Babaki)

The Chair of the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) will present the first Annual Report from the ITOC outlining its primary areas of activity over the past year and its planned focus areas for the future.

5 +15. ARJIS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH DIVISION ACCOMPLISHMENTS INFORMATION (Mayor Steve Padilla, Public Safety Committee Chair; Pam Scanlon and Lisbeth Howard)

The SANDAG FY 2006 Overall Work Program included a number of public safety related work elements funded through local, state, and federal monies. This item highlights the major agency accomplishments for ARJIS (Automated Regional Justice Information System) and Criminal Justice Research Division during FY 2006. Key successes include the Public Safety Committee (PSC) Regional Interoperability and Communications workshops, enhancements to ARJIS and the Clearinghouse, and other criminal justice research activities. A summary of these accomplishments was presented to the PSC at its September 15, 2006, meeting.

16. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The next Policy meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Friday, October 13, 2006, at 10 a.m. The next Business meeting of the Board of Directors is scheduled for Friday, October 27, 2006, at 9 a.m.

17. ADJOURNMENT

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment * next to an agenda item indicates a San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission item

6

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-1A SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS JULY 14, 2006

First Vice Chair Mary Sessom (Lemon Grove) called the meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors to order at 10:03 a.m. The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached.

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBERS COMMENTS

Don Stillwell, a member of the public, said that in less than 60 days there will be a major change in the bus routes in the Allied Gardens, Grantville, Navajo communities. These changes could cause students to be late for school, employees late for work, and will require residents more time to complete their trips. He commented on the impacts that deletion of the Route 14 bus stop at the Grantville Trolley Station will have. He said that riders from Mission Valley will lose connections to North Park, and children will be forced to transfer to get to school. This delay will occur when the Route 13 bus terminates at a new bus terminal location. Passengers will have to wait for the Route 14 bus with a 30-minute frequency. Congestion will increase due to these frequencies. Deleting the bus stop on Fairmount Avenue is nonproductive. He said that with all of the millions of dollars being spent to allow a higher volume of vehicle traffic on the roadways, we should invest a little to improve ridership on the buses by restoring the Route 14 bus stop at the Grantville Trolley Station and moving the Route 13 bus terminal to the Grantville Trolley Station.

Councilmember Patricia McCoy (Imperial Beach) announced that next Thursday, July 20, 2006, the League of California Cities’ quarterly dinner will be held in Imperial Beach with the theme "Going Back to the 50s." She invited all to attend this event.

First Vice Chair Sessom and the Board wished San Diego City Mayor Jerry Sanders a happy birthday.

REPORTS

2. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING WORKSHOP (INFORMATION)

Susan Brown, Financial Manager of Programming, indicated that a new version of the “Alphabet Soup, A Primer on Transportation Funding in the San Diego Region,” has been distributed as a reference for funding sources in the region. On page 7 is a table that lists federal, state, and local funds and additional information. An appended version of criteria is on page 13 for near- and long-term projects, and on page 16 is a glossary of terms. The overview will look at existing revenue sources, Senate Bill (SB) 1266 State Infrastructure Bonds, and transportation planning and programming processes that ultimately direct where those funds are invested.

Ms. Brown indicated that a fact sheet on the infrastructure bond measure was distributed along with a crossword puzzle. The answers to the puzzle will be revealed during her discussion.

Ms. Brown stated that transportation revenues in the 2006-2030 period will total about $36 billion, with 43 percent ($15.5 billion) of non-SANDAG revenues and 57 percent ($20.5 billion) in SANDAG revenues. The non-SANDAG revenues consist of local gas tax, general fund/miscellaneous fees, State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP), Proposition 42 (for cities/County), and other sources.

Ms. Brown explained that the SANDAG revenues are comprised of the following: federal at 21.5 percent ($4.4 billion), state at 15.1 percent ($3.1 billion), and local at 63.4 percent ($13 billion). The SANDAG revenues include TransNet, TransNet bonds, Transportation Development Act (TDA), Miscellaneous Local, State Transportation Improvement Program/Transportation Congestion Relief Program (STIP/TCRP), State Transit Assistance (STA), Miscellaneous State, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Formula funds, FTA Discretionary funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality/Regional Surface Transportation Program (CMAQ/RSTP), and Miscellaneous Federal funds. TDA funds are from the ¼ cent of sales tax, and it is transit’s primary subsidy source. There are several off-the-top amounts including County Administration ($41,000), SANDAG Regional Planning and Administration ($7.4 million), Bicycle-Pedestrian Program ($2.5 million), and the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency ($112,000). The balance of $118.5 million is allocated to the transit agencies by population.

SANDAG state revenues come from STIP/TCRP ($1.8 billion), STA ($0.5 billion), and Miscellaneous State funds ($0.8 billion). Ms. Brown noted that the STIP is funded through 2012, and most of that funding is being used on State Route (SR) 52 and the Mid-Coast project. STA comes through state sales tax on gasoline used for operations and capital but has been an unstable source in the past for two reasons: it is based on sales tax and fluctuations with gas prices, and there have been many legislative raids to use these funds for other than transportation purposes.

Ms. Brown reviewed the federal funds including: FTA formula funds at $1.9 billion, FTA discretionary funds at $0.3 billion, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) flexible funds CMAQ and Surface Transportation Program (STP) at $1.4 billion, and Miscellaneous Federal at $0.8 billion for a total of $4.4 billion. She said that we anticipate the FTA Discretionary funds to increase due to Full Funding Grant Agreements for several projects. The CMAQ fund must be used for projects that impact air quality, including managed lanes, rail extensions, and vanpool services. The STP is broader in applicability and is used for regional arterials, highway projects, and Intelligent Transportation-type projects. The Early Action Program includes a percentage of these funds to match the TransNet program along with the STIP funds. This is consistent with the provisions of the TransNet program that requires a 50/50 match ratio. We will continue to get some fair share of FHWA highway and border infrastructure funds (the Federal Miscellaneous funds). These are known sources. However, there are not enough of these funds to do what we need to do in transportation and to match the TransNet funding. There is some promise on the horizon in the form of the

2 infrastructure bond measures for the November ballot. We hope that our fair share would be in the range of our population share of the state; however, these funds are not formulized except in a few cases and will be allocated based on criteria developed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). She thought that the following categories should get higher than minimum amounts: the Border, the airport, major congested freeways, and rail corridors.

Ms. Brown said that the Infrastructure bond includes $4.5 billion for corridor mobility for congestion relief and, we have three major congested corridors with projects (Interstate 5 [I-5], I-15 and I-805). Our projected share is about $360 million. There is $3.1 billion for ports, security, and air quality projects that relate to ports. Our regional share from this bond should be approximately $248 million. This bond would be an augmentation to the STIP program. State Route (SR) 905 and the Intercity Rail Corridor have done well in getting intercity money. We should do better than the projected $109 million. Out of the $4 billion for transportation, we should get in the range of $222 million. There is also a $1 billion set aside for transit safety, security, and disaster preparedness. Of that amount, our fair share would be $80 million. In the $1 billion for the state/local partnership program, the regional goal is $80 million. These funds would provide the match for designated priority projects in the region. TransNet funds have been designated as the local match to state funds for the projects included in the TransNet measure. For the $125 million in Local Bridge Retrofit funds, the regional goal is $8 million. These funds will match federal local bridge retrofit funds. There is $250 million slated for Highway Railroad Crossings and Safety. The regional goal from this category is $20 million. There is $750 million for the SHOPP program. The regional goal is $20 million. This category deals with the condition of our state highways. There is $2 billion for Local Streets and Roads with funds to cities and the County. The regional goal for this category is $153 million. There is $1 billion for SR 99. This highway is not in our County so we would not be eligible for this funding. There is also $200 million for School Bus Retrofit, which goes to entities that handle that issue.

Ms. Brown stated that the State Infrastructure bond funds will be administered by the CTC. The CTC plans to develop criteria and anticipates having these criteria ready by mid-November. The CTC has been setting up five task forces, and we have placed staff on each of these task forces. Once the criteria are established, projects should be submitted by January 2007. There is a condition that projects need to be constructed by 2012. We will identify a list of projects by March 2007. The Legislature will appropriate these bond funds on an annual basis.

Ms. Brown said the question is how SANDAG will decide to invest the region’s transportation revenues. The MOBILITY 2030 vision is that a transportation system should move people and goods, provide travel choices that are safe and efficient, preserve resources, and be efficiently managed. There are six mobility goals: reliability, equity, accessibility, sustainability, efficiency, and livability. Included in MOBILITY 2030 are quantitative measures that will serve to benchmark the future performance of networks. Project evaluation criteria involve highway corridors, freeway/high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) connectors, transit service, and regional arterials. This is the basis of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and it is a long-range plan.

Ms. Brown said that we get from a long-range plan the ability to implement projects through the programming process. First, we determine RTP consistency, and then we go through SANDAG priority requirements for both short-term and long-term projects,

3 indicating opportunities to leverage state and federal funds. To do that, we must meet state and federal requirements (mandates, budgetary constraints, and eligibility criteria). Then projects are programmed into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) and other annual programs. At this point, we have to obtain necessary approvals from state and federal governments and our federal funding partners, FTA and FHWA.

Ms. Brown read the answers for the crossword puzzle and the clues for the blue and red jumbles.

Mayor Art Madrid (La Mesa) noted that the Safety for Schools program has helped his community. He asked where that money comes from. Ms. Brown said that there is both state and federal funding for that program. She referred to page 8 in the Alphabet Soup report.

Mayor Madrid asked how much money the region will receive of these funds. Ms. Brown replied that there is only $13 million available statewide in that program.

Councilmember Phil Monroe (Coronado) asked if the performance measures are “real world” measures, and what the specific measures are. Ms. Brown answered that there is a large number of performance measures that address those questions. We do go back and review our performance. The State requires that evaluation. There is one committee that will be set up for the infrastructure bonds; it is a performance measure committee and Jack Boda, SANDAG’s Director of Multimodal and Project Implementation, will sit on that committee.

Mr. Gallegos referred Councilmember Monroe to page 15 of the Alphabet Soup. for the Highway Corridor evaluation; there are two quantitative criteria: (1) the cost to complete/person miles traveled, and (2) the cost to complete/travel time savings. We used these criteria to judge which projects rank the best. Other qualitative criteria include: is this project a critical freeway link, does it address high accident rate, is there high truck usage, etc. These are SANDAG Board-adopted criteria. We are going to update the RTP through the Transportation Committee and will be looking at these and deciding if they are still the right ones or change them to fit real world situations.

Councilmember Monroe said that we are looking out for a long period of time. Sometimes things are costing more than expected in the near-term. In the first few years, projects will be funded. He wanted to know what would be dropped off at the other end. If a project is dropped, which project is it, and how would we know that. Mr. Gallegos said that there are a lot of assumptions that look at existing revenue and new revenue that we expect to generate. It also depends on how well the economy will do. We track sales tax events. We hope to bring back to the Board a “dashboard” that we have been working on with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) so that the public can check on the status of these projects at any time on different levels (project-by-project, corridor-by-corridor, and the whole program).

Ms. Brown added that staff will come back with periodic updates to the Plan of Finance over the 40 years of the TransNet program.

4 Councilmember Joe Kellejian (Solana Beach) said that part of the reasoning behind the Early Action Projects was to bring those projects forward. Local cities and the County found the same situation of rising costs happening on their projects.

Mr. Gallegos said that when we worked on the TransNet Extension, we didn’t know there would be these state infrastructure bonds this year. Staff is working with our transit partners (the transit operators) to develop an expanded list of projects to consider if these bonds are approved and additional funding is forthcoming. If we do not have to borrow as much as expected, we can add more projects to the list. We will be monitoring this situation over time.

Councilmember Kellejian stated that we must keep in mind that we have to dedicate dollars now and in for the future for operating purposes.

Mayor Mark Lewis (El Cajon) asked if there are funds in these plans for issues like litter control and recycled water for highway beautification. Pedro Orso-Delgado, Caltrans, District 11 Director, said that before the distribution of certain state funds, monies are taken off-the-top statutorily for maintenance and operations of highways, so we have a base budget to cover those kinds of things. The second level is safety-type-related projects in the SHOPP and the STIP programs. If anything gets loped off during the lean years, it will be projects at the regional level.

Councilmember McCoy commented that residents are interested in how to get from point A to point B. She asked how we are figuring that in as part of the evaluation criteria. Mr. Gallegos replied that one thing this Board has done in the past and will do on August 4 is to adopt the population growth forecast. We iterate back to the growth forecast and the land use decisions you make. These all have to work in sync. This will help drive the analysis of the update of the RTP.

Councilmember Jerome Stocks (NCTD) noted that a few years ago there was no such thing as a "quiet zone" railroad designation. Other communities have adopted these zones. He asked how cities would seek Section 130 funding for grade protection devices. Ms. Brown said that these funds are generally used for major grade crossing improvements, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the entity that determines project priority. There are about 60 major grade crossing projects on an existing list, and the CPUC funds only about three of them a year.

Councilmember Kellejian added that we have representation on the Los Angeles-San Luis Obispo-San Diego (LOSSAN) Board. That Board looks at the grade crossing needs of the entire corridor and makes recommendations to the CPUC for those kinds of projects. Ms. Brown added that LOSSAN has input on intercity rail program projects as well. The STIP has both interregional funds and regional funds. The interregional funds are statewide or beyond regional borders.

Councilmember Kellejian said that the San Diego County representatives on the LOSSAN Board include himself representing the North County Transit District (NCTD), Councilmember Jerry Rindone representing SANDAG, and Julianne Nygaard representing North County.

Action: This item was presented for information only.

5 3. UPCOMING MEETINGS

First Vice Chair Sessom aked Ms. Eidam to review upcoming meetings. Ms. Eidam explained that to avoid conflict with the League of California Cities meeting, the regularly scheduled Business meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors on July 28, 2006, has been rescheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Friday, August 4, 2006. The Board meeting will be from 8:00-10:00 a.m., a Transportation Committee meeting will occur from 10:00-11:00 a.m., there will be a joint Transportation / Regional Planning Committee meeting from 11:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., and a Regional Planning Committee meeting from 12:00-1:00 p.m. She emphasized that the Board meeting will start at 8:00 a.m. on August 4, 2006.

The regularly scheduled Policy and Business meetings of the SANDAG Board of Directors on August 11, 2006, and August 25, 2006, respectively, have been cancelled. The next scheduled Policy meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors is scheduled at 10:00 a.m. for Friday, September 8, 2006. The next scheduled Business meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors is scheduled at 9:00 a.m.for Friday, September 22, 2006.

4. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 a.m.

DGunn/M/DGU

6 Meeting Adjourned Time: 10:58 a.m. Meeting Start Time: 10:04 a.m. Total Meeting Length/Minimum Time for Attendance Eligibility: 54 min/27 min.

ATTENDANCE SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING JULY 14, 2006

JURISDICTION/ ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING

City of Carlsbad Matt Hall (Member) Yes City of Chula Vista Jerry Rindone (Alternate) 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 Art Madrid (Member) Yes City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom, Vice Chair (Member) Yes City of National City Ron Morrison (Member) Yes City of Oceanside Shari Mackin (Member) Yes City of Poway Mickey Cafagna, Chair (Member) No City of San Diego – A Jerry Sanders (Member A) Yes City of San Diego - B Scott Peters (Alternate) Yes City of San Marcos Pia Harris-Ebert (Member) No City of Santee Jack Dale (Member) Yes City of Solana Beach Joe Kellejian (Member) Yes City of Vista Judy Ritter (Member) Yes County of San Diego Bill Horn (Member) Yes Caltrans Pedro Orso-Delgado (Alternate) Yes MTS Harry Mathis (Member) Yes NCTD Jerome Stocks (Member) Yes Imperial County Victor Carrillo (Member) No US Dept. of Defense CAPT Michael Giorgione (Member) No SD Unified Port District William Hall (Member) No SD County Water Authority Marilyn Dailey (Member) Yes Baja California/Mexico Luis Cabrera Cuaron (Member) No

7

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-1B SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS AUGUST 4, 2006

First Vice Chair Mary Sessom (Lemon Grove) called the meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors to order at 8:09 a.m. The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached.

1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Mayor Ron Morrison (National City) and a second by Councilmember Joe Kellejian (Solana Beach), the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the minutes from the June 9 and June 23, 2006, meetings.

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBERS COMMENTS

Clive Richard, a member of the public, stated that he was planning to attend the Board and Committee meetings scheduled for the day.

Don Stillwell, a member of the public, showed a graph of bus Routes 13 and 14 and said that changes in service will force all Trolley passengers to take the Route 13 and then transfer to the Route 14 to the Grantville and Allied Gardens areas. Residents have signed a petition to move the bus stop back to the Grantville Trolley Station. He asked that the Route 14 bus stop be restored at the Grantville Trolley Station and that the Route 13 stop be rerouted to the Grantville Trolley Station.

Virginia Poppoff-Ulvi said that she lives on Crawford Street just a few houses from the proposed bus terminus. She has lived there since 1964 and has watched the traffic change. She showed pictures where the space on Crawford Street would accommodate only one bus. She thought it was a bad idea to put a bus stop on Crawford Street due to the lack of space.

Jeffrey Ulvi, said that he also lives on Crawford Street, and supported the comments of Mr. Stillwell and his wife, Virginia Poppoff-Ulvi. He said that there is not enough room and not enough parking on Crawford Street for a bus stop. The Grantville Trolley Station has more than ample parking for a bus terminal at that location.

Marilyn Reed, a resident of Allied Gardens and a member of the Allied Gardens Council, the Navajo Community Planners, and past member of the Grantville Redevelopment Advisory Board, said that the Board should respect the concerns of the residents of Allied Gardens and Grantville and restore the bus stop for Route 14 and remove the Route 13 bus stop from Crawford Street. She supported Mr. Stillwell's solutions and wrote a letter to that effect on March 7, 2006. Councilmember Jim Madaffer (City of San Diego) recognized Mr. Stillwell and the others who provided comments on behalf of this issue. He, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) representatives, and Mr. Stillwell went on a tour of this area. The conclusion was that these changes will actually increase service levels in these areas. He agreed that there are concerns on Crawford Street and Zion Avenue. Once the service changes have been implemented, they will reassess the issues. He pledged to do that through both the City of San Diego and SANDAG.

Councilmember Jerry Rindone (Chula Vista) said that MTS has committed to the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that indicates these service changes will increase transit usage. If anything proves different from that, we will make appropriate adjustments.

3. ACTIONS FOR POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES (APPROVE)

This item summarizes the actions taken by the Borders Committee on June 23, 2006, the Transportation and Regional Planning Committees on July 7, 2006, the Executive Committee on July 14, 2006, and the Transportation and Public Safety Committees on July 21, 2006.

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Mayor Morrison and a second by Councilmember Madaffer, the SANDAG Board approved Agenda Item No. 3, Actions from Policy Advisory Committees. Yes – 18 (weighted vote, 100%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – 0 (0%). Absent – Vista.

CONSENT ITEMS (4 though 10)

4. REVIEW OF BOARD POLICY NO. 018: REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION* (APPROVE)

In June 2003, SANDAG adopted Board Policy No. 018: Regional Transit Service Planning and Implementation, which defines the transit service planning and implementation responsibilities of SANDAG and the two transit operators. The policy requires periodic reviews to reflect any changes to transit service planning responsibilities and processes. In spring 2006, a review of Policy No. 018 was conducted by staff, and several changes to the policy are proposed. On July 7, 2006, the Transportation Committee recommended that the SANDAG Board of Directors approve proposed revisions to Policy No. 018, which include: (1) clarification of the roles and responsibilities for preparation of service and operating plans for TransNet projects; (2) allocation of responsibilities for federal Title VI reporting; (3) deletion of references to regional fare setting; (4) inclusion of new planning requirements from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); and (5) a requirement to conduct the next review of Policy No. 018 in fall 2007.

5. PROCESS FOR REVIEW BY SANDAG OF PROPOSED PROJECTS IN ADJOINING COUNTIES (APPROVE)

The Borders Committee recommends that the SANDAG Board of Directors approve the process set forth in this report for SANDAG to review and comment on regionally significant projects in adjoining counties.

2 6. ESTABLISHING A SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (APPROVE)

In 1979, SANDAG created the Subcommittee for Accessible Transit (SCAT) in response to federal requirements and increased local interest in accessibility issues for seniors and persons with disabilities. Changes in state law indicate that SANDAG should restructure SCAT to better meet state mandates and guidelines. On July 21, 2006, the Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors: (1) create a new Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) to replace SCAT; (2) approve the SSTAC membership structure and initial members; (3) recognize the Transportation Committee’s authority to appoint all future members of SSTAC, consistent with the membership structure outlined in the report; (4) delegate to SSTAC the role of Local Review Committee for the Section 5310 grant applications; and (5) approve the proposed SSTAC Charter.

7. BIANNUAL REPORT ON COMMITTEES AND WORKING GROUPS (INFORMATION)

As required by SANDAG Board Policy No. 004, this item provides a biannual report on the status of all standing and ad hoc committees and working groups.

8. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT-PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2006* (INFORMATION)

State law requires that the Board be provided a quarterly report of investments held by SANDAG. This report includes all money under the direction or care of SANDAG as of June 30, 2006.

9. REPORT SUMMARIZING DELEGATED ACTIONS TAKEN BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INFORMATION)

In accordance with SANDAG Board Policy Nos. 003 (Investment Policy) and 017 (Delegation of Authority), this report summarizes certain delegated actions taken by the Executive Director during May 2006.

10. STATUS REPORT ON SDG&E's PROPOSED SUNRISE POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LINE (INFORMATION)

In April, the Board of Directors requested that the Energy Working Group (EWG) make a recommendation to the Board on San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (SDG&E’s) proposed Sunrise Powerlink, a 500-kilovolt transmission line running through the eastern portion of the County to the City of San Diego. The California Public Utilities Commission has scheduled a pre-hearing conference in the San Diego region in mid-September, after which the scope and schedule for determining the need for the project will be outlined. The EWG is planning to devote its August meeting to discuss the project and will outline the information that would be required from SDG&E for the EWG to make an informed recommendation to the Board. The purpose of this report is to outline the schedule for bringing the EWG’s recommendation to the Board.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Patricia McCoy (Imperial Beach) and second by First Vice Chair Sessom, the SANDAG Board voted to approve the recommended actions contained in Consent Item Nos. 4 through 10. Yes – 18. No – 0. Abstain – 0. Absent – Vista.

3 CHAIR’S REPORT

11. RIDESHARE WEEK – OCTOBER 2-6, 2006 (APPROVE)

Chair Mickey Cafagna (Poway) stated that traffic congestion is a big concern for San Diego region commuters and employers. Our RideLink team works with employers and commuters to promote innovative options for getting to work or school. The RideLink program will be celebrating Rideshare Week from October 2-6, 2006. During this week, RideLink will be promoting carpools, vanpools, riding transit, biking, walking, and telework options. The SANDAG Board has been asked to proclaim October 2-6, 2006, as Rideshare Week in the San Diego region. Your jurisdictions also can make the commitment to Rideshare Week. We’ve included a sample proclamation that you may take back to your council or board to get approved.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Jack Dale (Santee) and a second by First Vice Chair Sessom, the SANDAG Board approved Resolution No. 2007-06, proclaiming the week of October 2-6, 2006, as Rideshare Week and encouraged member agencies to approve similar proclamations. Yes – 17 (weighted vote, 100%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – 0 (0%). Absent – Imperial Beach, National City.

REPORTS (12 through 17)

12. PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL 2006 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM* (APPROVE)

Chair Cafagna indicated that a “blue sheet” had been distributed on this item. He said that this is the time and place set for a public hearing concerning the 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The staff report will be heard first, and then questions from the Board will be taken. After the staff report and any questions, we will take public comments and then comments from Board members.

Sookyung Kim, Financial Programming Manager, reported that the RTIP is a $6 billion, five- year program of major highway, transit, arterial, and nonmotorized projects funded by federal, state, TransNet local sales tax, and other local funding sources from FY 2007 to FY 2011. As required by federal regulations, SANDAG conducted an air quality conformity analysis of all regionally significant, capacity-increasing projects in the 2006 RTIP. The analysis demonstrates that the 2006 RTIP meets the air quality conformity requirements. At its May 19, 2006, meeting, the Transportation Committee accepted the draft RTIP and scheduled a public hearing on June 16, 2006; there were no public comments at that meeting. At the June 23, 2006, Board of Directors meeting, the Board delayed action to enable four jurisdictions to hold a public hearing and approve their local RTIP projects prior to final SANDAG Board action. However, while the City of San Diego’s budget ordinance is in compliance with the TransNet Ordinance, it is inconsistent with Board Policy No. 031, which requires the local jurisdiction to include a clause agreeing to hold harmless and defend the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission against challenges related to local TransNet-funded projects. Staff is hereby recommending that the Board grant the City of San Diego a 60-day waiver to this policy and require that the City of San Diego submit a resolution with the required “Local Agency Hold Harmless Agreements” within 60 days.

4 Ms. Kim stated that a public hearing notice was published in newspapers of general circulation.

Councilmember Madaffer expressed support for staff's recommendations and apologized for the City of San Diego not having its legal work completed in a timely manner. He will endeavor to make sure this is docketed for the San Diego City Council within the next 60 days.

Chair Cafagna opened the public hearing at 8:30 a.m.

Duncan McFetridge, Chairman of Save Our Forests and Ranchlands (SOFAR), said that they are deeply committed to containing urban sprawl. The debate between transit and highway building is critical for determining a pattern to achieve sustainable growth in San Diego County. He stated that the item before the Board for action will fund road building over transit at a 3-to-1 ratio. He stated that the Board needs to make a new priority for transit. Unless we invest in transit, we won’t have high density and walkable communities. He wondered if we will ever get a handle on real mobility in this area related to air quality, traffic congestion, and affordable housing.

Mr. McFetridge noted that 60-70 percent of San Diego County’s highways are filled within two years of completion. Transit uses less energy and reduces congestion. With regard to land consumption, if you build high density projects that are dependent on transit, then you should invest in transit.

Theresa Quiroz, a member of the public, complimented staff on their handling of issues that have arisen from this item. Unfortunately when TransNet was written we didn’t realize we needed to make policies so that the City of San Diego will abide by the rules. The City of San Diego has found a legal loophole to the public hearing requirement. She felt that everyone should be held to the same standard. The City of San Diego has stated that it will remove the Fox Canyon Road from the RTIP project listing. This project is still in the RTIP and needs to be removed before SANDAG acts. She supported approving the waiver for the City of San Diego but cautioned that the process next year should be better followed.

John Stump, representing Friends of Fox Canyon, expressed his appreciation to Councilmember Madaffer’s compromise on resolving the Fox Canyon matter. He asked that the Board remove project SD 138 (Fox Canyon) from the list of projects.

Chair Cafagna closed the public hearing at 8:46 a.m.

Councilmember Rindone said that what we have is an illustration of the challenges that we all face in our communities. He concurred publicly with the concerns stated by the speakers in regard to trying to enhance transit rather than roads. The MTS COA showed the dramatic need for transit and for additional transit services in the future. We should craft funding proposals that place a top priority on transit. He noted that Los Angeles has a 1 percent sales tax dedicated for transit. We only have one-third of one percent of sales tax in San Diego County. We have the smallest amount of sales tax committed for transit. We need to gather support for future funding for transit. Traffic congestion knows no boundaries or geographic differences. We need to do a better job and get the commitment to provide that funding in the future.

5 Chair Cafagna stated that all of our major transportation highway projects include Managed Lanes, which will be dedicated for use by public transit and other high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs). He asked Mr. Gallegos to talk about the Fox Canyon issue as it relates to the SANDAG Board responsibilities.

Gary Gallegos, Executive Director, said that the local jurisdictions through a public process bring a list of projects to include in the RTIP. SANDAG then incorporates each jurisdiction’s project list into the RTIP. The RTIP is updated every two years and is amended on at least a quarterly basis.

Pedro Orso-Delgado, Caltrans District 11 Director, stated that the slide shown by Mr. McFetridge was of an incident at the U.S.-Mexico border when Interstate 5 was completely closed to traffic. This illustrates that when one leg of the system fails, the whole system fails. We are not building just new freeways; we are building Managed Lanes. We are trying to figure out a balanced approach and improve regional arterial road and highway connections to provide a good grid for bus rapid transit (BRT) service to work. There will be direct access ramps to and from the Managed Lanes to move the buses in and out quickly. We are on the verge of finishing up work on Interstate 15.

Councilmember Madaffer thanked Councilmember Rindone for his comments. When we conducted a focus group and polling in 2004 for the TransNet Extension, the results showed that if the measure was tilted toward transit, the measure would fail. TransNet passed by the slimmest of margins. It was a difficult situation. He agreed with the priorities, but the people of San Diego County, through the ballot box, do not agree. With regard to smart growth, the Grantville Trolley Station is an excellent opportunity, and he hoped the County of San Diego would drop its lawsuit regarding the Grantville redevelopment area. With respect to Fox Canyon, while it is listed in the RTIP today, he stated his intention to remove the project as part of a future amendment to the RTIP; this would come through a future action by the City of San Diego.

Supervisor Bill Horn (County of San Diego) said that the County would not be dropping its Grantville lawsuit.

Councilmember Dave Druker (Del Mar) said that, unfortunately, the Managed Lanes, as currently under development, would not provide for true BRT. The Managed Lanes will be used by transit, carpools, and paying single-occupant vehicle users. He stated that we need to have dedicated bus-only lanes. SANDAG needs to move the San Diego region toward transit. We need to come up with incredible plans for transit in San Diego County.

Deputy Mayor Shari Mackin (Oceanside) stated that no public hearing was held in north San Diego County on the State Route (SR) 241 toll road by the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) (page 60 of the RTIP). She wondered why we didn’t have more input on this project, which has pending litigation.

Mr. Gallegos explained that this RTIP process doesn’t start from scratch, it is updated every two years. Projects carry over and you can add new projects and/or amend existing ones. The SR 241 project is not new. TCA is managing this project, and only the last mile or so is in San Diego County. The TCA has adopted an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is going through the project development process. The road complies with all of the relevant requirements.

6 Councilmember Kellejian noted that in Agenda Item No. 5 on today’s Consent Agenda the Board approved a process for reviewing proposed projects in adjoining counties. The Borders Committee would now be taking this important review process on.

Vice Mayor Morrison said that the Plaza Boulevard Widening project was a project that was in the RTIP a number of years ago, and $12 million was allocated for environmental, preconstruction, and construction phases. There was no way we could get those aspects completed within the required timing so we sent $9 million back to SANDAG, and it was redistributed to other jurisdictions for other Regional Arterial System projects. We are now at a point where we need the funds to complete this project. His concern is that there doesn’t appear to be funding for this project, and he would like to make sure it is eventually completed.

Deputy Mayor Mackin noted that Agenda Item No. 5 discusses projects outside San Diego County. To clarify, SR 241 is not entirely outside the County. She appreciated the fact that the Board will be looking around our borders.

Mayor Art Madrid (La Mesa) said that we need to think locally but act regionally. It concerns him that there was not a single hearing in San Diego County on SR 241. He made a substitute motion to bifurcate the action on SR 241 from the action on the remainder of the RTIP. Councilmember McCoy seconded this substitute motion.

Councilmember Rindone said that in reviewing the details on this item, he has potential conflict with project CHV21 (North Fourth Avenue Construction), and he will abstain from the vote.

John Kirk, Deputy General Counsel, clarified that if the project is separated from the rest of the Board’s action on the RTIP, then Councilmember Rindone could abstain from voting on that particular item; however, if the RTIP goes forward as a whole, then he would need to abstain from voting on the whole item.

Ms. Kim stated that SR 241 is a capacity-increasing project that went through the regional air quality conformity analysis. If we delete this project, we would have to redetermine air quality conformity, which requires another 30- to 60- day notice. The project also is in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and therefore its removal would be inconsistent with the RTP. This would result in a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lapse meaning no project in the region could move forward.

Mayor Madrid said that his intent for bifurcation was to discuss SR 241 further. He did not intend his substitute motion to delay the approval of the RTIP.

Mr. Gallegos added that if Board approves the RTIP today, it can come back and amend it, as needed.

Councilmember Madaffer said that in the spirit of compromise, we need to have more dialogue with the TCA staff in charge of SR 241. He asked if it would be acceptable to approve the entire RTIP and then have staff follow up with TCA to discuss SR 241 issues in San Diego County. If the results of the discussion are not acceptable, we can amend the RTIP in the future.

7 Councilmember McCoy said that we need to go through the new review process just approved.

Mayor Madrid and Councilmember McCoy withdrew the substitute motion and second.

Deputy Mayor Mackin asked about the time frame to amend the RTIP. Mr. Gallegos responded that amendments are made quarterly. The approval of the 2006 RTIP today is critical to meet the federal and state deadlines. Our next opportunity to amend the RTIP would be in October.

First Vice Chair Sessom said this is not the first time that SR 241 has been discussed by the Board. She thought an historical recap would be helpful the next time the issue is brought up.

Mayor Christy Guerin (Encinitas) said she wanted to clarify that if we delay approval of the RTIP today, we are in jeopardy of losing federal and state dollars.

Chair Cafagna called for the question to approve the recommended action.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Madaffer and a second by Second Vice Chair Holt Pfeiler, the SANDAG Board approved Resolution No. 2007-07, adopting the Final 2006 RTIP, including its air quality conformity determination and the air conformity redetermination of the 2030 Revenue Constrained RTP: 2006 Update. The Board also granted the City of San Diego a 60-day waiver on providing a resolution which holds harmless and agrees to defend the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission against challenges related to TransNet projects undertaken by the City of San Diego, as required by Board Policy No. 031. Yes – 18 (weighted vote, 93%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – Chula Vista (7%). Absent – None.

13. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT BUDGET SHORTFALLS* (APPROVE)

Councilmember Kellejian said that the Transportation Committee reviewed the cost increases and program augmentations at its June 16, 2006, meeting and recommended approval for funding as outlined in the staff report. The budget needs are not all due to cost increases but rather to meet previous commitments on the Regional Arterial System, to extend the funding for successful programs such as the Regional Rideshare Program, and to add funds to the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) program to allow operations to begin later this year. One change is related to the SPRINTER project. There are North County Transit District (NCTD) members here today that will address specific questions regarding the SPRINTER. The recommendation would approve nearly $45 million in new funding for various projects, including SR 56 right-of-way, Regional Rideshare Program augmentation, regional bike trails, ITS operating needs, and El Camino Real.

Jose Nuncio, Senior Engineer, indicated that the total budget needs through FY 2011 are $579 million. At the Transportation Committee meeting on June 16, 2006, a cost increase of $45-$55 million existed for the SPRINTER project. Since that time, a preliminary assessment by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) noted that additional evaluation is necessary. Subject to that evaluation, we will bring this item back to the Board for additional discussion.

8 Mr. Nuncio said that the total budget needs through FY 2011 include project cost increases, program extension and growth, and unprogrammed transit agency capital and vehicle replacement needs. He discussed the project budget needs including the increased cost of right-of-way, changes in design, unanticipated regulatory reviews, and program implementation and expansions. The total budget shortfall is $579 million through FY 2011. The total funding potential available through FY 2011 is $119 million. Mr. Nuncio went over the sources of available funding.

Mr. Nuncio said that we have followed a prioritized approach for funding these projects: those under construction, those with committed funding, those that are ready to go within one year, and those that are new.

Mr. Nuncio said that staff is recommending that the Board approve allowing NCTD access to the TransNet commercial paper (CP) program to meet its cash flow needs for the SPRINTER projects. The recommendation is to allow NTCD to access up to $10 million of CP to cover its cash flow needs through September 2006. NCTD may request additional CP to cover its cash flow needs beyond September, but it would need to provide a status report on a monthly basis and all CP loans would need to be repaid with interest. He said that staff recommends deferring action on this project’s final funding plan.

Mr. Nuncio said that staff also recommends deferring action on the transit capital and vehicle replacement project needs, pending the outcome of the transportation infrastructure bond measure in November 2006.

Mr. Nuncio stated that if the recommendations are approved, there will be $74.7 million remaining, mostly from the TransNet 10 percent set-aside and other TransNet projects. These funds could potentially be used to match the infrastructure bond proceeds if the measure is approved in November.

Councilmember Matt Hall (Carlsbad) asked about the priority between the El Camino Real and SR 56 projects. Mr. Nuncio said that El Camino Real is a regional arterial in the process of finalizing its environmental document; the original regional funding commitment for this project was from the 2002 STIP. The original recommendation was to provide El Camino Real with $6.95 million in funding. However, there is a more urgent need to fully fund the SR 56 right-of-way project costs, since it is a completed project.

Action: Upon a motion by Deputy Mayor Mackin and a second by Vice Mayor Pia Harris- Ebert (San Marcos), the SANDAG Board approved the recommended programming actions contained in Table 4 of this agenda report for the SPRINTER, SR 56, Regional Rideshare Program, Regional Bike Trails, ITS operations, and El Camino Real projects. Yes – 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – 0 (0%). Absent – None.

14. KEARNY MESA DIVISION BUS FACILITY ROOF REPAIR PROJECT (APPROVE)

John Haggerty, Design Engineer, reported that since this budget transfer exceeds $500,000, it needs SANDAG Board approval. This action would transfer $750,000 to replace the roof at the Kearny Mesa Division (KMD) bus facility. The roof of this facility has reached the end of its useful life. The initial project budget did not assume the full replacement; it only assumed limited repair to the existing roof. Money would come from an existing project, the Imperial Avenue/Kearny Mesa Division (IAD/KMD) Underground Storage Tank Removal

9 project. In the budget for that project, it was assumed there would be significant contamination, but upon removal of the tanks no contamination was found. He stated that the item would be reviewed by the MTS Board on August 10, 2006, and the SANDAG Board approval is contingent upon the MTS Board’s action. The MTS Executive Committee supported this action on August 3, 2006.

Mayor Madrid asked about the life of the new roof. Mr. Haggerty replied that it would be 20 years.

Councilmember Rindone said that the MTS Executive Committee discussed this and was supportive of it. It will go to the full MTS Board next Thursday (August 10, 2006).

Councilmember McCoy asked if these facilities will be retrofitted with solar panels. Mr. Haggerty said that it is not standard to have solar, but we will have to meet state energy efficiency standards.

Councilmember McCoy asked that in future retrofit and new projects, we consider going with solar panel roofing. It should be part of the policy to ensure energy efficient work is carried out. Mr. Haggerty said including solar is not part of the budget for the project. The scope of the project is up to MTS discretion.

MTS Chair Harry Mathis said that we need to re-roof the facility so we don’t lose the structure.

Chair Cafagna indicated that he has a real estate interest across the street from this building, so he would abstain from this vote.

Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Rindone and a second by Councilmember Madaffer, the SANDAG Board approved the increase of $750,000 to the KMD Roof and Tile Repair Project, increasing the budget from $403,000 to $1,153,000, contingent upon the final recommendation of the MTS Board of Directors. The funding would come from the available balance in the IAD/KMD Underground Storage Tank Project. Yes – 15 (weighted vote, 98%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – Poway (2%). Absent – Coronado, Encinitas, and Lemon Grove.

15. SUPPORT FOR STATEWIDE INFRASTRUCTURE BOND MEASURES (APPROVE)

Kim Kawada reported that in May the Governor and Legislature finalized a $37 million bond package for the November 2006 ballot, as shown on page 1 of the staff report. Each measure will be presented as separate ballot propositions. At its July 14, 2006, meeting, the Executive Committee recommended support of all five ballot propositions. These propositions are consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The Executive Committee hoped that by supporting all five propositions we would recognize the bipartisan effort by the Governor and Legislature to craft a comprehensive infrastructure program for the state. At your place is a handout with the latest polling numbers. Approval numbers are down from the last poll conducted in May 2006, and the transportation bond measure is the only one polling to pass at 54 percent approval. These measures need a simple majority of 50 percent plus one for passage.

10 Chair Cafagna noted that there were several requests to speak on this item.

Brad Barnum, Associated General Contractors (AGC), expressed support for this infrastructure investment and encouraged the Board to support these bond measures. He highlighted Propositions 1A and 1B in particular. He said that approval of Proposition 42 in 2002 showed that local voters want to see money dedicated to transportation projects. In 2004, SANDAG was instrumental in passing Proposition A and that received a 67 percent approval. Now this year with Proposition 1A, voters should support this to protect the dedication of the sales tax on gasoline to transportation projects. With Proposition 1B, voters should see that the transportation projects are being completed. On behalf of the AGC, he strongly encouraged the Board to support these measures.

Jim Schmidt, a member of the public, echoed what Mr. Barnum said. When he went to Sacramento in January 1967, he discovered that the State of California had borrowed from the highway funds for general fund purposes. He suggested that we ask the two candidates for Governor for a commitment not to borrow from the state highway fund. He agreed with supporting Proposition 1B. Proposition 1C would help address the housing affordability problem that is not going to go away. He supported all five of the measures.

Tom Scott, San Diego Housing Federation, said that they support all five of the bond proposals. Proposition 1C would provide an affordable housing trust fund. This will provide funding for housing in cities and for smart growth development focused around housing. He stated that the private campaign also conducted a poll wherein the voters read the existing ballot title and a summary of the bond measure. The results of that poll showed 64 percent in approval of Proposition 1C.

Clive Richard, a member of the public, expressed support of Proposition 1A. He supported Proposition 42 in 2002, and he is hoping this time that the Governor and State Legislature will recognize that the people of this state are serious about not wanting this money touched for other purposes. He had no opposition to the other bond measures.

Supervisor Horn stated that the County of San Diego just debated these issues and has wholeheartedly supported Proposition 1A, but delayed positions on the remaining bond measures, so he will abstain from this vote.

Marilyn Dailey, San Diego County Water Authority, asked if this action considered the bond measures individually or as a group. Mr. Gallegos replied that they will be acted on as a group.

Action: Upon a motion by Vice Mayor Harris-Ebert and a second by Councilmember Rindone, the SANDAG Board approved Resolutions Nos. 2007-01, 2007-02, 2007-03, 2007-04, and 2007-05, in support of Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E on the November 2006 ballot. Yes – 18 (weighted vote, 84%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – County of San Diego (16%). Absent – None.

Mayor Madrid commented that another measure on the November 2006 ballot, Proposition 90, will destroy local land use authority.

11 16. THE 2006 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRIBAL SUMMIT REPORT AND NEXT STEPS (APPROVE)

Councilmember McCoy reported that the Borders Committee is bringing forward the report of the regional Tribal Summit held earlier this year and suggested next steps for collaborative action. She introduced Chairman Robert Smith, Chair of the Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association (SCTCA) and the Pala Band of Mission Indians; Lee Acebedo, newly appointed alternate for the SCTCA on the Borders Committee and the Chair of the Jamul Village: a Kumeyaay Nation; and Denis Turner, Executive Director of SCTC. She asked for approval of the next steps for collaboration with tribal nations outlined in Attachment 1 of the staff report.

Councilmember McCoy stated that the 2006 Tribal Summit was an important diplomatic milestone. This mechanism for government-to-government relations will be measured through the region’s ability to follow through on the next steps in a meaningful way. She reviewed the main issues from the Tribal Summit. The Summit Agenda contained three principal components. First, tribal leaders introduced their nations and highlighted key issues of concern to them. Second, the SANDAG Board and elected tribal leaders discussed transportation issues and prioritized strategies for further action. Third, the SANDAG Board, tribal leaders, and the rest of the audience participated in breakout sessions on other regional policy issues. She said that a number of issues were raised including tribal sovereignty, tribes are part of the region, tribal governments have shared issues with local governments, governance process, adherence to new laws such as Senate Bill (SB) 18, a willingness to pay a fair share, and fair representation.

Councilmember McCoy said that the second part of the Summit focused on transportation issues. The elected officials prioritized a list of 14 strategies generated from a previous joint workshop between tribal transportation managers and various public agency planning staff. The third part of the agenda involved policy breakout sessions on energy, environment, and public safety to discuss opportunities for collaboration.

Jane Clough-Riquelme, Regional Planner, reviewed the transportation polling results from the Summit. The top five strategies identified were: (1) tribal governments should be a voting member of SANDAG; (2) the Indian Reservation Roads inventory should be updated; (3) tribal governments could be advocates for new transportation funding in the region; (4) leverage funding for transportation projects; and (5) conduct more tribal-related corridor studies.

Councilmember McCoy said that the Borders Committee recommended next steps based on areas of mutual concern and in which SANDAG has a policy level responsibility. The Borders Committee recommends that SANDAG partner with intertribal organizations such as the SCTCA and the Reservation Transportation Authority (RTA) to pursue these next steps. Working through the SANDAG Executive Committee, we should examine and evaluate the options for tribal representation on the SANDAG Board and/or Policy Advisory Committees (PACs), and develop a collaborative legislative agenda.

The Borders Committee will continue to strengthen effective communication and coordination with tribal governments and review the outcomes of the policy breakouts and identify next steps. In addition, the Borders Committee recommends the formation of an interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation which would serve as a

12 regular venue for tribal governments and area agencies to develop a collaborative agenda on transportation-specific activities and exchange information.

Chairman Smith said that the SCTCA is in agreement with the next steps. He had a recent meeting with Senator Pro Tem Don Perata on transportation issues. Tribal governments have direct relations with the federal government and make land use decisions. Tribal representation at the Borders Committee was a first step to initiate communication between SANDAG and the tribal communities. This has been helpful to understand how SANDAG works. We requested a year ago to begin to negotiate for representation on SANDAG. Despite no advances, the tribes co-sponsored the Tribal Summit. Chairman Smith agreed with Councilmember McCoy that the Summit was a significant diplomatic event based on government-to-government relations but that more needs to be done and more quickly. Unlike other agencies from outside the San Diego region that have advisory seats on the Board, the tribes are part of this region. He read a portion of SB 1703, Chapter 743, which states that the SANDAG Board may appoint advisory members to the Board, but advisory members are not allowed to vote. He stated that the SCTCA comes to SANDAG as an intertribal council of the tribes in this region and demands the respect we are due. The SCTCA is requesting to have its leadership meet within the next 30 days with SANDAG leadership regarding the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the SCTCA and SANDAG with responsibilities, timelines, and resources based on the next steps in this report. We should start with the issue of representation. The SCTCA requested that a task force be formed to develop options of tribal representation—whether voting or advisory—that each of our Boards can consider. If it doesn’t happen, the SCTCA will pursue this through our state legislators. Chairman Smith stated that he was confident this wouldn’t be necessary as SANDAG is an organization with vision.

Chair Cafagna said we did have a great summit. We came out of there with respect for the tribes, and we are looking forward to a way to better communicate and for the tribes to participate with us. That is a goal of this Board.

Action: Upon a motion by Deputy Mayor Mackin and a second by Councilmember Monroe, the SANDAG Board approved the suggested next steps from the March 2006 Tribal Summit, including: (1) working with Tribal Nations on tribal representation and a collaborative legislative agenda; (2) creating an interagency technical working group on tribal transportation; and (3) reviewing outcomes from the policy breakout sessions. Yes – 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No – 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain – 0 (0%). Absent – None.

17. TransNet DASHBOARD AND WEB PAGES (INFORMATION)

Richard Chavez, Principal Engineer, reported that progress continues on transportation projects around the region, in large part the result of TransNet. In order to keep faith with voters, we have worked with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee (ITOC), and our consultants, PBS&J, to create a Dashboard Web site and project Web pages. He reviewed the budget, schedule, and expenditure information for the TransNet Early Action Program of projects. This Web site will be housed at www.keepsandiegomoving.com, which is owned and operated by SANDAG. He provided a brief overview of the Web site and Web pages. This Web site provides a snapshot of information on several different levels. He described the gauges used to compare work completed versus money spent. He displayed various pages to show the kinds of information provided. This Web site is scheduled to go live on Wednesday,

13 August 9, 2006. It is a good way to keep faith with the taxpayers and to show them that we are progressing on these projects.

Councilmember Hall asked what advertising has been done to inform citizens about this new Web site. Mr. Chavez said that we issued a press release to notify the media. Mr. Gallegos added that we will be hosting a media day on August 9, 2006. This will be live on the Web, and we can track how many hits we get. After the initial rollout, we can reassess if additional promotional activity is needed.

Mayor Guerin asked if we can make this a link to local jurisdiction Web pages. Mr. Gallegos replied affirmatively.

Action: This item was presented for information.

18. UPCOMING MEETINGS

The regularly scheduled Policy and Business meetings of the SANDAG Board of Directors on August 11, 2006, and August 25, 2006, respectively, have been cancelled. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors Policy meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 8, 2006, at 10 a.m. The next regularly scheduled Board of Directors Business meeting is scheduled for Friday, September 22, 2006, at 9 a.m.

Councilmember Madaffer announced that the Coast Guard is celebrating its 216th anniversary. It was formed by Alexander Hamilton in 1690.

19. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 a.m.

DGunn/M/DGU

14 Meeting Adjourned Time: 10:13 a.m. Meeting Start Time: 8:09 a.m. Minimum Time for Attendance Eligibility: 1 hour, 2 min. or 9:11 a.m.

ATTENDANCE SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ MEETING AUGUST 4, 2006

JURISDICTION/ NAME ATTENDING IN OUT COMMENTS ORGANIZATION

City of Carlsbad Matt Hall (Member) Yes City of Chula Vista Jerry Rindone (Alternate) Yes City of Coronado Phil Monroe (Member) Yes City of Del Mar David Druker (Alternate) 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 Art Madrid (Member) Yes City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom, Vice Chair (Member) Yes City of National City Ron Morrison (Member) Yes City of Oceanside Shari Mackin (Member) Yes City of Poway Mickey Cafagna, Chair (Member) Yes City of San Diego – A Jerry Sanders (Member A) Yes City of San Diego - B Jim Madaffer (Member B) Yes City of San Marcos Pia Harris-Ebert (Member) Yes City of Santee Jack Dale (Member) Yes City of Solana Beach Joe Kellejian (Member) Yes City of Vista Judy Ritter (Member) Yes County of San Diego Bill Horn (Member) Yes ADVISORY MEMBERS LISTED BELOW (ATTENDANCE NOT COUNTED FOR QUORUM PURPOSES) Caltrans Pedro Orso-Delgado (Alternate) Yes MTS Harry Mathis (Member) Yes NCTD Jerome Stocks (Member) Yes Imperial County Victor Carrillo (Member) No US Dept. of Defense CAPT Michael Giorgione (Member) Yes SD Unified Port District William Hall (Member) No SD County Water Marilyn Dailey (Member) Yes Authority Baja California/Mexico Lydia Antonio (Alternate) Yes

15

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

ACTIONS FROM POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES

The following actions were taken by the Policy Advisory Committees (PACs) since the last Board meeting.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING (August 4, 2006)

The Transportation Committee took the following actions or recommended the following approvals:

• Accepted the staff report on the Regional Goods Movement Action Plan and directed staff to schedule a meeting within the next 60 days between SANDAG staff and representatives working on the Carrizo Gorge Railway.

JOINT TRANSPORTATION/REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING (August 4, 2006)

The Joint Transportation/Regional Planning Committee took the following actions or recommended the following approvals:

• Approved $4.3 million in additional Transportation Enhancement (TE) program funding for the Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program for the following projects: (1) Palm Avenue Streetscape in Imperial Beach ($315,000); (2) Maple Street Pedestrian Promenade in Escondido ($298,000); (3) 25th Street Renaissance Project in San Diego ($1,425,000); and (4) Grand Avenue/El Mercado Streetscape in Escondido ($1,320,000). The action by the Committees also maintained a TE program reserve of $942,000.

• Accepted the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP): Draft Baseline Report for Performance Monitoring, and authorized the release of the draft report for a 60-day public review and comment period.

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING (August 4, 2006)

No actions were taken at this meeting.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING (August 11, 2006)

This meeting was cancelled.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (AUGUST 18, 2006)

This meeting was cancelled.

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE (AUGUST 18, 2006)

This meeting was cancelled.

BORDERS COMMITTEE MEETING (August 25, 2006)

This meeting was cancelled.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING (SEPTEMBER 1, 2006)

The Transportation Committee took the following actions or recommended the following approvals:

• Accepted the draft 2007 Regional Transportation Plan Public Involvement Program for distribution and a 45-day public comment period.

• Recommended that the SANDAG Board of Directors accept the Nexus Study for the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program for the purpose of distributing it to the local jurisdictions for their use in implementing the funding program required by the TransNet Ordinance.

REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING (September 1, 2006)

This meeting was cancelled.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING (September 8, 2006)

The Executive Committee took the following actions or recommended the following approvals:

• Authorized SANDAG staff to submit comments to the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority on the Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing the issues and concerns with the EIR traffic analysis and the limited transportation mitigation measures as outlined in the agenda report. The Executive Committee also included a comment formally requesting the Airport Authority for a 30-day extension to the Draft EIR public comment period.

• Approved the Energy Working Group (EWG) comments on the San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) Long-Term Procurement Plan with an amendment regarding the need for transmission into the region. The Committee also asked staff to ensure that the EWG report on the proposed SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Line was completed in November 2006.

• Approved the September 22, 2006, Draft Board Agenda.

2 BORDERS COMMITTEE MEETING (September 8, 2006)

The Borders Committee took the following actions or recommended the following approvals:

• Approved the recommendation of the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) to hold two field trips or “mobile seminars” in the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay area in late 2006/early 2007. The mobile seminars would help continue the SANDAG strategy to pursue effective binational planning through the development of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan.

• Approved the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor: Final Early Action Plan.

• Approved the charter for a new standing group entitled the Interagency Technical Working Group on Tribal Transportation Issues.

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING (September 15, 2006)

This meeting was cancelled.

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING (September 15, 2006)

• No actions are scheduled for this meeting.

Staff will update the Board of Directors if the actual actions taken by the Public Safety Committee on September 15, 2006, differ from those described in this report.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

3

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-4 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

SANDAG FY 2007 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM GOALS File Number 8000100

Introduction Recommendation SANDAG has an established Disadvantaged Business The Board of Directors is asked to Enterprise (DBE) program plan developed and authorize staff to release the FY 2007 maintained in accordance with regulations of the Annual Anticipated DBE Participation United States Department of Transportation (DOT). As Level (AADPL) listed in this report for a a condition of receiving federal financial assistance 45-day public comment period. The Board from the DOT, SANDAG is required to sign an also is asked to give final approval to assurance that it will comply with the DBE regulations. these goals in the event no comments are The following SANDAG DBE goals, herein referred to received during the public comment as Annual Anticipated DBE Participation Level (AADPL) period. for FY 2007 have been developed in accordance with federal regulations set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 26, and the Caltrans Local Assistance Manual.

Projects with Federal Highway Administration Funds

¾ Proposed AADPL for Construction/Special Trades 6.7%

¾ Proposed AADPL for Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 6.8%

Projects with Federal Transit Administration Funds

¾ Proposed AADPL for Construction/Special Trades 5.7%

¾ Proposed AADPL for Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4.4%

Discussion

SANDAG’s Proposed FY 2007 Annual Program Goals

On May 1, 2006, the Director of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) issued a letter which stated in pertinent part that effective May 1, 2006, Caltrans and its subrecipients are required to implement a race-neutral DBE Program to ensure compliance with the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in Western States Paving Co. v. United States & Washington State Department of Transportation. In support of the Caltrans race neutral program, SANDAG shall establish an AADPL. The AADPL will be used by Caltrans to establish a statewide DBE participation level. Caltrans also will be conducting a statewide disparity study inclusive of all California areas represented by Caltrans and its subrecipients such as SANDAG.

In addition, SANDAG has received a Notice/Guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) which directed all DOT recipients in the Ninth Circuit to implement a completely race-neutral DBE Program. Pertinent aspects of the Ninth Circuit Court ruling and the FTA notice are set forth below:

¾ If a recipient does not currently have sufficient evidence of discrimination or its effects, then the recipient would submit an all race-neutral overall DBE goal for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2007.

¾ The recipient submission shall include a statement concerning the absence of adequate evidence of discrimination and its effects and a description of plans to either conduct a disparity/availability study or other appropriate evidence gathering process to determine the existence of discrimination or its effects on the recipient’s marketplace.

¾ An action plan describing the study and timeline for its completion also should be included.

¾ Recipients will be required to continue to monitor, collect, and report participation and utilization of DBEs on federally assisted contracts.

¾ All DOT federally assisted procurements shall contain race-neutral DBE solicitation and contract language effective with FFY 2007.

¾ Recipients may no longer advertise and award contracts with DOT federally assisted funds containing race-conscious DBE goals.

A DBE firm is a for-profit, small business concern, which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s). In the case of any publicly owned business, a DBE firm is one in which at least 51 percent of the stock is owned by one or more socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s) and the management and daily business operations of the business are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individual(s) who own it. A socially and economically disadvantaged individual is defined by the federal regulations to be a citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States who is Black American, Hispanic American, Native American, Asian-Pacific American, a woman, or a member of any additional group that can demonstrate that he/she is socially or economically disadvantaged.

The small business concern must be certified as a DBE by a certifying agency member of the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP) to participate in SANDAG’s DBE program.

The AADPL is determined by developing base figures for the relative availability of DBEs in specific areas of expertise: Construction/Special Trades; and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services. Then those availability figures are weighed against the contract dollars to be expended in each classification code. If necessary, an adjustment is made to the base figure to narrowly tailor the base figure.

2 Following the strict federal guidelines and the Caltrans Local Assistance Manual, staff has determined the number of ready, willing, and able DBEs in the SANDAG market by using the CUCP. The Census Bureau’s County Business Pattern (CBP) provides all ready, willing, and able businesses available in the SANDAG market that perform work in the same classification codes. The number of DBEs is divided by the number of all businesses for each category to derive a base figure for the relative availability of DBEs in the SANDAG market. The percentage is then adjusted for past historical DBE participation of SANDAG federally assisted contracts of recent years.

The race-neutral DBE program has not changed SANDAG’s determination to seek DBE participation on construction and service contracts. SANDAG will continue to set individual DBE contract goals, herein referred to as “DBE Availability Advisory Percentages.” SANDAG will continue to track DBE participation and complete DOT semi-annual DBE reports. SANDAG’s Diversity in Small Contractors Opportunities (DISCO) outreach program will be more important than ever. SANDAG strongly encourages participation in bidding by DBE firms whenever possible.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Key Staff Contact: Elaine Richardson, (619) 699-6956, [email protected]

3

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-5 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION File Number 1109100 PROJECTS – APRIL TO JUNE 2006

Introduction

This quarterly 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) for April to June 2006. The TransNet one-half cent local sales tax and other local, state, and federal revenue sources fund the projects. The projects contained in this report have been previously prioritized and are included in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This item is presented to the Board of Directors for information.

Attachment 1 – TransNet Program – indicates sales tax revenue available for allocation was $57.3 million in the fourth quarter of FY 2006. Revenue for the fiscal year is 6.4 percent higher than it was last fiscal year at this time. Revenue is approximately 2.4 percent higher than the FY 2006 TransNet Program budget to date. These revenue increases, however, are offset by higher construction costs. The California Highway Construction Price Index is currently 15.4 percent higher than last year at this time. Revenue available for allocation since the inception of the TransNet Program totals $2.85 billion.

Highway Projects

Attachment 2 – Highway Projects – provides cost and schedule information on the major highway projects in the San Diego region. The accompanying map (Attachment 3 – Major Highway Projects) locates these projects.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) awarded Unit 5 (of five) of the Interstate 15 (I-15) Managed Lanes (Middle) Freeway Widening Project (Project No. 17). The project limits extend from Poway Road to Clarence Lane. Construction of this project is scheduled to begin later this summer and be completed by late 2008.

The State Route 78 (SR 78) Widening at El Camino Real Project (Project No. 26) was completed in June. This project widened and extended the acceleration lane on eastbound SR 78, allowing vehicles a greater distance to achieve freeway speeds at this uphill stretch of SR 78, thus permitting a more seamless merge process.

Transit and Bikeway Projects

Attachment 4 – Transit and Bikeway Projects – provides cost and schedule information on the major transit and bikeway projects in the San Diego region. The accompanying map (Attachment 5 – Major Transit and Bikeway Projects) locates these projects.

The City College Station Realignment Project (Project No. 47 was awarded by SANDAG in July. Part of the East Village Station Improvements project, the City College Station Project will be built within the Smart Corner mixed-use development, currently under construction. Completion of the City College Station is scheduled for early summer 2007.

Design of the Del Mar Bluffs Stabilization Project (Project No. 63) is nearly complete. This State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funded project will be advertised in October. Construction is scheduled to begin by late fall and be completed by late spring 2007. Design for a future project to stabilize additional segments of the Del Mar Bluffs will begin in FY 2007/2008.

Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects

Attachment 6 – Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects – provides cost and schedule information on the major arterial and interchange projects in the San Diego region. The accompanying map (Attachment 7 – Major Arterial and Interchange Projects) locates these projects.

The City of Carlsbad completed and opened to traffic two Regional Arterial System Projects: South Melrose Drive Extension (Project No. 80) and the Rancho Santa Fe Road Widening (Project No. 81). The South Melrose Drive project extends this six-lane arterial facility between Palomar Airport Road and the Carlsbad – Vista city limit. The Rancho Santa Fe Road project was widened to six lanes between San Elijo Road/Questhaven Drive and Melrose Drive and complements a previously completed segment between La Costa Avenue and San Elijo Road/Questhaven Drive. Both of these projects are part of the Regional Arterial System.

The City of National City obtained federal environmental clearance for the Plaza Boulevard Widening Project (Project No. 87). This project will widen Plaza Boulevard between Highland Avenue and Euclid Avenue. The project will now move to the design and right of way acquisition phase. Completion schedule of the overall project is not available at this time since the project is not fully funded through construction.

Traffic and Demand Management

Attachment 8 – Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System Projects – provides cost and schedule information on the major traffic management and intelligent transportation system projects in the San Diego region. The accompanying map (Attachment 9 – Major Traffic Management Projects) locates some of these projects, as applicable.

The California Transportation Commission has indicated they will advance STIP funding for the Freeway Traffic Monitoring Systems Project (Project No. 112) from FY 2008/2009 as currently programmed to FY 2006/2007. This will allow delivery of the project to occur two years ahead of the program. It is anticipated that this project will begin construction later this fall and be completed by early 2008.

2

Attachment 10 – Transportation Demand and Incident Management – summarizes monthly activities in those functional areas. Attachment 11 – Freeway Service Patrol Assists – summarizes the number of assists by the Freeway Service Patrol. Attachment 12 – Vanpool Program – summarizes the number of daily vanpool origins by major area.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs reduced an estimated 77,127 pounds of smog-forming pollution during the fourth quarter of FY 2006, an increase of 4 percent over the last quarter. During this same time period, the Freeway Service Patrol assisted approximately 14,200 motorists, about 6 percent more than last quarter.

SANDAG’s Vanpool Program participation rate continues to increase, growing 4 percent in the last quarter, from 495 vanpools to 514 vanpools. Vanpools originating in Riverside County continue to be a large and fast-growing component of the program, accounting for 44 percent of all the regional vanpools. Average ridership per vanpool was approximately 8.4 passengers, with 4,334 daily passengers participating in the program.

Employer Programs: During the quarter, staff contacted 66 employers. Nineteen formal presentations were delivered to employers, one employer began offering transportation benefits and 14 employer surveys were completed resulting in over 2,104 match lists.

Marketing/Outreach: The Survive the Drive marketing program continued with monthly bulletins and promotions e-mailed to employers in the Sorrento Valley area. Staff attended two human resources and facility managers’ association events. During the quarter, a mailing was sent to 146 schools regarding the SchoolPool program.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachments: 1. TransNet Program 2. Highway Projects 3. Major Highway Projects (map) 4. Transit and Bikeway Projects 5. Major Transit and Bikeway Projects (map) 6. Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects 7. Arterial and Interchange Projects (map) 8. Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System Projects 9. Major Traffic Management Projects (map) 10. Transportation Demand and Incident Management 11. Freeway Service Patrol Assists (map) 12. Vanpool Program (map)

Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, (619) 699-1908, [email protected] Funds are budgeted in the TransNet, STIP-RIP, RSTP, and CMAQ Programs

3 Attachment 1 TransNet Program -- April - June 2006 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 $ 1,000,000 20,344,766$ 1,746,176 $ 2,028,225 $ 16,362,340 $ 250,000 $ 1,000,000 20,344,766$ 1,746,176 $ 2,028,225 $ 16,362,340

WALKABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM Various Agencies - - 1,056,870 - - 1,000,000 $ - $ - 1,056,870$ - $ - $ 1,000,000 HIGHWAY ELEMENT Programwide 19,008,581 79,961,537 956,880,866 23,868,713 30,862,713 836,822,312 $ 19,008,581 $ 79,961,537 956,880,866$ 23,868,713 $ 30,862,713 $ 836,822,312 TRANSIT ELEMENT Elderly/Disabled (Various Agencies) 190,086 799,615 9,129,522 210,237 795,945 9,269,128 MTS 13,469,377 56,660,309 674,794,346 7,031,581 26,861,581 657,140,662 NCTD 5,349,118 22,501,613 262,633,393 4,807,811 19,764,478 252,120,329 $ 19,008,581 $ 79,961,537 946,557,260$ 12,049,629 $ 47,422,004 $ 918,530,119 LOCAL STREET & ROAD ELEMENT Carlsbad 639,766 2,690,298 30,574,082 - 1,000,000 26,929,250 Chula Vista 1,227,969 5,166,170 51,625,721 1,200,000 4,200,000 48,350,100 Coronado 157,312 659,543 8,376,610 197,703 659,017 7,764,616 Del Mar 49,926 207,535 2,919,630 119,060 211,666 2,915,435 El Cajon 575,002 2,417,692 29,078,631 877,000 1,997,000 29,626,187 Encinitas 406,525 1,708,535 22,327,565 530,000 1,910,000 21,916,026 Escondido 832,252 3,500,512 40,174,071 1,400,000 3,300,000 39,492,091 Imperial Beach 163,308 684,782 8,674,518 200,100 667,000 8,638,094 La Mesa 367,520 1,544,354 19,906,725 - - 16,109,400 Lemon Grove 171,810 720,572 9,296,876 175,000 704,000 9,262,569 National City 332,141 1,395,440 17,282,734 - 3,125,000 18,333,629 Oceanside 1,054,254 4,434,969 49,157,983 - 4,450,000 41,061,522 Poway 371,006 1,559,029 17,900,581 287,000 1,181,000 24,242,790 San Diego City 7,636,991 32,143,132 376,687,028 7,489,628 26,128,734 376,353,470 San Marcos 436,326 1,833,976 17,818,428 - 400,000 18,446,350 Santee 337,439 1,417,739 17,583,848 342,250 817,250 14,227,306 Solana Beach 107,872 451,443 6,074,328 126,472 475,000 6,074,843 Vista 614,702 2,584,799 28,490,793 150,000 1,607,835 24,015,708 County of San Diego 3,526,460 14,841,018 176,131,330 4,720,000 30,650,340 189,274,498 $ 19,008,581 $ 79,961,537 930,081,483$ 17,814,213 $ 83,483,842 $ 923,033,884

TransNet PROGRAM $ 57,275,743 $ 240,884,611 2,854,921,245$ 55,478,731 $ 163,796,783 $ 2,695,748,655

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.

4 Highway Projects Attachment 2

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Approved Funded Cost to Sponsor Current On Description/Limits Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Agency Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

1 I-5 Realignment US GSA/Caltrans Environmental Dec-07 $47,000 $12,273 $47,000 2012 Behind Virginia Ave POE Relocation in San Ysidro 2 I-5 Widening Caltrans Construction Jun-07 $11,739 $11,739 $11,739 2007 On Schedule 24th Street/Mile of Cars Way to Harbor Drive 3 I-5/I-8 Interchange Caltrans Environmental Feb-08 $28,213 $1,200 $28,213 2012 On Schedule Connector Widening 4 I-5 Widening (Southbound) Caltrans DesignMay-08 $6,461 $6,461 $6,461 2009 On Schedule Genesee Avenue to Sorrento Valley Overhead 5 I-5/ I-805 Merge Widening Caltrans Construction Jun-07 $180,200 $180,200 $180,200 2007 On Schedule Genesee Ave to Del Mar Heights Rd 6 I-5 HOV/Managed Lanes Caltrans Environmental Dec-08 $1,370,000 $31,165 $1,370,000 2014 On Schedule La Jolla Village Dr to Vandegrift Blvd 7 I-5 HOV Lanes Caltrans Environmental Oct-06 $35,810 $28,260 $35,810 2008 On Schedule San Dieguito River to San Elijo Lagoon 8 I-5 Widening and Lomas Caltrans Design and Mar-07 $39,550 $39,550 $39,550 2008 On Schedule Santa Fe Interchange Reconstruction Right of Way 8 I-5/ SR 56 Connectors City of San Diego Environmental Apr-08 $140,000 $14,796 $140,000 2012 On Schedule West to North and South to East 9 I-5/ SR 78 Connectors Caltrans Feasibility Study Feb-07 $120,000 $1,000 $120,000 N/A N/A South to East Connector and West to South 10 I-8 Widening (Eastbound) Caltrans DesignSep-07 $25,924 $25,924 $25,924 2011 On Schedule 2nd Street to Greenfield Drive 11 SR 11 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Environmental Dec-10 $263,000 $8,800 $263,000 2013 On Schedule Freeway Access to New Border Crossing 12 I-15 Managed Lanes South Caltrans Design Jan-09 $467,098 $62,000 $467,098 2012 On Schedule SR 163 to SR 56 13 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-08 $47,100 $47,100 $47,100 2008 Behind Poway Road to north of SR 56 14 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-07 $71,500 $71,500 $71,500 2007 On Schedule I-15/SR 56 to Camino del Norte 15 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-07 $103,400 $103,400 $103,400 2007 On Schedule Camino del Norte to Rancho Bernardo Road

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006 5 Highway Projects

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Approved Funded Cost to Sponsor Current On Description/Limits Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Agency Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

16 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-08 $126,600 $126,600 $126,600 2008 Behind Rancho Bernardo Road to Via Rancho Parkway 17 I-15 Managed Lanes Middle Caltrans Construction Dec-08 $78,400 $78,400 $78,400 2008 On Schedule Poway Road to Clarence Lane 18 I-15 Managed Lanes North Caltrans Design Jul-08 $220,585 $191,519 $220,585 2011 On Schedule Centre City Pkwy to SR 78 19 I-15 Widening Caltrans Design Dec-07 $24,641 $24,641 $24,641 2010 On Schedule Citracado Parkway to Valley Parkway 20 SR 52 HOV/Managed Lanes Caltrans Environmental Dec-08 $191,190 $28,000 $191,190 2012 On Schedule I-15 to SR 125 21 SR 52 Widening Caltrans Environmental Dec-06 $43,200 $43,200 $43,200 2008 On Schedule I-15 to Mast Blvd. 22 SR 52 Westbound Widening Caltrans Design Oct-06 $8,100 $8,100 $8,100 2007 On Schedule Summit to Santo Road 23 SR 52 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Design & Jan-08 $470,644 $447,190 $470,644 2010 On Schedule SR 125 to SR 67 Right of Way 24 SR 76 Widening Middle Caltrans Environmental Nov-07 $158,368 $29,095 $158,368 2009 Ahead Melrose Dr to Mission Rd 25 SR 76 Widening East Caltrans Environmental Jun-10 $241,609 $8,400 $241,609 2011 Ahead Mission Rd to I-15 26 SR 78 Widening (Eastbound) Caltrans Completed $1,400 $1,400 $1,400 Completed El Camino Real 27 SR 94 Noise Barriers SANDAG Design May-08 $1,481 $1,481 $2,589 2009 Behind City of La Mesa 28 SR 94/ SR 125 Interchange Caltrans Environmental Apr-10 $115,000 $59,219 $115,000 2015 On Schedule Add N to E and W to S Connectors Widen SR 125 from SR 94 to Lemon Avenue 29 SR 125/ SR 54 6-Lane Caltrans Design-Build Mar-07 $36,860 $36,860 $36,860 2007 Behind San Miguel Rd to Briarwood Rd and Elkelton Blvd: Gap Project 30 SR 125/ SR 54 6-Lane Caltrans Design-Build Mar-07 $101,720 $101,720 $101,720 2007 Behind San Miguel Rd to Briarwood Rd and Elkelton Blvd: Connector Project

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006 6 Highway Projects

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Approved Funded Cost to Sponsor Current On Description/Limits Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Agency Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

31 SR 125 4-Lane Toll Highway CTV Design-Build Mar-07 $635,000 $635,000 $635,000 2007 Behind SR 905 to San Miguel Rd 32 I-805 Managed Lanes Caltrans Environmental Nov-09 $1,800,000 $26,000 $1,800,000 2015 On Schedule Telegraph Canyon Rd. to I-5/I-805 "Merge" 33 SR 905 4-Lane Freeway Caltrans Design & Oct-06 $355,334 $338,450 $355,334 2010 On Schedule I-805 to U.S./Mexico Border Right of Way

Totals

Approved Funded Cost to Budget Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

$7,567,127 $2,830,643 $7,568,235

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006 7 Attachment 3

Highway Widening

I-5 / SR 78 Connectors

I-15 / HOV / Managed Lanes North Segment

I-5 HOV/General Purpose Lanes I-15 HOV/Managed Lanes Middle Segment I-5 HOV Auxiliary Lane & Lomas Santa Fe Interchange

I-5 / I-805 Merge Widening I-5 / SR 56 New Connectors I-15 / HOV / Managed Lanes South Segment SR 52 HOV / Managed Lanes

SR 52 Widening New Freeway I-805 HOV / Managed Lanes

I-8 Widening

MAJOR La Mesa MAJOR HIGHWAY Noise Barriers HIGHWAYPROJECTS PROJECTS SR 94 JulyApril – September– June 2006 2003 Widening

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

8 Transit and Bikeway Projects Attachment 4

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 Mid-Coast LRT SANDAG Environmental Jan-09 $1,251,277 $56,822 $1,251,277 2014 On Schedule Old Town to University Towne Centre

41 Nobel Drive Coaster Station MTS Design Jul-06 $13,090 $13,090 $13,090 2007 Behind New Coaster Station

42 I-15 Managed Lanes/BRT SANDAG Design & Oct-06 $75,666 $75,666 $75,666 2010 Behind Sabre Springs, Rancho Bernardo, Del Lago Right of Way

43 SuperLoop SANDAG Environmental Jun-08 $39,187 $39,187 $39,187 2010 On Schedule

44 South Bay BRT SANDAG Environmental Jun-08 $114,127 $5,899 $114,127 2010 On Schedule Phase I

45 Sprinter LRT NCTD Construction Dec-07 $375,500 $375,500 TBD 2007 Behind Coast Hwy to Valley Pkwy

46 South Bay Maintenance Facility MMO Advertise Sep-06 $13,634 $8,132 $13,634 2008 Behind Property Expansion

47 City College Station MTS Construction Dec-07 $16,282 $16,282 $16,282 2007 On Schedule Realignment

48 East County Maintenance Facility MMO Right of Way Jun-08 $13,400 $10,475 $13,400 2008 Behind Maintenance and Operation Facility

49 Grossmont Station La Mesa Design Nov-06 $2,700 $2,700 $2,700 2007 Behind Pedestrian Enhancements

50 Trolley Station Improvements MTS Construction Jun-09 $10,903 $4,575 $10,903 2009 Behind Fiber Optic Infrastructure

51 SDTC/SDTI MTS Implementation Jun-07 $3,613 $3,613 $3,613 2007 Behind Financial Management System

52 San Diego Transit Radio SDTC Implementation Oct-06 $16,774 $16,774 $16,774 2006 Behind AVL System

53 Kearny Mesa Station Improvemen SDTC Construction Oct-06 $4,550 $4,550 $4,550 2006 Behind CNG Fuel Station

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded September 2006

9 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)

54 LRV Rehabilitation SDTI On going N/A $4,192 $2,224 $4,192 On going Body and Paint

55 Traction Motor Rehabilitation SDTI On going N/A $4,930 $4,930 $4,930 On going

56 Kearny Mesa Transit Center REGIONAL On Hold $1,470 $150 $1,470 On Hold Construction

57 LRV Shop Modifications SDTI Construction Sep-06 $2,351 $2,351 $2,351 2006 On Schedule Low Floor Vehicle Accommodation

58 San Ysidro Intermodal Facility MTS On Hold N/A $10,900 $10,900 $10,900 On Hold Freight Facility

59 Catenary Improvement Project MTS Construction Jan-07 $2,372 $2,372 $2,372 2006 Behind Component Replacement

60 Coastal Rail SANDAG Environmental Apr-07 $2,498 $2,498 N/A 2006 On Schedule Double Track Corridor Level EIR

61 Oceanside-Escondido Bikeway NCTD Construction Dec-07 $14,970 $14,970 $17,850 2007 Behind

62 Coastal Rail Trail SANDAG Construction Dec-08 $12,833 $12,833 $25,456 2008 On Schedule

63 Del Mar Bluffs SANDAG Design Sep-06 $6,956 $6,956 $6,956 2007 On Schedule Stabilization Project 2

64 East Division Maintenance SANDAG Construction Sep-07 $5,068 $5,068 $5,068 2006 On Schedule Facility

65 Santa Margarita River Bridge SANDAG Design Apr-07 $40,200 $40,200 $40,200 2009 On Schedule Replacement & 2nd Track

66 Sorrento-Miramar Curve SANDAG Design Sep-08 $45,200 $8,928 $45,200 N/A On Schedule Realignment & 2nd Track

67 San Diego Bayshore Bikeway SANDAG Design Sep-07 $350 $350 $2,766 2008 Behind Salt Works phase

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded September 2006

10 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)

68 Solana Beach Transit Center NCTD Design Jan-07 $15,482 $15,482 $15,482 2008 On Schedule Parking Structure

Totals

Approved Cost to Funded Budget Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

$2,120,475 $763,477 $1,760,396

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit ‡Baseline established when construction is funded September 2006

11 Attachment 5

TRANSIT AND BIKEWAY PROJECTS

40. San Ysidro Station Enhancement

41. Mid-Coast LRT Old Town–UTC

42. Nobel Drive Coaster Station

42a. Del Lago BRT Station

42b. Rancho Bernardo BRT Station 65 42c. Sabre Springs BRT Station 43 Superloop

44. South Bay BRT

45. SPRINTER LRT Oceanside–Escondido 61 46. South Bay Maintenance Facility 47. City College Station 62 48. East County Bus Maintenance Facility 53. Kearny Mesa Fueling Station 45 56. Kearny Mesa Transit Center 42a 58. San Ysidro Intermodal Freight Facility 61. Oceanside–Escondido Rail Trail

62. North Coastal Bikeway

63. Del Mar Bluffs

42b 65. Santa Margarita River Bridge 62 66. Sorrento–Miramar Curve 67. San Diego Bayshore Bikeway

68. Solana Beach Transit Center Parking Structure . 68 42c

Project number refers to Project ID in Attachment 4 66 63 41

56 48 43 53

40

MAJOR 62 TRANSIT AND BIKEWAY 47 PROJECTS April – June 2006 44

Project Under Development

Project Under Construction

Bus Rapid Transit Center (BRTC) LRT: Light Rail Transit 67 46

58

12 Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects Attachment 6

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Funded Cost to Current On Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

80 Extend South Melrose Drive Carlsbad Completed $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Completed Palomar Airport Road to Carlsbad/Vista city limit

81 Widen Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Carlsbad Completed $41,300 $41,300 $41,300 Completed La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive 82 Coronado Tunnel Coronado Environmental Aug-08 N/A $10,146 $454,000 N/A N/A Construct new tunnel

83 Widen Jamacha Road El Cajon Environmental Oct-06 $4,672 $1,313 $4,672 2006 On Schedule E. Main St. to South city limit

84 Manchester Ave/ I-5 Interchange Encinitas Environmental Dec-06 $67,000 $2,400 $67,000 2008 On Schedule Reconstruct interchange

85 Widen Bear/ East Valley Pkwy. Escondido Construction Dec-06 $13,679 $12,185 $13,679 2006 On Schedule Orleans to North city limit

86 Nordahl Road/ SR 78 Interchange Escondido Environmental Aug-07 $5,152 $5,251 $5,152 2009 Behind Widening, Mission Avenue to Montiel Road

87 Widen Plaza Blvd. National City Design & Dec-07 $10,174 $3,092 $10,174 2008 On Schedule Highland Avenue to Euclid Avenue Right of Way 88 Widen Espola Road Poway Environmental Jan-07 $8,900 $2,083 $8,900 N/A Twin Peaks Rd. to 900' South of Titan Way 89 Extend Carroll Canyon Rd. San Diego Design & N/A $32,500 $11,780 $32,500 N/A Sorrento Valley Rd. to Scranton Rd. Right of Way

90 Genesee Ave Widening San Diego Advertisement Oct-06 $5,971 $5,971 $5,971 2007 Behind I-5 to Campus Point

91 Friars Rd./ SR 163 Interchange San Diego Environmental Dec-07 $84,400 $5,022 $84,400 2011 Behind Fashion Valley Rd. to Frazee Rd.

92 Clairemont Mesa Blvd./SR 163 Interchange San Diego Construction Jun-07 $16,200 $16,200 $16,200 2007 On Schedule Kearny Mesa Rd. to Kearny Villa Rd.

93 El Camino Real San Diego Environmental Sep-06 $20,000 $15,693 $20,000 2010 Behind Via de la Valle to San Dieguito Rd.

94 Forester Creek Channelization Santee Construction Jun-07 $35,927 $35,927 $35,927 2007 Behind

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006

13 Arterial and Freeway Interchange Projects

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Funded Cost to Current On Description/Limits Sponsor Agency Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

Mission Gorge Rd. to Prospect Avenue

95 Widen West Vista Way Vista Design & Mar-07 $16,900 $1,160 $16,900 2008 Behind Thunder Drive to Melrose Drive Right of Way

96 South Santa Fe Ave. Co. of San Diego Design & Mar-08 $25,875 $19,000 $25,875 2010 Behind Phase I: Montgomery Dr. to York Dr. Right of Way

97 Bradley Ave./ SR 67 Interchange Co. of San Diego Environmental May-07 $40,000 $1,120 $40,000 2010 On Schedule Reconstruct and widen interchange

98 Los Coches/ I-8 Interchange Co. of San Diego Design Dec-06 $4,567 $4,567 $4,567 2006 On Schedule

Totals Approved Funded Cost to Budget Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

$438,217 $199,210 $892,217

TransNet funded projects in bold Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006

14 Attachment 7

Widen W. Vista Way Widen South Santa Fe Ave.

Modify Nordahl Rd. Interchange

Widen Bear / East Valley Pkwy.

Manchester Widen Espola Road Ave. Interchange Widen El Camino Real

Extend Carroll Cyn. Rd.

Modify Forester Creek Channelization Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Interchange Widen Genesee Ave. Modify Bradley Ave. Interchange

Modify Friars Rd. Interchange

Widen Jamacha Blvd. ARTERIAL AND INTERCHANGE PROJECTS Tunnel

April – June 2006 Widen Plaza Blvd. Arterial Under Development

Arterial Under Construction

Interchange Under Development

Interchange Under Construction

15 Attachment 8 Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System Projects

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Funded Cost to Sponsor Current On Description/Limits Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Agency Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

110 CCTV Incident Identification System Caltrans Construction Dec-07 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 2007 On Schedule I-15: SR 94 to I-8 I-805: SR 94 to I-8

111 CCTV, Fiber Optic, Detector Stations and CMS Caltrans Design Jul-09 $8,356 $8,356 $8,356 2011 On Schedule I-8: Fairmount Avenue to Lake Murray Blvd. SR 94: I-805 to Federal Blvd. I-805: Bonita Road to Home Avenue

112 Traffic Monitoring Systems Caltrans Design Nov-07 $8,486 $8,486 $8,486 2009 On Schedule I-805: Linda Vista Road to Mira Mesa Blvd.

113 Changeable Message Signs Caltrans Construction Jan-07 $1,631 $1,631 $1,631 2007 Behind I-5: 3 Locations

114 Ramp Meters (Northbound) Caltrans Design Nov-06 $7,373 $7,373 $7,373 2009 On Schedule I-805: Telegraph Canyon Road to Bonita Road

115 Traffic Monitoring Systems Caltrans Design Oct-06 $2,750 $2,750 $2,750 2008 Ahead I-5, SR 52, SR 94 and I-805

116 Intermodal Transportation Management System SANDAG Design Jun-07 $7,000 $4,600 $7,000 2007 On Schedule Phase III

117 Smart Card Project MTDB Implementation Oct-06 $39,376 $39,376 $39,376 2005 On Schedule

118 Automated Vehicle Classification SANDAG Design Jun-06 $750 $750 $750 2006 On Schedule Freeway System, Ports

119 Advanced Traveler Information System SANDAG Permit Approval Jun-06 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 2006 Ahead Freeway System

120 Performance Monitoring System SANDAG Complete $240 $240 $240 2005 On Schedule Arterial, Freeway, Transit Systems

CCTV: Closed Circuit Television Camera Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006 16 Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System Projects

Total Project Project Title Current Phase Cost and Budget Schedule Approved Funded Cost to Sponsor Current On Description/Limits Phase Completion Budget Budget Complete Agency Completion Schedule? ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's)

121 Regional Arterial Management System SANDAG Implementation Sep-06 $1,000 $1,000 $1,300 2006 On Schedule Arterial System

Totals Cost to Approved Budget Funded Budget Complete ($1,000's) ($1,000's) ($1,000's) $88,962 $86,562 $89,262

CCTV: Closed Circuit Television Camera Underlined items changed from last report * Work suspended due to program budget deficit September 2006 17 Attachment 9

Northbound Ramp Meters

Traffic Monitoring Stations

Traffic Monitoring Stations

Traffic Monitoring Stations, CCTV, CMS

MAJOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROJECTS April – June 2006 Traffic Monitoring Stations Project Under Development

Project Under Construction

CMS Under Development

CMS Under Construction Northbound Ramp Meters

18 Attachment 10

Transportation Demand and Incident Management Apr-Jun 2006 Quarterly Progress Report

Last Fiscal Last Fiscal Year Year To This Quarter Quarter To Date Date

DEMAND MANAGEMENT

Reduced Travel Person Trips Reduced 526,510 504,044 1,989,538 1,817,280 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduced 27,766,400 26,689,067 104,985,983 94,648,691

Reduced Emissions Pounds of Smog-forming Pollution Reduced 77,127 74,134 291,620 262,907

Reduced Fuel Consumption Gallons of Fuel 1,513,567 1,454,840 5,722,862 5,159,375

Reduced Costs Reduced Auto Fees $13,550,004 $13,024,265 $51,233,163 $41,975,046

Program Activity Number of Vanpools 514 495 512 423 Vanpool Passengers 4,334 4,179 4,320 3,860 Bike Lockers in Service 526 526 526 Bike Locker Members 414 391 414 318 Guaranteed Ride Home Participants 2,971 2,832 2,971 2,331 Total Phone Calls Received 1,502 1,559 6,782 9,873 Carpool Matchlists Distributed 2,529 904 7,477 5,422

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Freeway Service Patrol Total Assists 14,236 13,412 55,372 51,933 (Incl. FSP for Traffic Management Plans on I-5, I-15)

Freeway Changeable Message Signs Incident Broadcasts 83 146 609 423 Broadcast Duration (total minutes) 13,900 57,343 153,917 68,094

Freeway Incident Advisories Sig Alerts 135 132 404 504 Sig Alert Duration (total minutes) 13,766 13,922 52,379 50,756

19 Attachment 11

San Diego Region

Camp MAP AREA Pendleton P A C I 15 F I C O C E A 5 76 N 76

Oceanside Vista

78 San 13 Marcos

Assists by Patrol Beat 11

Carlsbad 1 740 Escondido

2 1,108 78

78 3 1,060

Encinitas 4 760 12

5 1,034 67 Solana Beach

6 759 5 Poway

56 7 501 10 County of San Diego Del Mar 9 8 737

9 1,712 15

10 296

52 Santee 540 67 11 52 6 8 8 12 1,174 5 125 5 San 13 972 Diego El 805 Cajon 7 La Roving Mesa 2,843 8 Trucks 15 163 Lemon 94 Grove 125 4 94 S Y E A R 282 W V

E I

C

E E R Coronado 3 F National 54 125 City PATROL 75 2 FREEWAY SERVICE 1 Chula PATROLMarch ASSISTS 2004 Vista 805 April – June 2006

0 3 6 Imperial 5 Beach 905 11 UNITED STATES MILES N MEXICO

1-D Tijuana, B.C.

20 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 36 Vanpools

1 NORTH CITY Poway 46 Vanpools Del Mar 56 3 2 SOUTH SUBURBAN 6 30 Vanpools 1 125 3 EAST SUBURBAN 51 Vanpools Santee 67 52 4 NORTH COUNTY WEST 8 45 Vanpools 274 15 VANPOOLS FROM OTHER COUNTIES 5 NORTH COUNTY EAST El 42 Vanpools Cajon Imperial 23 La 8 Los Angeles 3 125 Mesa 6 EAST COUNTY 54 Orange 5 5 Vanpools 163 San Lemon Riverside 227 Diego Grove 94 San Bernardino 1

209 15 VANPOOL PROGRAM 282 0 Number of Coronado Vanpool Origins by National 125 94 Major Area City 54 75 April – June 2006 2 Chula 805 Vista

Imperial 5 Beach 905 11 UNITED STATES MEXICO

MEX 1-D Tijuana, B.C.

21

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

REPORT SUMMARIZING DELEGATED ACTIONS File Number 8000100 TAKEN BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Introduction Recommendation

Board Policy Nos. 003 and 017 require the Executive The Board of Directors is asked to Director to report certain actions to the Board of ratify the action taken by the Directors on a monthly basis. Executive Director to enter into a contract with Caltrans to accept Discussion $278,600 in funding for a new project for Integrated Corridor Management Board Policy No. 003 along the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes corridor. The Executive Director’s Board Policy No. 003, “Investment Policy,” requires the action, which is permitted by Board submittal of a monthly report of investment Policy No. 017, is further described in transactions to the Board. Attachment 1 contains the this report. report of investment transactions for June and July 2006.

Board Policy No. 017

Board Policy No. 017, “Delegation of Authority,” requires the Executive Director to report to the Board certain actions taken at the next regular meeting. The policy authorizes the Executive Director to enter into agreements not currently incorporated in the budget and make other modifications to the budget in an amount up to $100,000 per transaction so long as the overall budget remains in balance. There were no budget transfers or amendments to report that were approved under the Executive Director’s authority.

The policy also authorizes the Executive Director to provide the final determination to persons or firms filing a protest regarding SANDAG’s procurement or contracting processes or procedures. On July 9, 2006, Friendship Transportation Enterprises submitted a protest in reference to the Regional Vanpool Program, Contract Number 5000630. The Executive Director appointed a Protest Committee to review the merits of the protest. By letter dated July 28, 2006, the Protest Committee denied the protest, finding no merit in the protest. No request for reconsideration of the denial was made by the protestor.

In addition, the Executive Director invoked Section 3 of the Board Policy No. 017 which states:

“In the event of emergency or an urgent need, the Executive Director is authorized to take all necessary actions to prevent significant unnecessary loss to SANDAG, a shut-down on public services, or to address a situation threatening the health or safety of persons or property, including, but not limited to, authorization to contract with a contractor or consultant on a sole source basis, consistent with applicable state or federal law without prior approval from the Board. In the event such an emergency or urgent need occurs, the Executive Director will consult with the Chair of the Board, promptly communicate all actions taken to the Board members, and submit a report to the Board at its next regular meeting in order to obtain ratification for those actions.”

The Executive Director executed a revenue agreement with Caltrans for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding in the amount of $195,000 for a new project. Time was of the essence as FHWA required an executed contract by September 14, 2006, or SANDAG would lose the funding. As required by Policy No. 017, the Executive Director consulted with the Chair of the Board, who concurred that it was in SANDAG’s best interest to execute the contract. This report complies with the requirement to communicate the action to the Board of Directors. Policy No. 017 requires the Board of Directors to ratify the action taken by the Executive Director.

This additional revenue, along with a match of $83,600 from Caltrans, will be used to assist in implementing Integrated Corridor Management along the Interstate 15 Managed Lanes corridor. Integrated Corridor Management allows for collaboration between planning and operations communities and integration of travel management tools that could help shift travel demands between facilities and modes, thus reducing delays and increasing reliability and predictability of travel. Our region was selected as one of eight regions in the nation to receive funding for the first phase of this effort. This first phase results in the development of a concept of operations and could lead to later phases for system design and implementation. Our partners in the application included Caltrans, the Cities of San Diego, Poway, and Escondido, the Metropolitan Transit System, North County Transit District, and the Partners Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH).

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachment: 1. Investment Transactions – Monthly Activity for Securities Transactions for June and July 2006

Key Staff Contact: Renée Wasmund, (619) 699-1940, [email protected]

2 Attachment 1

MONTHLY ACTIVITY FOR INVESTMENT SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006

Transaction Maturity Par Amount Yield Date Date Security Value (Cost) on Cost

BOUGHT 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 28,440.38 28,299.10 5.67% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 218,506.70 217,421.60 5.66% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 32,650.53 32,488.33 5.67% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 295,712.65 294,244.14 5.66% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 52,505.68 52,244.84 5.67% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 421,319.67 419,227.40 5.66% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 7,403.41 7,366.63 5.67% 06/01/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 138,460.98 137,773.39 5.66% 06/01/2006 05/23/2007 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN (CALLABLE) 1,900,000.00 1,875,775.00 5.36% 06/05/2006 11/08/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN DISC NT 1,000,000.00 978,203.33 5.24% 06/05/2006 03/09/2007 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 2,180,000.00 2,095,862.17 5.22% 06/08/2006 12/05/2006 AMERICAN GEN FIN CORP DISC COML PAPER 2,000,000.00 1,948,500.00 5.49% 06/15/2006 05/29/2007 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 1,000,000.00 949,685.00 5.48% 06/19/2006 12/29/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 1,000,000.00 971,827.36 5.25%

TOTAL BOUGHT: $ 10,275,000.00 $ 10,008,918.29 5.38% MATURED 06/05/2006 06/05/2006 MORGAN STANLEY COMM PAPER 2,100,000.00 2,092,416.67 5.02% 06/05/2006 06/05/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 1,000,000.00 984,648.33 4.94% 06/08/2006 06/08/2006 INTERNATIONAL LEASE FIN CORP DISC 2,000,000.00 1,976,200.00 5.00% 06/12/2006 06/12/2006 UBS FINANCE DELAWARE LLC COMM PAPER 1,500,000.00 1,494,375.00 5.02% 06/19/2006 06/19/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 1,000,000.00 982,722.77 4.94% 06/30/2006 06/30/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 2,000,000.00 1,963,868.88 4.94%

TOTAL MATURED: $ 9,600,000.00 $ 9,494,231.65 4.98% SOLD

No sales to report

3 MONTHLY ACTIVITY FOR INVESTMENT SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 31, 2006

Transaction Maturity Par Amount Yield Date Date Security Value (Cost) on Cost

BOUGHT 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE$ 28,440.38 $ 28,307.93 5.86% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 28,503.29 28,379.39 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 218,303.25 217,353.78 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 220,084.76 219,127.55 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 32,650.53 32,498.47 5.86% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 32,615.38 32,473.61 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 295,437.31 294,152.36 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 281,848.49 280,622.65 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 52,505.68 52,261.15 5.31% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 52,719.24 52,490.09 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 420,927.38 419,096.64 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 440,400.58 438,485.15 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 7,403.41 7,368.93 5.86% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 7,162.09 7,130.96 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 138,332.06 137,730.42 5.47% 07/03/2006 08/01/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 130,666.17 130,097.85 5.47% 07/17/2006 08/07/2006 WELLS FARGO & CO COMM PAPER 2,565,000.00 2,557,099.80 5.30%

TOTAL BOUGHT: $ 4,953,000.00 $ 4,934,676.73 5.39% MATURED 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686$ 28,440.38 $ 28,299.10 5.67% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 218,506.70 217,421.60 5.66% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 32,650.53 32,488.33 5.67% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 295,712.65 294,244.14 5.66% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 52,505.68 52,244.84 5.67% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 421,319.67 419,227.40 5.66% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 7,403.41 7,366.63 5.66% 07/03/2006 07/03/2006 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN PARTN CERT POOL #873686 138,460.98 137,773.39 5.66% 07/12/2006 07/12/2006 FEDERAL NATIONAL MTG ASSN DISC NOTES 1,000,000.00 985,184.44 4.82% 07/15/2006 07/15/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 2,500,000.00 2,740,234.38 2.17% 07/17/2006 07/17/2006 CITIGROUP FDG INC DISC COML PAPER 2,000,000.00 1,955,920.00 4.67% 07/19/2006 07/19/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN BK CONS DISC NOTES 500,000.00 489,139.44 4.67% 07/19/2006 07/19/2006 FEDERAL NATIONAL MTG ASSN DISC NOTES 2,000,000.00 1,958,855.54 4.71% 07/24/2006 07/24/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DIC NOTES 2,000,000.00 1,982,984.44 4.98% 07/25/2006 07/25/2006 FEDERAL HOME LN MTG CORP DISC NOTE 2,800,000.00 2,694,930.00 4.10%

TOTAL MATURED: $ 13,995,000.00 $ 13,996,313.67 4.22% SOLD

No sales to report 4

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-7 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

APPOINTMENT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE File Number 8000100 FOR 2007 SANDAG BOARD OFFICERS

Introduction

SANDAG Bylaws set forth the annual nomination and selection process for SANDAG Board Officers. In September, the Chair shall appoint up to a six-person nominating committee, composed of members of the Board from each of the four subregions and a Board member from the City and the County of San Diego. Members of the nominating committee may not include Board members from jurisdictions that have applicants for the Chair or a Vice Chair position on the Board of Directors.

I have appointed the following members to this year’s Nominating Committee:

• San Diego Councilmember Jim Madaffer, Nominating Committee Chair • County Supervisor Bill Horn, Nominating Committee Vice Chair • Santee Councilmember Jack Dale (East County) • Encinitas Mayor Christy Guerin (North County Coastal) • San Marcos Vice Mayor Pia Harris-Ebert (North County Inland) • National City Vice Mayor Ron Morrison (South County)

Discussion

The annual nomination and selection process being used this year is slightly different than the process used in prior years. Board members interested in the Board Chair, First Vice Chair, and Second Vice Chair positions for calendar year 2007 were required to submit applications by July 31, 2006. The applications received for the following positions include:

Chair Mayor Mary Sessom, City of Lemon Grove

First Vice Chair Mayor Lori Holt Pfeiler, City of Escondido

Second Vice Chair Mayor Art Madrid, City of La Mesa Councilmember Joe Kellejian, City of Solana Beach

Next Steps

The next steps in the selection process include:

• October/November 2006 -- The nominating committee shall interview the candidates and submit in writing to the SANDAG Chair, a slate of nominees for the three Board officers for mailing to Board members no later than November 2006.

• December 2006 – Election of officers will be held during the regular December Board meeting. Additional nominations for any office may be made by Board members at the election meeting.

• January 2007 – Term of office for Board officers shall begin on January 1, 2007, and will last for one year.

MICKEY CAFAGNA Chairman, SANDAG Board of Directors

Key Staff Contact: Kim Kawada, (619) 699-6994, [email protected]

2

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-10 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

SPRINTER PROJECT STATUS REPORT AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL PAPER File Number 1109100

Introduction Recommendation

At its August 4, 2006, meeting, the Board of The Board of Directors is asked to approve Directors authorized the North County Transit granting NCTD additional access to District (NCTD) to access up to $10 million in SANDAG’s TransNet Commercial Paper TransNet Commercial Paper (CP) for the SPRINTER Program in an amount not to exceed project. This action enables NCTD to bridge any $8.2 million, bringing the total amount to potential cash flow shortfalls resulting from the $18.2 million to cover the potential cash delay in the release of Federal Transit flow shortfall on the SPRINTER project Administration (FTA) FY 2005 and FY 2006 federal through October 2006. The CP loan, plus appropriations and allows project construction to interest and associated fees, would be continue unimpeded. repaid by NCTD with anticipated future funds. NCTD believes it is making progress with the FTA on this situation. However, there is no assurance that NCTD will ultimately be successful in getting the FTA funds released in the near term. Therefore, NCTD requests additional CP access of $8.2 million, for a total loan of up to $18.2 million, to cover the potential cash flow needs through October 2006. A status report on the SPRINTER project also is provided.

Discussion

At the August 4, 2006, meeting, staff reported that FTA had raised a number of issues regarding the SPRINTER project and was evaluating the magnitude of the project cost increase. FTA has since indicated that it considers the cost increase to be approximately $98.6 million, bringing the total cost of the project to approximately $484.1 million. NCTD had previously reported that the cost increase was in the $42 million to $55 million range, as presented to the Transportation Committee at its June 16, 2006, meeting. A principal factor in the differing cost increase amounts is in the treatment and funding of the project’s risks. As a result of FTA’s evaluation, NCTD needs to assume higher contingency reserves as part of the overall budget to account for a higher degree of likelihood that the most significant risks will actually occur.

NCTD and SANDAG staffs continue to evaluate the status of the project’s remaining tasks to reduce or eliminate the likelihood that these risks will occur. The intended results of this effort are to reduce the contingency funding that is required to address these risks and ultimately, to control the project’s cost. NCTD and SANDAG staffs believe that this effort will be successful in bringing the cost increase to a level lower than the $98.6 million figure that FTA has identified.

Over the course of the next few months, NCTD and SANDAG staffs will continue to work to reduce the likelihood and the impact of these risks, and to work with FTA to document the reduction or

elimination of these risks, resulting in a lowering of the contingency reserve funding to more appropriate levels. In the meantime, however, an interim strategy is necessary to allow NCTD to continue construction of the project while the ultimate funding plan is developed and approved.

Interim Strategy

Given the magnitude of the cost increase, staff recommends that decision on a full funding plan be deferred until after the November 2006 election occurs. A $20 billion statewide transportation infrastructure bond proposal, Proposition 1B, will go before the voters at that time. Approval of Proposition 1B would provide the region with additional funding sources to address a significant portion of this cost increase. The additional time also would allow SANDAG and NCTD staffs to review the project’s contract, to further refine and implement cost control and risk management strategies, and to work with FTA in an effort to amend the cost increase figure FTA currently requires.

However, there is some risk with this proposed interim strategy. FTA may not release the federal funds until a final funding plan is approved. If NCTD and SANDAG wait until the end of 2006 to decide on a final funding plan, it would require NCTD to gain access to approximately $42.5 million in CP loan funds to cover cash flow needs through the end of the year. Table 1 below shows the projected monthly cash flow shortages through December 2006, if the FY 2005 and 2006 federal appropriations continue to be withheld.

NCTD would provide a status report to the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee (ITOC) and the Board in the event that additional access to the TransNet CP program is required. The amount required to cover the potential shortfall through October 2006 is $18.2 million. Since $10 million was previously approved by the Board in August, an augmentation of $8.2 million is now requested.

Table1 Potential Monthly SPRINTER Cash Flow Shortage through December 2006 ($millions) Total September October November December (Sep-Dec 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006) Potential Monthly Cash 5.1 13.1 11.7 12.6 42.5 Flow Shortage* Cumulative Potential 5.1 18.2 29.9 42.5 Shortage CP Approved to Date 10.0 10.0 CP September augmentation request to 8.2 8.2 cover through October

*Assuming FTA continues to withhold release of FY 2005 and 2006 federal appropriations

It should be noted that, should FTA not release the $66.5 million in federal funds for six additional months, to February 2007, interest costs are estimated to be approximately $1.2 million. This amount could vary depending on interest rates, amount borrowed, and length of borrowing.

2 SPRINTER Status Report

Following is a brief summary report of the status of the SPRINTER project, including cost control and project schedule information. A more detailed report is included in Attachment 1.

Overview

Significant progress was made this past month on the SPRINTER project. The first three Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) vehicles were delivered on schedule in August to the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) in Escondido. An interim completion milestone for the VMF to accept the first DMU vehicles also was met on August 15, 2006. The test track at the east end of the line was completed and will be ready for vehicle testing operations to begin in September 2006.

Progress on the three construction contracts also continued. The Mainline contract reached 53.4 percent completion, the Loop Contract reached 72.5 percent completion, and the VMF contract reached 66.1 percent completion, based on billings to date. The combined approved change orders on the three construction contracts plus and the DMU contract, as a percentage of construction value to date, totaled 4.3 percent.

Project Cost and Cost Control

The current NCTD-adopted budget for the total project is $440 million (the total of the previously approved $385.6 million budget plus the previously reported increase of up to $55 million). NCTD provided an updated cost to complete estimate to FTA in May 2006. The Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) and FTA evaluated NCTD’s cost to complete estimate and identified additional potential cost risks. Based on this analysis, NCTD prepared a draft Amended Recovery Plan which accounted for these additional risks, with the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) project budget estimated at up to $460.3 million, and the total project, including locally funded project components, up to $484.1 million, for a total cost increase of $98.6 million from the previously FTA-approved budget of $385.6 million.

In order to address these potential project risks, the Amended Recovery Plan calls for the strengthening of staff through addition of program-level start-up management, schedule control, cost engineering, office engineering staff, and creation of a Project Controls oversight role for SANDAG. Most of the new positions have been hired and are on the project. The SANDAG Director of Engineering and Construction is filling the oversight role as the Regional Project Controls Director.

The Amended Recovery Plan also includes a Risk Mitigation and Management Plan to address the top project risks and reduce their likely impact. These project and cost control measures include:

• Addition of project controls staff as noted above.

• Upgrade to the project schedule to provide an integrated schedule based on all known project activities and durations leading to start-up.

• Using the upgraded schedule to develop monthly updated forecasts of cost to complete. The enhanced project management team will employ critical path, efficiency analysis, manpower analysis, payment application analysis, trend analysis, earned value analysis, change order analysis, and other analytical techniques to provide a monthly forecast on project cost and schedule status. This information will be presented monthly to the entire project management team so that they can use this information to better manage the contracts to completion.

3 • Development of detailed sub-schedules for all critical activities on key systems components such as train control/signaling and communications systems, which were identified as areas of potential risk.

• Establishment of reporting milestones for ongoing assessment of accomplishment vs. schedules on key systems components and the overall project.

• Monthly resource level reporting against budget by the design consultant to control costs in that area, for design support during construction services.

• Tracking and reporting change orders as percent of total construction value to date, on a monthly basis.

• Re-evaluation of cost risks at contract milestone achievements based on percentage of completion of each contract.

Project Schedule

The Project Controls staffing additions are in place and are evaluating contractor progress on a continuous basis. As of August, the project schedule status on the four major contracts was as follows:

1. Mainline Contract: Estimated completion and start of revenue operations is December 2007. To do so, the contractor needs to accelerate completion of on-site revegetation, Escondido Avenue mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, communications equipment cabinets, and station gangway systems.

2. Loop Contract: Estimated completion is November 2006.

3. VMF Contract: Substantial completion anticipated in December 2006, ahead of the contract completion date of April 2007.

4. DMU Vehicles: On schedule, with first deliveries made in August 2006.

Next Steps

If FTA does not release the FY 2005 and FY 2006 federal appropriations, NCTD would come back to the Board at its October meeting to request another augmentation to the CP program. SANDAG staff, in coordination with NCTD, will work to develop funding plan options to address the overall project cost increase and will present them to the Board following the November election.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachment: 1. SPRINTER Rail Project Monthly Project Status Report, August 2006

Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, (619) 699-1908, [email protected]

4 Attachment 1

SPRINTER RAIL PROJECT MONTHLY PROJECT STATUS REPORT August 2006 Description The SPRINTER Rail Project is converting an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU), single-track line transit system running east from Oceanside, through Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to Escondido. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). The project alignment will include three new 3.5-mile passing tracks, 15 stations; and procurement of 12 DMU vehicles. A new Vehicle Maintenance Facility is being built in Escondido. Current Status: Mainline Contract Value: $182.4 million net of insurance Mainline • 16 miles of ballasted track, out of 32 miles total, has been reconstructed. Contract • 32 of 36 grade crossings have been reconstructed. • Station platform construction is underway at multiple stations. • Critical Milestone #5 met on August 15, 2006 with completion of 2.7-mile test track. • Contract is 53.4% complete. • Net change orders as percent of construction value to date: 4.6%. Current Status: CSUSM Loop Contract Value: $23.5 million net of insurance CSUSM Loop • Construction on all 5 concrete bridges substantially complete. Contract • Barham Lane road construction nearly complete. • Contract is 72.5% complete; finish is expected in November 2006. • Net change orders as percent of construction value to date: 0.6%. Current Status: Vehicle Maintenance Facility Contract Value: $23.6 million net of insurance Vehicle • Building shell, pits, track storage areas required by milestone 2A met on Maintenance August 15, 2006, in time to receive first DMU vehicles. Facility (VMF) • Contract is 66.1% complete, early substantial completion expected in Contract December 2006. • Net change orders as percent of construction value to date: 0.9%. Current Status: DMU Vehicle Contract Value: $50.6 million. DMU Contract • First 3 DMUs completed and delivered to Vehicle Maintenance Facility on August 15-19, 2006. • Contract is 61% complete, completion expected in November 2006. • Net change orders as percent of manufacture value to date: 7.1%.

Contract Values Percent Complete 72.5% 80.0% 66.1% 61.0% 53.4% 60.0% $50.6 Mainline 40.0% $23.6 Loop VMF 20.0% $23.5 $182.4 DMU 0.0% Mainline Loop VMF DMU Contract

5 Cost The current NCTD-adopted budget is $440 million. NCTD provided an updated cost to complete estimate to FTA in May 2006. The Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC) and FTA evaluated NCTD’s cost to complete estimate and identified additional potential cost risks. Based on this analysis, NCTD prepared a draft Amended Recovery Plan which accounted for these additional risks, with the FFGA project budget estimated at up to $460.3 million, and the total project, including locally funded project components, up to $484.1 million. Ongoing Cost NCTD has employed a number of project and cost control measures from the Control beginning of construction. These include: Measures • Co-location of NCTD, contract manager, and designer at field site office. • Ongoing formal Partnering Sessions and weekly senior management meetings with Contractor. • Staff up field engineering in field office. • Use Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP) clauses of contracts where feasible to reduce costs. • Assign separate construction management firm Contract Manager and NCTD Project Officer for each contract. • Use Change Order Review Board for large change orders. • All proposed changes to include a change order evaluation and negotiation of cost and profit rate. Cost Control As part of the draft Amended Recovery Plan, NCTD identified the top cost risks to Measures - the project and provided a “Risk Mitigation and Management Plan” to address these Additional risks and reduce their likely impact. Plan elements include: • Addition of start-up, cost controls, and schedule forecasting staff on the construction management and project administration team. • Upgrade the project schedule to provide an integrated schedule based on all known project activities and durations leading to start-up. • Use the upgraded schedule to develop monthly updated forecasts of cost to complete based on earned-value and completion to date. • Development of detailed sub-schedules for all critical activities on key systems components such as train control / signaling and communications systems. • Establishment of reporting milestones for ongoing assessment of accomplishment vs. schedules on key systems components and overall project. • Monthly resource level reporting against budget by the design consultant to control costs in that area, for design support during construction services. • Track and report change orders as percent of total construction value to date, monthly. • Re-evaluation of cost risks at contract milestone achievements based on percentage of completion of each contract. Schedule Mainline Contract – Schedule still viable to meet December 2007 date. Contractor Assessment: needs to eliminate negative float in Escondido Avenue MSE walls, Communications Equipment cabinets, and station gangway systems. Loop Contract – Schedule anticipates a November 2006 completion. VMF Contract – Substantial Completion anticipated in December 2006, contract completion in April 2007 DMU Vehicles – On schedule, with first deliveries made in August 2006. Anticipated • Completion of 3 more grade crossings in Oceanside. Activity Next • Continued delivery of DMU vehicles. Month: • Continued systems installation at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. • Begin vehicle and system testing on test track. • Fill new positions in scheduling, cost control, and engineering. • Provide monthly reporting on project controls.

6

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-11 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – ACCEPT

NEXUS STUDY FOR TransNet REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM File Number 1110200

Introduction Recommendation

In November 2004, San Diego County voters The Transportation Committee recommends approved local Proposition A extending the that the SANDAG Board of Directors accept TransNet ½ cent sales tax for transportation the Nexus Study (Attachment 1) for the through 2048. Included in Proposition A and the purpose of distributing it to the local TransNet Extension Ordinance is the Regional jurisdictions for their use in implementing Transportation Congestion Improvement Program the funding program required by the (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that TransNet Ordinance. new development directly invests in the region’s transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. The RTCIP provides for the collection of a fee per new dwelling unit to ensure future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the Regional Arterial System (RAS) and related transportation facility improvements, as defined in SANDAG’s most recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

One of the requirements of the TransNet Ordinance is for SANDAG to produce a RTCIP Nexus Study (“Study”) (Attachment 1) to help satisfy the legal requirements governing development impact fees in California. Cities and counties have the authority to impose impact fees under the state Mitigation Fee Act. In doing so, each local jurisdiction is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between the collection of fees, the need for facilities created by new development, and the expenditure of fee revenues to benefit new development.

The purpose of the Study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in the San Diego region can use as a basis for adopting an impact fee that could be used to fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP.

This nexus analysis demonstrates that an average impact fee of $2,071 per new residential unit is allowed under the California Mitigation Fee Act.

Each local agency that wants to impose a development impact fee on the basis of the Study will need to verify the findings in the Study before adopting those findings for the particular local agency’s use in imposing a fee. This report provides information to assist the local agencies, however, each local agency should have its legal counsel verify all of the procedures, dates, and findings in this report and the Study.

Discussion

Impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The calculation procedure can be organized into four steps, discussed below. In addition to the fee calculation procedure, local jurisdictions must take specific actions to collect the fees, adjust the fee amount over time, allow for specific exemptions, and follow guidelines for the use of the fee revenue. Each of these areas is summarized below with additional information available in the full Study.

1. Prepare growth projections - The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Using these growth forecasts as foundation, the study estimates travel demand by land use category using vehicle trips. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Mitigation Fee Act.

2. Identify facility standards - The critical policy issue in a development impact fee nexus study is the identification of a facility standard. The facility standard determines new development’s need for new facilities. The facility standard also is used to evaluate the existing level of facilities to ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the RAS in 2008. Hours of delay provide a reasonable system-wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG’s transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Without any investment in the RAS and adjusting for the future impacts from existing residents, vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials (identified in the RTP and adjusted for lane miles added since 2002), vehicle hours of delay will increase substantially less, by 68 percent.

3. Calculate facility cost and available funding required to accommodate new development based on the growth projections and facility standards - To justify the need for the RTCIP impact fee, the fee should only be imposed to the extent additional funding is needed to accommodate new development net of other anticipated funding sources. These other funding sources available for the RAS totaled $500 million in the Reasonably Expected Revenue scenario of the adopted RTP, sufficient to fund 69 additional RAS lane miles. The total RAS facility cost is $4.8 billion for the entire 637 lane miles.

4. Calculate the public facilities fee per unit of development - The vehicle trip rates described in step 1 above provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project’s demand on the regional transportation system. New development’s share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines that project’s fair share of total RAS improvements. This Study calculates the cost per trip for new development to be $210. However, applying a single fee across all

2 dwelling units may not ensure a reasonable relationship between each new development project’s proportionate share of total improvements and the amount of the fee. Separate fees by major residential land use category based on trip generation rates would more likely fulfill this statutory requirement. A fee schedule by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip is $1,166 for mobile homes, $1,865 for multi-family units, and $2,331 for single family units. The average fee per dwelling unit is $2,071.

Actions Required by Local Jurisdictions

Adoption - To meet the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (“Act”) and the July 1, 2008, RTCIP deadline, local agencies that wish to adopt an RTCIP impact fee must do so by May 1, 2008. This allows for the 60-day period required under California Government Code Section 60017 of the Act between the date of adoption and the date the fee becomes effective. The same section of the Act includes certain notice and public hearing requirements as well that each local agency must follow.

Ordinance and resolution - Local agencies will need an ordinance and resolution to adopt the fee. The ordinance will provide the authority for the agency to impose the RTCIP impact fee. The resolution should specify the fee amount. Setting the fee by resolution avoids having to amend the local agency’s municipal code whenever the fee must be adjusted, facilitating annual updates to the fee for cost inflation.

The local agency fee resolution should reference a nexus study for documentation of the findings required by the Act. If the local agency adopts the fee schedule as shown in Table 11 of the RTCIP Nexus Study for residential development then the fee resolution can reference this nexus study and the local agency does not have to conduct a separate study. If the local agency adopts a different fee schedule then the agency will need to conduct a new nexus study to justify the fee. The agency’s fee program should still generate the same average revenue per residential unit shown in Table 11 of the Study for the agency to adequately implement the RTCIP.

Annual inflation adjustment - The TransNet Ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. The inflation adjustment will be based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index or similar index. SANDAG will calculate the fee adjustment. Each local agency will need to adjust their RTCIP impact fee annually following the same public notice and hearing requirements, and 60-day waiting period, as required for the initial fee adoption.

Fee collection and administration - Each local agency will be responsible for the collection, administration, and expenditure of RTCIP impact fee revenues generated within its jurisdiction. Fee revenues should be placed in a separate fund and administered pursuant to the requirements of the Act. For example, interest earnings on fund balances need to be credited to the fund. In addition, the Act requires that the local agency provide specific information regarding fee revenues and expenditures annually and every five years in a public report.1 The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. Each local agency must submit its funding program for review by the ITOC by April 1, 2008. The ITOC must review and audit each local agency’s program annually. The reporting requirements required by the Act should be

1 California Government Code, §§66001(d) and 66006(b).

3 sufficient to meet the ITOC’s needs in this regard. If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP, the agency can lose its share of TransNet sales tax funding for local roads.

Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fee. The RTCIP allows up to 3 percent of program revenues to be used for program administration.2 SANDAG anticipates adding a 1 percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fee to fund costs related to the ITOC. Local agencies may add up to 2 percent for their program administration costs. These charges are similar to any other user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to the Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs.

Use of fee revenues - RTCIP impact fee revenues must be expended on improvements to the RAS in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recently adopted RTP. RTCIP impact fee revenues may be used for any capital costs associated with improving the RAS including costs associated with:

• Arterial widening, extensions, and turning lanes; • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; • Reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges; • Railroad grade separations; and • Expanded regional express bus service.

Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. Each local agency must expend revenues within seven years of receipt or have a plan for expenditure that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period.

Exemptions - The RTCIP program exempts the following residential development from the impact fee: • 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;

• Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities;

• Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure, and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit;

• Development projects subject to development agreements prior the effective date of the TransNet Ordinance (May 28, 2004) that expressly prohibit the imposition of new impact fees, however if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, the requirements of the RTCIP shall apply;

• Guest dwellings;

• Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning;

2 Ibid., Sec. D(2).

4 • Kennels and catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit;

• The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption;

• Residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to July 1, 2008; and

• Condominium conversions

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachment: 1. RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Key Staff Contact: Marney Cox, (619) 699-1930, [email protected]

5 Attachment 1

RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY

SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

PREPARED FOR THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

WITH CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS

MuniFinancial Oakland Office 1700 Broadway, 6th Floor Anaheim, CA Phoenix, AZ Oakland, California 94612 Industry, CA Sacramento, CA Tel: (510) 832-0899 Lancaster, CA Seattle, WA Fax: (510) 832-0898 Oakland, CA Temecula, CA Orlando, FL

www.muni.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 1 Summary 1 New Development Investments in Regional Transportation 1 Purpose of Study 2 Regional Arterial System 2 Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation 3 NEXUS ANALYSIS ...... 7 Approach 7 Growth Projections 7 Facilities Standard and Need for Transportation Improvements 13 Facility Costs and Available Funding 15 Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule 17 Extension of RTCIP to Nonresidential Land Uses 20 IMPLEMENTATION ...... 22 Adoption By Local Agencies 22 Inflation Adjustment 23 Collection and Administration 24 Use of Revenues 24 Exemptions 25 MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ...... 26 Purpose of Fee 26 Use of Fee Revenues 26 Benefit Relationship 27 Burden Relationship 27 Proportionality 28 APPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM...... 29

APPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS ...... 34 Total Household Spending 34 Capture and Leakage 37 Local Spending Share of Total Sales 38 Visitor Industry Spending 38

i

Introduction and Summary

This chapter provides a summary of the study’s results and explains the background and purpose for the study. The chapter also describes the initial nexus analysis that preceded the current study.

Summary

The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP). This report documents the required statutory findings under California’s Mitigation Fee Act1. The nexus analysis demonstrates that an impact fee of $2,071 per new residence is allowed under the Mitigation Fee Act. This fee amount is estimated in 2008 dollars when the RTCIP will be implemented.

New Development Investments in Regional Transportation

In 2004 voters in San Diego County approved a 40-year extension to TransNet, a program designed to fund improvements to the region’s transportation system first initiated in 1987. The prime component of the program is a half-cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise over $8 billion for improvements through 2030. Expenditure of TransNet funds is implemented through the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and updated every two years. The most recent RTP, Mobility 2030, was adopted in 2005 and details the need for $42 billion in transportation improvements.2 Of that total, $22 billion in funding will come from a variety of state and federal sources. The remaining $20 billion will come from existing and new local funding sources including the TransNet sales tax extension. These amounts represent the Reasonably Expected Scenario, one of three scenarios examined in the RTP and the scenario adopted by SANDAG. In addition to the sales tax extension, the TransNet program requires implementation of a new local funding source for the RTP, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP).3 The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region’s transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility.

1 California Government Code, §§66000-66025.

2 See the Reasonably Expected Scenario that represents the RTP adopted funding and expenditure plan. San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Table 4.1, page 43.

3 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, Commission Ordinance 04-01, May 28, 2004, Sec. 9.

1 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Key components of the RTCIP include: Š Beginning July 1, 2008 each local agency must contribute $2,000 (in $2002) from exactions imposed on the private sector for each new residence constructed in the County. Š Although the RTCIP does not specify a revenue source for this contribution, most local agencies are likely to collect this revenue as a development impact fee imposed on new dwelling units at building permit issuance. Š Revenues must be expended on improvements to the Regional Arterial System (RAS), described below, and in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted RTP. Š The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. Š If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Cities have the authority to impose impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025. Counties have the same authority for their unincorporated areas. In doing so, each local agency is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between the collection of fees, the need for facilities created by new development, and the expenditure of fee revenues to benefit new development.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP. This report documents the required statutory findings under the Mitigation Fee Act.

Regional Arterial System

SANDAG employs a rigorous process to define the RAS.4 The most important criterion for determining whether to include an arterial in the RAS is the arterial’s role as a “critical link”. Critical links provide direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The other criteria for inclusion of an arterial in the RAS include: Š Links to areas with high concentrations of existing or future population or employment; Š Links to activity centers such as hospitals, retail centers, entertainment centers, hotels, colleges, and universities;

4 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appendix 7 – Evaluation Criteria and Rankings, Table TA 7.1, p. 105.

2 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Š Accommodate high future traffic volumes; Š Accommodate Regional Transit Vision (Red and Yellow Car service); and Š Provide access to intermodal (freight, port, military, or airport) facilities. The current RAS includes 777 route miles (not lane miles) of arterials. Figure 1 is a map of the Regional Arterial System. The RAS includes both the regionally significant arterials and the other regional arterials indicated on the map. A list of arterial segments included in the RAS is provided in Appendix A to this report. A list of the types of improvements that the RTCIP can fund on the RAS is discussed in the Implementation chapter of this report.

Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation

SANDAG staff developed the RTCIP contribution amount of $2,000 per residence using an approach that allocated transportation system improvements proportionately across both existing development and projected growth. The methodology was as follows: 1. The Regional Arterial System carried 10.8 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2000 and was projected to carry 14.9 million VMT in 2030. The difference of 4.1 million VMT, or 27 percent of the 2030 VMT total was attributed to growth (4.1 ÷ 14.9 = 27 percent). 2. The entire transportation network was projected to accommodate 60.1 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2030. Of this total, 37.4 million VMT, or 62 percent, were attributed to residential development (37.4 ÷ 60.1 = 62 percent). This amount included any trip that started or ended at a home (home-work, home-school, home-college, and home-other). 3. Multiplying the results of steps #1 and #2 resulted in 16 percent of total VMT in the County in 2030 attributed to new, residential development (0.27 × 0.62 = 16 percent). 4. As of 2000, SANDAG and local agencies had identified improvements for 710 additional lane miles to complete the Regional Arterial System. At a cost of $5.1 million per lane mile (in 2002 dollars) this equals a total cost of $3.6 billion (710 × $5.1 million = $3.6 billion). 5. If all development, existing and new, paid a proportionate share of this cost new residential development’s share would be $593 million (0.16 × $3.6 billion = $593 million). 6. Allocating the new residential development share over a projected increase in dwelling units of 320,000 from 2000 to 2030 yielded a cost per unit of slightly less than $2,000 ($593 million ÷ 320,000 = $1,853). The methodology described above and employed by SANDAG to calculate the RTCIP assumes that all development, existing and new has the same impact on the need for RAS improvements based on the amount of travel demand generated (vehicle trips). Thus existing and new development should share proportionately in the cost of transportation system improvements. For descriptive purposes this can be considered an “average cost” approach.

3 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

4 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Figure 1 Regional Arterial System

5 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

For comparison, this approach does not focus on the marginal impacts of new development on congestion, and the cost of additional transportation improvements needed to mitigate those impacts to maintain existing levels of services. Based on our experience preparing transportation fee studies, this “marginal cost” approach would probably result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned transportation system improvements. The approach used by SANDAG is therefore more conservative.

6

Nexus Analysis

This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), the cost of RAS improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an impact fee to fund those investments.

Approach

Impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study and described in detail in the sections that follow include: 1. Prepare growth projections; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections; 4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. Due to policy considerations SANDAG indicated that the nexus study should employ the same “average cost” approach used in the initial fee calculation to the greatest extent technically defensible under the Mitigation Fee Act. Consistent with the initial SANDAG approach, the need for RAS improvements determined by this nexus study is based on the relative amount of travel demand generated by all existing and new, residential and nonresidential, development. As mentioned above (see page 3), this is a conservative approach because a more detailed impact analysis probably would result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned RAS improvements. The analysis required for each of the four steps listed above is conducted on a countywide basis consistent with SANDAG’s initial fee calculation. We updated certain assumptions with more recent data when available. The approach takes a countywide perspective because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities.

Growth Projections

This section describes the SANDAG forecast for population and employment, and estimates of land use in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. Land use forecasts are converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand (further discussed below).

7 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Population, Employment, and Land Use The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Forecasts for 2030 are from SANDAG’s Urban Development Model (UDM). The UDM is one of four interrelated forecasting models used by SANDAG to project land use and transportation for the region.5 The UDM allocates changes in the region’s economic and demographic characteristics to jurisdictions and other geographic areas within the region. The model is based on the spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population factors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas including the traffic analysis zones used in the transportation modeling process. The UDM complies with federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long-range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. The initial SANDAG fee calculation used 2002 as the base year for cost estimates so that is the base year used for this nexus analysis. Dwelling units and employment for 2002 are based on interpolations of development estimates for 2000 and 2005 from the UDM model. Total employment was allocated to land use categories based on analysis of employment by land use using data from five counties and conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments. Table 1 lists the 2002 and 2030 land use assumptions based on SANDAG forecasts and used in the nexus analysis. The employment forecasts are converted to building square footage shown in Table 1 by land use using occupant densities factors shown in Table 2. These factors are derived from a study of employment, building square feet, and land use conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). We could not identify such a study for San Diego County. The SCAG study’s density factors are based on the largest sample of properties that we are aware of, and are used in development impact fee studies throughout the State.

5 For more information on SANDAG’s economic, demographic, and transportation forecasting models, see San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Forecast Process and Model Documentation, April 2004.

8 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 1: Population, Employment & Land Use Forecasts 2002 2030 Increase Percent

Residents 2,909,000 3,855,000 946,000 33%

Dwelling Units Single Family 648,000 778,000 130,000 20% Multi-family 372,000 527,000 155,000 42% Mobile Home 47,000 49,000 2,000 4% Total 1,067,000 1,354,000 287,000 27%

Employment1 Retail 295,000 393,000 98,000 33% Office/Services 348,000 451,000 103,000 30% Industrial 383,000 628,000 245,000 64% Subtotal 1,026,000 1,472,000 446,000 43% Residential2 138,000 149,000 11,000 8% Public3 139,000 157,000 29,000 21% Total 1,303,000 1,778,000 475,000 36%

Building Square Feet (000s)4 Retail 148,000 197,000 49,000 33% Office/Services 104,000 135,000 31,000 30% Industrial 345,000 565,000 220,000 64% Total 597,000 897,000 300,000 50%

1 Based on Series 10 forecast data provided by SANDAG. Estimates by major land use type rolled up from County Assessor's categories. Interpolated 2008 data based on 2005 and 2010 forecasts. 2 Employment on residential land uses such as home-based businesses. Travel demand included in estimates for residential land uses. 3 Travel demand caused by public land uses so excluded from nexus analysis. 4 Based on occupant density factors shown in Table 2.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Data Warehouse (http:datawarehouse.sandag.org), SANDAG Series 10 forecast of employment by land use; MuniFinancial.

9 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 2: Occupant Density Land Use

Commercial 500 Square feet per employee Office/Services 300 Square feet per employee Industrial1 900 Square feet per employee

Note: Source data based on random sample of 2,721 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate average employment densities by major category (commercial, office, industrial).

1 Adjusted to correct for over-sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County.

Source: The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments; October 31, 2001, Table 2-A, p. 15. MuniFinancial.

Travel Demand By Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type of land use the nexus study uses vehicle trips rather than vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that were used in the initial SANDAG calculation. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Mitigation Fee Act. VMT, on the other hand, is available from transportation models only for a limited number of “production and attraction” categories: home-work, home-school, home-college, home- other, and non-home. A reasonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant source of congestion, vehicle trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even though the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: Š Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. Š The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by SANDAG. The surveys provide a robust database of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses.

10 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 3: Travel Demand Factors E = C x D / A B C = A + B D 6.9 F G = E x F Trip Rate Adjustment Factor

Total Average Adjust- Average Travel Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment Daily Trip Demand Trips1 Trips1 Pa ss-by1 Length2 Factor3 Ends4 Factor

Residential 5 Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 10 11.10 Multi-family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 8 8.88 Mobile Home 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 5 5.55

Nonresidential 7 Commercial 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 68 27.88 Office/Services 77% 19% 96% 8.8 1.22 20 24.40 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 8 10.24

1 Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips w ith no midw ay stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips w hose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip 2 In miles. 3 Systemw ide average trip length is 6.9 miles. 4 Trips per dw elling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. 5 Single family based on 3-6 units per acre category. Multi-family based on 6-20 units per acre category. 6 Commercial based on "community shopping center" category. Office/services based on "standard commercial office" category. Industrial based on "industrial park (no commercial)" category.

Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, July 1998; MuniFinancial.

Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factors shown in Table 3 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may be related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur (jobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, most transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. However, there is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over time. Commercial development is to a large extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development occurring in the near term. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is driven by

11 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most common measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip ends to residential development. This approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accurately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth.6 Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. By “local” we mean residents (or businesses) located within the area subject to the impact fee. There are three major sources of retail spending: 1. Local households; 2. Local businesses; and 3. Visitors that travel to the area to shop. The RTCIP impact fee is limited to residential development so the focus of this nexus study was shifting the appropriate share of travel demand from commercial to residential development. The demand for commercial development by local businesses was not identified. To determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development we conducted an analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization. The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4 and presented in detail in Appendix B.

Total Travel Demand By Land Use Category Table 5 shows estimates of travel demand from existing and new development and the shares that residential and nonresidential development comprise of the total. Travel demand is based on the travel demand factors calculated in Table 3 and the growth estimates in Table 1. Commercial development associated with local household spending as shown in Table 4 is included in the residential land use category. Based on this analysis new residential development will represent about 13 percent of total travel demand in 2030.

6 See Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Infrastructure Financing Technical Report Southwest Area Plan, prepared for the City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development, January 1995, p.28. See also Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Road Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study, prepared for the Calaveras Council of Governments, April 28, 2004, p.20.

12 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. in San Diego County Taxable Building Square Feet Retail Sales (2004) Share 2002 2025 Growth

Total Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft.$ 44,470,000 100.0% 148,000 197,000 49,000

Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 27,856,000 62.6% 93,000 123,000 30,000 Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 16,614,000 37.4% 55,000 74,000 19,000

Sources: Tables 1 and B.4; MuniFinancial.

Table 5: Travel Demand From Existing and New Development Development Travel Demand3

Travel Demand Existing2 Growth2 Existing Growth Land Use Category Factor1 (2002) (2002-2030) (2002) (2002-2030) Total

Residential Single Family 11.10 648,000 130,000 7,193,000 1,443,000 8,636,000 Multi-family 8.88 372,000 155,000 3,303,000 1,376,000 4,679,000 Mobile Home 5.55 47,000 2,000 261,000 11,000 272,000 Local-serving Commercial4 27.88 93,000 30,000 2,593,000 836,000 3,429,000 Subtotal 1,160,000 317,000 13,350,000 3,666,000 17,016,000 Percent of Total 47.4% 13.0% 60.4%

Nonresidential Other Commercial5 27.88 55,000 19,000 1,533,000 530,000 2,063,000 Office/Services 24.40 104,000 31,000 2,538,000 756,000 3,294,000 Industrial 10.24 345,000 220,000 3,533,000 2,253,000 5,786,000 Subtotal 1,757,000 617,000 7,604,000 3,539,000 11,143,000 Percent of Total 27.0% 12.6% 39.6%

Total 20,954,001 7,205,000 28,159,000 Percent of Total 74.4% 25.6% 100.0%

1 Per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land uses. 2 Dwelling units for residential land uses and 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land uses. 3 Estimated total trip ends using the factors shown in Table 3. 4 Represents share of total commercial square feet and travel demand associated with spending by San Diego County households. 5 Represents share of total commercial square feet and travel demand associated with spending by San Diego County businesses and visitors.

Source: Tables 1, 3 and 4; MuniFinancial.

Facilities Standard and Need for Transportation Improvements

The critical policy issue in a development impact fee nexus study is the identification of a facility standard. The facility standard determines new development’s need for new facilities. The facility standard is also used to evaluate the existing level of facilities to ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in 2008. Hours of delay provide a reasonable system-

13 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG’s transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Projected hours of delay in 2002 is used for the standard because that is the implementation date for the RTCIP, representing existing conditions at the time new development would begin contributing to transportation system improvements. As mentioned in the last chapter the RAS needed 710 additional lane miles to complete the system as of the year 2000. Through 2002 the region added 73 lane miles to the RAS. This effort reduces the level of investment needed to complete the RAS to 637 lane miles. The data in Table 6 from the TransCAD model demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional investment in the RAS. The table shows the projected increases in vehicle hours of delay from 2002 to 2030 and the benefits of adding 637 lane miles to the RAS. Without any investment in the RAS vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials vehicle hours of delay will increase substantially less, by 68 percent.

Table 6: Regional Arterial System Roadway Statistics Projected 2030 Existing Without With 2002 Improvements Improvements

Lane Miles 2,805 2,805 3,442 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) - 637 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 0% 23%

Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Delay 64,352 137,481 108,350 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) 73,129 43,998 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 114% 68%

Note: 2002 data interpolated based on 2000 and 2005 data provided by model output (see Source).

Source: San Diego Association of Governments, TransCAD model output.

New development is not the entire cause of the forecasted increase in vehicle hours of delay so as discussed above, new development is only allocated a share of RAS investment costs. The SANDAG transportation model assumes that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita for all existing and new development will increase 9.6 percent from 2000 to 2030 continuing recent trends.7 Thus some of the increased in vehicle hours of delay is caused by increased travel from existing development. RAS investment costs are being allocated evenly across existing and new development based on total travel demand, incorporating the impact of increased VMT per capita across all types of development (existing and new).

7 Email communication from Bill McFarlane, Transportation Modeling Section, San Diego Association of Governments, March 8, 2006.

14 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Facility Costs and Available Funding

This section estimates total costs associated with RAS improvements that are the responsibility of new development. The need for RTCIP funding based on available RTP revenues is evaluated. Finally, this section provides a current list of specific projects identified for investment in the RAS.

Unit Cost Estimates and Total Facility Costs For the purposes of this nexus analysis, facility costs are estimated in 2008 dollars, the first year of implementation of the RTCIP. The TransNet Ordinance states that the $2,000 revenue requirement per new dwelling unit be increased for inflation based on a construction cost index.8 The $2,000 amount was based on the original cost estimates prepared for the RTP in 2002 dollars. This subsection explains the approach taken to increase unit costs from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. The currently adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Mobility 2030, assumed a unit cost estimate of $5.1 million per lane mile in 2002 dollars for the RAS. Historically, SANDAG has assumed an annual increase of 2.6 percent for road construction costs, but in recent years that rate has risen significantly. To examine this issue SANDAG commissioned a study that examined a range of data on transportation capital project cost inflation since 2002. The study recommended that SANDAG use a 7.26 percent annual rate to increase estimated project costs from 2002 through 2005, and 4.50 percent from 2005 to 2008.9 As shown in Table 7, the cost estimate for an arterial lane mile is $7.2 million after inflating the 2002 estimate by the factors cited above from the SANDAG study. The total compounded increase from the 2002 estimate is 41 percent. Total costs to complete the arterial system would be $4.6 billion in $2008 based on this unit cost estimate.

Available RTP Funding To justify the need for the RTCIP impact fee, the fee should only be imposed to the extent additional funding is needed to accommodate new development net of other anticipated funding sources. The RTP examined three funding and expenditure scenarios described below.10 All dollars are in $2002 and are for the planning horizon 2002 to 2030. Š The Revenue Constrained scenario ($30 billion) was based on existing revenue sources and did not assume extension of the TransNet sales tax. Š The Reasonably Expected scenario ($42 billion) was based on extension of the TransNet sales tax ($8 billion) plus $4 billion more from higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends.

8 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, Commission Ordinance 04-01, May 28, 2004, Sec. 9.

9 San Diego Association of Governments, Transportation Project Cost Analysis (June 17, 2005) completed by URS, p. 8-1.

10 SANDAG, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Chapter 4, pp. 35-53.

15 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 7: Estimated Arterial System Capacity Investments ($2008) Inflation Rate Year Source Annual Cummulative Cost 2002 SANDAG RTP NA NA $ 5,100,000 2003 BLS Compounded Rate 2002-20051 7.26% 7.26% 5,470,000 2004 BLS Compounded Rate 2002-20051 7.26% 15.05% 5,868,000 2005 BLS Compounded Rate 2002-20051 7.26% 23.40% 6,293,000 2006 FHWA Compounded Rate 1960-20041 4.50% 28.95% 6,576,000 2007 FHWA Compounded Rate 1960-20041 4.50% 34.75% 6,872,000 2008 FHWA Compounded Rate 1960-20041 4.50% 40.81% 7,181,000

Regional Arterial Widenings & Extensions (lane miles) (2002-2030) 637

Total Regional Arterial System Capacity Investments (2002-2030) (Est. $2008)$ 4,572,860,800

1 As reported in SANDAG transportation cost analysis study completed by URS (see Sources).

Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appeicix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 159; San Diego Association of Governments, Transportation Project Cost Analysis (June 17, 2005) completed by URS, p. 8-1; Table 6; MuniFinancial.

Š The Unconstrained Revenue scenario ($67 billion) was based on an analysis of transportation system needs to 2030 and identified potential revenue sources but did not specify which ones to implement. SANDAG adopted the Reasonably Expected scenario. Under this scenario the RTP invests $24.5 billion for projects that expand system capacity. Other improvements totaling $17.5 billion would improve operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. The RTP expenditure plan is summarized in Table 8, below. As shown in Table 8, the RTP allocates $500 million for investment in the RAS. Under the Revenue Constrained and Unconstrained Revenue scenarios the total allocation is $350 million and $700 million, respectively.11 Given the need for a $4.6 billion total investment (Table 7), substantial additional resources are needed. The RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the RTP: …is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments.12 The RTP further indicates that a regional development impact fee as contemplated by the RTCIP is one of the potential revenues sources for supplementing RTP resources.13

11 Ibid., Table 4.3, p. 46, Table 4.5, p. 49.

12 Ibid., p. 103.

13 Ibid., p. 50.

16 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 8: RTP Investment Plan, 2002-2030 ($2002) $ Millions ($2002)

Capacity Expansion Investments New Transit Facilities $ 8,500 20% Managed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities 7,450 18% Highway System Completion/Widening Projects 3,580 9% New Local Streets and Roads 4,430 11% Regional Significant Arterials 500 1%

Subtotal $ 24,460 58%

Other Investments1 17,485 42%

Total Expenditures $ 41,945 100%

1 Includes projects that improve the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities.

Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), p. 44; MuniFinancial.

Specific RAS Improvement Projects Table 9 shows the RTP’s initial planned improvements in the RAS. These projects represent a $700 million investment under the Unconstrained Revenue scenario, or 136 additional lane miles at the 2002 cost estimate of $5.1 million per lane mile. Under the adopted Reasonably Expected scenario the RTP allocates $500 million, sufficient to fund 98 additional lane miles in $2002. These projects are candidates for funding with RTCIP contributions. Funding these improvements with the RTCIP would enable RTCIP resources to expand improvements in the RAS towards full completion of the system (637 lane miles from 2002 to 2030).

Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule

The vehicle trip rates described in the Growth Projections section, above, provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project’s demand on the regional transportation system. New development’s share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines that project’s fair share of total RAS improvements.

17 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 9: Regionally Significant Planned Arterial Improvements Arterial Limits Type Jurisdiction

Balboa Ave. Kearney Villa Rd. - Ruffin Rd. Widen City of San Diego Bear Mountain Pkwy. Canyon Rd. - Valley Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido Black Mountain Rd. Mercy Rd. - Mira Mesa Blvd. Widen City of San Diego Black Mountain Rd. Emden Rd. - Caramel Valley Rd. Extend City of San Diego Cannon Rd. Hidden Valley Rd. - Frost Rd. Extend City of Carlsbad Cannon Rd. El Camino Real - Mystra Dr. Extend City of Carlsbad Cannon Rd. Melrose Dr. - SR 78 Extend County of San Diego Citracado Pkwy. I-15 - Scenic Trail Way Extend City of Escondido Citracado Pkwy. Avenida Del Diablo - Vineyard Ave. Extend City of Escondido College Ave. Montezuma Rd. - Alvarado Widen City of San Diego College Ave. El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr. Extend City of Carlsbad Deer Springs Rd. I-15 - Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Widen County of San Diego Del Dios Hwy. Via Rancho Pkwy. - Valley Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido East Valley Pkwy. East Valley Blvd. - Bear Valley Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido El Camino Real Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Widen City of San Diego El Camino Real Manchester Ave. - Tamarack Ave. Widen City of Carlsbad El Camino Real Tamarack Ave. - SR 76 Widen City of Oceanside Friars Rd. Colusa St. - Lia Las Cumbres Widen City of San Diego Friars Rd. SR-163 - Frazee Rd. Widen City of San Diego Genesee Ave. I-5 - Campus Point Dr. Widen City of San Diego Genesee Ave. Osler St. - Marlesta Dr. Widen City of San Diego H Street Bonita Vista High - Otay Lakes Widen City of Chula Vista Harbor Dr. Pacific Hwy. - California St. Widen City of San Diego Heritage Rd. Airway Rd. - Siempre Viva Rd. Extend City of San Diego Jamacha Blvd. Omega St. - Pointe Pkwy. Widen County of San Diego Kearny Villa Rd. SR 52 - Ruffin Rd. Widen City of San Diego Manchester Ave. I-5 - Lux Canyon Dr. Widen City of Encinitas Melrose Dr. Spur Ave. - N Santa Fe Ave. Extend City of Oceanside Melrose Dr. Aspen Way - Palomar Airport Rd. Extend City of Carlsbad Mission Ave. Enterprise St. - Centre City Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido Oceanside Blvd. Oceanside Blvd. - Rancho Del Oro Widen City of Oceanside Siempre Viva Rd. Heritage Rd. - La Media Rd. Widen City of San Diego South Santa Fe Ave. Mar Vista Dr. - Bosstick Blvd. Widen County of San Diego Torrey Pines Rd. N. of Callan St. - S. of Carmel Valley Rd. Widen City of San Diego Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Craven Rd. - Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Extend City of San Marcos Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Deer Springs Rd. - Craven Rd. Widen City of San Marcos Via de la Valle Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Widen City of San Diego Vista Sorrento Pkwy. Rose Coral Row - Sorrento Valley Blvd. Extend City of San Diego Vista Way Emerald Dr. - Melrose Dr. Widen City of Vista

Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appendix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 160.

The projected contribution from new residential development to the RTCIP for RAS improvements is $594 million. This amount is shown in Table 10 and results in a cost per trip of $210. These amounts are based on the nexus approach taken for this analysis that allocates RAS costs to new residential development based on shares of total travel demand in 2030. They are also based on allocating to residential development the entire burden of trips associated with commercial development that serves households within the County (see earlier discussion under “Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development”).

18 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 10: Residential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008)

Allocation of Total Costs to Residential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) $ 4,574,297,000 New Residential Development Share of Total Trips 13.0% New Residential Development Share of Total Costs $ 594,659,000

New Residential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030) Single Family 1,443,000 Multi-family 1,376,000 Mobile Home 11,000 Total New Residential Vehicle Trips 2,830,000

New Residential Development Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) $ 210

Tables 5 and 7; MuniFinancial.

The cost per trip of $210 is estimated in 2008 dollars, the first year for implementation of the RTCIP. Prior to local agency implementation of the RTCIP impact fee SANDAG will adjust this amount based on actual cost inflation to 2008 (see the Inflation Adjustment section in the next chapter). The RTCIP does not specify how to impose the impact fee beyond the required contribution of $2,000 per dwelling unit. A single fee for all dwelling units may not adequately ensure a reasonable relationship between each new development project’s proportionate share of total improvements and the amount of the fee. Separate fees by major residential land use category based on trip generation rates would more likely fulfill this statutory requirement.14 A fee schedule by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 10 is shown in Table 11. Fees range from a low of $1,166 for mobile homes to a high of $2,331 for single family units. The average fee per dwelling unit is $2,071. This fee is less than $2,816, the original RTCIP fee amount of $2,000 increased for actual and estimated inflation from 2002 to 2008 based on the rates used in Table 8. As mentioned above SANDAG will adjust this amount based on actual cost inflation to 2008 prior to local agency implementation of the RTCIP impact fee. Local jurisdictions may adopt a fee schedule with different residential land use categories as long as the fee is based on a cost that is no higher than the maximum justified cost per trip of $210 shown in Table 10. This approach would help ensure compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act.

14 Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code, §66001(b).

19 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 11: RTCIP Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Trip New Cost Per Demand Development Estimated Land Use Trip Factor Fee1 (dwelling units) Revenue

Single Family $ 210 11.10 $ 2,331 130,000 $ 303,030,000 Multi-family 210 8.88 1,865 155,000 289,075,000 Mobile Home 210 5.55 1,166 2,000 2,332,000

Total Estimated Revenue $ 594,437,000 Total New Dwelling Units (2002-2030) 287,000

Weighted Average RTCIP Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit (Est. $2008) $ 2,071

1 Fee per dwelling unit.

Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MuniFinancial.

Extension of RTCIP to Nonresidential Land Uses

The RTCIP specifically exempts all nonresidential development. However, one option for increasing contributions from new development for RAS improvements would be to apply the RTCIP to nonresidential development as well. Table 12 shows new development’s total investment in the RAS that could be made under this approach. Fee revenues would increase by a total of $578 million, $491 million from office and industrial development and $87 million from commercial development (estimated in 2008 dollars). A fee schedule by major nonresidential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 12 is shown in Table 13. Fees per 1,000 building square feet range from a low of $1,669 for industrial and $1,784 for commercial and to a high of $3,977 for office/services. As mentioned above these amounts should be adjusted based on actual cost inflation to 2008 prior to local agency implementation of a nonresidential impact fee.

20 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table 12: Nonresidential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) Office/Services & Industrial Commercial

New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trips Commercial1 NA 530,000 Office/Services 756,000 NA Industrial 2,253,000 NA New Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030)1 3,009,000 530,000 Total Vehicle Trips (2030)1 28,159,000 28,159,000 New Nonresidential Development Share 10.7% 1.9%

Allocation of Total Costs to Nonresidential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) $ 4,574,297,000 $ 4,574,297,000 New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trips 10.7% 1.9% New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Costs $ 489,450,000 $ 86,912,000

New Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030) Commercial2 NA 1,366,000 Office/Services 756,000 NA Industrial 2,253,000 NA Total Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2030)1 3,009,000 1,366,000

Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) $ 163 $ 64

1 For the purpose of determining new commercial development's fair share of total costs, trips exclude those assocateid with spending by local (San Diego County) resdients. Commercial trips associated with local residential spending are used to allocate total costs to residential development (see Table 10).

2 Includes local and regional commercial trips. It would be inpractical to identify on a project-by-project basis that portion of new commercial development associated only with non-local residential spending. Therefore, new commercial development's fair share of total costs is allocated across all new commercial vehicle trips (see Table 5). Tables 5 and 7; MuniFinancial.

Table 13: Nonresidential Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Trip New Cost Per Demand Development Estimated Land Use Trip Factor Fee1 (ksf) Revenue

Commercial $ 64 27.88 $ 1,784 49,000 $ 87,416,000 Office/Services 163 24.40 3,977 31,000 123,287,000 Industrial 163 10.24 1,669 220,000 367,180,000

Total Estimated Revenue (Est. $2008) $ 577,883,000

1 Fee per 1,000 square feet.

Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MuniFinancial.

21

Implementation

Local agencies need to adopt a “Funding Program” to implement the RTCIP.15 The Funding Program must generate the funding per new residential unit required by the RTCIP. This chapter provides guidance on use of this nexus study by local agencies to implement a Funding Program and comply with the RTCIP. “Local agencies” includes all cities in the County plus the County of San Diego for development in the unincorporated area. The guidance provided in this study is not a substitute for legal advice and all local agencies should consult with their legal counsel regarding compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Act). Local agencies are hereby put on notice that the findings and guidance in this study are generalized, and were created for use as a framework to be tailored by each local agency. SANDAG disclaims any responsibility for any liability to users of this study, or any other party, for any loss or damages, consequential or otherwise, including but not limited to time, money, or goodwill, arising from the use, operation or modification of the information in the study. In using this report, local agencies further agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SANDAG, its officers and employees, for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from use of the study. Distribution of this study shall not constitute any warranty by SANDAG.

Adoption By Local Agencies

Adoption Schedule To meet the requirements of the Act and the July 1, 2008 RTCIP deadline, local agencies will need to adopt the RTCIP impact fee by May 1, 2008. This allows for the sixty-day period required under California Government Code section 60017 of the Act between the date of adoption and the date the fee becomes effective. The same section of the Act includes certain notice and public hearing requirements as well that each local agency must follow. Legal counsel should also advise on timelines, hearings requirements, and all other actions required for fee adoption by the Act.

Ordinance, Resolution, and Nexus Study Local agencies may need to adopt an ordinance and resolution to implement the fee. The ordinance would provide the authority for the agency to impose the RTCIP impact fee. The resolution would specify the fee amount. Setting the fee by resolution avoids having to amend the local agency’s municipal code whenever the fee must be adjusted, facilitating annual updates to the fee for cost inflation. The local agency fee resolution should reference a nexus study for documentation of the findings required by the Act. If the local agency adopts the fee schedule as shown in Table 11, above, for residential development then the fee resolution can reference this nexus study and the local agency does not have to conduct a separate study. If the local agency adopts a

15 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. A.

22 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

different fee schedule then the agency will need to conduct a new nexus study to justify the fee. The agency’s fee program should still generate the same average revenue per residential unit shown in Table 11 for the agency to adequately implement the RTCIP.

Applying Fee To Nonresidential Development The local agency may also apply an impact fee to nonresidential development to fund improvements to the RAS. However, as mentioned above in the Nexus Analysis chapter, expansion of the RTCIP Funding Program to nonresidential development is not a requirement of the TransNet ordinance and is not necessary for a local agency to implement the RTCIP. If the agency chooses to apply the fee to nonresidential development and adopts the fee schedule as shown in Table 13, above, then the fee resolution can reference this nexus study and the local agency does not have to conduct a separate study. If the local agency adopts a different nonresidential fee schedule then the agency will need to conduct a new nexus study to justify the nonresidential fee.

Inflation Adjustment

Adjustment to Initial Fee As explained above in the Nexus Analysis chapter, the initial RTCIP funding requirement of $2,000 per new dwelling unit was calculated based on arterial costs in 2002 dollars. For the purposes of the nexus analysis, facility costs were estimated in 2008 dollars, the first year of implementation of the RTCIP. This analysis used the actual increase in construction costs for the period 2002 to 2005, and an estimated inflation rate for the period 2005 to 2008 (see Table 7). Prior to local agency adoption of a Funding Program in 2008, SANDAG will adjust the fee schedule shown in Table 11 for the actual increase in construction between 2005 and 2008. To make this adjustment, SANDAG will need to: Š Reduce the cost per trip shown in Table 10 (and used for the fee schedule in Table 11) by the compounded annual rate of 4.50 percent over three years used to estimate construction cost inflation from 2005 to 2008; Š Re-inflate the cost per trip from 2005 to 2008 for actual construction cost inflation during that period; and Š Re-calculate the fee schedule shown in Table 11 by the new cost per trip.

Annual Adjustment Following Implementation The TransNet ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009.16 The inflation adjustment will be two percent or based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, whichever is higher. An index similar to the Construction Cost Index may be used. SANDAG will calculate the fee adjustment. Each local agency will need to adjust their RTCIP impact fee annually.

16 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. C.

23 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Collection and Administration

Each local agency will be responsible for the collection, administration, and expenditure of RTCIP impact fee revenues generated within its jurisdiction. Fee revenues should be placed in a separate fund and administered pursuant to the requirements of the Act. For example, interest earnings on fund balances need to be credited to the fund. In addition, the Act requires that the local agency provide specific information regarding fee revenues and expenditures annually and every five years in a public report.17 The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. Each local agency must submit their Funding Program for review by the ITOC by April 1, 2008. The ITOC must review and audit each local agency’s program annually. The reporting requirements required by the Act should be sufficient to meet the ITOC’s needs in this regard. If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fee. The RTCIP allows up to three percent of program revenues to be used for program administration.18 SANDAG anticipates adding a one percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fee to fund costs related to the ITOC. Local agencies may add up to two percent for their program administration costs. These charges are similar to any other user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to the Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs.

Use of Revenues

RTCIP impact fee revenues must be expended on improvements to the RAS in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted RTP. Fee revenues may not be expended on road maintenance. RTCIP impact fee revenues may be used for any capital costs associated with improving the RAS including costs associated with: Š Arterial widenings, extensions, and turning lanes; Š Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; Š Reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges; Š Railroad grade separations; and Š Expanded regional express bus service. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The RTCIP requires that

17 California Government Code, §§66001(d) and 66006(b).

18 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. D(2).

24 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study each local agency expend revenues within seven years of receipt or have an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period.19 The Act has a similar requirement with a five years limitation unless there is an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period.

Exemptions

The RTCIP program exempts the following residential development from the impact fee:20 Š 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; Š Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities; Š Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit; Š Development projects subject to development agreements prior the effective date of the TransNet ordinance (May 28, 2004) that expressly prohibit the imposition of new impact fees, however if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, the requirements of the RTCIP shall apply; Š Guest dwellings; Š Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning; Š Kennels and catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit; Š The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption; Š Residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to July 1, 2008; and Š Condominium conversions.

19 Ibid., Sec. G(4).

20Ibid, Sec. E.

25

Mitigation Fee Act Findings

Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. Sample text that may be used for the five statutory findings required for adoption of the RTCIP impact fee are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the Nexus Analysis chapter of this report. All statutory references below are to the Act. This sample framework for the mitigation fee act findings is only to provide local agencies with guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies should customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the RTCIP impact fee.

Purpose of Fee

For the first finding the local agency must: Identify the purpose of the fee. (§66001(a)(1)) SANDAG policy as expressed through the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01) is that new development shall contribute towards the Regional Arterial System (RAS) through the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP impact fee is to implement this policy. The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling SANDAG to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development.

Use of Fee Revenues

For the second finding the local agency must: Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (§66001(a)(2)) The RTCIP impact fee will fund expanded facilities on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) to serve new development. These facilities include: Š Roadway widening; Š Roadway extension;

26 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Š Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; Š Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements; Š Railroad grade separations; and Š Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit. Costs for planned traffic facilities are preliminarily identified in this report. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. More detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are shown in the Regional Transportation Plan and other documents. Local agencies implementing the RTCIP may change the list of planned improvements to meet changing circumstances and needs, as they deem necessary. Fee revenues will be used for the sole purpose of expanding capacity on the RAS to accommodate new development. The RTCIP impact fee will not be used for the purpose of correcting existing deficiencies in the roadway system.

Benefit Relationship

For the third finding the local agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(3)) The local agency will restrict fee revenues to capital projects that expand capacity on the RAS to serve new development. Improvements funded by the RTCIP impact fee will expand a region-wide arterial system accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. SANDAG has determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of the Regional Arterial System to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee.

Burden Relationship

For the fourth finding the local agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(4)) New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures generate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. The need for the RTCIP impact fee is based on SANDAG transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehicle hours of delay on the RAS primarily as a result of new development even with planned improvements to that system. The model estimated impacts from new development based on trip generation rates that varied by land use

27 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study category, providing a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the need for improvements.

Proportionality

For the fifth finding the SANDAG must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(b)) This reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project will add to the Regional Arterial System. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied the trip generation rate for the applicable residential land use category. The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use category. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the Regional Arterial System improvements facilities attributable to the project.

28

Appendix A: Regional Arterial System

Table A.1 lists the arterials included in the Regional Arterial System by the Regional Transportation Plan adopted in 2005.

Table A.1: Regional Arterial System Arterial Limits

1st St A St - K St. 2nd St Greenfield Dr - Main St 30th St National City Blvd - 2nd St 32nd St Harbor Dr - Norman Scott Rd 54th St El Cajon Blvd - SR94 70th St University Ave - I-8 Ardath Rd Hidden Valley Rd - I-5 Avocado Ave Main St - Chase Ave Avocado Blvd Chase Ave - SR94 Balboa Ave Mission Bay Dr - I-15 Ballantyne St Broadway - Main St Barham Dr La Moree Rd - Mission Rd Barnett Ave Saint Charles St - Pacific Highway Bay Marina Way (24th St) I-5 - Terminal Ave Bear Valley Pkwy East Valley Pkwy - Sunset Dr Bernardo Center Dr Camino Del Norte - I-15 Beyer Blvd Main St -Dairy Mart Road Black Mountain Rd Del Mar Heights - Pomerado Rd Bobier Dr Melrose Dr - E Vista Way Bonita Rd E St - San Miguel Rd Borden Rd Las Posas Rd – Woodland Pkwy Borrego Springs Rd/Yaqui Pass Rd (S-3) Palm Canyon Dr (S-22)- SR78 Bradley Ave Marshall Ave - 2nd St Broadway (El Cajon) SR67 - E. Main St. Broadway (Lemon Grove) Spring St - College Ave Broadway (San Diego) C St - Main St Broadway (Vista) Lincoln Pkwy/SR78 - Washington Ave Buckman Springs Rd/Hwy 80/Sunrise Hwy (S-1) SR94 - SR79 Buena Creek Rd Las Posas Rd - Twin Oaks Valley Rd Cabrillo Dr (SR209) Cochran St - Cabrillo Monument Camino del Norte Camino Ruiz - Pomerado Rd Camino Del Rio North Mission Center Rd - Mission Gorge Rd Camino Ruiz Camino del Norte - SR56 Camino Santa Fe Ave Sorrento Valley Blvd - Miramar Rd Cannon Rd Carlsbad Blvd – Melrose Dr Cannon Road Melrose Drive - SR 78 Canon St Rosecrans St - Jennings St Carlsbad Blvd Eaton St - La Costa Ave

29 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits

Carlsbad Village Dr I-5 - Coast Blvd/Coast Hwy Carmel Mountain Rd Sorrento Valley Rd - El Camino Real Carmel Valley Rd North Torrey Pines Rd - El Camino Real Centre City Pkwy I-15(N) - I-15(S) Citracado Pkwy Centre City Pkwy - SR78 Clairemont Mesa Blvd I-15 - Moraga Ave Coast Hwy (S-21) La Costa Ave - Via de la Valle College Ave Federal Blvd - Waring Rd College Blvd North River Rd - Palomar Airport Rd Community Rd Twin Peaks Rd - Scripps Poway Pkwy Convoy St Linda Vista Rd - SR 52 Crosby St I-5 - Harbor Dr Cuyamaca St Mission Gorge Rd - Marshall Ave Dairy Mart Rd SR-905 - I-5 Deer Springs Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd - I-15 Dehesa Road Jamacha Rd - Harbison Canyon Rd Dehesa Road* Harbison Canyon Rd – Sycuan Rd Del Dios Hwy Via Rancho Pkwy - Claudan Rd Del Mar Heights Rd (SA 710) I-5 - Camino Del Norte Discovery St San Marcos Blvd - La Moree Rd Douglas Dr SR76 (Mission Ave) - North River Rd E St I-5 - E Bonita Rd East H St Hilltop Dr - Mount Miguel Rd East Main St Broadway - Greenfield Dr East Valley Pkwy Lake Wohlford Rd - East Valley Pkwy East Via Rancho Pkwy Broadway - Bear Valley Pkwy East Vista Way Vista Village Dr - SR76 El Cajon Blvd Park Blvd - I-8 El Cajon Blvd Chase Ave - Washington Ave El Camino Real Via de la Valle - Carmel Valley Rd/SR56 El Camino Real SR 56 - Carmel Mountain Rd El Camino Real (S-11) Douglas Dr - Manchester Ave El Norte Pkwy Woodland Pkwy - Washington Ave Encinitas Blvd First St - El Camino Real Espola Rd Summerfield Ln - Poway Rd Euclid Ave SR94 - Sweetwater Rd Fairmount Ave I-8 - El Cajon Blvd Faraday Ave Melrose Dr - College Blvd Federal Blvd College Ave - SR94 Fletcher Pkwy I-8 - SR-67 Friars Rd Sea World Dr - Mission Gorge Rd Garnet Ave Balboa - Mission Bay Dr Genesee Ave N. Torrey Pines Rd - SR163 Gilman Dr La Jolla Village Dr - I-5 Grand Ave Mission Blvd to Mission Bay Dr

30 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits

Grape St North Harbor Dr - I-5 Greenfield Dr E Main St - I-8 Grossmont Center Dr I-8 - Fletcher Pkwy H St I-5 - Hilltop Dr Harbor Dr Pacific Hwy - I-5 (National City) Hawthorn St I-5 - North Harbor Dr Heritage Rd Otay Mesa Rd - Siempre Viva Rd Hill St I-5 (Oceanside) - Eaton St Hunte Pkwy Proctor Valley Rd - SR 125 Imperial Ave Valencia Pkwy - Lisbon St Jackson Dr Mission Gorge Rd - I-8 Jamacha Blvd Sweetwater Pkwy - SR94 Jamacha Rd Main St - SR94 Kearny Villa Rd Pomerado Rd - Waxie Way Kettner Blvd I-5 - India St L St I-5 - I-805 La Costa Ave Carlsbad Blvd - El Camino Real La Jolla Village Dr North Torrey Pines Rd - I-805 La Media Rd Telegraph Canyon Rd - SR905 La Mesa Blvd University Ave - I-8 Lake Jennings Rd Mapleview St - I-8 Lake Murray I -8 - Navajo Rd Lake Wohlford Rd Valley Ctr Road (N) - Valley Ctr Rd (S) Las Posas Rd Discovery St - Buena Creek Rd Laurel St North Harbor Dr - I-5 Lemon Grove Ave Lisbon St - SR94 Leucadia Blvd 1st St - El Camino Real Linda Vista Rd Morena Blvd - Convoy St Lomas Santa Fe Ave I-5 - Coast Hwy Lytton St Rosecrans St - Saint Charles St Main St I-5 - Hilltop Dr Manchester Ave El Camino Real - I-5 Mapleview St SR67 - Lake Jennings Rd Mar Vista Dr Buena Vista Dr - SR78 Market St Harbor Dr - Valencia Pkwy Marshall Ave Fletcher Pkwy - West Main St Marshall Ave Cuyamaca - Fletcher Pkwy Marshall Ave Main St - Washington Ave Massachusetts Ave Broadway - University Ave Massachusetts Ave Lemon Grove Ave - Broadway Ave Melrose Dr SR76 - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mira Mesa Blvd I-805 - I-15 Miramar Rd I-805 to I-15 Mission Ave Andreason Dr - Center City Pkwy Mission Ave Escondido Blvd - Broadway Ave Mission Ave Coast Hwy - Frazee Rd

31 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits

Mission Bay Dr Grand Ave to I-5 Mission Gorge Rd I-8 - Magnolia Ave Mission Rd Rancho Santa Fe Rd - Andreason Dr Mission Road (S-13; incl. Main St in Fallbrook) I-15 - SR76 Montezuma Rd Fairmount Ave - El Cajon Blvd Montezuma Valley Rd/Palm Canyon Dr (S-22) SR79 - Imperial Co Line Morena Blvd Balboa Ave - I-8 National City Blvd I-5 - C St Navajo Rd Waring Rd - Fletcher Pkwy Nimitz Blvd I-8 - Harbor Dr Nobel Dr I-5 - I-805 Nordahl Rd SR78- Nordahl Rd North Harbor Dr Rosecrans St - Grape St North River Rd Douglas Dr - SR76 (Mission Rd) North Santa Fe Ave SR76 - Melrose Dr North Torrey Pines Rd (S-21) Carmel Valley Rd - La Jolla Village Dr Ocean View Hills Pkwy I-805 - SR905 Oceanside Blvd Hill St - Melrose Dr Old Highway 80 SR79 - Sunrise Hwy Old Highway 80 Buckman Springs Rd - I-8 (In-ko-pah) Olivehain Rd El Camino Real - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Olympic Pkwy Brandywine Ave - SR125 Orange Ave Palomar St - Brandywine Ave Otay Lakes Rd Bonita Rd - SR 94 Otay Mesa Rd SR905 - SR125 Otay Valley Rd Hilltop Dr - Heritage Rd Pacific Highway Sea World Dr - Harbor Dr Palm Ave I-5 - I-805 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Blvd - Business Park Dr Palomar St I-5 - Orange Ave Paradise Valley Rd 8th Street - Sweetwater Pkwy Paseo Ranchero East H St - Otay Mesa Rd Plaza Blvd National City Blvd - 8th St Poinsettia Lane Carlsbad Blvd - Melrose Dr Pomerado Rd I-15 (N) - I-15 (S) Poway Rd I-15 - SR67 Proctor Valley Rd Mount Miguel Rd - Hunte Pkwy Questhaven Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Rancho Bernardo Rd I-15 - Summerfield Ln Rancho Del Oro Dr SR 78 - SR 76 Rancho Penasquitos Blvd SR56 - I-15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mission Rd - Olivenhain Rd Regents Rd Moraga Ave - Genesee Ave Rosecrans St I-8 - Canon St Ruffin Rd Waxie Way - Balboa Ave San Felipe Rd/Great S. Overland Route (S-2) S-22 - Imperial Co Line

32 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits

San Marcos Blvd Business Park Dr - Mission Rd Scripps Poway Pkwy I-15 - SR67 Sea World Dr W Mission Bay Dr - Morena Blvd Siempre Viva Rd Heritage Rd - SR905 Sorrento Valley Blvd Sorrento Valley Rd - Camino Santa Fe Ave Sorrento Valley Rd Carmel Mountain Rd - I-805 South Santa Fe Ave Broadway (Vista) - Pacific St Sports Arena Blvd Sea World Dr - Rosecrans St/SR209 Spring St I-8 - SR125 SR75 No limits Sunrise Highway SR79 - I-8 Sunset Cliffs Blvd I-8 - W Mission Bay Dr Sweetwater Rd 2nd St - Willow St Sweetwater Rd 2nd St to Willow St Sweetwater Road Broadway Ave - Troy St Sycamore Avenue South Santa Fe Avenue – S. Melrose Dr Ted Williams Pkwy I-15 - Twin Peaks Rd Telegraph Canyon Rd I-805 - Otay Lakes Rd Torrey Pines Rd Prospect Pl - La Jolla Village Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Deer Springs Rd - Questhaven Rd Twin Peaks Rd Pomerado Rd - Espola Rd Twin Peaks Rd Ted Williams Pkwy - Espola Rd University Ave 54th St - La Mesa Blvd Valencia Pkwy Market - Imperial Ave Valley Center Rd SR76 - Lake Wohlford Rd Vandegrift Blvd North River Rd - Camp Pendleton Via de la Valle Hwy 101 (S-21) - El Camino Real Via Rancho Pkwy I-15 - Del Dios Hwy Via Rancho Pkwy Sunset Dr - I-15 Vista Sorrento Pkwy Sorrento Valley Blvd - Carmel Mtn Rd Wabash Blvd Norman Scott Rd - I-5 Washington Ave El Norte Pkwy - Center Valley Pkwy Washington Ave El Cajon Blvd - Jamacha Rd Washington St Pacific Hwy - Park Blvd West Main St I-8 - Marshall Ave West Valley Pkwy Claudan Rd - Broadway West Vista Way Jefferson St/SR78 - Vista Village Dr Wildcat Canyon Rd* Mapleview Street - San Vicente Rd Willow St Sweetwater Rd - Bonita Rd Willow St Sweetwater - Bonita Rd Willows Road I-8 - Viejas Casino Winter Gardens Blvd SR67 - Greenfield Dr Woodland Dr Barham Dr - El Norte Pkwy Woodside Ave Magnolia Ave - SR67

* Inclusion in Regional Arterial System contingent upon designation as a four-lane arterial by the County of San Diego.

33

Appendix B: Retail Spending and Sales Analysis

This appendix presents the analysis conducted to estimate the amount of commercial development within San Diego County that is associated with spending by local (San Diego County) households. The following steps summarize the approach taken for the analysis and are explained in more detail below. 1. Estimate total potential spending by local households based on estimates of per household spending by retail category; 2. Compare total local household spending potential with total retail sales to estimate by retail category: a. Leakage of spending by local households to retail establishments outside the County, b. Capture of sales from visitors outside the County by local retail establishments; 3. Calculate the share of retail sales associated with local household spending; and 4. Validate the estimate of total local household spending by analyzing visitor industry data. All data is from 2004 because this was the last complete year of retail sales data available from the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) at the time of this report.

Total Household Spending

Total spending by San Diego households is estimated by adjusting per household spending based on statewide data for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. As an initial step in the analysis, statewide taxable retail sales by category were compared with San Diego County sales to determine if any anomalies existed in San Diego sales patterns that should be accommodated in the model. As shown in Table B.1, San Diego has about $44 billion in taxable retail sales in 2004 compared to statewide sales of $500 billion. Sales patterns in the County are very similar to the statewide sales though the County has slightly more spending in retail stores compared to non-retail stores. The retail store categories that exhibit higher levels of spending compared to the state as a whole (apparel, general merchandise, specialty, and food and beverage) are associated with visitor spending, indicative of San Diego’s strong tourism industry. We also conjecture that the higher levels of spending in the building material category are associated with spending by Mexican visitors, though we could not find specific data to support this hypothesis.

34 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table B.1 - Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Taxable Retail Sales 2004 ($000s) Percent of Category San San Diego Diego Calif- Diff- Retail Category County California County ornia erence Apparel Stores Women's Apparel 420,000 4,617,000 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% Men's Apparel 107,000 1,034,000 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Family Apparel 907,000 8,819,000 2.0% 1.8% 0.3% Shoes 210,000 2,487,000 0.5% 0.5% (0.0%) Subtotal 1,644,000 16,957,000 3.7% 3.4% 0.3% General Merchandise General Merchandise 4,721,000 47,948,000 10.6% 9.6% 1.0% Drug Store 484,000 5,992,000 1.1% 1.2% (0.1%) Subtotal 5,205,000 53,940,000 11.7% 10.8% 0.9% Specialty Gift, Art Goods, Novelty 167,000 1,858,000 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Sporting Goods 353,000 3,652,000 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% Florists 122,000 1,078,000 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Photo Equip., and Supplies 37,000 523,000 0.1% 0.1% (0.0%) Musical Instruments 121,000 1,516,000 0.3% 0.3% (0.0%) Stationery and Books 356,000 4,018,000 0.8% 0.8% (0.0%) Jewelry 258,000 2,638,000 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% Office and School Supply 1,411,000 15,661,000 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% Other Specialties 1,716,000 18,018,000 3.9% 3.6% 0.3% Subtotal 4,541,000 48,962,000 10.2% 9.8% 0.4% Grocery Grocery - All Type Liq. 1,005,000 12,550,000 2.3% 2.5% (0.2%) Grocery - All Other 732,000 7,276,000 1.6% 1.5% 0.2% Subtotal 1,737,000 19,826,000 3.9% 4.0% (0.1%) Food and Beverage Restaurant - No Alcohol 1,890,000 19,960,000 4.3% 4.0% 0.3% Restaurant - Bar -Beer-Wine 795,000 10,792,000 1.8% 2.2% (0.4%) Restaurant - Bar -All Type Liq. 1,363,000 12,523,000 3.1% 2.5% 0.6% Subtotal 4,048,000 43,275,000 9.1% 8.7% 0.4% Household Home Furnishings 1,162,000 11,991,000 2.6% 2.4% 0.2% Household Appliances 387,000 4,414,000 0.9% 0.9% (0.0%) Subtotal 1,549,000 16,405,000 3.5% 3.3% 0.2% Building Material Building Material 2,649,000 25,603,000 6.0% 5.1% 0.8% Hardware Stores 231,000 3,392,000 0.5% 0.7% (0.2%) Plumbing and Elec. Supply 414,000 4,086,000 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% Paint, Glass, Wallpaper 47,000 1,074,000 0.1% 0.2% (0.1%) Subtotal 3,341,000 34,155,000 7.5% 6.8% 0.7% Automotive Auto Dealers - New 5,541,000 59,683,000 12.5% 11.9% 0.5% Auto Dealers - Used 551,000 5,752,000 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% Auto Supplies and Parts 421,000 5,334,000 0.9% 1.1% (0.1%) Service Stations 2,805,000 32,760,000 6.3% 6.6% (0.2%) Subtotal 9,318,000 103,529,000 21.0% 20.7% 0.3% Other Retail Stores Liquor Stores 186,000 2,350,000 0.4% 0.5% (0.1%) Second-hand Merch. 66,000 534,000 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Farm Impl. Dealers 177,000 2,976,000 0.4% 0.6% (0.2%) Farm and Garden Supply 95,000 2,386,000 0.2% 0.5% (0.3%) Fuel and Ice Dealers 9,000 321,000 0.0% 0.1% (0.0%) Mobile Home and Camper 108,000 1,453,000 0.2% 0.3% (0.0%) Boat, Motorcycle, Plane 321,000 3,104,000 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% Subtotal 962,000 13,124,000 2.2% 2.6% (0.5%)

Subtotal Retail Stores 32,345,000 350,173,000 72.7% 70.0% 2.7%

Non-Retail Stores Business and Personal Services 2,147,000 22,307,000 4.8% 4.5% 0.4% All Other Outlets 9,978,000 127,597,000 22.4% 25.5% (3.1%) Subtotal 12,125,000 149,904,000 27.3% 30.0% (2.7%)

Total 44,470,000 500,077,000

Source: Taxable Sales In California (Sales & Use Tax) During 2004, California State Board of Equalization.

35 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

To separate out household from business spending, all household spending is assumed to occur in retail stores and all business-to-business spending is assumed to occur in non-retail stores. As shown in Table B.1, non-retail stores include “Business and Personal Services” and “All Other Outlets”. Both categories are largely composed of retail establishments that sell primarily to businesses. The “All Other Outlets” category primarily includes manufacturing, warehousing and other establishments that sell primarily to businesses. There is some overlap in the source of spending (household versus business) across all retail (store and non-store) categories but this overlap is assumed to be largely offsetting between total retail store and total non-store spending. This approach is commonly used in retail spending and sales analysis to separate household from business spending. Per household spending estimates were generated based on statewide data for retail stores adjusted for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. San Diego’s median income is about one percent less than the State’s median income resulting in a commensurate adjustment to state per household spending patterns by retail store category. San Diego per household spending is multiplied by the number of households in San Diego to estimate total spending for 2004. As shown in Table B.2 this approach results in a total spending potential for San Diego households of $30 billion.

Table B.2 - Household Taxable Retail Spending Potential (2004) Total Spending Per Household Spending Total Spending California San Diego Householdes San Diego Households Major Business Group ($000s) State County ($000s)

Households 12,015,591 1,043,221 Median Household Income $ 47,493 $ 47,067

Household Spending and Sales Per Household Spending Apparel Stores $ 16,957,000 $ 1,411 $ 1,399 $ 1,459,000 General Merchandise 53,940,000 4,489 4,449 4,641,000 Specialty 48,962,000 4,075 4,038 4,213,000 Grocery 19,826,000 1,650 1,635 1,706,000 Food and Beverage 43,275,000 3,602 3,569 3,724,000 Household 16,405,000 1,365 1,353 1,412,000 Building Material 34,155,000 2,843 2,817 2,939,000 Automotive 103,529,000 8,616 8,539 8,908,000 Other Retail Stores 13,124,000 1,092 1,082 1,129,000 Total - Consumer $ 350,173,000 $ 29,143 $ 28,882 $ 30,131,000

Source: U.S. Census, Table P53; California Department of Finance, Rerpot E-5; Table A.1; MuniFinancial.

36 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Capture and Leakage

Capture and leakage are common concepts used in retail analysis. Not all local household spending occurs in San Diego County; some spending leaks out to other areas when residents travel or are otherwise attracted to retail opportunities outside the County. Furthermore, not all retail store sales in San Diego County are generated by local households; some are captured by stores from customers visiting the County from other locations including Mexico. Given San Diego’s attractiveness as a tourist destination and its proximity to the Mexican border, one would expect that a significant share of total retail store sales would represent capture of visitor spending. Given this regional economic context, we estimated leakage rates by major store category to calculate net local household spending in San Diego County by category. We then compared this estimate of spending with actual sales by store category and calculated the amount of outside capture that the category would need to force local household spending to equal local sales. This analysis is shown in Table B.3. The model resulted in a leakage estimate of eight percent of household spending, and capture estimate of 14 percent of retail store sales. The differences between the estimates of local spending and sales by category shown in the middle columns are due to rounding.

Table B.3 - San Diego County Local Household Taxable Retail Spending & Sales (2004) A B C = A x (1 - B) D = C / E E = G x (1 - F) F = 1 - (C / G) G Potential Spending Local Spending/Sales Reconciliation Actual Sales San Diego Based on San Diego Households Spending Diff- Based on Outside County Sales Major Business Group ($000s) Leakage ($000s) erence1 Sales ($000s) Capture ($000s)

Apparel Stores $ 1,459,000 15%$ 1,240,000 1%$ 1,233,000 25%$ 1,644,000 General Merchandise 4,641,000 15% 3,945,000 (0%) 3,956,000 24% 5,205,000 Specialty 4,213,000 15% 3,581,000 (0%) 3,587,000 21% 4,541,000 Grocery 1,706,000 0% 1,706,000 0% 1,702,000 2% 1,737,000 Food and Beverage 3,724,000 15% 3,165,000 0% 3,157,000 22% 4,048,000 Household 1,412,000 0% 1,412,000 0% 1,410,000 9% 1,549,000 Building Material 2,939,000 0% 2,939,000 (0%) 2,940,000 12% 3,341,000 Automotive 8,908,000 0% 8,908,000 (0%) 8,945,000 4% 9,318,000 Other Retail Stores 1,129,000 15% 960,000 (0%) 962,000 0% 962,000 Total $ 30,131,000 8%$ 27,856,000 (0%)$ 27,892,000 14%$ 32,345,000

Leakage/Capture Total $ 2,275,000 $ 4,453,000

1 Difference not equal to zero due to rounding. Source: Tables A.1 and A.2; MuniFinancial.

The leakage rates in Table B.3 that determine the local spending amounts and outside capture rates were estimated based on (1) survey data of visitor spending in San Diego estimating spending by retail category, and (2) an assumptions that comparison goods such as apparel and general merchandise are likely to have higher leakage rates compared to convenience goods such as groceries. Local households are most likely to spend on comparison goods and travel related activities outside the County in the “apparel stores”, “general merchandise”, “specialty”, and “food and beverage” categories. For these categories a leakage rate of 15 percent was estimated. For all other categories all household spending was assumed to remain local (zero leakage). The “other retail store” was a special case in that

37 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

it was the only category where potential local spending was greater than total sales. For this category we assumed a 15 percent leakage rate to generate a zero percent capture rate.

Local Spending Share of Total Sales

The share of total retail sales in the County associated with spending by local residential development can be calculated from the results of Tables B.1 and B.3. As shown in Table B.4, an estimated 62.6 percent of total retail spending (store and non-store) is associated with spending by residential development (households) located in San Diego County.

Table B.4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending in San Diego County (2004) Taxable Retail Sales ($000s) Share

Total Taxable Retail Spending $ 44,470,000 100.0%

Local Residential Taxable Spending 27,856,000 62.6% Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending 16,614,000 37.4%

Sources: Tables B.1, and B.3; MuniFinancial.

Visitor Industry Spending

Visitor industry spending was analyzed to validate the estimate of retail spending associated with local households. Data regarding spending by overnight visitors from the San Diego Conventions and Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) was supplemented with research on cross-border spending by residents of Mexico (primarily day visitors) to construct a comprehensive model of visitor spending. As shown in Table B.5, visitors spent about $8.249 billion in San Diego County in 2004. Of the amount about $3.901 billion was associated with hotel accommodations, food, drugs, services, and other non-retail taxable items. Taxable retail spending equaled the remaining $4.348 billion split between two categories, “restaurants and dining” and “shopping”. This estimate of taxable retail spending is nearly equal to the estimated $4.489 billion in capture shown at the bottom of Table B.3, suggesting that the model’s estimates of local household spending based on the SBOE data and estimated leakage rates are reasonable.

38 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study

Table B.5: Visitor Industry Retail Spending (2004) Total Visitor Spending Non-taxable Taxable Retail Percent Amount Retail Sales Sales

Visitor Spending (Non-Mexican Visitors - see Note) Lodging 24%$ 1,324,000 $ 1,324,000 $ - Restaurants & Dining1 33% 1,821,000 273,000 1,548,000 Attractions & Entertainment 10% 552,000 552,000 - Shopping 23% 1,269,000 - 1,269,000 Other 10% 552,000 552,000 -

Subtotal 100% $ 5,518,000 2,701,000 $ 2,817,000

Visitor Spending (Mexican Visitors - see Note) Lodging2 [Incl. in "Other"] NA NA Restaurants & Dining1,3 5% 137,000 21,000 116,000 Attractions & Entertainment2 [Incl. in "Other"] NA NA Shopping4 52% 1,420,000 - 1,420,000 Other5 43% 1,174,000 1,174,000 -

Subtotal 100% $ 2,731,000 $ 1,195,000 $ 1,536,000

Total Taxable Retail Visitor Spending Lodging NA Restaurants & Dining $ 1,664,000 Attractions & Entertainment NA Shopping 2,689,000 Other (primarily groceries) -

Total $ 4,353,000

Note: Non-Mexican visitor spending data based on San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) estimates. Shares by category based on a 2002 visitor survey. The survey focused on overnight visitors and therefore excluded most spending by visitors from Mexico because a large majority of visits are day trips. This study assumes that the SDCVB estimates exclude all Mexican visitor spending. Mexican visitor spending is based on the Ghaddar and Brown study.

1 Non-taxable retail sales represent tips for service estimated by SDCVB. Same percentage applied to estimate of visitor spending from Mexico. 2 The Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category in estimates of spending. 3 Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category for California estimates. Share of spending estimated at one-half of share estimated for Texas and Arizona Mexican visitors based on a higher percentage of day trips in California. Share deducted from food and groceries category. 4 Includes the clothing (46 percent) and appliances and furniture (six percent) from Ghaddar and Brown study. 5 Includes groceries (32 percent) personal hygiene (five percent) and other (six percent) from Ghaddar and Brown study.

Sources: San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau, San Diego County Visitor Industry Summary (2004) ; San Diego Conventions & Visitors Bureau, email from Susan Bruinzeel, June 11, 2006; Ghaddar, Suad and Cynthia J. Brown, The Economic Impact of Mexican Visitors Along the U.S.-Mexico Border: A Research Synthesis, Center for Border Economic Studies, University of Texas- Pan American, December 2005, Table 4, Figures 1,2, and 3; MuniFinancial.

The only significant discrepancy between the visitor spending estimates based on SDCVB and Mexican visitor survey data, and the outside capture estimates based on the SBOE data, is in the food and beverage category. The visitor spending data for restaurants and dining, substantially the same category as the SBOE food and beverage category, resulted in an

39 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study estimate of $1,664 million in taxable spending (see Table B.5). The SBOE model resulted in an outside capture estimate of $883 million (see the difference between total sales and the local spending estimate for this category in Table B.3). The visitor spending estimate of $1,664 million would represent a significant share, about 41 percent, of total sales in the SBOE food and beverage category. Consequently, we suspect that the visitor survey data probably overestimates spending in this category. Rather than reduce estimates of total capture, the approach taken for this study assumes that the visitor survey data underestimates taxable retail spending by an equal amount across all other categories. Therefore the estimate of total retail sales associated with local household spending remains a reasonable estimate for the purposes of this analysis (shifting the burden of commercial traffic associated with local household spending to residential land uses).

40

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

PRELIMINARY LIST OF FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION File Number 3000900

Introduction Recommendation

On September 8, 2006, the Board of Directors The Board of Directors is asked to approve accepted for planning purposes a preliminary list of the preliminary list of prioritized freight freight infrastructure projects and freight project infrastructure projects (Attachments 1A evaluation criteria developed by SANDAG’s Regional through 1C) for inclusion into the San Diego Freight Working Group (FWG). The FWG applied the Regional Goods Movement Action Plan and criteria and reviewed initial project rankings at its for submittal to the state for funding September 12, 2006, meeting. At the conclusion of consideration in its statewide Goods the meeting, FWG participants met individually with Movement Action Plan. staff to complete the initial evaluation of the projects and compile the prioritized list of projects (Attachments 1A through 1C).

Since July 2005, staff has been working with the FWG to develop a San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan and Freight Intermodal Strategy, in line with the new freight planning initiatives included in the federal transportation reauthorization bill, SAFETEA-LU (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users). The first phase of the strategy, called the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan, will be proposed for Board of Directors adoption in late 2006 and will provide input for the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). More importantly, it will provide a regionally adopted plan that would be eligible for potential funding if California voters approve the statewide transportation infrastructure bond measure in November 2006 (Proposition 1B).

Related to Proposition 1B, the state has encouraged SANDAG to provide a preliminary list of regional goods movement projects by the end of September 2006. Approving an initial list of freight infrastructure projects at this time would meet this deadline, and the project list will be the foundation of the initial regional Goods Movement Action Plan, to be brought to the Board for approval in November 2006. The project list is dynamic and will continue to be reviewed and revised as the overall freight strategy is more fully developed for input into the 2007 RTP and future RTPs.

Discussion

Ranking Process

At its September 8, 2006, meeting, the SANDAG Board of Directors accepted for planning purposes the FWG’s draft list of Freight Infrastructure Improvement Projects for the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan and the draft Freight Project Evaluation Criteria (Attachment 2).

There are ten project evaluation criteria, organized into three categories of importance: “cost-effectiveness” (30 points); “throughput, velocity, and congestion reduction” (45 points); and “impacts, connectivity, and economic benefit” (25 points), for a possible total project evaluation score of 100 points.

The list of projects prepared by the FWG would serve the near-term and long-term needs for each of the freight modes, although it should be pointed out that these projects do not expand our abilities to capture or attract new trade to the San Diego region but would only accommodate existing and expected trade demand in the region. Decisions to take on a larger role in global trade await the update of the Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy and the development of a long- range regional freight strategy.

Attachment 3 is a generalized map of the regional freight network, indicating the projects that make up the six different freight systems, along with potential logistic centers to connect local industrial/manufacturing areas with the regional freight network.

In response to the Board’s action, the FWG met on September 12, 2006, to apply the criteria and create a ranked list of projects. With the process not quite finished at the end of the meeting, staff met individually with the FWG members to finalize point values for each project in all ten evaluation criteria and prepare final scores for Board discussion. With regard to cost-effectiveness, the FWG found it difficult to compare cost-effectiveness across different modes (e.g., rail versus highway), due to the different conveyance units and commodities for each mode. As a result, the FWG compared the cost-effectiveness values only between projects within the same mode, so that the most cost-effective project in each mode will get 30 points while other similar mode projects would get proportionally less.

The prioritized projects are shown in Attachments 1A through 1C. Attachment 1A lists the projects in rank order by mode. Attachment 1B lists the overall ranking of all projects. Attachment 1C includes the individual project point values for each criterion. There are three changes from the list of projects distributed at the September 8, 2006, Board Policy meeting. They are:

• Two of the projects (#6 and #7) at the Port of San Diego have been combined into one: the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal operational improvements and the ground access improvements to Interstates 5 and15.

• Rehabilitation of the Coronado Branch Line was combined with the other South Line rail improvements (#11 and #13).

• Separate improvements on State Route 125 between San Miguel Road and State Route 54 were combined (#43 and #59).

Next Steps

After Board action on the Preliminary List of Prioritized Projects for the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan, staff will submit the project list to the state before September 30, 2006. A subset consisting of border goods movement projects also will be sent to Sacramento combined with other border freight projects in Imperial Valley as the first step in preparing a Border Master Plan.

2 The FWG will use the prioritized project list as the foundation for preparing the initial San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan, bringing together the information on existing conditions, needs, and planning that has been developed over the last year by the FWG. The regional Goods Movement Action Plan will be presented to the Board for adoption later in 2006.

The FWG will continue to analyze and refine the project list and priorities as it develops the freight component of the 2007 RTP and a long-range freight strategy for the San Diego region. Freight inputs for the 2007 RTP need to be completed by early 2007, but ongoing studies (such as the trucks on Managed Lanes and an update to the Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy), will shape our future freight strategy and future RTPs.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachments: 1A. Preliminary List of Prioritized Projects for the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan – Summary of Ranking by Mode 1B. Preliminary List of Prioritized Projects for the San DIego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan – Summary of Overall Ranking 1C. Preliminary List of Prioritized Projects for the San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan – Detailed Evaluation Results 2. Draft Freight Project Evaluation Criteria 3. Map of the Draft San Diego Regional Goods Movement Action Plan for August 2006

Key Staff Contact: Michael Hix, (619) 699-1977, [email protected]

Funds are budgeted in Work Element #3000900

3 rjc o System/Project Project No. 11,13 , TenthAvenueMT- 6,7 6SPRINTER- - Coastal 56 DesertLine- 65 DesertLine- 54 HighSpeed/Inland- 64 HighSpeed/Inland- 68 HighSpeed/Inland- 67 SouthLine- 66 MexicanRail- 51 DesertLine- 39 SPRINTER- 53 LogisticsCenter- 17 55 2LogisticsCenter- SouthLine- 52 Coastal- 40 Coastal- 19 18 5LogisticsCenter- 15 Port- 38 6Coastal- 16 7Port- 37 10 2LogisticsCenter- MexicanRail- 12 14 3East Otay Mesa- 63 6Port- 36 SR11- 3 9 2 SR 905 - SR905 EastOtayMesa- 2 4 NationalCityMT- 8 San DiegoRegionalGoodsMovementActionPlan– Preliminary ListofPrioritizedProjectsforthe 55 Tenth AvenueMT/NationalCityMT- Connectivity, CoronadoBranchRehab South Line/Trolley- on-dock/inland portequiv.) Tenth AvenueMT/NationalCityMT-

ft Epnin(0 ce ndc/nadpr)$500.0 Expansion(500acreson-dock/inlandport) Epnin(0 ce ndc/nadpr)$189.8 Expansion(200acreson-dock/inlandport) Epnin(5 ce ndc/nadpr)$350.0 Expansion(350acreson-dock/inlandport) FS 0 oMxc $234.0 4F SR905toMexico LgsisCne iaa adilMdCut $60.0 LogisticsCenter-MiramarLandfill/Mid-County -0 oBre $494.0 I-805 toBorder e a/iaa ilTne $570.0 Del Mar/MiramarHillTunnel oitc etr-I5N $50.0 Logistics Center-I-5NW iig,Psig eaiiain hrdUe$1,006.3 Sidings, Passing,Rehabilitation,SharedUse Summary ofRankingbyMode obeTakn lne $170.0 $375.5 Double Tracking-Planned Improvements Dul rcig$2,130.0 $86.8 DoubleTracking Otay MesaRailSpur/InlandPort a sdoYr mrvmn $84.8 San YsidroYardImprovement3 oenzto $166.1 $15.8 Modernization Basic Service anieCpct mrvmns$176.0 Mainline CapacityImprovements eaiiain auldr pr rnla $31.6 Rehabilitation, MaquiladoraSpur,Transload Bre rsig-Ri $150.0 $260.0 BorderCrossing -Rail BorderCrossing I1 otes ony$50.0 I-15NortheastCounty prtoa mrvmns$56.6 Operational Improvements otes ony tyMs 2) $131.1 Southeast County,OtayMesa(2x) auldr ra$57.9 Maquiladora Area ot ony $60.0 South County prtosadGon cesIpoeet $282.8 Operations andGroundAccessImprovements Ri ot ony $1,600.0 Rail-SouthCounty Sidings, Passing,YardsincludingPort,Mexico Ri ot ony$1,850.0 Rail-NorthCounty al-Cnett ot$180.0 Rail -ConnecttoPort MARITIME BORDER RAIL DredgingtoNationalCityMT- Expansion (250acres 4 Estimated Cost (millions) $126.5 $327.6 $389.8 u f10Rank Out of100 938 59 62 65 96 58 21 57 26 54 54 27 54 29 45 29 43 29 45 41 48 38 55 59 658 26 42 53 938 36 36 59 29 61 61 64 126 71 335 63 523 75 429 64 62 96 62 96 523 75 819 78 425 74 450 6 2 34 91 96 81 98 620 76 Total Points Attachment 1A

Overall Ranking rjc o System/Project Project No. 23 SDIA - 32-34 35 SR125- 43,59 2Kinder Morgan- Kinder Morgan- 62 35 SDCRAA- SDCRAA - 61 50 SR94- SR54/SR125- 60 SR94/SR125- 57 SR94- 49 I-15/SR94- 48 SR52- 47 SR52- 45 44 0SR54/SR125/SR52OuterLoop- 70 7I-5/I-805- I-5- 27 SR125- 25 58 SR125- 42 9I-15- I-5- 69 I-5- 20 - I-805 26 - I-805 31 I-805- 30 I-805- 29 28 1I-15- 41 4I-15- 24 3I-15- 23 2I-15- I-15Improvements- 22 21 6I-15- 46 I-15- 5 SDIA- 1 San DiegoRegionalGoodsMovementActionPlan– Preliminary ListofPrioritizedProjectsforthe R5 oSaWrdDie$210.0 SR 54toSeaWorldDrive ie -0 oS 6$180.0 $962.0 Widen I-805toSR56 Widen/ML LaJollaVillagetoVandergrift WdnHV R7 oRvrieCut $300.0 Widen/HOV,SR78toRiversideCounty oKne ognMsinVle emnl$31.6 to KinderMorganMissionValley Terminal mrvmn,S 2-S 8$19.0 Improvement, SR52-78 ie/L eteCt kyt R7 $183.0 Widen/ML, CentreCityPkwytoSR78 ie/L R13t R5 $342.0 Widen/ML, SR163to56 ie/LS 6t eteCt ky$422.0 Widen/ML SR56toCentreCityPkwy ie/O R9 oS 6 $247.0 Widen/HOV SR94to163 WdnM,I8t - $469.0 Widen/ML,I-8toI-5 ie/LS 4t - $555.0 $308.0 $469.0 Widen/ML MissionValleyViaduct Widen/ML SR54toI-8 Widen/ML SR905to54 e aeoss icatGon ces$110.7 New Warehouses,Aircraft/GroundAccess cest - $31.6 access toI-5 ie/O $190.0 $99.0 $241.0 $446.0 Widen/HOV Widen/HOV I-5toI-15 I-805 toSR125 Widen SR125to67 R95t a iulR $635.0 $37.0 Telegraph CanyontoSanMiguelRd SR 905toSanMiguelRd a iulR oS 4$177.0 San MiguelRdtoSR54 O/LCnetr $222.0 HOV/ML Connectors rudAcs,ArCroFclte/rnla $250.0 Ground Access,AirCargoFacilities/Transload Summary ofRankingbyMode rea/rudAcs,ArCroFclte/Tasod$173.2 Freeway/Ground Access,AirCargoFacilities/Transload /-/ oncos$185.0 S/W-E/N Connectors WNSECnetr $136.0 W/N-S/EConnectors ie/O -0 oS 4$111.0 Widen/HOV I-805toSR94 xadt 6 ieEtn oMxc $45.0 $39.5 Expand to16"Pipe/Extend Mexico New MiramarJunction/Terminal/Tanks R5 oLk ogs$83.0 SR 52toLakeHodges ROAD/TRUCKWAY AIR CARGO PIPELINE xeso oS 8$540.0 Extension toSR78 5 Estimated Cost (millions) u f10Rank Out of100 429 64 60 24 50 34 07 48 90 44 37 7 47 60 90 60 24 60 60 24 53 24 52 24 31 32 620 76 649 36 628 66 146 29 41 29 64 64 429 64 710 87 827 20 15 68 15 76 15 83 15 83 83 83 710 87 710 87 710 87 89 88 710 87 847 38 Total Points

Overall Ranking rjc o System/Project Project No. 23 SDIA - 32-34 35 SR125- 43,59 11,13 , TenthAvenueMT- 6,7 2SR125- 42 5Logistics Center- 15 2LogisticsCenter- 12 9I-15- I-5- 69 20 31 I-805 - I-805 - I-805 31 I-805- 30 I-805- 29 28 8Port- MexicanRail- 38 14 1I-15- 41 10 7Port- 37 4I-15- 24 6Port- KinderMorgan- 36 I-5- 35 26 3I-15- 23 2I-15- I-15Improvements- 22 21 6I-15- 46 Coastal- 16 8SR125 - 58 I-15- SDIA- 5 - SR905 1 EastOtayMesa- 2 SR11- 4 3 NationalCityMT- 8 San DiegoRegionalGoodsMovementActionPlan– Preliminary ListofPrioritizedProjectsforthe Connectivity, CoronadoBranchRehab South Line/Trolley- on-dock/inland portequiv.) Tenth AvenueMT/NationalCityMT- ie -0 oS 6$180.0 Widen I-805toSR56 ie/LL ol ilg oVnegit$962.0 Widen/ML LaJollaVillagetoVandergrift WdnHV R7 oRvrieCut $300.0 Widen/HOV,SR78toRiversideCounty Epnin(0 ce ndc/nadpr)$500.0 Expansion(500acreson-dock/inlandport) mrvmn,S 2-S 8$19.0 Improvement, SR52-78 Epnin(0 ce ndc/nadpr)$189.8 Expansion(200acreson-dock/inlandport) ie/L eteCt kyt R7 $183.0 Widen/ML, CentreCityPkwytoSR78 Epnin(5 ce ndc/nadpr)$350.0 Expansion(350acreson-dock/inlandport) ie/L R13t R5 $342.0 Widen/ML, SR163to56 ie/LS 6t eteCt ky$422.0 Widen/ML SR56toCentreCityPkwy ie/O R9 oS 6 $247.0 Widen/HOV SR94to163 oKne ognMsinVle emnl$31.6 to KinderMorganMissionValleyTerminal WdnM,I8t - $469.0 Widen/ML,I-8toI-5 ie/LS 4t - $555.0 $308.0 $469.0 Widen/ML MissionValleyViaduct Widen/ML SR54toI-8 Widen/ML SR905to54 cest - $31.6 access toI-5 e aeoss icatGon ces$110.7 New Warehouses, Aircraft/GroundAccess FS 0 oMxc $234.0 4F SR905toMexico R95t a iulR $635.0 SR 905toSanMiguelRd a iulR oS 4$177.0 San MiguelRdtoSR54 -0 oBre $494.0 I-805 toBorder eerp aynt a iulR $37.0 Telegraph CanyontoSanMiguel Rd iig,Psig eaiiain hrdUe$1,006.3 Sidings, Passing,Rehabilitation,SharedUse Summary ofOverallRanking eaiiain auldr pr rnla $31.6 Rehabilitation, MaquiladoraSpur,Transload e iaa ucinTria/ak $39.5 New MiramarJunction/Terminal/Tanks Bre rsig$260.0 BorderCrossing prtoa mrvmns$56.6 Operational Improvements auldr ra$57.9 Maquiladora Area ot ony $60.0 South County prtosadGon cesIpoeet $282.8 Operations andGroundAccessImprovements Sidings, Passing,YardsincludingPort,Mexico R5 oLk ogs$83.0 SR 52toLakeHodges Expansion (250acres 6 Estimated Cost (millions) $327.6 $389.8 u f10Rank Out of100 429 29 64 64 429 64 628 66 126 71 827 68 710 87 315 15 15 83 15 83 83 83 523 75 425 74 710 87 819 78 523 75 710 87 620 76 620 76 620 76 710 87 89 88 710 87 07 7 6 90 2 90 2 91 2 96 2 96 96 96 81 98 429 29 64 64 429 64 Total Points Attachment 1B

Overall Ranking rjc o System/Project Project No. 6SPRINTER- SR94- 56 SR54/SR125- 60 SR94/SR125- 57 SR94- 49 I-15/SR94- 48 - Coastal 47 DesertLine- 65 DesertLine- 54 HighSpeed/Inland- 64 HighSpeed/Inland- 68 HighSpeed/Inland- 67 SR52- 66 SR52- 45 44 0SR54/SR125/SR52OuterLoop- EastOtayMesa- 70 63 7I-5/I-805- SDCRAA- 27 KinderMorgan- 61 I-5- 62 SouthLine- 25 SDCRAA - 51 MexicanRail- 50 DesertLine- 39 SPRINTER- 53 LogisticsCenter- 17 55 2LogisticsCenter- SouthLine- 52 Coastal- 40 Coastal- 19 18 9 San DiegoRegionalGoodsMovementActionPlan– Preliminary ListofPrioritizedProjectsforthe 55 Tenth AvenueMT/NationalCityMT-

ft R5 oSaWrdDie$210.0 SR 54toSeaWorldDrive ie/O $190.0 $99.0 $241.0 Widen/HOV $446.0 Widen/HOV I-5toI-15 I-805 toSR125 Widen SR125to67 LgsisCne iaa adilMdCut $60.0 LogisticsCenter-MiramarLandfill/Mid-County e a/iaa ilTne $570.0 Del Mar/MiramarHillTunnel oitc etr-I5N $50.0 Logistics Center-I-5NW O/LCnetr $222.0 HOV/ML Connectors rudAcs,ArCroFclte/rnla $250.0 Ground Access,AirCargoFacilities/Transload rea/rudAcs,ArCroFclte/Tasod$173.2 Freeway/Ground Access,AirCargoFacilities/Transload /-/ oncos$185.0 S/W-E/N Connectors Summary ofOverallRanking obeTakn lne $170.0 Double Tracking-Planned mrvmns$375.5 Improvements Dul rcig$2,130.0 DoubleTracking tyMs alSu/nadPr $86.8 Otay MesaRailSpur/InlandPort a sdoYr mrvmn $84.8 San YsidroYardImprovement3 oenzto $166.1 Modernization ai evc $15.8 Basic Service anieCpct mrvmns$176.0 Mainline CapacityImprovements WNSECnetr $136.0 W/N-S/EConnectors ie/O -0 oS 4$111.0 Widen/HOV I-805toSR94 xadt 6 ieEtn oMxc $45.0 Expand to16"Pipe/ExtendMexico Bre rsig-Ri $150.0 BorderCrossing-Rail I1 otes ony$50.0 I-15NortheastCounty otes ony tyMs 2) $131.1 Southeast County,OtayMesa(2x) Ri ot ony $1,600.0 Rail-SouthCounty Ri ot ony$1,850.0 Rail-NorthCounty al-Cnett ot$180.0 Rail -ConnecttoPort xeso oS 8$540.0 Extension toSR78 DredgingtoNationalCityMT- 7 Estimated Cost (millions) $126.5 u f10Rank Out of100 460 24 50 34 165 60 21 60 24 60 60 24 58 24 24 57 26 54 54 27 54 29 53 29 52 29 31 32 658 26 649 36 450 34 938 59 748 46 37 45 44 41 43 45 47 41 48 38 55 59 847 38 42 53 938 36 36 59 61 61 335 63 Total Points

Overall Ranking rjc o System/Project Project No. 11,13 6,7 6SPRINTER- 56 5Coastal- DesertLine- 65 54 8HighSpeed/Inland - 68 4DesertLine- 64 19 5Logistics Center- LogisticsCenter- 55 SouthLine- 52 40 7HighSpeed/Inland- HighSpeed/Inland- 67 66 3East OtayMesa - 63 SouthLine- MexicanRail- 51 DesertLine- 39 SPRINTER- 53 17 8Coastal- LogisticsCenter- 18 LogisticsCenter- 15 12 14 6Coastal- 16 8Port- Port- 38 Port- 37 36 10 San DiegoRegionalGoodsMovementActionPlan– SR11- 3 EastOtayMesa- 4 SR905 - 2 NationalCityMT - 8 9 Preliminary ListofPrioritizedProjectsforthe Mid-County Coastal - Improvements Tenth AvenueMT- Transload Mexican Rail- Port, MexicoConnectivity,CoronadoBranchRehab South Line/Trolley- National CityMT-55ft Tenth AvenueMT/NationalCityMT- (250 acreson-dock/inlandportequiv.) Tenth AvenueMT/NationalCityMT- Epnin(0 ce ndc/nadpr)$500.0 $189.8 $350.0 Expansion(500acreson-dock/inlandport) Expansion(200acreson-dock/inlandport) Expansion(350acreson-dock/inlandport) FS 0 oMxc $234.0 4F SR905toMexico LogisticsCenter-MiramarLandfill/ -0 oBre $494.0 I-805 toBorder e a/iaa ilTne $570.0 Del Mar/MiramarHillTunnel oitc etr-I5N $50.0 Logistics Center-I-5NW iig,Psig eaiiain hrdUe$1,006.3 Sidings, Passing,Rehabilitation,SharedUse Detailed EvaluationResults obeTakn lne $170.0 Double Tracking-Planned mrvmns$375.5 Improvements Dul rcig$2,130.0 DoubleTracking a sdoYr mrvmn $84.8 San YsidroYardImprovement3 tyMs alSu/nadPr $86.8 Otay MesaRailSpur/InlandPort oenzto $166.1 Modernization ai evc $15.8 Basic Service anieCpct mrvmns$176.0 Mainline CapacityImprovements Rehabilitation, MaquiladoraSpur, Bre rsig$260.0 BorderCrossing Bre rsig-Ri $150.0 BorderCrossing -Rail I1 otes ony$50.0 I-15NortheastCounty otes ony tyMs 2) $131.1 Southeast County,OtayMesa(2x) auldr ra$57.9 $60.0 Maquiladora Area South County prtoa mrvmns$56.6 Operational Improvements Operations andGroundAccess Ri ot ony $1,600.0 Rail-SouthCounty Ri ot ony$1,850.0 Rail-NorthCounty Sidings, Passing,Yardsincluding al-Cnett ot$180.0 Rail -ConnecttoPort MARITIME BORDER RAIL Dredgingto Expansion Estimated Cost (millions) $282.8 $327.6 $126.5 $389.8 $60.0 $31.6 051 051 053 5 10 3 10 5 10 15 5 30 051 051 053 5 10 3 10 5 10 15 5 30 551 051 053 5 10 3 10 5 10 15 5 25 851 051 053 3 5 5 10 10 5 5 10 10 5 5 10 10 15 15 5 5 28 30 051 051 053 5 10 5 10 5 10 15 5 10 051 051 053 5 10 3 10 5 10 15 5 30 331 030 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 6 10 10 6 12 12 12 15 3 3 3 5 23 23 23 23 051 051 055Oto 0 Rank Outof100 5 5 10 5 10 5 10 15 5 30 0306360030 2006363033 0306365030 0006363630 0006563630 0006563630 21 053 5 10 5 6 5 10 12 5 0 21 053 3 5 5 10 10 5 5 6 6 5 5 10 10 12 12 3 5 0 0 21 053 5 10 5 6 5 10 12 3 0 0006563630 030651051033 265631 3 3 5 5 10 10 3 5 6 6 5 0006565633 5 6 10 12 12 5 3 03126510363013121031056300 0 51 053 3 3 5 5 5 10 0 10 10 5 5 5 5 10 6 6 10 5 5 5 5 6 10 10 10 15 5 15 15 5 6 5 5 0 15 0 6 5 6 Cost-Effectiveness (Project Lifecycle)

Supports Regional Econ. Prosperity Strategy

Relieves Freight System Bottlenecks, Capacity Constraints 8

Improves Freight System Mobility/ Reduces Delay

Improves System Mobility Through Off- Peak Use/ Alternative Route/Mode

Improves Freight System Management/ Efficiency

Integrates Local Freight to Regional Freight Network

Provides Critical Modal /Intermodal Link

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Community and Safety Impacts

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Environmental/

Habitat Impacts Attachment 1C 96 21 26 96 26 27 29 29 91 61 59 61 59 96 98 29 45 34 48 53 55 59 78 64 64 74 96 63 71 75 75 76 Total Points 65 58 58 57 54 54 36 38 36 38 54 45 50 43 42 41 38 19 29 29 25 35 26 23 23 20 2 2 6 2 1 2 Overall Ranking rjc o System/Project Project No. 23 SDIA- 32-34 35 SR125- 43,59 0SR94- 60 61 50 7SR54/SR125- SR94/SR125- 57 SR94- 49 I-15/SR94- 48 SR52- 47 45 4SR 52- SR 54/SR125/SR52OuterLoop- 44 I-5/I-805- 70 27 I-15- 46 2KinderMorgan - KinderMorgan - 62 35 5I-5- SR125- 25 58 SR125- I-15- 42 I-5- 69 I-5- 20 I-805- 26 I-805- 31 I-805- 30 I-805- 29 I-15- 28 I-15- 41 I-15- 24 I-15- 23 I-15Improvements- 22 21 San DiegoRegionalGoodsMovementActionPlan– SDIA- 1 I-15- 5 Preliminary ListofPrioritizedProjectsforthe Facilities/Transload SDCRAA - Facilities/Transload SDCRAA - R5 oSaWrdDie$210.0 $180.0 SR 54toSeaWorldDrive $962.0 Widen I-805toSR56 Widen/ML LaJollaVillagetoVandergrift WdnHV R7 oRvrieCut $300.0 Widen/HOV,SR78toRiversideCounty oKne ognMsinVle emnl$31.6 to KinderMorganMission ValleyTerminal ie/O R9 oS 6 $247.0 Widen/HOV SR94to163 mrvmn,S 2-S 8$19.0 $342.0 $183.0 $422.0 Improvement, SR52-78 Widen/ML, CentreCityPkwytoSR78 Widen/ML, SR163to56 Widen/ML SR56toCentreCityPkwy WdnM,I8t - $469.0 Widen/ML,I-8toI-5 ie/LS 4t - $555.0 $308.0 $469.0 Widen/ML MissionValleyViaduct Widen/ML SR54toI-8 Widen/ML SR905to54 cest - $31.6 $110.7 New Warehouses,Aircraft/GroundAccess access toI-5 ie/O $190.0 Widen/HOV ie/O - oI1 $99.0 $241.0 Widen/HOV I-5toI-15 I-805 toSR125 ie R15t R6 $446.0 Widen SR125to67 a iulR oS 4$177.0 $635.0 $37.0 Telegraph CanyontoSanMiguelRd San MiguelRdtoSR54 SR 905toSanMiguelRd Detailed EvaluationResults O/LCnetr $222.0 HOV/ML Connectors Ground Access,AirCargo Freeway/Ground Access,AirCargo /-/ oncos$185.0 S/W-E/N Connectors WNSECnetr $136.0 W/N-S/EConnectors ie/O -0 oS 4$111.0 Widen/HOV I-805toSR94 xadt 6 ieEtn oMxc $45.0 $39.5 Expand to16" Pipe/ExtendtoMexico New MiramarJunction/Terminal/Tanks ROAD/TRUCKWAY R5 oLk ogs$83.0 SR 52toLakeHodges AIR CARGO PIPELINE xeso oS 8$540.0 Extension toSR78 Estimated Cost (millions) $250.0 $173.2 231 03651 429 64 0 3 3 5 10 10 5 5 6 10 3 0 10 10 12 12 3 5 12 30 051 001 053 5 10 5 10 0 10 12 5 30 051 051 5 3 0 5 10 5 10 15 5 30 731 05651 3 5 10 5 6 5 10 12 3 17 051 001 3 3 5 3 0 0 5 3 5 5 10 10 0 0 5 5 10 10 10 12 15 5 5 5 10 20 20 12 5 30 551 051 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 15 10 15 10 15 10 15 10 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 25 5 25 5 25 5 25 5 30 30 30 30 5501 053 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 0 5 5 5 3 6 6 6 10 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 15 5 5 5 5 15 15 15 10 051 051 055Oto 0 Rank Outof100 5 5 10 5 10 5 10 15 5 30 5300503035 031 033 3 10 5 10 3 10 0 3 0001001056330 5300503035 5300503035 5300503035 5300503035 53000103055 5300503105353005103055051510005033 53005031033 00010365635 Cost-Effectiveness (Project Lifecycle)

Supports Regional Econ. Prosperity Strategy

Relieves Freight System Bottlenecks, Capacity Constraints 9

Improves Freight System Mobility/ Reduces Delay

Improves System Mobility Through Off- Peak Use/ Alternative Route/Mode

Improves Freight System Management/ Efficiency

Integrates Local Freight to Regional Freight Network

Provides Critical Modal /Intermodal Link

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Community and Safety Impacts

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Environmental/ Habitat Impacts 24 37 47 24 90 90 24 24 24 31 34 36 41 88 32 76 38 68 76 87 83 83 83 83 87 87 87 87 64 64 64 66 Total Points 60 48 44 60 60 60 60 53 50 49 46 52 20 47 27 20 10 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 29 29 29 28 7 7 9 Overall Ranking Draft Freight Project Evaluation Criteria Attachment 2

TOTAL BY CRITERIA RTP MAX. N0. CRITERIA STATE GMAP GOAL CRITERIA MEASUREMENT CRITERIA TYPE GOAL POINTS TYPE

Cost-Effectiveness Rank = (Increase in 1 Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Cost-Effectiveness Freight Throughput) divided by (Total 30 30

COST- Capital + Operating Costs/Project Life) EFFECT.

Relieves Freight System Increases Throughput, Increase in Freight Throughput relieves 2 Bottlenecks, Capacity Mobility, Reliability Velocity, Reliability, 15 bottleneck or capacity constraint (Y/N) Constraints Reduces Congestion

Improves Freight System Increases Throughput, Improves Average Travel Time 3 Mobility, Reliability 10 Mobility/Travel Time Reduces Congestion per Freight Unit Throughput (Y/N)

45 Improves Mobility via Freight Improves Velocity, Efficiency, Mobility, Improves Freight Unit Throughput 4 System Management/ Considers Innovative 10 Reliability per day (Y/N) Technology Technology REDUCE CONGESTION REDUCE THROUGHPUT, VELOCITY, VELOCITY, THROUGHPUT,

Provides Critical Accessibility, Mobility, Provides Missing Link to restore 5 Increases Connectivity 10 Modal/Intermodal Link Reliability Freight Throughput capacity (Y/N)

Freight System Capacity identified in the Supports Regional Economic 6 NA NA Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy 5 Prosperity Strategy (Y/N)

Improves Freight System Accessibility, Mobility, Increase in Freight Throughput Increase Freight System 7 Mobility via Use of Reliability, provided by shifting use to 5 Throughput, Velocity Alternative Route, System Sustainability alternate route/system (Y/N)

Integrates Integrates Local Freight System/Activity 8 Local Freight System Accessibility Increases Connectivity 5 25 to the Regional Freight Network (Y/N) to Regional Freight Network

ECONOMIC BENEFIT Avoids or Minimizes negative Avoids/ Minimizes Negative Environmental, Reduces Community 9 Community Impacts (i.e., air quality, 5 IMPACTS, CONNECTIVITY, Community Impacts Livability, Sustainability Impacts noise, safety)(Y/N)

Avoids/Minimizes Negative Avoids or Minimizes negative Environmental, Reduces Community 10 Environmental /Habitat Environmental and Habitat Impacts (i.e., 5 Livability, Sustainability Impacts Impacts water, habitat)(Y/N)

10 Attachment 3 DraftDraft GoodsGoods MMovementovement ActionAction PPlanlan

SanSan DDiegoiego RegionRegion Riverside County Projects San Diego County Project Locations 1 Camp Air Cargo Pendleton

Logistics Center/Yard Border Coastal/SPRINTER South/Trolley/ 2 SR 905 Mexico/Desert

3 SR 11/New Border Crossing 6A Concepts

Vista Potential High Speed Rail/Inland 6 Oceanside 6 8 San SR 54/125/52/67/94 4 Maritime Marcos Escondido Outer Loop

Carlsbad Commercial/ Industrial Land Use 5 Pipeline

Encinitas

Rail 9 Solana Beach Poway 6 Coastal/SPRINTER Del Mar 8 13 6A High Speed Rail/Inland P County A C of II 7 FF South/MEX II 6A San Diego C

O

CC Santee

7A Desert EE

A 13

NN San 10 Diego 11 5 9 6 San Diego 13 Road/Managed Lanes El Cajon La Mesa

8 I-5 1 11 Lemon Grove 13

9 I-15 NationalNational 13 CityCity 6A MAP AREA Coronado 10 I-805 13 6A 4 10 (Rail Line Runs 11 SR 94/125, I-8 Through Mexico - Chula Crosses Border Back To Vista 12 7 Imperial Valley, USA) 12 SR 125/Toll San Diego Region 3 Imperial 7A Beach 2 UNITED STATES 13 SR 54/125/52/67/94 MEXICO

Outer Loop MILES 036 Tijuana, 6A 04.839.6 B.C. KILOMETERS 1-D 7

August 2006

11

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 09-06-13 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – APPROVE

OTAY MESA-MESA DE OTAY BINATIONAL CORRIDOR File Number 3003200 STRATEGIC PLAN: EARLY ACTION PLAN

Introduction Recommendation

In 2005, the Borders Committee and the Committee The Board of Directors is asked to on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) approve the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay identified the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay binational Binational Corridor Early Action Plan for corridor as an area of opportunity to create an planning purposes (Attachment 3). effective binational planning partnership. Transportation, economic development, housing, and environmental conservation are the four key issue areas that were recognized for evaluation as part of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan. Staff developed a work program to address the issues identified at the two binational workshops held in the San Diego region and Tijuana in October 2005.

On June 12, 2006, the Draft Early Action Plan was presented to COBRO and released for a 30-day public comment and review period. The Borders Committee discussed the draft Plan on June 23, 2006. Staff has updated the draft Early Action Plan to address comments received. On September 8, 2006, based on the recommendation from COBRO, the Borders Committee approved the Early Action Plan.

Discussion

Since December 2005, staff members from Tijuana’s Municipal Planning Institute (Instituto Municipal de Planeación or IMPlan), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado or SIDUE), and SANDAG have been researching the various issues discussed at the workshops (Attachment 1). The Early Action Plan includes strategies that could be advanced in the first phase of the study.

For example, in the transportation area, Caltrans’ progress on the environmental phase of the proposed State Route 11 (SR 11) and coordination with federal agencies for the East Otay Mesa border crossing provided a catalyst for identifying early actions on both sides of the border toward the implementation of a new land port of entry (POE).

Similarly, discussions between SANDAG and the City of San Diego have led to identifying early actions involving collaboration on specific aspects of the Otay Mesa Community Plan update currently underway. This collaboration will focus on regional aspects of possible conversion of

industrially zoned land in Otay Mesa to residential use, including the implications of such conversions on transportation infrastructure needs and possible financing approaches to address those needs.

With regard to environmental issues, research and discussions with major stakeholders in this area have led to identification of early actions related to development of a comprehensive watershed planning framework for the Tijuana River watershed and a more focused land use/habitat conservation study of the proposed SR 11/East Otay Mesa POE corridor.

At the same time, there are other planning activities underway, such as the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s Brown Field Master Plan Update, which may affect the Strategic Plan’s recommendations and actions, but where outcomes are not known yet. Thus, actions for issues where more research still needs to be conducted or that depend on other ongoing planning efforts will be identified in the final Strategic Plan, which is anticipated to be completed in early 2007.

The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Early Action Plan documents the research conducted to date and describes early action initiatives. Attachment 2 outlines these initiatives for transportation, economic development, housing, and environmental conservation.

Next Steps

Staff members from IMPlan Tijuana, Caltrans, SIDUE, and SANDAG continue to work on the preparation of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan. This Plan is anticipated to be finalized in early 2007.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachments: 1. Issues Identified at the Binational Workshops 2. Summary of Early Action Strategies 3. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor: Early Action Plan

Key Staff Contact: Elisa Arias, (619) 699-1936, [email protected]

Funds are budgeted in Work Element # 3003200

2 Attachment 1

Issues For Evaluations and Work Program

Area Issues Identified

ƒ Future East Otay Mesa-Otay II Port of Entry and connecting roads

TRANSPORTATION ƒ Improvements to existing Otay Mesa Port of Entry and connecting roads

ƒ Improvements to crossborder and regional public transportation services

ƒ Toll revenues for new ports of entry and access roads

TRANSPORTATION ƒ Additional local gas tax FUNDING ALTERNATIVES* ƒ Additional residential development impact fees for transportation ƒ Nonresidential development impact fees for transportation

ƒ Promote creation or expansion of common economic clusters on both sides of the border

ƒ Address future industrial land supply and demand ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ƒ Address relationship between the area’s airports operations and existing and future industrial land use

ƒ Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (water, energy, etc.)

ƒ Address future housing supply and demand

ƒ Address housing affordability issues and opportunities

HOUSING ƒ Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future residential land use

ƒ Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (water, sewage, schools, etc.)

ƒ Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors

ƒ Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g., Alamar River and Otay River ENVIRONMENT Watershed)

ƒ Address air quality

*The transportation financing issues were discussed at the workshop held in the San Diego region only.

3 Attachment 2

OTAY MESA-MESA DE OTAY BINATIONAL CORRIDOR STRATEGIC PLAN EARLY ACTION STRATEGIES

TRANSPORTATION

ISSUE— East Otay Mesa – Otay II Port of Entry (POE) and connecting roads.

EARLY ACTION— Establish the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE Technical Commission to advance planning and implementation of the future East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE and connecting roads as a binational project, in collaboration with Caltrans, SIDUE, and IMPlan, and based upon discussions with the U.S. interagency coordination group

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Federal, State, Regional, and Local agencies in the United States and Mexico

œ —————— 

ISSUE— Improvements to existing Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE and connecting roads.

EARLY ACTION— Coordinate with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Mexican Customs on the process to fund and implement identified short-term capital and operational improvements at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial POE

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, Caltrans, CBP, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), and Mexican Customs

EARLY ACTION— Explore the feasibility of short-term operational and capital improvements at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Passenger POE (operations and facilities).

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, Caltrans, CBP, GSA, and Mexican Customs

EARLY ACTION— Collaborate with the City of San Diego on the Otay Mesa Community Plan update in relation to transportation implications of future land uses changes under consideration.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— City of San Diego, SANDAG, Caltrans, and Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) œ —————— 

ISSUE— Improvements to crossborder and regional public transportation services.

EARLY ACTION— Initiate advanced planning work to extend the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service between Eastern Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa POE.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, Caltrans, and MTS

4 EARLY ACTION— Complete the Otay Mesa POE Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives Study. To complement this study, perform right of way engineering services, including title, appraisal, and potential acquisition negotiations for a parcel in the vicinity of the Otay Mesa POE where a proposed South Bay BRT Transportation Center would be located.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Caltrans, SANDAG, MTS, and City of San Diego

EARLY ACTION— Evaluate the City of Tijuana’s Draft Public Transportation Plan focusing on routes that would serve the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG and IMPlan

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

ISSUE— Promote creation or expansion of common employment clusters on both sides of the border and address future industrial land supply and demand.

EARLY ACTION— Develop the 2006 San Diego Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy with participation from the Consulate of Mexico in San Diego, San Diego Dialogue, and the Tijuana Economic Development Corporation in the Prosperity Strategy Advisory Working Group.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy Advisory Working Group

EARLY ACTION— Collaborate with the City of San Diego in the Otay Mesa Community Plan update to evaluate future land demand for high value industrial clusters, considering the unique characteristics of the evolving crossborder economy, and competing demand for vacant land in the San Diego region.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— City of San Diego and SANDAG

EARLY ACTION— Within the framework of San Diego Dialogue’s Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative, begin the implementation of selected recommendations from the Borderless Innovation study outlined below. Establish the Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Center Initiate a crossborder program to foster scientific and technology relationships, awareness of research, and commercialization of discoveries Work with Baja California to establish crossborder clinical research as a precursor to growing a transregional biopharmaceutical industry

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— UCSD Partnership with Mexico, San Diego Dialogue, CENTRIS, and CICESE

5 HOUSING

ISSUE— Address future housing supply and demand, housing affordability issues and opportunities, and infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use.

EARLY ACTION— Collaborate with the City of San Diego in the Otay Mesa Community Plan update to evaluate the potential to convert industrial land use to residential and its regional implications.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— City of San Diego and SANDAG

EARLY ACTION— Promote comprehensive housing developments within the Tijuana portion of the study area, which would include providing space for recreational activities, sports, green areas, and public facilities and services, to improve the quality of life.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan and SANDAG

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

ISSUE— Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g., Alamar River and Otay River Watershed), and water quality.

EARLY ACTION— Analyze San Diego County’s Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP), the Otay River Watershed Management Plan, “A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed,” and the “Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative” to develop a framework for a binational approach for habitat corridor conservation and watershed management for the Tijuana River Watershed.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Border Liaison Mechanism’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee – Tijuana River Basin Working Group, SANDAG, IMPlan, U.S. and Mexican federal, state, and local agencies/organizations

EARLY ACTION— Expand the environmental analysis of the Draft Partial Program for Conservation and Urban Improvement of the Alamar River Zone to further assess the habitat conditions in the Alamar River area.

EARLY ACTION— Support plans for habitat restoration and rehabilitation along the Alamar River riparian corridor.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan and SIDUE œ —————— 

6 ISSUE— Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors

EARLY ACTION— Explore the feasibility of a binational land use/open space conservation study for SR 11, the future East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE, and proposed connection from the POE to the Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road (Route 2D), including consideration of binational environmental mitigation strategies.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Caltrans, County of San Diego, SANDAG, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, IMPlan, and U.S. and Mexican federal, state, and local agencies/organizations

EARLY ACTION— In Mexico, explore possibilities for cooperative agreements between private, public, and community sectors, to build partnerships and private agreements to incorporate the payment for environmental mitigation, purchase of development rights, permits or quota rights and other similar uses.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan

EARLY ACTION— Use existing legal mechanisms to acquire private or public land for conservation in Mexico.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan

œ —————— 

ISSUE— Collaborate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Border 2012 program, the Binational Air Quality Task Force, and the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in binational clean air efforts

EARLY ACTION— Support the San Diego County APCD’s crossborder clean air demonstration projects.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— San Diego County APCD and SANDAG

EARLY ACTION— Link the creation of conservation areas to the objectives and goals established in “A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed,” and the Border 2012 programs.

Evaluate potential emissions trading permits for motor vehicle emission reductions.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan

7 Attachment 3

Otay Mesa – Mesa de Otay Transportation Binational Corridor

Early Action Plan Housing September 2006 Economic Development

Environment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Foundation of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan...... i The Collaboration Process...... i the Strategic Planning Process and Early Actions...... iii Organization of the Report ...... iii

ISSUES FOR EVALUATION AND WORK PROGRAMS Introduction ...... 5 The Binational Study Area ...... 5 Issues Identified ...... 5 Interactive Polling...... 7 Process...... 7 Results ...... 8 Strategic Plan Work Program ...... 8 Transportation...... 8 Economic Development...... 9 Housing...... 10 Environment ...... 10

POPULATION, HOUSING, LAND USE, AND EMPLOYMENT Population...... 11 Current Population ...... 11 Projected 2030 Population ...... 12 Housing...... 12 Current Housing Units ...... 13 Forecasted Housing Units ...... 14 Land Use ...... 15 Current Land Use...... 15 Planned Land Use...... 16 Otay Mesa Community Plan Land Use Alternatives ...... 19 Employment ...... 20 Current Employment...... 20 Forecasted 2030 Employment ...... 20

INTERREGIONAL TRAVEL Otay Mesa Port of Entry: Key Findings of Crossborder Travel Surveys ...... 21 Conclusions...... 24

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan i Table of Contents

TRANSPORTATION Introduction ...... 25 Existing Setting ...... 25 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE...... 25 Highways ...... 30 Transit ...... 31 Airports ...... 32 Freight Rail ...... 33 Future East Otay Mesa – Otay II POE and Connecting Roads...... 34 Status of the Proposed East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE...... 34 Improvements to Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE and Connecting Roads...... 37 Background ...... 37 Proposed Improvements to Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial POE ...... 37 Crossborder and Regional Public Transportation Services...... 39 South Bay BRT ...... 39 Otay Mesa POE Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives Study...... 39 City of Tijuana’s Draft Public Transportation Plan ...... 42 Early Action Strategies ...... 42

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Introduction ...... 49 Existing Setting ...... 49 Existing Plans and Programs ...... 50 San Diego Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy ...... 50 Otay Mesa Community Plan Update...... 51 Development Plans for the City of Tijuana and the State of Baja California...... 52 Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative ...... 53 Early Action Strategies ...... 55

HOUSING Existing Setting ...... 59 Housing Characteristics...... 59 Tijuana and San Diego Home Prices ...... 60 Tijuana and San Diego Housing Markets ...... 61 Tijuana and San Diego Housing-Related Infrastructure and Irregular Developments ...... 62 Existing Plans and Programs ...... 63 City of San Diego – Otay Mesa Community Plan ...... 63 Brown Field Municipal Airport...... 63 City of Tijuana ...... 64 City of Tijuana’s International Airport ...... 64 County of San Diego...... 64 City of Chula Vista...... 64 Early Action Strategies ...... 65

ii Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Table of Contents

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Introduction ...... 66 Existing setting...... 67 Biological Resources...... 67 Coniferous Forest ...... 67 Californian ...... 67 Watersheds ...... 68 Existing Plans and Programs ...... 72 Multiple Species Conservation Program...... 72 Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative ...... 72 Otay River Watershed Management Plan...... 73 A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed...... 74 San Diego/Tijuana Clean Diesel Demonstration Projects ...... 75 Early Action Strategies ...... 77

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Stakeholders List...... ii Table 2 Estimated Population of Study Area (2004) ...... 11 Table 3 Forecasted Population of Study Area (2030)...... 12 Table 4 Estimated Number of Housing Units (2004)...... 13 Table 5 Residential Density (2004) ...... 13 Table 6 Forecasted Number of Housing Units (2030) ...... 14 Table 7 Forecasted Residential Density (2030) ...... 14 Table 8 Existing Land Use Distribution (2004)...... 15 Table 9 Vacant Developable Acres (2004) ...... 16 Table 10 Forecasted Land Use Distribution (2030)...... 18 Table 11 Forecasted Vacant Developable Acres (2030) ...... 18 Table 12 Otay Mesa Community Plan Land Use Alternatives: Residential and Industrial...... 19 Table 13 Total Employment (2004) ...... 20 Table 14 Regional Forecast Results ...... 52 Table 15 Shared Export-Driven Industrial Clusters in the San Diego Region and Tijuana ...... 53 Table 16 Mexico’s Homebuyer Profile (2005) ...... 60

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan iii Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Study Area ...... 6 Figure 2 Study Area and Vicinity ...... 7 Figure 3 Planned Land Use and Transportation Network...... 17 Figure 4 Current Transportation Network ...... 26 Figure 5 Planned Land Use and Transportation Network...... 27 Figure 6 Otay Mesa POE – Northbound Passenger Vehicle and Bus Crossings...... 28 Figure 7 Otay Mesa POE: Northbound Pedestrian Crossings...... 28 Figure 8 Otay Mesa POE: Northbound Truck Crossings ...... 29 Figure 9 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE: Two-Way Value of Trade...... 29 Figure 10 San Diego-Tijuana POEs: Projected Crossborder Daily Vehicle Travel Demand (Two-Way)...... 30 Figure 11 Current and Planned Transit Services ...... 32 Figure 12 Proposed Capital and Operational Improvements at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial Port of Entry ...... 38 Figure 13 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit Corridor...... 40 Figure 14 Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives...... 41 Figure 15 City of Tijuana’s Travel Zones...... 43 Figure 16 Organizational Chart of the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison Mechanism...... 45 Figure 17 Otay Mesa – Mesa de Otay Watersheds ...... 68 Figure 18 Binational Watersheds...... 73

APPENDICES

A. Interactive Polling Results B. Biological Resources C. Mexico’s Housing Financing Mechanisms D. Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

iv Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan

INTRODUCTION

FOUNDATION OF THE OTAY MESA-MESA DE OTAY BINATIONAL CORRIDOR STRATEGIC PLAN

The Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the San Diego Region, which was adopted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors in 2004, calls for the creation of a partnership with Mexico to address binational border planning issues with a focus on transportation and infrastructure, energy and water, homeland security, and the environment.

Also in 2004, SANDAG held its 8th Binational Summer Conference entitled: “Cooperation across the California-Baja California Border: Where do we go from here?” Stakeholders from the United States and Mexico, including governmental agencies, the business sector, academia, and community groups examined crossborder collaboration in the Californias. The main recommendation from this conference was to create a formal interregional partnership between SANDAG and local, state, and federal agencies in Mexico to address transportation and other related issues. The partnership was proposed to be modeled after the I-15 Interregional Partnership, which is a voluntary partnership between SANDAG and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG).

Subsequently, in 2005, SANDAG’s Borders Committee and the Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) identified the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay binational corridor as an area of opportunity to create an effective binational planning partnership. Transportation, economic development, housing, and environmental conservation are the four key issue areas that were recognized for evaluation as part of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan).

THE COLLABORATION PROCESS

The Borders Committee has provided policy guidance in the development of the Strategic Plan, while COBRO has served as the primary stakeholders group. Staff from the City of Tijuana’s Municipal Planning Institute (Instituto Municipal de Planeación or IMPlan), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado or SIDUE), and SANDAG have conducted the technical work for the preparation of the Strategic Plan through a joint Project Development Team (PDT). A diverse group of stakeholders from the United States and Mexico were invited to collaborate in the preparation of the Strategic Plan, as shown on Table 1.

To kick off the preparation of the Strategic Plan, two public workshops on “Crossborder Collaborative Planning for Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay” were held in October 2005 and were co-sponsored by SANDAG and IMPlan. One of the workshops was held in the San Diego region and the other in Tijuana. Nearly 200 participants provided input on issues to be addressed in the Strategic Plan.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 1 Introduction

Table 1 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Stakeholders List

United States México

LOCAL LOCAL • SANDAG • Instituto Municipal de Planeación (IMPlan) • City of San Diego • Ciudad de Tijuana • City of Chula Vista • Comité de Planeación y Desarrollo Municipal • County of San Diego (COPLADEM) • Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) • San Diego County Regional Airport Authority • San Diego County Water Authority

STATE ESTATAL • Caltrans • Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano • California Environmental Protection Agency (SIDUE) • California Department of Fish & Game • Dirección de Ecología • California Highway Patrol • Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Tijuana (CESPT)

FEDERAL FEDERAL • U.S. Customs and Border Protection • Consulado General de México • U.S. General Services Administration • Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes • International Boundary and Water Commission Nacionales (INDAABIN) • Bureau of Land Management • Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas (CILA) • Federal Highway Administration • Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte (SCT) • Federal Transit Administration • Aeropuerto Internacional de Tijuana • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT)

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ORGANIZACIONES NO GUBERNAMENTA- (NGOs)-COMMUNITY LES (ONGs) -COMUNIDAD • Chambers of Commerce-Economic Development • Cámaras de Comercio Corporations • Academia • Academia • Pronatura • Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative • Otros • Others

2 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Introduction

THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS AND EARLY ACTIONS

The planning process to develop the Strategic Plan includes several elements. First, a study area was defined in collaboration with binational stakeholders. At the binational workshops held in October 2005, issues related to transportation, economic development, housing, and environmental conservation were identified and ranked through an interactive polling exercise. Following the workshops, staff developed a work program that includes a series of tasks to address the issues that were identified.

In December 2005, the PDT set out to research the various issues brought up by the stakeholders. This initial exploration provided staff with a better understanding of the issues that could be advanced in the first phase of the study or early action plan.

For example, in the transportation arena, Caltrans’ progress on the environmental phase of the proposed State Route (SR) 11 and coordination with federal agencies for the East Otay Mesa border crossing provided a catalyst for identifying early actions on both sides of the border toward the implementation of a new land port of entry (POE) in East Otay Mesa. On the other hand, there are other planning activities underway, such as the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s Brown Field Master Plan Update, which may affect the Strategic Plan’s recommendations and actions, but where outcomes are not known yet. Thus, actions for issues where more research still needs to be conducted or that depend on other ongoing planning efforts will be identified in the final Strategic Plan, which is anticipated to be completed in early 2007.

This Early Action Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) which states that “a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration, but does require consideration of environmental factors.”

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

The “Issues for Evaluation and Work Program” chapter outlines transportation, economic development, housing, and environmental issues identified within the study area and includes the Strategic Plan’s work program. The “Population, Housing, Land Use, and Employment” chapter presents a profile of the study area, which describes current and projected population, employment, housing, and land uses. The “Interregional Travel” chapter describes interregional crossborder travel patterns via the Otay Mesa POE. The remaining chapters present background information for each of the four issue areas, as well as a policy analysis that leads to the early action initiatives.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 3 Introduction

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

4 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan

ISSUES FOR EVALUATION AND WORK PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the issues identified for evaluation in the categories of transportation, economic development, housing, and environmental conservation within the study area. It also provides an overview of the results of the polling conducted at the two binational workshops held in October 2005, where interactive technology was used to elicit participants’ opinions on the importance of these issues. The remainder of this chapter outlines the work program to develop the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). COBRO and the Borders Committee concurred with the tasks included in the work program in fall 2005.

THE BINATIONAL STUDY AREA

Figure 1 illustrates the study area, which was identified in collaboration with local and binational stakeholders. It encompasses the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa Community Planning Area, the County of San Diego’s Otay Community Planning Area (including Otay Lakes), the eastern portion of the City of Chula Vista east of Interstate 805 and south of Olympic Parkway, and the planning areas of Mesa de Otay and Centenario (including the Alamar River) in the City of Tijuana. Figure 2 shows the study area and vicinity on both sides of the border.

ISSUES IDENTIFIED

SANDAG and IMPlan co-sponsored two binational workshops, which were held on October 3, 2005, in National City, and on October 11, 2005, in Tijuana. Approximately 100 people participated at the workshop held in National City, and more than 80 people attended the workshop held in Tijuana.

These workshops drew stakeholders from both sides of the border, which provided a wide range of opinions. Participants included government officials, academics, and representatives from business and non-governmental organizations. The following issues were discussed at the binational workshops.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 5 Issues For Evaluation And Work Program

Area Issues Identified ƒ Future East Otay Mesa-Otay II Port of Entry and connecting roads TRANSPORTATION ƒ Improvements to existing Otay Mesa Port of Entry and connecting roads ƒ Improvements to crossborder and regional public transportation services ƒ Toll revenues for new ports of entry and access roads TRANSPORTATION ƒ Additional local gas tax FUNDING ƒ Additional residential development impact fees for transportation ALTERNATIVES* ƒ Non-residential development impact fees for transportation ƒ Promote creation or expansion of common economic clusters on both sides of the border ECONOMIC ƒ Address future industrial land supply and demand DEVELOPMENT ƒ Address relationship between the area’s airports operations and existing and future industrial land use ƒ Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (water, energy, etc.) ƒ Address future housing supply and demand ƒ Address housing affordability issues and opportunities HOUSING ƒ Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future residential land use ƒ Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (water, sewage, schools, etc.) ƒ Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors ENVIRONMENT ƒ Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g., Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) ƒ Address air quality

*The transportation financing issues were discussed at the workshop held in the San Diego region only.

Figure 1 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Study Area

6 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Issues For Evaluation And Work Program

Figure 2 Study Area and Vicinity

INTERACTIVE POLLING

Process

Interactive polling technology was used to help the workshop participants prioritize critical issues that are important to address in the Strategic Plan. Each participant was provided with a remote FM radio input terminal to respond to questions generated by computer and projected onto a large screen. The technology provided the ability to quickly prioritize the issues. The results were tabulated and immediately presented back to the group for discussion. Demographic information was collected to assess the different perspectives of the participants based on where they lived and what organization they represented.

The participants prioritized the importance of the issues outlined in the previous section. A forced- pair prioritization technique was used where two of the critical issues were presented to the group, and each participant selected which was most important. After evaluating every possible pair, the relative importance of the issues was calculated on a scale from 0 to 100 and immediately presented to the group for discussion.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 7 Issues For Evaluation And Work Program

It is important to note that the interactive polling process was designed to stimulate discussion and understanding of the perspectives of the various participants. It was not designed to be statistically representative of a broader group of participants. The number of participants may vary among polls since all participants may not have participated in every poll.

Results

Summary results of the interactive surveys are presented in this section. Appendix A includes detailed interactive polling results.

The polling results from both workshops, with a few exceptions, revealed an overall consistent response from both American and Mexican participants. This was especially evident in the area of transportation. Participants from the United States and Mexico gave high priority to both making improvements to the existing Otay Mesa POE and pursuing a new POE at East Otay Mesa. Also, both sides were in agreement when asked if they would support seeking toll revenues for new POEs and access roads.

With regard to economic development issues, addressing infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land use and promoting the creation or expansion of common employment clusters were identified as top priorities.

Related to housing, addressing residential infrastructure needs ranked highest. There was some variation with regard to housing affordability. This issue ranked second in the National City workshop and third in Tijuana.

Conservation of urban river corridors came out on top under issues relating to the environment. Habitat conservation, air quality, and water quality issues also were discussed.

STRATEGIC PLAN WORK PROGRAM

Feedback gathered at the binational workshops was considered in the preparation of a list of tasks for the development of the Strategic Plan, which are outlined below. f TRANSPORTATION

1. Improvements to existing Otay Mesa POE and connecting roads a. Analyze crossborder travel characteristics at the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro POEs from recent surveys b. Collaborate with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Mexican Customs to evaluate short-term and long-term improvements to the Otay Mesa POE (operations and facilities) c. Implement pedestrian access improvements and customer amenities for Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Route 905 stop at the Otay Mesa POE d. Evaluate current transit serving the Mesa de Otay POE

8 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Issues For Evaluation And Work Program

2. Future East Otay Mesa – Otay II POE and connecting roads a. Hold coordination meetings with staff involved in East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE planning and implementation b. Prepare a joint work program and master calendar to align implementation activities for the new POE, including connecting roads and land acquisition on both sides of the border c. Conduct a financial feasibility study for the new POE and connecting roads in the United States and Mexico, including tolls (pending funding)

3. Improvements to crossborder and regional public transportation services a. Explore multimodal transit center in the vicinity of the Otay Mesa POE b. Monitor findings of MTS’ Comprehensive Operations Analysis for Route 905 c. Monitor development of new regional transit services in Tijuana (Ruta Troncal) d. Evaluate timing of the proposed South Bay Bus Rapid Transit Phase II service between eastern Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa POE f ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1. Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (e.g., water, energy) a. Evaluate elements of the Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) and Mesa de Otay Specific Plan

2. Promote creation or expansion of common employment clusters on both sides of the border, and 3. Address future industrial land use supply and demand a. Participate in the update of the 1998 San Diego Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy (REPS) and the 2001 Employment Lands Inventory and Market Analysis b. Evaluate the city of Tijuana’s Municipal Development Plan (2005-2007) c. Participate in updates of the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa Community Plan, City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, County of San Diego’s East Otay Mesa Specific Plan, and Mesa de Otay Specific Plan

4. Address relationship between the area’s airports operations and existing and future industrial land use a. Monitor the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s update of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 9 Issues For Evaluation And Work Program

f HOUSING

1. Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (e.g., water supply, sewage, schools) a. Evaluate elements of the IRIS and Mesa de Otay Specific Plan

2. Address housing affordability issues and opportunities, and 3. Address future housing supply and demand a. Analyze crossborder work trip characteristics at the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro POEs from recent surveys b. Gather information on housing plans and housing production in Tijuana (public and private sector) c. Provide results for SANDAG’s interregional commute model of the 2030 San Diego Regional Growth Forecast update d. Participate in updates of the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa Community Plan, City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, County of San Diego’s East Otay Mesa Specific Plan, and Mesa de Otay Specific Plan

4. Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana’s Inter- national Airport operations and existing and future residential land use a. Monitor San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s update of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan f ENVIRONMENT

1. Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g., Alamar River and Otay River Watershed), 2. Surface water quality, and 3. Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors a. Research Mesa de Otay conservation planning activities by local, state, and federal agencies b. Analyze Multiple Species Conservation Program, Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, and other conservation studies c. Monitor implementation of Tijuana Master Plan for water and wastewater infrastructure

4. Air Quality a. Collaborate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the Border 2012 program, the Binational Air Quality Task Force, and the San Diego Air Pollution Control District in binational clean air effort

10 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan POPULATION, HOUSING, LAND USE, AND EMPLOYMENT

This chapter presents a profile of the communities within the binational study area1 and includes current, as well as projected population, housing, land use, and employment data.

POPULATION

This section presents data on current and projected population within the study area. The tables below show the number of inhabitants in each subarea.

Current Population

In 2004, approximately 174,184 people resided in the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay binational study area. Since the year 2000, most of the growth has occurred in the areas of Otay Ranch (south of Olympic Parkway)2, Otay Mesa, and Mesa de Otay. Table 2 shows current population by subarea.

Table 2 Estimated Population of Study Area (2004)

2004 Subarea Population

City of Chula Vista – Otay Ranch South of Olympic Parkway 5,638 City of San Diego – Otay Mesa 12,273 County of San Diego – East Otay Mesa* 2 City of Tijuana – Alamar River 57,245 City of Tijuana – Mesa de Otay 99,026

Total Population 174,184

Source: SANDAG and IMPlan

* Population figure does not include the 7,380 group quarters population

1 Current data for the San Diego Region is based on SANDAG’s Series 11 and approved land use plans. Forecast data reflects SANDAG’s Final Regional Growth Forecast (December 2003). 2 This area also includes neighborhoods west of the County landfill up to the I-805, industrial areas along east Main Street, and neighborhoods bordering Otay Mesa.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 11 Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Projected 2030 Population

In 2030, the forecasted study area population will be approximately 362,799 people.3 This repre- sents an increase of 245,860 people and a 210 percent increase from 2004.

Table 3 Forecasted Population of Study Area (2030)

2030 Subarea Population

City of Chula Vista – Otay Ranch South of Olympic Parkway 49,871 City of San Diego – Otay Mesa 49,282 County of San Diego – East Otay Mesa* 20,142 City of Tijuana – Mesa de Otay** 243,504

Total 362,799

Source: SANDAG and IMPlan

* This does not include the 10,442 group quarters population ** 2025 population projections were used to forecast 2030 population using IMPlan’s forecasted growth rate Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

It is forecasted that by 2030 Mesa de Otay’s population will increase by approximately 144,478 residents, bringing the total population to 243,504 (Table 3). This represents a 246 percent increase in population and the largest numerical increase of all the subareas.

It should be noted that the City of San Diego is currently updating its Otay Mesa Community Plan and is considering changes that would increase the future population of this area. In addition, there are proposed plans for a new satellite city called Valle de las Palmas within the city of Tijuana’s boundaries but outside the study area (see Figure 2 on page 7). Build out is expected to be in 2040. The project would build approximately 280,000 housing units that would support a population of more than 1.1 million residents.

HOUSING

The following is an analysis of the number of housing units and residential density within the study area. The following tables quantify this information by subarea and the overall study area.

3 Alamar River population count is not available and will be included in future reports.

12 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Current Housing Units

According to 2004 data, the total number of housing units in the study area, not including the Alamar River subarea, is approximately 29,048. Mesa de Otay has the largest share of existing housing units, with approximately 24,153 housing units or 83 percent of the total. This number combined with its size also accounts for why it is one of the most densely populated subareas. Table 4 shows 2004 housing units by subarea.

Table 4 Estimated Number of Housing Units (2004)

Total Otay Otay Mesa Housing Type Housing Ranch* Mesa de Otay Units

Single Family 1,758 2,482 N/A 4,240

Multiple Family 79 573 N/A 652

Total Housing Units 1,837 3,055 24,153 29,045

Source: SANDAG and IMPlan

* South of Olympic Parkway Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

In the year 2004, the subareas that shared relatively similar densities were both Otay Ranch, with a residential density4 of 8.74 households per acre, and Otay Mesa, with 8.67 households per acre (Table 5). At the high end of the spectrum, Mesa de Otay contains an average residential density of 12.78 households per acre.

Table 5 Residential Density (2004)

2004 Housing Subarea Units per Developed Acre

City of Chula Vista – Otay Ranch South of Olympic Parkway 8.74 City of San Diego – Otay Mesa 8.67 City of Tijuana – Mesa de Otay 12.78

Source: SANDAG and IMPlan

Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

4 Total housing units per developed residential acre.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 13 Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Forecasted Housing Units

By the year 2030, the number of housing units for the entire study area is expected to more than triple to 93,617 (Table 6). Mesa de Otay is still forecasted to hold the largest share of housing units at approximately 62,936 units or about two-thirds of the total units.

Table 6 Forecasted Number of Housing Units (2030)

Total Otay East Otay Mesa Housing Type Otay Mesa Housing Ranch* Mesa de Otay Units

Single Family 6,403 5,289 3,590 N/A 15,282

Multiple Family 7,766 7,633 0 N/A 15,399

Total Housing 14,169 12,922 3,590 62,936 93,617

Source: SANDAG, Final 2030 Regional Growth Forecast (2003), and IMPlan

* South of Olympic Parkway Note: Alamar River data will be available in fall 2006

In 2030, forecasts show that Otay Ranch’s residential density5 will decrease to seven households per acre (Table 7), while Mesa de Otay‘s will more than double from 12.78 to 29.39 households per acre. It is interesting to note that Mesa de Otay will continue to maintain the highest household density. On the low end of the residential density spectrum is East Otay Mesa, where the estimated residential density is forecast at 1.4 households per acre.

Table 7 Forecasted Residential Density (2030)

2030 Housing Subarea Units per Developed Acre

City of Chula Vista – Otay Ranch South of Olympic Parkway 7.00 City of San Diego – Otay Mesa 13.60 County of San Diego – East Otay Mesa 1.40 City of Tijuana – Mesa de Otay* 29.39

Source: SANDAG, Final 2030 Regional Growth Forecast (2003), and IMPlan

* Residential density is for 2025 Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

5 Total housing units per developed residential acre.

14 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

LAND USE

The following is an analysis of the current and planned land uses in the study area. Land use tables below show the number of developed and developable acres for each land use.

Current Land Use

Table 8 shows the developed acres by land use category in 2004, while Table 9 displays vacant developable acres. As of 2004, there were a total of 5,335 developed residential acres. Mesa de Otay contained 1,934 of those acres, which represents the largest developed area for residential land use in the study area. For the entire study area, there were 4,808 developable acres set aside for residential land use. Nearly half of these acres are located in East Otay Mesa and are classified as spaced rural residential, which allows up to one dwelling unit per acre. Otay Ranch contains the largest portion of land that is dedicated to single- and multiple-family residential land uses.

For the category of commercial/office land uses, there were a total of 2,755 developed acres and 601 developable acres. Tijuana International Airport contains the most developed acres, and East Otay Mesa contains the largest inventory of developable acres. Also in 2004, there were an estimated 3,397 acres of developed industrial land in the study area. Out of all the subareas, Otay Mesa’s 1,807 acres represent the largest number of developed industrial acres.

The study area contains a total of 4,767 developable acres, which are designated for heavy/light industrial land uses. Out of this number, Otay Mesa contains 1,565 acres, which represents the largest acreage available among the subareas for these types of land uses. The County of San Diego’s Otay Community Planning Area has 28,577 acres set aside, which is the most land dedicated for the land use category of constrained acres and includes areas containing rare and endangered plant and animal species and all private land holdings.

Table 8 Existing Land Use Distribution (2004)

East Mesa Tijuana Total Otay Otay Alamar Land Use Otay de Int’l Developed Ranch* Mesa River*** Mesa Otay** Airport** Acres

Spaced Rural Residential 0 0 17 60 N/A 1,706 1,783 Single Family 170 306 0 1,874 1,116 0 3,466 Multiple Family 40 46 0 N/A N/A 0 86 Commercial/Office 292 122 0 841 30 1,470 2,755 Heavy/Light Industry 93 1,807 170 1,063 63 201 3,397 Agriculture/Extractive 131 535 1,743 1 69 0 2,479 Mixed Use & Special Plan Area 0 0 0 0 21 0 21 Schools 63 84 0 N/A 116 N/A 263 Constrained Acres**** 7,798 5,647 28,577 1,377 822 39 44,260

Total Acres 8,587 8,547 30,507 5,216 2,237 3,416 58,510

Source: SANDAG, 2004 base year data from Series 11 Forecast (2006), and IMPlan

* South of Olympic Parkway ** Boundary of Mesa de Otay and Tijuana International Airport subareas were overlayed on IMPlan’s land use GIS data- base to obtain these data ***Final acreage numbers for Alamar will be published by IMPlan in early 2007 *** Final acreage numbers for Alamar River will be published by IMPlan in early 2007 * *** Open space and recreation – IMPlan combines recreation space with school acreage

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 15 Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Table 9 Vacant Developable Acres (2004)

Total East Tijuana Otay Otay Mesa Vacant Land Use Otay Int’l Ranch* Mesa de Otay** Developable Mesa Airport** Acres

Spaced Rural Residential 0 0 2,325 0 0 2,325

Single Family 1,072 0 0 207 0 1,279

Multiple Family 661 676 0 3 0 1,340

Commercial/Office 252 240 13 87 9 601

Heavy/Light Industry 655 1,565 2,416 111 20 4,767

Agriculture/Extractive 0 0 0 N/A 0 0

Mixed Use & Special Plan Area 0 0 0 209 0 209

Schools 695 128 0 N/A N/A 823

Total Acres 3,335 2,609 4,754 617 29 11,344

Source: SANDAG, 2004 base year data from Series 11 Forecast (2006), and IMPlan

* South of Olympic Parkway ** Boundary of Mesa de Otay and Tijuana International Airport subareas were overlayed on IMPlan’s land use GIS database to obtain these data Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

Planned Land Use

Table 10 presents the 2030 forecasted land use distribution, which is illustrated in Figure 3, while Table 11 shows vacant developable acres. This information is presented for the San Diego County portion of the study area only. No forecast data are available for the Tijuana subareas.

By the year 2030, nearly 30 percent of the 7,143 developed residential acres will be in the Mesa de Otay subarea. Another 26 percent of the residential acres are forecasted to be developed in East Otay Mesa. It is estimated there will be virtually no developable residential acres left in the study area at that time.

For the category of commercial/office land uses, it is estimated there will be approximately 3,233 developed acres and 383 developable acres.

It is forecasted that there will be approximately 4,772 acres of developed industrial land in the study area. Also, 1,309 acres are forecasted to be developable. The majority of the remaining developable industrial land will be in Otay Mesa.

Also at this time, the study area will have a total of 31,530 constrained acres. East Otay Mesa’s planning area will have 23,121 constrained acres. Based on the forecast, East Otay Mesa will maintain its place as the subarea with the most acreage set aside for these land uses.

16 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Figure 3 Planned Land Use and Transportation Network

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 17 Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Table 10 Forecasted Land Use Distribution (2030)

East Tijuana Total Otay Otay Mesa Land Use Otay Int’l Developed Ranch* Mesa de Otay Mesa Airport Acres

Spaced Rural Residential 4 0 0 60 1,706 1,770 Single Family 1,509 618 1,862 2,081 0 6,070 Multiple Family 567 335 104 3 0 1,009 Commercial/Office 440 201 185 928 1,479 3,233 Heavy/Light Industry 259 2,296 822 1,174 221 4,772 Agriculture/Extractive 278 517 1,411 1 0 2,206 Mixed Use & Special Plan area 0 0 0 209 0 209 Schools 393 114 0 N/A N/A 507 Constrained Acres** 4,129 2,864 23,121 1,377 39 31,530

Total Acres 7,579 6,945 27,505 5,833 3,445 51,306

Source: SANDAG, Final 2030 Regional Growth Forecast (2003), and IMPlan

* South of Olympic Parkway ** Open space and recreation Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

Table 11 Forecasted Vacant Developable Acres (2030)

East Total Otay Otay Mesa de Land Use Otay Developable Ranch* Mesa Otay Mesa Acres

Spaced Rural Residential 0 0 2 0 2 Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 Multiple Family 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial/Office 239 110 34 0 383 Heavy/Light Industry 379 698 232 0 1,309 Agriculture/Extractive 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed Use & Special Plan area 0 0 0 0 0 Schools 323 28 0 N/A 351

Total 941 836 268 0 2,045

Source: SANDAG, Final 2030 Regional Growth Forecast (2003), and IMPlan

* South of Olympic Parkway Note: Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

18 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

Otay Mesa Community Plan Land Use Scenarios

The City of San Diego is in the process of updating the Otay Mesa Community Plan. There are four alternatives being evaluated, and three of them include plans for a significant increase in housing. The adopted plan represents the No Project Alternative, which includes 12,400 housing units and 2,900 industrial zoned acres for development.6

Draft Scenario 1 would allow the construction of 29,400 housing units. This represents more than a doubling of housing units from the No Project Alternative. Under this scenario, 2,070 industrial zoned acres would be available for development, or a 29 percent decrease in industrial zoned land. Based on this scenario, the U.S. side of the study area would have a forecasted housing unit increase of 17,000 units or 55 percent. This scenario would decrease the U.S. portion of the study area’s industrial zone land by 830 acres.

Draft Scenario 2 has the greatest share of proposed future housing units and resulting reduction of industrial zoned land. The 31,800 housing units proposed would be a 156 percent increase from the No Project Alternative, and the 1,990 industrial zoned acres would represent a 31 percent decrease of this type of land. For this scenario, the U.S. side of the study area would have a forecasted housing unit increase of 19,400 units or 63 percent. This scenario would decrease the U.S. portion of the study area’s industrial zone land by 910 acres.

Draft Scenario 3 appears to be the closest related, in terms of proposed housing units and industrial zoned acres, to the No Project Alternative. This scenario proposes 18,800 housing units, which is a 52 percent increase from the No Project Alternative. This scenario would leave 2,370 industrial zoned acres for development, which is a 18 percent decrease compared to the No Project Alternative. The U.S. side of the study area, under this scenario, would have a forecasted housing unit increase of 6,400 units or 21 percent. This scenario would reduce the U.S. portion of study area’s industrial zoned land by 530 acres. Table 12 shows the residential and industrial land uses proposed for each draft land use scenario under evaluation.

Table 12 Otay Mesa Community Plan Draft Land Use Scenarios: Residential and Industrial

Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Attached and Single-Family Total Industrial Multi-Family Detached Units Housing Units Acres Units

No Project 4,800 7,600 12,400 2,900 Draft Scenario 1 5,000 24,400 29,400 2,070 Draft Scenario 2 5,000 26,800 31,800 1,990 Draft Scenario 3 4,600 14,200 18,800 2,370

6 City of San Diego, Otay Mesa Community Plan Update: Information Packet, July 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 19 Population, Housing, Land Use, And Employment

EMPLOYMENT

The following is an analysis of the current and projected employment in the study area. The following tables show the number of employees and employee density in each subarea.

Current Employment

Table 13 shows the total number of people employed in 2004. As of 2004, there were approximately 79,699 people employed in the study area.

Most of this employment is in the Mesa de Otay subarea, with approximately 65,000 people employed or 82 percent of the study area’s jobs. Out of that number, there are about 52,000 manufacturing jobs and 13,000 service sector jobs. The manufacturing jobs in Mesa de Otay account for almost one third of the manufacturing jobs in Tijuana.

About 17,000 people who work in Mesa de Otay’s manufacturing sector live in that subarea. These figures imply that the subarea is a significant labor draw for the rest of Tijuana. This is attributable to the maquiladora plant activity and its proximity to the border crossing. The Otay Mesa subarea has a total of 10,222 people employed. This subarea holds the second largest number of jobs in the study area and makes up 13 percent of the study area’s employment.

Table 13 Total Employment (2004)

2004 Subarea Total Employment

City of Chula Vista – Otay Ranch South of Olympic Parkway 2,043 City of San Diego – Otay Mesa 10,222 County of San Diego – East Otay Mesa 2,434 City of Tijuana – Mesa de Otay 65,000

Total Employment 79,699

Source: SANDAG and IMPlan

* Alamar River data is being collected and will be available in fall 2006

Forecasted 2030 Employment

By 2030, it is forecasted that the number of employed people in the San Diego County portion of the study area will have increased from 14,699 to approximately 71,974.7 The largest numerical growth will be in the Otay Mesa subarea, where it is forecasted that the number of people employed will increase from 10,222 to 41,633. Substantial increases in employment also will occur in Otay Ranch and East Otay Mesa. East Otay Mesa’s employment population would increase from 2,434 to 19,344, while Otay Ranch’s employment population would increase from 2,043 to 10,997.

7 Employment projections are not available for the study area in Tijuana.

20 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan INTERREGIONAL TRAVEL

In late 2004 and early 2005, SANDAG conducted surveys of crossborder travelers at the San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate POEs to assist in the development of a model that estimates economic impacts of border delays in the economy of the San Diego-Baja California region. People traveling in personal vehicles and buses, as well as individuals crossing on foot, were interviewed as they crossed from Mexico into the United States.

A total of 3,603 interviews were conducted between November 10 and December 12, 2004, as well as between January 18 and February 26, 2005. Of those interviews, nearly 2,600 took place at San Ysidro, approximately 900 at Otay Mesa, and about 160 at the Tecate POE. This chapter provides results from surveys conducted at the Otay Mesa POE and highlights differences from the overall survey responses.8

OTAY MESA PORT OF ENTRY: KEY FINDINGS OF CROSSBORDER TRAVEL SURVEYS

ƒ Nearly 70 percent of crossborder travelers who cross at the Otay Mesa POE live in Mexico.

Live In 69.7% Mexico2

Live In The 30.3% United States1

0 1020304050607080

8 SANDAG’s analysis of crossborder surveys conducted at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry for Estimating Economic Impacts of Border Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border Region, 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 21 Interregional Travel

ƒ 97 percent of respondents who live in Mexico began their trip in Tijuana.

Ensenada – 1.8% Rosarito – 1.3%

Tijuana – 97.0%

ƒ For people who live in Mexico, almost 32 percent of the trips had a destination in the City of Chula Vista, and another 20 percent of the trips were destined for San Ysidro. The community of Otay Mesa was the destination of 14 percent of the trips.

Other areas in San Diego County – 4.4% National City – 4.4% Otay Mesa* – 14.0%

Chula Vista – 31.8%

San Ysidro* – 19.6% Other areas of City of San Diego – 25.8%

*City of San Diego

ƒ For people who live in the United States, 87 percent of the trips had a destination in the City of Tijuana.9

Ensenada – 3.6% Rosarito – 9.4%

Tijuana – 87.1%

9 No chart is included for trip origins of crossborder travelers who live in the United States due to the large number of different origins.

22 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Interregional Travel

ƒ On average, more than 60 percent of border crossings into the San Diego region via the Otay Mesa POE made by people who live in Mexico are for shopping or errands (63.1%), and nearly one out of four crossings are work or business trips (23.8%). The overall share of work trips for all respondents at San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate POEs was 18.1%. Visiting friends and family also is a significant reason for crossing, and it accounts for almost one in five northbound crossings (19.8%).

56.5 Shopping or Errands 6.6

22.3 Work or Business 1.5

13.9 Visit Friends or Family 5.9

3.3 School 2.1

2.0 Recreation or Vacation 2.4

1.7 Other 0.0 Primary Purpose 0.5 Medical Secondary Purpose 0.4

0%0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% 60% 60%

% of Otay Mesa POE Border Crossings Among Those Who Live In Mexico

ƒ The surveys revealed different patterns for crossings into Mexico. The most common trip purpose is visiting family or friends (58.7%), then shopping or errands (26.7%), followed by recreation or vacation (25%).

Visit Family or Friends 52.8 5.9

Shopping or Errands 14.7 12.0

Recreation or Vacation 14.2 10.8

6.4 Work or Business 2.0

6.2 Medical 1.0

5.2 Other 6.2 Primary Purpose

0.5 Secondary Purpose School 0.0

0%0% 10% 20%20% 30%30% 40%40% 50%50% 60%60%

% of Otay Mesa POE Border Crossings Among Those Who Live In The United States

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 23 Interregional Travel

ƒ On average, in the previous 30 days, travelers who live in the United States crossed about eight times into Mexico, while travelers who live in Mexico crossed twelve times in the northbound direction. More than 38 percent of travelers who live in Mexico crossed more than ten times into the United States. About 22 percent of travelers who live in the United States crossed more than ten times in the southbound direction.

60%

49.8% 50% Live In United States 40% Live In Mexico

29.4% 30% 23.2% 22.3% 21.2% 20% 17 . 3 % 13 . 7 % 9.9% 10% 8.6% 4.9%

% Of Otay POE Mesa Border Crossings 0% 0 to 1 2 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 More than 20

Number Of Times Crossing The Border at Otay Mesa POE

CONCLUSIONS

Survey results indicate that nearly 70 percent of travelers from Mexico who cross at the Otay Mesa POE have a destination in South San Diego County, they travel mainly for shopping or work purposes, and almost 40 percent cross the border frequently (more than ten times in a month). These travel patterns suggest transportation improvements in Tijuana that would facilitate access to the border crossing both for drivers and for transit users, including implementation of peak period transit services to serve commute trips. Similarly, in the San Diego region, completion of SR 905 and the South Bay Expressway, as well as continuation of the MTS Route 905 service and implement- ation of planned regional transit routes, such as the South Bay Bus Rapid Transit service, would serve the crossborder travel patterns identified in the survey. It is estimated that, on average, at least 30,000 commuters travel across the border on weekdays from Tijuana/Tecate.

The survey also shows that all crossborder travelers from the San Diego region who cross at the Otay Mesa POE travel in the City of Tijuana, either as the final destination or to reach Rosarito or Ensenada. They cross principally to visit family and friends, although shopping and vacation trips also are an important reason to cross. In addition, more than 20 percent are frequent crossers. Improvements to local streets in Tijuana, which would link the POE with the regional transportation network, would facilitate the shopping and social trips identified in the survey.

24 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan

TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the multimodal transportation network in the study area and provides background information on the transportation issues discussed at the binational workshops, which are listed below. It also includes early action strategies to begin to address them.

ƒ Future East Otay Mesa – Otay II POE and connecting roads ƒ Improvements to existing Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE and connecting roads ƒ Improvements to crossborder and regional public transportation services

EXISTING SETTING

The transportation network in the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay binational area serves commuter, shopping, tourist, and goods movement travel within the United States and Mexico, as well as crossborder travel via the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE. This POE is the main commercial crossing between California and Mexico. In addition, the Otay Mesa POE handles a significant amount of commuter and tourist traffic between San Diego and Tijuana. The San Ysidro POE is located west of the study area and is the busiest passenger border crossing along the U.S.-Mexico border. It handles about 70 percent of the vehicle crossings and more than 80 percent of people traveling on foot into the San Diego region.

Interstate 805 (I-805) and SR 905/Otay Mesa Road are the main highways that serve the Otay Mesa area, while the Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road and the Tijuana-Rosarito Corridor are the principal regional facilities in Mesa de Otay. Figure 4 shows the existing transportation network, while Figure 5 illustrates the planned transportation network and land uses within the study area.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE

In 1985, the Otay Mesa POE was developed as a passenger and commercial POE. From 1985 to 1994, it handled only northbound cargo operations. In 1994, all southbound commercial cargo was rerouted from the Virginia Avenue gate at the San Ysidro POE to Otay Mesa. However, more than two decades after the federal inspection facilities began operating, the transportation network to serve this new POE still is under development. For many years, the only linkage between the POE and the regional highway system was via a four-lane city street, Otay Mesa Road, which was widened to six lanes in 1999. The only section of SR 905 extended to date includes approximately one mile between the Otay Mesa POE and Airway Road, including the interchange at Siempre Viva Road.

More than 6.8 million private vehicles and about 1.5 million pedestrians crossed northbound at the Otay Mesa border station in 2005. Also in 2005, the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE handled

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 25 Transportation

$24.4 billion worth of goods in both directions that were transported in more than 1.4 million trucks. The Otay Mesa POE has the highest rank in California and the third rank along the entire U.S.-Mexico border in terms of value of trade.

Figure 4 Current Transportation Network

26 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Figure 5 Planned Land Use and Transportation Network

Passenger and commercial crossings from Mexico into the United States, as well as bilateral trade, have grown significantly over the years, as shown in Figures 6 through 9. A noticeable increase in passenger vehicle crossings has taken place in 2004 and 2005. Pedestrian crossings have more than doubled since 2001, after reaching a peak in 2002 as a result of a shift from vehicle to pedestrian crossings due to longer vehicular waits at the border following the 9/11 events.

Delays in crossing the border have increased and become more unpredictable over time. Border wait times – especially in the northbound direction – are a result of growth in crossborder travel and stricter security screenings, coupled with constraints in transportation infrastructure. A recent SANDAG study10 quantified economic opportunities lost because of current and projected traffic congestion and delays at the San Diego-Baja California POEs. In particular, current delays for both personal crossborder trips and freight movement cost the San Diego-Baja California region

10 SANDAG, Estimating Economic Impacts of Wait Times at the San Diego-Baja California Border, 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 27 Transportation

$4.2 billion in lost output and a loss of more than 42,000 jobs in 2005. If steps are not taken to improve border crossing and transportation infrastructure and management, these losses are projected to more than double in the next ten years.

Figure 6 Otay Mesa POE – Northbound Passenger Vehicle and Bus Crossings

7,000,0007,000,000

6,000,0006,000,000

5,000,0005,000,000

4,000,0004,000,000

3,000,0003,000,000

2,000,0002,000,000

Number Of Passenger Vehicles and Buses 1,000,0001,000,000

00 19851985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 1990 1991 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office (data represent federal fiscal year)

Figure 7 Otay Mesa POE: Northbound Pedestrian Crossings

2,000,0002,000,000

1,800,0001,800,000

1,600,0001,600,000

1,400,0001,400,000

1,200,0001,200,000

1,000,0001,000,000

800,000800,000 Number Of Pedestrians 600,000600,000

400,000400,000

200,000200,000

00 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office (data represent federal fiscal year)

28 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Figure 8 Otay Mesa POE: Northbound Truck Crossings

800,000800,000

700,000700,000

600,000600,000

500,000500,000

400,000400,000

Number Of Trucks Trucks Of Number 300,000300,000

200,000200,000

100,000100,000

00 19851985 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988 1989 1989 1990 1990 1991 1991 1992 1992 1993 1993 1994 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 2005 Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Field Operations Office (data represent federal fiscal year)

Figure 9 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE: Two-Way Value of Trade

$25,000$25,000

$20,000$20,000

$15,000$15,000

$10,000$10,000 Two-Way Trade (in Trade (in millions) Two-Way Two-Way Trade (in millions) (in Trade Two-Way

$5,000$5,000

$0$0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Freight Data, 2006

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 29 Transportation

Figure 10 shows projected crossborder travel demand at the San Diego-Tijuana POEs. To provide additional crossborder travel capacity, a new POE has been proposed about two miles east of the existing Otay Mesa crossing. SR 11, an east-west extension of future SR 905, would connect the future East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE to a new facility in Tijuana, which would link to the Tijuana- Tecate Toll Road and the Tijuana-Rosarito Corridor.

Figure 10 San Diego-Tijuana POEs: Projected Crossborder Daily Vehicle Travel Demand (Two-Way)

300,000 300,000

San Ysidro Otay Mesa East Otay Mesa

250,000

200,000

150,000

of Vehicles Number 100,000

50,000

00

2000 2010 2020 2030 2030 Source: SANDAG, 2005

Highways

I-805 is the main north-south corridor serving the Otay Mesa area. Scheduled to open in early 2007, the South Bay Expressway (SR 125 Toll Road) will provide a new north-south corridor linking the border area and new communities in eastern Chula Vista to the rest of the San Diego region. This toll road is being funded through a public/private partnership.

Interim SR 905 (SR 905/Otay Mesa Road) is the principal east-west facility and provides the only access to the Otay Mesa POE. Forty thousand to sixty thousand vehicles travel daily on this road between I-805 and the border crossing. Trucks represent about 15 percent of the traffic. The first segment of the SR 905 extension, from the Otay Mesa POE to Airway Road, opened to traffic in September 2005. Construction of the second segment, from east of I-805 to Airway Road, is scheduled to begin in early 2007 and will take three to four years to complete. Cost increases, especially related to right-of-way acquisition, have delayed the completion of this project.

30 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

The Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road is the principal east-west highway in Mesa de Otay. It begins in the Mesa de Otay district of Tijuana, ending east of the city of Tecate. It is a 22-mile, 4-lane, controlled- access highway. This highway continues as a free facility for 41 miles to La Rumorosa and as a 30- mile toll road to El Centinela, west of Mexicali.

Currently under construction, the Tijuana-Rosarito Corridor will link Mesa de Otay in Tijuana and Playas de Rosarito. A connection to the future Otay II POE is under evaluation. The entire 28-mile facility is anticipated to be completed in late 2006.

As described in the previous section, the proposed SR 11 would link the future East Otay Mesa POE to SR 905 and the South Bay Expressway.

Transit

MTS provides public transportation between the Otay Mesa POE, the Iris Trolley Station, and the San Ysidro Trolley Station every 30 minutes on weekdays during morning and afternoon peak periods. Service starts at 4:50 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m. However, there is no service between approximately 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. In 2005, nearly 441,000 passengers traveled on MTS Route 905. Figure 11 illustrates current and planned transit services within the study area. The proposed routes shown in Tijuana are part of the City’s Draft Public Transportation Plan.

As a result of the MTS Comprehensive Operational Analysis, improvements to bus Route 905 are scheduled to start on September 3, 2006. Most notably, Route 905 will operate throughout the day with 30-minute frequencies (instead of only morning and afternoon peak periods), extending the service until 8:25 p.m. During peak periods, additional service will be provided to serve Otay Mesa business parks (Route 905A). Also, there will be new transit service on weekends every 30 minutes.

The end point of Route 905 will be at the Iris Avenue Trolley Station, while Route 929 will provide service between the Iris Avenue Trolley Station and the San Ysidro Trolley Station. Route 929 will be increasing to 15-minute frequencies all day on weekdays and 30-minute service on weekends.

The planned South Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) will provide direct service between the Otay Mesa POE and downtown San Diego. This BRT route would travel on the South Bay Expressway, I-805, and SR 94 and would serve the developing communities in eastern Chula Vista. Service between eastern Chula Vista and downtown San Diego would be implemented in 2010, and the extension to the Otay Mesa POE is anticipated to begin operating in 2015.

The potential for additional regional transit services in the Otay Mesa area will be evaluated as the City of San Diego continues its update of the Otay Mesa Community Plan in the next several months.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 31 Transportation

Figure 11 Current and Planned Transit Services

Airports

Two airports are located in the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay binational area. Brown Field is a general aviation airport and POE for private aircraft flying into the United States from Mexico. This airport is owned and operated by the City of San Diego. It has an 8,000-foot-long runway that can accommodate most aircraft and a second 3,000-foot-long runway.11

The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is updating Brown Field’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP contains compatibility criteria and review procedures for compatibility concerns such as noise, overflight, safety, and airspace protection. The City of San Diego is responsible for implementing the ALUCP, ensuring consistency with the General Plan, and submitting projects for review by the Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC). The Airport Authority anticipates adopting the final ALUCP in 2007.

11 http://www.sandiego.gov/airports/brown/index.shtml, accessed on 4/17/06.

32 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Tijuana International Airport is a passenger and cargo airport with service to major cities in Mexico. It has a single runway of 9,800 feet with options to extend it up to 15,000 feet and to build a second runway. Tijuana International Airport handled nearly 3.4 million passengers in 2004.12

Since the late 1990s, the concept of a crossborder passenger terminal has been discussed to provide easier access for travelers from the United States to the Tijuana International Airport. Travelers would park at a terminal that would be located in the community of Otay Mesa and proceed to the Tijuana Airport via a secured walkway. The South County Economic Development Council conducted the Crossborder Air Passenger Terminal Facility study in 1998. According to this study, a crossborder terminal would reduce vehicular congestion at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa POEs by as much as three percent. Direct foreign flights would increase the economic activity along the Otay Mesa-Tijuana corridor and extend the operational life of the San Diego International Airport. Surveys conducted for this study at the Tijuana airport estimated that 1.09 million annual passengers originate from the Southern California region.13

In December 2005, the possibility of the crossborder terminal was discussed with Mexican government officials during a trade mission to Mexico City arranged by the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce's Mexico Business Center. In July 2006, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s Board accepted its Strategic Planning Committee recommendation to develop a scope of work for a crossborder terminal development with participation from other stakeholder agencies, including the operator of the Tijuana International Airport. The scope of work and cost estimate are anticipated to be presented to the Authority’s Board in September 2006 for action. Following approval from the Authority’s Board, staff would seek funding from the Federal Aviation Administration.14

Freight Rail

There is no freight rail service within the study area. However, there is a crossborder "short-haul" railroad, the San Diego and Arizona Eastern (SD&AE) Railway, which connects San Diego to the north with Los Angeles and the nation’s intercontinental railway network via de Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railways. In 2005, more than 6,000 carloads (equivalent to 48,000 truck trips) crossed the border predominantly in the southbound direction. The main commodities moved include liquefied petroleum gas, lumber, beverages, paper, grain, and sand.

The SD&AE Railway also connects San Diego with the Imperial Valley via the Tijuana-Tecate Railway (owned by Mexico) and the SD&AE Desert Line. Beginning in 2005, the Desert Line was opened to limited service (10 mph). Further rehabilitation of both the Desert and Tijuana-Tecate Lines and restoration to modern service is necessary to improve the market potential of this route for international and interstate movement of goods in, out, and through the Southern California/Baja California region.

12 http://www.aena.es/, accessed on 9/16/05. 13 South County Economic Development Council, Crossborder Air Passenger Terminal Facility, Phase I Report, 1998. 14 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Authority Board Meeting, July 24, 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 33 Transportation

The proposed Desert Line improvements are not expected to significantly reduce the present amount of crossborder truck traffic on the region’s highways and arterials. However, rehabilitation of the Desert Line to modern service would likely attract companies with east-west shipping interests to locate in northern Baja California.15 In addition, proposals to expand port facilities at the Ports of San Diego and Ensenada (Mexico) would likely affect crossborder freight transportation, although those potential impacts have not been evaluated at this time.16

As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan, SANDAG has prepared a draft Goods Movement/Freight Intermodal Strategy Issue Paper. One of the issues posed in this draft paper is whether rail alternatives should be considered to help reduce (or divert) the existing volume of crossborder trucks. Input from stakeholders and policy direction from the SANDAG Board of Directors on this and other freight issues will be sought in the next several months.

FUTURE EAST OTAY MESA – OTAY II POE AND CONNECTING ROADS

Development of a POE is a complex and lengthy undertaking which involves close coordination and collaboration with governmental agencies on both sides of the international border at the federal, state, regional, and municipal levels. Project development includes the border stations in each country and roads connecting those border stations to the regional transportation network. Various entities are responsible for different planning, permitting, and implementation activities in the United States and Mexico.

Status of the Proposed East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE

An early recognition of the need to plan for additional border transportation infrastructure is the letter of intent signed in 1998 by Caltrans, SANDAG, the County of San Diego, the City of San Diego, the Baja California Secretariat of Human Settlements and Public Works (Secretaría de Asentamientos Humanos y Obras Pùblicas del Estado de Baja California or SAHOPE17), and the Municipalities of Tijuana and Playas de Rosarito to preserve the binational highway corridor created by SR 11/SR 125 and the Tijuana-Rosarito Corridor, including support for the creation of a new POE designated as East Otay Mesa-Otay II.

United States

In 2000, Caltrans prepared a project study report (project development support) for SR 11, which would connect the East Otay Mesa border station to the regional roadway network (SR 905 and SR 125). as well as provide local area access. In 2001, Caltrans also submitted an application to the U.S. Department of State (DOS) for a New Port of Entry at East Otay Mesa.18

15 SANDAG, 2030 Revenue Constrained Regional Transportation Plan: 2006 Update, 2006. 16 There is also a proposal for a new Baja California seaport at Punta Colonet, south of Ensenada, which would have a rail connection to Mexicali. 17 SAHOPE was restructured and is now called Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano Estatal/Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development or SIDUE. 18 At the time of submittal in 2001, Presidential Permits were not required for land crossings (crossings without a bridge). However, requirements for new land crossings were similar to those for projects requiring Presidential Permits, particularly with regard to environmental documentation and were evaluated through the same interagency process. In 2004, Executive Order 13337 was signed requiring Presidential Permits for land border POEs. DOS is developing new guidance

34 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

In 2002, a Biological Constraints Report for SR 11 was completed. Spring biological surveys were conducted in 2005. A consultant was hired in November 2005 to prepare the environmental document.

In December 2005, Caltrans District 11 – as the East Otay Mesa POE project sponsor – met with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and other federal agencies to discuss the coordination of the presidential permit and environmental clearance processes for the East Otay Mesa POE and SR 11. At this meeting, it was agreed that Caltrans would conduct the environmental work for SR 11 to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would work as co-lead with the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.

At this meeting, it was also confirmed that the East Otay Mesa POE had been included in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) five-year Capital Improvement Plan. Inclusion in this plan allows CBP to request that the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) commence work on the project (e.g., preparation of standard prospectus, feasibility study, and design process). GSA has requested correspondence from CBP (Field Operations and the Office of Finance) stating that they would like GSA to move forward with the project development process for the East Otay Mesa POE.

U.S. DOS coordinates with the Government of Mexico through the Secretariat of Foreign Relations (SRE) and the Embassy of Mexico on issues affecting the U.S.-Mexico border. U.S. DOS communicates with the Government of Mexico via diplomatic notes. In January 2006, U.S. DOS sent the Embassy of Mexico a diplomatic note stating the interest of the U.S. federal government in the construction of a new border crossing at East Otay Mesa. A response from the Government of Mexico was forwarded to U.S. DOS in May 2006 indicating the Mexican government’s interest in conducting the necessary feasibility studies on both sides of the border.

As part of a recommended follow-up from the December 2005 meeting with the White House CEQ in January 2006, Caltrans District 11/U.S. DOS established a U.S. interagency working group that meets regularly to coordinate environmental clearance, the Presidential Permit process, and other project planning activities on the U.S. side of the border. The working group has been meeting bimonthly and includes federal, state, and regional stakeholders involved in the development of SR 11 and the proposed new POE.

The proposed East Otay Mesa POE and SR 11 are currently in the environmental phase. Caltrans has met with various federal agencies to discuss the NEPA process. To accelerate the development of the project, it has been agreed that Caltrans will prepare a tiered or programmatic environmental document. The first phase will consist of a preliminary environmental document that will cover the footprint for both the POE and SR 11. This will allow for protection of the corridor and will improve the ability to compete for capital funding. The second phase would be project-level environmental documents developed separately for each portion of the project.

for the Presidential Permit process for land border POEs. Presidential approval and signature are not necessary. Permits are signed by the United States’ Secretary of State and by Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Relations.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 35 Transportation

Mexico

In 2002, SCT conducted a preliminary feasibility study to assess cargo operations at the existing Mesa de Otay POE and future Mexican General Customs Administration (Aduanas) needs in Tijuana, based on forecasts of trade and truck traffic.19 This study projected that approximately 7,600 average daily trucks would travel across the San Diego-Tijuana border in 2010, which would represent three times the truck volume in 1995. By 2020, an average of 11,500 crossborder trucks would travel daily. A conclusion of this study is that pressure on border transportation infrastructure will continue to be strong, and a new POE at Otay II should be implemented expeditiously. Additional studies for the future Otay II POE were developed by SIDUE, the Autonomous University of Baja California (Universidad Autónoma de Baja California or UABC), and SCT.

IMPlan coordinated the preparation of a partial program for the Improvement of Mesa de Otay Este (Programa Parcial de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este), which covers the period between 2004 and 2025. This document considered the location of the future Otay II POE in Mesa de Otay Este. It also developed a circulation study to analyze three alternatives to link the proposed POE to Tijuana’s regional transportation network.20

Concurrently with the preparation of the partial program, in August 2005, the Municipality of Tijuana issued a resolution that restricts the use of a 37-hectare parcel adjacent to the international border in Mesa de Otay Este for the future Otay II POE.21

SIDUE also has prepared a scope of work for the development of an economic and financial study for the Otay II POE. SIDUE is seeking funding to conduct this study. Caltrans and SANDAG are conducting a financial feasibility assessment for the proposed SR 11 and East Otay Mesa POE.

In Tijuana, the Industrial Maquiladora Association (Asociación de la Industria Maquiladora or AIM) has been coordinating activities related to the future Otay II POE with the public and private sectors.

19 Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes), Análisis para el Puerto Fronterizo de Otay II, 2002. 20 Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano and IMPlan, Programa Parcial de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este, en la ciudad de Tijuana, Baja California, 2005. 21 XVIII Ayuntamiento de Tijuana, Declaratoria de Destino para la Localización del Puerto Fronterizo Otay II, 2005.

36 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

IMPROVEMENTS TO OTAY MESA-MESA DE OTAY POE AND CONNECTING ROADS

Background

In 2004, Caltrans District 11 completed the Transportation Infrastructure and Traffic Management Analysis of Cross Border Bottleneck Study (Bottleneck Study) at the request of the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee (JWC).22 The Bottleneck Study responded to the U.S.-Mexico Border Partnership Action Plan and, specifically, to Action Item 2 of the 22-Point Smart Border Action Plan, which calls for developing a prioritized list of infrastructure projects and taking immediate action to relieve bottlenecks. In addition, Caltrans carried out the Phase I case study of the San Diego-Tijuana Gateway and identified a number of improvements in the operational efficiency and flow of vehicles traveling across the Otay Mesa Commercial POE and the San Ysidro POE.23

Recommendations for southbound flow at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial POE mostly focused on improving unsignalized traffic intersections, access leading to the U.S. export facility, and the re-routing of commercial empties within the Mexican import facility. For northbound truck traffic, the recommendations focused on operational improvements. In the area between Mexico’s Export facility and U.S. Import facility, a need was identified to increase the capacity for trucks leaving from the Mexican export to the U.S. import facilities from three to four lanes, and ultimately to eight lanes for a more efficient use of the existing inspection gates. Another improvement identified at this location is to re-route empty trucks to avoid entering secondary inspection compound and passing through a new x-ray and CBP booth to expedite the processing of empty commercial vehicles. In 2005, the U.S.-Mexico JWC accepted the Bottleneck Study and its methodology for borderwide use.

Proposed Improvements to Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial POE

To follow up on the work conducted by Caltrans in the Bottleneck Study, several coordination meetings were held with participation from CBP, Mexican Customs, Caltrans, and SANDAG staff to review possible improvements within the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial POE. Figure 12 illustrates the capital and operational improvements jointly reviewed.

Caltrans has prepared a draft project study report for improvements within the U.S. import yard at the Otay Mesa border station. This project includes the following components: add approaches and gates for two regular inspection booths; extend the existing Free and Secure Trade (FAST)24 lane; add another FAST lane north of the existing one; and stripe KEEP CLEAR zones at major changes of direction to help operational efficiency. The project components are shown in Figure 11 as items 6a and 6b. Caltrans will conduct additional preliminary engineering and environmental tasks in 2006. The project is anticipated to be operational in June 2007.

22 The JWC was created through a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Transportation and Mexico’s Secretariat of Communications and Transportation in 1994. The JWC consists of transportation and planning representatives from the ten border states (four in the United States and six in Mexico), the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of State, Mexican Secretariat of Communications and Transportation, and the Mexican Foreign Ministry. The formal charge of the JWC is “analyzing, developing, and coordinating border transportation plans and programs reflecting the needs of both countries.” 23 Caltrans, Transportation Infrastructure and Traffic Management Analysis of Cross Border Bottlenecks, 2004. 24 FAST is a commercial process offered by CBP to pre-approved importers, carriers, and registered drivers that results in quicker clearance across the border.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 37 Transportation

Figure 12 Proposed Capital and Operational Improvements at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial Port of Entry

38 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Bina tional Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

CROSSBORDER AND REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

South Bay BRT

The South Bay BRT project is one of the highest priority transit projects in the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the TransNet Early Action Program (EAP). The South Bay BRT will provide high-speed transit connections between downtown San Diego and the Otay Mesa POE along the I-805 Managed Lanes and a dedicated transitway through eastern Chula Vista.

Figure 13 illustrates the South Bay BRT Corridor. The long-range plan envisions the BRT providing access to regional employment centers in downtown San Diego, residential and commercial areas in National City, transit-oriented villages in Otay Ranch, the future Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center, the Otay Mesa Business Park, and the Otay Mesa POE.25 The TransNet Extension provides capital and operating funding for the first phase of this project between downtown San Diego and the Eastern Urban Center in Chula Vista beginning in 2010. A description of the second phase of this project, or the Otay Mesa segment, is provided in the section below.

Phase II: Otay Mesa Segment

South of the Eastern Urban Center, the southernmost station in the Otay Ranch development would serve a future major university or multi-purpose university center. South of this university station, the BRT would access the SR 125 toll road at the Otay Valley Road interchange. The South Bay BRT would then exit SR 125 at the Otay Mesa Boulevard station just south of SR 905. The route would continue for one mile to a station at the Otay Mesa POE. The Otay Mesa segment is expected to begin operations in 2015.

Otay Mesa POE Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives Study

SANDAG, MTS, and the City of San Diego have been coordinating efforts with Caltrans on the Otay Mesa POE Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives Study. This study is evaluating bicycle and pedestrian circulation improvements in the vicinity of the Otay Mesa passenger border crossing, including the extension of a pedestrian bridge along the west side of SR 905. Figure 14 illustrates existing bicycle and pedestrian circulation and highlights proposed pedestrian bridge and streetscape enhancements.

As part of this project, a parcel of land has been identified for a South Bay BRT transportation center that would be immediately adjacent to the pedestrian bridge under evaluation and would connect the border area with the transit station. The property is currently for sale. Because of its ideal size and location, SANDAG has hired a consultant to develop an appraisal with the potential to make an offer for this property. While it is desirable to move quickly on the parcel due to the limited locations near the border, there could be implications for potential Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding for the project as a result of advanced acquisition. If it is determined that an offer should be made, a recommendation will be presented to SANDAG’s Transportation Committee for action.

25 SANDAG, South Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project Status, April 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 39 Transportation

Figure 13 South Bay Bus Rapid Transit Corridor

DowntownDowntown 94 47thth St GoldenGolden 47 St HillHill

1818thth StSt OtayOtay RanchRanch HH StreetStreet VillagesVillages

PalomarPalomar

805

Phase I OtayOtay MesaMesa Phase II BorderBorder CrossingCrossing

40 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Bina tional Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Figure 14 Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives

Otay Mesa Port of Entry Pedestrian and Bike Circulation Alternative Study

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binati onal Corridor Strategic Plan 41 Transportation

City of Tijuana’s Draft Public Transportation Plan

One of the objectives of the partial program for the Improvement of Mesa de Otay Este is to improve the accessibility and mobility of people and goods for local and regional travel, as well as crossborder travel, giving high-priority to public transportation. In addition, the Partial Program identifies the Industrial Zone as the most important job center in Mesa de Otay and proposes to improve its transportation facilities, transit services, and urban image.26

A strong demand for transportation facilities and transit services in the City of Tijuana requires administration, control, and planning actions that could be implemented gradually over time. Restructuring transit services to meet the travel patterns of the residents represents a challenge.27

The City of Tijuana has identified several current issues related to public transportation services,28 which include saturated streets and roads due to growth in vehicular traffic, transit boardings in inadequate places, an older bus fleet, congested travel lanes due to the lack of schedules for transit routes, as well as deficient control of transit operations.

An origin and destination survey revealed that the mode share for walking trips is estimated at nearly 42 percent, while 32 percent of the trips are auto trips. Fixed-route transit trips account for nearly 18 percent of the trips. Four percent of the trips are made by bicycle.

To analyze travel patterns within the city, 14 basins, or travel zones, were delineated. Zone numbers 8 and 9 correspond generally with Mesa de Otay Este and the Alamar River zone, as shown in Figure 15. Several transit routes are proposed in each of these zones. The City of Tijuana’s evaluation proposes a phased restructuring of the City’s transit services.

EARLY ACTION STRATEGIES

ISSUE— East Otay Mesa – Otay II Port of Entry (POE) and connecting roads

EARLY ACTION— Establish the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE Technical Commission to advance planning and implementation of the future East Otay Mesa- Otay II POE and connecting roads as a binational project, in collabora- tion with Caltrans, SIDUE, and IMPlan, and based upon discussions with the U.S. interagency coordination group

26 Secretaría de Desarrollo Urbano and IMPlan, Programa Parcial de Mejoramiento de la Mesa de Otay Este, Pages 14 and 15, 2005. 27 City of Tijuana, Estudio Integral para la Reestructuración de Rutas de Transporte Público de Pasajeros en el Municipio de Tijuana (2004-2025). 28 Transit services are provided by private operators under concession agreements with the City of Tijuana.

42 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Figure 15 City of Tijuana’s Travel Zones

9 10

1 13

11 2 8 3 12 7

4

5 6

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binati onal Corridor Strategic Plan 43 Transportation

Under the umbrella of the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison Mechanism (BLM), the Consulate General of Mexico in San Diego and the U.S. General Consulate in Tijuana would request that the Binational Group on Projects of International Ports of Entry (California – Baja California Region), under the Infrastructure and Ports of Entry Committee, establish a Technical Commission. This Technical Commission would be responsible for coordinating planning and implement- ation activities for the new POE and connecting transportation facilities on both sides of the border. Figure 16 illustrates the organizational chart of the San Diego-Tijuana BLM. Proposed objectives of the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE Technical Commission are outlined below: f Identify the planning process that needs to take place on both sides of the border to effectively implement the new POE and connecting roads. f Prepare a joint work program and master calendar of tasks to align implementation activities for the new POE, including connecting roads and land acquisition on both sides of the border. f Identify or confirm the lead agency for each task. f Facilitate the dissemination and sharing of information on ongoing and future planning and implementation activities. f Evaluate the feasibility of financing the POE and connecting roads on both sides of the border through public private partnerships, including tolls, developers’ contributions, or other innovative financing mechanisms. f Evaluate the feasibility of utilizing innovative crossborder strategies to mitigate environmental impacts of transportation facilities.

Technical Commission Representatives Initially, the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE Technical Commission would include executive level staff from the following agencies:

f United States U.S. Department of State, U.S. General Consulate in Tijuana, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, U.S. General Services Administration, U.S. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caltrans, City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, and SANDAG.

44 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Figure 16 Organizational Chart of the San Diego-Tijuana Border Liaison Mechanism

Border Liaison Mechanism San Diego - Tijuana

Public Safety and Infrastructure and Migration and Consular Environment and Natural Civil Protection Committee Ports of Entry Committee Protection Committee Resources Committee

1. Public Safety, Civil 1. Ports of Entry Tijuana River Basin Protection, and B order Authorities Working Working Group Incidents Authorities Group Working Group 2. Port Working Group 2. Binational Public Safety 3. Cargo Working Group Working Group 4. Binational Group on 3. Auto Theft Working Projects of International Group Ports of Entry, California 4. Binational Communica- – Baja California Region tion Working Group a. Technical Commission for Otay II 5. San Diego-Tijuana b.Technical Commission Emergency Preparedness for El Chaparral-San Response Task Force Ysidro

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binati onal Corridor Strategic Plan 45 Transportation

f Mexico Secretariat of Exterior Relations (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores), Consulate General of Mexico in San Diego, Secretariat of Communications and Transportation (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes), General Customs Administration (Aduanas), National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración), Institute for Management and Appraisals of Federal Properties (Instituto de Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales), Office of the Governor of Baja California, Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado), Municipality of Tijuana, Municipal Planning Institute of Tijuana (Instituto Municipal de Planeación), and Municipality of Playas de Rosarito.

Other agencies may be invited to participate on specific tasks as work progresses.

The San Diego-Tijuana BLM would call meetings of the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE Technical Commission as needed to share progress on the activities under their guidance.

An initial set of studies and activities that would be conducted has been identified, as shown below. ƒ SR 11 and East Otay Mesa POE programmatic or tiered Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). ƒ Feasibility Study for Otay Mesa and East Otay Mesa Border Stations (GSA’s Functionality Study). ƒ Otay II POE Technical Feasibility Study (INDAABIN’s Functionality Study). ƒ Financial Feasibility Assessment for the East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE and connecting transportation facilities and Otay II POE Financial Feasibility Study. ƒ Land Use/Open Space Conservation Study for SR 11 potential alignments. ƒ Land acquisition for the Otay II POE.

œ —————— 

ISSUE— Improvements to existing Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE and connecting roads

EARLY ACTION— Coordinate with CBP and Mexican Customs on the process to fund and implement identified short-term capital and operational improvements at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Commercial POE

As shown on Figure 11, several capital and operational projects have been identified to improve the efficiency of commercial inspections at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay border crossing. Caltrans is leading the implementation of two of those projects in the Otay Mesa border station. In cooperation with

46 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Transportation

Caltrans, SANDAG proposes to continue coordination efforts with CBP, GSA, and Mexican Customs toward funding and implementing the remaining improvements at the U.S. and Mexican border stations.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, Caltrans, CBP, GSA, Mexican Customs

EARLY ACTION— Explore the feasibility of short-term operational and capital improve- ments at the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Passenger POE (operations and facilities)

SANDAG proposes to collaborate with CBP, GSA, Caltrans, and Mexican Customs to explore the feasibility of identifying short-term operational and capital projects to improve travel flows and the efficiency of security screenings at the passenger inspection facilities.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, Caltrans, CBP, GSA, Mexican Customs

EARLY ACTION— Collaborate with the City of San Diego on the Otay Mesa Community Plan update in relation to transportation implications of future land uses changes under consideration

As described in earlier chapters, the City of San Diego is analyzing three alternative scenarios that contemplate a range of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses. SANDAG proposes to work together with the City of San Diego, Caltrans, and MTS on the evaluation of future travel demand in the Otay Mesa corridor to serve the proposed alternative land uses.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— City of San Diego, SANDAG, Caltrans, MTS

œ —————— 

ISSUE— Improvements to crossborder and regional public transportation services

EARLY ACTION— Initiate advanced planning work to extend the South Bay BRT service between Eastern Chula Vista and the Otay Mesa POE

In its FY 2007 Overall Work Program, SANDAG proposes to conduct advanced planning, including studies of right-of-way requirements, station siting, and priority measures at the border for the Phase II: Otay Mesa segment of the South Bay BRT.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, Caltrans, MTS

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 47 Transportation

EARLY ACTION— Complete the Otay Mesa POE Paseo de la Amistad Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation Alternatives Study. To complement this study, perform right-of-way engineering services, including title, appraisal, and potential acquisition negotiations for a parcel in the vicinity of the Otay Mesa POE where a proposed South Bay BRT Transportation Center would be located

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Caltrans, SANDAG, MTS, City of San Diego

EARLY ACTION— Evaluate the City of Tijuana’s Draft Public Transportation Plan focusing on routes that would serve the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE

As described in this chapter, the City of Tijuana has evaluated trip origins and destinations, as well as travel modes and patterns within the city. An evaluation of the transit routes proposed to serve the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE, as well as consideration of transit services to and from the San Ysidro POE, is proposed to be conducted. This analysis also would take into account existing and planned transit services in South San Diego County.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG and IMPlan

48 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

Two of the economic development issues discussed at the binational workshops are to promote creation or expansion of common employment clusters on both sides of the border and to address future industrial land use supply and demand. This chapter provides background information on these issues and proposes early action strategies to begin to address them.

EXISTING SETTING

The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay binational area is home to the busiest commercial border crossing between California and Mexico. The Otay Mesa POE handled $24.4 billion worth of freight in 2005, which represents the third highest dollar value of trade among all land border crossings between the United States and Mexico.29 The Otay Mesa POE also accommodates the second largest volume of passenger vehicles and buses between California and Mexico, after the San Ysidro border crossing. Crossborder travel contributes to economic activity on both sides of the border since the predominant reasons for crossing the border are for shopping, work, or social visits, in addition to goods movement.

The border crossing is the main conduit for the economic relationship of the San Diego-Tijuana region. Structural and economic differences between San Diego and Tijuana have been capitalized over the years to provide the binational region with a competitive advantage in the global economy.30 The San Diego region relies on the labor force available in Mexico, while Tijuana’s economy benefits from employment opportunities in San Diego. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Tijuana housing market may be filling a gap in affordable housing in the San Diego region, bringing about increased crossborder commuting for work.

However, as described in the Transportation chapter, congestion and delays to cross the border have increased and become more unpredictable over time. Traffic congestion and wait times at the San Diego-Baja California POEs for both personal crossborder trips and freight movement cost the binational region $4.2 billion in lost output and a loss of more than 42,000 jobs in 2005. If steps are not taken to improve border crossing and transportation infrastructure and management, these losses are projected to more than double in the next ten years.

The Maquiladora program has supported economic development in Baja California, particularly in Tijuana. Established in the mid 1960s, this program allows plants in Mexico to temporarily import component parts from the United States or other countries and then to export the products. Maquiladoras rely on comparatively lower-cost Mexican labor to assemble, process, or manufacture

29 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Freight Data, 2005. 30 SANDAG, San Diego Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy: Toward a Shared Economic Vision for the San Diego Region, 1998.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 49 Economic Development goods. The maquiladora industry not only has created employment opportunities in Baja California, but also in the San Diego region, including the Otay Mesa area.

The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay area has the opportunity to play a major role in the economic development of the San Diego-Tijuana region. Land use and employment data shown earlier in this report indicate that the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa and the County of San Diego’s Otay community planning areas, as well as eastern Chula Vista contribute a large supply of developable industrial, commercial, and office lands. Employment is forecast to grow significantly by 2030 in these areas from nearly 14,700 jobs in 2004 to almost 72,000 jobs in 2030. Mesa de Otay, in Tijuana, also includes industrial land uses in the vicinity of the existing and planned border crossings and already is an important job center in the City of Tijuana with about 65,000 jobs in 2004.

EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS

The San Diego region, as well as the City of Tijuana and the State of Baja California, have identified export-oriented industrial clusters. Industrial clusters are groups of complementary, competing, and interdependent industries that drive wealth creation in a region, primarily through export of goods and services. This section describes relevant plans on both sides of the border that evaluate industrial clusters.

San Diego Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy

The REPS is an extensive analysis of the San Diego regional economy that provides a historical context of local economic performance and a current snapshot of the San Diego economy.31 A comparative analysis with other metropolitan areas across the United States on a wide selection of indicators creates a benchmark with which to compare San Diego. Through this analysis, REPS identifies challenges facing the San Diego region and offers a set of recommended actions designed to meet these challenges.

The current REPS examines San Diego by four major indicator categories, which are listed below along with examples of each type of indicator. f Social and Economic Performance f Economic Development Capacity ƒ Population: change and characteristics ƒ Educational Attainment ƒ Labor Force ƒ Residential Density ƒ Personal Income ƒ Housing ƒ Employment ƒ Affordability ƒ Poverty ƒ Air Quality ƒ Consumer Price Index/Inflation f Business Vitality f Regional Infrastructure Capacity ƒ Gross Regional Product ƒ Commute Time ƒ Industrial Wage and Salary ƒ Infrastructure Investment ƒ New Business Licenses/Bankruptcy Filings ƒ Regional Capital Improvements ƒ Labor Force Productivity ƒ Educational Expenditures

31 SANDAG, San Diego Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy: Toward a Shared Economic Vision for the San Diego Region, 1998.

50 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Economic Development

Driving the San Diego regional economy are 16 export-oriented industrial clusters, which are listed below.

ƒ Biomedical Products ƒ Financial Services ƒ Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals ƒ Fruit and Vegetables ƒ Communications ƒ Horticulture ƒ Computer and Electronics ƒ Publishing ƒ Defense and Transportation Equipment ƒ Recreational Goods ƒ Design ƒ Software ƒ Entertainment and Amusement ƒ Specialty Foods ƒ Environmental Technology ƒ Travel and Hospitality

The 1998 Prosperity Strategy recommended a set of actions related to infrastructure investment and regulatory reform. Related to economic development in the San Diego-Baja California border region, Action 6 recommends improving “the collaborative effort on the part of private sector organizations and government agencies that are jointly responsible for maintaining and improving the region's access to domestic and international markets. Included in these discussions should be representatives from the Republic of Mexico.”

To evaluate the Prosperity Strategy, SANDAG produces a Sustainable Competitiveness Index, which was last updated in 2005. Currently, SANDAG is collecting and analyzing data to identify regional strengths and weaknesses. SANDAG will be relying on this information to update the Prosperity Strategy in 2006.

Previous Prosperity Strategy reports tracked San Diego’s progress through the economic restruc- turing of the mid to late 1990s. In 1998, the Prosperity Strategy tracked San Diego’s emergence from the economic restructuring of the 1990s as a world-class, high-technology economy. The San Diego region faces new challenges, which require analysis and the development of strategies to improve the San Diego region’s economic performance. This examination will be the focus of the 2006 San Diego Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy, which is an element of SANDAG’s RCP.

Otay Mesa Community Plan Update

SANDAG currently is updating the 2030 Regional Growth Forecast based on recent local demo- graphic and economic trends, a new forecast of the U.S. economy, and updates to local general and community plans. Between 2005 and 2030, the San Diego region is expected to grow by almost one million people, add 285,700 new homes, and add 456,200 new jobs.32

32 SANDAG, 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update, May 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 51 Economic Development

Table 14 shows the current data and forecast results.

Table 14 Regional Forecast Results

Change 2005 2030 Numeric Percent

Total Population 3,051,280 4,007,753 956,473 31%

Housing Units 1,108,500 1,394,165 285,665 26%

Total Employment 1,382,671 1,838,899 456,228 33%

Source: SANDAG, 2030 Regional Growth Forecast Update, May 2006

Results from the regional forecast suggest that there is an imbalance in current plans between areas identified for future residential and employment growth. Over the forecast, the region fully develops all of its residential capacity. In 2030, however, there is still enough land designated for employment (17,000 acres) to locate over 228,000 jobs.

As described earlier in this report, as part of its update of the Otay Mesa Community Plan, the City of San Diego is considering several land use alternatives that would result in more land designated for residential uses and, concurrently, would reduce industrial acreage. These alternatives would accommodate between 12,400 housing units (No Project Alternative) and 31,800 units (Alternative 2). Industrial zoned land would range between 1,990 acres (Alternative 2) and 2,900 acres (No Project Alternative). The City of San Diego is conducting outreach activities to obtain community input regarding the plan update.33

The Otay Mesa Community Plan update presents an opportunity for an evaluation of the future demand of land for high value industrial clusters, while also taking into account competing demand for residential uses.

Development Plans for the City of Tijuana and the State of Baja California

The City of Tijuana’s Municipal Development Plan includes policies, objectives, strategies, and actions to guide the municipal administration over the three-year period from 2005 through 2007. An objective of the 2005-2007 Municipal Development Plan is to promote the creation of industrial clusters in six strategic areas, such as automotive industry, medical products, wood products, electronic industry, software, and information technologies.34

This plan also calls for fostering the preparation of strategic plans to develop clusters in cooperation with the federal, state, and private sectors.

33 City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Planning Workshop, July 2006. 34 COPLADEM, XVIII Ayuntamiento Municipal de Tijuana, Plan Municipal de Desarrollo, 2005-2007.

52 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Economic Development

One of the economic development objectives of the State of Baja California Development Plan is to improve the state’s industrial competitiveness.35 The State of Baja California has identified export- oriented industrial clusters in the Municipality of Tijuana, and several of those clusters coincide with the ones included in the City of Tijuana’s Municipal Development Plan, such as the electronic industry, medical products, and automotive parts.36

Table 15 highlights the commonality of the industrial clusters in the San Diego-Tijuana region.

Table 15 Shared Export-Driven Industrial Clusters in the San Diego Region and Tijuana

San Diego Region Tijuana

ƒ Software ƒ Software and Information Technologies ƒ Computer and Electronics ƒ Electronic Industry ƒ Biomedical Products ƒ Medical Products ƒ Defense and Transportation Equipment ƒ Automotive Industry

Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative

San Diego Dialogue’s Crossborder Innovation & Competitiveness Initiative is a multi-year effort to explore the concept that the San Diego-Baja California region will be more globally competitive in key science and technology sectors by leveraging economic development opportunities linking both sides of the border. This concept includes not only crossborder research partnerships, but also catalyzing connections between the San Diego and Baja California economies in high value-added sectors that link the Research and Development (R&D) capabilities to manufacturing and service industries in our region.37

In early 2006, San Diego Dialogue – in partnership with CENTRIS and CICESE – completed a research project that identified “clusters of opportunity” with the potential to help the San Diego-Baja California region better compete in the global economy.38 This is the first major project conducted to advance the Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative.

Borderless Innovation identified clusters of opportunity in high value-added sectors on both sides of the border, which could stimulate new kinds of industry partnerships and institutional alliances that could be beneficial to both Baja California’s economic growth and the continued competitiveness of San Diego’s high tech economy.39 A new Innovation Corridor of the Californias would be promoted through collaborative efforts to promote a new vision of the regional economy.

35 State of Baja California, Plan Estatal de Desarrollo 2002-2007. 36 http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/portal/negocios/industria.jsp, accessed on 4/28/06. 37 http://www.sandiegodialogue.org/initiatives.htm, accessed on 4/28/06. 38 CENTRIS is an economic development collaborative in Tijuana. Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada or CICESE is a federally funded science and technology research center. 39 San Diego Dialogue, Borderless Innovation: Catalizing the Competitiveness of the San Diego-Baja California Region, 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 53 Economic Development

Borderless Innovation identifies biomedical devices, aerospace and defense, software, marine biotechnology, and clinical research as the most promising areas of collaboration. Additional clusters with potential for collaboration and joint marketing include: energy and environmental technologies, recreation and sporting goods, semiconductor manufacturing, and automotive.

The study presents three major findings outlined below: 1. There is a need for aggressive and collaborative marketing efforts describing the high value- added crossborder clusters in the region focused on high-tech and biotech industries interested in the physical proximity to all the components of the innovation ecosystem — from R&D to manufacturing and distribution. 2. Leadership from both sides of the border needs to come together to work collaboratively to significantly expand the research, technical assistance, professional, and workforce education programs essential to assuring sustainable growth and competitiveness. 3. New social and institutional mechanisms are needed to move the crossborder region beyond symbolism into action — action which involves shared leadership, co-investment, and well- orchestrated programs that build the competitiveness capacity of the cross-border region.

To create the Innovation Corridor of the Californias, Borderless Innovation includes ten recommend- ations, which are listed below: 1. Creation of a Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Center; 2. Launching a crossborder program to foster scientific and technology relationships, awareness of research, and commercialization of discoveries; 3. Providing ongoing research and analytical reports on crossborder clusters; 4. Working with Baja California to establish crossborder clinical research as a precursor to growing a transregional biopharmaceutical industry; 5. Promoting private investor networks in the Californias; 6. Promoting “smart border” technologies and infrastructure; 7. Expansion of existing and new crossborder education and research linkages; 8. Harmonization of economic, health, and education data; 9. Convening a high-level working group to assess the feasibility of a Californias model based on Costa Rica’s successful INBio program for conservation and sustainable development; and 10. Exploration of broader, non-technological economic linkages.

The study also identifies a number of major challenges for achieving a dynamic and competitive Innovation Corridor of the Californias. The most significant of these is assuring a secure and efficient border that enables frequent and rapid border crossings.

54 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Economic Development

EARLY ACTION STRATEGIES

ISSUE— Promote creation or expansion of common employment clusters on both sides of the border and address future industrial land use supply and demand

EARLY ACTION— Develop the 2006 San Diego Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy with participation from the Consulate of Mexico in San Diego, San Diego Dialogue, and the Tijuana Economic Development Corporation in the Prosperity Strategy Advisory Working Group

In May 2006, the SANDAG Board of Directors approved the Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy Working Group, which will provide technical expertise and background knowledge of the regional economy and factors that contribute to its performance. This Working Group will participate in forming an evaluation framework for measuring progress and comparing the San Diego region against its competitors. It also will develop recommended actions for infrastructure investments and public policy support to strengthen the San Diego region’s economic foundation.

Involvement of representatives from a cross section of agencies and organiza- tions that are integral to the economic structure of the San Diego region is considered vital to the success of the Prosperity Strategy. Opportunities to foster collaboration among governmental agencies, business groups, and academia in the San Diego-Tijuana binational region will be explored in order to develop shared strategies to improve trade related infrastructure improvements and to advance the development of common crossborder industrial clusters.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— SANDAG, Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy Advisory Working Group

EARLY ACTION— Collaborate with the City of San Diego in the Otay Mesa Community Plan update to evaluate future land demand for high value industrial clusters, considering the unique characteristics of the evolving crossborder economy and competing demand for vacant land in the San Diego region

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— City of San Diego, SANDAG

EARLY ACTION— Within the framework of San Diego Dialogue’s Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Initiative, begin the implementation of selected recommenda- tions from the Borderless Innovation study outlined below

Establish the Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Center

As described in Borderless Innovation, this Center is envisioned as a binational, nonprofit entity that would serve as a catalytic agent for an integrative economic growth strategy in the binational region of the Californias, operating

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 55 Economic Development

a core set of research, education, and networking programs, and providing funding through re-granting to organizations focused on crossborder issues. The Center would support regional groups in capacity-building efforts in four key areas: ƒ Research of regional significance (e.g., binational economic indicators, crossborder cluster analyses and tracking developments in science and technology that affect the region’s future); ƒ Technical assistance to enhance the capacity of firms on both sides of the border to build world-class capabilities and the tools and strategies essential to successful crossborder partnerships; ƒ Development of binational workforce education and training programs that meet the needs of dynamic crossborder industries; and ƒ Promotion of community forums and civic initiatives related to maintaining and improving the binational region’s quality of life in a more integrated economic context.

In summer 2006, San Diego Dialogue will convene an advisory committee and develop a business plan for the Center. Grant applications also will be submitted for specific programs.

Initiate a crossborder program to foster scientific and technology rela- tionships, awareness of research, and commercialization of discoveries

This program intends to build on other ongoing efforts such as the UCSD- originated CONNECT program to extend professional, private sector, and academic networks into the binational region. It would provide a forum for high technology professionals on both sides of the border to build new relationships, increase the awareness of ongoing research in academia and the private sector, and support the potential commercialization of new tech- nologies that have been developed in the binational region.

Under the auspices of the Crossborder Innovation and Competitiveness Center, San Diego Dialogue anticipates convening a Technology Forum in 2006 to kick off the crossborder program. Recommendation #3: Provide ongoing research Work with Baja California to establish crossborder clinical research as a precursor to growing a transregional biopharmaceutical industry

The knowledge, experience, and technical quality required to conduct world- class clinical research represent the foundation upon which a new crossborder cluster can be built. Benefits from pursuing this opportunity include new drug therapies that would become available to help solve shared public health challenges, enhancements to the region’s human capital, as well as attracting new outside investment to the region. Tentative steps have been taken to explore crossborder clinical trails efforts that would lead to a new crossborder cluster. Future activities include creating new education and training programs to clarify trial protocols and other regulatory requirements of agencies such as

56 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Economic Development

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Mexico’s Secretariat of Health.

San Diego Dialogue will establish a committee of local, binational experts from government, academia, UCSD Extension, and the biopharmaceutical industry to outline a phased approach for developing the necessary research capabilities, the infrastructure, and legitimate parallel studies (approved by both the U.S. FDA and Mexico’s Secretariat of Health) that will lead to the development of a larger crossborder biopharmaceutical industry. A workshop to jump start this committee is planned in Summer 2006.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— UCSD Partnership with Mexico, San Diego Dialogue, CENTRIS, CICESE

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 57 Economic Development

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

58 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan HOUSING

This chapter provides background information on the housing issues discussed at the binational workshops, which are listed below. It also includes early action strategies to begin to address them. ƒ Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (e.g., water supply, sewage, schools). ƒ Address housing affordability issues and opportunities. ƒ Address future housing supply and demand.

EXISTING SETTING

Housing Characteristics

As of 2003, it was estimated that there were 341,908 housing units in the City of Tijuana. Data collected by the City of Tijuana’s Department of Urban Administration (Administración Urbana), show a steady increase in the number of building permits issued for new housing from 2003 to 2005. In 2003, 13,835 building permits were issued, while in 2004, the number of home construction permits issued dropped to 12,957. In 2005, 14,846 permits were issued.40 The City of Tijuana’s housing chamber, Cámara Nacional de la Industria de Desarrollo y Promoción de Vivienda, forecasts that in 2006, approximately 17,000 housing units would be constructed in the City of Tijuana. This would represent about a 20 percent increase from the 14,846 units that were permitted in 2005.41

The City of Tijuana holds the distinction of having one of the highest housing growth rates in Mexico, second only to Mexico City.42 In fact, this partially explains Tijuana’s 5.55 acres (or 2.25 hectares) daily growth rate.43 Most of the developments are being constructed by large housing development groups and are being built on the southern and eastern fringes of the city, where there is still an abundance of available land. Housing forecasts show that the number of housing units would more than double by 2030. In the Mesa de Otay section of the study area, there would be an estimated 62,936 housing units by 2030, which is more than double the 2004 number of 24,153 housing units.

The City of Tijuana’s Urban Development Plan identifies the number of housing units needed for the projected population and their densities. Planners for the City derived the amount of acreage needed for future housing based on the average number of acres used to build homes from 2000 to 2005.

40 City of Tijuana’s Department of Urban Administration (Administración Urbana), December 2006. 41 El Mexicano Newspaper, Information provided by CANADEVI (Mexico’s National Housing Chamber – Tijuana Branch), December 2005. 42 Banamex, Mexican Housing Overview, Page 72, 2005. 43 Programa de Desarrollo Urbano del Centro de Población de Tijuana (PDUCPT) B.C., 2005.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 59 Housing

The City of Tijuana currently permits 60 units per acre in certain specific planning areas (e.g., Mesa Zona Rio). Due to proposals for higher vertical developments, the City is considering raising the density to 75 units per acre in these areas.44 This is comparable to the residential density permitted in some parts of downtown San Diego.

Tijuana and San Diego Home Prices

This section presents data on the production of housing by type and price in Tijuana. The Mexican housing market is divided into six different market segments defined by price and income that are detailed in the Table 16.

Table 16 Mexico’s Homebuyer Profile (2005)

Homebuyer Price of Home Annual Income Range Segment (U.S. Dollars) (U.S. Dollars)

Minimum <$8,000 <$3,000 Social $8,000 to $20,000 $3,000 to $8,000 Economic $20,000 to $38,000 $6,000 to $20,000 Middle $38,000 to $100,000 $15,000 to $50,000 Residential $100,000 to $200,000 $40,000 to $100,000 Residential Plus over $200,000 >$100,000

Source: Banamex, Mexican Housing Overview; page 79, 2005

An example of a typical new home in Tijuana that falls under the category of Economic would be a two-bedroom unit that measures 500 square feet (sq. ft.) on a 968 sq. ft. lot and starts at about $32,000. Homes at this price and less are built for the “social interest,” which includes the Minimum, Social, and Economic segments of the housing market. The monthly payment on such a home, based on a ten percent down payment for a 25-year loan at a 9.5 percent interest rate, is approximately $250.45

A home that measures approximately 1,173 sq. ft. on a 1,205 sq. ft. lot and has three bedrooms with a view located in a gated exclusive neighborhood in Tijuana would run about $139,000. This home would be classified in the Residential segment, comparable to what we identify in the United States as being from the upper middle class. At this price, the monthly payment based on a ten percent down payment for a 20-year loan at an 11.98 percent interest rate, would be about $1,539.46

In San Diego, a four-bedroom home located in a middle class neighborhood that measures approximately 1,860 sq. ft. on a 4,800 sq. ft. lot cost about $607,370. At this price a standard loan with a 6.875 percent interest rate would require a ten percent down payment of $60,737 and a total monthly payment of $4,638. A household would have to earn about $12,000 a month to qualify for this loan amount.

44 City of Tijuana’s Department of Urban Administration, (Administración Urbana), December, 2006. 45 Colonia El Florido, Hacienda Casa Grande, PromoCasa S.A. de C.V., May 2006. 46 Chapultepec Décima Sección, Credimexusa and Impulsora Habitacional Mexicana S.A. de C.V.,February 2006.

60 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Housing

Land values, lot sizes, density, labor and material cost, and supply and demand are examples of the contributing factors to determining home prices. For example, the most commonly used home construction materials used in Tijuana are a combination of cinder block exterior walls, cement foundations, and tiled or shingle roofs. These materials, along with labor cost, are much less expensive in Tijuana than in San Diego. Homes in San Diego are usually made from a combination of wood frame construction, stucco exterior walls, and cement foundations. These materials are more readily available in San Diego and represent a lower assembly cost than for materials used in Tijuana.

Higher residential densities also reduce land cost, which in turn, make homes more affordable. In fact, in the Tijuana portion of the study area, as identified in the Population, Housing, Land Use, and Employment Chapter, residential density is about 30 percent higher than San Diego’s side of the study area. This is perhaps another variable contributing to the lower home prices in Tijuana.

Tijuana and San Diego Housing Markets

For some developments, it is estimated that up to 30 percent47 of homebuyers who purchase first or second homes in Tijuana work or live in the United States, while citywide, the number is five percent.48 Ninety percent of the coastal properties are purchased by U.S. citizens who primarily purchase them as second homes. Only two percent of the homebuyers on the coast are estimated to commute to work in San Diego.

Unlike the United States, construction loans in Mexico are primarily made for the residential sales market (Appendix C). Consequently, there are not very many rental properties because there are very few banks that loan money to construct rental units. This makes renting a home difficult since only thirteen percent of the housing stock in Mexico is rental units.49

Approximately 50 percent of the homes built in Tijuana are targeted to the social interest (interés social) market segment, which are homebuyers seeking a house that is priced at $40,000 or less. Another thirty percent of new homes being built are priced between $40,000 and $70,000, and ten percent are priced between $70,000 and $150,000. The other ten percent of homes built are priced above $150,000.

In stark contrast, the homes available in the top ten percent category in Tijuana have prices that are comparable with the inventory of homes available for the lower economic end of the San Diego home buying market. In March 2006, the median price for a home in San Diego was $607,370.50 Considering the prices shown above, there is a potential draw for low-wage San Diego home seekers to the Tijuana housing market.

The percentage of households in San Diego that is able to afford a median-priced home stood at nine percent in December 2005, compared with 11 percent for the same period in 2004, according to a report released by the California Association of Realtors® (C.A.R.).51 This trend is leading to an

47 Fernando Tenorio Zepeda (Coordinandor de Ventas), Vivieca - Paseos del Florido, May 2006. 48 Luís M. Bustamante (Director), Credimexusa, March 2006. 49 Banamex, Mexican Housing Overview, Page 64, 2005. 50 California Association of Realtors, http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU5Mjg=. 51 California Association of Realtors: http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzU5Mjg=.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 61 Housing increase in long-distance interregional commuting by the region’s employees who seek less expensive housing in Tijuana and surrounding Southern California counties.

Tijuana and San Diego Housing-Related Infrastructure and Irregular Developments

The cost for housing-related infrastructure in Tijuana is absorbed both by the city and developers. Developers in Tijuana are responsible for installing basic infrastructure (sewer, streets, and septic tanks). The City of Tijuana also requires developers to dedicate land for public facilities (equipamiento urbano). Some examples of these dedications include land for schools and fire stations. At the same time, the long-term cost for infrastructure maintenance and construction is shouldered by the City of Tijuana and Baja California’s State Commission for Public Works (Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos – CESPT).

The City of Tijuana and CESPT’s budgets are further strained by the large number of irregular settlements that are being built. These settlements are similar to what San Diegans would recognize as “squatter camps.” However, the settlements in Tijuana are more diverse in terms of size, permanence, and construction materials used. The settlements can be defined as self-built housing developed by a household, typically with the assistance of extended family, that lacks clear land title, is not formally connected to urban services, and is financed primarily with cash.52

The initial structures are commonly built with a combination of building materials, which can include recycled wood garage doors imported from California and recycled cardboard. Over time, these structures become more permanent structures of brick and mortar construction.

The magnitude of this housing phenomenon overwhelms Tijuana’s infrastructure. It is estimated that about fifty percent of all new homes built in Mexico each year are of this type. 53 This is consistent with the City of Tijuana’s estimate that fifty percent of Tijuana residents do not have legal title. 54

These irregular settlements rarely have access to basic infrastructure. The City of Tijuana eventually provides municipal services to these irregular settlements. This does not come without cost. Local and state governments have limited budgets and have to pay up to four times more for installing infrastructure such as electricity, drainage, and potable water in settlements like these than they would have otherwise if it was a permitted development.55 After a period of approximately 15-25 years, these neighborhoods become a normal part of the city.56 This is unlike the experience of squatter settlements, which are typically located in floodplains and rural, farming communities of San Diego. These settlements rarely become permanent residences and are not provided basic infrastructure.

52 The State of Mexico’s Housing, (prepared for CIDOC and CONAFOVI by Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University), Page 15, 2004. 53 Banamex, Mexican Housing Overview, Page 50, 2005. 54 La Frontera, “Estima el 50% No Tiene Su Titulo de Propiedad,” January 30, 2006. 55 The State of Mexico’s Housing, (prepared for CIDOC and CONAFOVI by Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University), Page 65, 2004. 56 Banamex, Mexican Housing Overview, Page 64, 2005.

62 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Housing

EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS

Land use decisions in the County of San Diego are based on the local jurisdictions’ and County of San Diego’s general and community plans. The RCP builds on local general plans and links transportation and land use planning at a regional scale. Similarly, land use decisions in the City of Tijuana are based on the City’s Urban Development Plan, which is Tijuana’s equivalent to a general plan. This planning process builds on designated specific plans, which function like the County’s community plans and are developed for the City of Tijuana’s specific planning areas.

City of San Diego – Otay Mesa Community Plan

With the update of its Otay Mesa Community Plan, the City of San Diego is evaluating possibilities for more residential and mixed-use developments in this area. This decision-making process is occurring at the same time regional growth forecasts suggest a future deficit in land available for housing and a surplus of employment land in 2030 (see page 52 of Economic Development chapter). The existing Otay Mesa Community Plan allows for approximately 12,400 housing units. The Draft Concept Plan contains several scenarios that propose including up to 19,000 more housing units than the current adopted plan.57

Conversion of industrially zoned land to residential zoning would help to address the regional imbalance of land uses that is being forecasted. At the same time, it will be important to evaluate the impacts of new residential development in this area on the future demand for regional transportation infrastructure and transit services, as well as other regional infrastructure needs.

In addition, the City of San Diego should consider the “smart growth” land use policies and concepts contained in SANDAG’s RCP in determining the appropriate locations and urban design for residential and mixed-use developments, particularly in relation to future regional transit service in the study area. SANDAG staff already has begun working with the City of San Diego on this evaluation.

Brown Field Municipal Airport

As described in the Transportation Chapter, the Brown Field Municipal Airport is located within the City of San Diego’s Otay Mesa Community Planning area.58 Even though it is within the City’s planning area, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (Airport Authority) also has certain responsibilities regarding land uses at the airport. In addition, the Airport Authority is responsible for preparing an ALUCP, which deals with land use compatibility around the airport such as noise, overflight, safety, and airspace protection. The Airport Authority currently is updating the San Diego County ALUCP. State law requires that future land use developments be consistent with compatibility criteria found within the ALUCP.

57 City of San Diego Otay Mesa Community Planning Workshop, dated July 19, 2006. 58 San Diego County ALCUP-Public Use Airports Background Data (March 2005 Draft), Page 3.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 63 Housing

City of Tijuana

The City of Tijuana’s Specific Plan for East Mesa de Otay (Plan Parcial de la Mesa de Otay Este) was completed in August 2005, and the Partial Program for Conservation and Urban Improvement of the Alamar River Zone (Programa Parcial de Conservación y Mejoramiento Urbano para la Zona del Arroyo Alamar) is expected to be completed by January 2007. The preparation of these plans is a joint effort between federal, state, and municipal governmental entities. These plans, together with the City’s Urban Development Program 2002 – 2025, serve to regulate housing development and general land use in the City of Tijuana and the corresponding Plans’ specific planning areas. The Specific Plan for East Mesa de Otay estimates there will be a total of 62,936 housing units by the year 2030.

City of Tijuana’s International Airport

Tijuana’s International Airport is managed by Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico (Pacific Airport Group). The SCT is the Mexican government agency that oversees the operations of this government owned facility. The SCT controls land use in and around the airport that impact its safety and operation.

County of San Diego

The East Otay Mesa Specific Plan was adopted December 17, 1994, and amended February 2, 2005. It sets out a comprehensive plan for the development of approximately 3,300 acres. Anticipated uses are business and industrial. The Specific Plan does not propose housing within its boundaries. Certain steep slope and biologically sensitive resources have been identified in areas that are zoned Rural Residential and Mixed Industrial and Commercial. These areas are subject to the Sensitive Resource Area Regulations of the zoning Ordinance.

City of Chula Vista59

Chula Vista’s General Plan Update and related amendments to the Otay Ranch General Develop- ment Plan were adopted on December 13, 2005. Through these actions several changes were made to the land use and circulation network within the remaining Otay Ranch project area west of the Otay Reservoirs and south of Olympic Parkway. As further described below, these changes collectively added approximately 7,000 units of housing capacity mostly at multi-family densities, introduced a new town center concept for the prior Villages 2, 4, 8, and 9 areas, expanded employment areas, introduced a new town center roadway classification, realigned and redesigned future Rock Mountain Road and Otay Valley Road, and extended the transit network consistent with SANDAG’s Regional Transit Vision (RTV).

Village 2 (Village of Montecito) is planned as a pedestrian- and transit-oriented village with a larger and more intense core with frontage on La Media Road that will serve nearby communities, as well as Village 2 residents. Some 1,800 of the planned 2,500 units will be in multi-family or mixed-use areas at a density of 18+ dwelling units per gross acre. The expanded transit network includes a bus rapid transit route on La Media Road with a station in Village 2. Village 2 contains a high school and other institutional uses, and will have approximately 12 acres devoted to commercial uses.

59 City of Chula Vista’s Otay Ranch General Development Plan, 2005.

64 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Housing

To the south in the prior Village 4 and 8 areas, a new pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use town center is proposed around the intersection of La Media Road and Rock Mountain Road. Of the approxi- mately 1,800 total units, 1,000 units are in the town center in mixed-use and multi-family settings at densities of 18 dwelling units per gross acre. The town center is bisected by La Media Road and Rock Mountain Road, which are designated as town center arterials intended to use a couplet design that will better accommodate pedestrians and the extended BRT network with a station in the town center.

Just to the east of this new town center and west of future SR 125 is a proposed Regional Technology Park (RTP) of approximately 125 to 200 acres that would accommodate research and high-tech manufacturing activities providing high-quality jobs and taking advantage of proximity to the university site to the east.

A new town center (Village 9) is located to the east of the RTP across SR 125 and adjacent to the planned university campus. It is also intended as a pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use area with higher residential densities strongly tied to the university and providing housing, retail, and other commercial and related services necessary to support the university. Its approximately 2,500 residential units are mostly attached and multi-family products with densities from 18 to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. In conjunction with future university land dedications, it is possible that another 800 units could be allowed. The South Bay BRT network includes a transit station at this location, along with a link to the route connecting Otay Ranch to Downtown San Diego and other activity centers to the north and south.

The planned 240-acre Eastern Urban Center is located to the north of the Village 9 town center and university and is bounded on the west by SR 125. As the most intensely developed hub, this mixed- use urban center will serve eastern Chula Vista and South San Diego County, integrating high- density housing, low- and mid- to high-rise office uses, and community- and regional-serving commercial and entertainment uses. It is envisioned as a unique and symbolic focal point for Otay Ranch and the broader subregion. Over 3,300 dwelling units are proposed at a density of over 40 dwelling units per gross acre. Building height can be up to 15 stories, and major office, retail, and cultural uses are ultimately envisioned. It will also be served by the expanded BRT system, serving a hub for three routes, including the primary transit connection to Otay Mesa and the international border.

EARLY ACTION STRATEGIES

ISSUE— Address future housing supply and demand, housing affordability issues and opportunities, and infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use

EARLY ACTION— Collaborate with the City of San Diego in the Otay Mesa Community Plan update to evaluate the potential to convert industrial land use to residential and its regional implications

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 65 Housing

The City of San Diego is in the process of updating the Otay Mesa Community Plan. In addition to the No Project Alternative, three draft scenarios include plans for a significant increase in housing. Conversely, each of the scenarios would require the rezoning of industrial land to accommodate additional housing.

The collaboration would entail analyzing the issues related to proposed changes in land use (e.g., industrial to residential), transportation infra- structure, and regional housing supply. In the context of the Otay Mesa Community Plan update, opportunities should be explored in order to address the need for additional land for housing while considering competing demands for vacant land.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— City of San Diego, SANDAG

EARLY ACTION— Promote comprehensive housing developments within Tijuana portion of the study area, which would include providing space for recreational activities, sports, green areas, and public facilities and services to improve the quality of life

This will require the Identification of areas suitable for the implementation of a comprehensive (urban) development. Some characteristics that will help the implementation of this development would be: ƒ Lawful ownership of land; ƒ Closeness to jobs; ƒ Infrastructure that is in good condition; ƒ Areas for commercial and service activities; and ƒ Roads that are in good condition.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan, SANDAG

œ —————— 

66 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information on the environmental issues discussed at the binational workshops, which are listed below. It also includes early action strategies to begin to address them. ƒ Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g., Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) ƒ Address surface water quality ƒ Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors ƒ Address air quality

EXISTING SETTING

Biological Resources

This section presents data on the biological resources within the study area, which include vegeta- tion communities, species (including high-priority plants and animals), and habitat types (including quality of habitat).

The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay study area represents only a portion of the proposed open space binational habitat conservation corridor proposed by the Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative and is part of one of the most threatened and biologically unique areas in the world. In fact, Conservation International has designated it as one of the world’s 25 biodiversity hot spots, with more than 400 species listed as endangered, threatened, or otherwise sensitive to human impacts.60 The hot spot section of the study area can generally be described as the “San Ysidro Unit,” which includes the Otay Mountain Wilderness area and proposed adjacent open space areas on the Mexican side. The San Ysidro Unit includes Otay Mountain, San Miguel Mountain, Cerro San Isidro, Jesus Maria Mesa, and Tecate Peak which are located near the study area. This area can further be characterized as two main phytogeographic regions within the study area, which are identified by their climate, topography, and species composition.

Coniferous Forest

One of the phytogeographic regions is the Coniferous Forest zone, which is recognized by the presence of Tecate Cypress Forest and the unique species with which it is associated. Tecate cypress groves on Otay Mountain, Tecate Peak, and Guatay Mountain in San Diego County represent the

60 Conservation Biology Institute, Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, Page 8, September 2004.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 67 Environmental Conservation northern limit of an extensive distribution of this species that extends south 100 miles (160 km) into northern Baja California (Minnich).61

The unique species associated with the Tecate cypress represent the unique biodiversity value of these areas. The Thorne’s hairstreak butterfly (Mitoura thornei) is an endemic species here, whose larvae are obligate to Tecate cypress.62 A list of the other plant and animal species can be found in Appendix B – the Tecate Cypress Forest table.

Californian

The second phytogeographic region is called the Californian, and the two most dominant groups of plant species located there are the California Coastal Sage (CSS) and Chaparral. The type of CSS that is dominant in the border region is referred to as the Martirian succulent scrub, a subspecies of CSS. The CSS and Chaparral are subsets of the Californian and are described below.

California Coastal Sage

One of the most well known endangered inhabitants of the Martirian succulent scrub is the Quino checkerspot butterfly. The habitat for Quino checkerspot butterflies can be defined in simple terms — extensive collections of patches of primary larval host plants, Plantago erecta, distributed in grassland — and coastal sage scrub-dominated open space.63 This habitat is present on both sides of the border. Adjacent to the study area, Jesus Maria Mesa, is on the southwest flank of Cerro San Isidro. It supports vernal pools and a population of Quino checkerspot butterfly that uses habitat on both sides of the border and is likely important to recovery of the species (USFWS 2000).64 A list of some of the other plant and animal species that can be found in this habitat are included in Appendix B – the Californian table.

Chaparral

Chaparral is a vegetation community generally composed of hard-stemmed, leathery-leaved shrubs.65 It is present on both sides of the border and hosts a variety of plant and animal species. Some of the species found there are included in Appendix B – the Chaparral table.

On the U.S. side, most of the San Ysidro unit is protected by the City of San Diego and County parks, the Otay Valley Regional Park, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), California Department of Forestry, Environmental Trust, and open space located on the County Detention Facility.66 The Mexican side of the study area has no official land management agency.

61 Minnich, R.A. The distribution of forest trees in northern Baja California, Mexico, 1987. Madroño 34(2): 98-127. 62 Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, Page 23. 63 A Management and Monitoring Plan for Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) and its Habitats in San Diego County, Page 7.

64 Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, Page 24. 65 http://dplu-mscp.sdcounty.ca.gov/speciesinfo_6/bio3chapportal.html, accessed on 3/2/06.

66 Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) - South County Segment, Page 3-3.

68 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Environmental Conservation

Watersheds

Within the Californian phytogeogpraphic region are two watersheds: the Otay River Watershed and Tijuana River Watershed (Figure 17). They both support distinct plant and animal species.

Figure 17 Otay Mesa – Mesa de Otay Watersheds

Otay River Watershed

The predominant land uses in the Otay River Watershed are open space (67 percent) and urban/residential (20 percent). The major inland hydrologic features, the upper and lower Otay Lakes, are two water supply reservoirs that also provide important habitat and recreational opportunities. Other important conservation areas within the watershed include the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge, the Rancho Jamul Ecological Reserve, and the vernal pool lands in the region.

The Otay River Valley Regional Park is located within the Otay River Watershed and includes approximately 8,500 acres stretching from the San Diego Bay 11 miles up the Otay River Valley. The Otay River Valley runs between the southern boundary of the City of Chula Vista and the northern boundary of South San Diego (Otay Mesa/Nestor). In 1990, the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego and the County of San Diego entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) to coordinate the creation of this multi-jurisdictional park. This park contains a mix of recreation opportunities ranging from playing fields and picnic areas to hiking, biking, and horse trails,

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 69 Environmental Conservation environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife, culture, historic, agriculture, archaeological, and scenic resources.

The northwestern and northeastern portions of the East Otay Mesa Specific Plan Subarea 1 are designated Conservation/Limited-Use Areas. This designation allows for uses such as outdoor participant sports, campgrounds, and resorts.67 This area, as well as Subarea 2 and the rest of the Otay Plan Area, include vernal pools, endangered plants, and golden eagle habitats.

Some of the native plant and animal species that can be found in the Otay River Watershed habitat are included in Appendix B – the Otay River Watershed table.

Tijuana River Watershed

The Alamar River, also known as the Arroyo Alamar, is located in the southern portion of the study area and is a major river in the Tijuana River Watershed. It is situated in the Tijuana River Watershed with the Tijuana River downstream and the Tecate River upstream.68 The water that flows through this river eventually makes its way into the United States via the Tijuana River. This river is unlike the Tijuana River in that it has not been channelized, therefore, it is able to serve as an important riparian habitat. It also provides a continuous riparian corridor link from the study area east to Tecate. The Alamar River is one of the few relatively undisturbed riparian corridors in the San Diego-Tijuana region.

There are three distinct riparian segments of the Alamar River Corridor. Only two of these zones are fully located within the study area, while the eastern portion of the study area partially covers Zone 3. Zone 1, the urbanized section, begins at the end of the channelized Tijuana River, directly south of Mesa de Otay, and extends to the bridge on Boulevard Manuel J. Clouthier. Riparian habitat in this zone is disturbed by irregular settlements, sand mining, commercial activities, and unauthorized dumping of solid waste.69

Zone 2, identified as the “Transition Section,” begins at Boulevard Manuel J. Clouthier and extends eastward to Boulevard Otay-Matamoros. Agriculture and sand mining are conducted in this zone. This zone also is disturbed by encroaching urban settlements.

The portion of the study area that covers the western section of Zone 3 begins at Boulevard Otay- Matamoros and extends beyond the study area to the bridge located near the Tecate-Tijuana Toll Road. This is a sparsely populated area where cattle ranching, agriculture, and brick making are the main economic activity. The riparian habitat and water quality in this area is considered to be in pristine condition.

Most of the Alamar River riparian corridor serves as prime habitat for many native plant and animal species. Some of the native plant and animal species that can be found in this habitat are included in Appendix B – the Alamar River Watershed. In addition, the Alamar River needs to be protected because it serves as an important source for replenishing the City of Tijuana’s underground aquifer.

67 County of San Diego, East Otay Specific Plan Amendment, Page 30. 68 Institute for the Regional Studies of the Californias, The Alamar River Corridor: An Urban River Park Oasis in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, Page 4. 69 The Alamar River Corridor: An Urban River Park Oasis in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, Page 9.

70 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Environmental Conservation

The City of Tijuana imports 96 percent of its potable water, with the potential of drawing 10 to 15 percent of its potable water from an aquifer recharged by this river and the Tijuana River.70

Although several bands of pristine riparian habitat still exist along the Alamar River, encroaching development and pollution threaten the river’s well being. There are several key factors that threaten this river. The most serious of these threats come from point and non-point sources of pollution, sand mining, and potential channelization. ƒ Point sources of pollution come from raw sewage draining from a pipe directly into the river. Currently, the river receives renegade sewage flows upstream from Tecate and downstream from the Mesa de Otay area. ƒ Non-point pollution sources may include soil erosion from farm land and construction sites, rural and urban pesticide and fertilizer runoff, failing septic systems, animal waste, motor oil, and antifreeze. The threat of contaminating groundwater is already present by these sources. If this continues to go unchecked, groundwater could be overly polluted and unfit to use as drinking water. ƒ Sand mining threatens habitat and percolation of the river bed. In areas where sand mining occurs, the native vegetation is often removed, and the natural sand bottom of the river is disturbed. The native vegetation and sand bottoms not only help absorb water into the aquifer, but slow and dissipate the volume of water that enters the Tijuana River during a flood event.71 ƒ Channelization generally serves to control flood waters from leaving the river banks. However, where the channelization ends, larger quantities of water are discharged at a higher rate and consequently, disproportionately inundate areas at its outfall more than it would if the channel was not in place. Some of the other destructive consequences that are associated with river channelization are the following: decreased wildlife habitat and biodiversity; decreased groundwater infiltration; decreased stream base flows; decreased surface and groundwater storage; increased storm water runoff and volume; increased storm water peak discharge rate; increased channel erosion; increased frequency of local flooding; and increased pollutant concentrations and quantities in storm water.72

The concept of “Sustainable River Architecture” is being supported for the Alamar River. Essentially this concept supports the managed development of riparian corridors that do not rely on channelizing river basins. This type of managed development is still possible for the Alamar River since most of it has not yet been channelized.

Water Quality

As described in the biological resources section of this chapter, the Otay River Watershed and the Tijuana River Watershed are the most important water resources in the study area. Water quality is an extremely important environmental resource issue since the study area is located in a semi-arid region and over 90 percent of its consumption depends on imported water. Furthermore, point and non-point sources of pollution remain a continual threat to local groundwater and above-water supplies, as well as the Tijuana River Estuary and local beaches. Ultimately, comprehensive watershed management plans will play a major role in addressing these issues in the future.

70 The Alamar River Corridor: An Urban River Park Oasis in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, Page 10. 71 The Alamar River Corridor: An Urban River Park Oasis in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, Page 38. 72 The Alamar River Corridor: An Urban River Park Oasis in Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, Pages 33 - 34.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 71 Environmental Conservation

Air Quality

The two regions not only share habitat corridors and watersheds, but also share similar air quality issues. Air pollutants in the San Diego-Tijuana area derive from a variety of sources. Stationary sources include power plants, as well as manufacturing and industrial facilities that emit air pollutants. Mobile sources are sources of air pollution such as automobiles, trucks, off-road vehicles, boats, and airplanes. These sources generate particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, and other toxic air pollutants.

In California, there are 15 air basins, which are land areas with generally similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout. The San Diego Air Basin encompasses the entire county of San Diego. In Baja California, there are no official designations for air basins.

In general, air quality in the San Diego region has improved dramatically over the past two decades, but continued efforts are needed to sustain this positive trend and ensure clean air.

EXISTING PLANS AND PROGRAMS

This section focuses on the several existing conservation plans and studies on both sides of the border.

Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP)

The MSCP is a comprehensive, long-term conservation plan for southwestern San Diego County. Through the MSCP, high-priority habitat areas are designated and protected, while urban development is allowed for less sensitive areas. The boundaries extend to the U.S.-Mexico border and cover mostly the eastern portion of the study area. The City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego prepared MSCP subarea plans.

Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative

The Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative (LCBCI) – prepared for the San Diego Founda- tion, Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and the International Community Foundation – is a vision document created by the need for a shared conservation vision for San Diego/Tijuana/Tecate border region. Many species in this region are endangered or threatened. Natural resources and the environmental services they support, such as water quality and water supply protection, flood control, and scenic and recreational resources, function across large landscapes, which are increasingly threatened by expanding human land uses.73

As populations continue to grow on both sides of the border, urbanized areas continue to encroach on sensitive habitat areas. Many of these habitat areas are interconnected wildlife corridors that permit animals to freely circulate between both countries. This delicate ecosystem is under threat of being lost forever unless more steps are taken to control the tide of development. Among other binational conservation proposals, the LCBI’s goal is to protect binational conservation corridors, which includes open space areas between the Tijuana-Tecate corridor, Sweetwater and Otay River

73 Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, Page 1.

72 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Environmental Conservation watersheds in California, and the Rio Guadalupe watershed in Baja California (Figure 18).74 The LCBI boundaries include and extend beyond the Otay River and Tijuana River Watershed.

Figure 18 Binational Watersheds

Otay River Watershed Management Plan

The Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP) encompasses approximately 160 square miles in southwest San Diego County. The ORWMP is one of the three hydrologic units that discharge to the San Diego Bay. The watershed management plan area encompasses several jurisdictions, including the unincorporated area and portions of the cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, Coronado, National City, and San Diego. The ORWMP involves characterizing the Otay River watershed’s various resources and land uses; identifying goals and objectives; assessing and prioritizing threats to existing beneficial uses and natural resources; and identifying implementation strategies for the protection, enhancement, and restoration of beneficial uses and natural resources, including a water quality monitoring program to monitor, maintain, and enhance water quality.75

74 Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative, Page 1. 75 MSCP, Web page address: http://dplu-mscp.sdcounty.ca.gov/pub_out/watershedinformation.htm.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 73 Environmental Conservation

In 2004, the County of San Diego and Cities of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, and San Diego, and the Unified Port of San Diego entered into a JEPA to develop and adopt the final draft ORWMP. The final draft ORWMP was adopted by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on May 10, 2006. The City of Imperial Beach City Council adopted the Plan on May 17, 2006, and the Port of San Diego adopted this plan on June 6, 2006. Other hearings will be scheduled in the future by the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego.76

A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed

“A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed” is a template for a binational watershed management plan which was developed by the Binational Watershed Advisory Council (BWAC), that is made up of 155 Tijuana River Watershed stakeholders. It contains baseline data and trends for the major areas of concern identified by stakeholders: water, air, ecosystems and natural resources, waste, and socioeconomic issues.77 It also has a list of action plans which identify ways to protect the watershed.

The Tijuana River Watershed vision document proposes to develop a watershed management mechanism that cuts across several local, state, and international boundaries. The Tijuana River Watershed (TRW) lies across the U.S.-Mexican international boundary and is approximately 1,750 square miles (4,465 square kilometers) in area, with one-third in California and two thirds in Baja California (Figure 16). It extends from the Laguna Mountains in the northeast, the Sierra Juarez Mountains in the south, and to the Pacific Ocean in the West.78

As development continues to encroach on the watershed, many threats accompany it. Some of the most pressing environmental and cultural issues identified in the watershed include rapid population growth, uncontrolled urbanization, increased demand for water, flood control, poor water quality, and the loss of important animal and plant species and habitats.79

The rapid population growth degrades habitat, which in turn affects animal and plant species. It also promotes housing and industrial development that stretches already overburdened sewer infrastructure very thin. As described in the Housing chapter of this report, the lack of sewage infrastructure in the sprawling irregular settlements and in some new and older housing tracts located in Tijuana bring with it renegade sewer flows that pollute ground water, streams, estuaries, and beaches downstream, as well as destroying plant and species habitat.

The many toxins and bacteria these waste streams carry jeopardize the public’s health. An example of this threat is evident by the many beach closures attributable to this contamination. In addition, soil erosion caused by this type of development further contributes to the polluted sedimentation of the Tijuana River Estuary. This pollution threatens the survival of the estuary and all living things in it.

76 MSCP, Web page address: http://dplu-mscp.sdcounty.ca.gov//pub_out/draftwmp.htm. 77 A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed, Page 3.

78 A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed, Page 3. 79 A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed, Page 13.

74 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Environmental Conservation

“A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed” proposes several actions that address the many threats facing the Watershed. In order to give the Watershed long-term protection, these actions will need to be implemented through a binational watershed management plan framework. This ambitious proposal presents several challenges and opportunities. Most of the challenges lie in the fact that the institutional mechanisms that govern watersheds are very different.

This is apparent when looking at the United States’ and Mexico’s institutional approaches to managing watersheds. In Mexico watershed management is more focused on water supply in the riparian corridor and aquifers, whereas in the United States, vegetation, habitat, and species also are accounted for and considered throughout a watershed.

Despite some fundamental differences in each country’s approach to watershed management, there are opportunities for collaboration. By developing a binational watershed plan, the two regions can better plan together for the benefit of future generations. They also can mitigate potentially future harmful effects that could threaten the shared region’s natural environment, cultural resources, quality of life, and the health of their residents.

San Diego/Tijuana Clean Diesel Demonstration Projects

Background

As illustrated in the Transportation chapter, crossborder truck traffic has increased substantially as a result of continued growth in U.S.-Mexico trade. Cost-effective emission control retrofit tech- nologies are increasingly being used in the United States to substantially reduce diesel exhaust emissions. However, these technologies are not currently used by the Mexican trucking industry, resulting in excess emissions in San Diego County. The following section focuses on programs to address emissions generated by crossborder truck traffic.

Current Demonstration Project80

To begin to address air quality concerns in the border region, in 2004, the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) applied for and received a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: draw together U.S. and Mexican stakeholders; evaluate the nature of crossborder truck fleets; and identify retrofit technologies that could be used to reduce diesel exhaust emissions from Mexico-based trucking operations in the San Diego-Tijuana border region.

Following up on this effort, in 2005, the APCD applied for and received another grant from the U.S. EPA to fund the San Diego/Tijuana Clean Diesel Demonstration Project, with the objective of mitigating the air quality impact of increased crossborder, heavy-duty diesel truck traffic. This innovative binational project involves identifying and retrofitting up to 50 Mexican-based, heavy- duty diesel trucks operating in the San Diego County/Tijuana border region with emission control devices to demonstrate their viability under Mexican operating conditions and encourage imple- mentation of similar cleaner diesel projects.

80 Information provided by San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, April 2006.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 75 Environmental Conservation

The devices, diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs), reduce diesel particulate emissions by 25 percent and hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide by 40 to 50 percent. Diesel particulate emissions are a potent, cancer-causing toxic air contaminant, and hydrocarbons form ozone (smog). Carbon monoxide, at high levels, reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood.

As of April 2006, 20 heavy-duty, diesel trucks have been retrofitted with DOCs, and installation of five more DOCs is pending. The 25 participating trucks range from model years 1988 to 2000 and are classified as either heavy, heavy-duty, or medium heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Additional trucks are anticipated to be retrofitted in the next several months.

Four Tijuana-based crossborder trucking companies are currently participating in the program: Transportes R y F, Transportes Camacho, Montana Express, and Sisipo Transports. Each provides short-haul, crossborder freight transportation within the San Diego/Tijuana region, transporting raw materials (such as metals, woods, and plastic), finished goods (such as furniture and electronics), and canned food and produce across the border. In addition to short-haul transportation, one of the participating companies, Transportes Camacho, also operates long-haul, diesel trucks to trans- port freight to the other states, including Washington and Texas.

Potential for Future Demonstration Projects

Clean Freight Strategies

U.S. EPA and APCD are considering implementing a second transborder demonstration project to capitalize on the relationships APCD has established with border stakeholders to improve air quality. Specifically, U.S. EPA is interested in demonstrating “clean freight” strategies on trans- border commercial heavy-duty diesel trucks in the San Diego-Baja California region. Clean freight measures are designed to improve fuel economy and lower emissions through idle reduction, improved aerodynamics, advanced (low-viscosity) lubricants, and single, wide-base tires.

Clean freight strategies are promoted by the U.S. EPA through its voluntary SmartWay Transport Partnership, which includes dozens of domestic freight carriers throughout the nation. By demonstrating that clean freight technologies result in fuel savings and emissions reductions, there may be greater incentive by the private sector to invest in these technologies, ultimately leading to greater deployment and reduced fuel consumption and emissions. This would be the first-ever participation in the Partnership by transborder commercial vehicles domiciled in Baja California.

Diesel Particulate Filters

Another retrofit technology that could be evaluated is the installation of diesel particulate filters (DPFs). However, several challenges must be addressed to ensure success of a DPF demonstration.

First, DPFs require higher exhaust temperatures, which are rarely achieved during low travel speeds that currently dominate trucking activity at the border. In addition, DPFs also require ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel to operate properly. ULSD will not become widely available in California until September 1, 2006. It has been announced that ULSD will become available in northern Baja California in 2007.

76 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Environmental Conservation

Finally, maintenance issues may also pose a challenge for implementation of a DPF demonstration program. Unlike DOCs, DPFs are not maintenance free. To avoid backpressure problems due to excessive ash build-up, semi-annual or annual filter cleaning is required. Because of limited resources and the small nature of trucking firms operating in the border region, DPF maintenance could represent an issue. There are also challenges concerning the effectiveness of the DPFs dependent on the age of engines equipped. Engines built before U.S. and Mexico’s 1994 Particulate Matter (PM) emission standards—which represent a majority of the engines in today’s Mexico- registered diesel truck fleet—exhibit excessive PM emissions for DPF applications.

However, a future program involving DPFs could still be explored when the circumstances discussed above are more favorable.

EARLY ACTION STRATEGIES

ISSUE— Address conservation of sensitive habitat and urban river corridors (e.g., Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) and water quality

EARLY ACTION— Analyze San Diego County’s MSCP, “A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed,” and the “Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative” to develop a framework for a binational approach for habitat corridor conservation and watershed management for the Tijuana River Watershed

As mentioned in the Biological Resources section, the above-mentioned planning documents are an important step in binational watershed and habitat conservation corridor planning. Further analysis and discussion of these documents should occur among the key stakeholders listed below, with the goal of developing an overall framework for preparing and implementing a comprehensive binational watershed management plan for the Tijuana River Watershed. The analysis should address the specific objectives of this planning process, as well as institutional mechanisms and resources necessary to prepare it.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Border Liaison Mechanism’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee – Tijuana River Basin Working Group (Lead); SANDAG, IMPlan, U.S. and Mexican federal, state, and local agencies/organ- izations.

EARLY ACTION— Expand the environmental analysis of the draft Partial Program for Conservation and Urban Improvement of the Alamar River Zone to further assess the habitat conditions in the Alamar River area

EARLY ACTION— Support plans for habitat restoration and rehabilitation along the Alamar River riparian corridor

Both of these early actions are being developed by IMPlan and would require implementation assistance by the following agencies: Mexico’s National Water Commission (CONAGUA), Federal Investigating Agency for Environmental

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 77 Environmental Conservation

Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente or PROFEPA), Baja California’s Secretariat of Environmental Protection (Secretaría de Protección al Ambiente de Baja California). These efforts should be evaluated in conjunction with the analysis of a comprehensive Tijuana River Watershed Plan as outlined above.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan, SIDUE

œ —————— 

ISSUE— Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors

EARLY ACTION— Explore the feasibility of a binational land use/open space conservation study for SR 11, the future East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE, and proposed connection from the POE to the Tijuana-Tecate Toll Road (Route 2D), including consideration of binational environmental mitigation strategies

As part of this feasibility analysis, the area of study will be defined. This study area may include areas of influence outside the current binational corridor study area that would help maintain north-south habitat connectivity. The study area would be evaluated for potential mitigation or as conservation zones in the context of the future East Otay Mesa-Otay II POE and connecting roads.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— Caltrans, SANDAG, County of San Diego, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,81 Bureau of Land Management, IMPlan, and U.S. and Mexican federal, state, and local agencies/organizations

EARLY ACTION— In Mexico, explore possibilities for cooperative agreements between private, public, and community sectors, to build partnerships and private agreements to incorporate the payment for environmental mitigation, purchase of development rights, permits or quota rights, and other similar uses

Conduct a general analysis (conceptual) of the applicable incentives and the mechanism for its implementation. Direct incentives in money or in kind, through taxes directed to conservation, or through other mechanisms that permit the incorporation of cost and project generated impacts. The application of incentives can be improved if they are tied to mechanisms, like the creation of environmental easements.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan

81 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has submitted a letter of support and would like to be involved in this joint effort.

78 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Environmental Conservation

EARLY ACTION— Use existing legal mechanisms to acquire private or public land for conservation.

Recommend administrative and economic mechanisms that support the creation and conservation of these areas. Explore legal mechanisms on both sides of the border to transfer subsidies for environmental protection, purchase of development rights, and assignment of quota rights. Promote creation of environmental easements and the agreements to allow private contracts for conservation.

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan

œ —————— 

ISSUE— Collaborate with the U.S. EPA in the Border 2012 program, the Binational Air Quality Task Force, and the San Diego County APCD in binational clean air efforts

EARLY ACTION— Support the San Diego APCD’s crossborder clean air demonstration projects

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— San Diego County APCD (Lead), SANDAG

EARLY ACTION— Link the creation of conservation areas to the objectives and goals established in “A Binational Vision for the Tijuana River Watershed” and the Border 2012 programs

Estimate potential emissions from motor vehicles to assess mitigation of hydro- carbon emissions in conservation areas (i.e., reforestation projects).

LEAD/PARTICIPATING AGENCIES— IMPlan

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 79 Environmental Conservation

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

80 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan APPENDIX A

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Final Results

Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay

Interactive Polling Results

National City - October 3, 2005 Tijuana - October 11, 2005

Prepared by

Strategic Initiatives

1886 Deer Canyon Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 (805) 474-8105 strategicinit.com

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Table of Contents

Appendix A...... 0

Appendix A – Interactive Polling Questions ...... A-1

Appendix B – National City – October 3, 2005 Polling Results ...... B-1

Appendix C – Tijuana – October 11, 2005 Polling Results...... C-1

NOTE: The number of responses may vary among polls since each participant may not have responded to every question. Also, percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. The results of the survey are not i statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Process Overview

Interactive polling technology was used to help the meeting partici- pants prioritize critical issues that are important to address in the Otay Mesa - Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan. Each participant was provided with a remote FM radio input terminal to respond to questions generated by computer and projected on a large screen. The technology provided the ability to quickly prioritize the issues. The results were tabulated and immediately presented back to the group for discussion. Demographic information was collected to assess the different perspectives of the participants based on where they lived, and what organization they represented.

The participants prioritized the importance of strategic issues in the following categories: ƒ Transportation Improvements ƒ Transportation Funding Alternatives ƒ Economic Development ƒ Housing ƒ Environment

The list of strategic issues for each of the categories is presented in Appendix A. A forced-pair prioritization technique was used where two of the critical issues were presented to the group and each participant selected which was most important. After evaluating every possible pair, the relative importance of the issues was calculated on a scale from 0 to 100 and immediately presented to the group for discussion.

This report presents the results of the interactive surveys. The observations and conclusions from the discussion were recorded and will be reported separately. It is important to note that the interactive polling process was designed to stimulate discussion and understanding of the perspectives of the various participants. It was not designed to be statistically representative of a broader group of participants. The number of participants may vary among polls since all participants may not have participated in every poll.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. The results of the survey are not Page 1 statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Demographic Information (Includes all participants from 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participate on 10/3/05)

140 124

120

100

80 68

56 60

Number of Participants 40 33

21 16 17 20 11 7 6 0 3 0 All Mexico USA Local State Federal CBO Business Academia News Private Other Participants Gov Gov Gov Media Citizen

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 2 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Relative Priority of Transportation Improvements (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participate on 10/3/05)

100

90

80 All Participants (121) Mexico (54) 70 USA (67) Local Gov (33) 60 State Gov (16) Fed Gov (17) 50 CBO (7) Business (21) 40 Relative Priority Academia (11) News Media (0) 30 Private (3) Other (6) 20

10

0 B-Improvements to existing Otay Mesa A-Future East Otay Mesa - Otay II Port of C-Improvements to cross-border and Port of Entry and connecting roads Entry and connecting roads regional public transportation services

Mejoras en el actual cruce fronterizo de Futuro cruce fronterizo East Otay Mesa - Mejoras al transporte público Otay Mesa y caminos de acceso Otay II y caminos de acceso transfronterizo y regional

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 3 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Transportation Priorities* (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participate on 10/3/05)

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 121 54 67 33 16 17 7 21 11 0 3 6

B-Improvements to existing Otay Mesa Port of Entry and connecting roads 55.0 57.4 53.0 48.5 53.1 64.7 35.7 59.5 54.5 0.0 33.3 50.0 Mejoras en el actual cruce fronterizo de Otay Mesa y caminos de acceso

A-Future East Otay Mesa - Otay II Port of Entry and connecting roads 53.3 59.3 48.5 48.5 50.0 41.2 71.4 69.0 54.5 0.0 66.7 58.3 Futuro cruce fronterizo East Otay Mesa - Otay II y caminos de acceso

C-Improvements to cross-border and regional public transportation services 40.5 33.3 46.3 50.0 43.8 44.1 42.9 21.4 40.9 0.0 50.0 41.7 Mejoras al transporte público transfronterizo y regional

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 4 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Relative Preference of Transportation Funding Sources Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participant on 10/3/05 except for Additonal TransNet Sales Tax which was evaluated in the 10/3/05 meeting only

100

90

80 All Participants (119) Mexico (54) 70 USA (65) Local Gov (33) 60 State Gov (15) Fed Gov (16) 50 CBO (7) Business (21) 40 Academia (11) New s Media (0) 30 Pr iv ate ( 3) Other (6) 20

10

0 A-Toll Revenues for new ports E-Non-residential development B-Additional TransNet sales tax D-Additional residential C-Additional local gas tax of entry and access roads impact fees for transportation Impuesto de ventas TransNet development impact fees for Impuesto adicional a la gasolina Peaje para nuevos cruces Impuestos al desarrollo no adicional transportation fronterizos y caminos de residencial para transporte Impuestos al desarrollo acceso residencial para transporte

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 5 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Transportation Funding Priorities* (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participate on 10/3/05)

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 119 54 65 33 15 16 7 21 11 0 3 6

A-Toll Revenues for new ports of entry and access roads 65.4 54.8 74.2 67.6 60.5 57.8 67.9 74.9 68.1 0.0 91.7 36.0 Peaje para nuevos cruces fronterizos y caminos de acceso

E-Non-residential development impact fees for transportation 56.4 62.6 51.3 56.0 58.3 62.5 53.6 41.1 65.7 0.0 16.7 91.7 Impuestos al desarrollo no residencial para transporte

**B-Additional TransNet sales tax **Impuesto de ventas TransNet 50.9 64.3 46.4 53.1 64.6 46.9 42.9 39.6 58.3 0.0 50.0 50.0 adicional

D-Additional residential development impact fees for transportation 45.6 52.9 39.5 41.6 39.9 45.3 46.4 49.1 46.1 0.0 16.7 63.7 Impuestos al desarrollo residencial para transporte

C-Additional local gas tax 29.4 21.7 35.8 30 29.4 25.0 39.3 40.4 15.1 0.0 75.0 8.3 Impuesto adicional a la gasolina

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives. ** Additional TransNet Sales Tax results are for the 10/3/05 meeting only. This revenue source was not evaluated at the 10/11/05 meeting.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 6 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Economic Development Priorities (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participante on 10/3/05)

100

90 All Participants (120) Mexico (54) 80 USA (66) 70 Local Gov (33) 60 State Gov (15) Fed Gov (17) 50 CBO (7) 40 Business (21) 30 Academia (11)

Relative Importance News Media (0) 20 Private (3) 10 Other (6) 0 D-Address infrastructure needs A-Promote creation or B-Address future industrial C-Address relationship of existing and future industrial expansion of common clusters land supply and demand between Brown Field Municipal land uses (water, energy, etc.) on both sides of the border Tratar la oferta y demanda Airport and Tijuana's Tratar las necesidades de Promover la creación o futura de suelo industrial International Airport operations infraestructura de usos de expansión de los sectores and existing and future suelo industriales existentes y económicos comunes en industrial land use futuros (agua, energía, etc.) ambos lados de la frontera Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de sue

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 7 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Economic Development Priorities* (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participate on 10/3/05)

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 120 54 66 33 15 17 7 21 11 0 3 6

D-Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (water, energy, etc.) Tratar las necesidades de 73.9 74.4 73.5 68.4 73.1 78.2 61.6 76.0 78.5 0.0 88.7 83.2 infraestructura de usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros (agua, energía, etc.)

A-Promote creation or expansion of common clusters on both sides of the border 52.4 56.4 49.2 46.2 57.5 48.6 33.1 58.2 69.5 0.0 44.0 60.7 Promover la creación o expansión de los sectores económicos comunes en ambos lados de la frontera

B-Address future industrial land supply and demand 40.7 44.7 37.5 44.1 37.1 33.1 42.6 48.9 39.0 0.0 55.3 27.5 Tratar la oferta y demanda futura de suelo industrial

C-Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future industrial land use 28.8 20.2 35.6 35.2 24.8 35.1 61.7 15.8 12.0 0.0 11.0 22.0 Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 8 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Housing Priorities (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participant on 10/3/05) 100

90 All Participants (118) Mexico (54) 80 USA (64) 70 Local Gov (33) 60 State Gov (15) Fed Gov (15) 50 CBO (7) 40 Business (21) 30 Academia (11) Relative Importance Relative News Media (0) 20 Private (3) 10 Other (6) 0 D-Address infrastructure B-Address housing A-Address future housing C-Address relationship needs of existing and affordability issues and supply and demand between Brown Field future residential land use opportunities Tratar la oferta y demanda Municipal Airport and (water, sewage, schools, Asuntos y oportunidades futura de vivienda Tijuana's International etc.) de vivienda a costos Airport operations and Tratar las necesidades de accesibles existing and future infraestructura de usos de residential land use suelo residencial existente Tratar la conexión entre y futuro (agua, drenaje, las operaciones de los escuelas, etc.) aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de sue

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 9 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Housing Priorities* (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participant on 10/3/05)

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 118 54 64 33 15 15 7 21 11 0 3 6

D-Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (water, sewage, schools, etc.) Tratar las necesidades de 78.0 81.9 74.7 74.5 82.0 82.1 61.6 80.7 72.5 0.0 88.7 77.5 infraestructura de usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro (agua, drenaje, escuelas, etc.)

B-Address housing affordability issues and opportunities 52.0 50.9 52.9 51.1 53.0 51.7 42.6 45.7 69.3 0.0 66.3 60.8 Asuntos y oportunidades de vivienda a costos accesibles Item

A-Address future housing supply and demand 48.2 44.1 51.7 42.2 46.2 52.8 66.3 55.2 39.0 0.0 44.0 55.2 Tratar la oferta y demanda futura de vivienda

C-Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future residential land use 18.3 19.0 17.8 27.0 15.5 8.2 28.4 15.7 18.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 10 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Environmental Priorities (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participant on 10/3/05)

80

70 All Participants (115) Mexico (52) 60 USA (63) Local Gov (32) 50 State Gov (15) Fed Gov (14) 40 CBO (7) Business (20) 30 Academia (11)

Relative Importance News Media (0) 20 Local Gov (32) Other (6) 10

0 B-Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. A-Address conservation of sensitive habitat Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) corridors Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Tratar la conservación de corredores ecológicos Río Alamar y Río Otay sensibles

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 11 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Environmental Priorities* (Combined responses from participants on 10/3/05 and participants from 10/11/05 who did not participant on 10/3/05)

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 115 52 63 32 15 14 7 20 11 0 3 6

B-Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) 64.3 67.3 61.9 68.8 73.3 71.2 57.1 60.0 54.5 0.0 66.7 50.0 Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

A-Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors 35.7 32.7 38.1 31.2 26.7 28.6 42.9 40.0 45.5 0.0 33.3 50.0 Tratar la conservación de corredores ecológicos sensibles

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 12 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Environmental Priorities (Responses from participants from 10/11/05 only)

120

100 All Participants (59) Mexico (45) USA (13) 80 Local Gov (19) State Gov (8) Fed Gov (9) 60 CBO (1) Business (13) 40 Academia (5)

RelativeImportance News Media (0) Private (1) 20 Other (2)

0 D-Water Quality A-Address conservation of B-Address conservation of C-Air Quality Calidad de Agua sensitive habitat corridors urban river corridors (e.g. Calidad de Aire Tratar la conservación de Alamar River and Otay corredores ecológicos River Watershed) sensibles Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 13 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

Environmental Priorities* (Responses from participants on 10/11/05 only)

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 59 45 13 19 8 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

D-Water Quality 55.0 50.7 68.8 55.8 37.1 55.2 66.0 63.7 46.2 0.0 66.0 66.5 Calidad de Agua

A-Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors 54.0 57.5 38.3 54.1 70.6 40.6 0.0 45.9 86.4 0.0 0.0 50.0 Tratar la conservación de corredores ecológicos sensibles

B-Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) 46.1 50.1 33.1 45.4 45.5 47.8 100.0 56.2 19.8 0.0 33.0 33.0 Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

C-Air Quality 40.4 38.2 51.1 41.8 37.2 51.4 33.0 30.5 46.2 0.0 100.0 33.0 Calidad de Aire

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. Page 14 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix A - Interactive Polling Questions

Interactive Polling Questions October 3, 2005 and October 11, 2005

BACKGROUND INFORMATION / ANTECEDENTES

Where do you live? / ¿Dónde vive usted?

1. Mexico 2. USA

What is your organizational affiliation? / ¿A qué tipo de organización pertenece?

1. Local Government / Gobierno Municipal 2. State Government / Gobierno Estatal 3. Federal Government / Gobierno Federal 4. Community Based Organization / Organización de la Comunidad 5. Business / Sector Privado Empresarial 6. Academia / Académico 7. News Media / Medios de Comunicación 8. Private Citizen / Ciudadano 9. Other / Otro

Did you participate in the first workshop held in National City on October 3rd? ¿Participó en el primer taller el 3 de octubre en National City? (Tijuana – 10/1105 meeting only) 1. Yes / Si 2. No / No

EXAMPLE OPINION POLL / EJEMPLO DE SONDEO DE OPINIÓN

Which do you prefer for Breakfast? / ¿Qué prefiere para el desayuno?

A. Caffeinated Coffee / Café B. Decaffeinated Coffee / Café descafeínado C. Bloody Mary / Bloody Mary

A-1 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix A - Interactive Polling Questions

TRANSPORTATION / TRANSPORTE

Which is more important? / ¿Cuál es más importante?

A. Future East Otay Mesa - Otay II Port of Entry and connecting roads Futuro cruce fronterizo East Otay Mesa - Otay II y caminos de acceso B. Improvements to existing Otay Mesa Port of Entry and connecting roads Mejoras en el actual cruce fronterizo de Otay Mesa y caminos de acceso C. Improvements to cross-border and regional public transportation services Mejoras al transporte público transfronterizo y regional

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING / FINANCIAMIENTO DE TRANSPORTE

Which do you prefer? / ¿Cuál prefiere?

A. Toll Revenues for new ports of entry and access roads Peaje para nuevos cruces fronterizos y caminos de acceso B. Additional local gas tax Impuesto adicional a la gasolina C. Additional residential development impact fees for transportation Cobrar una aportación en nuevos desarrollos para apoyar el transporte

Non-residential development impact fees for transportation Cobrar una aportación a desarrollos no residenciales para apoyar el transporte

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT / DESARROLLO ECONÓMICO

Which is more important? / ¿Cuál es más importante?

A. Promote creation or expansion of common economic clusters on both sides of the border Promover la creación o expansión de los sectores económicos comunes en ambos lados de la frontera B. Address future industrial land supply and demand Analizar la oferta y demanda futura para suelo industrial C. Address relationship between the area’s airports operations and existing and future industrial land use Entender la relación entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos del área y los usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros D. Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (water, energy, etc.) Cubrir las necesidades de infraestructura para usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros (agua, energía, etc.)

A-2 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix A - Interactive Polling Questions

HOUSING / VIVIENDA

Which is more important? / ¿Cuál es más importante?

A. Address future housing supply and demand Analizar la oferta y demanda de vivienda a futuro B. Address housing affordability issues and opportunities Analizar la posibilidad de ofrecer/crear vivienda de bajo costo C. Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future residential land use Entender la relación entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro D. Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (water, sewage, schools, etc.) Analizar la demanda de infraestructura para los usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro (agua, drenaje, escuelas, etc.)

ENVIRONMENT / MEDIO AMBIENTE

Which is more important? / ¿Cuál es más importante?

A. Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors Tener políticas para la conservación de corredores ecológicos B. Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) Realizar las acciones adecuadas para mantener y proteger los ríos urbanos (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

A-3 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix B – National City October 3, 2005 Polling Results

Transportation Priorities* National City – October 3, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 86 21 65 24 13 17 7 12 6 0 3 4

B-Improvements to existing Otay Mesa Port of Entry and connecting roads 52.9 52.4 53.1 45.8 57.7 64.7 35.7 62.5 50.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 Mejoras en el actual cruce fronterizo de Otay Mesa y caminos de acceso

A-Future East Otay Mesa - Otay II Port of Entry and connecting roads 51.2 59.5 48.5 50.0 38.5 41.2 71.4 58.3 50.0 0.0 66.7 75.0 Futuro cruce fronterizo East Otay Mesa - Otay II y caminos de acceso

C-Improvements to cross-border and regional public transportation services 44.2 38.1 46.2 50.0 50.0 44.1 42.9 29.2 50.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 Mejoras al transporte público transfronterizo y regional

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. B-1 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix B – National City October 3, 2005 Polling Results

Transportation Funding Priorities* National City – October 3, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 84 21 63 24 12 16 7 12 6 0 3 4

A-Toll Revenues for new ports of entry and access roads 67.0 42.9 75.0 70.8 56.2 57.8 67.9 81.2 75.0 0.0 91.7 37.5 Peaje para nuevos cruces fronterizos y caminos de acceso

E-Non-residential development impact fees for transportation 53.9 63.1 50.8 56.2 56.2 62.5 53.6 33.3 54.2 0.0 16.7 87.5 Impuestos al desarrollo no residencial para transporte

B-Additional TransNet sales tax Impuesto de ventas TransNet 50.9 64.3 46.4 53.1 64.6 46.9 42.9 39.6 58.3 0.0 50.0 50.0 adicional Item

D-Additional residential development impact fees for transportation 44.0 57.1 39.7 36.5 41.7 45.3 46.4 58.3 45.8 0.0 16.7 62.5 Impuestos al desarrollo residencial para transporte

C-Additional local gas tax 31.0 17.9 35.3 30.2 31.2 25.0 39.3 37.5 16.7 0.0 75.0 12.5 Impuesto adicional a la gasolina

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. B-2 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix B – National City October 3, 2005 Polling Results

Economic Development Priorities* National City – October 3, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Resonses 85 21 64 24 12 17 7 12 6 0 3 4

D-Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (water, energy, etc.) Tratar las necesidades de 73.1 69.5 74.3 66.4 74.8 78.2 61.6 74.8 72.0 0.0 88.7 91.5 infraestructura de usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros (agua, energía, etc.)

A-Promote creation or expansion of common clusters on both sides of the border Promover la creación o expansión 51.8 56.8 50.2 44.2 52.5 48.6 33.1 66.2 72 0.0 44.0 74.5 de los sectores económicos comunes en ambos lados de la frontera

B-Address future industrial land supply and demand 38.4 45.7 36.1 44.1 33.0 33.1 42.6 41.3 38.5 0.0 55.3 16.5 Tratar la oferta y demanda futura de suelo industrial

C-Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future industrial land use 32.4 23.7 35.2 40.1 30.5 35.1 61.7 16.6 16.5 0.0 11.0 16.5 Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. B-3 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix B – National City October 3, 2005 Polling Results

Housing Priorities* National City – October 3, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 83 21 62 24 12 15 7 12 6 0 3 4

D-Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (water, sewage, schools, etc.) 74.8 74.4 75.0 71.9 77.5 82.1 61.6 83.1 60.8 0.0 88.7 66.2 Tratar las necesidades de infraestructura de usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro (agua, drenaje, escuelas, etc.)

B-Address housing affordability issues and opportunities 54.0 55.2 53.6 48.2 60.8 51.7 42.6 52.4 66.2 0.0 66.3 74.8 Asuntos y oportunidades de vivienda a costos accesibles

A-Address future housing supply and demand 47.8 39.3 50.7 45.6 41.2 52.8 66.3 44.1 38.5 0.0 44.0 58.0 Tratar la oferta y demanda futura de vivienda

C-Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future residential land use 19.3 23.6 17.9 28.9 16.6 8.2 28.4 16.5 33.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. B-4 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Appendix B – National City October 3, 2005 Polling Results

Environmental Priorities* National City – October 3, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 81 20 61 24 12 14 7 11 6 0 3 4

B-Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) 66.7 75.0 63.9 66.7 66.7 71.4 57.1 72.7 66.7 0.0 66.7 50.0 Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

A-Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors 33.3 25.0 36.1 33.3 33.3 28.6 42.9 27.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 50.0 Tratar la conservación de corredores ecológicos sensibles

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. B-5 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – Appendix C: Tijuana October 11, 2005 Interactive Polling Results

Transportation Priorities* Tijuana – October 11, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 60 45 14 19 9 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

B-Improvements to existing Otay Mesa Port of Entry and connecting roads 60.0 60.0 64.3 60.5 61.1 77.8 100.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 Mejoras en el actual cruce fronterizo de Otay Mesa y caminos de acceso

A-Future East Otay Mesa - Otay II Port of Entry and connecting roads 56.7 60.0 50.0 44.7 72.2 33.3 0.0 88.5 60.0 0.0 100.0 25.0 Futuro cruce fronterizo East Otay Mesa - Otay II y caminos de acceso

C-Improvements to cross-border and regional public transportation services 32.5 30.0 35.7 44.7 16.7 38.9 50.0 11.5 30.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Mejoras al transporte público transfronterizo y regional

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. C-1 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – Appendix C: Tijuana October 11, 2005 Interactive Polling Results

Transportation Funding Priorities* Tijuana – October 11, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 59 45 13 19 8 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

A-Toll Revenues for new ports of entry and access roads 62.5 63.5 61.3 54.2 70.5 59.0 100.0 74.1 59.8 0.0 100.0 33.0 Peaje para nuevos cruces fronterizos y caminos de acceso

E-Non-residential development impact fees for transportation 60.1 60.4 58.8 54.1 74.6 62.6 0.0 50.9 79.6 0.0 33.0 100.0 Impuestos al desarrollo no residencial para transporte

D-Additional residential development impact fees for transportation 44.1 47.8 28.3 53.9 22.0 55.2 33.0 33.1 46.4 0.0 0.0 66.0 Impuestos al desarrollo residencial para transporte

C-Additional local gas tax 30.9 26.5 47.4 34.8 29.4 22.1 66.0 40.8 13.2 0.0 66.0 0.0 Impuesto adicional a la gasoline

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. C-2 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – Appendix C: Tijuana October 11, 2005 Interactive Polling Results

Economic Development Priorities* Tijuana – October 11, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 59 45 13 19 8 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

D-Address infrastructure needs of existing and future industrial land uses (water, energy, etc.) Tratar las necesidades de 77.7 79.0 74.1 73.4 78.9 77.6 66.0 84.5 86.4 0.0 66.0 66.5 infraestructura de usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros (agua, energía, etc.)

B-Address future industrial land supply and demand 48.2 44.8 63.7 52.2 53.6 33.0 66.0 56.1 39.6 0.0 33.0 49.5 Tratar la oferta y demanda futura de suelo industrial

A-Promote creation or expansion of common clusters on both sides of the border Promover la creación o expansión 47.6 51.5 35.5 47.0 45.5 47.8 33.0 45.7 66.4 0.0 66.0 33.0 de los sectores económicos comunes en ambos lados de la frontera

C-Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future industrial land use 20.8 18.4 22.8 15.6 20.6 40.7 0.0 12.7 6.6 0.0 33.0 33.0 Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo industriales existentes y futuros

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. C-3 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – Appendix C: Tijuana October 11, 2005 Interactive Polling Results

Housing Priorities* Tijuana – October 11, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 59 45 13 19 8 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

D-Address infrastructure needs of existing and future residential land use (water, sewage, schools, etc.) Tratar las necesidades de 85.7 86.5 84.4 85.8 91.5 88.7 100.0 79.2 86.4 0.0 66.0 100.0 infraestructura de usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro (agua, drenaje, escuelas, etc.)

A-Address future housing supply and demand 46.5 46.3 48.4 34.7 57.9 36.7 66.0 68.8 39.6 0.0 0.0 49.5 Tratar la oferta y demanda futura de vivienda

B-Address housing affordability issues and opportunities 42.0 45.6 33.0 43.5 24.8 47.8 33.0 38.1 73.0 0.0 66.0 33.0 Asuntos y oportunidades de vivienda a costos accesibles

C-Address relationship between Brown Field Municipal Airport and Tijuana's International Airport operations and existing and future residential land use 23.6 19.1 33.2 31.4 24.9 25.8 0.0 12.7 0.0 0.0 66.0 16.5 Tratar la conexión entre las operaciones de los aeropuertos de Brown Field y Tijuana y los usos de suelo residencial existente y futuro

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. C-4 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – Appendix C: Tijuana October 11, 2005 Interactive Polling Results

Environmental Priorities* Tijuana – October 11, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 58 44 13 18 8 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

B-Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) 60.3 68.2 38.5 77.8 50.0 55.6 100.0 53.8 40.0 0.0 100.0 50.0 Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

A-Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors Tratar la conservación de 39.7 31.8 61.5 22.2 50.0 44.4 0.0 46.2 60.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 corredores ecológicos sensibles Item

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. C-5 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole. Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Plan Estratégico del Corredor Binacional Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Interactive Polling Results – Appendix C: Tijuana October 11, 2005 Interactive Polling Results

Environmental Priorities* Tijuana – October 11, 2005

All Local State Fed News Mexico USA CBO Business Academia Private Other Participants Gov’t Gov’t Gov’t Media Number of Responses 59 45 13 19 8 9 1 13 5 0 1 2

D-Water Quality 55.0 50.7 68.8 55.8 37.1 55.2 66.0 63.7 46.2 0.0 66.0 66.5 Calidad de Agua

A-Address conservation of sensitive habitat corridors 54.0 57.5 38.3 54.1 70.6 40.6 0.0 45.9 86.4 0.0 0.0 50.0 Tratar la conservación de corredores ecológicos sensibles

B-Address conservation of urban river corridors (e.g. Alamar River and Otay River Watershed) 46.1 50.1 33.1 45.4 45.5 47.8 100.0 56.2 19.8 0.0 33.0 33.0 Tratar los corredores fluviales en áreas urbanas (i.e. Río Alamar y Río Otay)

C-Air Quality 40.4 38.2 51.1 41.8 37.2 51.4 33.0 30.5 46.2 0.0 100.0 33.0 Calidad de Aire

* Relative priority on a scale of 1 (low) to 100 (high) determined using a paired-comparison technique where participants select their preference from each possible pair of alternatives.

This survey was structured to explore and understand the various perspectives of the participants. C-6 The results of the survey are not statistically representative of the community as a whole.

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The following tables depict plant and animal species which are found in the various habitats of the study area.

TECATE CYPRESS FOREST

PLANTS f Jennifer’s monardella f Variegated dudleya (Dudleya variegate) (Mondardella stoneana) f Mexican flannelbush f Baja California bird bush (Fremontodendron mexicanum) (Ornithostaphylos ocuttii) f Cedros Island oak (Quercus cedrosensis) f Coast barrel cactus f Otay mesa mint (Pogogyne nuiuscula)* (Ferocactus viridescens) f Small-leaved rose (Rosa minutifolia)

BIRDS f Stellar’s jay f Black headed grosbeak f American robin f Mountain chickadee f Western bluebird

MAMMALS f Southern mule deer f Rodents f Bobcat f Bats

REPTILES f Mountain kingsnake f Large blotched salamander

Source: Plants – Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative; Page 23

CALIFORNIAN

PLANTS f California sage f Laurel sumac f Flat-topped buckwheat f Bladderpod sage f Black sage f San Diego sunflower

BIRDS f California gnatcatcher f Rufous crowned sparrow f California towhee f California thrasher

MAMMALS f Black tailed jackrabbit f Deer mice f Audubon’s cottontail f Coyotes f Packrats f Mule deer

REPTILES f Orange-throated lizard f San Diego horned lizard f Whiptail lizard f Banded gecko

Source: Plants – Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative; Page 23 Reptiles – http://dplu-mscp.sdcounty.ca.gov/speciesinfo_6/bio11conifer_forest.html – Accessed on 3/2/06

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan B-1 Appendix B

CHAPARRAL

PLANTS f Manzanita (several species) f Mimulus f Scrub oak f Ceanothus f Chamise

BIRDS f Spotted towhee f Black-chinned sparrow f Wrentit f California thrasher

MAMMALS f Bats f Coyote f Deer mice f Bobcat f Pocket mice f Mule deer f Black-tailed jackrabbit f Mountain lion f Brush rabbit f Ring-tailed cats

REPTILES f Western whiptail lizard f San Diego horned lizard f Granite spiny lizard f Pacific rattlesnake

Source: Plants – Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative; Page 23

OTAY RIVER WATERSHED

PLANTS f Willows (Salix spp) f Alkali-heath (Frankenia salina) f Cottonwoods (Populus spp.) f Shoregrass (Monanthchloe littoralis) f Mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) f Saltgrass (Distichilis spicata) f Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa) f Cattails (Typha spp) f Cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) f Bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) f Pickleweed (Salicornia spp) f Rushes (Juncus spp.)

BIRDS f Southwest willow flycatcher f Reddish egret f Least bell’s vireos f Light-footed clapper rail f Cooper hawk f Long-billed curlew f Tricolored blackbird f Belding’s savannah sparrow f White-faced ibis f Large billed sparrow f Salt marsh bird’s beak f Northern harrier f Salt marsh skipper f Western snow plover

REPTILES f Arroyo southwestern toad f California red-legged frog

Source: Reptiles – http://dplu-mscp.sdcounty.ca.gov/speciesinfo_6/bio11conifer_forest.html – Accessed on 3/2/06

B-2 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Appendix B

ALAMAR RIVER WATERSHED

PLANTS f Ambrosis confertiflora f Rorripa nasturtium-acquaticum f Anemopsis californica (hierba de Manzo) f Rumex salicifolius f Glutinosa f Salis lasiolepis f Juncus acutus f Salix goodingii f Plantanus racemosa f Scirpus spp. f Populus fremontil f Urtica holosericea

BIRDS f Least bell’s vireos f Cooper hawk

MAMMALS f Brush rabbit (Lepus californicus) f Field mice (Neotoma lepida) f Coyotes f Bobcat (Lynx rufus)

REPTILES f Lizard (Elgaria multicarinat) f Snake (Crotalus viridis) f Toad (Bufo boreas) f Snake (Lampropeltis getula) f Toad (Bufo californicus) f Snake (Charina trivirgata) f Snake (Crotalus ruber) f Snake (Thamnophis hammondii) f Snake (Crotalus mitchelli)

Source: The Partial Program for Conservation and Urban Improvement of the Alamar River Zone

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan B-3 Appendix B

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

B-4 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan

APPENDIX C

Mexico’s Housing Financing Mechanisms

The largest financer of housing in Mexico is the National Fund Institute for Workers Housing (Instituto de Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores - INFONAVIT). Funded by a compulsory contribution by employers of five percent of employees’ wages, INFONAVIT currently provides over half the loans for developer-built homes (and about three quarters of the loan value).[1] It has public and private membership on its governing board.

The Federal Mortgage Agency (Sociedad Hipotecaria Federal - SHF) is the second largest lender in Mexico, which is a federal development bank and is owned by the federal government. This organization channels funds through private Mexican commercial banks. It has the broadest market for loans, including home loans, home equity loans, and construction loans. In addition, it is the only institution that offers loans to workers that are not part of the formal economy.

The third largest capital source is Housing Fund for Civil Servants (Fondo de Vivienda del Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado - FOVISSSTE). It is the public sector equivalent to INFONAVIT and is funded by a five percent employee contribution. Loans are distributed based on a lottery system.

There are three other public agencies that offer home loans. They are Peoples Housing Fund (Fideicomiso Fondo Nacional de Habitaciones Populares - FONHAPO), States’ Housing Organization (Organismos Estatales de Vivienda - OREVIS), and Mortgage and Public Works Bank (Banco Nacional de Obras y Servicios Públicos - BANOBRAS). These lending institutions and private banks represent only a small segment of the home loan industry.

Unlike financing in Mexico, the U.S. lending market is mostly funded by private lending institutions with the exception of government sponsored institutions (e.g., Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae). Funding is available for residential sales and rental unit construction. It has no formal national employee contribution program, though, funding for the home loan industry does receive a lot of its capital from public and private employee pension investments funds.

[1] The State of Mexico’s Housing, (prepared for CIDOC and CONAFOVI by Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University); page 31, 2004.

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan C-1

Appendix C

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

C-2 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan

APPENDIX D

Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

ACRONYM/TERM DEFINITION PAGE #

Aduanas Mexican General Customs Administration 36

AIM Asociación de la Industria Maquiladora 37

ALUC Airport Land Use Commission 33

ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan 33

APCD Air Pollution Control District 75

BLM Border Liaison Mechanism 44

BLM Bureau of Land Management 68

BRT Bus Rapid Transit 32

BWAC Binational Watershed Advisory Council 74

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 1

CBP Customs and Border Protection 35

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 35

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 3

CESPT Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Tijuana 2

CILA Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas 2

COBRO Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities 1

CONAGUA Mexico's National Water Commission 77

COPLADEM Comité de Planeación y Desarrollo Municipal 2

CSS California Coastal Sage 68

DPF Diesel Particulate Matter 76

DOC Diesel Oxidation Catalyst 76

DOS Department of State 35

EAP Early Action Program 39

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan D-1 Appendix D – Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

ACRONYM/TERM DEFINITION PAGE #

EIR Environmental Impact Report 46

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 46

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 75

FAST Free and Secure Trade 39

FDA Food and Drug Administration 57

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 35

FM Frequency Modulation 7

FTA Federal Transit Administration 42

GSA General Services Administration 35

I Interstate 25

IMPlan Instituto Municipal de Planeación 1

INDAABIN Instituto Administración y Avalúos de Bienes Nacionales 2

IRIS Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy 9

JEPA Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement 69

JWC Joint Working Committee 37

LCBCI Las Californias Binational Conservation Initiative 72

mph Miles Per Hour 34

MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program 72

MTS Metropolitan Transit System 2

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 35

NGO Non-Governmental Organization 2

ONG Organizaciones no Gubernamentales 2

ORWMP Otay River Watershed Management Program 73

PDT Project Development Team 1

PM Particulate Matter 77

POE Port of Entry 3

PROFEPA Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente 78

R&D Research and Development 53

D-2 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan Appendix D – Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

ACRONYM/TERM DEFINITION PAGE #

RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan 1

REPS Regional Economic Prosperity Strategy 9

RTP Regional Transportation Plan 39

RTP Regional Technology Park 65

RTV Regional Transit Vision 64

SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments 1

SCT Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transporte 2

SD&AE San Diego and Arizona Eastern 34

SEMARNAT Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 2

SIDUE Secretaría de Infraestructura y Desarrollo Urbano del Estado 1

SR State Route 3

SRE Secretariat of Foreign Relations 35

Strategic Plan Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 1

TransNet SANDAG’s Local Transportation Sales Tax Program 39

TRW Tijuana River Watershed 74

UABC Universidad Autónoma de Baja California 36

ULSD Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel 76

UCSD University of California, San Diego 56

WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments 1

Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan D-3

Appendix D – Glossary of Acronyms and Terms

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

D-4 Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-14 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

FIRST ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE TransNet File Number 1110200 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

Introduction

One of the key requirements of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Proposition A, November 2004) was the establishment of an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC). The role of the ITOC is to ensure that the voter approved mandates of the new ordinance are carried out and to recommend improvements and enhancements to the financial integrity and performance of the TransNet program over time. The ITOC members were selected early last year, and the ITOC has been meeting since May 2005.

An annual report from the ITOC is a requirement of the Ordinance. Once ITOC assumes responsibility for the audits starting in FY 2009, the annual report will focus on findings and recommendations resulting from the annual fiscal audit cycle. The ITOC members felt that it was important to start the tradition of making an annual report to the SANDAG Board and the public prior to implementation of the specific requirement for an annual report tied to the fiscal audit process.

This first annual report covers ITOC’s first year of work through FY 2006. The annual report reviews the major roles and responsibilities of the ITOC, the primary areas of emphasis and major accomplishments during the ITOC’s first year, and upcoming activities for the next year. The annual report process will be used by ITOC to inform the SANDAG Board of Directors and the public about the ITOC and its major work efforts and to solicit input from a wide range of interest groups and the general public on issues for the ITOC to work on in the future.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Attachment: 1. Annual Report

Key Staff Contact: Craig Scott, (619) 699-1926, [email protected]

No Budget Impact

ITOC Attachment 1 The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee 2006 Annual Report

Safeguarding your TransNet dollars The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee

deliberations are held in an open, public Committee to provide its input on manner. The ITOC positions on key TransNet-related issues. TransNet issues are regularly presented at Selected a Chair and Vice-Chair, SANDAG Board of Directors and Policy approved an initial set of bylaws to Advisory Committee meetings. guide the operation of the ITOC, The seven members of ITOC are playing and began the development of a key role in shaping San Diego’s implementation guidelines for each transportation future as they work to of the major tasks identified for the ITOC in the TransNet Ordinance. ensure that the TransNet program is a success. Reviewed the major corridor projects included in the TransNet An Independent Perspective Milestones & EAP, examined the costs and schedules for each of the projects, The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Accomplishments — FY 2006 and communicated to the SANDAG Committee (ITOC) is a key component The ITOC has held 16 regular meetings, Board of Directors its endorsement of TransNet, the local half-cent sales tax special meetings, and workshops from of the Plan of Finance for the EAP, for regional transportation improvements which contains the that was extended by San Diego County financing strategy for the voters in 2004 for 40 years. SANDAG accelerated delivery of administers the TransNet program and these key transportation is responsible for implementing the improvements. projects outlined in the ordinance. Reviewed and As mandated by the TransNet Ordinance supported the expansion and Expenditure Plan, the ITOC was of the Commercial Paper created to provide an increased level Program from $135 of accountability for the allocation of million to $335 million, TransNet revenues — an additional and the interest rate hedging proposal to lock independent set of eyes and ears to in an interest rate of 3.89 ensure that the program is functioning percent on the first $600 as promised. Even though the TransNet Contruction on the I-15 Managed Lanes project million in long-term bonds extension does not take effect until July to be issued under the TransNet its inception in May 2005 through 1, 2008, the ITOC was formed early to extension. These actions resulted in provide guidance and oversight on the June 2006. Members have diligently a total of $935 million in financing development of the TransNet Early Action embraced their new responsibilities capacity being established to support Program (EAP) and the implementation and have worked to carry out the ITOC the implementation of the projects of other key components of the new mission with efficiency and productivity. identified in the EAP over the next measure. Beginning with Fiscal Year The following summarizes the major few years. topics of discussion and key accomplish- 2008-09, the ITOC will assume respon- Initiated the review of local agency ments during this time period: sibility for the annual independent audits. street and road projects for compli- Future annual reports will include results, Received numerous briefings from ance with the new requirements of findings, and recommendations coming SANDAG and Caltrans staff on out of the annual fiscal audit process. a wide range of topics related to the implementation of the overall The ITOC consists of a combination of TransNet program, including the individuals from a variety of professional EAP, the status of the major corridor fields who collectively offer SANDAG projects identified in the ballot the benefit of their experience in order measure, fiscal and performance to advance the timely and efficient audit requirements, the new Environ- implementation of TransNet projects, mental Mitigation Program, and and assure that all TransNet funds are other components of the TransNet expended in compliance with the 2004 extension. The ITOC also has made ordinance. The ITOC conducts its work several presentations to the SANDAG in such a way as to ensure that its Board of Directors and Transportation Photo from the SR 52, TransNet Traffic Relief program press event 2 ITOC

of the TransNet Ordinance in FY 2009 ITOC Roles & Responsibilities and beyond. The ITOC has a number of responsibili- Received several presentations on ties to ensure that the implementation the development of the long-range of the TransNet program is successful Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and carried out in accordance with the including the initial activities related to the major 2007 RTP update and a detailed review of the SANDAG transportation modeling system. This effort has focused on the refinement of the project evaluation criteria and performance measures used in the RTP process, which is one of The new Green Line Trolley at the the ITOC roles as specified in the Grantville Station TransNet Ordinance. the TransNet extension. Particular Conducted a workshop to provide attention was given to the application an in-depth look at the Performance of the “70/30” guidelines related to Monitoring System (PeMS) and its the new requirement that at least 70 application to evaluating the current percent of the TransNet local street condition of the region’s freeway and road funding be used for conges- system. The ITOC has held several tion relief purposes and no more than discussions related to refining and 30 percent for routine maintenance enhancing the region’s capabilities to monitor system performance and to use that information to evaluate potential From the TransNet Early Action Projects map improvements to the voter-approved Ordinance and Expendi- transportation network. Although much work ture Plan. These tasks govern the group’s remains to be done in annual focus and include: this area, performance Conduct annual fiscal and compli- measurement of the ance audits of all TransNet fund existing system has recipients beginning with the Fiscal been a major focus of Year 2008-09 audits. discussion by the ITOC. Provide an annual report to the Played a key role in SANDAG Board on the audit findings. working with SANDAG A Trolley and the COASTER at Old Town staff and consultants Conduct triennial performance audits of SANDAG and other agencies efforts. The ITOC worked in on the development of a “Dashboard” reporting system to involved in the implementation cooperation with the Cities/County of TransNet-funded projects and Transportation Advisory Committee provide Web access to information on the status of project costs and programs to review project delivery, (CTAC) on the development of these cost control, and schedule adherence. guidelines defining the eligibility schedules for use in the required requirements for the use of TransNet quarterly reporting process specified Provide recommendations to the funding for local street and road in the TransNet Ordinance as well as SANDAG Board regarding any improvements. other project and program manage- proposed amendments to the ment efforts. Again, this effort will Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. Reviewed several amendments to continue to be an area on which the the current Regional Transportation ITOC plans to focus in subsequent Provide recommendations as part of Improvement Program (RTIP) and years. the required 10-year comprehensive performed a detailed analysis of program review process. the new projects proposed for the Established an ITOC Web site to (continued on page 4) 2006 RTIP (FY 2007 – FY 2011) for provide a source of information for compliance with the new provisions the public regarding ITOC activities.

3 The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (continued from page 3) Participate in the ongoing refinement Ongoing review of the major TransNet — one that offers viable choices and of the SANDAG transportation highway and transit projects in terms alternatives to travelers. system performance measurement of budget control and schedule To share your thoughts and opinions process and the project evaluation adherence. criteria used in development of the with the ITOC, go to www.sandag. RTP and in prioritizing projects for Refining and enhancing SANDAG org/ITOC and complete the feedback funding in the RTIP. transportation system performance form. Meeting schedules, agendas, management systems. and minutes also are available on this Review and comment on the interactive Web site. programming of TransNet revenues in Developing and refining the SANDAG the RTIP. Dashboard reporting system to provide the ITOC, Transportation Review proposed debt financing Committee, Board of Directors, and The Independent Taxpayer plans to ensure that the benefits the public with regular reports on the Oversight Committee associated with accelerating project status of each major project. The current ITOC members and the delivery and avoiding future cost Expanding ITOC outreach efforts area of professional expertise they escalation exceed debt issuance and represent: interest costs. through greater use of the ITOC Web site and other approaches. Review the major congestion relief Maryam Babaki (ITOC Chair) Transportation Project Design/Construction projects identified in the Ordinance The ITOC Works For You (Term expires May 2009) for performance in terms of cost control and schedule adherence on a The ITOC was created to objectively Hamid Bahadori quarterly basis. represent the taxpayers of the San Traffic/Civil Engineering Diego region — to ensure that promises (Term expires May 2007) In carrying out its list of duties, the ITOC made regarding the implementation James C. Callaghan, Jr. (ITOC Vice Chair) strives to work in such a manner that of the TransNet half-cent sales tax Private Sector Senior Decision Maker (Term expires May 2007) does not cause unnecessary project for transportation improvements are delays, but allows for sufficient time to fulfilled in accordance with the program’s Ron Gerow Real Estate/Right-of-Way Acquisition make objective recommendations. Ordinance and Expenditure Plan. (Term expires May 2009) Looking To The Future The success of ITOC relies on continuous Doug Gibson feedback from the public. Building and Biology/Environmental Science As the ITOC continues its work in its maintaining open dialogue is critical (Term expires May 2007) second year of activity, the following are for San Diego’s transportation future John Meyer the major planned focus areas: Municipal/Public Finance (Term expires May 2009) Jim Ryan Construction Project Management (Term expires May 2009) Information about each member is available at www.sandag.org/ITOC ITOC wishes to acknowledge the efforts of Michael Boyle as the first ITOC Chair from May 2005 to February 2006.

ITOC c/o SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900

Overpass construction work for the SPRINTER

4

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 06-09-15 SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 ACTION REQUESTED – INFORMATION

ARJIS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH File Number 2001400 DIVISION ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Introduction

As part of the SANDAG FY 2006 Overall Work Program, a number of public safety related products and deliverables were outlined as part of the various projects funded through local, state, and federal sources. The Criminal Justice Research Division served as the regional Clearinghouse for public safety information and conducted a number of other research projects that documented need or measured the effectiveness of various strategies to improve public safety. New technologies, improved data sharing, and better communication kept the Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) in the forefront as it continued to provide the San Diego law enforcement community with enhanced information used to solve crimes and protect the public.

ARJIS

FY 2006 was an exceptionally productive year for ARJIS, resulting in an average of 150,000 inquiries monthly. During the last fiscal year, ARJIS acquired and implemented two new investigative tools, COPLINK and I2; made enhancements to existing applications; added new ARJIS agencies; and released a groundbreaking crime-mapping Web site that promotes public safety and awareness. ARJIS also received an additional $985,000 through grants received from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to focus on the continued deployment of handheld personal data assistants (PDAs) to officers in the field and associated public safety mobile applications such as critical-incident mapping and the sharing of criminal gang information. Specific achievements during the year include:

• Adding the California Highway Patrol, DHS Fugitive Unit, Del Mar Park Rangers, and Veterans Affairs Police as new ARJIS agencies;

• Creating and deploying a greatly enhanced Web-based mapping application that helps citizens, law enforcement, and policymakers by providing information on criminals and crime to help improve the safety of our communities;

• Developing a Web-based application E-CARS (Electronic Crime and Report System Plus) that allows ARJIS member agencies to more accurately and efficiently collect, maintain, and report crime statistics to the California Department of Justice;

• Collaborating with Arizona and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to build an interstate information application to share booking photos and other related public safety information, enabling quicker identification of criminals who cross state boundaries;

• Acquiring, implementing, and deploying two new investigative tools: COPLINK (which has powerful search capabilities and the ability to search data from Orange County and Tucson, Arizona) and I2 (one of the most powerful investigative analysis tools on the market geared for use by crime and Intelligence analysts);

• Implementing a data-sharing application between ARJIS and the federal agencies that includes data from the FBI, U.S. Marshal, and the Bureau of Prisons;

• Continuing the deployment of handheld PDAs, with 200 currently in the field, which has greatly extended the ability to communicate and share information previously unavailable in remote locations and enabled positive identification of suspects in the field; and

• Conducted a successful workshop series on regional interoperability and communications that resulted in a proposed vision and framework for enhancing regional coordination and overcoming identified barriers to improving interoperability and communications.

The various groups that assist ARJIS include the Chiefs’/Sheriff’s Management Committee and the Business, Technical, and Crime Analysis working groups. These entities provided valuable insights and guidance throughout the year on the projects and initiatives listed above. In addition, many of these projects were the result of collaborative partnerships with NIJ, FBI, and DHS.

Criminal Justice Research

In FY 2006, the Criminal Justice Research Division (CJRD) successfully coordinated the efforts of the Criminal Justice Clearinghouse by compiling and distributing regional crime statistics that would not otherwise be easily accessible; serving as a resource to local public agencies, policymakers, and community organizations regarding what strategies are most effective in addressing local crime issues; and collaborating with a number of local entities to bring additional dollars into the region to address those areas of greatest concern, including prisoner re-entry and juvenile drug use.

CJRD staff has distinguished themselves by continuing to provide useful information in a timely and efficient manner to local and regional programs. With this information, public agencies, as well as other service providers, are better able to document need, secure additional resources to meet the needs of our residents, and effectively manage resources to maximize positive outcomes.

Criminal Justice Clearinghouse

The Criminal Justice Clearinghouse is funded annually with $200,000 in member assessments. During FY 2006, CJRD staff successfully completed a number of efforts designed to increase the efficiency with which local crime statistics are compiled, contributed to a number of local groups with the goal of making our region safer, and disseminated regional statistics and information in a timely and effective manner, including 25 years of historical crime data. Some especially noteworthy accomplishments for FY 2006 worth highlighting include:

• Coordinating with ARJIS staff during the implementation of E-CARS to facilitate the transfer of crime data from individual agencies that will reduce the need for double data entry and result in more timely compilation of crime statistics;

2 • Serving on a variety of local task forces and committees, including the Juvenile Justice Commission, Methamphetamine Strike Force, Elder Abuse Council, Domestic Violence Council, and the Re-entry Roundtable, as well as working with the City of San Diego in the formation of a gang commission;

• Restructuring the San Diego Grants Coalition to enhance membership and strengthen participation. The Coalition is a local group that includes representatives from prevention, law enforcement, treatment, and other stakeholders that work together to collaboratively seek funding for important local initiatives,

• Identifying resources to maintain the local Substance Abuse Monitoring (SAM) program, which tracks drug use among adult and juvenile arrestees, and co-authoring an Op-Ed piece using SAM data highlighting the perils of teen drug use;

• Producing and disseminating information in a timely fashion and in a manner that is quick- hitting and easy to understand, including 12 CJ faxes, 3 bulletins with SAM data, and 5 bulletins with crime- or arrest-related information, as well as a criminal justice wheel with 2005 crime data;

• Utilizing mapping technology and Census information, coupled with criminal justice statistics, to better understand how crime is affecting our communities and how we can strategically address underlying issues as a community; and

• Receiving a grant from Caltrans to analyze crime around transit stations that will develop analytical tools and identify factors that can help enhance the safety of public transportation users.

Other Projects

In FY 2006, the CJRD worked on 23 additional projects that involved a total budget of approximately $1.24 million. These projects included efforts to evaluate local juvenile delinquency programs, as well as programs targeted at reducing recidivism among returning ex-offenders and reducing drug use in our community, a factor clearly tied to criminal activity.

For some of these projects, CJRD staff serves as an independent evaluator to document how the program was implemented and if these efforts resulted in positive outcomes. On others, needs assessments are conducted or analytical techniques are used to address key questions posed by the community. Some notable findings from projects in FY 2006 include:

• One of the prominent areas for increased risk for recidivism is peer association, a finding that supports national research and suggests that encouraging the development of positive peer role models during rehabilitation is important;

• Only one in three juvenile arrestees who use marijuana think it is bad for their health, compared to two in three tobacco users who are aware of the health risks of using this substance. This information suggests the need for more public health campaigns aimed at individuals who think that marijuana use is risk-free;

3 • In a needs and service gap analysis, four of the five greatest challenges identified by more than 700 community residents related to family dynamics, suggesting the need for more family-focused services to address many of the public safety and health issues of local concern, rather than only individual-level interventions; and

• Methamphetamine use is on the rise among the adult arrestee population and the greatest risk was seen among individuals 40 years of age and older. This increase is consistent with other measures documented by the San Diego County Methamphetamine Strike Force and is a situation that is being monitored by local treatment personnel.

GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director

Key Staff Contacts: Pam Scanlon, (619) 699-6971, [email protected] Lisbeth Howard, (619) 699-6910, [email protected]

Funds are budgeted in Work Elements #2001400 and 2200200

4